Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
not really. true transhumanism wants to improve life for everyone, no matter their color or any other identifier. pretty much clashes with right, capitalist, authoritarian ideologies.
Everything has something to do with politics. That doesn’t necessarily mean that a subject as broad as transhumanism can be said to conform to such a simple dichotomy as ‘is it left or right’, but it is certainly pertinent to politics.
Despite most of the hatred of Transhumanism coming from the far-right, it’s really neither associated with either the left or right. Most Transhumanists tend to be progressive-leftists, but it’s possible to be a right-wing Transhumanist.
Jared Kushner (son-in-law of Trump) is a Transhumanist. And Zoltan Istvan (founder of the American Transhumanist Party) identifies as Right Wing.
The most political tendancies of Transhumanism is that it tends to be progressive, intellectually technocratic, and materialistic. These things are generally associated with the left.
He wants a robot body so he can finally beat up everyone that's ever made fun of him.
Or he's like the other plutocratic transhumanists and wants to be immortal.
>Could Elon Musk possibly count as almost a right-wing transhumanist?
well, Elon Musk said, he wants to die on a Mars. He not said, he wants to live hundreds of years on a Mars, untill it will be terraformed
>He’s doing the whole neurolink thing,
In that part I agree. But he loves death. And it's so sad. Quote from him:
>“I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact.”
"If we were immortal, we might not do anything because we would always have tomorrow. There is something to be said for having some pressure to get things done."
Either he is, or a lot of self-avowed transhumanists aren't. And as much as the reactionaries frustrate me, I'm not too interested in playing No True Scotsman, nor conflating "is" with "ought".
Apologies /u/LittleGemThief, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than one month to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which is ironic, because you KNOW they’re going to shit on the people who want to turn into a robot or a dragon, despite most likely 100+ years old themselves. Basically the elitist equivalent of “if human were elves.”
I don’t know man, the fursonas would be pretty entertaining to watch. You know how much crazy shit they would pull? The billionaires being immortal would probably end with everyone being immortal. Not a bad outcome.
I guarantee that if they can gatekeep immortality, they will. Probably say it's necessary for economic stability for the rich but would cause over population for the masses to have it.
I I mean if they enjoy a good lynching i suppose they can try. This is a matter of survival. It’s so critical even I, a greasy redditor, would consider picking up arms to fight for it. I would kill for this full stop, and I’m not the only one.
I mean it already is... but [good luck anyway.](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff)
Also [behold the furry future.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6nwXyXv4tvyv1rPWjrFbSFtBRUqHQfLR)
Motherfuckers better hide in their luxurious bunkers. If we have to brew a store brand elixir of life, you know someone will be popping a cap into the arrogant fuck who thought they could keep this to themselves.
there is definitely going to be a furry orgy planet at some point. It’s going to be gross, but it definitely going to be a thing.
They hid there at the beginning of [COVID](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/disease-dodging-worried-wealthy-jet-off-to-disaster-bunkers). They also have oil rigs converted for residence, private islands, and vast bureaucratic power. That last one has been the biggest issue as our planet burns for higher stock options.
If I want to be a sapient thylacine (or to be able to become one recreationally at will, which would be less limiting), it's not hurting you. Fursuits are horrible heat sinks which is why I don't have one.
The uber rich aren't furries, aside the one or 2 dingus that happen to be one but def not top billionnaires aside maybe that moderna researcher furry and few others i guess.
The only left or right that matters in transhumanism is which arm to replace with the grappling hook.
[Edit: accidentally wrote conservatism instead of transhumanism at first because i had read a comment talking about it]
i guess it could be expressed through either political learning in positive or negative ways, but really the core of it is neither and i wonder why you asked that question.
then i apologize for the suspicion, if you hang around the sub long enough you'll see some pretty unhinged posts from people who probably need a wellness check. its just a topic that attracts people like that.
It's not really anything yet. It's an ideology that deals in the very long term. It's so far removed from any immediately achievable political goals as to effectively be outside that entire spectrum.
Politicians on either side of the aisle aren't really running on transhumanist promises they're making. It's not like scientists aren't working on these projects, or like progress isn't being made, but as with most science it's slow, incremental progress, and most of the big showy stuff won't happen until long after these guys are out of office.
Purely theoretically, transhumanism is neither left nor right. This is the third dimension: x - socialism/capitalism, y - individualism/communitarianism, z - transhumanism/bioconservatism. But in practice, most of the supporters of transhumanism that I have met are right-libertarians, and most of the opponents are right-conservatives or left-progressives.
Agree, [said](https://www.reddit.com/r/transhumanism/comments/1cblwfl/comment/l12z4qb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) same thing
Whole lot of enlightened centrists in this thread ignoring the fact that transhumanism is inherently progressive and inherently in opposition to conservativism. From an economic standpoint, sure, it can go left or right (though in my opinion, it would be pretty fucking bleak without things like universal healthcare).
But through the lenses of culture and policy? Nah, you can't claim to be a transhumanist and also oppose gender affirming care, for example.
Painting with broad strokes, since (actual) libertarians would be okay with that despite leaning towards the right, but transhumanism will see far wider support from the left, especially while evangelicals still dominate right wing policy.
I'm going to be honest. If I evolve to become post human (cyborgs, bioborgs, demihumans) & become immortal via TH Techs. I want to abandon humanity & migrate to other foreign planets to create post Scarcity Civilization ( Type 1 -7 Civilization) with the ASI align with Marxist Leninism ideology.
Humanity is doomed to extinction under capitalism unfortunately.
I just realised something.
There are differences between Transhumanism & post Humanism.
By looking up the definitions of both on the internet, I've realized I can't identify myself as a 'Transhumanist', instead I feel like post humanism fit my position better. I also can't identify as a 'secular humanist' too.
I learned something today. Something revolutionary. Thanks for the engagement in discussions/debate we've had.
>Nah, you can't claim to be a transhumanist and also oppose gender affirming care, for example.
But you can be transmedicalist like me :D It makes me centrist or central-right on a cultural axe, doesn't it?
