4 Responses to “PostHuman: An Introduction to Transhumanism”

1. 

   December 4

   René Milan

   You did not ask for my feedback, so here it is: I think this is one of the more clear and uncontroversial introductions i have come across. Personally i would like to imbue it with more urgency, but that depends on the intended audience.

2. 

   December 8

   RedneckCryonicist

   Seems like we need evidence-based transhumanism (imagine that!), because I’ve heard this crap since the 1970’s, yet no one has gotten any closer to becoming “immortal.”

   In fact, writers have noted that just about all the ’70’s era transhumanists have died by now. Their lives provide material for snarky articles like this one about FM-2030:

   http://www.believermag.com/issues/201306/?read=article_mar

   • 

     December 8

     Louie Helm

     Yeah, I’m unsure if promotional videos like this aimed at broadening the wider appeal of transhumanism (with very surface-level explanations) are doing much good.

     The eventual promise of powerful nanotech, biotech, and AI have traditionally had a more rapt enthusiast audience than a burgeoning technical research corp. Galvanizing actual technical work in these areas seems required for them to bear the fruit of even their weakest promises.

     • 

       December 8

       RedneckCryonicist

       Nanotech? Cargo cult stuff until further notice. A quasi-technical idea that no one can seem to turn into real hardware after 30 years of hype and the efforts of some very intelligent people, probably has something fundamentally wrong with it.

       By contrast, we went from biplanes to supersonic jets in 30 years. Show me progress in a new technology like that, and I’ll take it seriously.

       In other words, right now people don’t live very long, and the individuals with the cognitive ability for STEM careers have only a decade or so of peak efficiency, so they need to pick things to do with their minds which will likely pay off on a time scale that they can witness.