Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The belief that using technology to improve one's life is a good idea is an ideology regardless of whether you like giving it a label.



I suppose watering down a definition until it's completely generic is one way to protect it from criticism.


Sure. And it is a valid response to the opposite tactic, of looking at the most concentrated and fringe.

It seems like asking the question "what does the typical transhumanist actually think?" is relevant.


It’s one thing to say “most of us don’t believe the extreme worldview those few crackpot members of our community are spewing, transhumanism is actually… <proceed to refute the whackos>”

It’s another thing to tacitly agree with the crackpots but deceptively present a more moderate stance to keep people naïve and initiate new members using an attenuated worldview.

Let’s hear it, “what does a typical transhumanist think?”


Do you think people are doing to second option? I dont think that transhumanists are a cohesive community in any meaningful sense, not any more than religious people, technologists, or environmentalists are a community.

There are tons of comments describing what typical transhumanists believe, but I think it boils down to the idea that humans can and should seek to modify themselves, and such a processes would be an improvement. In practical terms, this means they favor cybernetics and genetic modification.

Compare that with the loaded statement from the article's author talking about destiny and salvation

> transhumanists have deepened their belief in a fated future in which the human species will achieve “augmented” evolution through fusing with machines, leading to the emergence of an artificial superintelligence that will far outstrip all human knowledge and achieve God-like powers (The Singularity). This digital deity will lead us to a new era, in which all human biological limitations will be transcended; bringing about end to sickness, suffering and even death, and leading us to colonise the cosmos.


I think you’re giving transhumanism an elementary treatment. Everybody believes to some degree that it’s okay to “modify themselves” or, more generally, to apply technology to humans to achieve better outcomes. If you apply aloe vera to a sunburn, or install a hearing aid, you’re augmenting human facilities for a better outcome. And most relevant here: You don’t need a religious movement to adopt that worldview. Corollary: supporting hearing aid use doesn't make you a transhumanist in any actual way (even if there are a few THs out there that would argue that’s all it takes, for then everyone is a TH so nobody is).

Again, an average transhumanist does not “simply believe” that they need a movement and religion achieve human augmentation. Because that is our societal resting state. Or if they do they are blissfully naïve.

So now that we’re past that, if you actually discuss the subject matter at any depth, you’ll quickly get to the fundamental question and learn what makes a transhumanist different from everyday humans that have been augmenting themselves with technology for millennia: what is a human? What is a species?

A transhumanist embraces the singularity, for example, because they are not concerned with losing our humanity. (Because if one were concerned then it would be inconsistent for one to embrace an event where humans are obsoleted.) For a transhumanist it’s okay for the human race to become extinct provided we witness the coming of a more powerful consciousness.

More practically, what makes the discussion even possible is that we don’t really know what makes us human. If we did people could either take clear sides and/or you could clearly protect the essence of human through arbitrary technological augmentation.

I believe that until we identify what makes our conscious experience uniquely possible, we must protect the system that gives rise to it: our species. Until humans have the knowledge of god, humans shall not play god. A transhumanist would use my own argument against me and say that humans _are and always have been_ the product of augmentation, so come what may.

Make sense?

From my reading of TFA the author’s statement is not radical and indeed rather accurate. I am pretty sure they have a fairly complete understanding of the landscape.


The author may have a complete understanding of the landscape, but they did not strike me as honest. I found them deceptive, misleading, and manipulative instead. That is to say, I dont think they presented an accurate picture of the world, and did so intentionally, conflating religious metaphors throughout and playing up emotional tropes throughout.

I think a more accurate phrasing is that a transhumanist would not consider change to be the same as extinction or death.

They aren't worrying about losing some unique but undefinable essence, but assume any valuable essence would be carried along. I dont think they view change in the US vs them paradigm. Instead, it is US and US with differences.

They would say god gave us the tools to make children and alter ourselves, so doing so is not playing god.


I am really receptive of transhumanist goals. I think it’d be cool as shit to upload my consciousness into the internet and download it into a robot. I’m not worried about an AI super event killing us all. Mechanical wombs seem like they’d solve a lot of the tension around biologically assigned sex. Etc.

But you have to admit, and you did as much in your comment, it’s a pretty huge assumption right now that anything we do would innately carry our souls forward. I’m not willing to just assume. I want certainty and proof. I am sure there are some more extreme humanists out there who are more conservative than me, but all I’m asking is that as we apply technology we remain reverent of our souls. This seems like such a simple almost pedantic thing to be hung up on, but indeed it is exactly what distinguishes a humanist and transhumanist. The burden of proof is on you (royally, rhetorically) to prove that we’ll still have souls after uploading our consciousness to a machine.

And, logically, if you prove human continuity then it’s not trans anymore. Transhumanists don’t have a fundamental reverence for humanity, definitionally. They advocate for the application of technology without the assurance that our humanity will remain in tact. They hold an axiomatic belief that we humans are capable of transferring our species into a digital media. A belief that transferring a consciousness to a robot also retains the soul. And that replication of transhuman entities creates new souls. Etc.

I support research and exploration of these topics. But I’m not going to stake humanity on some belief that this is the future or even that it’s assumed to be possible.

PS most all cultures with the notion of god reserve god the right to bestow the essence of life into the biological human. Your final statement does not align with my understanding of any Christian religion out there in the assertion that since god gave us the tools to create humans biologically it’s appropriate for humans to create life spiritually. I don’t necessarily hold that to be ultimately true, but I do hold a reverence for life until we actually understand it. We currently have no idea what constitutes human life, whether our soul is the manifestation of our synapses quantum entangled to a substrate we have yet to identify, or entirely emergent from more simple mechanical biology. We need to answer that first before we can suppose to upload our species into some digital medium.


Im actually one of the humanists that are more conservative on the topic than you. I just don't think the article treated the reader and subject with honesty and respect.

I don't think transhumanists believe in a supernatural spirit or soul, but that the human spirit, or at least the good part, isn't tied to biology.

For myself, I'm skeptical of the entire utilitarian hedonist project, which transhumanism rests on. I think there are human values that are higher than pleasure and happiness. Values like love, honor, duty, compassion, and sacrifice. I think the biological human condition could be favorable for these in a way that some virtual bliss-state is not.

I don't need cherry picked scare quotes to disagree with aspects of transhumanism. I would rather debate the strongest case for transhumanism, not a weak strawman.


I think the term posthuman captures things concisely. Most transhumanists seek a posthuman future. Maybe the author's word soup wasn't fully charitable, but I understood the sentiment. I do think given that the author is exploring whether transhumanist movement constitutes a cult, it's maybe fair to pull on some of the more cult-like endgame that does exist in sub-genres. Agree/disagree.

Anyway I do agree that the human condition gives rise to favorable qualities in individuals and the larger population. I don't support utilitarian hedonism either. I will say my experience discussing transhumanism has usually been in terms of becoming posthuman and the notion of a virtual bliss-state, if mentioned, is more if an intriguing a side-quest, but we might just have different exposures there.

I mean I still think there are problems with becoming post human even if you remove the utilitarian hedonism from the mix, I guess. In the author's defense this is a difficult topic to articulate.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: