4 ms·

I think the sensational part is where it describes transhumanists as wanting to become deities, not just live long healthy lives. I personally think it's a natu

by hn8788 6y ago

I think the sensational part is where it describes transhumanists as wanting to become deities, not just live long healthy lives. I personally think it's a natural path to go down, in a similar vein as clothing, tools, and air conditioning. There are definitely ethical issues, like poor people not being able to afford augmentations and compete in the world, but I think elective medical/mechanical enhancements are an inevitability.

rglullis 6y ago
We had people with "long healthy lives" for millennia already, they were just the exception and not the norm. They were still human. A monk in the Middle Ages would live well into their seventies and eighties without wishing to find ways to live forever. A more contemporary example would be to talk about all the "natural life" followers or those closer to the temperance movement: equally interested in long healthy lives, but dismissive of the idea that "augmentations" or "enhancements" are something necessary or even desirable. So to me, this is still "human", they still want a long, healthy life, but their means to it is by via negativa: instead of adding things to your body hoping to increase the quality of life, they would avoid the things that are consider harmful. Contrast that with "transhumanism", whose idea is to be able to control the environment and elements of nature to the point where they can shape everything to their liking, even if it means adding whatever it takes to their bodies. If that's not some sign of trying to outmake our own Maker, what is?
- emteycz 6y ago
  > If that's not some sign of trying to outmake our own Maker, what is? I think most of transhumanist don't think there is a Maker. How could they take this view? I myself am a godless person - religion wasn't even a topic during my childhood, in school, etc. I wouldn't even think about this without you telling me the idea.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    I shouldn't have capitalized "maker" if that caused any confusion. I am not talking about any specific religion, but the metaphysical in general. The point is, no matter if you believe that life-as-we-know-it is a creation of God or a result of millions and millions of an ongoing evolutionary process; it seems to me that a transhumanist core belief goes beyond the idea of "wanting to live healthy long lives" and that they can take control over their own nature. It is this "wanting to take control over nature" that, put simply, reflects as an attempt to become a (lowercased) god. You don't need to think "I want to become God" to share that idea. A simple "I don't want to die" or "I want to enhance my intelectual capability beyond any natural limit" would be enough for me to claim the same thing as the author and I don't think it sensationalist in the slightest.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      I suppose that might be true. This reminds me of the Yudkowsky essay “An Alien God”: https://www.readthesequences.com/An-Alien-God https://www.readthesequences.com/An-Alien-God > If we ask who was more correct—the theologians who argued for a Creator-God, or the intellectually unfulfilled atheists who argued that mice spontaneously generated—then the theologians must be declared the victors: evolution is not God, but it is closer to God than it is to pure random entropy. … > Well, more power to us humans. I like having a Creator I can outwit.

by hn8788 6y ago

rglullis 6y ago

We had people with "long healthy lives" for millennia already, they were just the exception and not the norm. They were still human. A monk in the Middle Ages would live well into their seventies and eighties without wishing to find ways to live forever. A more contemporary example would be to talk about all the "natural life" followers or those closer to the temperance movement: equally interested in long healthy lives, but dismissive of the idea that "augmentations" or "enhancements" are something necessary or even desirable. So to me, this is still "human", they still want a long, healthy life, but their means to it is by via negativa: instead of adding things to your body hoping to increase the quality of life, they would avoid the things that are consider harmful. Contrast that with "transhumanism", whose idea is to be able to control the environment and elements of nature to the point where they can shape everything to their liking, even if it means adding whatever it takes to their bodies. If that's not some sign of trying to outmake our own Maker, what is?

emteycz 6y ago
> If that's not some sign of trying to outmake our own Maker, what is? I think most of transhumanist don't think there is a Maker. How could they take this view? I myself am a godless person - religion wasn't even a topic during my childhood, in school, etc. I wouldn't even think about this without you telling me the idea.
- rglullis 6y ago
  I shouldn't have capitalized "maker" if that caused any confusion. I am not talking about any specific religion, but the metaphysical in general. The point is, no matter if you believe that life-as-we-know-it is a creation of God or a result of millions and millions of an ongoing evolutionary process; it seems to me that a transhumanist core belief goes beyond the idea of "wanting to live healthy long lives" and that they can take control over their own nature. It is this "wanting to take control over nature" that, put simply, reflects as an attempt to become a (lowercased) god. You don't need to think "I want to become God" to share that idea. A simple "I don't want to die" or "I want to enhance my intelectual capability beyond any natural limit" would be enough for me to claim the same thing as the author and I don't think it sensationalist in the slightest.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    I suppose that might be true. This reminds me of the Yudkowsky essay “An Alien God”: https://www.readthesequences.com/An-Alien-God https://www.readthesequences.com/An-Alien-God > If we ask who was more correct—the theologians who argued for a Creator-God, or the intellectually unfulfilled atheists who argued that mice spontaneously generated—then the theologians must be declared the victors: evolution is not God, but it is closer to God than it is to pure random entropy. … > Well, more power to us humans. I like having a Creator I can outwit.