4 ms·

This is only talking about a very specific and extreme type of transhumanist. Not acknowledging that makes the author sound to me like a crank with an axe to gr

This is only talking about a very specific and extreme type of transhumanist. Not acknowledging that makes the author sound to me like a crank with an axe to grind. (I'm choosing to ignore here the substantial an-LLM-wrote-this vibe I get.) If you wear glasses or had braces or use an insulin pump or take Ritalin, then, congratulations, you're a transhumanist. The rest is just a matter of degrees. As wizzwizz4 says in a sibling comment, the post is conflating TESCREAL and transhumanism.

mattgreenrocks 2y ago
Why does use of technology to improve one's life need an identity marker?
- datadrivenangel 2y ago
  It's identifying with the belief that we can AND should improve our lives.
  - dcow 2y ago
    Yes, but this sounds too (deliberately) naïve to me—like you’re trying to convince a kid that hard drugs are all harmless because caffeine is a drug. The dichotomy is not that Humanists refute technology while transhumanists embrace it. The appropriate question to ask is, “what unique beliefs do transhumanists hold”. And the differentiating factor is generally a sentiment that the human condition must be overcome even at the cost of humanity. A transhumanist fundamentally rejects what it is to be human in line with a belief that humanity is inevitably deprecated. Humanist: technology augments humans. Transhumanist: technology replaces humans. I’ve tried really hard and can’t seem to find a way to rationalize a transhumanist worldview—at least until we understand life and consciousness intimately and thoroughly. But even then I’d have to reevaluate, not take as a given.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  The belief that using technology to improve one's life is a good idea is an ideology regardless of whether you like giving it a label.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    I suppose watering down a definition until it's completely generic is one way to protect it from criticism.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Sure. And it is a valid response to the opposite tactic, of looking at the most concentrated and fringe. It seems like asking the question "what does the typical transhumanist actually think?" is relevant.
      - dcow 2y ago
        It’s one thing to say “most of us don’t believe the extreme worldview those few crackpot members of our community are spewing, transhumanism is actually… <proceed to refute the whackos>” It’s another thing to tacitly agree with the crackpots but deceptively present a more moderate stance to keep people naïve and initiate new members using an attenuated worldview. Let’s hear it, “what does a typical transhumanist think?”
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you think people are doing to second option? I dont think that transhumanists are a cohesive community in any meaningful sense, not any more than religious people, technologists, or environmentalists are a community. There are tons of comments describing what typical transhumanists believe, but I think it boils down to the idea that humans can and should seek to modify themselves, and such a processes would be an improvement. In practical terms, this means they favor cybernetics and genetic modification. Compare that with the loaded statement from the article's author talking about destiny and salvation > transhumanists have deepened their belief in a fated future in which the human species will achieve “augmented” evolution through fusing with machines, leading to the emergence of an artificial superintelligence that will far outstrip all human knowledge and achieve God-like powers (The Singularity). This digital deity will lead us to a new era, in which all human biological limitations will be transcended; bringing about end to sickness, suffering and even death, and leading us to colonise the cosmos.
- simiones 2y ago
  Transhumanism as an ideology is about much more than "use of technology to improve one's life". It basically amounts to the belief that any technology that improves one's life should be accepted and even sought after, and that any opposition to this is a bad idea. For example, a transhumanist would believe that human cloning for organ harvesting would be a good idea, and opposes the current laws against research into human cloning. This is in no way a foregone conclusion for anyone who wears glasses.
- zajio1am 2y ago
  Because there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes. Note that i disagree with OP about glasses or insulin pump, as most people support use of technology to fix deficiencies of a human body or mind, but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line.
  - jajko 2y ago
    > but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line. Thats a very blurry line that changes with culture, age, profession, hobbies etc. In 50 years that line will be elsewhere even within that boundary. Especially when this has nothing to do with religions since they were invented long before any of this became a topic (so much for universal truths but thats another topic).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattgreenrocks 2y ago
    > there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes. That still defines it in relation to the non-improvers, which isn't the most compelling position. Why not, "we want to augment human potential to maximize quality of life through technology?" (I worry it isn't that argument because it is still too human-centric.)
simiones 2y ago
No, wearing glasses doesn't make you the adept of any ideological current, such as transhumanism. At best you could say it precludes you from being an adept of certain ideologies that would oppose wearing glasses, such as very strict "naturalism" (i.e. people who believe it's important to only eat or wear all-natural products), if you want to be self-consistent. You could also say that wearing glasses or having an insulin pump installed makes you a transhuman, but it can't make you a transhumanist. And plenty of people are perfectly happy to be slightly ideologically inconsistent, or follow more nuanced ideologies, where, say, certain artificial enhancements are allowed and others are not. After all, even the biggest anti-drug crusaders accept coffee or at least tea as acceptable substances.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  Transhumanism is the belief that we can and should do things to make our bodies work better. Full stop. End of ideology. That includes believing that wearing glasses is a good idea worth pursuing.
  - zaphar 2y ago
    Strange how a number of Transhumanists are claiming significantly more than you list here as their ideology.
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      Why do you think it's strange that people don't describe themselves with precision? People can be transhumanist and also other things. That doesn't make the other things part of transhumanism.
      - zaphar 2y ago
        That is not what I said though. I said that a lot of people who claim they are transumanist claim that transhumanism is those things. Which is not the same as what you are describing.
  - 2y ago
gabruoy 2y ago
I don’t think this is accurate at all. Transhumanism is a pretty clearly defined group with specific moral beliefs that not everyone agrees with. It’s like saying if you’ve ever forgiven someone when they did something bad to you, you’re a Christian.
aa-jv 2y ago
