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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
shut the fuck up and actually go read some heidegger you pseud
I dont know mrs. thatcher, there just might be a social structures out there that has futher implications on how transhumanism relates to you
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.
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).
What would you change?
idk sounds pretty spooky op
yeah, transhumanism is really spooky
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?
To me, the only purposes of transhumanism should be the medicals ones.4
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?
I don't know what you're referring to but I remember it being a hot topic in 2015/16 times.
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 trans
humanism, 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
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.
As bad as people calling random concepts "bourgeoisie" out of nowhere.
Unique IPs: 24