4 ms·

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.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The author may have a complete understanding of the landscape, but they did not strike me as honest. I found them deceptive, misleading, and manipulative instead. That is to say, I dont think they presented an accurate picture of the world, and did so intentionally, conflating religious metaphors throughout and playing up emotional tropes throughout. I think a more accurate phrasing is that a transhumanist would not consider change to be the same as extinction or death. They aren't worrying about losing some unique but undefinable essence, but assume any valuable essence would be carried along. I dont think they view change in the US vs them paradigm. Instead, it is US and US with differences. They would say god gave us the tools to make children and alter ourselves, so doing so is not playing god.

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.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The author may have a complete understanding of the landscape, but they did not strike me as honest. I found them deceptive, misleading, and manipulative instead. That is to say, I dont think they presented an accurate picture of the world, and did so intentionally, conflating religious metaphors throughout and playing up emotional tropes throughout. I think a more accurate phrasing is that a transhumanist would not consider change to be the same as extinction or death. They aren't worrying about losing some unique but undefinable essence, but assume any valuable essence would be carried along. I dont think they view change in the US vs them paradigm. Instead, it is US and US with differences. They would say god gave us the tools to make children and alter ourselves, so doing so is not playing god.