Transhumanism Vs. A Conservative Death Ethos
This piece by Edward Hudgins in the latest Atlas Society newsletter is a pre-review of a book by Zoltan Istvan
In this short piece, Hudgins briefly addresses the central argument in Istvan's book.
He also address the argument of Wesley Smith a conservative detractor of both Istvan's argument and of Transhumanism in general.
It is not clear whether Istvan is making a case that Transhumanism is a beneficial movement.
Smith makes the case that Transhumanism is not beneficial because it is inherently selfish.
Hudgins makes the case that Transhumanism is not only beneficial but compatible with Objectivism precisely because it is selfish.
I find Transhumanism disconcerting.
Aristotle speaks of form and function being integral to each other.
He also speaks of human ethics being integral to this form and function.
Ayn Rand resurrected Aristotle's approach to ethics: "man qua man".
As an Objectivist, I believe that Aristotle and Rand are correct in their approach to the question of human ethics.
Marxists consider men evil and imperfect because men are not and yet should be ants, bees, or some other collective hive-mind insect.
Smith considers the Transhumanist possibility of immortality to be selfish because men are and should be plants which must "go to seed".
Transhumanists consider "man" to be a phase which man is passing through.
None of these lines of thought address the Objectivist ethical tenet of "man qua man".
Transhumanism strikes me as inherently Nietzschean.
If the Transhumanist possibility of immortality succeeds, then we would no longer be longer "men".
It is not only humanism which will have been transformed, but according to Nietzsche and Aristotle our values as well.
What then would be our ethic?
My concern is not of a Luddite nature.
It is more "Popeye" - "I am what I am".
Your comments are welcome.
In this short piece, Hudgins briefly addresses the central argument in Istvan's book.
He also address the argument of Wesley Smith a conservative detractor of both Istvan's argument and of Transhumanism in general.
It is not clear whether Istvan is making a case that Transhumanism is a beneficial movement.
Smith makes the case that Transhumanism is not beneficial because it is inherently selfish.
Hudgins makes the case that Transhumanism is not only beneficial but compatible with Objectivism precisely because it is selfish.
I find Transhumanism disconcerting.
Aristotle speaks of form and function being integral to each other.
He also speaks of human ethics being integral to this form and function.
Ayn Rand resurrected Aristotle's approach to ethics: "man qua man".
As an Objectivist, I believe that Aristotle and Rand are correct in their approach to the question of human ethics.
Marxists consider men evil and imperfect because men are not and yet should be ants, bees, or some other collective hive-mind insect.
Smith considers the Transhumanist possibility of immortality to be selfish because men are and should be plants which must "go to seed".
Transhumanists consider "man" to be a phase which man is passing through.
None of these lines of thought address the Objectivist ethical tenet of "man qua man".
Transhumanism strikes me as inherently Nietzschean.
If the Transhumanist possibility of immortality succeeds, then we would no longer be longer "men".
It is not only humanism which will have been transformed, but according to Nietzsche and Aristotle our values as well.
What then would be our ethic?
My concern is not of a Luddite nature.
It is more "Popeye" - "I am what I am".
Your comments are welcome.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
In short, what you are saying is that any attempt to preserve the past is inherently a betrayal of the future. That has ramifications for those who embrace the "original" U. S. Constitution.
I am a fan of public transportation, so I see the lower strata every day. I mean, looking out the window, I saw three guys I would call homeless in a ravine behind a strip mall tapping into someone's WiFi with a laptop. Elite? I doubt it...
Where do I go to vomit???
(I had to reply to your comment on the general "Add Comment", by the way, we're running out of room here.
the youth of America is stagnating physically by choice. while my parents generation has increased life expectancy as is mine, I am 72, the generations following mine will see a lowing of life expectancy. as for replacing body parts we will need skilled doctors and obamacare is making that impossible. read "return of the primitive" by none other than AR. that is the direction we are going in.
Nor do I make Objectivism into a cult or Rand into a Saint. For one thing, she was not an economist.
I studied Rand in High School. Extracurricularly, of course. My friends all leaned liberal.
Anyway, perhaps you can give me a review. By the way, The question "Why should God be moral" relates to Objectivist Ethics how?
Rand's code of ethics--as actions--were expressed as moral pragmatism. What does that mean to you, exactly?
Again, I refer you to "The Objectivist Ethics" in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
Sarcasm is difficult enough to pull off effectively in person when non-verbal communication channels are wide open. So many repeatedly fail to use effectively in the text-only medium of the intertubes, that there needs to be a physical penalty...
It is also likely that the 'dumb masses' of society would simply self-delete when faced with the powers that accompany a trans-human existence. Their limited minds would be incapable of handling the bandwidth, and ultimately all the permutations of fantasy football would all be explored -- then what would they do?
Europeans need to stop beating themselves up and work on trying to figure out just why what happened, happened. Wallowing in guilt isn't going to get you anywhere. And I'm pretty sure it is guilt in being human that is the motivation for transhumanism. I see a lot of good in people-not always at every point in time and space, of course.
Load more comments...