Mortal objects : identity and persistence through life and death /
Luper, Steven,author.
"Introduction. One day, there will be no creatures like us. We cannot prevent the eventual demise of humanity. But shouldn't we at least postpone it as long as possible - say by putting people in spaceships and populating planets across the galaxy, as the late Stephen Hawking and a slew of science fiction writers recommend? I once thought that the end of human existence would be an obvious and unequivocal tragedy (what could possibly be worse than human extinction?). However, my current view on the matter is more complicated. There are different roads that humanity might take, and different ways it may end, some far better than others. Some futurists write about making people smarter and stronger, even enabling them to live far longer. Some want us to turn ourselves into better versions of ourselves - to "become" the better versions. Some seem to envision improving people so substantially as to be no longer recognizably human, which might best be described as replacing ourselves with creatures that are superior to us. In that case, we are contemplating the demise of humanity again- brought about with an eye to improving (upon?) ourselves. However, if we populate the world with beings who are better than us, would it be tragic? Could we at least take pride in the fact that the better beings were our legacy? (Would we want to be replaced by a wholly alien species that is stronger, brighter, and better than us? Would we help hurry it along?) Would other legacies serve as well? Would leaving behind well-written books and impressive scientific research reconcile us to extinction?"--
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Material objects -- Conformism -- Organisms -- Incregratism -- Selves -- The cogito -- Living and dying -- Welfare and nonexistence -- What we can become -- (Re)making ourselves -- The meaning of life and death.
"Introduction. One day, there will be no creatures like us. We cannot prevent the eventual demise of humanity. But shouldn't we at least postpone it as long as possible - say by putting people in spaceships and populating planets across the galaxy, as the late Stephen Hawking and a slew of science fiction writers recommend? I once thought that the end of human existence would be an obvious and unequivocal tragedy (what could possibly be worse than human extinction?). However, my current view on the matter is more complicated. There are different roads that humanity might take, and different ways it may end, some far better than others. Some futurists write about making people smarter and stronger, even enabling them to live far longer. Some want us to turn ourselves into better versions of ourselves - to "become" the better versions. Some seem to envision improving people so substantially as to be no longer recognizably human, which might best be described as replacing ourselves with creatures that are superior to us. In that case, we are contemplating the demise of humanity again- brought about with an eye to improving (upon?) ourselves. However, if we populate the world with beings who are better than us, would it be tragic? Could we at least take pride in the fact that the better beings were our legacy? (Would we want to be replaced by a wholly alien species that is stronger, brighter, and better than us? Would we help hurry it along?) Would other legacies serve as well? Would leaving behind well-written books and impressive scientific research reconcile us to extinction?"--
Object (Philosophy)
Ontology.
Organisms.
Life.
Death.
Posthumanism.