/th/ - Transhumanism

Cyberpunk → high tech, low life
Transhumanism → high tech, high life

For me it's more like a religion…

But that just because I am a pseudo-deist post-humanist materialist techprist…

(to clarify I can accept god definitions not dependent on magic hence pseudo-deist (godlike things can exist), post-humanist should be obvious…
materialist again is this rejection of magic and the unexplainable and a firm certainty that there is only the physical world and all other things are subsets of it… like the mental world which is software running in bio computers called brains…

and lastly the techprist thing is just so i get to call people heretics if i like… (typically Intel and apple users and anyone who dose not follow web standards (I hold a dogmatic belief in the w3c specifications… as technical specifications are the only human knowledge that benefits from dogmatic adherence…))

For me transhumanism is the ultimate political solution, well anarcho-transhumanism actually. I believe that with technology eliminating death and menial labor there would be no more need for class struggles and legislature, so states and capitalism can be abolished once and for all. With states and capitalism out of the picture we can all seek to improve the quality of our lives and the lives of other because there will be no more need to compete for positions of power or wealth.

>>63

This is naive. The competition will still be there, it'll just look different.

There is no perfect utopia, and if you think there'll be no state in a world where everyone has access to fusion power, I have news for you.

This is a major problem with futurism in general; the most vocal proponents have unrealistic expectations.

Think about it: we have portable communication devices, superior agriculture, and extremely smart calculators. Are we living in a utopia?

>>66
Why so cynical? Who's to say at that point access to the most destructive forces in the entire universe would be dangerous to transhuman life?

>>89

This is /th/, not /pol/.

I wish they would raid /th/, the flood of traffic would get this board to the top bar and then I'd ban all the raiders.

>>91
that guy has it completely wrong. The post on /leftypol/ is not calling for a raid, it's calling for some of the many transhumanists on /leftypol/ to visit /th/ to kick it off the ground and to have some political diversity so that it doesn't become a stormfaggot hellhole like every other board.

>>93

Really? Then they'd be appreciated.

Speaking in my capacity as board owner, I do not particularly give a fuck about most left/right shenanigans. The board's position is that transhumanists need to get allies where we can find them, as both the right and the left have their luddites.

The "right" is generally in favor of genetic improvement but screeches about degeneracy with regard to certain classes of modification. A lot of "muh humanity" there.

The "left" is generally open to people altering themselves but has a particularly loud and annoying segment that screeches about, for example, bioengineered food.

And of course a shit-ton of people on both sides love screaming about how we'll never get this technology because it'll all be controlled by the [Jews/corporations]. I offer a different perspective: Prospective immortals must know that they do not have their interests served by creating a potentially violent underclass of people who desperately don't want to die.

This goes back to the basic premise: Nobody on either side particularly wants to be basically tortured to death by failing kidneys and dementia, but a lot of people just don't realize that their choices are limited to the following: either receive improvements that prevent degenerative death, or die slowly.

>>96
Basically what you are saying is that the problem is the "muh feels" people. Those certainly do exist on both sides, primarily in the form of theocrats and nazis on the right and in the form of greenies and primitivists on the left. The problem lies in the fact that both the right and the left believe that the other side has more of the "muh feels" type. I can't deny that as a leftist I believe there are more feely plebs on the right.

>>97
what's exactly wrong with "muh feels"? are you fedora enough to think humans are creatures of logic and reason and not hormones-powered animals? aren't all morals based on people's feelings? or are you an edgelord on the lines of "durr morals don't real"?

>>98
example: feels people use memes to convey their messages
funfact: memes are invented by corporations constantly to disseminate profitable idea
conclusion: fuck off feelsfag, enjoy your corporate sponsored methods of dealing with ideas that make you think

>>99
way to not actually reply to any of the questions i've raised

>>101
>what's exactly wrong with "muh feels"?
Muh feels people rely on anti-intellectual premanufactured bullshit ideas to get by in life. They do not wish to exist their comfort zones ideologically for fear of "muh feels hurt".
>are you fedora enough to think humans are creatures of logic and reason and not hormones-powered animals?
I believe that there are some humans that have transcended the corporate/religious/government-sponsered bullshit kinds of feels most of us are trained to experiance.
> aren't all morals based on people's feelings?
Yes, morals are. That's why morals are shitty. You shouldn't need some kind of sad feeling to motivate you not to murder people, simple consideration of consequence should be enough.
>or are you an edgelord on the lines of "durr morals don't real"?
Morals are most certainly real. But they are just ideas, and shitty ones at that. People that forget about morals are the best people. Immoral people are not generous or kind because some fucking lunatic convinced them it's the "right" thing to do, they are kind and generous because it is the loical thing to do for it stimulates a feeling of comfort for both parties and creates a sense of trust which is advantageous for survival.