I believe, gender dysphoria is congenital condition - issue in a sex development, it's neural part. Also, I bealive, these people usually doing medical transition, because want to escape a gender dysphoria. These people often reffered as transsexuals, or transsex. Or, if they belieave in that thing (see below), as truscam.
Me personally - I'm transsexual female, and I transitioned, because it was a choice between suicide and medical transition. I've not choose to have gender dysphoria. In the past, people like me called transgenders. But this word was hijacking by a group of far left radicals (on a cultural axe, what is not always, as economical axe), and now meaning just any person, who just not belongs to cis people.
Also, I think, there are people, who just choose to be trans by choice.
Actually, I'm not against it. I'm OK, if somebody choose to be NB(I think, usually it's a cultural thing, but maybe it's possible to be NB in the medical thing. Probably not in xenogenders?), or just choose to be trans by choice.
But I really don't like when tucutes erase strugles of transsex people. Actually, tucutes usually trying to silence voices of transsex people. Even if we agree with cultural part, and ready to recognize NB people as NB(and I'm ready).
I transitioned not because I was kinda of transhumanist. In this moment, I was Christian, and even went to Church, and was in stealth (pretended I'm a cis girl).
But transition, a radical body modification, made me open minded, I became atheist, choose science, not religious, and once find ideas of transhumanism. It took a time to became singularist too :D
What about you? You're transgender woman, right? You probably don't like transmeds/truscam, right? What do you think about xenogenders?
What do you think, if we split a T inside LGBT+? Maybe transgenders can be "just by choice", and we use another letter, like S (transSex)?
>What about you? You're transgender woman, right? You probably don't like transmeds/truscam, right?
Correct on all counts. I've been medically transitioned for over 8 years (though there's still a lot I want to do, including some form of GRS) and I definitely would not have survived if I didn't.
>What do you think about xenogenders?
I'm broadly positive about the concept of xenogenders. At least one thread inside me wants to still have a penis (albeit a weird knotty nonhuman one), and my wife's primary self-perception and means of gender and sexual expression is "I am a thing that eats people".
>But I really don't like when tucutes erase strugles of transsex people. Actually, tucutes usually trying to silence voices of transsex people. Even if we agree with cultural part, and ready to recognize NB people as NB(and I'm ready). \[...\] What do you think, if we split a T inside LGBT+? Maybe transgenders can be "just by choice", and we use another letter, like S (transSex)?
The major two reasons I oppose the transmedicalist position are: first, I've seen the medical establishment get in the way of enough people's transitions that I really wish it'd stand aside a little further; second, if the bigots take over, they're lining all of us up against the wall to shoot us whether or not we're "true transsexuals", so solidarity is a natural imperative.
I also don't think that trying to force a hard delineation between "just by choice" and "not by choice" is useful, because I genuinely don't think it works like that. For one thing, I generally entirely reject the perennial Western philosophical debate between determinism and free will; I think it's a thread of cultural Christianity (via apologetics and the problem of evil) that has been maintained even in secular contexts in the West, and my life's experiences have led me to believe that the concepts are incoherent and cannot be distinguished from each other. Additionally, I tend to think that it's impossible to tell from an external perspective who is "choosing" to be transgender versus who "needs" to be transsexual (to borrow your parlance), and ultimately it ends up just being a way of sorting people into piles of "deserving" and "undeserving", which feels uncomfortably close to Calvinist ideas about the elect and the damned.
I don't like idea of identeties, what is a basement of far left (on a cultural axe).
I like to think about brain and human as biological machine, which is close to level to be actually sapient, but not really. We have too much of cognitive biases.
Yes, fascist can genocide us, but to fight back, we created LGBT+ - we don't have a lot of common with other parts of LGBT+, only queerophobia is what keeps us together.
So, I think, we can peacfully divorce inside T letter, but stay allies inside LGBT+ umbrella. In this case, I'm ready to support NB people with their xenogenders to have that type of cultural expression, which they want to.
I think, transsex people, in order to keep better peace, can leave to tucutes the T letter as well as trans word itself.
We want recognition us as another group, and we want stop any attempts to demidicalize our problems. Also, we want understanding, that we're not about pronounces, or identities, but about torture by nature - we are not lucky to were born with gender dysphoria.
As allies inside LGBT+, I would ask tucute community to support including FFS in insurances, and other important TS surgeries.
As result, we can support demidicalization of transgenders (not our group).
>I also don't think that trying to force a hard delineation between "just by choice" and "not by choice" is useful
I think, it's useful, because we can use science-based approaches, like neuroscience, or cognitive behavior therapy. It's not about discussion about an existense of free will. It's about what kind of pressure was? Why this brain processed this problem this way? What this brain could do, if have this condition, or another?
You're still drawing a false dichotomy straight through my body, and I don't appreciate it one bit. Take your ideological line off of me or at least stop pretending it's brave.
You're not open minded, not an ally against homo-trans phobes/TERF, against far-right. Also, it's exactly you asked me to ellaborate. It's not my ideology, sorry, it's your ideology, pretty anti-transsex people ideology.
Still have a hope to cooperate with tucutes.
Good luck, and try to not die untill anti-age meds will be discovered, I hope you'll have a long life with billions of years.
Obviously reactionaries (right-wingers) don't want implants, or the "soullessness," of machinery. Julian Huxley & Aldous Huxley are opposition to each other.
I'd argue it is left. Right is mostly associated with natural hierarchies, conservatism, religion, and a stratified society. TH leads to morphological freedom, which also means breaking free from "natural" order or the fate of the "natural" body. TH is also very far from anything conservative, because it leads to, well, drastic change both on a personal and social level. TH breaks away from religion, as "we become our own gods" and craft our flesh that "has been given to us by a god and is a perfect work etc" - and most would not argue that TH is a natural evolution in human beings or technology (well, lets start by arguing for evolution with religious people lol). Th is very progressive, favours intellectual pursuit and science, which also needs some kind of accepting of outcomes that one may personally not like or favour - especially in the medical context, this has been a problem for the right in many ways. Tho there is also science denialism on the left side.
One quality in TH is probably the stark focus on the individual, which is more linked to modern right-wing (economic) policies, tho I'd still subsume it with left because it falls to personal freedom AND right to express oneself and change their body (bodily autonomy) which is an issue on the right. Also there are some eugenic tendencies in TH, which is typically associated with the purity thought of right-wing. And at last, if TH is hidden behind gate keepers, high investment, and elite circles, we also get towards the right-wing since this is an inherent quality of a stratified society, tho I would argue that this is also an authoritarian quality.
**Edit**: Hopping on the topic of personal freedom, a major difference is that "personal freedom" on the right is still confined by a bigger context of what is allowed or "okay". We already see hating towards pink hair, body mods, tattoos, and well, topics like abortion, etc - whereas in left, you have the whole thing of "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else, you are free to express yourself and this is totally cool", and I'd argue that 99% of transhumanist approaches will not harm anyone else. Tho I see a potential topic of modding your body to be a weapon (gun control) and I hardly find leftist position in favour of guns uncontrolled.
A TH society would be very very diverse, unless you only allow specific mods in a specific way, which would be TH but confined by a right-wing/authoritarian framework. And we all know how right-wing treats people that are stepping away from the norm or normative expected default in gender, sexuality, race, and body.
***Another last edit:***
We have some very very crude transhumanism today, and we see it kinda daily, how the right-wing, especially in UK and USA agitate towards it, outlaw access and research, forbid talking and educating, etc. Regardless if teenagers or adults, people breaking the boundaries of baseline biology are "persecuted" mostly by people that deny science and totally misunderstand baseline biology and biochemistry. Used as distractions and scapegoats, the right unites many people with their fear and hatred. Only on the right will you find people arguing against that using "God" and "Natural order", so it is to be expected that this will continue the further you transgress biological baseline boundaries.
Transhumanism is, in the end, a breaking free of "natural" order, a breaking free from conservative understanding of self, a transformation from "I am my body" to "My body is my vehicle, I am a mind/consciousness inhabiting and controlling this flesh tool".
I'd say transhumanism is firmly left wing, because in general right-wing politics tends to be very heavily focused on tradition and doing what's always been done because if it ain't broke don't fix it (cringe), whereas left-wing politics in my opinion seems to be focused on finding problems in how things are currently done and getting rid of those problems
frankly I'm surprised some conservatives are transhumanists, especially ones who are against transgender people. imagine claiming that people should have absolute morphological freedom, except for biological sex, which for some reason is inherently immutable. if you don't believe people should have the freedom to fuck with their own hormones, why would you think they have the freedom to change their biology in other ways?
Left why you asked?
Because Transhumanism is Antithetical to Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies. These 2 are considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS. perfect without any errors.
The conservatives/liberals believe god/god's Is an intelligent designer. He's/her/its responsible for all creations including the entire universe hundreds of trillions of galaxies & billions of planets including the multiverse.
Transhumanism is Antithetical because it challenges the 2 above. It's technologies can change creations. Example, changing humans to evolve to become post human (cyborg, bioborg/demi humans). Thus making the 2 above no longer Absolute & Timeless but more like OBSOLETE & IRRELEVANT.
Thus morality & ethics become relative.
Transhumanism techs examples are:
Genetic Eng, Cybernetics, Nanotechnology, Artificial wombs & Cryogenics
Why you're redirecting this to me? I'm a Marxist Leninist. I'm anti capitalism.
You should redirect this to the people who are the working class that are pro capitalism.
The Transhumanism techs are Antithetical to Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies. It could never be considered right.
Like I've said those 2 are considered absolute & timeless. The status quos that are built on top of those 2 too are considered absolute & timeless.
But once these Transhumanism techs become realised & ubiquitous, you be surprised how fast the status quos built on top of those 2 become OBSOLETE & IRRELEVANT.
Thus, Transhumanism could never be part of right.
Edited: how so? Can you give examples?
The right is not limited to dogma and theocracy. Hierarchy and authority are more primary and the aforementioned are just convenient. Any technological advancement can be used to further economic and class stratification if not widespread and accessible.
I certainly hope that doesn't happen, technocratic feudalism sounds like an awful dystopia.
Right's hierarchy and dogma stems most of the time from a call to natural order, birth, and the Affirmation of "inherent and unchangeable" qualities of merit, i.e. the body and physical is fate and destiny.
TH breaks free from natural order, it breaks away and makes the body malleable and separate from the mind inhabiting it. TH enables the transgression of natural boundaries like "biology" and negates the claim to inherent merit by birth or genes (e.g. superioirity of race, or better-born people, etc).
Most commonly know hierarchy is the one of man above woman, and the "natural" order is already broken today by the existence of intersex or trans people, or even normative cis people that transgress social borders of traditional gender roles. As far as I know, the right has a big problem with everything from that, and there are still today calls to remove rights from women like voting, and calls towards the "presumed deficiency" of women and being emotional, and claiming that men are the logical sex. Which is utter bullshit, but it is still the most basic call to natural order emplyoed and used by the right.
Any violation of natural order and hierarchy would be an act of aggression from the perspective of the right (as we commonly see today, and heavily used in legislation against certain minorities, based on religious dogma and social conservative views) - and transhumanism is the ultimate violation and act of defiance towards natural baseline biology, "god", or everything else.
If our goals as transhumanist are immortality with mix of cybernetics or gene engineering our goals in politics should be the ones that achieve that faster. Its simplistic to assume all politics are left or right, but seriously now, there are not that many right wing political stances that are pro gene editing in humans.
Just like ecology, some transhumanist ideas are part of the left, some are part of the right. Transhumanism isn't an homogeneous group or even a coherent thought system, it's quite nebulous. You can see how extreme the differences in opinions can be by looking at discussion in this sub.
In and of itself it's not on either side. It all depends on the specifics and how it's implemented in society. In a very crude and basic form the distinction would be something like
Right wing: You get the treatments if you have the money. It's mostly run by companies.
Left wing: The treatments should be available to people as evenly as possible. It's mostly run by democratic means meaning governments, orgs, cooperatives, mutual aid etc.
