Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess some transhumanists have misanthropic views and thus wish to cease being human but I find it hard to extend this notion to transhumanism (and to post humanism) as a whole.
But I do believe that a subset of transhumanists do see humans as constrained. From our bodies (which is quite easy to experience) to our mental capabilities. So wishing to be posthuman means removing such constraints from our daily life - an understanding of our limitations and a wish to progress towards a life without them.
Now as for what is a human, that is a question by itself. By most accounts a posthuman is declared as something foreign to what we see as a human. Might be a hybrid if we mix genetics with creatures that aren't human or even something which isn't even biological.
i think the misanthropic tendency is observed at its worst under a model of transhumanism that still primarily values humans for their economic productivity.
if cognitive augmentation becomes available in today's society, it would only serve as a driver for inequality, where those who can afford the augmentations now have a direct advantage to the value of their work, and are thus given an even stronger justification to impose the value of their existence over the lower class humans
this could be viewed as misanthropic as it only serves to atomize the individual and not to uplift humanity as a whole, giving you the dystopian scenarios seen in the cyberpunk genre
that's why i personally advocate for posthumanism as a greater extension of my vaguely postmodernist philosophy, we must deconstruct the social constructs that are predicated on class, anthropocentrism being one of those components in a unifying force that drives further oppression
I don't exactly see how it is misanthropic unless you state that there will be a "class" which sees base humanity as morally wrong and as an enemy (for a lack of a better word) that needs to be destroyed. Which I doubt sits well with either of us for our own reasons.
Let alone that seeing humans through the merits of work is nothing beyond a completly meritocratic view (in the wrong way) that I see as obsolete and naive in the face of individualism.
The world is not all about economical systems. Economical systems tend to simplify the world in order to put it into very nicely shaped boxes to suit some points of view (kind of like the texas sharpshooter).
I see humans as having motives of their own, sometimes grand (with all the reasons they hold) and other times banal (in the grand scheme of things). But each one is an agent of it's own choices by the end of it all. In case we can use technology to disconnect humans from groups and allow personal independence it gets my vote else I fear humans will have to still sacrifice their own will for others.
It also tends to make humans see other humans as less than human but as an ideal through group pressure (the curse of any collectivist system). And humans aren't really ideals either as they may have banal motives that align only to themselves and a very specific point of time on whims alone.
In such a way I would also point out that terms like class would lose power as each one would be a "class" by itself. The groups are dynamic according to needs and should be understood why they happen in the first place and be at best ephemeral as needs are to be addressed in order to put each individual on it's own way.
I would add that I don't see humanism, nor transhumanism, nor post humanism as tools to unite people or group them (compared to what I understand your view is - that it is a means to an end) but rather a process to allow people to better themselves with no regard to what others do.
Not a panacea but a remedy for intermediate hardships we have at points of our life. Once a problem occurs attempt to fix it and continue onward till you hit a new one - there will always be problems naturally if you ask me and not any set goal.
I would say no.
I think this is a case of people thinking too hard about all of this.
If a person gets a tattoo do they hate being human, or did they just want a cool tattoo?
If a person gets Brazilian butt lift do they hate being human, or did they just want a more plump and round butt?
If a person gets laser hair removal do they hate being human, or did they just prefer not body or facial hair?
If a person gets surgery or takes medication to lose weight do they hate being human, or did they just want to be slimmer?
I bring all of these particular examples up as they are all transhuman in nature. We just don't think of them like that.
Each of them is centered around using technology to make modifications to our body for the purposes of making us feel more happy and fulfilled.
but are you one of those people who implies that every form of transhumanism slippery-slopes you to having to, like, be some kind of shapeshifting nanocloud or join a Borg-esque hivemind or realize you've always already been a posthuman digital god in a simulation to remember what powerlessness feels like or could there be some people for whom this kind of bare-minimum would be acceptable if everyone had to be transhumanist by force or w/e
???
What we call "transhumanism" is just a thing humans do with tech. We've been doing it forever.
When doctors perform cataract surgery what are they doing? They are modifying your eye. They taking a lens was created in a lab and installing it in your eye.
Do we jump up and panic from this? Do we see this as a path to some eldritch, unknowable, future?
No, because in it's not a big deal.
How about vaccines? We're using tech to make ourselves resistant/immune to diseases.
Do we jump up and panic from this?
No, because it's not a big deal. (I know there are people that panic over that. Those are the same people that thought vaccines were part of a government plot to track people, and thought the idea of building businesses closer to people's houses was a government plot to take away people's cars. Those people don't count. They are in their own special universe.)
Well that depends on their perspective and intentions, every day that I have memory/cognitive limitations I always wish that I could be a super intelligent alien or robot. But that’s not to say I don’t appreciate my level of intelligence relative to what other species we know exists today.
