Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Transhumanism & The Modern Day Transcendentalists

By mtrisk in Culture
Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 10:14:38 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

When Henry David Thoreau became a part of the Transcendentalist movement,  he intended to change society. Thoreau envisioned his movement gaining momentum, eventually becoming a large enough force to have an impact on people's lives. Transcendentalism was, however, a short-lived movement, dying out with Thoreau's death in 1862. Humanity's struggle to free itself from the chains of society, it seemed, had died soon after its birth.


Then, in 1957, Julian Huxley, biologist and brother of Aldous Huxley - author of A Brave New World - coined the term "transhumanism", which he took to mean as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature". F.M. Esfandiary, the son of an Iranian diplomat, became in 1966 the first person to identify one's self as a transhumanist. Esfandiary defined a transhumanist as one with a lifestyle and world view intended to move forward along the transition to a time beyond society. He, along with Huxley, had begun a movement to view humanity beyond the limitations of civilization and society.

The Transhumanist movement, centered around the University of California, Los Angeles, began advocating "improvement to the human condition through enhancement technologies, such as eliminating aging and expanding intellectual, physical or physiological capacities." Transhumanists saw in technology the means to improve the life of all humanity. Through genetic and biological engineering, they sought, and continue to seek, methods to eliminate mankind's host of health problems, from cancer to the common cold, eventually gaining immortality. Improvements in nanotechnology would allow people to manufacture their own objects in response to their needs. Eventually, they argue, mankind, utilizing technology, will be able to transcend our physical limitations, eventually providing us with unlimited abilities; in effect, a human could, through technology, become a deity.

The parallel between Transhumanism and Transcendentalism is strong, but hard to see; at the surface level, the two philosophies are seemingly at odds with one another. In Walden, Thoreau abandoned most of the technology of his time, shunning railroads and other convienences of contemporary American life for the capabilites of his own hands. In stark contrast, Transhumanists advocate the advancement of technology along every possible means in order to improve the human condition and augment humanity's own capabilites. In Walden, Thoreau argued, indirectly, that in order to improve the human condition, one must abandon his dependency on others - and the technology he saw around him was causing the degradation of humanity by enslaving us to society. Thoreau returned to nature, to mankind's roots, to explore the meaning of life, and ultimately to be able to live a life worth living, where humans can focus on their needs in life and what really matters, instead of the superficial demands created by civilization. Transhumanists, however, aim to advance civilization to the level where humans use technology in every aspect of their life - the kind of dependency Thoreau was displeased with.

However, there is a deep undercurrent that unites the two philosophies, as opposing as they seem. In Walden, and in Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau repeatedly explores the idea that if government is a contract between those who govern and the people, then he should be allowed to withdraw from that contract entirely, and rely on himself to maintain his life, in a sort of proto-anarchist fashion. In order to achieve such a withdrawal from society, however, he concludes that a man must decide his necessities, and find a way to coexist with nature in order to provide his needs - civilization cannot help him now. After achieving such an accomplishment, man will be truly free in the sense that such a person would be entirely in control of his life. Thoreau showed that such a disconnection, and subsequent freedom, is possible by taking on the task himself in Walden. It was only when he briefly entered the town, and society, that he lost his freedom.

It is on this philisophical level that Transhumanism and Transcendentalism are joined. Transhumanists understand that people are limited in society, and in their bodies; as long as people lack the means to provide for their needs themselves, they are dependent on whoever else can help them, and subsequently are not truly free, as they are vulnerable. Instead of harvesting the power of nature as Henry David Thoreau advocates, however, Transhumanists embrace the power of technology. They argue that every effort must be made to advance scientific progress until human beings, harvesting technology, are no longer reliant upon anybody else. Through technology, they gain ultimate freedom. Once this is achieved, transhumanists explain, society will no longer be necessary; and because of this, the scourges of war, crime, terror, pestilence, hunger, economic inequality, and social inequality, will disappear, as each "transhuman" is able to withdraw from society and rely on sufficiently advanced technology for ther individual needs. The individual is empowered with ultimate control over his or her life, and can focus on a life worth living.

It is clear that Thoreau believed in the power of the individual, as stated in Civil Disobedience:

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."

Ultimately, Thoreau decided to make use of the natural world and withdraw from society, and the government's control, in order to achieve an improvement on government. Similarly, Transhumanism aims for a state in which the individual can become an independent power, free from state control, through technology.

Perhaps the earliest invention that has realized part of the Transhumanists' goals has come in the form of the Internet. Prior to the inventions of email, instant messaging, and online chat, communication between distant persons was controlled entirely by the government. In oppresive countries such as China and Iran, dissent was kept in check by government control of communication routes; ordinary citizens did not have the means to tell the world of their plight. In the modern 21st century, however, numerous Iranians have been able to publish online journals, providing people in other parts of the world a direct, unfiltered contact with these countries. In effect, these people have withdrawn from the state in regard to communications; they now have complete control over who they communicate with, when they talk, where they are in the physical world, and how the information is relayed. Through the use of the internet, people have become the higher and independent power that Thoreau sought to implement; no country, no matter how hard it tries, can attempt to gain mastery over the Internet.

It is clear, then, that Thoreau's philosophies have been revived in the form of Transhumanism. Instead of harnessing nature, they utilize technology in their common quest for individual empowerment, and eventually, a human state beyond society and civilization.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by mtrisk


Display: Sort:
Transhumanism & The Modern Day Transcendentalists | 121 comments (115 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
What about changing the brain itself? (2.66 / 3) (#2)
by topynate on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 10:00:39 PM EST

Would this fall outside the bounds of the transhumanist philosophy, in your opinion, or is there a point up to which a human remains human while enhanced or altered neurally? What about other aspects of the body? For instance, it is believed that Fen has castrated himself. Has he rendered himself less human? After all, he has altered his thinking - he said as much himself.


"...identifying authors with their works is a feckless game. Simply to go by their books, Agatha Christie is a mass murderess, while William Buckley is a practicing Christian." --Gore Vidal
transfag-1sm (1.17 / 17) (#3)
by UNITE on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 10:10:44 PM EST

 

8======A==Proud==Author==of==the==FNH==nastygram==story====D ~~~
Sorry you are very very wrong (2.90 / 10) (#7)
by 1318 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 11:10:54 PM EST

"Instead of harvesting the power of nature as Henry David Thoreau advocates, however, Transhumanists embrace the power of technology"

Transcendalism cannot swap out nature for technology and find itself reborn as transhumanism. Thoreau was very specifically doubtful of the technologies of his day and the attendant negative effects on people, their lives and values that such a shift becomes entirely implausible. Nay, I'd offer that it is even offensive to imply this could occur.

You rip out Thoreau's nature loving heart and push in the genetically engineered pig heart and declare Thoreau reborn as a transhumanist? No can do buddy boy.

Frankly I am at a loss to understand how you can mangle the self-controlling, independence and above all nature loving philosophy of transcendentalism with technophilia.

Technology is a juggernaut which like the train and newspaper of Thoreau's day (and the obsession with travel, news and possessions as attendant negative consequences) brings both good and evil.

You seem to simply say "no, it's all good". I am not aware of this 'transhumanism' of which you speak except that it seems to be akin to the babble that Timothy Leary espoused (consciousness expansion, life extension, blah).

It might indeed be true that there is some "deep undercurrent" between Transhumanims and Transcendentalism, but I don't find myself being able to believe this as a result of the story above.

You mention that Thoreau 'believed in the individual' and cite him talking about the individual as an equal vis-a-vis the state. Ok, that's cool. But how does transhumanism fit here?

I don't find you quoting any transhumanists with something that indicates a parallel value is being promoted. Yet since this is such a fundamental undercurrent of commonality (as you say) I'd assume such a quote would be readily handy. Where is it?

I would argue that Thoreau wasn't merely a radical individualist. Many anarchists might fit that bill, such as Max Stirner who comes to mind (the so called "right wind anarchists" as opposed to the collectivist/socialist anarchists).

Transcendentalism is not, as I understand it (and I am no authority), merely a multipurpose individualism which can piss against the tree of nature or the tree of technology and find the pisser to be none the different.

Thoreau's anti-consumerism which was not subtle and very overt ("cultivating a few yards of flesh") isn't at all addressed as a parallel in your story to transhumanism. However most technophiliacs are intensely pro-consumerism. Technology is a consumer-fetish bar none in my experience. If modern society has any word which is nearly a synonym with good it is technology almost as much as democracy and freedom.

