Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Z Zed <zakennayo137-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: arch-anarchy 


--- "Michael A. Lewis" <mlewis-AT-unm.edu> wrote:
> Z Zed wrote:
> 
> > But what I think he meant was
> > something along the lines of "refusing to accept
> the
> > limits that we humans happen to have due to
> > evolutionary happenstance".
> 
>     I cannot address what the author meant to say,
> only what he/she said.
> 
>     Unfortunately one cannot "augment, enhance, or
> change one's self with
> any type of medical, medicinal, technological, or
> genetic procedure that one
> chooses" without also affecting the ability of
> others to control their own
> lives.

I disagree.  We already do many of these things, to a
degree, right now.  For instance:  Millions of people
throughout the world have implants such as artificial
hips and joints (making them, by definition,
"cyborgs"), corrective eye surgery, artificial hearts
and limbs, etc.  People have been using "medicinal"
methods for millenia to alter themselves in various
ways.  We use various technological devices to improve
our senses, such as hearing aides, glasses, and
contacts.  How do any of these things impare those who
do not use them?  The distinction between "corrective"
devices, and "enhancing" devices is a fuzzy one.  To
take a personal example: when I wear my contacts, my
vision is better than 20/20.  Is that "corrective", or
is that "enhancing"? 

> Any technological enhancement of the human
> condition requires a
> complex technocratic infrastructure that must be
> maintained at the cost of
> other infrastructures to support those who choose to
> live otherwise. You
> cannot do just one thing.

I think that it requires skill, effort, and
organization, but I do not think that it REQUIRES a
"complex technocratic infrastructure", even if it does
exist today.  Would not an anarchist society have
hospitals and other treatment centers?  Would these
not neccesitate the existence of a large, skilled,
highly organized structure?  And how do you separate
those seeking standard medical treatment from those
seeking enhancements?  What if someone who has lost
their legs are given new, bionic legs that are
stronger and faster than "normal" legs?  Do you
propose that they only be allowed to have what you, or
whomever, consider to be "normal"?

(More Below)
> > I think that this comment of yours illustrates
> many
> > things.  Though I think it primarily illustrates
> fear.
> > Fear of change.  Or more specifically, a fear of
> > change brought about by the ever quickening pace
> of
> > technological development that neither you, nor
> anyone
> > else, fully comprehends.
>     
>     Not in the slightest! My perception comes from
> 50 years of experience in
> the wild, where human priorities are removed or at
> least reduced. Everything
> we do to modify our environment to augment or
> enhance our own life
> experience comes at the expense of habitat and
> resources for non-human
> species. Furthermore, we have no idea of the effects
> we loose on the world
> when we mess with 5 million years of evolution. Our
> species has evolved with
> exposure to a certain level of carcinogens,
> pathogens, electromagnetic
> radiation and other environmental factors that can
> have a negative impact on
> our physiological well-being. We mess with this
> balance at the risk of
> creating a species-threatening alteration in our
> natural environment. For
> example, our present epidemic in cancer is largely a
> response to the
> ubiquitousness of herbicides and pesticides in our
> modern environment.
> 
>     Michael

I notice you've used the word "balance" in reference
to the environment and evolution.  I think that this
is a very bad, though common, misconception.  There is
no such thing as a "balance" of nature.  Nature is
constant change.  Look at the history of our earth;
it's full of climate changes and mass extinctions, any
"balance" that you find is short lived.  All species
modify their environment in unpredictable ways; that's
what drives the constant change of nature.

     The above paragraph should not be taken to
endorse what humans are presently doing to the earth. 
We are undoubtably radically altering our environment
to the negative effect of most of the species on the
earth.  We are creating another great mass extinction.
 Even if we stopped all industry and technological
change right now, we still have to deal with all the
pollutants, climatic change, extinctions, etc. that
exist now and will continue to plague us for
centuries, if not longer.  The ecosystem is already
fucked; nothing can bring it back to the way it used
to be.  But, if we continue learning, changing,
developing a greater understanding of nature, then
we'll probably be able to fix some of this mess.

     And to return to the original topic of altering
ourselves in whatever way we may choose, I think that
this would be just a continuation of the general trend
of evolution: to evolve more complex and intelligent
life at a faster and faster pace.  The only difference
now is that it will become much more deliberate and
self directed...

Well, gotta go for now...

-Z


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/