2

Do AnTranshumanists propose altering humans through genetic engineering, or by upgrading our bodies or by downloading our consciousness into machines?

Submitted by anarchoreposter in Anarchism

There is no principally given direction. Generally, as transhumanists we understand ourselves as an outgrowth or development from Humanism - our goal is to improve and transform the human condition through the development and making available a variety of advanced technologies. One common abbreviation for the key techs is GRIN (Genetics, Robotics, Information Sciences and Nanotechnology.)

Second to this is the idea of morphological freedom and freedom of agency. We don't want anything for you in particular beyond giving you the principal and open ability to improve yourself, if you so wish. (related to that is the demand that you respect other people's access and freedom to this, as well.) You don't want to use genetic engineering? Or you prefer having your consciousness reside in an augmented biological brain in your body of choice? Go for it. And if you do want to build your dream reality as an upload running at 30 times sidereal speed on a quantum computation substrate circling our sun, go knock yourself out. (there is a whole lot of secondary aspects and arguments and details here, but let's leave those out for now.)

It can be said however that as such, pursuing all paths is the way to greatest freedom for all agents. We're interested in biological engineering as much as cybernetics and whole-brain emulation.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

betterletter wrote

I'm not one myself, but I know some ATH support either or both. Personally both scare me.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

People really shouldn't be afraid of genetic/cybernetic augmentation. We're far more likely to destroy the planet in the beginning stages of developing that infrastructure than actually achieving it in any sort of meaningful sense.

3

ConquestOfToast wrote

This is the shit that made me leave @h+. It's like you took the shittiest parts of technofetishism and technoprogressive nonsense and haphazardly stapled on "but like for everyone!!". Human interactions with technology need to be dismantled and rebuilt in a decentralized fashion otherwise the end result of your "liberation" is just colonialist nonsense painted chrome. Nothing you've said here is actually anything close to resembling theory. It's just fantasizing about some indeterminate time period where this technology will be available to you with no consideration as to how you'd get there. It's the same shit primmies do and it's boring.

2

betterletter wrote

damn dude that was cold... right now im going through a bit of a primitive streak right now but i cant argue that youre totally right about it sometimes being just @h+ fantasies in reverse

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

And like don't get me wrong. I have a seething hatred of primitivism while transhumanism I see as more of a really really annoying half measure.

2

ConquestOfToast wrote

Both transhumanism and primitivism break apart due to raising Nature and Man to weird religious levels. While transhumanism has a bit more wiggle room for what Man is, that wiggling is it's claim to liberation, while primitivism promises liberation through subservience to Nature. Neither of which are actually liberatory.