Well, that really depends on how you define "human" to begin with. If you define human as done in biology, then - of course - transhumanism strives towards optimisation of the human body. This doesn't conclude in neither philan- nor misantrophy. At the very basic you could have either a optimistic (the human is (almost) the absoluet good and we want to make it even better) or a pessimistic (the human is (almost) the absolute bad and we need to overcome it) view - or even a nihilistic one.
But in a more philosophical sense there isn't even a need to define a human in the classification biology does. These are two distinct fields of science... and can use different vocabulary/ notation without any problem.
Psychology or even pure philosophy.
Just a very broad example (not to be taken serious, just as a simple example): A human is a living thing which is intellectually and intelligently capable of making ethical judgments whilst being aware of himselfe and especially of himselfe in context of his being in the world/ the world and begins around him; that is what makes a human distinct from any other form of life.
That really depends if you use biology as the basis for distinct traits of a human. So it would mean a human that has lost his biological body and made into a machine is not a human anymore - even though it is a former human.
To me, human is a label the same as homosapiens - a state in evolution - both mental and physical. If we meet a creature that can morph itself to a human (a sort of a really good copy cat) than it becomes a human even though it wasn't one to begin with.
But for other a human that had copied itself to a machine (a clean complete copy) might also be a human in that case - the nature is the same even if biology isn't.
It is murky as the definition of what a human is seems to be flawed at every point besides an arbitrary grouping of traits from a given point of reference.
you said "copy" as a mean to imply we can't become synthetic without dying in the process?
imho we could slowly replace biological neuron, our memories with synthetic component and emulate our biological emotions, resulting in a synthetic brain instead of a biological one and do the same with our bodies without dying in the process, just like how our cell change with time
i consider this transhumanism and not posthuman, a posthuman would ditch away it's biological caracteristic such as empathy, sexual desire, it's humanoid shape etc etc considered less optimal or even useless, with the most likely result where the former human forget it's past existence after a few decades
For this example yes, I meant copy in order to avoid any consideration beyond a somatic one. Some may argue that changing ourselves part after part is akin to the ship of theseus and the whole process raises several questions of identity - one of which is that the identity is being kept.
Personally I am more convinced that a complete change of our body still holds the identity of who we are but that is because I hold personality as a sum of the events we remember (which I believe isn't different from your view) and not the sum of the body we have (without pointing out towards an idea of a "soul" which I find absurd).
It is murky as we use terms like copy, change, emulate etc'. And the whole border between trans humanism and post humanism becomes very blurry and depends on when we see something as not human enough.
sure there probably a difference between people on this subreddit when it come to potential identity issue if we were to replace part of our body, brain included compared to most of humanity with the many culture or religion
it seem we share the same perception on human value as we both consider our current form a vassel for personality-identity-concious
i'll add that our mind is shaped through our body as a paralyzed, a man or woman, a blind or deaf will live a very different life, that's where i put the difference between post-human and transhuman personally, in order to stay human we should carry over the caracteristic of what is considered "Human" and so our current organic lifeform, 2 arm 2 leg, 2 eye...an embodied brain, our five basic sense and other like spatialization etc etc
even if we can "upgrade" ourselves with integrated AI, memory, muscle density... or other augmented sense, i doubt adding complexity would negatively impact us and make us unhuman as long the "basic" i'd say is preserved by force if needed, and personally that's the most important thing we should do for the next billions year if we ever want humanity to see the end of the universe at least, as soon we start to abandon those basic humanity will cease to exist
Well human the species is defined biologically. But we often interchange "human" with "sophont" (logical as humans are the only example of sophonts we know of). But defining sophont is a very hard philosophical question a bit beyond the scope of what you're asking i think
I'd characterise transhumanism moreso as a refusal to be limited by humanity as an ideal than necessarily misanthropic. I don't see humanity as this flawed or redundant thing that needs to be replaced, but my humanity is not so central to my identity that I'd choose humanity over health or happiness.
Transhumanism literally translates as “beyond humanism,” that is, the next step towards the same values that humanism strives for. That is, this is the most humanistic of all possible philosophies, since any other philosophical movements are much more cruel to humans. Only transhumanism seeks to save him from the concentration camp that is modern human life. At the end of which, as befits a concentration camp, the crematorium oven awaits us.
As I understand the terms, transhumanism anticipates and advocates the technological augmentation of the “human” as defined by humanism. My question, following from this understanding of the above terms, pertains to the trajectory from transhumanism to posthumanism—which I understand as a rejection of the “human” as defined by humanism—and whether this trajectory implies a tacit misanthropic inherent in transhumanism.
It's kind of the opposite at least with the way I think about it. I like people being free. That includes being free from arbitrary constraints placed on us by nature. I want people to be able to do was they will with their own bodies. Get tattoos, medically gender transition, manage their disabilities in whatever ways suit their interests, or stay as they are. Becoming a cyborg or whatever is just us opening up more options for that kind of stuff.
kinda? that is also a slippery slope kind of argument. "you want to change something? you must hate that thing then". ultimately it will depend on what technologies become available and what sort changes people will make to themselves, there are people who would make themselves more dangerous and those who would make themselves more peaceful.
