posted on February 21, 2018 04:38 AM by
u/MassiveWrongdoer
8
Is there anything worth reading there? So far, I’ve found his writing
to be devoid of substantive arguments, which is a bit surprising since
the author has a PhD in rhetoric.
u/muns4colleg18 pointsat 1519232245.000000
I decided to reword the eigh points of criticism below into something
a bit more manageable for people who don’t speak Carricoese.
Transhumanists are reductive as fuck and think that further
technological advancement is strictly linear and inevitable.
Transhumanism is caused by anxiety cause by loss of control in a
world where technological advancement is steadily marginalizing
individuals.
Transhumanism is based on desire for individual transcendence to
a sci-fi wish fulfillment ideal over the collective improvement of
society as a whole.
Transhumanist beliefs about biological optimization are biased
and can lead to eugenicism.
They think that the shaping of society with no regard for the
will of the people by an elite class of Tony Stark style Randian
ubermenschen is a good thing.
They claim end of the world scenarios as a rhetorical tool to
argue why their ways are neccesary.
They ignore real issues facing people like race and class issues
to fantasize about a Future where these issues will magically be
nonexistent.
They act and are structured basically like a network of
cults
so, yeah, a lot like rationalism. Though let me know if I’ve
misunderstood something or missed some nuance.
>Transhumanist beliefs about biological optimization are biased and can lead to eugenicism.
The term was literally coined by a eugenicist.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002216786800800107?journalCode=jhpa
> Transhumanism is caused by anxiety cause by loss of control in a world where technological advancement is steadily marginalizing individuals.
How far we've come from Thomas Friedman saying the world was first about kings, then nations, then corporations, and now individuals. He had some dumb term for it too, like 'planing' or something. Cited osama bin laden as an example of it in action...
Don't worry, it all makes sense when you wear the [moustache of understanding](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3r3L1s_UY8w/TMfejefUn3I/AAAAAAAAAFU/bnl034lvZFY/s1600/6a00d8341bfa1853ef0134864af882970c-800wi.jpg).
It's about transhumanists, but this sure sounds like r/ssc:
> It substitutes for the politics of democratizing social struggle amidst a diversity of stakeholders over new and actually-emerging technoscientific changes a dangerously inapt politics of sub(cult)ural identity, a movement politics mobilizing personal and shared-group identification with particular idealized (often incoherent) technodevelopmental outcomes designated “The Future,” but substantiated through dis-identification with actually existing planetary peers in all their diversity;
Realizing 'These motherfuckers can't get a date and have never thrown a party, why should I bother arguing with them about how the world works?' was a big factor in finally getting me to drop out of the 'community'.
Read it again genius
> unnecessarily complicated
But if you want to argue that the language in this link couldn't *possibly* be simplified, go right ahead
I decided to reword the eigh points of criticism below into something a bit more manageable for people who don’t speak Carricoese.
Transhumanists are reductive as fuck and think that further technological advancement is strictly linear and inevitable.
Transhumanism is caused by anxiety cause by loss of control in a world where technological advancement is steadily marginalizing individuals.
Transhumanism is based on desire for individual transcendence to a sci-fi wish fulfillment ideal over the collective improvement of society as a whole.
Transhumanist beliefs about biological optimization are biased and can lead to eugenicism.
They think that the shaping of society with no regard for the will of the people by an elite class of Tony Stark style Randian ubermenschen is a good thing.
They claim end of the world scenarios as a rhetorical tool to argue why their ways are neccesary.
They ignore real issues facing people like race and class issues to fantasize about a Future where these issues will magically be nonexistent.
They act and are structured basically like a network of cults
so, yeah, a lot like rationalism. Though let me know if I’ve misunderstood something or missed some nuance.
This archived page lays out eight points of criticism.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110822095541/http://re-public.gr/en/?p=850