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 dichot

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.