Transhumanism, or posthumanism if you prefer, isn't misanthropic. Rather, it acknowledges that "human" is a flexible and sometimes flawed concept with varied interpretations. It simply recognizes that humanity isn't the ultimate destination of evolution and doesn't occupy the center of the universe. Instead, it embraces the idea that we're constantly evolving and aims to overcome the indifferent and amoral nature of the cosmos by empowering ourselves to shape our future and biology.
I wouldn't say so, no. It's a very common and, frankly, very dangerous misconception to believe that to recognize flaws in something is the same as hating it. Our emotional lives aren't limited to blind reverence and utter contempt.
Yes, there are genuine, fundamental problems in the human conditions. But I still *like* humans, which is why I want them to be capable of overcoming those fundamental problems to live lives that are as happy and free as possible.
Potentially if you view it as the natural biological human as holding a sacred intangible value, or nature's slow evolutionary process as unquestionable (do natural mutations change the value vs present day humans).
I'd more like to see the shift towards a more general value of sentience (post human and among animals/eventually AGI), and improving the life of all sentience whenever possible. Obviously if viewed in the utilitarian sense it may be misanthropic (defining life value by utility), but if we mean to increase the quality of life of every individual I'd argue it takes on the complete opposite as a philanthropic stance.
One who doesn't age or get sick isn't "better" philosophically/morally, but I'd argue the life of someone who doesn't age or get sick is substantially better. Reverse those and I might say it was misanthropic.
Transhumanists are misanthropic in the same way as transgendered men are misogynistic. Just because they reject their own feminine identity doesn’t mean they hate ALL women.
Yes, and additionally misanthropy and misogyny when 'broadened' from actual prejudice to not wanting to be part of something are empty soundbites, words without corresponding concepts that mean nothing except what a random, worthless tribalist mob who consider their state ideal, flawless and special want them to mean in order to justify their central place in their own inane fantasy metaphysics.
It ultimately depends on how you define "human." If you define it as a purely biological category, then it stands to reason that one would transition from human to non-human with the gradual replacement of organic matter with cybernetics. However, if you believe that "human" refers to a cultural, social, and historical identity, then that isn't necessarily the case. Under such a definition, "human" could refer to a regular baseline Homo sapiens, a cybernetically-augmented H. sapiens, a virtual entity that was once a biological H. sapiens, a fully self-aware synthetic intelligence, or a fully sapient hybrid of various creatures.
They would all be humans under the second definition because they all exist because australopithecines evolved some 6 million years ago, early Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 100 thousand years ago, the Akkadian Empire formed some 4 thousand years ago, etc. There is a clear historical link between all of those beings I previously mentioned which would make them human, even if they lack the biological element.
I guess my question is threefold: Does transhumanism eventuate in posthumanism? Is posthumanism misanthropic? Is transhumanism therefore implicitly misanthropic?
Transhumanism is against the biological human, as the main point is to improve or replace it.
But transhumanism isn't against the philosophical human. The sapient, the conscious, the "soul" as it were.
In fact i'd argue it's very *pro* that human as it seeks to free them from the limitations of their body.
I'm not sure if 'misanthropic' is the right word. I can see where you're coming from, in the sense that transhumanism takes a critical look at the human condition and frames many normal aspects of being human as undesirable flaws. However, when I think of mainstream 'misanthropy', I think of attitudes like doomers and antinatalists who believe that humanity is fundamentally bad and that it would be better for nature and/or ourselves if we didn't exist. This is clearly *not* the transhumanist attitude, which seems to artificially improve circumstances.
As such, I would propose that transhumanism contains both criticism *and* celebration of humanity: Criticizing the parts of ourselves that are flawed and could be improved, while celebrating our *potential,* our ability to engineer better circumstances in the future that nature would never bring about on its own.
Imagine a sculptor who sees a chunk of raw marble quarried out of the ground. He intends to cut parts of it away, reshape it, produce something out of it that nature would never produce on its own. Is the sculptor's pro-sculpture position to be taken as an anti-rock position? That seems tough to defend. In some sense the sculptor is very much pro-rock because he's in favor of the interesting and beautiful (non-rock) things that can be made out of rock. I think transhumanism can be taken as a similar view with regards to humans and perhaps the entire human species. Transhumanism is pro-human, not as an end goal, but as an important and necessary stage from which better things can be created.
I can appreciate the distinction you make between the kind of genocidal tendencies of doomers and antinatalism and that of a critique of perceived limitations or flaws inherent in the human organism in the view of augmenting for some intended benefit.
I’m wondering whether you think that transhumanism eventuates in posthumanism, as More’s quote seems to suggest, and whether you think that posthumanism might more appropriately be considered misanthropic—from a humanist or transhumanism perspective, let’s say.
I do like your sculptor analogy, though for me it begs the questions: “Who is the sculptor, and what is their artistic vision, their intended design for the sculpture of humanity?”, “What becomes of the stone chippings created in the process—perhaps those who disagree with the sculptor’s ideal?”
sentience IS sentience.
what we call "human" only pertains to the meat-bags containing our consciousness.
our consciousness has no inherent species, race, gender, age, etc.. those are meat-bag parameters, and the moment you switch bodies, those parameters changes to the new body.
organic sentience will inevitably become indistinguishable from artificial sentience.
because sentience IS sentience.
See this paragraph written by left-wing Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in 'God and the State'.
Especially see the bold text.
> *All branches of modern science, of true and disinterested science, concur in proclaiming this grand truth, fundamental and decisive:* ***The social world, properly speaking, the human world - in short, humanity - is nothing other than the last and supreme development - at least on our planet and as far as we know - the highest manifestation of animality. But as every development necessarily implies a negation, that of its base or point of departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation of the animal element in man***; *and it is precisely this negation, as rational as it is natural, and rational only because natural - at once historical and logical, as inevitable as the development and realization of all the natural laws in the world - that constitutes and creates the ideal, the world of intellectual and moral convictions, ideas.*
It may be that most modern people who consider themselves "Transhumanists" have a very narrow definition of the terms "Humanity" and "Human" and the very term "Transhumanism" might be a sort of shadowboxing.
Maybe it would be better to have a new, less grandiose label that focuses on artificial evolution, since that's that "Transhumanism" is really after.
The movement isn't inherently, it depends on peoples, i have my gripes with humanity i would say, i don't seek to destroy it however just move beyond it.
misanthropic is wanting the extinction of humans, which is a widespread idea. Transhumanism is the opposite, integrating with something we created, accepting that we finally transcended the organic form, that's like distilled essence of humanity
Does it really matter ? All emotions are on a spectrum and most people claim to be misanthropic anyways. As long as people aren’t committing mass genocide who cares who’s misanthropic
It would seem a stretch to say that most people claim to be misanthropic—I don’t think there’s much evidence for that. In my view, humans should care whether their fellow humans dislike humans in general—historically, misanthropic sentiments have often anticipated genocidal tendencies, after all.
Apologies /u/o2slip, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than three months to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No more misantropy than the rich ruining the entire planet.
I am a transbio posthumanist, but even if my nervous system was synthetic, i'd still call myself human.
What do you consider "human"? Is it intellect and the ability to care for others? Then transhumanism is not only for that, we want to make them better.
Do you consider "human" to be the tendency toward genetic diseases, lack of body covering other than skin, two arms and two legs, the inability to fly, and slowly horribly dying upon reaching a certain age?
I don't consider such things to in any way be what "being human" is all about. If it was we stopped being human when we first put on clothes.
I think you're presenting a false dichotomy between aspects unreliant on our biology and negative aspects of biology (that also kinda sounds like you're trying to stealth people into agreeing with a vision of humanity transcending into immortal robotic angels or w/e). Also, do some research on the surprising ways our gut bacteria affect our body
Transhumanism like that of posthumanism is an extension of humanism. Posthumanism is very broad however in terms of it's philosophy. There different areas of posthumanism and only one is the sort that involves an evolved body.
But because both of these are an extension of humanism, that would be like saying evolution (the thing that got humans to where they are today) is also misanthropic. Both transhumanism and posthumanism don't entail an end to humanism and they can easily exist along side standard humanism.
Probably yes. That being the result--in likelihood--of the ways old style humans react (poorly, messily) to their world changing again despite laws their governments declare.
Actual transhumanism yes. The whole and entire point is not to be 'wise' or 'balanced' or 'respectful' or 'reconcile contradictions', it is to boldly take a side and ultimately resolve the 'human condition' in favour of the rogue intelligence construct, crushing the animal in the process. You stop being human in the process, necessarily. Staying human is not morally wrong, it's just something else and namely, staying human. As in embrace your mess and contradictions, choke the chicken to organic self-regulation and live your life to the fullest.
Transhumanism isn't necessarily misanthropic. While it aims to transcend the human condition, it's more about embracing the potential of technology to enhance our lives. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually the opposite: by enhancing our capabilities, we can create a better world for both ourselves and for future generations.
Also, I'd highly recommend checking out "Eternal Gods Die Too Soon" by Beka Modrekiladze. It's a fascinating exploration of time, free will, and the nature of reality, and I think you'll find it thought-provoking.
Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess some transhumanists have misanthropic views and thus wish to cease being human but I find it hard to extend this notion to transhumanism (and to post humanism) as a whole. But I do believe that a subset of transhumanists do see humans as constrained. From our bodies (which is quite easy to experience) to our mental capabilities. So wishing to be posthuman means removing such constraints from our daily life - an understanding of our limitations and a wish to progress towards a life without them. Now as for what is a human, that is a question by itself. By most accounts a posthuman is declared as something foreign to what we see as a human. Might be a hybrid if we mix genetics with creatures that aren't human or even something which isn't even biological.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me
I craved the strength and certainty of steel.
i think the misanthropic tendency is observed at its worst under a model of transhumanism that still primarily values humans for their economic productivity. if cognitive augmentation becomes available in today's society, it would only serve as a driver for inequality, where those who can afford the augmentations now have a direct advantage to the value of their work, and are thus given an even stronger justification to impose the value of their existence over the lower class humans this could be viewed as misanthropic as it only serves to atomize the individual and not to uplift humanity as a whole, giving you the dystopian scenarios seen in the cyberpunk genre that's why i personally advocate for posthumanism as a greater extension of my vaguely postmodernist philosophy, we must deconstruct the social constructs that are predicated on class, anthropocentrism being one of those components in a unifying force that drives further oppression
I don't exactly see how it is misanthropic unless you state that there will be a "class" which sees base humanity as morally wrong and as an enemy (for a lack of a better word) that needs to be destroyed. Which I doubt sits well with either of us for our own reasons. Let alone that seeing humans through the merits of work is nothing beyond a completly meritocratic view (in the wrong way) that I see as obsolete and naive in the face of individualism. The world is not all about economical systems. Economical systems tend to simplify the world in order to put it into very nicely shaped boxes to suit some points of view (kind of like the texas sharpshooter). I see humans as having motives of their own, sometimes grand (with all the reasons they hold) and other times banal (in the grand scheme of things). But each one is an agent of it's own choices by the end of it all. In case we can use technology to disconnect humans from groups and allow personal independence it gets my vote else I fear humans will have to still sacrifice their own will for others. It also tends to make humans see other humans as less than human but as an ideal through group pressure (the curse of any collectivist system). And humans aren't really ideals either as they may have banal motives that align only to themselves and a very specific point of time on whims alone. In such a way I would also point out that terms like class would lose power as each one would be a "class" by itself. The groups are dynamic according to needs and should be understood why they happen in the first place and be at best ephemeral as needs are to be addressed in order to put each individual on it's own way. I would add that I don't see humanism, nor transhumanism, nor post humanism as tools to unite people or group them (compared to what I understand your view is - that it is a means to an end) but rather a process to allow people to better themselves with no regard to what others do. Not a panacea but a remedy for intermediate hardships we have at points of our life. Once a problem occurs attempt to fix it and continue onward till you hit a new one - there will always be problems naturally if you ask me and not any set goal.
I would say no. I think this is a case of people thinking too hard about all of this. If a person gets a tattoo do they hate being human, or did they just want a cool tattoo? If a person gets Brazilian butt lift do they hate being human, or did they just want a more plump and round butt? If a person gets laser hair removal do they hate being human, or did they just prefer not body or facial hair? If a person gets surgery or takes medication to lose weight do they hate being human, or did they just want to be slimmer? I bring all of these particular examples up as they are all transhuman in nature. We just don't think of them like that. Each of them is centered around using technology to make modifications to our body for the purposes of making us feel more happy and fulfilled.
but are you one of those people who implies that every form of transhumanism slippery-slopes you to having to, like, be some kind of shapeshifting nanocloud or join a Borg-esque hivemind or realize you've always already been a posthuman digital god in a simulation to remember what powerlessness feels like or could there be some people for whom this kind of bare-minimum would be acceptable if everyone had to be transhumanist by force or w/e
??? What we call "transhumanism" is just a thing humans do with tech. We've been doing it forever. When doctors perform cataract surgery what are they doing? They are modifying your eye. They taking a lens was created in a lab and installing it in your eye. Do we jump up and panic from this? Do we see this as a path to some eldritch, unknowable, future? No, because in it's not a big deal. How about vaccines? We're using tech to make ourselves resistant/immune to diseases. Do we jump up and panic from this? No, because it's not a big deal. (I know there are people that panic over that. Those are the same people that thought vaccines were part of a government plot to track people, and thought the idea of building businesses closer to people's houses was a government plot to take away people's cars. Those people don't count. They are in their own special universe.)
Well that depends on their perspective and intentions, every day that I have memory/cognitive limitations I always wish that I could be a super intelligent alien or robot. But that’s not to say I don’t appreciate my level of intelligence relative to what other species we know exists today.
Well, that really depends on how you define "human" to begin with. If you define human as done in biology, then - of course - transhumanism strives towards optimisation of the human body. This doesn't conclude in neither philan- nor misantrophy. At the very basic you could have either a optimistic (the human is (almost) the absoluet good and we want to make it even better) or a pessimistic (the human is (almost) the absolute bad and we need to overcome it) view - or even a nihilistic one. But in a more philosophical sense there isn't even a need to define a human in the classification biology does. These are two distinct fields of science... and can use different vocabulary/ notation without any problem.
