The transhumanist paradox is that inasmuch as transhumanism can work to redefine humanity into something new, that the new resultant nature and desires can just as easily contradict the original definition of transhumanism.
Q: By what standard do we define what is correctly 'trans' human?
A: By whatever the humans decided of course.
Transhumanism can go wrong in two ways:
Did we become 'trans' anything? Did we simply become different? By a human standard? By what transhumanist standard? Looking forward? Looking backwards? . . . . what?
In so many ways, it is our nature that defines even the very most basic notions of ethics and values and morality. With infinite possibilities of how to edit our genome, and become something new - how do we decide what to be?
Thus, those who think that science can help determine a moral landscape as opposed to holding a post-modern take must still consider that the landscape is alterable with advanced gene editing.
Look back in time a thousand years or so. It is so easy to look back at history. Now attempt to look forward thirty years, or even a hundred. Try a couple of thousand years.
It's actually staggering what we can imagine happening in the next thousand years with the progress we are making in genetics and other technologies through a transhumanist lens. These technologies will become so readily usable over time that they will be knocking at our doorstep.
We should assume that incrementally, over the next thousand years or so, we will be able to edit the genome and augment our bodies to become whatever we want to become.
A: By whatever the humans decided of course.
Transhumanism can go wrong in two ways:
- we become the wrong thing, and we regret it
- we become the wrong thing, but we do not even know it
Did we become 'trans' anything? Did we simply become different? By a human standard? By what transhumanist standard? Looking forward? Looking backwards? . . . . what?
In so many ways, it is our nature that defines even the very most basic notions of ethics and values and morality. With infinite possibilities of how to edit our genome, and become something new - how do we decide what to be?
Thus, those who think that science can help determine a moral landscape as opposed to holding a post-modern take must still consider that the landscape is alterable with advanced gene editing.
Look back in time a thousand years or so. It is so easy to look back at history. Now attempt to look forward thirty years, or even a hundred. Try a couple of thousand years.
It's actually staggering what we can imagine happening in the next thousand years with the progress we are making in genetics and other technologies through a transhumanist lens. These technologies will become so readily usable over time that they will be knocking at our doorstep.
We should assume that incrementally, over the next thousand years or so, we will be able to edit the genome and augment our bodies to become whatever we want to become.
