It's not a faith; it's an attitude, that if we can use science and
technology to avoid dying, we will. And science isn't intelligent to
bother with anything; your question assumes a mapping of science into
God that you are projecting onto us. If the information and resources
are widely spread, those "chosen" for immortality will be those who
choose to apply it and can afford to do so. And private property is
probably the best guard against overpopulation; if there is no free
property then rational people will hopefully limit reproduction to their
personal resources.
/ Second, Transhumanism is asking that science simply provide...
/Eternal Life! I cannot help but notice the parallel:
/
/Believe in Science, that you will be given Eternal Life.
/Believe in Christ the Lord, that you will be given Eternal Life.
/Now, I happen to have a lot of respect for Christianity, and I would like
/you to point out what Transhumanism has that Christianity doesn't- in short,
/why you are calling it a "weaker ideology". Personally, I have found
Believe in Christ the Lord, or you will be deprived of Eternal Life.
Believe in the Gun, or you will be deprived of, well, Life period.
Note that the Gun does not in fact require belief. Transhumanists hope
that gerontology or cognitive science will provide a means of extending
our physical life or mental processes, and we intend to use them if we
can. Some of us are even working in such fields ourselves. (Or hope to
do so, a la me.) Belief is irrelevant, except in a banal everyday sense
for risk analysis and resource distribution.
"Join us or die!"
(I think someone on the Virus list came up with this before Dave,
actually.)
Slainte,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
"(Dr. Chandra) had long since broken off communications with the
dwindling body of philosophers who argued that computers could not
really feel emotions, but only pretended to do so.
["If you can prove to me that *you're* not pretending to be annoyed,"
he had once retorted scornfully to one such critic,"I'll take you
seriously." At that point, his opponent had pu on a most convincing
imitation of anger.]"