[ExI] [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism

[ben]

"nvitamore at austin.rr.com" <nvitamore at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> While I was away at a conference there was some discussion about
> posthumans and posthumanism. In my research in preparing my paper on
> BioArt, many of the theoreticians and curators I spoke with referred
> to the posthuman and discounted the transhuman (including isms). I
> have known for some time that there is an academic dismissing of
> transhumanism and an embracing of posthumanism, in large part due to
> Kathryn Hayles book which does not cover transhumanism. This book
> also does not mention Max's published article "On Becoming Posthuman"
> and also importantly Robert Peppernell who wrote "The Posthuman
> Condition." I know that UK professors are annoyed at Hayles' 
> borrowing ideas from Pepperell and not recognizing him.
> 
> Many of the reasons for this and I'd like to discuss it with you all
> in this thread. First I'd like to hear your thoughts if you have
> any.

Two reasons i can think of:

1) Ignorance of tanshumanism. Maybe they think of transhumanism as
something separate from the means to achieve a posthuman state. A lot of
bizzarre-sounding ideas go under the banner of transhumanism.

2) Distancing themselves from the above-mentioned bizarre ideas, while
still being able to talk about the future consequences.

When these academics talk about posthumans, do they see them as existing
in some remote future, or in the next 20 years?


Oh, i just thought of another one:
3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like 'postmodern'.
the last thing they want is to think it actually means something real.

Any of those sound plausible?

ben zaiboc