Recent Comments:
Immersionists vs. Augmentationists 2: The Voicening
Second Life Insider
Aug 16th 2007 1:37AM Hi, I am the author of the article. Some opinions relevant to this discussion are on my blog:
http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/comments/life_20_augmentationists_in_second_life_and_beyond/
In summary:
As a transhumanist, I support those who want to change the cards we have been given by nature.
But the point I am trying to make is another. Even if I were not a transhumanist, I would not complain against the second lifestyle of other SL users, simply because it is not my business as long as it does not affect me. So I cannot accept when immersionists who do not want (for their own reasons, all perfectly valid) to use voice in SL say or imply that nobody should be allowed to use voice. This is, I think, a luddite attitude. SL is big enough for many second lifestyles, and my second lifestyle is not others’ business as long as it does not affect them.
So the analogy I am trying to establish is:
Refusing to allow _others_ to use voice in SL = Refusing to allow _others_ to enhance themselves in RL
Both attitudes are against the live and let live principle. I understand the concerns of immersionists in SL and those of bioconservatives in RL, but relinquishment (not implementing options that could be implemented) is NOT the way to go.