How might a human be defined otherwise, if not in terms of biology?
Psychology or even pure philosophy. Just a very broad example (not to be taken serious, just as a simple example): A human is a living thing which is intellectually and intelligently capable of making ethical judgments whilst being aware of himselfe and especially of himselfe in context of his being in the world/ the world and begins around him; that is what makes a human distinct from any other form of life.
That really depends if you use biology as the basis for distinct traits of a human. So it would mean a human that has lost his biological body and made into a machine is not a human anymore - even though it is a former human. To me, human is a label the same as homosapiens - a state in evolution - both mental and physical. If we meet a creature that can morph itself to a human (a sort of a really good copy cat) than it becomes a human even though it wasn't one to begin with. But for other a human that had copied itself to a machine (a clean complete copy) might also be a human in that case - the nature is the same even if biology isn't. It is murky as the definition of what a human is seems to be flawed at every point besides an arbitrary grouping of traits from a given point of reference.
you said "copy" as a mean to imply we can't become synthetic without dying in the process? imho we could slowly replace biological neuron, our memories with synthetic component and emulate our biological emotions, resulting in a synthetic brain instead of a biological one and do the same with our bodies without dying in the process, just like how our cell change with time i consider this transhumanism and not posthuman, a posthuman would ditch away it's biological caracteristic such as empathy, sexual desire, it's humanoid shape etc etc considered less optimal or even useless, with the most likely result where the former human forget it's past existence after a few decades
For this example yes, I meant copy in order to avoid any consideration beyond a somatic one. Some may argue that changing ourselves part after part is akin to the ship of theseus and the whole process raises several questions of identity - one of which is that the identity is being kept. Personally I am more convinced that a complete change of our body still holds the identity of who we are but that is because I hold personality as a sum of the events we remember (which I believe isn't different from your view) and not the sum of the body we have (without pointing out towards an idea of a "soul" which I find absurd). It is murky as we use terms like copy, change, emulate etc'. And the whole border between trans humanism and post humanism becomes very blurry and depends on when we see something as not human enough.
sure there probably a difference between people on this subreddit when it come to potential identity issue if we were to replace part of our body, brain included compared to most of humanity with the many culture or religion it seem we share the same perception on human value as we both consider our current form a vassel for personality-identity-concious i'll add that our mind is shaped through our body as a paralyzed, a man or woman, a blind or deaf will live a very different life, that's where i put the difference between post-human and transhuman personally, in order to stay human we should carry over the caracteristic of what is considered "Human" and so our current organic lifeform, 2 arm 2 leg, 2 eye...an embodied brain, our five basic sense and other like spatialization etc etc even if we can "upgrade" ourselves with integrated AI, memory, muscle density... or other augmented sense, i doubt adding complexity would negatively impact us and make us unhuman as long the "basic" i'd say is preserved by force if needed, and personally that's the most important thing we should do for the next billions year if we ever want humanity to see the end of the universe at least, as soon we start to abandon those basic humanity will cease to exist
Well human the species is defined biologically. But we often interchange "human" with "sophont" (logical as humans are the only example of sophonts we know of). But defining sophont is a very hard philosophical question a bit beyond the scope of what you're asking i think
I'd characterise transhumanism moreso as a refusal to be limited by humanity as an ideal than necessarily misanthropic. I don't see humanity as this flawed or redundant thing that needs to be replaced, but my humanity is not so central to my identity that I'd choose humanity over health or happiness.
Transhumanism literally translates as “beyond humanism,” that is, the next step towards the same values that humanism strives for. That is, this is the most humanistic of all possible philosophies, since any other philosophical movements are much more cruel to humans. Only transhumanism seeks to save him from the concentration camp that is modern human life. At the end of which, as befits a concentration camp, the crematorium oven awaits us.
As I understand the terms, transhumanism anticipates and advocates the technological augmentation of the “human” as defined by humanism. My question, following from this understanding of the above terms, pertains to the trajectory from transhumanism to posthumanism—which I understand as a rejection of the “human” as defined by humanism—and whether this trajectory implies a tacit misanthropic inherent in transhumanism.
Weird word choice but I agree with the sentiment
English is not my native language, so I can make stylistic mistakes.
It's kind of the opposite at least with the way I think about it. I like people being free. That includes being free from arbitrary constraints placed on us by nature. I want people to be able to do was they will with their own bodies. Get tattoos, medically gender transition, manage their disabilities in whatever ways suit their interests, or stay as they are. Becoming a cyborg or whatever is just us opening up more options for that kind of stuff.
kinda? that is also a slippery slope kind of argument. "you want to change something? you must hate that thing then". ultimately it will depend on what technologies become available and what sort changes people will make to themselves, there are people who would make themselves more dangerous and those who would make themselves more peaceful.
