[ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism

natasha at natasha.cc natasha at natasha.cc
Tue Jun 16 22:48:21 UTC 2009

Hayles set it up and academia too a big bite into her literary theory  
of the posthuman. Fukuyama brought posthuman into ethics and policy of  
human futures without knowing what it means, or transhumanism for that  
matter.  Ever since, there has been a growing interest among academics  
(and others) to turn the posthuman into a theory, and now a philosophy.

I remember about 5 years ago, someone I met at the TransVision  
conference said that posthumanism as a philosophy was more developed  
than transhumanism.  I disagreed, and I was correct - then and I hope  
still now.  However, years later, I see that there has been serious  
development in building posthumanism into a viable philosophy, and  
what could be at the expense of transhumanism (several writings  
suggest that transhumanism is weak, or makes claims that are not  
accurate (without footnote or reference)).

There are many similarities in posthumanism's advocates' ideas and  
suggested  findings.  Many of these similarities link directly to  

Is it going to be posthumanism vs. transhumanism? Which one has deeper  
insights? Which one has more sound / rational/ innovative ideas. Which  
is more appropriate to lead the public and private sector into the  
future of emerging/converging technologies and human enhancement? Is  
there room for both? And, if so, do philosophical boundaries need to  
be articulated?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list