[ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism
natasha at natasha.cc
Sat Jun 20 15:55:40 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Damien Broderick<thespike at satx.rr.com>
>>"...the 'post' of posthumanism need not imply the absence of humanity
>>or moving beyond it in some biological or evolutionary manner. Rather,
>>the starting point should be an attempt to understand what has been
>>omitted from an anthropocentric worldview, which includes coming to
>>terms with how the Enlightenment centring of humanity has been revealed as
I suppose the "starting point" claim extinguishes a transhuman as a
necessary or needed element in the concept of "becoming."
>Bof. Is a a real post-humanism even possible without *also* contemplating a
>I maintain that the answer is "no".
If the Singularity were to could occur *suddenly*, why not post-humanism?
>And amongst posthumanists, even those who would be inclined to neoluddite
feelings, most are adamant on the fact that even >though they may mourn him,
"Man is dead", and it is mystifying and naive to deny it by pretending that
we can go on with >"business as usual" and avoid a posthuman-ist change.
>A number of Nietzschean descendants, e.g., made herculean, but ultimately
futile efforts to deny any - even vaguely -
>"biological" interpretations (as they appear otherwise to fear association
with eugenism, nazism, scientism, or...
>transhumanism). But it is sufficient to re-read the first lines of the
Zarathustra, or the discussion of Darwinian ideas
>contained in the Will to Power, to realise that Nietzsche himself was
perfectly aware that the upcoming Zeit-Umbruch,
>epocal change, involves the *nature* itself of the human beings, not mere
cultural or philosophical traits.
Yes, but it was that ship he travelled upon to get to where he was going.
More information about the extropy-chat