>>105
*exit instead of exist
*logical instead of loical

>>93
>this guy has it completely wrong
Yeah I guess that why you bring anarchism to a board which has almost nothing to do with it.
And I guess that why there is already a thread with anarchy flag " >not being one with nature".
Transhumanism has nothing to do with pol or leftypol, but the moment you discovered this, you advocated to invade it, and I'll quote again "Make it anti-capitalistic" . Why the hell would you like to influence a board, which which has the main purpouse to talk about transumanism?

The thread over there isn't dead, so anyone can go and see it.


>>95
>Oh no he discovered our rade
>better act like a retard xDD

>>105
>I believe that there are some humans that have transcended the corporate/religious/government-sponsered bullshit kinds of feels most of us are trained to experiance.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that emotions are creations of these institutions? From my understanding, and emotionless creature would have no motivation to do anything, emotion is basically self-interest, even psychopaths have emotion they just don't have group selfishness emotion such as guilt, emotion lies at the core of any doctrine, logic is a tool, it is not a belief system in and of itself. So how did these humans "transcend" emotion? Are you one of them?

trans = beyond
über = beyond

beyond human, übermensch…

i would make a connection to nietzsche and define it as an -ism grown out of a metaphysical concept

ie the question
is a human with a robot arm still human?
this might seem like a physical question, and on that level you'd might have to answer yes

from a metaphysical perspective the answer might differ, answering such a specimen became something diffirent, an uberhuman, beyond human

to me as an perspectivist it seems to be a matter of definition

—————————————–
cyberpunk

punk
punk is the philosophy of 'no future'
it's anti system based on the preassumption it will inevitably fail

hence, no future

cyberpunk is a predicted movement in an artform
there always have been end time freaks so why nne in the future

>>148

There is nothing fundamental about transhumanizing technologies that cannot be managed with current philosophical concepts, such as the right to personal privacy, utilitarianism, the medical concept of beneficience, charity, and egalitarianism.

That last one is particularly important to understand in light of economic equalities that drive so much anti-transhumanist thought.

Suppose an improvement technology was developed that enhanced some aspect of humanity: intelligence, reflexes, longevity. It would be considerably less ethical in every sense to force both people to suffer than to simply let the rich man get it first, then speed its commercialization so that the poor man (and every other poor man) also get it.

>>149
>Suppose an improvement technology was developed
This part is what makes transhumanism transhumanism. Introduction of new technology that throws our familiar playing field off it's usual balance and puts light on thing that were here all this time but we didn't really cared about until now.

>utopia
>Epicurus
Fuck off, you're just one small segment of transhumanism not the entirety of it.
Implying related vid isn't transhumanism even though it clearly has nothing to do with utopia and is Nietzsche rather than Epicurus.

>>67
Entropy. Desirable states are an extremely small subset of all states. A major change will therefore be towards a state that is undesirable unless specified. Personal power increases the size of changes with no particular preference for desirable states, because physics is amoral. Therefore the ability to create undesirable states increases, leaving the local mediocrity of murder and genocide and entering planetary or universal annihilation. This is not ideology, this is physics. Unless the universe is benevolent, an increase in power increases the relative ease of destruction.

>>66
Utopia would have to not be run by fickle, hyper-selfish (not just seeking personal gain, but others' ruin) humans. Either forcefully change human psychology not to prefer getting $50 oneself over having everyone get $100, or hand rule to an artificial intelligence. The AI would make the universe available to (post-)humans benevolent, and so great power can be held safely.

>>98
1. They listen too much to base emotions and initial judgments, usually colored by their ideology.
2. I'm autistic enough to note they're powered by glucose, that's for sure.
3. No. Morality is not located in the limbic system. People willingly overpower their feelings for a reasoned greater good, and are often right to do so (e.g. overcoming addiction, doing your homework, etc.). It is separate.

>>120
Look up Kahneman's "System 1"/"System 2" classification. Morality - perhaps ethics is a better word - exists in system 2 - it is slow and deliberate. But you can use it to motivate action.