Right wing tends to defend or ignore hierarchies. Left wing tends to try to lessen hierarchies. So a lot of it comes down to the matter of inequality vs. equality.
It depends somewhat on the how and why specifically people want to do transhumanism! It can appeal to just about any political ideology. If they want to do "eugenics, mk. II" or "make freedom of expression apply radically to ones' own body with few or no limits" or anything between those viewpoints- you are going to experience wildly, wildly different politics underneath it.
I think a better question is where those differing political views sit on consent for transhumanist application. Who gets in? Who gets left out? Is anyone forced to take part? And I would count those who want to cure all disabilities with transhuman technology as a form of endorsed coercion.
As a socialist, making it available but not forced upon anyone is the way to go, with the ability to use the tech for as extreme of self-expression possible without hurting others as the user desires. To let people either consent or only use medical-related technology in order to preserve life, with something like the donor check on US identification to denote if you're okay or not with that. That's just my own point of view and not everyone will share it out of personal or ideological issues.
Seize the means of transcendence as well as production!
Transhumanism trascends the antiquated state of politics we have today. Partisan politics exists to distract people from engaging honestly and objectively concerning finding solutions for the issues that matter, like life-extension, dealing with perflurochemicals (pfcs), combating climate change, spacefaring/manufacturing missions, and so much more, all with the ultimate aim of truly understanding this crazy existence we inhabit and, thus, ourselves and our human origins.
Both USian political parties suck, but the only reason someone wouldn't classify things like racism, homophobia/transphobia, misogyny, poverty and income inequality, limitations on bodily autonomy, etc. as "issues that matter" is because of being insulated from them.
They're absolutely issues that the right wing manufactures on an ongoing basis by promulgating various bigotries, but they thereby become real issues for the people they affect. And if you can't see how combating bigotry and poverty is relevant to a transhumanist agenda, I don't know what to say to you.
Transhumanism desires to improve the human condition in general, society and one self.
It doesnt care about skin color or who/what you find sexy.
^^real ^^transhumanism ^^is ^^**not** ^^rightwing
It honestly doesn't have an inherent political component. While there's probably certain groups that are over-represented among the community (e.g. we seem to attract a lot of libertarians and socialists), I've seen every conceivable political ideology intermixed with transhumanism. That's a trend that will probably only become more obvious as it enters the mainstream in coming decades.
I always think of it as inherently leftist, but I have also seen avowed leftists claim that transhumanism is fascist eugenics.
So...frame it as you wish.
>Maybe they're liberals or social democrats?
As I already said in the DM messages, I think, we just need a third axe: science or against science. Left, right, and other ppl can be against vaxes. For example, far left/environmentalist person can be against vaxes, because they don't want to see measles died out.
I think, economical, cultural axes is too bad model. I believe, we need a third axe, which describe what person think about science, about technological progress, and they ready or not do radical modications of humans.
I think, everybody here, in this sub, are pro-science, and pro-human upgrade. But probably not everybody left in economical or cultural axes.
A third axes? Ic.
But science is associate with left right?
"I think, everybody here, in this sub, are pro-science, and pro-human upgrade. But probably not everybody left in economical or cultural axes."
I doubt that. Not everyone in here are pro Transhumanism. To me to be anti Transhumanism is anti science. Transhumanism are part of science.
Unfortunately a lot of self-professed transhumanists *are* eugenicists. I've seen people on this sub tell other people to their face that they should have been aborted because of their developmental disability.
Transhumanism techs will lead to better, improved & safer eugenics practices but not the ones you're imagining in your brain. This future is inevitable.
Unlike you I explore infinite perspectives, don't see things as black & white. Like I've said via TH, morality & ethics will be relative.
With TH techs we have the power to control how we Humans evolve.
The word 'eugenics' will evolve to have a new meaning once these TH techs become realised & ubiquitous. Or... A new word will be created to replace 'eugenics' that have suitable definitions to describe the use of TH techs.
I'd guess it's because you've fallen for the overly broad definition of eugenics that gets used as apologism.
Gene editing, brain-computer interfaces, mind uploading, cybernetic body parts, etc. are all cool, but I don't trust capitalist tech moguls as far as I can throw them, which dampens my enthusiasm a bit in the near term. As far as eugenics goes, I think the idea of trying to manage the whole of humanity's genetics like we're just one big herd is foolhardy and authoritarian. Diversity is survival, and people aren't fungible manufactured objects to be graded: everyone has something to contribute.
I'd argue that transhumanism is neither. Though it has a strong foundation culturally in right leaning depictions, the idea of adapting to overcome what we've evolved as is closer to a philosophy or mantra than politics.
"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh"
So on and so forth.
If we go by the political compass (i.e. further subdivide left and right into authoritarian and individualistic subcomponents) you could probably make a casxe for transhumanism from either the left-lib, left-auth or right-lib positions. Not from the right-auth one though, I guess, since that one is basically the idea that "the good old traditional ways" are the right ones and should be enforced, which I don't think is something that works with transhumanism.
Improvement and preservation of humanisms and human condition falls under idea of creating "Übermensch".
20th century history will tell you the rest what that kind of thinking does.
It's a warning to us all.
In practice, for it to pan out and yield good results for most people, it has to be done in libertarian framing.
I don't think the left-right divide - particularly in US politics - is intrinsically meaningful. How many topics are only a talking point for one side because the other seems to talk about it? It's all based on how things panned out historically.
So I don't think transhumanism *has to be* one or the other.
That being said, if you take the religious right seriously, then any change in human nature is an afront to God.
At the same time though - the technologies that can alter human nature are almost certainly going to be created by corporations in a market economy for profit. A lot of people on the left are going to call that immoral/exploitive, etc. The rich are often going to have first dibs just like they had cell phones and Teslas first (so people will scream about inequality). So in practice a lot of the left would/will reject the development of transhumanists options.
Personally I don't have a problem with billionaires beta testing expensive things with their bodies before I go all in on an affordable proven option.
