/dead/ - Post-Left

For the ones who aren't NRx nerds at least it's just about being able to change your body to something more to your own liking.

>ppl are fine not being more than they are
more what

Egoist asking for permission to talk about something

I want to improve myself, I don't care about the rest.

If we don't, the Andromedans will. I'm not saying markets are inevitable, but progress towards more effective patterns of spreading civilization is. At long enough time scales, we're probably collectively in competition with *something* whether we know it or not.

>>3585
since transhumanism usually moves on the background of capitalist logic it means more capable of work. The transformation of the human body is apparently desirable because high-tech prostheses are stronger, faster and more precise. However transhumanists never question why that is a good thing to begin with. Being stronger or faster is only an objective good for ppl if you essentialise their ühysical output as their defining feature.

>>3583
Transhumanism is just soyboy fantasy to give their life meaning like the stupid cryogenic services they spend 10s of thousands of dollars to keep their corpse in a freezer for a couple years before they get chucked in an incinerator anyways.

>>3589
maybe they just want to do cooler things yknow

Well, I'm no human. To define myself as a mere human will be a spook. I am the creative nothing. I just want to change my biological shell you meatbags call "human body" to better serve my interests and for self-enjoyment. The cybernetic enhancements extend my power and thus make it easier for me to satisfy my interests and extend my self-enjoyment. Granted, the critique of progress is a valid point and I wish no cyberpunk dystopia, capitalism shall be destroyed by our own hands instead of waiting for a miracle that will never come. I'm not for progress, I'm for the greater ability to satisfy my self-interests. That includes health. That includes computational ability. I do not understand why you hold your current state as sacred, a human shell is no more than a human shell, a tool to be used by a conscious egoist, the creative nothing that cannot be reduced to a mere human shell. There is no reason not to use technology for your own needs and it's certainly just one of the tools that helps you to extend your influence upon this world and shape it in a way that suits your interests. The same way as a union of egoists empowers you.

There are no humans. There are no animals. No ego and no human essence. There are only Uniques and therefore it all doesn't matter.

>>3590
That kind of transhumanism I don't want obviously. Again, progress is a spook, we're heading into a cyberpunk dystopia governed by G-MAFIA. I've imagined transhumanism in an anarcho-transhumanist fashion of, say, a resistance movement like in Watch Dogs 2 or something. A union of egoists using technology to terrorize megacorps.

>>3583
forget the scary scifi horor with the butchered bodies, that stuff gets put into movies because shock-factor, gore and bad writing. Nobody is going to install permanent technology into their bodies when it's going to be outdated 18 month later. Unless it's a medical necessity like a pacemaker. When you use a calculator you've already merged your brain with a computer. When you put on sun glasses, you activate your ocular radiation shielding.

>>3593
> I just want to change my biological shell
Op is wrong, and you are wrong in the other direction, because idealist dualism. You are not an essence separate from your body.

>>3595
>Op is wrong, and you are wrong in the other direction, because idealist dualism. You are not an essence separate from your body
Yes and no. It's not an idealist dualism, metaphysics is spooked as fuck. I said that I'm not reducible to my body. But I am indeed linked to it. It's epistemological solipsism rather than idealist dualism, I was not saying that I'm a substance (I can be anything really, I don't care how I work), I was saying that I am myself and not just my body. Now, the quoestion is whether I die by replacing my whole body. Replacing the shell is fine but I am worried about the brain.

>markets are when u improve things
>the more you improve things the marketer it is

OP, what is this

>>3600
The main thing about Stirner is that he did use this idealist dualist language. But not in a literal way but in a phenomenological way. I am simply a singularity in an epistemological way, an observer. Religions of all kinds associated this quality with having a "soul" but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it demands lots of assumptions. Phenomenologically, I cannot exist without this world because my existence is predefined by this world's existence. I can only exist somewhere because I experience such existence. Therefore claiming that we have a soul is nonsense because it's not because we have a soul that we have a subjective existence but rather because existence exists (heh, see what I did there? Combined Rand and Heidegger. Yes, I'm a pervert).

>>3604
shut the fuck up and actually go read some heidegger you pseud

>>3593
I dont know mrs. thatcher, there just might be a social structures out there that has futher implications on how transhumanism relates to you

>>3593
>>3594
>>3609
one book spook

>>3608
Heheh. Well, I didn't say I've read Heidegger or even support his views. I was simply making a joke. I was referring to Heidegger's rejection of subject-object dualism.

>>3609
>mrs. thatcher
I'm going to physically break your spine.

I just want to change my appearance I don't care about optimizing my body with nanomachines (son).

>>3614
What would you change?

idk sounds pretty spooky op

>>3616
yeah, transhumanism is really spooky

>>3617
But what even is transhumanism? What is it about transhumanism that is spooky? Is it the "humanism" part? Is it its association with accelerationism over destruction and progress over disillusionment?

>>3583
To me, the only purposes of transhumanism should be the medicals ones.4

>>3620
Novatore was a futurist and an anarchist, you know. Just in case.

oh man are we bringing back the transhumanism vs. primitivism debate circa 2016?

>>3629
> circa 2016?
Do you maybe mean 1995?

>>3630
I don't know what you're referring to but I remember it being a hot topic in 2015/16 times.

>>3629
where did you get that from? I just don't like transhumanism, but primitivism is also really shitty.

