Furry fandom is experiencing a problem similar to the "Trekkie vs. Trekker" issue of the mid-nineties, or the highly influential Goth bands like Bauhaus and the Sisters of Mercy adamantly refusing to acknowledge themselves as Goth. It's a problem of
nominalism, which my father elegantly described as the reduction of philosophy into the much more menial debate about the meaning of words. I am what I am. Am I a furry? I consider myself a therianthrope, but I've wandered around a convention in a werewolf outfit. It's not a cute, cartoony one, but appearantly they don't have to be. (I'll be doing it again the day after tomorrow, as A-Kon is this weekend.) Last year, I overheard someone refer to me and two others with me, including the costume designer (our own ShadowSaber) as furries. She, the designer, took great offense. At the time, though I was not myself angered, I thought compelled to correct a categorization error, but in retrospect, perhaps we were furries, a sub-type of furries that aren't cute.
But, regardless of whether or not we are or were furries, we are what we are. Words exist to define and explain the world. The world does not in turn exist specifically to serve the dictionary. Since we each use words slightly differently, terms may mean different things to different people. I do grant that word use involves a consensus, and certain words carry certain connotations. (It's a safe bet that "the N word" and other racist terms are by consensus best left in the history books.) But, being upset about whether or not I'm in a certain category speaks more about self esteem issues than about my actual identity. And, with a little Googling, one finds that most furries aren't any more perverted than the rest of this sexually obsessive culture, then the stigma of the term loses meaning, instead placing me in the same league as right-brained intellectuals with whom I firmly identify.
But, sometimes getting introduced to new words can help seed understanding of new ideas. Case in point:
Kaebora:
You wouldn't accuse everyone here at the Pack of trying to become werewolves, would you? It's beyond reality...[/qoute]
Dreamer:
You're forgetting about our resident transhumanist Scott Gardner though.
Well, I'm kind of an outlier in that regard, as transhumanism right now is a fringe philosophy--but I stand behind it, as I firmly believe it represents the future of ethical thinking as technology advances. Transhumanism as an ethical and philosophical set of principles handles contemporary and near future medical technology a lot better than our present systems, and it's certainly better fit to handle potential technologies presently described by science fiction that could some day become real. Basically in a nutshell, transhumanism is the belief that the goal of human technology should be to develop a way to make the mind and consciousness exist independently of our physical form, so that we can decide for ourselves what sort of beings we wish to be. Such technologies would render obsolete nearly all medical problems known today, as defects of the body or of the chemistry of the brain could be overcome when all else fails simply by relocating consciousness into something that works better.
Terastas:
As for Scott, well, I think he could defend himself better than anyone could, but comparing some spiritual slant on werewolves like transhumanism or therianthropy to an actual pursuit of real life physical werewolfism is about as far of a stretch as you can get.
Actually, werewolves would be one of the less dramatic byproducts of such technology. Since most humans aren't particularly interested in therianthropy and most contemporary medical research isn't going towards genetic engineering a lycanthrope virus, it's more likely than not that when and if werewolves do become possible, we'll have already achieved some much more phenomenal but logistically easier breakthroughs, like curing old age or expanding intelligence enough to make being aan enlightened supergenius pretty ordinary. (Imagine what we can achieve as a species once we cure stupidity!) Being a werewolf might be fun for awhile, but without a dying body, I might be more interested in developing mental extensions that allow me to have several conscious streams running simultaneously, greatly improving my ability to concentrate, and perhaps a network of more than one physical body in which to distribute these selves. Of course, I could just as well make at least some of these bodies shape shifters, or at least wolves or varying degrees of animal / human hybrids. I'd look forward to watching the Andromeda galaxy collide with ours three billion years from now and perhaps find work managing the terraforming of Earth, keeping it viable for life as the sun expands into a red giant. There are a lot of interesting things one can do in the future, provided one can live long enough to make it to the moment at which a transhuman leap is possible. Since the technological jump makes the difference between experiencing less than a hundred years of existence versus billions of years as an evolving superconsciousness, I fully expect the idea to gain appeal as soon as it starts to seem more plausible to the everyday person.
morphological freedom is the principle that people as conscious beings have the right to be whatever they want to be. In modern times, it is at worst a teenager's justification to parents as to why they should be allowed to have a tattoo but at best an elegant solution to medical ethical dilemmas faced when sexual reassignment surgery first became possible. That same principle in the future is also a logical argument in favor of not stopping people who wish to engineer themselves into animal anthropomorphs. (There's a tiny handful of people doing it today, such as the tiger guy with orange and black stripe tattoos, pointed teeth, and facial implants. Well, it's a start.)
(As a side note, it's spelled "Gard
ener", with two eees. But, that's picking nits, especially since it's a fake name anyway.)
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...
)
