3 ms·

Im actually one of the humanists that are more conservative on the topic than you. I just don't think the article treated the reader and subject with honesty an

Im actually one of the humanists that are more conservative on the topic than you. I just don't think the article treated the reader and subject with honesty and respect. I don't think transhumanists believe in a supernatural spirit or soul, but that the human spirit, or at least the good part, isn't tied to biology. For myself, I'm skeptical of the entire utilitarian hedonist project, which transhumanism rests on. I think there are human values that are higher than pleasure and happiness. Values like love, honor, duty, compassion, and sacrifice. I think the biological human condition could be favorable for these in a way that some virtual bliss-state is not. I don't need cherry picked scare quotes to disagree with aspects of transhumanism. I would rather debate the strongest case for transhumanism, not a weak strawman.

dcow 2y ago
I think the term posthuman captures things concisely. Most transhumanists seek a posthuman future. Maybe the author's word soup wasn't fully charitable, but I understood the sentiment. I do think given that the author is exploring whether transhumanist movement constitutes a cult, it's maybe fair to pull on some of the more cult-like endgame that does exist in sub-genres. Agree/disagree. Anyway I do agree that the human condition gives rise to favorable qualities in individuals and the larger population. I don't support utilitarian hedonism either. I will say my experience discussing transhumanism has usually been in terms of becoming posthuman and the notion of a virtual bliss-state, if mentioned, is more if an intriguing a side-quest, but we might just have different exposures there. I mean I still think there are problems with becoming post human even if you remove the utilitarian hedonism from the mix, I guess. In the author's defense this is a difficult topic to articulate.

dcow 2y ago

I think the term posthuman captures things concisely. Most transhumanists seek a posthuman future. Maybe the author's word soup wasn't fully charitable, but I understood the sentiment. I do think given that the author is exploring whether transhumanist movement constitutes a cult, it's maybe fair to pull on some of the more cult-like endgame that does exist in sub-genres. Agree/disagree. Anyway I do agree that the human condition gives rise to favorable qualities in individuals and the larger population. I don't support utilitarian hedonism either. I will say my experience discussing transhumanism has usually been in terms of becoming posthuman and the notion of a virtual bliss-state, if mentioned, is more if an intriguing a side-quest, but we might just have different exposures there. I mean I still think there are problems with becoming post human even if you remove the utilitarian hedonism from the mix, I guess. In the author's defense this is a difficult topic to articulate.