[ExI] Is Transhumanism Coercive?

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Joseph Bloch
<seculartranshumanist at gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting article by Ron Bailey over at Reason, concerning his
> debate with Peter Lawler last week:
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/18/transhumanism-vs-bioconservati

I read through this whole thread, and didn't see anyone make the point
that we've more or less already made this decision. Today, anyone who
wishes to remain relevant to the larger society must, of competitive
necessity, become a fyborg. If you don't have your smart phone and
computer at the ready, or haven't yet obtained the latest iGadget,
then you are viewed as somehow out of touch with the leading edge of
the zeitgeist.

So, in the competitive sense, we're already coerced into being fyborgs
today... how is being transhuman going to be any different than what's
already happening?

Will those who don't chose enhancement be Amish? Perhaps eventually,
but not for a while. They'll just become gradually more irrelevant.
Something like today's high school graduates (or worse drop outs). If
you're just a high school graduate today, you're treated like a second
class citizen by the market place (unless you are a huge outlier.)

So my answer is, yes, transhumanism is coercive over the long term,
but not as coercive over the shorter term, as these things start to
become possible. Look to fyborgization as the model for what will
happen in the future. This idea that we all have to be equal nauseates
me, btw.

-Kelly