Ask HN: How many of you are transhumanists? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How many of you are transhumanists?

7 pointsImmortalin13 comments

30 years or less, they say. But I think it won't be so weird. I'll upload (and implant) when I get the chance to do so in the care of a doctor - the DIY implants people are doing now are a bit too extreme for me.

... That might be a yes.

It would help to have a more specific definition. What is transhumanism, exactly? Humans already augmented their intelligence, their bodies, and their abilities with technology, and have done so for thousands of years.

> Humans already augmented their intelligence, their bodies, and their abilities with technology, and have done so for thousands of years.

Yes; it has often struck me that transhumanism is the unremarkable belief that new technologies will someday give our civilization new capabilities, mashed up with a kind of throbbing millenarian dubstep (these changes are imminent; they will transform everything; they will be our salvation; they will give eternal life or close enough; remarkable prophet-scientists will lead us to this promised future-land; etc. etc.) Wry G. K. Chesterton quote goes here...

(Forgive me, transhumanists, I know this is deliberately tweaking your nose; but so far this thread is light on actual transhumanists, and I thought gently provoking you might get you to appear! My research into your ways has been cursory at best, and I am perfectly amenable to being persuaded that transhumanism is a good thing to get behind... I settle back into my internet-armchair, and hope to be convinced.)

Edit: To be specific, I meant those who believe in life extension and immortality, such as mind uploading, nanotechnology-based telomerase solution etc.

> believe in life extension and immortality

What does this "believe" mean, though? That one trusts that these advances will happen? Think they should happen? Wish fervently that they would happen? All of the above?

I do not think people would say they "believe in personal hovercrafts", just that they would like personal hovercrafts to exist, or expect they will (or won't) someday exist, or think they ought to already exist, etc.

Diction choices such as the "believe" above are why transhumanism has always struck me as quasi-religious (specifically millenarian) in character.

But then again, maybe when you're talking about (potentially indefinite) life extension, there's no way to avoid the millenarian flavor. Literal immortality! Not in some heavenly sphere, but here in our own galaxy! How could you not get all millenarian about such a heady thing?

To clarify, I meant people who willing to pursue and embrace immortality (e.g. investing in nanotechnological research, regenerative medecine) and would not simply reject the idea as a pie-in-the-sky theory or argue that we should not be playing god. I am just interested to know how many people on HN would support life extension etc. and would be willing to consider it if it were to happen in this century. ;)

I am excited about the prospects, but fear that it will only serve to further widen the rift between the rich and the poor.

Not enough, I'd imagine.

It has always been a stronger thread in the tech community than elsewhere, but it is still only a thread. Take a survey of your office and you'll find few people who put any thought into radical life extension, mind uploading, and the rest of the visions of the future that were ideas in search of advocates in the 80s and are now in the very early stages of actual development.

It's interesting to mind experiment with the idea of governmental development of these major, huge time span projects, similar to the way space exploration is undertaken.

I think eventually this will be the way into the sci-fi future we all imagine. A Manhattan project scale plan that would allow them to focus specifically on solving the hardest problems we know and not having to worry about profitability.

I do not think the government would be willing to research this. Despite how expedient this sound, I think that it is best driven by capitalists who wants to profit from it. History has proven to us time and again that innovation is the fastest when there is a monetary incentive. The governments around the world would not be willing to invest in this as this is one of those researchs with a low chance of returns, in addition, it would create a nightmare of political problems due to overcrowding etc. If the transhumanism movement was to pick up momentum among the non-profits, there is a high chance that governments and politicians might try to stop simply because of the problems it might cause, not to mention the opposition by religion organisations. As the saying goes, aurum est potestas, if this was to take off, it is inevitable that there must be huge financial backing by the higher end of the financial spectrum.

As a counter-example, the moon landings were not driven by monetary incentive. In fact, I would say innovation is driven much more by survival and fear. Otherwise I agree.

> and are now in the very early stages of actual development

Can you give some examples? I am curious.

Google telomere regeneration, nanorobotic advancements, regenerative medicine, eliezer yudkowsky. Kurzweilai.com is a good place to start too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com