However except for appealing to our implicit prejudices about the liberating nature of technology I think you have not made a case for such liberation. It could be, and I think it has been, argued that technology does oppress, works against democracy, and makes life worse in some cases. I would defer to Jacques Ellul's Technological Society about the intricacies of the evils of technology. It is also Ellul whom I reference in the value laden propaganda-like nature of the term technology (from his work Propaganda).

So without doing any personal exploration of Transhumanism (and I doubt I will based on the evidence before me so far) I would have to flatly reject your association with Thoreau and Transcendentalism outright.

I'll give you a +1FP for mentioning Thoreau, but I am not sure that your word salad is a meal that would sit well in his stomach.

"So then, why don't you die?"-Antisthenes

Some thoughts. (2.66 / 12) (#11)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 12:53:03 AM EST

I think people can only be happy, healthy, and sane to the extent that we understand and accept ourselves as we *are*, not as we'd like to be. All the positive aspects of transhumanism, Christianity, and every other form of utopian religion that says we can improve ourselves seem dangerously false to me. The way I see it, Transhumanism and its ilk do more harm than good by providing pleasant illusions rather than hard truths. Call me a pessimist, but I'd rather be sane and happy as a soulless mortal ape.

Through genetic and biological engineering, they sought, and continue to seek, methods to eliminate mankind's host of health problems, from cancer to the common cold, eventually gaining immortality.

Do they also wonder why their patents on perpetual motion machines keep getting rejected?

As to democracy, I recently reread an old Isaac Asimov article, "The Modern Demonology". In it he argues that natural selection has *not* stopped working on humans just because we largely control the natural environment. The fact is that who breeds and who doesn't is now based on social concerns, and so the environment which is doing the selecting is society. And, he points out, it seems to be selecting for people who are good conformists.

For instance, diabetics survive and breed, and diabetics rely on society for insulin, therefore there's a limit to how rebellious a diabetic can be; he can't piss society off too much if he wants to go on living. Now just saying that a person with some illness can now survive and breed doesn't prove it's actually being selected *for*; time will tell about that. However, being a good conformist due to being a diabetic may also have a correlation to being a good conformist in the specific ways that reduce in increased chances of breeding, the way opposable thumbs evolved to facilitate brachiation and stuck around to grasp tools.

Another example he came up with was people with violent or criminal tendencies. Once detected, they generally have much shorter lifespans and lower chances of having any grandchildren. A murderer is an excellent example of an (extreme) nonconformist who is selected against by society. (Yes, some murderers do reproduce but, on the whole, those who are caught have fewer chances and their kids are generally raised in poorer surroundings, reducing their own chances at survival.)

If he's right, it would seem to point to exactly the opposite future of the one Transhumanists daydream of: a future where social pressure has resulted in a population that, for various medical and psychological reasons, cannot be nonconformists. I have a hard time imagining democratic traditions maintaining their vigor in a population without the inclination or capability for rebelliousness. How will anyone be able to withdraw from the government and live by a pond in a forest when we have all become utterly dependant on society for the drugs and technology that keep us "immortal"? :P Thus your very dream betrays itself and ensures the annihilation of nonconformity.

-1, poor attempt at hitching Transhumanism to Transcendentalism's coattails; +1, should be some comments I'll enjoy reading. Total: Abstain.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
What is the point of transhumanism? (2.50 / 4) (#12)
by maniac1860 on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:00:37 AM EST

Seriously, I don't get it. So you like technology. That's nice. What makes your philosophy different from any other one that accepts technology?

now I'm confused (2.76 / 13) (#13)
by army of phred on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:20:43 AM EST

can I keep my nuts or not?

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
Okay job. (3.00 / 4) (#14)
by alexboko on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:09:20 AM EST

Thoughtful, positive, and for once not frothing at the mouth about the "dehumanizing effects of technology". I don't know what it is about transhumanism (other than unfortunately some of us are close-minded technology-fanboy zealots reminiscent of Randroids) that freaks people out so much.