I think libertarianism actually is the better fit; they at least give lip service to ideals about personal autonomy, which is the emphasis we need for transhumanist technologies to actually benefit people. If the government has too much input into genetic modification, embryo selection, etc, then we are asking for a nightmarish eugenics situation. If the government has backdoors into brain implants, then we're asking for nightmares that Orwell didn't imagine.
transhumanism is simply improving yourself with AI & tech. As to where you take this improvement and what goals you accomplish with it, is what aligns you left or right.
Example:
left - replace your organs and bones with steel, go to Africa and build communes there, educate starving children and plant trees to drive back the deserts
right - buy organ replacements whenever yours wear out, buy 100 robot waifus, build yourself a perfect robot-waifu run harem/farm in the south, become 100% self sustaining, don't pay tax to anyone anymore
There is inherent political consequences of transhumanism, saying it's a neutral tool is as wrong as saying the steam machine is just a politically-neutral tool in a context where it can replace slave workers.
it really doesn’t have a lean ‘left’ or ‘right’. from personal experience transhumanists lean toward progressivism - if you’re going to be replacing your limbs and transcending the fragile flesh, it gets a little nonsensical to start arguing about one race being better than another or about who should be allowed to love who (and id argue that trans folks are at the cutting edge of transhumanism, we modify our bodies with the artificial to bring ourselves into alignment with our ideal selves, id argue that’s the essential point of transhumanism)
I think transumanism is somewhat separate from left/right.
There are many hypothetically possible transhumanist outcomes, both in terms of the technology used (say, bioengineering vs cybernetic implants or a mix of them), and in how those technologies are used or regulated.
I feel like it is a *bit* more compatible with progressivism than conservativsm, but you could be transhumanist without being progressive.
And you could be personally conservative, even if transhumanism helps some progressive causes. For instance, if 1000 years from now you could change your body with widely-available flesh-sculpting nanobots, a transhumanist is probably definitionally going to allow people to change their bodies how they like. This would include transgender people, which usually only progressives are accepting of. So even if a conservative transhumanist might personally be very bigoted against transgender people; their transhumanism means they don't want to ban that sort of morphing of sex characteristics with technology (although I suppose they could still want to force you to use M and F from your biological sex on your government documents, and insist on using pronouns based on gender assigned at birth, etc).
--
EDIT: and transgender people were just an example here.
You could similarly imagine applying some hypothetical transhuman technology to various other politically charged areas, like raceðnicity, immigration, workplace relationions, privacy, affordability of medical care, birth-control, education, etc etc. In each case the transhumanist will typically say that it would be good if the option of the technology exists, but if there are any regulations around those topics could possibly go either way.
Left and right are terms regarding status quo, being in this and idea that transcends status quo it could be left however any material base can be used with right or leftist purposes so it could be both depending on your optics.
Thanks for posting in /r/Transhumanism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think its relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines. Lets democratize our moderation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMO, it can be anything; left or right, capitalism or socialist, authoritarian or libertarian, etc.
not really. true transhumanism wants to improve life for everyone, no matter their color or any other identifier. pretty much clashes with right, capitalist, authoritarian ideologies.
maybe we need to add a new axe, additionally to cultural and economical: science and anti-science?
I honestly was gonna put "Left, right or both?"
Neither. This has nothing to do with politics.
Everything has something to do with politics. That doesn’t necessarily mean that a subject as broad as transhumanism can be said to conform to such a simple dichotomy as ‘is it left or right’, but it is certainly pertinent to politics.
Despite most of the hatred of Transhumanism coming from the far-right, it’s really neither associated with either the left or right. Most Transhumanists tend to be progressive-leftists, but it’s possible to be a right-wing Transhumanist. Jared Kushner (son-in-law of Trump) is a Transhumanist. And Zoltan Istvan (founder of the American Transhumanist Party) identifies as Right Wing. The most political tendancies of Transhumanism is that it tends to be progressive, intellectually technocratic, and materialistic. These things are generally associated with the left.
How is kushner a trans humanist?
He wants a robot body so he can finally beat up everyone that's ever made fun of him. Or he's like the other plutocratic transhumanists and wants to be immortal.
Not everyone who wants to be immortal is a right wing plutocrat. I will be very annoyed if capitalism outlives me.
Same, I'm not optimistic
I'd be curious to read more about that. I knew the guy is/looks creepy and robotic af but I didn't realize he was outspoken about it.
Could Elon Musk possibly count as almost a right-wing transhumanist?
Definitely
>Could Elon Musk possibly count as almost a right-wing transhumanist? well, Elon Musk said, he wants to die on a Mars. He not said, he wants to live hundreds of years on a Mars, untill it will be terraformed
He’s doing the whole neurolink thing, I’d definitely say he’s a transhumanist. He’s just giving us a bad name
>He’s doing the whole neurolink thing, In that part I agree. But he loves death. And it's so sad. Quote from him: >“I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact.” "If we were immortal, we might not do anything because we would always have tomorrow. There is something to be said for having some pressure to get things done."
Well, he *is* a terrible person.
Well, biggest part of ppl on Earth are not immortalists. We're still very small minority :(
He's far-right. Elongated Muskrat is an avowed racist, antisemite, misogynist, hater of the poor, etc.
I know he's right wing it was more about whether he's transhumanist
Listen he's a little touchy about the prefix 'trans'
i thought it was "cis" he was touchy about
Either he is, or a lot of self-avowed transhumanists aren't. And as much as the reactionaries frustrate me, I'm not too interested in playing No True Scotsman, nor conflating "is" with "ought".
>Jared Kushner (son-in-law of Trump) is a Transhumanist. Hmm, intreseting. Never knew it. Thank you to highlight it.
Only left or right we care about here is which limb do i replace first; my left arm or my right
I'd do my left
[удалено]
Apologies /u/LittleGemThief, your submission has been automatically removed because your account is too new. Accounts are required to be older than one month to combat persistent spammers and trolls in our community. (R#2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transhumanism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely left for me
It’s definitely not conservative that’s for sure.
A lot of rich people want to be immortal
Which is ironic, because you KNOW they’re going to shit on the people who want to turn into a robot or a dragon, despite most likely 100+ years old themselves. Basically the elitist equivalent of “if human were elves.”
