It seems that a few English idioms are not within my house for wheels.

I do appreciate the tender attention to my details.

Despite my personal doubts regarding transhumanism, that consider historical experience from the failed ,,homo soveticus’’ project, hence the effectiveness and optimality of the problem-solution path, I do find the movement rather refreshing in terms of daring life-approvement absolutism. — Voidrunner

:up:

What excites me is a willingness to fuck with the code. It may be a terrible idea, but it's hard for me to expect much from the tired, other ideas that leave the code as it is. I don't expect to live long enough to see any brave new world that might arrive, so it's more of a theoretical-aesthetic point for me.

What excites me is a willingness to fuck with the code. It may be a terrible idea, but it's hard for me to expect much from the tired, other ideas that leave the code as it is. I don't expect to live long enough to see any brave new world that might arrive, so it's more of a theoretical-aesthetic point for me. — Zugzwang

I fuck with the code every night. My wife likes it. I'm currently try to change the code (helped by the brain that radiates into the body) of tooth cells and their surroundings so a lost tooth will grow back.

It's bs to me.

Don't think it's a moral debate worth having. If it can be done it will be and I don't suspect any of us are going to win an argument with a 400 IQ posthuman with a brain full of cybernetic implants and lab grown add ons, nor prevail against their 9'8 stature, 6 brawny arms, and adamantium bones. So, I'd prefer to join them and be an X-Man too.

To be sure, God will liquidate them if they are abominations, but this could be the next step in our redemption. The ape brain isn't so good at avoiding sin.

Plus the Chinese are already looking at it so we have to, and then I'm sure the ETs already did it so humanity has to. It's a highly modified techno dog eats regular bio dog universe out there if Earth is any example.

I don't understand what this thread is about? We have, and will always, keep on keeping on. I'm sure some people are not 'supportive' about everyone using computers ... so what?

I don't get what the OP is trying to get to here.

It's bs to me. — RAW

Best shit?

I do appreciate the tender attention to my details — Zugzwang

Excuse me?

I am somewhat supportive of transhumanism. I think there are extremes that could be considered outside of my support, similar to how I think of religious fantasism. I think we should take it slow and steady when it comes to converting ourselves into machine entities, if we do. I do think that the only way we are going to survive off our home world is by transitioning our main Sapient Hominoid species over to something purely mechanical or somewhat cyborg. I actually wrote a blog that turned into a short book on what I call "Robot Life." You can find it on amazon. I look forward to reading the posts here. Hearing other people's thoughts on the matter is of some interest to me.

With that said, what is your opinion of Transhumanism? It will be interesting to see how we collectively perceive this technological, philosophical cultural phenomenon.[...]
The purpose of this thread is to query the zeitgeist of our community concerning an "underground" current that will certainly, eventually become mainstream — Bret Bernhoft

I agree it's inevitable that human beings will continue to use technology to enhance and expand their natural powers (so long as we continue to exist as a species with advanced technological culture). Accordingly, it's important, perhaps even urgent, that we manage this transition in a rational and humane way.

Interesting overview of the "movement" on the front page of whatistranshumanism.org.

Reminds me of Hawking's talk of the "self-design phase of evolution" in his 1996 lecture, "Life in the Universe".

[W]e are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.[...] At first, these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression. — Stephen Hawking

The overview on whatistranshumanism.org was one of the first websites I stumbled upon while first learning about Transhumanism. I agree, it is a useful overview of the "movement".

I see Transhumanism as being largely a coalescence of individual and environmental conditions that naturally lead a growing number (one day a majority) of people to view technological progress optimistically. These factors are present in every person's life in today's world, whether they're aware of those influences or not. How people respond to the omnipresence of technology is what defines their relationship to the future, now.

Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil and many others are all pointing at the same thing. Even Terence McKenna and Tim Leary knew about this moment in history. What is happening now has been carefully documented, well in advance.

I see Transhumanism as being largely a coalescence of individual and environmental conditions that naturally lead a growing number (one day a majority) of people to view technological progress optimistically. These factors are present in every person's life in today's world, whether they're aware of those influences or not. How people respond to the omnipresence of technology is what defines their relationship to the future, now. — Bret Bernhoft

I'd say there's a great deal more involved in defining people's "relationship to the future". But of course the progress of technological culture is one of the most important drivers of change for our species and our planet.

Is optimism an essential feature of transhumanism?

Consider the following three definitional formulations from the whatistranshumanism landing page. I suggest that each of them is as consistent with pessimism as it is with optimism about prospective outcomes, and of course as consistent with the moderate mean between those extremes.

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values. — Max Moore

It's one thing to seek an outcome, another to expect (optimistically or otherwise) that the outcome will come to pass. One reason to allocate resources to "the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life", and thus to the implementation of "life-promoting principles and values" is that we recognize the dangers inherent in our technological culture and in human nature as it stands. We can take this stand -- seek this outcome, promote these principles and values -- whether we are pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic about our prospects for success.

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. — Humanity+

Likewise, we may "affirm the possibility and desirability" of using reason and technology to make basic improvements to the human condition, regardless of whether we are pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic about the prospective outcome.

The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies. — Humanity+

In this blurb the downside risk is especially prominent. It gives equal emphasis to "promises" and to "dangers". It mentions human limitations and "ethical matters", which present us with obstacles to progress.

Perhaps the phrase "will enable us" leans optimistically. I might swap it out for "would enable us". But even taking it as it stands: It's one thing to study technologies that will enable us to overcome our limitations, and another thing to actually use those technologies to overcome our limitations while adequately avoiding negative outcomes.

Stephen Hawking [...] and many others are all pointing at the same thing. — Bret Bernhoft

The prospect of self-destruction plays an important role in Hawking's "Life in the Universe". On my reading, he presents this prospect with a rather pessimistic tone. Tone aside, I concur with Hawking in emphasizing the downside risks of human (and transhuman) technological culture.

As I've suggested, in my view a sober grasp of the downside may function as a powerful motivation for the transhumanist agenda. It seems imprudent and even irresponsible to neglect that downside.