[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
transhumanism.
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?
Natasha
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list