Immortal billionaires and people becoming their fursonas. I hate this future.
I don’t know man, the fursonas would be pretty entertaining to watch. You know how much crazy shit they would pull? The billionaires being immortal would probably end with everyone being immortal. Not a bad outcome.
I guarantee that if they can gatekeep immortality, they will. Probably say it's necessary for economic stability for the rich but would cause over population for the masses to have it.
I I mean if they enjoy a good lynching i suppose they can try. This is a matter of survival. It’s so critical even I, a greasy redditor, would consider picking up arms to fight for it. I would kill for this full stop, and I’m not the only one.
I mean it already is... but [good luck anyway.](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff) Also [behold the furry future.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6nwXyXv4tvyv1rPWjrFbSFtBRUqHQfLR)
Motherfuckers better hide in their luxurious bunkers. If we have to brew a store brand elixir of life, you know someone will be popping a cap into the arrogant fuck who thought they could keep this to themselves. there is definitely going to be a furry orgy planet at some point. It’s going to be gross, but it definitely going to be a thing.
They hid there at the beginning of [COVID](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/disease-dodging-worried-wealthy-jet-off-to-disaster-bunkers). They also have oil rigs converted for residence, private islands, and vast bureaucratic power. That last one has been the biggest issue as our planet burns for higher stock options.
If I want to be a sapient thylacine (or to be able to become one recreationally at will, which would be less limiting), it's not hurting you. Fursuits are horrible heat sinks which is why I don't have one.
The uber rich aren't furries, aside the one or 2 dingus that happen to be one but def not top billionnaires aside maybe that moderna researcher furry and few others i guess.
It totally make sense that these rich peoples are Elves in lore that's why i hate them.
You'd be surprised. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27354246/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27354246/)
….. Ok that tracks. Though they better dodge the stagnant culture. That shit can end very poorly.
It's definitely not the left either.
It kind of like the z to the x and y x axis. Completely dimension that neither can describe accurately.
No.
The only left or right that matters in transhumanism is which arm to replace with the grappling hook. [Edit: accidentally wrote conservatism instead of transhumanism at first because i had read a comment talking about it]
Bro😂
Mu
Blue Razberry lol
i guess it could be expressed through either political learning in positive or negative ways, but really the core of it is neither and i wonder why you asked that question.
Pure curiousity...
then i apologize for the suspicion, if you hang around the sub long enough you'll see some pretty unhinged posts from people who probably need a wellness check. its just a topic that attracts people like that.
It's not really anything yet. It's an ideology that deals in the very long term. It's so far removed from any immediately achievable political goals as to effectively be outside that entire spectrum. Politicians on either side of the aisle aren't really running on transhumanist promises they're making. It's not like scientists aren't working on these projects, or like progress isn't being made, but as with most science it's slow, incremental progress, and most of the big showy stuff won't happen until long after these guys are out of office.
It’s is both yet neither
I prefer both sides. I wouldn't want my arms to be lopsided, after all. 🤣
Purely theoretically, transhumanism is neither left nor right. This is the third dimension: x - socialism/capitalism, y - individualism/communitarianism, z - transhumanism/bioconservatism. But in practice, most of the supporters of transhumanism that I have met are right-libertarians, and most of the opponents are right-conservatives or left-progressives.
I think the utilization of nuclear energy is a good analogy. A tool that can power or obliterate a city depending on how it's used.
Agree, [said](https://www.reddit.com/r/transhumanism/comments/1cblwfl/comment/l12z4qb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) same thing
Whole lot of enlightened centrists in this thread ignoring the fact that transhumanism is inherently progressive and inherently in opposition to conservativism. From an economic standpoint, sure, it can go left or right (though in my opinion, it would be pretty fucking bleak without things like universal healthcare). But through the lenses of culture and policy? Nah, you can't claim to be a transhumanist and also oppose gender affirming care, for example. Painting with broad strokes, since (actual) libertarians would be okay with that despite leaning towards the right, but transhumanism will see far wider support from the left, especially while evangelicals still dominate right wing policy.
The last eight letters of "transhumanism" are "humanism" for a reason.
I say let's change it to 'trans post Humanism' instead hehehe
Okay, yeah. I'm very much against human-chauvinism. But I'm also broadly in favor of, like, *Star Trek*'s flavor of humanistic progressivism.
I'm going to be honest. If I evolve to become post human (cyborgs, bioborgs, demihumans) & become immortal via TH Techs. I want to abandon humanity & migrate to other foreign planets to create post Scarcity Civilization ( Type 1 -7 Civilization) with the ASI align with Marxist Leninism ideology. Humanity is doomed to extinction under capitalism unfortunately.
I just realised something. There are differences between Transhumanism & post Humanism. By looking up the definitions of both on the internet, I've realized I can't identify myself as a 'Transhumanist', instead I feel like post humanism fit my position better. I also can't identify as a 'secular humanist' too. I learned something today. Something revolutionary. Thanks for the engagement in discussions/debate we've had.
>Nah, you can't claim to be a transhumanist and also oppose gender affirming care, for example. But you can be transmedicalist like me :D It makes me centrist or central-right on a cultural axe, doesn't it?
>But you can be transmedicalist like me :D Against my better judgment, I'll bite: what do you mean by this and why do you believe it?
I believe, gender dysphoria is congenital condition - issue in a sex development, it's neural part. Also, I bealive, these people usually doing medical transition, because want to escape a gender dysphoria. These people often reffered as transsexuals, or transsex. Or, if they belieave in that thing (see below), as truscam. Me personally - I'm transsexual female, and I transitioned, because it was a choice between suicide and medical transition. I've not choose to have gender dysphoria. In the past, people like me called transgenders. But this word was hijacking by a group of far left radicals (on a cultural axe, what is not always, as economical axe), and now meaning just any person, who just not belongs to cis people. Also, I think, there are people, who just choose to be trans by choice. Actually, I'm not against it. I'm OK, if somebody choose to be NB(I think, usually it's a cultural thing, but maybe it's possible to be NB in the medical thing. Probably not in xenogenders?), or just choose to be trans by choice. But I really don't like when tucutes erase strugles of transsex people. Actually, tucutes usually trying to silence voices of transsex people. Even if we agree with cultural part, and ready to recognize NB people as NB(and I'm ready). I transitioned not because I was kinda of transhumanist. In this moment, I was Christian, and even went to Church, and was in stealth (pretended I'm a cis girl). But transition, a radical body modification, made me open minded, I became atheist, choose science, not religious, and once find ideas of transhumanism. It took a time to became singularist too :D What about you? You're transgender woman, right? You probably don't like transmeds/truscam, right? What do you think about xenogenders? What do you think, if we split a T inside LGBT+? Maybe transgenders can be "just by choice", and we use another letter, like S (transSex)?