>>3618
>But what even is transhumanism?
Nice trick question. Obviously there isnt one answer to this but many.
One thing all transhumanist schools have in common though is the idea that transcending the current human form is on itself necessarily a good thing. Where for the christian god is always good, for the transhumanist the transition away from the current human form is always good. They can not question it, so the idea is unmovable, it's fixed, it's a spook.
Also, as I pointed out earlier, transhumanism mostly knows just one direction in which it surpasses humans as they are: towards higher transformative capability which means towards a more proftiable worker. I've yet to see a transhumanist suggest how tech used to "improve" humans could be a means to overcome societal systems of oppression. Transhumanism doesnt offer anything to those who are at odds with society, only new gadgets to the supper wealthy and instruments of torture for the capitalist to force upon their workers with the goal of getting more profit for each hour they work.

>>3632
>transhumanism is about letting the capitalist class to further exploit us by keeping the existing system
Well, transhumanism isn't synonymous with neoliberalism. If it was then it should obviously die. I have read that critique of transhumanism and I wholeheartedly agree. But thinking of transhumanism as the extension of liberal progressivism instead of its destruction is limiting to transhumanism itself. Perhaps we shouldn't look at transhumanism as transhumanism but as transhumanism, if not post-humanism.

true, it's kinda like saying "why doesn't iron man give everyone his suits?"

everybody has their specific specialties
but still upgrading those specific things would be dope

like imagine someone with glasses having bionic, hyper mega zoom eyes

or the jock having a thunderous, big ass legs that can jump over mountains

freak-ism, go overboard with yours specialties

>basically trash

Like with everything, it depends on the implementation details.

Technology has a way of becoming outdated over the life-span of humans. To enhance humans with technology you have to make it as an easily user removable add-on not something that gets merged with biology.
People also must be able to continue living if the tech-add-on fails, and you have to rule out with mathenatical certainty that tech-add-ons can't be used to interfere with bodly autonomy to any degree what so ever. Functionality of body-mods can't be tied to a subscription payment, or depend on external servers to operate. If you put computers into people, they have to be perfectly libre open source technology in all regards, proprietary anything basically is going to be a criminal conspiracy to commit a variation of assault or kidnapping.

A big achilles heel however is that there is no portable protection against EMP weapons. If you load people up with tech you have to harden it at least a little.

>>3601
/thread
As bad as people calling random concepts "bourgeoisie" out of nowhere.

> you wanna improve everything's capabilities?
Isn't that's what anarchy is?

>>3717
No, I'd say that anarchy also diminishes capabilities, like the capability to control, oppress or exploit for example.

What if I want to have a cybernetically enchanced gf

>>3720
you mean a robowaifu right

i hate leviathan but also want a cool cyborg body

>>3721
Séx with electronics basically

>>3583
> why you wanna improve everything's capabilities?
We are doing that already with technology. You can use a telephoto lense to see things that are too far away to see it with your naked eyes.
I don't think that people want to implant tech into their bodies, because they'd get stuck on a specific technology level. Maybe a thousand years from now when all the relevant technologies are super mature, and no longuer change much over the life-span of a human.

>Sounds like market logic to me
No not really.

>>3583
Pretty much just want as long of life as physically possible. The human body is like living in a straw house when one could potentially live in a brick / steel house.

it'd be useful for people with disabilities and illnesses we cannot heal with our current level of technology, or just for convenience

>>3756
>least eugenicist trans-humanist
oh I know what "help" ppl that view the disabled as in need of being fixed have in store

>>3758
stop shitposting, obviously most people with no leg would like a cyber leg

Is having plastic in your blood transhumanism?

Humans are machines from paleolithic period. Of course they are mediocre at existing in modern technological civilisation and can't overcome it and create better society. Therefore replacing human with new machine will allow us to improve by removing material constrictions for improvement of society.

>>3583
Glasses, pace-makers, hearing implants , artificial limb replacements and so on are working out pretty well.
Pick the good aspects but avoid the cyborg distopia.

Free cyborg bodies for everybody

>>3583
transhumanism in a collectivist or anarchist sense seems pretty neat but it inevitably gets corrupted by profiteering.
also medicine and drugs in general are already transhumanist, transhumanism isnt just cool robot arms and brains in jars. :^)

>>3776
>also medicine and drugs in general are already transhumanist, transhumanism isnt just cool robot arms and brains in jars. :^)
Medicine is, in fact, not transhumanist, because the goal of apllying medicine isn't the improvement of a human towards a goal of something more than human, transcending humanity, but only to improve the condition of a single, sick human towards the goal of a single, healthy human.
Drugs are also not really transhumanist as far as recreation goes, to trip is to be human. However, taking drugs to increase performance in general or in a certain field is transhumanist - and again shows why transhumanism is bourgeoi dreck! Cause the improvement functions only as an improvement in productivity!
It's impossible for transhumanism to imagine improving a persons artistry, because art does not follow capitalist logic. You might add 300 arms to a painter so that they might paint 100 works in the amount of time it usually takes him to create 1, or develop specific painting extremities that are able to wield a brush at a significantly more precise level - that's not gonna improve the art. What makes art good is not quantifiable, it's the artist revealing themselves in their work - and all transhumanism does is quantifying productivity.
The only class that would benefit from a transhumanist catalysation of humans abilities is the bourgeoisie - cause it would mean more workers can make more commodities in a smaller amount of time - and those "improvements" that werent related strictly to performance enhancement, would only be available to the rich anyways.
In a classless society in turn transhumanism would be utterly useless. Without the pressure of class hierarchy there is no sense in increasing ones productive capabilities, since you dont need a certain level of (economic) performance to ensure your survival. The means of survival would already be available to you. Why would anyone strive to become a machiene when they are able to freely develop themselves by unfolding whats already inside?
fuck transhumanism

Transhumanism can never be given to you

It can only be made by the self for the self

Youre going to trust botnetted implants?

Its gotta be FOSS software and hardware

Get soldering

Transhumanism is already here, trust me, you just don't want it.