We want to live, we want to live better and longer, we want to try new things, we want to be smarter. Basic primal human desires, and we're just being honest about them unlike certain other more "mainstream" philosophies. I'm not sure I buy the Thoreau parallels, but it sure beats getting compared to the Nazis and the Eugenics movement all the time.

Thanks and good luck with the votes. I'll vote for you, but I'll be surprised if this hits 70. After all, who cares about the future of humanity when we have Karl Rove and Natalee Holloway to bang on and on about? :-/


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.

P.S. one country does control the internet. (2.60 / 5) (#17)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:53:59 AM EST

That would be the United States of America, albeit farmed out to ICANN. A corporation, I might add, which has been growing less transparent to the public with each passing year.

It sure would be swell if the Internet was every libertarian's masturbation fantasy come true, but the reality is less rosy.


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Freedom and Dependency (3.00 / 6) (#20)
by mberteig on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 05:41:52 AM EST

Freedom and Dependency are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, I think that our current lack of security and peace is a direct result of many people's belief in this false dichotomy.

Freedom as applied to an individual human life is best defined by the ability to grow.  That includes making mistakes and learning from them.  Anything anti-growth is repressive.  However, as any gardener can tell you, un-guided or un-restricted growth is usually unhealthy and in the long term sub-optimal.  Both transcendentalism and transhumanism seem to neglect the problem of the feral child.

Dependency on others in society is what gives us the power to channel our growth.  We do not need to rely on ourselves for all our needs and wants.  Rather, we can rely on family, friends, neighborhood, community, government, and society at large for the vast majority of our needs, and many of our wants.

This unity in diversity and the resulting individual freedom is one of the essential powers of humanity.  We neglect it at our own peril.

One might imagine that either a return to nature or a transformation of technology might remove the dependency.  But the removal of the dependency can only be imagined in the context of the existance of that dependency.  Again, there is the problem of the feral child... or the techno-feral child.  Imagine a child brought up by technology, with technology and in isolation from "real" society.  We could imagine that the technology provides a stimulating simulation of life for the child's early years... and when does it stop and cut into reality?  Why bother?  At some point, transhumanism stops being human and starts being a being sucking at the teat of technology.  And then there is a new dependence.


Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile

Beat me to it (1.33 / 3) (#24)
by Fen on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 05:12:00 PM EST

I'd like to write about transhumanism. But not some compare/contrast things.
--Self.
Not all transhumanists advocate individualism. (2.50 / 2) (#32)
by alexboko on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 09:01:45 PM EST

Individualism is the majority viewpoint of the "Californian" transhumanists you mentioned, spearheaded by the Extropy Institute but there are also the "European" transhumanists who tend to be see more value in communities.

It's tempting to paint this as a simplistic left vs. right difference, but they agree with each other on more things than they disagree on, and their disagreements may evaporate altogether if and when the world does move beyond scarcity economics.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.

I'm not convinced in eliminating all suffering (2.66 / 3) (#35)
by More Whine on Sun Jul 17, 2005 at 12:06:11 AM EST

It seems to me that physical or mental suffering are both necessary and important for individuals to achieve great things.  Many of the most profound intellectual (scientific, philosophical, artistic, etc.) and physical (athletes, conquerors, explorers, etc.) achievements came about after individuals endured a great deal of suffering.  I think it is hard to separate their profound suffering from their profound achievements.

In a sense, I think that the complete elimination of all suffering will result in fewer great achievements and even more mediocrity than we currently have now.  What would the MOTIVATION of a transhumanist living a life completely devoid of mental or physical suffering be to produce great things?  There would be nothing for the transhumanist to OVERCOME.  

i see a common theme (3.00 / 7) (#37)
by insomnyuk on Sun Jul 17, 2005 at 04:25:47 AM EST

Transcendentalists, like Transhumanists, are idiots who fail when it comes to getting along with people, and so they come up with a utopianist vision for how things really should be.  But first some unsubstantiated claims you make:

Prior to the inventions of email, instant messaging, and online chat, communication between distant persons was controlled entirely by the government.

How then, do you suppose successful rebellions, resistance movements, and the like, communicated? This is a completely baseless statement and perhaps indicative of your ignorance of history and common sense.

In the modern 21st century, however, numerous Iranians have been able to publish online journals, providing people in other parts of the world a direct, unfiltered contact with these countries.

