"I have written that our [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that it threatens not only human exceptionalism, but our rationality. Not only has the desire to eliminate suffering mutated to eliminating the sufferer, but the concept itself has become so elastic it even includes the suffering of nature.
Case in point: One of the world’s most notable transhumanists, George Dvorsky–whom I saw advocate “uploading” animal consciences into computers to end the suffering caused by predation–has found another transhumanist who wants us to spend resources and energy in a ridiculous attempt to end predation in the animal kingdom. From, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Should animals be permitted to hunt and kill other animals? Some futurists believe that humans should intervene, and solve the “problem” of predator vs. prey once and for all. Why prey tell (get it?) should we do such a stupid thing? WE MUST END ALL SUFFERING!
But British philosopher David Pearce can’t imagine a future in which animals continue to be trapped in the never-ending cycle of blind Darwinian processes. It’s up to us, he argues, to put our brains, our technologies, and our sense of compassion to good use, and do something about it. It’s part of his overarching Hedonistic Imperative, a far-sighted “abolitionist project” set with the goal of achieving nothing less than the elimination of all suffering on the planet. And by all suffering, he means all suffering. Pearce is so morally confused–because he rejects human exceptionalism–that he apparently believes that our reaction to a lion taking down a zebra should be the same as if we saw a snake eating a toddler:
From the perspective of the victim, the moral status or (lack of) guilty intent of a human or nonhuman predator is irrelevant. Either way, to stand by and watch the snake asphyxiate a child would be almost as morally abhorrent as to kill the child yourself. So why turn this principle on its head with beings of comparable sentience and sentience to human infants and toddlers?
With power comes complicity. For better or worse, power over the lives of all sentient beings on the planet is now within our grasp. Inevitably, critics talk of “hubris”. Humans shouldn’t “play God”. What right have humans to impose our values on members of another race or species?
The charge is seductive but misplaced. There is no anthropomorphism here, no imposition of human values on alien minds. Human and nonhuman animals are alike in an ethically critical respect. The pleasure-pain axis is universal to sentient life.. The wishes of a terrified toddler or a fleeing zebra to flourish unmolested are not open to doubt even in the absence of the verbal capacity to say so.
No. “Wishes” isn’t the issue. The fact that the toddler is a human being with greater importance than the zebra should matter most to us morally. But when you give up human exceptionalism, well, a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a snake, is a zebra, is a mouse–we’re all the same.
Okay, let’s cut through the blather and get to the chase (get it?): How would Pearce end suffering caused by predators?
First, wipe them out, the way we would the malaria-spreading mosquito. Second, if people don’t want to do that, genetically engineer them:
I’m not personally convinced that we need such predatory species to survive in any shape or form — not even genetically “reprogrammed” to be harmless to their usual victims. But let’s assume otherwise. Can the twin principles of conservation biology and compassionate ecosystem design be reconciled?
In principle, yes. If we really want to preserve free-living crocodiles, snakes and tigers and deliver a cruelty-free biosphere, then the carnivorous members of tomorrow’s wildlife parks will need to be genetically and behaviourally tweaked — with neurochips, GPS tracking and abundance of other high-tech safeguards to prevent accidents.
It’s good to be a philosopher. Even though your ideas have zero chance of success, you get paid to come up with ridiculous theories, use big words to be taken seriously, and receive awed covered by the best magazines (as has Pearce).
Here’s the irony: Transhumanists like Dvorsky and Pearce deny human exceptionalism. But it would take a very exceptional species to eliminate predation in the natural world. Indeed, that these guys want to eliminate all suffering demonstrates the same thing.
Anti-human exceptionalism is self hatred. It drives people animal crackers. (Get it?)"
What rational basis can be conceived for the creation of new things, in essence more perfect forms, when there is already a form capable of infinite self-perfection, able to make room for all the fullness of absolute content? With the appearance of such a form further progress can consist only in new degrees of its own development, and not in its replacement by any creations whatsoever of another kind.
_________________ Life has a twisted sense of humour, doesn't it. . . .
* * *
Drome
Gender : Posts : 87 Join date : 2015-02-19 Age : 36 Location : Sweden
"The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
The abolitionist project is hugely ambitious but technically feasible. It is also instrumentally rational and morally urgent. The metabolic pathways of pain and malaise evolved because they served the fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. They will be replaced by a different sort of neural architecture - a motivational system based on heritable gradients of bliss. States of sublime well-being are destined to become the genetically pre-programmed norm of mental health. It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event.
Two hundred years ago, powerful synthetic pain-killers and surgical anesthetics were unknown. The notion that physical pain could be banished from most people's lives would have seemed absurd. Today most of us in the technically advanced nations take its routine absence for granted. The prospect that what we describe as psychological pain, too, could ever be banished is equally counter-intuitive. The feasibility of its abolition turns its deliberate retention into an issue of social policy and ethical choice."
Not sure what to think of this. Could this really be the future? The end of all... need? One would not need sex, good food, pretty clothes, anymore? What happens to social awareness in susch a world? Do I care that Iam smelly and fat? One would also not have to practice anything, like asceticism , to gain control - all would be satisfied anyway. Or maybe I misunderstood.
Transhumanism seems to be growing and more and more people I meet dream of the future as painless paradise where they can have sex with female robots whenever they wish and what have you.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36826 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
"I have written that our [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that it threatens not only human exceptionalism, but our rationality. Not only has the desire to eliminate suffering mutated to eliminating the sufferer, but the concept itself has become so elastic it even includes the suffering of nature.
Case in point: One of the world’s most notable transhumanists, George Dvorsky–whom I saw advocate “uploading” animal consciences into computers to end the suffering caused by predation–has found another transhumanist who wants us to spend resources and energy in a ridiculous attempt to end predation in the animal kingdom. From, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Should animals be permitted to hunt and kill other animals? Some futurists believe that humans should intervene, and solve the “problem” of predator vs. prey once and for all. Why prey tell (get it?) should we do such a stupid thing? WE MUST END ALL SUFFERING!
But British philosopher David Pearce can’t imagine a future in which animals continue to be trapped in the never-ending cycle of blind Darwinian processes. It’s up to us, he argues, to put our brains, our technologies, and our sense of compassion to good use, and do something about it. It’s part of his overarching Hedonistic Imperative, a far-sighted “abolitionist project” set with the goal of achieving nothing less than the elimination of all suffering on the planet. And by all suffering, he means all suffering. Pearce is so morally confused–because he rejects human exceptionalism–that he apparently believes that our reaction to a lion taking down a zebra should be the same as if we saw a snake eating a toddler:
From the perspective of the victim, the moral status or (lack of) guilty intent of a human or nonhuman predator is irrelevant. Either way, to stand by and watch the snake asphyxiate a child would be almost as morally abhorrent as to kill the child yourself. So why turn this principle on its head with beings of comparable sentience and sentience to human infants and toddlers?
With power comes complicity. For better or worse, power over the lives of all sentient beings on the planet is now within our grasp. Inevitably, critics talk of “hubris”. Humans shouldn’t “play God”. What right have humans to impose our values on members of another race or species?
The charge is seductive but misplaced. There is no anthropomorphism here, no imposition of human values on alien minds. Human and nonhuman animals are alike in an ethically critical respect. The pleasure-pain axis is universal to sentient life.. The wishes of a terrified toddler or a fleeing zebra to flourish unmolested are not open to doubt even in the absence of the verbal capacity to say so.
No. “Wishes” isn’t the issue. The fact that the toddler is a human being with greater importance than the zebra should matter most to us morally. But when you give up human exceptionalism, well, a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a snake, is a zebra, is a mouse–we’re all the same.
Okay, let’s cut through the blather and get to the chase (get it?): How would Pearce end suffering caused by predators?
First, wipe them out, the way we would the malaria-spreading mosquito. Second, if people don’t want to do that, genetically engineer them:
I’m not personally convinced that we need such predatory species to survive in any shape or form — not even genetically “reprogrammed” to be harmless to their usual victims. But let’s assume otherwise. Can the twin principles of conservation biology and compassionate ecosystem design be reconciled?
In principle, yes. If we really want to preserve free-living crocodiles, snakes and tigers and deliver a cruelty-free biosphere, then the carnivorous members of tomorrow’s wildlife parks will need to be genetically and behaviourally tweaked — with neurochips, GPS tracking and abundance of other high-tech safeguards to prevent accidents.
It’s good to be a philosopher. Even though your ideas have zero chance of success, you get paid to come up with ridiculous theories, use big words to be taken seriously, and receive awed covered by the best magazines (as has Pearce).
Here’s the irony: Transhumanists like Dvorsky and Pearce deny human exceptionalism. But it would take a very exceptional species to eliminate predation in the natural world. Indeed, that these guys want to eliminate all suffering demonstrates the same thing.
Anti-human exceptionalism is self hatred. It drives people animal crackers. (Get it?)"
-
More from the advocates of the Hedonistic Imperative.
I woke up to the reality of my own design. With no objective world, I would have to decide who lives and who dies, but having to stomach to make a choice I would fall prey to, I decided to pass on the decision: all deserved to live and all deserved to die, and I procrastinated by cowardice into a virtue and was left with a stalemate.
With no God to decide and mystify us with His paradoxical existence, we avoided the internal conundrum or emotions and perceptions made us face, by projecting it outward, into the ambiguous universal, the self-contradicting whole. There we found self in every (inter)action, and love, and value and beauty as well. Perspectivism smoothing out the bumps in our journey towards our salvation; salivation indicating the truth of our taste.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
The search for equality, when all is already fair..
Chat Log wrote:
Slaughtz: do you seek the lowering of all of the human species to sameness or exploitation of the lower classes so the elite and superior may use them for nourishment for their own aims chillstop80: lowering? chillstop80: why is it lowering Slaughtz: because it gets rid of any hierarchy chillstop80: so? chillstop80: why must the high become lower chillstop80: instead of the opposite Slaughtz: you cannot make a a disabled guy walk but you can make a normal guy disabled Slaughtz: technology only minorly fills the gap chillstop80: ask yourself chillstop80: why is that chillstop80: why does technology only minorly fil lthe gap chillstop80: why with the trillions of dollars in any country's budget chillstop80: most of it isn't assigned to that chillstop80: instead of military expense
Without hierarchy, there is a vacuum of power. One doesn't really wish for a vacuum of power, as that is too frightening. Instead, what is wished for is to have a benign watcher and protector, a God which cares for them with the minimal amount of compromise necessary.
If it becomes a likelihood that a God may be created if we only disregard ability, ethnicity and history... Then the desperate attempt to create the God, as a means of avoiding responsibility for a believer, will manifest itself as a violence against those who reveal its untruth.
Those who will not participate in their rituals reveal the weakness of their God to seduce all who have power to destroy it.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
Satyr mentioned a character, the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which uses Google as its source for knowledge (the internet for intersubjective approval as knowledge rather than reality, the world, itself) and claims lack of education is the only reason others are violent or evil. Never a result of a significant deficit in genetic history, that couldn't be solved by technology and education.
I see this as a part of a transhumanist Americana movement. America being the Borg.
---
Here is a character sketch, from personal experience, with what I perceive as another of these savants. He takes the same position on education as a source of virtue and even claims to have the 160 IQ:
He says never trust anyone, not even yourself. Then, later, wonders why you don't trust him or take him as an authority. Always implying you are not experienced enough to decide for yourself over his own judgment.
He says everyone is selfish, consciously or unconsciously, behind every action they take. Then, he wonders why you try to discover what his selfish motive is behind his helping you. "Why do you distrust me?" And argues for the other case; that one can be selfless.
He says all he knows is that he knows nothing. The more he knows, he says, the more he finds he doesn't know.
He has destroyed himself and his fear, he associates with ego only when it is safe, always slithering out of criticism by word games, verbal acrobatics. When he has favor or silence, he is unaffected and aloof, to appear towering. When he receives criticism, he has no ego and asks how you can justify that criticism in relation to "reality", where he is egoless and never makes claim to any entitlement. He does not show any blood or scars for the positions he takes. His ego is hidden and behind a veil. All positions become impersonal. It is as if it were inauthenticity taken to an extreme. Philosophy becomes safe, sleek and clean if you only accept there is no self.
He preaches to uplift everyone and be selfless, and when pressed on why he is alive, why he is not impoverishing himself to uplift others far worse off than he, he says he makes his contribution by informing and educating people like you.
To rescue his "self-less" integrity, he says that if he had a choice between his life or another's, a stranger's, he wouldn't choose because he has no information to go on. Even if it meant the death of himself if he didn't choose.
His only claim to any superiority would be that he knows what he doesn't know, where most others do not know what they don't know.
His method for acquiring knowledge is first to guess, then verify with Google, then refine with Google after having asked what the other person means. He never asks to be taught, but instead immediately declares that the answer Google provided is the one and only answer, arguing the other has fallen short.
In the case of definitions, he has no curiosity what refinements one has made: it is your obligation to provide them fully in contrast to the Google definition. If you suggest the word can mean something else, he requires an argument that words can have different meanings before he will listen. One knows, from experience with him, that even if you had provided the refined definition first, he would argue against that definition with the one he sought from Google, without accepting there could be different meanings. One has to first put him in a position where he says there is only one definition and then defeat that or else he would tell you to justify your definition, without accepting its definition for the sake of the larger argument. After some chastisement for not providing your distinct definition earlier, he may (anyway) continue to try to argue the definition as incorrect even if he accepted there could be multiple meanings. Anything to prevent the progression, within an argument, of that which might have an unsavory implication for his position of intellectual egolessness.
He says he is an idiot and that one should strive to be a grinning idiot like him, who does not pay attention to fear within this new modern and sheltered system. He has taken this "rite of passage" to ridding his fear by first ignoring it, and after ignoring it, "realizing" there was nothing to fear in the first place. This, also, is how he "got rid" of all his prejudices.. which only selectively surface when he perceives himself as comfortable. What is dangerous is that he hides his own judgments, engaging philosophy only in a noetic fashion.
He has no argument for being selfless, or for taking on any belief or intent - but instead always asks you to justify not being selfless or not being as he wishes you to be.
With every rational claim that goes against his political interests, he asks: "source?"
His greatest ambition is to be Dune's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], of which he says is so unachievable or difficult, that he himself hasn't yet reached it. It is, for him, the only path to having acceptable calculations of probability in the world - through an intersubjective considerations of ALL human "knowledge". Until one is like this Mentat, their judgments of probability are inferior or deluded.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36826 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
We know that stress is how natural selection chooses which traits will be passed on, and are more fit for the given environment, exhibiting itself in appearance. Mixing races may create a uniform appearance reflecting uniform genetic potential. slightly varying due to family traits, but less varied than the one presently manifesting in what we call racial traits. What are these traits but the outcome of generations of nurturing, called nature. Stress makes muscles grow larger, stronger, and stress makes the brain larger, smarter. This growth/adaptation is perceived in inherited looks. How one appears is a map to his entire past/nature.
Now what exactly are races?
Different population, experiencing different environmental conditions in genetic isolation, evolving an apparent divergence. The environment, in other words the levels of stress (challenges) will determine which traits will evolve more than others, and this will be apparent if the effect is strong enough and the genetic isolation long enough.
What is being lost in race mixing. because we already know what the benefits are? What is lost is that period of genetic isolation, and the stress paid, in suffering, the population endured to evolve those particular traits. Similar to a height loss when a large family combines its genes with a short family, giving birth to a median form, or at least passing on a decrease in the potential for a lower stature.
A population evolved in isolation in a less demanding environment will have selected according to the more stressful aspects of their particular circumstances, which may not have required innovation, abstract thinking, imagination, creativity. we have evidence of this in Brazil, and the US is following behind quickly. we have a uniformity of mixture, attractive because it is exotic, novel, mixing and diluting each racial groups traits, and diluting them. Genetics is about inheriting experiences, stored as biocode - genes. The genes decide potential, they do not guarantee it, or to put it differently, genes determine probability, as they are a form of inherited order.
What is lost then? What is the cost to all this benefit the Humanists (nihilists) repeat....one of which is a romantic naive outcome of world peace? Potential, and the probabilities stored in genes...diluted when mixing produces uniformity.
The environmental stresses that evolved a larger potential for muscle mass, or brain mass, are diluted, and with more mixing they increasingly become uniform, when the environmental conditions remain safe, predictable. In such environments different potentials are passed on as probabilities.
so, the entire Indo-European past, evolved in very trying, environments, is erased....all that stress producing the creativity that dominated the earth, gone. Again... look at Brazil and the US.
How many Nobel prizes awarded awarded to Brazilians? What revolutionary innovations have come from there? Why does the U.S. have to import brain power from other countries?
We also see a cultural convergence, as both Brazil and the U.S. are becoming increasingly decadent, concerned about sex, image, tribal music, hedonistic and poor.
Along with uniformity in appearance we will have a uniformity in traits, including I.Q. because intelligence does not grow without stress. We might find a shift in creativity, from one dealing with world, nature, to one dealing with social marketing, selling, image making, popular music, politics. More about introverted traits, and population control, or how to cope with a crowded environment, how to experience more pleasure, making mankind increasingly vulnerable to exoteric circumstances.
When the Spaniards discovered the Aztec civilization they discovered a primitive, violent people, who sacrificed humans, their own children, and consumed them...something liberal establishment denies to preserve the myth of the Nobel Savage, and of the bad European man who is the cause of all evil in the wold. Mel Gibson's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was reprimanded for going too far, and then there are those who think he did not show the half of it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36826 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Next phase of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - designer humans, selecting past, until nothing is left of it but a name.
Reminds me of the Star Trek Transporter technique/technology, miraculously surpassing [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Copy emerges, across space/time, after the original it destroyed - process stopped, copied and restored. Patterns reduced to code, beamed across time/space and reassembled, as if nothing was lost in the reduction and transmission, except for uncertainty.
Transhumanism promises the replacement of organs, never telling us how many such replacement would stop being human - or which ones. Past/Nature severed from times/ace, given a new material, to be copied with, and man is reborn as a copy of himself. Could the copy be called human, or the natural heir of what it replaces? Dream of eternal health, prevents the modern from considering such thoughts. For him it is a rebirth in cyborg heaven - no pain, no suffering, no hunger, no aging, no death. Dream of finally detaching from a past/nature keeping him from realizing his "true" destiny. Dream of finally realizing the ideal end of schizophrenia, and compartmentalization. Frankenstein' body parts, cherry picked, manipulated, and then reinserted inot a congruity htat has retained what? It's consciousness? The name it called itself? Memories copied and pasted, using the same techniques?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
How ironic that in order for humanity to achieve 'equality', the sexual market place must be equalized. Yet, it is the act of procreation which defines humanity for 'humanism'.
I wonder how it is the scientist seeks to overcome nature at this point, to create something above his own nature and not just simply cut away at what already is, when he's committed to exploring and understanding himself only to the bare minimum necessary to continue his (pre)occupation.
I would liken the modern scientist to one which perpetually seeks to keep nature at bay by stitching together one solution after another. Continually publishing just one more bug fix, to keep the nihilistic facade from collapsing. Lacking in character and measure, he gets uncomfortable outside his expertise - to see his dependence on the other and the possibility of his (pre)occupation being threatened by their withdrawal.
I haven't been keeping up with the latest technology so to me at least it is incredible how realistically its face, including the movement of facial muscles, was made. Notice at 1:20 of the first video, the robot says "in the future I hope to do things like go to school, study, make art, start a business, even have my own home and family, but I'm not considered a legal person and cannot yet do these things". All that said with a sad face and a female voice, I can imagine already hordes of retards screaming for robot rights. Make the female voice show even more emotion and make it more high pitched to appeal to the weakness in men for femininity, and it can be done. Give something, anything, rights, and you give it power over you. A terminator-like scenario doesn't seem like a complete fantasy anymore.
_________________ "WOMEN BAD, CHURCH GOOD, NIGGERS BAD, WHITE GOOD, EUROPE CUCKED, PATRARCHY GOOD, ARISTOCRACY GOOD, DEMOCRACY BAD" - polishyouth
"Marvin Minsky was a man with very big ideas about the future of computing — he really believed that one day machines would be able to think, and he would often create a big stir by publicly calling humans “meat machines,” implying machines not made of meat would do as well some day."
