Lefty Transhumanist - What do you think?

[asd345]

Hi,

I formulated a few thought here. What do you think?

https://medium.com/@LeftyTranshumanist

Thanks!

[Ozzie guy]

Most people on this forum are left wing transhumanists so you certainly fit in.

It looks like your passionate and will post blogs frequently so if your ideas mesh well with some people here they will love it.

[asd345]

Thanks!

[MythOfProgress]

just a blog post, so nothing too substantial. but taking a look at it if you truly want to be a "rational" person, then it means looking past your own biases, desires and your want for the future to be a certain way(which is a technological utopia in which we all prosper and live indefinitely with advanced technologies, some of which that allow us to travel through time -physics be damned ) and reconcile that with the future that is(a collapsing world that has dwindling opportunities for a good life with a dying biosphere).
what i see, is mostly denial sprinkled in with a few nuggets of bargaining. trying to get past the irrationality of "rationality"(that is to say, the act of trying to solve our technological problems with more technology) can be a bit difficult, as experiences have shown me. but eventually, the reality will catch up to the techno-optimists one way or another. sorry, i wish i had something more pleasant to say.

[Jakob]

Transhumanism is cool, though not without its problems. Not sure why being left handed is relevant even though I also am.

[asd345]

just a blog post, so nothing too substantial. but taking a look at it if you truly want to be a "rational" person, then it means looking past your own biases, desires and your want for the future to be a certain way(which is a technological utopia in which we all prosper and live indefinitely with advanced technologies, some of which that allow us to travel through time -physics be damned ) and reconcile that with the future that is(a collapsing world that has dwindling opportunities for a good life with a dying biosphere).
what i see, is mostly denial sprinkled in with a few nuggets of bargaining. trying to get past the irrationality of "rationality"(that is to say, the act of trying to solve our technological problems with more technology) can be a bit difficult, as experiences have shown me. but eventually, the reality will catch up to the techno-optimists one way or another. sorry, i wish i had something more pleasant to say.

Thanks!

All valid points to be addressed. I will get to some of them soon. But my main take is: dying is not necessary any more, it should not happen to anyone. New problems arising, and there will be plenty, will have to be solved. As ever. My point is that the alternative is worse.

[asd345]

Transhumanism is cool, though not without its problems. Not sure why being left handed is relevant even though I also am.

Thanks!

Here in Germany it is often viewed as a luxury capitalist venture. That leads to it being in the hand of startups, not society. That's the problem.

[MythOfProgress]

But my main take is: dying is not necessary any more, it should not happen to anyone. New problems arising, and there will be plenty, will have to be solved. As ever. My point is that the alternative is worse.

hmm, used to think this was the case pre-pandemic times(sometimes even throughout the earlier times of the pandemic i'd like to think the near future would house a drug/treatment/tech that increases the user's lifespan exponentially or enough to live until the next new treatment), unfortunately i was victim to wishful thinking, too busy with trying to imagine all the possibilities of the far future in which life would be interesting as opposed to confronting the fact that besides the proven strategies of living a little longer(working out, eating well, sleeping well, good social life, etc, you know the boring but practical solutions)

there weren't really new treatments to look forward to. taking a look, i really couldn't find anything in the way of a new tech/treatment that either wasn't vaporware or still newly emerging science(s). revisiting climate change or the ecological collapse we are currently experiencing put a lot of things into perspective for me.

that being said, even if we were to go through all the hoops and challenges of a drug/treatment that somehow extends your life by orders of magnitude with no complications or side effects brought about as a result of artificially manipulating your body's systems of operation(good luck with the FDA), pretty good chance you probably won't be the recipient of it- have mentioned before in other threads that trickle-down economics is a myth and to expect rich ppl to care about you is arrogance at best and delusion at its worst. even if somehow, the human population was able to get ahold of this and make it free and available(like healthcare ) there's also the added problem of overpopulation(considering we already are overpopulated- i heavily doubt life extension would be widely available for most).

all of these logistical problems and more im probably not accounting for- makes this all but a futile pursuit- its a fight against nature itself, a fight against entropy as a force. and that is a fight that we will never win, all things break down, all organisms die out- such is the nature of entropy. i don't like this fact anymore than you do, but as opposed to trying to take control over eventualities and things that can't be controlled, it's best if you just accept it now, and try not to think too much about it. then again. this is easier said than done for someone with anxieties of death or a life unfulfilled. so i can't help there.

[asd345]

Thanks!

I obviously disagree with a lot. Some of it in the new post.

[MythOfProgress]

checked it, disagree with the premise as its mostly attributing human qualities to a concept that's a bit more abstract- nature isn't really something that "hates", it's more apathetic when it comes to species and concerned with fulfilling certain processes(like evolution, regardless of where it leads to.) and even then im probably going a little far trying to anthropomorphize something like this.

that being said, im not really a fan of how you categorize certain folks and dismiss them purely based off their positions/stances/identities, i've observed it in some of your earlier posts and didn't really take a note of it at the time, but it could be something you can work on by delving deep into the opposing person's argument and see what it is that makes them think the way they do.

on the other hand, you seem to be emphasizing that humans are separate from nature, despite the fact that we were born and evolved from it as a result- which means everything we do is an extension of nature itself. not denying there could be a few people with traditionalist ideas of how we should never change our societies, but please do not confuse that with the people who understand that despite our human dominance and unparalleled abilities for reasoning/invention/thought- we are still subject to the laws of thermodynamics and physics.

it is not "conservatism" to admit that we aren't omnipotent creatures and that we should live within the limits of our environment, because otherwise we walk away with the misconception that that lives we lead(at least in the developed world) is sustainable and can last for as long we want it to.

Let’s be honest, nobody of the nature-defenders walks the walk. So why do they talk the talk?

so you're telling me you've never heard of american indians/indigenous tribes, environmentalists, vegans/vegetarians? i mean it is possible for someone to actually dedicate their lives to this and face oppression for it(as historical cases have demonstrated), making sweeping generalizations/assumptions about these folks isn't really something i'd suggest.