If you used a wheel to move something heavy from one place to another, you're a transhuman. If you used fire to disinfect your recently caught prey, you're a transhumanist. If you read a book .. The only conclusion to be made from this article, is that humans have been on a transformation treadmill for a long, long time - long enough that we can no longer recognize transformation when we see it, or we are so tired of acknowledging it that we just don't any more, or such that we need to see it before we believe it is happening - i.e. next years new iPhone purchase, etc.
elicksaur 2y ago
Saying that anyone who wears glasses is associated with these beliefs is indicative of drinking the kool-aid.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  I'm saying that the expression of beliefs presented here is more than transhumanism.
throwaway345238 2y ago
I agree with the mistakenly conflated definitions, and that this is talking about something more specific than transhumanism. The tools you mention don't alter the species itself. Once we start heavily GMing our offspring (does anyone think this won't take hold culturally in the next 4 or 5 generations?) those folks will start to become transhuman.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I'd say the idea of humans genetically modifying ourselves in any significant fashion is like the Victorians thinking the skies would be full of airships in the year 2000: Before we get to the point that we can do that, a disaster and/or a better alternative will mean very few people even want to do it.
js8 2y ago
> This is only talking about a very specific and extreme type of transhumanist. The one with the tendencies to treat it as a cult? Isn't that the point of the article? I am not really sure what point you're trying to make. It's like everytime I critique capitalism, someone appears and corrects me that what we have is actually a "crony capitalism", and the real good capitalism is somewhere in a mystical faraway place. Why insist on correcting the name then?
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
You've completely missed the argument and tried to turn it into a No True Scotsman. Transhumanism is not about human augmentation, it's about a misty-eyed view of human augmentation experienced through a haze of hand-me-down religiosity. I spent some time following these people in the early 00s and they were talking about replacing nerves with Cat 5 - and other obvious nonsense. Complete lunacy. It's a fundamentalist millenarian movement which is inherently faith-based, contemptuous of physical and psychological reality, and irrational. As the article says - it's just another in a long, long cycle of similar movements with similar dynamics. The only thing that changes is the set dressing. The play is always the same, and always ends in horror and tragedy. No, this time will not be different. Affirming that it will be is part of the sales pitch. But somehow - for reasons that are unsurprising to anyone who knows a little psychology - that never quite seems to happen.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  And yet, your comment looks to me like a great temple, whose bricks are made of false equivalences and bound with ad hominem in place of mortar; a temple so large it casts shadow over the entire land. Yes, for some, transhumanism is basically millenarianism with different set dressing. And yes, some of the things transhumanists say pattern-match to popular religious themes, especially if you're willing to bend or simplify some things a bit to force the analogy. But that doesn't mean that those transhumanist ideas and predictions actually are religious in nature, nor does it mean that most people agreeing with them are just operating on faith. And it especially doesn't mean that "the play is always the same, and always ends in horror and tragedy" (like what does that even mean, where does it ever apply?). (Also, some critics have no sensitivity to jokes, or purposefully ignore humor. Replacing nerves with Cat 5, really?) I don't deny there is a thick shell of fraudsters and pseudoscientific entertainment around this. I've seen that, and was disgusted by it, but unfortunately it happens for everything. This one is a real pattern - specific ideology is the set dressing, the underlying phenomena is just a bunch of scoundrels selling outlandish ideas to naive people. But that's not actual transhumanism, not any more than New Age bullshit about quantum this and magnetic that makes physics itself a faith-based movement. I wish people would engage with specific ideas coming from transhumanism (and adjacent fields/communities), instead of trying to dismiss them with "your other ideas look like repainted Christianity, therefore they're wrong, you're wrong, and whatever you're saying here must be wrong too".
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
> If you wear glasses or had braces or use an insulin pump, then, congratulations, you're a transhumanist. The rest is just a matter of degrees. Glasses restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. They are called "corrective lenses" for a reason; to correct is to presuppose a defect which must be corrected to restore what is normative. Insulin pumps also restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. That it is implanted into the body is totally irrelevant. As with glasses, the relationship between the person and the pump is instrumental. My heart or brain, however, are not my instruments. They are part of me. However, the essence of transhumanism, and the ultimate source of issues, is that it turns the human being into an engineering project that seeks to transcend the human. Metaphysically, this is, as polite academic philosophers might say, problematic. To transcend presupposes an existing limit inherent to the thing by virtue of its nature. You wouldn't say that adding a new video card to your computer or building an additional floor on a building transcends the original computer or the original building. This was always possible, as these things are effectively aggregates. The mechanistic metaphysics here precludes the possibility of transcendence, because all you can ever really do is rearrange the furniture. You also wouldn't say that adulthood is the transcendence of childhood, or that adaptation is some kind of transcendence of the species. You're still operating within the scope of possibilities of the species. The nature of a thing is what circumscribes its limits. Technology is not able to transcend human nature, because technology is already within the scope of human power. You can no more cause your own transcendence than you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Transcendence is not merely the actualization of the potentials already present within a thing. It entails the intrinsic "expansion" of the powers of a thing beyond what is possible by virtue of the nature of a thing. However, any modification of a human being can only be either instrumental, the introduction of defect, or restorative. In the best case, we're talking medicine and health. In the worst case, dehumanization, objectification, and commodification of human beings.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Glasses restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. > to correct is to presuppose a defect which must be corrected to restore what is normative This prescribed bondage to normativity is a manifestation of ableism. Existence has no concept of supposed to be. Some people can see, and some people cannot. Some people can walk, and some people cannot. That survival in nature is easier for those who can isn't a value assessment. That society is structured to cater to some of those people more than others isn't an inherent moral good.