While online journaling or 'blogging' may provide an automated, democratized way of publishing, the nature of the internets and state power makes it possible for totalitarian governments to limit and control internet publication and information sharing. See: government seizures of Indymedia servers (as much as I hate indymedia, i still think it's a bad thing), China's banning of porn, publishing, and MSN searches for the word freedom.  Access can be controlled.

But transhumanism fails. I give this an article a +1 because connecting transhumanism to transcendentalism is positive in the sense that it ties another rock to the neck of transhumanism, because transcendentalism is the unfortunate intellectual grandfather of the hippy movement, it would seem. This whole 'transhumanism' theory is like anything else, promising happiness on earth, which is only a little less unreasonable than promising happiness in the afterlife. If people become 'godlike' they will only find more, different ways to treat others like shit. I fear any notion of people transcending society. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, and so forth, rose above the 'chains' of society (read: restraint) and look where it's gotten us. No thanks. Society is what chains people to the earth, and requires people to act civilly towards their neighbors.

I'll be sitting here calmly stockpiling weapons for when you transhumanists try to transcend my rights and exercise your superiority over us biological humans who don't meet with your high standards.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken

United we are strong (2.00 / 2) (#41)
by alba on Sun Jul 17, 2005 at 08:43:01 AM EST

If everything else is equal, a coordinated group is stronger than a much larger number of idividuals.

I would like to read a piece of Science Fiction describing a world where above rule no longer applies.

What I hate is a plain, dump "vision" of such a world. Such as this article.

I did not read this article (1.06 / 16) (#42)
by Jason The Raging Alcoholic Physicist on Sun Jul 17, 2005 at 01:02:38 PM EST

And furthermore, this subject matter bores me to tears.

I enjoyed this article immensely n/t (1.40 / 5) (#61)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sun Jul 17, 2005 at 10:25:06 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
The truely enlightened (none / 1) (#66)
by IceTitan on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 02:48:29 AM EST

concern themselves not with such things.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Technology versus Spirituality (none / 0) (#68)
by ljj on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 04:50:57 AM EST

I buy into the idea of transcendentalism. I believe its a spiritual path. Transhumanism also buys into transcendentalism but they choose a technological path.

I do find the alternative technology that you propose an interesting diversion. But then I think that the internet is just a physical embodiment of what we've been trying to do spiritually for so long - connecting with each other.

Made me think. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

--
ljj

-1 Fen has no balls. (1.33 / 3) (#71)
by Nosf3ratu on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 08:21:52 AM EST

enti.


Woo!
transhumanism (none / 0) (#73)
by Nyarlathotep on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 11:08:23 AM EST

I've never understood why Transhumanism had to be about living forever or making everyone happy.  It seems far simpler to me:

Many people say technology is neither good nor evil, but they are wrong, technology defines long term good, i.e. a higher sustainable rate of technological progress is the only inherent good.

Its just the evolutionary solution to the is-ought problem: a society whose memes produce faster technological evolution is going to win eventually, and the winner defines good in hindsight.  

Why waist resources making everyone happy?  Sure, feed them, clothe them.  But also engineer them to feel pain when not intellectually challenged.  Oh, if your sitting on your arse waiting for the singularity / rapture, then you memes are not all that helpful.. go learn about something real.
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!

Transhuman = inhuman. (none / 0) (#75)
by Remus Shepherd on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 12:32:50 PM EST

I consider both trancendentalism and transhumanism to be interesting, if not practical, philosophies by which to run one's life.

But Transhumanism bothers me.  I think that's because of its ultimate goal.  Transcendentalists eventually live a solitary and asocial life, but at least a human one.  Transhumanists, if they achieve their goals, will no longer be human.  And not just physically -- they'll be giving up or altering their emotional, psychological, and spiritual lives.  They may learn new emotions, psychologies, and spirituality.  But I think it's a shame to just discard so many of the more wonderful aspects of being human.

...
Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com>
Creator and holder of many Indefensible Positions.

Human? (1.50 / 1) (#78)
by alexboko on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 01:13:55 PM EST

Okay, you "transhumanists are inhuman" folks who keep ignoring each other's posts and my answers to them, I have something for you to read.

