4 ms·

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

by mattgreenrocks 2y ago

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.
        dcow 2y ago
        I think you’re giving transhumanism an elementary treatment. Everybody believes to some degree that it’s okay to “modify themselves” or, more generally, to apply technology to humans to achieve better outcomes. If you apply aloe vera to a sunburn, or install a hearing aid, you’re augmenting human facilities for a better outcome. And most relevant here: You don’t need a religious movement to adopt that worldview. Corollary: supporting hearing aid use doesn't make you a transhumanist in any actual way (even if there are a few THs out there that would argue that’s all it takes, for then everyone is a TH so nobody is). Again, an average transhumanist does not “simply believe” that they need a movement and religion achieve human augmentation. Because that is our societal resting state. Or if they do they are blissfully naïve. So now that we’re past that, if you actually discuss the subject matter at any depth, you’ll quickly get to the fundamental question and learn what makes a transhumanist different from everyday humans that have been augmenting themselves with technology for millennia: what is a human? What is a species? A transhumanist embraces the singularity, for example, because they are not concerned with losing our humanity. (Because if one were concerned then it would be inconsistent for one to embrace an event where humans are obsoleted.) For a transhumanist it’s okay for the human race to become extinct provided we witness the coming of a more powerful consciousness. More practically, what makes the discussion even possible is that we don’t really know what makes us human. If we did people could either take clear sides and/or you could clearly protect the essence of human through arbitrary technological augmentation. I believe that until we identify what makes our conscious experience uniquely possible, we must protect the system that gives rise to it: our species. Until humans have the knowledge of god, humans shall not play god. A transhumanist would use my own argument against me and say that humans _are and always have been_ the product of augmentation, so come what may. Make sense? From my reading of TFA the author’s statement is not radical and indeed rather accurate. I am pretty sure they have a fairly complete understanding of the landscape.
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.)

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.
      - dcow 2y ago
        I think you’re giving transhumanism an elementary treatment. Everybody believes to some degree that it’s okay to “modify themselves” or, more generally, to apply technology to humans to achieve better outcomes. If you apply aloe vera to a sunburn, or install a hearing aid, you’re augmenting human facilities for a better outcome. And most relevant here: You don’t need a religious movement to adopt that worldview. Corollary: supporting hearing aid use doesn't make you a transhumanist in any actual way (even if there are a few THs out there that would argue that’s all it takes, for then everyone is a TH so nobody is). Again, an average transhumanist does not “simply believe” that they need a movement and religion achieve human augmentation. Because that is our societal resting state. Or if they do they are blissfully naïve. So now that we’re past that, if you actually discuss the subject matter at any depth, you’ll quickly get to the fundamental question and learn what makes a transhumanist different from everyday humans that have been augmenting themselves with technology for millennia: what is a human? What is a species? A transhumanist embraces the singularity, for example, because they are not concerned with losing our humanity. (Because if one were concerned then it would be inconsistent for one to embrace an event where humans are obsoleted.) For a transhumanist it’s okay for the human race to become extinct provided we witness the coming of a more powerful consciousness. More practically, what makes the discussion even possible is that we don’t really know what makes us human. If we did people could either take clear sides and/or you could clearly protect the essence of human through arbitrary technological augmentation. I believe that until we identify what makes our conscious experience uniquely possible, we must protect the system that gives rise to it: our species. Until humans have the knowledge of god, humans shall not play god. A transhumanist would use my own argument against me and say that humans _are and always have been_ the product of augmentation, so come what may. Make sense? From my reading of TFA the author’s statement is not radical and indeed rather accurate. I am pretty sure they have a fairly complete understanding of the landscape.

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.)