mattgreenrocks 2y ago

Why does use of technology to improve one's life need an identity marker?

datadrivenangel 2y ago
It's identifying with the belief that we can AND should improve our lives.
- dcow 2y ago
  Yes, but this sounds too (deliberately) naïve to me—like you’re trying to convince a kid that hard drugs are all harmless because caffeine is a drug. The dichotomy is not that Humanists refute technology while transhumanists embrace it. The appropriate question to ask is, “what unique beliefs do transhumanists hold”. And the differentiating factor is generally a sentiment that the human condition must be overcome even at the cost of humanity. A transhumanist fundamentally rejects what it is to be human in line with a belief that humanity is inevitably deprecated. Humanist: technology augments humans. Transhumanist: technology replaces humans. I’ve tried really hard and can’t seem to find a way to rationalize a transhumanist worldview—at least until we understand life and consciousness intimately and thoroughly. But even then I’d have to reevaluate, not take as a given.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
The belief that using technology to improve one's life is a good idea is an ideology regardless of whether you like giving it a label.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I suppose watering down a definition until it's completely generic is one way to protect it from criticism.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Sure. And it is a valid response to the opposite tactic, of looking at the most concentrated and fringe. It seems like asking the question "what does the typical transhumanist actually think?" is relevant.
    - dcow 2y ago
      It’s one thing to say “most of us don’t believe the extreme worldview those few crackpot members of our community are spewing, transhumanism is actually… <proceed to refute the whackos>” It’s another thing to tacitly agree with the crackpots but deceptively present a more moderate stance to keep people naïve and initiate new members using an attenuated worldview. Let’s hear it, “what does a typical transhumanist think?”
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Do you think people are doing to second option? I dont think that transhumanists are a cohesive community in any meaningful sense, not any more than religious people, technologists, or environmentalists are a community. There are tons of comments describing what typical transhumanists believe, but I think it boils down to the idea that humans can and should seek to modify themselves, and such a processes would be an improvement. In practical terms, this means they favor cybernetics and genetic modification. Compare that with the loaded statement from the article's author talking about destiny and salvation > transhumanists have deepened their belief in a fated future in which the human species will achieve “augmented” evolution through fusing with machines, leading to the emergence of an artificial superintelligence that will far outstrip all human knowledge and achieve God-like powers (The Singularity). This digital deity will lead us to a new era, in which all human biological limitations will be transcended; bringing about end to sickness, suffering and even death, and leading us to colonise the cosmos.
simiones 2y ago
Transhumanism as an ideology is about much more than "use of technology to improve one's life". It basically amounts to the belief that any technology that improves one's life should be accepted and even sought after, and that any opposition to this is a bad idea. For example, a transhumanist would believe that human cloning for organ harvesting would be a good idea, and opposes the current laws against research into human cloning. This is in no way a foregone conclusion for anyone who wears glasses.
zajio1am 2y ago
Because there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes. Note that i disagree with OP about glasses or insulin pump, as most people support use of technology to fix deficiencies of a human body or mind, but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line.
- jajko 2y ago
  > but if one has a healthy, fit body/mind and still want technological improvements, that is a red line. Thats a very blurry line that changes with culture, age, profession, hobbies etc. In 50 years that line will be elsewhere even within that boundary. Especially when this has nothing to do with religions since they were invented long before any of this became a topic (so much for universal truths but thats another topic).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mattgreenrocks 2y ago
  > there are many people that (explicitly or implicitly) understand human body and mind as 'sacred' and would oppose intrusive technological improvements to that. So it makes sense to have a term for people who, on the other side, welcome such changes. That still defines it in relation to the non-improvers, which isn't the most compelling position. Why not, "we want to augment human potential to maximize quality of life through technology?" (I worry it isn't that argument because it is still too human-centric.)

