Can we talk about how transhumanism is basically trash?
Like fam, why you wanna improve everything's capabilities? Sounds like market logic to me. Things and especially ppl are fine not being more than they are.
>>3583forget 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 Nobody is going to install permanent technology into their bodies when it's going to be outdated 18 month later.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.
>>3600The 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).
>>3629where 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 systemWell, 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 trans
humanism but as
transhumanism, if not post-humanism.
>>3601/thread
As bad as people calling random concepts "bourgeoisie" out of nowhere.
>>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 meNo not really.
>>3583Glasses, pace-makers, hearing implants , artificial limb replacements and so on are working out pretty well.
Pick the good aspects but avoid the cyborg distopia.
>>3583transhumanism 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
Unique IPs: 39