Re: virus: The Truth (c)

Peter Hultman (
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:31:18 +0100

>/ No, I consider Virus to be the first tranhumanist *meta-religion*. The
>I still think Virus is more accurately described (using definitions more
>widespread than its own) as an anti-religion, a meme-complex intended to
>grab the receptors of ordinary religion, but rather distinct in quality
>from the current field. (In light of which please keep the biohazard
>and "Virus". Yes they're slightly silly. I consider that a virtue. My
>philosophy leads straight away to despair and Ragnarok if you don't keep
>a sense of humor, possibly twisted.)

I agree in all of the above, (especially the paranthesis :-)
One thing that defers Virus from mayor religions is that Virus' view on
humans it see them more passive (At least in my version, explanation later),
with exception for destiny-religions. People seeking a religion often looks
for answers to questions like, how to reach inner serenity, and so on. Virus
(still my version) says, "You don't really have any free will. You are only
the result of a mixture of your genes and memes". That fits into my view of
the world but most people don't have such an objective view of themselves
and won't like it. Another thing is that Virus is very similar to ordinary
science, and atheistic people that believe in (general) science and that
don't belong to a religion often look down on the whole concept of religion,
including Virus if it calls itself a religion. I don't think Virus fits in

(please excuse my english)