simiones 2y ago

No, wearing glasses doesn't make you the adept of any ideological current, such as transhumanism. At best you could say it precludes you from being an adept of certain ideologies that would oppose wearing glasses, such as very strict "naturalism" (i.e. people who believe it's important to only eat or wear all-natural products), if you want to be self-consistent. You could also say that wearing glasses or having an insulin pump installed makes you a transhuman, but it can't make you a transhumanist. And plenty of people are perfectly happy to be slightly ideologically inconsistent, or follow more nuanced ideologies, where, say, certain artificial enhancements are allowed and others are not. After all, even the biggest anti-drug crusaders accept coffee or at least tea as acceptable substances.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
Transhumanism is the belief that we can and should do things to make our bodies work better. Full stop. End of ideology. That includes believing that wearing glasses is a good idea worth pursuing.
- zaphar 2y ago
  Strange how a number of Transhumanists are claiming significantly more than you list here as their ideology.
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    Why do you think it's strange that people don't describe themselves with precision? People can be transhumanist and also other things. That doesn't make the other things part of transhumanism.
    - zaphar 2y ago
      That is not what I said though. I said that a lot of people who claim they are transumanist claim that transhumanism is those things. Which is not the same as what you are describing.
- 2y ago

gabruoy 2y ago

I don’t think this is accurate at all. Transhumanism is a pretty clearly defined group with specific moral beliefs that not everyone agrees with. It’s like saying if you’ve ever forgiven someone when they did something bad to you, you’re a Christian.

aa-jv 2y ago

If you used a wheel to move something heavy from one place to another, you're a transhuman. If you used fire to disinfect your recently caught prey, you're a transhumanist. If you read a book .. The only conclusion to be made from this article, is that humans have been on a transformation treadmill for a long, long time - long enough that we can no longer recognize transformation when we see it, or we are so tired of acknowledging it that we just don't any more, or such that we need to see it before we believe it is happening - i.e. next years new iPhone purchase, etc.

elicksaur 2y ago

Saying that anyone who wears glasses is associated with these beliefs is indicative of drinking the kool-aid.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
I'm saying that the expression of beliefs presented here is more than transhumanism.

throwaway345238 2y ago

I agree with the mistakenly conflated definitions, and that this is talking about something more specific than transhumanism. The tools you mention don't alter the species itself. Once we start heavily GMing our offspring (does anyone think this won't take hold culturally in the next 4 or 5 generations?) those folks will start to become transhuman.

ben_w 2y ago
I'd say the idea of humans genetically modifying ourselves in any significant fashion is like the Victorians thinking the skies would be full of airships in the year 2000: Before we get to the point that we can do that, a disaster and/or a better alternative will mean very few people even want to do it.

js8 2y ago

> This is only talking about a very specific and extreme type of transhumanist. The one with the tendencies to treat it as a cult? Isn't that the point of the article? I am not really sure what point you're trying to make. It's like everytime I critique capitalism, someone appears and corrects me that what we have is actually a "crony capitalism", and the real good capitalism is somewhere in a mystical faraway place. Why insist on correcting the name then?

