What are your thoughts on transhumanism?

>>17796665 (OP)
I can't wait to have a mandatory implant that tracks me and reports thought crime (and mines shitcoin).

>>17796665 (OP)
It's freaky-deaky gross stuff, man.

I'm so glad I was born just at the right time to witness the world burn while experiencing the height of its hedonism and die before it becomes truly hell.

Transhumanism is a techbro wet dream for people who jerk off to Kurzweil and think uploading their brain to a USB stick makes them immortal gods. It’s a fantasy for midwits who can’t face the void of their own meaningless lives, so they fetishize AI and cyberdicks to escape their meatbag limits. The whole thing reeks of Enlightenment hubris, pretending we can engineer our way out of human nature while ignoring the chaos of history. It’s peak liberal delusion: “progress” as a straight line to utopia, never mind the dystopian hellscape of corporate surveillance and bioengineered caste systems waiting at the end.

>muh enhanced cognition
>muh eternal life
Every empire that thought it could cheat death ended up in the dirt.

>>17796665 (OP)
I'm going to live forever anyway, so I don't care.

It's a buzzterm that doesn't do justice to the insights the relevant intellectual work can offer. The truth is, one gets a more accurate picture of political and ideological problems with a holistic interdisciplinary perspective and "transhumanism" will pull the genuinely curious learner closer to that accuracy. But as soon as you start whining and bickering about isms and comparing already-existing incomplete ideas, you've already lost. Just look at this faggot >>17796683 fixated on the people who support "transhumanism" and their motivations and tangential intellectual affinities instead of pointing attention at the actual substance of the issue.

Yes, to form good political positions, it's necessary to consider long-term future technology and it's an important insight that human societal evolution is a subset of a much broader line of existential evolution that suggests humanity will be superseded by new entities. But obviously, megacorporate Jewish hedonism is not the only frame in which to think about that.

>>17796802
>fixated on the people
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people

>>17796665 (OP)
It's just simply the logical conclusion to the field of medicine. Don't we value doctors because they make humans live longer?

>>17796802
Spare me the "holistic interdisciplinary" horseshit. You sound like a TED Talk reject trying to sell me a blockchain-based soul. Transhumanism isn’t some profound lens for "existential evolution"; it’s a shiny wrapper for tech fetishism and navel-gazing about “the future.” You’re not uncovering cosmic truths; you’re just larping as a faggy sci-fi prophet.

>human societal evolution is a subset of a much broader line of existential evolution
This is the kind of vague, pseudo-deep drivel that makes people think they’re galaxy-brained. Evolution isn’t a fucking PowerPoint slide with arrows pointing to “new entities.” It’s messy, brutal, and doesn’t give a shit about your interdisciplinary buzzwords. You think “superseding humanity” is some grand insight? It’s just nihilism with a circuit board.

>megacorporate Jewish hedonism
Lmao nice swerve into /pol/tard territory, but it’s still a cop-out. You’re dodging the core issue: transhumanism’s substance is its obsession with tech as salvation. It’s not about “considering long-term technology”; it’s about worshipping it while pretending it’s neutral. Every transhumanist “insight” boils down to trusting megacorps and algorithms to redesign your existence. It’s surrender dressed up as philosophy.

>fixated on the people who support "transhumanism"
Because they’re the ones peddling this garbage. You wanna talk substance? Fine. Name one transhumanist idea that doesn’t collapse into dystopian control fantasies or naive dreams of escaping mortality. I’ll wait. Stop hiding behind “bickering about isms” and bring something that isn’t recycled cyberpunk fanfic garbage.

>>17796826
It doesn't really matter what transhumanists think. It matters what the actual reality is that transhumanists and anyone else aims to elucidate. If one looks at the facts dispassionately, it's the nature of technology to gradually become more efficient and decrease scarcity. People understood that in the 19th century before digital computers, and now it's a fact that as computer hardware and software improves, a larger portion of mathematical fact is uncovered. It's not necessary to associate the apparent realities of technology with a bunch of emotionally charged ideological tropes. I didn't even express a preference; I'm emphasizing that fundamental philosophical and mathematical principles always supersede narrow disciplines and already-existing pre-chewed ideas. Ultimately, it will be necessary to prudently manage new technology and that may mean something completely different from what is commonly discussed.

>>17796665 (OP)
We are pussy-footing around it like faggots for no reason other than it makes people Icky wicky and upsetty in their stummy :(((((((((
India gets endless ChatGPT slop and mind chops b>>17796665 (OP)
ut no biotech because muh ethics.

>>17796865
>It doesn't really matter what transhumanists think
Then why the fuck are you caping for their buzzword? If it’s about “actual reality,” drop the transhumanist label and stop jerking off to their framework. You’re trying to have it both ways: dismissing the ideology while smuggling its assumptions in.

>technology to gradually become more efficient and decrease scarcity
Technology doesn’t just “decrease scarcity” like some benevolent genie. It concentrates power, creates new dependencies, and fucks over anyone who can’t keep up. Look at history: steam engines, factories, nukes, etc. Every leap forward birthed new elites and new chains. You think AI and biotech are magically exempt?

>a larger portion of mathematical fact is uncovered
This is the most autistic thing I’ve read all week. “Mathematical fact” doesn’t translate to utopia; it’s just a tool. You sound like you think algorithms are gonna solve world hunger because Moore’s Law. Meanwhile, those “efficient” systems are already gatekept by corpos and governments who’d rather surveil you into oblivion than “decrease scarcity.”

>fundamental philosophical and mathematical principles always supersede
Spare me the platitudes, cunt. Philosophy and math don’t “supersede” shit when power dynamics and human nature are in play. You’re larping as a dispassionate sage while ignoring the meat grinder of reality. “Prudently manage new technology”? Name one time in history “prudent management” stopped tech from being weaponized by the powerful. I’ll wait.

>not necessary to associate... with emotionally charged ideological tropes
Then why are you shilling a term soaked in them? You’re not above the fray; you’re just dodging the fight like a coward. Transhumanism’s “reality” is a pipe dream where tech saves us from ourselves. It’s not neutral. It’s a cult for people who think they can code their way out of mortality. Get real, faggot.

>>17796879
Yes, real life corporations and governments are evil and not equipped to manage new technology, and the ideal situation for new information technology to be developed is an unlikely one. Transhumanist writers and people who focus on theoretical information technology nevertheless have valuable messages. For example, Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence contains serious discussion of the practical feasibility of various technologies and the various pitfalls associated with them. Thinking about Moore's Law or whatever can tell you about what's possible and what could go wrong. It could tell you how ideal political ideas could be applied in future conditions.

To be clear, I do think it's the superior scenario for advanced information technologies to exist but only if it allows humanity, our various lifestyles, our privacy and the value we offer to thrive but as you very angrily point out, banksters and tech niggers are unlikely to do a good job at that.

>>17796905
>Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence contains serious discussion
Bostrom’s not a complete retard, sure, but his “serious discussion” is still speculative fanfic dressed up as philosophy. He’s playing chess with hypotheticals while real-world tech is a knife fight. Moore’s Law isn’t a crystal ball; it’s a trend, not a destiny. Thinking it’ll “tell you what’s possible” ignores how tech gets hijacked by power. You don’t get flying cars; you get drone strikes and data harvesting.

>ideal political ideas could be applied in future conditions
>ideal
What is this, a high school debate club? “Ideal” anything gets crushed under the boot of reality. You think “future conditions” will let your utopian fanfic play out? History says "nah, tech amplifies the worst of us first." Always has.

>superior scenario for advanced information technologies to exist
Here’s the transhumanist Kool-Aid again. You’re still sipping the “tech will save us” juice, just with a disclaimer. Privacy? Thriving lifestyles? The value we offer? Bro, the second AI or biotech scales, it’s not about us. It’s about who pays for the servers and writes the code. Spoiler: it’s the banksters and “tech niggers” you already know are fucking it up. Bostrom can theorize all he wants; the real world’s a meat grinder, not a seminar. Stop dreaming of “superior scenarios” and look at who’s holding the reins. They’re not giving them up.

>>17796665 (OP)
Transhumanism is the recognition that social liberty is inherently bound up with material liberty, and that freedom is ultimately a matter of expanding our capacity and opportunities to engage with the world around us. It is the realization that our resistance against those social forces that would subjugate and limit us is but part of a spectrum of efforts to expand human agency and to facilitate our inquiry and creativity.

This means not just being free from the arbitrary limitations our bodies might impose, but free to shape the world around us and deepen the potential of our connections to one another through it. It means the tools we use should be openly knowable and infinitely customizable; it means bodies that are not locked into processes in which we have no say. It is struggle to live free… and do so for one more year, one more decade, one more century. It means not just transcending the strictures of gender, but of genetics and all previous human experience. It means fighting to be allowed the fullest actualization of who and what we want to be, whenever we want to be it.

It means challenging and altering the conditions that might otherwise govern us. It means vigilantly engaging with nature rather than bullying or surrendering to it. It is proactive engagement with the environmental conditions that force hierarchy and inescapable collectivism. It means freeing our society from the hierarchies of two dimensional landscapes, to move our destructive infrastructures outside the biosphere and to eventually shake off sedentary civilization and take our place as hunter-gatherers between the stars.

>>17796929
Real-life participation in the real hostile world is great and all but it doesn't mean anything without intellectual foundations to direct that participation. It's a cause for pessimism that the kind of people who develop homotopy type theory or whatever are quiet dough-armed orb-ponderers while intelligence agents and money managers go around raping children and grinding humanity into the earth. Action isn't superior to mental masturbation. They're both important.

>>17796665 (OP)
Cool if not done for troon shit