Well regarding the OP's topic: part of what you're doing is conflating two possible definitions of egalitarianism. You start by using the more traditional definition which tends to mean something along the lines of "equality of results," but then occasionally switch it up with the neo-definition which tends towards meaning something like "equality of opportunity/equal negative rights." The whole point of the libertarian (and before that Mencken and others') criticism of egalitarianism is, broadly speaking, that equality of opportunity (of negative rights) does not lead to equality of results, and that striving for equality of results is detrimental.
Anyhow, I think that advances leading toward transhumanism will eventually become a reality but can't say how far off we are. I also can't say whether the results will be to my liking or not... but I do think it has the potential to be freaking awesome. That being said, things like race, genetics etc. will most likely continue to be very important for the foreseeable future and even with increased technology, possibly actually become more important-- though it's all speculative.
As far as equality goes, the whole idea of division of labor depends on diversity, aka non-equality. I don't at all like the idea of homogenous populations, and hope that the types of advances your speaking of would actually lead to the opposite. Just about any sort of complex system thrives on heterogeneity, division of labor, and one that attempts to "equalize" or "level" itself commits suicide.
In some ways these advances will lead to certain types of equalizations, I think. Just as the invention of the gun or crossbow is an equalizer in terms of allowing the physically weak to defeat the physically strong, still there is not complete equality. A good shooter is still better than a bad shooter, and one without any allies can't do much with one gun against hundreds of people with guns. And of course, guns aren't everything.
>I would like to propose to you a march towards egalitarianism
I don't see that happening. I don't believe that people are going to become a homogeneous collection of androgyneous cyborgs in the future. I envision the opposite - a great increase in diversity of beings. For example:
Just like there are different kinds of beings now with different sets of rights (e.g. infants are routinely incarcerated by adults who place them in cribs, ants are often stepped on and don't seem to benefit from NAP), I think the mounting ethical dilemmas from such a diverse range of beings interacting will provide additional disillusionment for those who dream of objective morality. Even principles like "socialism can't calculate" can be overturned when there is enough technological change.
>Even principles like "socialism can't calculate" can be overturned when there is enough technological change.
BTW, at the beginning of Human Action I think Mises didn't rule out determinism but said that man's actions generally can't be predicted. I think this is correct for now. But if man's actions can be predicted, which I think is possible with enough technological change (I'm a determinist), then I'm not sure how much of his theory would survive or what form it would take.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap