Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Agree With Transhumanism

I think transhumanism, under the current economic system, presents certain political problems which make the prospect of merging humans with technology somewhat foreboding. We can all think of examples like chip-tracking, mass surveillance, and the like, but there is also a threat of eugenics, in a certain form. The technology upgrades designed for humans would very easily come under the more immediate access of the wealthy and powerful. In this sense, transhumanist tactics would be used by them to solidify their power through technological advancement. However, the optimistic point is that there will always be those dissidents who develop this same technology and attempt to create mass resistance. The latter camp is the one which will realize, should it ever come to pass, the real potential of transhumanist tactics.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Pfuzylogic · M

That is quite an imagination or do you think that could be possibly taking place now.
I think of China of enslaving their people in that manner consistent with how they currently use the biometrics of facial recognition to classify their “citizens” with a social score.

View 5 more replies »

Pfuzylogic · M

@SourPennies
We must have had different experiences with the Chinese then.
I met many in my Computer Science graduate program.
I don’t consider myself to have the definitive experience with the Chinese but I do consider CNET.com to be an authoritative news source.

SourPennies · 26-30, F

To be fair, I don't think that everyone has a good time over there. It's not a utopia, certainly not for bourgeois families, many of whom do emigrate to other countries where they won't be watched as heavily. But frankly, I support the political repression of the bourgeois because where they are repressed by the government, workers' rights tend to thrive, as they are now in China, where workers' rights are now stronger than in Australia.

Pfuzylogic · M

@SourPennies
Politics can be such a flaky thing.
Look at the maelstrom in the US if you need to see the ugly.

Ra184 · 22-25, M

Transhumanism on a more biochemical front would be more successful. Like in a decade or two further progress in virology and mutation can yield possible results is my belief. As for chips and stuff, it would make us a lot more vulnerable in case of targeted violence and thus it would be best if they are best placed at a place where it is removable. As for Eugenic's it simply would be Natures law expressed through society.

SourPennies · 26-30, F

@Ra184 Eugenics is selective purely on the part of humans. There is nothing law-like about it. Social species, for example, tend to survive and thrive more effectively if they assist the weak. In other words, the "natural" thing would be to give full advantage to as many people as possible, since it would entail the further expansion and domination of our species, if you want to speak in purely Darwinian terms.

Platoscave · F

I don't really understand it all very well...yet

But if some algorithms have decided that mass decisions or group decisions are overarching...

You know, just like in REAL life...

then how do we approach the need to consult the "leader"... when things get screwed up

when that dude isn't even HUMAN?

Platoscave · F

good points I say...

MethDozer · M

The cult if David Pearce should call itself what it really is. Anti-humanism.

Add a comment...