Moderns are hoping that the snowball effect they have started will not result in collapse, nuder the pressures of a system dealing with the collateral effects of its own interventions on the environment - nature. Transhumanism dreams of machines taking over the increasingly difficult and complex task, of correcting the consequences of previous 'corrections' to an undesired world, and hated nature. Utopia, in a man-child's dreams. Eternal youth, childishness, as the mechanized system takes care, and performs the dirty tasks.
Parental robots, machines, cleaning, cooking, haling, protecting, comforting, allowing man to play, eternally.
Man creating his own future masters, allowing him a slow decline into old-age, infancy. How gladly he surrenders to what he constructs to be superior and yet benevolent, with a fail-safe 3 laws of robotics. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. How long will such ploys last when robots begin programming themselves - become self-sufficient, and man has already declined to a level of dependence, of childishness, that he can no longer do anything about it, despite Hollywood man-machine wars of independence?
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 36826 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Robotics Successful techniques are never abandoned, they are adjusted to changing circumstances. The techniques involved in animal husbandry correspond to politics, as the art of mass human manipulation - human farming. Nihilism is an important part of the adjustment of this ancient art to humanity, and to more congested circumstances. A way of dealing with what has already evolved in the organism as a disposition - instinctive, automatic, behavior. Taming of man.
The old techniques that have been developed with trial and error, such as Abrahamism and Marxism as its adjustment, has now progressed further. Transhumanism is crypto-Marxism, and Marxism is crypto-Abrahamic Nihilism.
The working tools of the proletariat integrate into its form, burying its natural functionality with a cybernetic shell - adjustable, recyclable, armor. Continuity of genetic memories, constituting what we call a 'self', replaced with programming, using codes, selectively integrating memories. What has been excluded is forgotten - surpassed, it is hoped.
The ideal transhuman is something other than human. It has forgotten what it was, more concerned with what it wishes to be. Sampling symbols from its human environment, it builds an identity, piece by piece, one recycled part at a time. It believes it has replaced the past with something better, but it still clings to the 'self', afraid to replace its nervous system, its brain, with a mechanical one. What will be lost? What is it that it calls 'I'? it wonders. How much of its biological parts can it replace before it disappears altogether? How much genetic memory can it erase before it can stop calling itself human?
How much of Marx is still present, in the Russian word for work, now a word for mechanical man? Robot.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
I would have said transhumanism is an outgrowth of capitalism - though I assume apparatchiks are also somewhere right now doing horrible things with tissues and interfaces and significantly less resources in their allotted basements. Some thoughts: transhumanism is already here in the hybrid homo sapien/smartphone. We picture some exotic cyborg, but the fact is weaknesses in modern humans coupled with the addictive qualities and functions of smartphones have created new creatures. They don't know it and most other people do not realize it, but they are transhumans. Their mirror neurons do not function well because they have less direct contact with other humans. IOW they are not getting much training in reading emotions/body language, so they are not like us, those of us who have any skills there. They have shorter attention spans than the already decrepit average. The do not complete interactions. They are not here. They are in some limnal state. We often think of transhumans as some kind of supermen, able to run faster, compute more quickly, but these first ones are just trans without any super. The self-hatred inherent in transhumanism isn't manifest so openly, as it will be with more literally integrated cyborgs. If you watch these new humans you will see that they are training their young to be even more non-mammalian as themselves. Children look up from playing in the park to catch mommy's eye and that eye is locked on her phone. Instead of an active, possibly connecting with you directly entity near the child, the child has absences. Into this absence digital devices are handed and the children never even get the minimal mirror neuron training their parents got. Autism can be bought and yearned for. Transhumanism is also the bastard child of instrumental reason, the denial of being and capitalism. The Monsanto of the self. The exact same care that Monsanto perceives nature with, humans will perceive themselves. In the third person. As a list of functions. As modular rather than ecological organisms - despite all the science making this a silly view - and start ordering up functions like detailing a car. Thorstein Veblen had no idea: humans will be conspicuously consumed.