Quite a few associations rooted in transhumanism have attempted (whether they did so successfully is questionable) to distance themselves from the crazy-sounding (to a mainstream audience) plain description of their original goals and beliefs, in an effort to attract more and better quality funding and following (such as academia).
I think I’m observing an emerging pattern, where several loaded topics such as transhumanism and cryonics have become much more controversial and unfashionable in places which previously championed them, and Lesswrong is no exception, as there’s been concern that such topics may not have their place on a forum devoted to rationality.
Huh. Both of these names seem pretty terrible to me. Longecity just sounds peculiar and unmemorable, while “Immortality Institute” seems ridiculously overblown as “a plain description of their original goals and beliefs.” And there is a “Life Extension Foundation.”
Humanity+, formerly The World Transhumanist Association
I think that they were trying to avoid sounding “anti-human,” which “Transhumanist” has some connotations of. Those connotations are significantly true if we’re talking about allowing serious genetic enhancement, or the creation of brain emulations, although I’m pretty sure that transhumanist overwhelmingly want the welfare and survival of existing humans (such as themselves!) protected.
Also, historically, I think that this was a ploy at increasing growth and becoming more fashionable, rather than a reaction to increasing unfashionability.
The Singularity Institute remains named so, but seems willing to follow suit.
The SI is small relative to other forces shaping the popular meaning of the term Singularity, e.g. Kurzweil’s books, or people using the term “Singularity” to talk about advances in video game technology (which has actually happened at a major conference). So it’s hard to avoid confusion with other meanings of the word, or with different views and organizations (e.g. people confuse SI for Singularity University fairly often).
You appear to express this connection (transhumanism being unfashionable) yourself in this sentence : Denotationally crazy political (namely, transhumanist) rhetoric.
I would make similar comments about denotationally crazy rhetoric on behalf of other political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, and so on. I was saying first that the claims were factually false, and second that they were being made in an ideologically charged way that it’s helpful to avoid. I certainly don’t think that transhumanism implies denotational craziness much more than other ideologies. If anything, I’d say the opposite, because of the high average levels of education, intelligence, secularism, and so forth among transhumanists and the concordance of their ethical views with elites along those dimensions who do not self-identify as transhumanist.
Quite a few associations rooted in transhumanism have attempted (whether they did so successfully is questionable) to distance themselves from the crazy-sounding (to a mainstream audience) plain description of their original goals and beliefs, in an effort to attract more and better quality funding and following (such as academia).
Compare :
Longecity, formerly The Immortality Institute
Humanity+, formerly The World Transhumanist Association
The Singularity Institute remains named so, but seems willing to follow suit.
I think I’m observing an emerging pattern, where several loaded topics such as transhumanism and cryonics have become much more controversial and unfashionable in places which previously championed them, and Lesswrong is no exception, as there’s been concern that such topics may not have their place on a forum devoted to rationality.
You appear to express this connection (transhumanism being unfashionable) yourself in this sentence : Denotationally crazy political (namely, transhumanist) rhetoric.
Huh. Both of these names seem pretty terrible to me. Longecity just sounds peculiar and unmemorable, while “Immortality Institute” seems ridiculously overblown as “a plain description of their original goals and beliefs.” And there is a “Life Extension Foundation.”
I think that they were trying to avoid sounding “anti-human,” which “Transhumanist” has some connotations of. Those connotations are significantly true if we’re talking about allowing serious genetic enhancement, or the creation of brain emulations, although I’m pretty sure that transhumanist overwhelmingly want the welfare and survival of existing humans (such as themselves!) protected.
Also, historically, I think that this was a ploy at increasing growth and becoming more fashionable, rather than a reaction to increasing unfashionability.
The SI is small relative to other forces shaping the popular meaning of the term Singularity, e.g. Kurzweil’s books, or people using the term “Singularity” to talk about advances in video game technology (which has actually happened at a major conference). So it’s hard to avoid confusion with other meanings of the word, or with different views and organizations (e.g. people confuse SI for Singularity University fairly often).
I would make similar comments about denotationally crazy rhetoric on behalf of other political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, and so on. I was saying first that the claims were factually false, and second that they were being made in an ideologically charged way that it’s helpful to avoid. I certainly don’t think that transhumanism implies denotational craziness much more than other ideologies. If anything, I’d say the opposite, because of the high average levels of education, intelligence, secularism, and so forth among transhumanists and the concordance of their ethical views with elites along those dimensions who do not self-identify as transhumanist.