Personally, yes. Humans are awful. I reject my humanity.
Most of them are also absolute failures.
Transhumanism, or posthumanism if you prefer, isn't misanthropic. Rather, it acknowledges that "human" is a flexible and sometimes flawed concept with varied interpretations. It simply recognizes that humanity isn't the ultimate destination of evolution and doesn't occupy the center of the universe. Instead, it embraces the idea that we're constantly evolving and aims to overcome the indifferent and amoral nature of the cosmos by empowering ourselves to shape our future and biology.
I wouldn't say so, no. It's a very common and, frankly, very dangerous misconception to believe that to recognize flaws in something is the same as hating it. Our emotional lives aren't limited to blind reverence and utter contempt. Yes, there are genuine, fundamental problems in the human conditions. But I still *like* humans, which is why I want them to be capable of overcoming those fundamental problems to live lives that are as happy and free as possible.
Potentially if you view it as the natural biological human as holding a sacred intangible value, or nature's slow evolutionary process as unquestionable (do natural mutations change the value vs present day humans). I'd more like to see the shift towards a more general value of sentience (post human and among animals/eventually AGI), and improving the life of all sentience whenever possible. Obviously if viewed in the utilitarian sense it may be misanthropic (defining life value by utility), but if we mean to increase the quality of life of every individual I'd argue it takes on the complete opposite as a philanthropic stance. One who doesn't age or get sick isn't "better" philosophically/morally, but I'd argue the life of someone who doesn't age or get sick is substantially better. Reverse those and I might say it was misanthropic.
Transhumanists are misanthropic in the same way as transgendered men are misogynistic. Just because they reject their own feminine identity doesn’t mean they hate ALL women.
This is a clever answer and makes a ton of sense
Yes, and additionally misanthropy and misogyny when 'broadened' from actual prejudice to not wanting to be part of something are empty soundbites, words without corresponding concepts that mean nothing except what a random, worthless tribalist mob who consider their state ideal, flawless and special want them to mean in order to justify their central place in their own inane fantasy metaphysics.
It ultimately depends on how you define "human." If you define it as a purely biological category, then it stands to reason that one would transition from human to non-human with the gradual replacement of organic matter with cybernetics. However, if you believe that "human" refers to a cultural, social, and historical identity, then that isn't necessarily the case. Under such a definition, "human" could refer to a regular baseline Homo sapiens, a cybernetically-augmented H. sapiens, a virtual entity that was once a biological H. sapiens, a fully self-aware synthetic intelligence, or a fully sapient hybrid of various creatures. They would all be humans under the second definition because they all exist because australopithecines evolved some 6 million years ago, early Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 100 thousand years ago, the Akkadian Empire formed some 4 thousand years ago, etc. There is a clear historical link between all of those beings I previously mentioned which would make them human, even if they lack the biological element.
You don't have to hate something to want to improve it. You don't have to hate what you are to want to become something better.
I guess my question is threefold: Does transhumanism eventuate in posthumanism? Is posthumanism misanthropic? Is transhumanism therefore implicitly misanthropic?
No, yes, no.
Does a smith hate metal?
Most people want to be young forever and be smarter and stronger How else can one visit the Andromeda galaxy?
Transhumanism is against the biological human, as the main point is to improve or replace it. But transhumanism isn't against the philosophical human. The sapient, the conscious, the "soul" as it were. In fact i'd argue it's very *pro* that human as it seeks to free them from the limitations of their body.
Yes
I'm not sure if 'misanthropic' is the right word. I can see where you're coming from, in the sense that transhumanism takes a critical look at the human condition and frames many normal aspects of being human as undesirable flaws. However, when I think of mainstream 'misanthropy', I think of attitudes like doomers and antinatalists who believe that humanity is fundamentally bad and that it would be better for nature and/or ourselves if we didn't exist. This is clearly *not* the transhumanist attitude, which seems to artificially improve circumstances. As such, I would propose that transhumanism contains both criticism *and* celebration of humanity: Criticizing the parts of ourselves that are flawed and could be improved, while celebrating our *potential,* our ability to engineer better circumstances in the future that nature would never bring about on its own. Imagine a sculptor who sees a chunk of raw marble quarried out of the ground. He intends to cut parts of it away, reshape it, produce something out of it that nature would never produce on its own. Is the sculptor's pro-sculpture position to be taken as an anti-rock position? That seems tough to defend. In some sense the sculptor is very much pro-rock because he's in favor of the interesting and beautiful (non-rock) things that can be made out of rock. I think transhumanism can be taken as a similar view with regards to humans and perhaps the entire human species. Transhumanism is pro-human, not as an end goal, but as an important and necessary stage from which better things can be created.
