Advocating Visionary Futurism and Practical Technoprogressivism

It is possible to both be a practical technoprogressive, working for safe, equitable consequences of emerging technologies today, and a visionary inspired by a future with immortal lives among the stars.

...

Complete entry

Posted by CygnusX1  on  03/06  at  03:01 PM

OK, I was not planning to comment further today, (as two comments from me are more than enough for most folks to contend with on a daily basis). Yet seeing as Giulio has pointed to this post a second time to highlight his position and view, I would just like to add a further note to his points.

And my point concerns what defines a transhumanist from a non-transhumanist or even, as some suggest a techno-progressive. And how these definitions actually serve and encourage an elitist viewpoint or esoteric membership that does not help to change worldviews.

The easiest way to do this is using a list

Q: What DOES NOT define a transhumanist? Is it Someone who does NOT believe

in science or a belief in scientific advancement?
in technologies or innovations?
that diseases should be eradicated if possible?
in the use of drugs to ease suffering?
in cosmetic surgery at some level?
that ageing should not be overcome if possible?
that disabilities like blindness should not be overcome if possible?
in the use of mechanical prosthetics where necessary?
in space exploration?
in the creation of robots, and even of artificial intelligent machines?
in the advancement of human wisdom and knowledge?
that the human mind can evolve spiritually and ethically?
That humanity has the potential to evolve to higher understanding and connectedness?

Now I would say that this covers about 95% of what folks already do agree with, so in fact the term transhumanist applies to anyone that embraces or agrees with any or all of the above? The term techno-progressive is not exclusive. So the goal should be not to scrutinise or close ideals, but to open and spread understanding and define a philosophy for the future : if you really want to change worldview that is?

As regard to posthumanism, I believe this is anyone who aspires to

A Religious belief in an aferlife and of God
A belief in reincarnation or transitory existence as a human
A belief in the simulation hypothesis or God machine
A belief that man himself may eventually evolve to this higher existence
A belief that humanity may evolve into a different or even diverse life forms

Again this covers a lot of beliefs and a lot of ground, and shows why folks should not be excluded or shunned for their beliefs. And if you look closely enough, there are even hints at the connectedness of all these beliefs and ideals, which may be no coincidence? If folks wish to exclude themselves, then that is a choice of freewill.

Posted by Giulio Prisco  on  03/08  at  08:10 AM

Thanks for commenting Cygnus. I agree, folks should not be excluded or shunned for their beliefs.

I am for an inclusive IEET where moderate technoprogressives focused on the here-and-now, and radical transhumanists more interested in visionary speculations, can have an open and mutually enriching dialogue.

I often disagree with other members of the IEET community, and I don't expect others to always agree with me. And this is how it should be -- let's voice our mutual disagreement forcefully when we disagree, and let's work together when we agree.

But I become really mad when I hear imbecile thought-cops saying that we transhumanists, because we are transhumanists, should be excluded from policy discourse.

Posted by Reality Re-engineer  on  03/29  at  03:45 AM

"Ray Kurzweil's bold optimism is a refreshing change from today's often overly cautious, timid, boring, PC and at times defeatist attitude. It reminds us that we live in a reality that can be reverse- and re- engineered if we push hard enough. It reminds us that our bodies and brains are not sacred cows but machines which can be improved by technology. He is the bard who tells us of the beautiful new world beyond the horizon, and dares us to go."

Well said. We do indeed, luckily, live in a fully comprehensible world where atoms and energy fields utterly and completely define reality, and reverse- and re-engineering those to serve our interests is, as sentient beings, our inevitable destiny and birthright.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: