Hi Soe Lin. This post is very sweet. But I think this part is wrong:
if all of humanity will change their personal/âreligious/âpolitical/âphilosophical views and identities to post-humanist views, many of the worldâs current problems will be solved immediately
I donât think transhumanist or posthumanist philosophy would solve anything immediately. This philosophy would only help at all insofar as this philosophy promoted long-term investment in scientific and technological research and development.
Hi Yarrow. Thanks for taking time sharing your comment on my thoughts.
I actually have been planning to add details to my post as I shared it while I was still finishing my thoughts in my head. But this is not to mean Iâm dismissing your view.
let me reply with sneak peak of what I am planning to share in details later:
Yes, I support long-term investment in scientific and technological research and development to enrich and probably extend human life. But I consider technological post-humanism/âtranshumanism as just one of the components/âactivities of Post-humanism as a broader philosophy.
What I been thinking is post-humanism as a philosophy/âpractical way of living life from absolute fundamental perspectiveâregarding ourselves as something like âwe-know-we-are-what-we-identify-ourselves-as-âhumanâ-but-we-actually-are-one-of-the-countless-entities-in-this-vast-cosmosâ. And then working everything else out forward from that point, kind of perspective.
I am sure you wonât judge, but the above statement may seem somehow too extreme or may have been put forward and experimented terribly in similar sense by others throughout history. But I like to try again this time. With all the advancements in biology, neuroscience, etc (and of course AI) made by us human I feel even more motivated and optimistic that this worldview could be the way forward for solving many problems.
That sounds like an interesting idea. I think transhumanist philosophy or life philosophy is not in a very good place right now and could be improved a lot. Itâs cold and dry, and not very fun or beautiful. Some transhumanists come off as creepy, like the villains in James Bond movies.
A lot of transhumanist thought is not very diverse. For example, there arenât enough perspectives from women. The transhumanist movement or community has historically been very slanted towards libertarianism and hasnât had a lot of political diversity. If transhumanism is supposed to be a philosophy that can speak to human beings universally, this is too narrow, and it will only end up appealing to a small minority of people.
I think the sort of transhumanist philosophy we need is somewhere between typical academic philosophy, memoir/âpersonal essay, and art. It needs to be beautiful. It needs to fun, or at least more fun that the transhumanist philosophy of the past.
I think it also needs to be more open to emotions, to women and the diversity of humanity, and to a bigger range of political perspectives.
Hi Soe Lin. This post is very sweet. But I think this part is wrong:
I donât think transhumanist or posthumanist philosophy would solve anything immediately. This philosophy would only help at all insofar as this philosophy promoted long-term investment in scientific and technological research and development.
Hi Yarrow. Thanks for taking time sharing your comment on my thoughts.
I actually have been planning to add details to my post as I shared it while I was still finishing my thoughts in my head. But this is not to mean Iâm dismissing your view.
let me reply with sneak peak of what I am planning to share in details later:
Yes, I support long-term investment in scientific and technological research and development to enrich and probably extend human life. But I consider technological post-humanism/âtranshumanism as just one of the components/âactivities of Post-humanism as a broader philosophy.
What I been thinking is post-humanism as a philosophy/âpractical way of living life from absolute fundamental perspectiveâregarding ourselves as something like âwe-know-we-are-what-we-identify-ourselves-as-âhumanâ-but-we-actually-are-one-of-the-countless-entities-in-this-vast-cosmosâ. And then working everything else out forward from that point, kind of perspective.
I am sure you wonât judge, but the above statement may seem somehow too extreme or may have been put forward and experimented terribly in similar sense by others throughout history. But I like to try again this time. With all the advancements in biology, neuroscience, etc (and of course AI) made by us human I feel even more motivated and optimistic that this worldview could be the way forward for solving many problems.
That sounds like an interesting idea. I think transhumanist philosophy or life philosophy is not in a very good place right now and could be improved a lot. Itâs cold and dry, and not very fun or beautiful. Some transhumanists come off as creepy, like the villains in James Bond movies.
A lot of transhumanist thought is not very diverse. For example, there arenât enough perspectives from women. The transhumanist movement or community has historically been very slanted towards libertarianism and hasnât had a lot of political diversity. If transhumanism is supposed to be a philosophy that can speak to human beings universally, this is too narrow, and it will only end up appealing to a small minority of people.
I think the sort of transhumanist philosophy we need is somewhere between typical academic philosophy, memoir/âpersonal essay, and art. It needs to be beautiful. It needs to fun, or at least more fun that the transhumanist philosophy of the past.
I think it also needs to be more open to emotions, to women and the diversity of humanity, and to a bigger range of political perspectives.
Anyway, just my two cents.