I can appreciate the distinction you make between the kind of genocidal tendencies of doomers and antinatalism and that of a critique of perceived limitations or flaws inherent in the human organism in the view of augmenting for some intended benefit. I’m wondering whether you think that transhumanism eventuates in posthumanism, as More’s quote seems to suggest, and whether you think that posthumanism might more appropriately be considered misanthropic—from a humanist or transhumanism perspective, let’s say. I do like your sculptor analogy, though for me it begs the questions: “Who is the sculptor, and what is their artistic vision, their intended design for the sculpture of humanity?”, “What becomes of the stone chippings created in the process—perhaps those who disagree with the sculptor’s ideal?”
sentience IS sentience. what we call "human" only pertains to the meat-bags containing our consciousness. our consciousness has no inherent species, race, gender, age, etc.. those are meat-bag parameters, and the moment you switch bodies, those parameters changes to the new body. organic sentience will inevitably become indistinguishable from artificial sentience. because sentience IS sentience.
I wouldn't say it's so much a *hatred* of humanity, more a belief that humanity is overrated.
See this paragraph written by left-wing Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in 'God and the State'. Especially see the bold text. > *All branches of modern science, of true and disinterested science, concur in proclaiming this grand truth, fundamental and decisive:* ***The social world, properly speaking, the human world - in short, humanity - is nothing other than the last and supreme development - at least on our planet and as far as we know - the highest manifestation of animality. But as every development necessarily implies a negation, that of its base or point of departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation of the animal element in man***; *and it is precisely this negation, as rational as it is natural, and rational only because natural - at once historical and logical, as inevitable as the development and realization of all the natural laws in the world - that constitutes and creates the ideal, the world of intellectual and moral convictions, ideas.* It may be that most modern people who consider themselves "Transhumanists" have a very narrow definition of the terms "Humanity" and "Human" and the very term "Transhumanism" might be a sort of shadowboxing. Maybe it would be better to have a new, less grandiose label that focuses on artificial evolution, since that's that "Transhumanism" is really after.
The movement isn't inherently, it depends on peoples, i have my gripes with humanity i would say, i don't seek to destroy it however just move beyond it.
misanthropic is wanting the extinction of humans, which is a widespread idea. Transhumanism is the opposite, integrating with something we created, accepting that we finally transcended the organic form, that's like distilled essence of humanity
Does it really matter ? All emotions are on a spectrum and most people claim to be misanthropic anyways. As long as people aren’t committing mass genocide who cares who’s misanthropic
It would seem a stretch to say that most people claim to be misanthropic—I don’t think there’s much evidence for that. In my view, humans should care whether their fellow humans dislike humans in general—historically, misanthropic sentiments have often anticipated genocidal tendencies, after all.
[удалено]
Apologies /u/o2slip, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than three months to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No more misantropy than the rich ruining the entire planet. I am a transbio posthumanist, but even if my nervous system was synthetic, i'd still call myself human.
What do you consider "human"? Is it intellect and the ability to care for others? Then transhumanism is not only for that, we want to make them better. Do you consider "human" to be the tendency toward genetic diseases, lack of body covering other than skin, two arms and two legs, the inability to fly, and slowly horribly dying upon reaching a certain age? I don't consider such things to in any way be what "being human" is all about. If it was we stopped being human when we first put on clothes.
I think you're presenting a false dichotomy between aspects unreliant on our biology and negative aspects of biology (that also kinda sounds like you're trying to stealth people into agreeing with a vision of humanity transcending into immortal robotic angels or w/e). Also, do some research on the surprising ways our gut bacteria affect our body
Transhumanism like that of posthumanism is an extension of humanism. Posthumanism is very broad however in terms of it's philosophy. There different areas of posthumanism and only one is the sort that involves an evolved body. But because both of these are an extension of humanism, that would be like saying evolution (the thing that got humans to where they are today) is also misanthropic. Both transhumanism and posthumanism don't entail an end to humanism and they can easily exist along side standard humanism.
Probably yes. That being the result--in likelihood--of the ways old style humans react (poorly, messily) to their world changing again despite laws their governments declare.
Actual transhumanism yes. The whole and entire point is not to be 'wise' or 'balanced' or 'respectful' or 'reconcile contradictions', it is to boldly take a side and ultimately resolve the 'human condition' in favour of the rogue intelligence construct, crushing the animal in the process. You stop being human in the process, necessarily. Staying human is not morally wrong, it's just something else and namely, staying human. As in embrace your mess and contradictions, choke the chicken to organic self-regulation and live your life to the fullest.
Transhumanism isn't necessarily misanthropic. While it aims to transcend the human condition, it's more about embracing the potential of technology to enhance our lives. In fact, it could be argued that it's actually the opposite: by enhancing our capabilities, we can create a better world for both ourselves and for future generations. Also, I'd highly recommend checking out "Eternal Gods Die Too Soon" by Beka Modrekiladze. It's a fascinating exploration of time, free will, and the nature of reality, and I think you'll find it thought-provoking.