Diego, anything that improves the human condition is ‘transhuman.’ Cooking, Jethro Tull’s seed drill, vaccination, education, human rights as a social convention.… We’ll do the best we can within the constraints we face.
That’s misleading and unhelpful. There are many people in favor of transhumanism and people who specifically oppose it but still favor new technologies. So that broad a notion of transhumanism doesn’t capture the intuition people have. Transhumanism seems to focus on the use of technology to specifically increase human intellectual and physical capability, and to greatly extend lifespans. That would seem to be a more useful definition for capturing what people mean.
One perspective is that Transhumanism is nothing but simplified humanism. Eliezer asks: “Doesn’t that make the philosophy trivial...?” and answers in the negative.
But I appreciate the other perspective that answers: yes, this just trivializes the philosophy.
Of the 7 Extropian Principles, another take on Transhumanism, only one is “Intelligent technology.” If you went by the other 6, would it still be a Transhumanist life-view?
Sure, one can see it as a the logical outgrowth of simplified humanism, but that’s still a distinct claim (and to some extent a third way of reading it). If one sees transhumanism in that way then one can argue that people who favor technological and medical improvements but not the full gamut of extended life spans, etc. are being inconsistent, but that’s a distinct claim.
Diego, anything that improves the human condition is ‘transhuman.’ Cooking, Jethro Tull’s seed drill, vaccination, education, human rights as a social convention.… We’ll do the best we can within the constraints we face.
That’s misleading and unhelpful. There are many people in favor of transhumanism and people who specifically oppose it but still favor new technologies. So that broad a notion of transhumanism doesn’t capture the intuition people have. Transhumanism seems to focus on the use of technology to specifically increase human intellectual and physical capability, and to greatly extend lifespans. That would seem to be a more useful definition for capturing what people mean.
One perspective is that Transhumanism is nothing but simplified humanism. Eliezer asks: “Doesn’t that make the philosophy trivial...?” and answers in the negative.
But I appreciate the other perspective that answers: yes, this just trivializes the philosophy.
Of the 7 Extropian Principles, another take on Transhumanism, only one is “Intelligent technology.” If you went by the other 6, would it still be a Transhumanist life-view?
Sure, one can see it as a the logical outgrowth of simplified humanism, but that’s still a distinct claim (and to some extent a third way of reading it). If one sees transhumanism in that way then one can argue that people who favor technological and medical improvements but not the full gamut of extended life spans, etc. are being inconsistent, but that’s a distinct claim.