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

You've completely missed the argument and tried to turn it into a No True Scotsman. Transhumanism is not about human augmentation, it's about a misty-eyed view of human augmentation experienced through a haze of hand-me-down religiosity. I spent some time following these people in the early 00s and they were talking about replacing nerves with Cat 5 - and other obvious nonsense. Complete lunacy. It's a fundamentalist millenarian movement which is inherently faith-based, contemptuous of physical and psychological reality, and irrational. As the article says - it's just another in a long, long cycle of similar movements with similar dynamics. The only thing that changes is the set dressing. The play is always the same, and always ends in horror and tragedy. No, this time will not be different. Affirming that it will be is part of the sales pitch. But somehow - for reasons that are unsurprising to anyone who knows a little psychology - that never quite seems to happen.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
And yet, your comment looks to me like a great temple, whose bricks are made of false equivalences and bound with ad hominem in place of mortar; a temple so large it casts shadow over the entire land. Yes, for some, transhumanism is basically millenarianism with different set dressing. And yes, some of the things transhumanists say pattern-match to popular religious themes, especially if you're willing to bend or simplify some things a bit to force the analogy. But that doesn't mean that those transhumanist ideas and predictions actually are religious in nature, nor does it mean that most people agreeing with them are just operating on faith. And it especially doesn't mean that "the play is always the same, and always ends in horror and tragedy" (like what does that even mean, where does it ever apply?). (Also, some critics have no sensitivity to jokes, or purposefully ignore humor. Replacing nerves with Cat 5, really?) I don't deny there is a thick shell of fraudsters and pseudoscientific entertainment around this. I've seen that, and was disgusted by it, but unfortunately it happens for everything. This one is a real pattern - specific ideology is the set dressing, the underlying phenomena is just a bunch of scoundrels selling outlandish ideas to naive people. But that's not actual transhumanism, not any more than New Age bullshit about quantum this and magnetic that makes physics itself a faith-based movement. I wish people would engage with specific ideas coming from transhumanism (and adjacent fields/communities), instead of trying to dismiss them with "your other ideas look like repainted Christianity, therefore they're wrong, you're wrong, and whatever you're saying here must be wrong too".

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

> If you wear glasses or had braces or use an insulin pump, then, congratulations, you're a transhumanist. The rest is just a matter of degrees. Glasses restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. They are called "corrective lenses" for a reason; to correct is to presuppose a defect which must be corrected to restore what is normative. Insulin pumps also restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. That it is implanted into the body is totally irrelevant. As with glasses, the relationship between the person and the pump is instrumental. My heart or brain, however, are not my instruments. They are part of me. However, the essence of transhumanism, and the ultimate source of issues, is that it turns the human being into an engineering project that seeks to transcend the human. Metaphysically, this is, as polite academic philosophers might say, problematic. To transcend presupposes an existing limit inherent to the thing by virtue of its nature. You wouldn't say that adding a new video card to your computer or building an additional floor on a building transcends the original computer or the original building. This was always possible, as these things are effectively aggregates. The mechanistic metaphysics here precludes the possibility of transcendence, because all you can ever really do is rearrange the furniture. You also wouldn't say that adulthood is the transcendence of childhood, or that adaptation is some kind of transcendence of the species. You're still operating within the scope of possibilities of the species. The nature of a thing is what circumscribes its limits. Technology is not able to transcend human nature, because technology is already within the scope of human power. You can no more cause your own transcendence than you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Transcendence is not merely the actualization of the potentials already present within a thing. It entails the intrinsic "expansion" of the powers of a thing beyond what is possible by virtue of the nature of a thing. However, any modification of a human being can only be either instrumental, the introduction of defect, or restorative. In the best case, we're talking medicine and health. In the worst case, dehumanization, objectification, and commodification of human beings.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Glasses restore a function that was supposed to be there in the first place. > to correct is to presuppose a defect which must be corrected to restore what is normative This prescribed bondage to normativity is a manifestation of ableism. Existence has no concept of supposed to be. Some people can see, and some people cannot. Some people can walk, and some people cannot. That survival in nature is easier for those who can isn't a value assessment. That society is structured to cater to some of those people more than others isn't an inherent moral good.