[ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism

[Natasha Vita-More]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Damien Broderick<thespike at satx.rr.com>
wrote:
>>"...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
inadequate."

I suppose the "starting point" claim extinguishes a transhuman as a
necessary or needed element in the concept of "becoming."

Sefano says: 
>Bof. Is a a real post-humanism even possible without *also* contemplating a
posthuman-ist evolution? 
>I maintain that the answer is "no".

If the Singularity were to could occur *suddenly*, why not post-humanism?
Ironic.

>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.

Natasha