From Distress by Greg Egan, Harper 1995


He tipped his head and looked at me slyly. "You really can't guess? Here's a clue, then. What's the most intellectually lazy way you can think of, to try to win an argument?"

"You're going to have to spell it out for me. I'm no good at riddles."

"You say that your opponent lacks humanity."

I'd fallen silent, suddenly ashamed - or at least embarrassed - wondering just how deeply I'd offended him with some of the things I'd said the day before. The trouble with meeting people again after interviewing them was that they often spent the intervening time thinking through the whole conversation, in minute detail-and concluding that they'd come out badly.

Rourke said, "It's the oldest semantic weapon there is. Think of all the categories of people who've been classified as non-human, in various cultures, at various times. People from other tribes. People with other skin colors. Slaves. Women. The mentally ill. The deaf. Homosexuals. Jews. Bosnians, Croats, Serbs, Armenians, Kurds-"

I said defensively, "Don't you think there's a slight difference between putting someone in a gas chamber, and using the phrase rhetorically?"

"Of course. But suppose you accuse me of 'lacking humanity.' What does that actually mean? What am I likely to have done? Murdered someone in cold blood? Drowned a puppy? Eaten meat? Failed to be moved by Beethoven's Fifth? Or just failed to have-or to seek-an emotional life identical to your own in every respect? Failed to share all your values and aspirations?"

I hadn't replied. Cyclists whirred by in the dark jungle behind me; it had begun to rain, but the canopy protected us.

Rourke continued cheerfully. "The answer is: 'any one of the above.' Which is why it's so fucking lazy. Questioning someone's 'humanity' puts them in the company of serial killers-which saves you the trouble of having to say anything intelligent about their views. And it lays claim to some vast imaginary consensus, an outraged majority standing behind you, backing you up all the way."

Okay, so that's too long for you to be arsed to read. Fine, here's the lazy version: "Who died and left you in charge of deciding whether I'm human or not?"


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.

The story that just won't die. (none / 0) (#84)
by alexboko on Mon Jul 18, 2005 at 03:58:50 PM EST

I guess it's mostly us evil people left on here by now. Well, evil people, and intelligent good people  like 1318.

So let's talk about how to rework this story and resubmit it. We learned something very valuable from the comments so far:

  1. Tenuous logic on our part will get us incinerated.
  2. We need to be very clear that we're not against emotions, cute little bunny rabbits, and babies. More personal experience, hopes and dreams, less "We are Borg".
  3. We need to be more realistic about the short-term limitations of technology and steer clear of techno fanboyism.
  4. Pretending that >H has an unambiguous stand in the fundamental (and possibly irresolvable) individualism vs. collectivism debate will earn us enemies but no new friends.
  5. People don't like "isms" except when its a handy label for something they already understand and accept. Most of the readers have never heard about transhumanism, and so their initial reaction is healthy skepticism-- WTF is this new thing? Are you people like the Scientologists or something?
I also think that though >H has parallels to transcendentalism, the parallels and indeed historical connection are even stronger to good old Age of Reason and Enlightenment thinking. Scroll down a bit and read my post entitled "Enlightenment + Chaos/Complexity = Transhumanism".

Actually, better yet, try "Enlightenment meets Postmodernism: Transhumanism".

Transhumanism, once someone understands it and gets past the initial hype-filters that intelligent people have and should have, is actually the ultimate geek ideology. It's hypocritical for someone whose work and hobbies revolve around technology to believe in deep environmentalism or some kind of literal reading of spiritual texts... but transhumanism shouldn't evoke any cognitive dissonance whatsoever.

If we fail to get this accross, we have a bug in our communication stack and we need to patch it.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.

Two questions are burning my lips (none / 0) (#100)
by bob6 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:08:45 AM EST

improvement to the human condition through enhancement technologies, such as eliminating aging and expanding intellectual, physical or physiological capacities.
How is it different from cyborgs (Haraway sense)?

They argue that every effort must be made to advance scientific progress until human beings, harvesting technology, are no longer reliant upon anybody else.
It strikes me that this is in contradiction with the fact that relying in technology and science is a vow of confidence and dependence. How transhumanists contend with that?

Cheers.
Transhumanism & The Modern Day Transcendentalists | 121 comments (115 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!