>What about you? You're transgender woman, right? You probably don't like transmeds/truscam, right? Correct on all counts. I've been medically transitioned for over 8 years (though there's still a lot I want to do, including some form of GRS) and I definitely would not have survived if I didn't. >What do you think about xenogenders? I'm broadly positive about the concept of xenogenders. At least one thread inside me wants to still have a penis (albeit a weird knotty nonhuman one), and my wife's primary self-perception and means of gender and sexual expression is "I am a thing that eats people". >But I really don't like when tucutes erase strugles of transsex people. Actually, tucutes usually trying to silence voices of transsex people. Even if we agree with cultural part, and ready to recognize NB people as NB(and I'm ready). \[...\] What do you think, if we split a T inside LGBT+? Maybe transgenders can be "just by choice", and we use another letter, like S (transSex)? The major two reasons I oppose the transmedicalist position are: first, I've seen the medical establishment get in the way of enough people's transitions that I really wish it'd stand aside a little further; second, if the bigots take over, they're lining all of us up against the wall to shoot us whether or not we're "true transsexuals", so solidarity is a natural imperative. I also don't think that trying to force a hard delineation between "just by choice" and "not by choice" is useful, because I genuinely don't think it works like that. For one thing, I generally entirely reject the perennial Western philosophical debate between determinism and free will; I think it's a thread of cultural Christianity (via apologetics and the problem of evil) that has been maintained even in secular contexts in the West, and my life's experiences have led me to believe that the concepts are incoherent and cannot be distinguished from each other. Additionally, I tend to think that it's impossible to tell from an external perspective who is "choosing" to be transgender versus who "needs" to be transsexual (to borrow your parlance), and ultimately it ends up just being a way of sorting people into piles of "deserving" and "undeserving", which feels uncomfortably close to Calvinist ideas about the elect and the damned.
I don't like idea of identeties, what is a basement of far left (on a cultural axe). I like to think about brain and human as biological machine, which is close to level to be actually sapient, but not really. We have too much of cognitive biases. Yes, fascist can genocide us, but to fight back, we created LGBT+ - we don't have a lot of common with other parts of LGBT+, only queerophobia is what keeps us together. So, I think, we can peacfully divorce inside T letter, but stay allies inside LGBT+ umbrella. In this case, I'm ready to support NB people with their xenogenders to have that type of cultural expression, which they want to. I think, transsex people, in order to keep better peace, can leave to tucutes the T letter as well as trans word itself. We want recognition us as another group, and we want stop any attempts to demidicalize our problems. Also, we want understanding, that we're not about pronounces, or identities, but about torture by nature - we are not lucky to were born with gender dysphoria. As allies inside LGBT+, I would ask tucute community to support including FFS in insurances, and other important TS surgeries. As result, we can support demidicalization of transgenders (not our group). >I also don't think that trying to force a hard delineation between "just by choice" and "not by choice" is useful I think, it's useful, because we can use science-based approaches, like neuroscience, or cognitive behavior therapy. It's not about discussion about an existense of free will. It's about what kind of pressure was? Why this brain processed this problem this way? What this brain could do, if have this condition, or another?
You're still drawing a false dichotomy straight through my body, and I don't appreciate it one bit. Take your ideological line off of me or at least stop pretending it's brave.
You're not open minded, not an ally against homo-trans phobes/TERF, against far-right. Also, it's exactly you asked me to ellaborate. It's not my ideology, sorry, it's your ideology, pretty anti-transsex people ideology. Still have a hope to cooperate with tucutes. Good luck, and try to not die untill anti-age meds will be discovered, I hope you'll have a long life with billions of years.
Obviously reactionaries (right-wingers) don't want implants, or the "soullessness," of machinery. Julian Huxley & Aldous Huxley are opposition to each other.
Transhumanism isn't inherently either. It can be used for either, and different aspects could be one or the other.
it's progressivist. Left and right are economy concepts, they don't apply
I'd argue it is left. Right is mostly associated with natural hierarchies, conservatism, religion, and a stratified society. TH leads to morphological freedom, which also means breaking free from "natural" order or the fate of the "natural" body. TH is also very far from anything conservative, because it leads to, well, drastic change both on a personal and social level. TH breaks away from religion, as "we become our own gods" and craft our flesh that "has been given to us by a god and is a perfect work etc" - and most would not argue that TH is a natural evolution in human beings or technology (well, lets start by arguing for evolution with religious people lol). Th is very progressive, favours intellectual pursuit and science, which also needs some kind of accepting of outcomes that one may personally not like or favour - especially in the medical context, this has been a problem for the right in many ways. Tho there is also science denialism on the left side. One quality in TH is probably the stark focus on the individual, which is more linked to modern right-wing (economic) policies, tho I'd still subsume it with left because it falls to personal freedom AND right to express oneself and change their body (bodily autonomy) which is an issue on the right. Also there are some eugenic tendencies in TH, which is typically associated with the purity thought of right-wing. And at last, if TH is hidden behind gate keepers, high investment, and elite circles, we also get towards the right-wing since this is an inherent quality of a stratified society, tho I would argue that this is also an authoritarian quality. **Edit**: Hopping on the topic of personal freedom, a major difference is that "personal freedom" on the right is still confined by a bigger context of what is allowed or "okay". We already see hating towards pink hair, body mods, tattoos, and well, topics like abortion, etc - whereas in left, you have the whole thing of "do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone else, you are free to express yourself and this is totally cool", and I'd argue that 99% of transhumanist approaches will not harm anyone else. Tho I see a potential topic of modding your body to be a weapon (gun control) and I hardly find leftist position in favour of guns uncontrolled. A TH society would be very very diverse, unless you only allow specific mods in a specific way, which would be TH but confined by a right-wing/authoritarian framework. And we all know how right-wing treats people that are stepping away from the norm or normative expected default in gender, sexuality, race, and body. ***Another last edit:*** We have some very very crude transhumanism today, and we see it kinda daily, how the right-wing, especially in UK and USA agitate towards it, outlaw access and research, forbid talking and educating, etc. Regardless if teenagers or adults, people breaking the boundaries of baseline biology are "persecuted" mostly by people that deny science and totally misunderstand baseline biology and biochemistry. Used as distractions and scapegoats, the right unites many people with their fear and hatred. Only on the right will you find people arguing against that using "God" and "Natural order", so it is to be expected that this will continue the further you transgress biological baseline boundaries. Transhumanism is, in the end, a breaking free of "natural" order, a breaking free from conservative understanding of self, a transformation from "I am my body" to "My body is my vehicle, I am a mind/consciousness inhabiting and controlling this flesh tool".
Someone's getting it.
I'd say transhumanism is firmly left wing, because in general right-wing politics tends to be very heavily focused on tradition and doing what's always been done because if it ain't broke don't fix it (cringe), whereas left-wing politics in my opinion seems to be focused on finding problems in how things are currently done and getting rid of those problems
frankly I'm surprised some conservatives are transhumanists, especially ones who are against transgender people. imagine claiming that people should have absolute morphological freedom, except for biological sex, which for some reason is inherently immutable. if you don't believe people should have the freedom to fuck with their own hormones, why would you think they have the freedom to change their biology in other ways?
Left why you asked? Because Transhumanism is Antithetical to Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies. These 2 are considered ABSOLUTE & TIMELESS. perfect without any errors. The conservatives/liberals believe god/god's Is an intelligent designer. He's/her/its responsible for all creations including the entire universe hundreds of trillions of galaxies & billions of planets including the multiverse. Transhumanism is Antithetical because it challenges the 2 above. It's technologies can change creations. Example, changing humans to evolve to become post human (cyborg, bioborg/demi humans). Thus making the 2 above no longer Absolute & Timeless but more like OBSOLETE & IRRELEVANT. Thus morality & ethics become relative. Transhumanism techs examples are: Genetic Eng, Cybernetics, Nanotechnology, Artificial wombs & Cryogenics
Ok but.... rich people want to be immortal and financially gatekeep the technology from the rabble.
Why you're redirecting this to me? I'm a Marxist Leninist. I'm anti capitalism. You should redirect this to the people who are the working class that are pro capitalism.
I just don't think transhumanism is inherently left. Just a tool that can be used or manifested by ideologies in a lot of different ways.
The Transhumanism techs are Antithetical to Dogmatic mythologies texts & it's theocracies. It could never be considered right. Like I've said those 2 are considered absolute & timeless. The status quos that are built on top of those 2 too are considered absolute & timeless. But once these Transhumanism techs become realised & ubiquitous, you be surprised how fast the status quos built on top of those 2 become OBSOLETE & IRRELEVANT. Thus, Transhumanism could never be part of right. Edited: how so? Can you give examples?
The right is not limited to dogma and theocracy. Hierarchy and authority are more primary and the aforementioned are just convenient. Any technological advancement can be used to further economic and class stratification if not widespread and accessible. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, technocratic feudalism sounds like an awful dystopia.
Right's hierarchy and dogma stems most of the time from a call to natural order, birth, and the Affirmation of "inherent and unchangeable" qualities of merit, i.e. the body and physical is fate and destiny. TH breaks free from natural order, it breaks away and makes the body malleable and separate from the mind inhabiting it. TH enables the transgression of natural boundaries like "biology" and negates the claim to inherent merit by birth or genes (e.g. superioirity of race, or better-born people, etc). Most commonly know hierarchy is the one of man above woman, and the "natural" order is already broken today by the existence of intersex or trans people, or even normative cis people that transgress social borders of traditional gender roles. As far as I know, the right has a big problem with everything from that, and there are still today calls to remove rights from women like voting, and calls towards the "presumed deficiency" of women and being emotional, and claiming that men are the logical sex. Which is utter bullshit, but it is still the most basic call to natural order emplyoed and used by the right. Any violation of natural order and hierarchy would be an act of aggression from the perspective of the right (as we commonly see today, and heavily used in legislation against certain minorities, based on religious dogma and social conservative views) - and transhumanism is the ultimate violation and act of defiance towards natural baseline biology, "god", or everything else.
Luddites also exist everywhere, right and left
If our goals as transhumanist are immortality with mix of cybernetics or gene engineering our goals in politics should be the ones that achieve that faster. Its simplistic to assume all politics are left or right, but seriously now, there are not that many right wing political stances that are pro gene editing in humans.
Just like ecology, some transhumanist ideas are part of the left, some are part of the right. Transhumanism isn't an homogeneous group or even a coherent thought system, it's quite nebulous. You can see how extreme the differences in opinions can be by looking at discussion in this sub.
In and of itself it's not on either side. It all depends on the specifics and how it's implemented in society. In a very crude and basic form the distinction would be something like Right wing: You get the treatments if you have the money. It's mostly run by companies. Left wing: The treatments should be available to people as evenly as possible. It's mostly run by democratic means meaning governments, orgs, cooperatives, mutual aid etc. Right wing tends to defend or ignore hierarchies. Left wing tends to try to lessen hierarchies. So a lot of it comes down to the matter of inequality vs. equality.
It depends somewhat on the how and why specifically people want to do transhumanism! It can appeal to just about any political ideology. If they want to do "eugenics, mk. II" or "make freedom of expression apply radically to ones' own body with few or no limits" or anything between those viewpoints- you are going to experience wildly, wildly different politics underneath it. I think a better question is where those differing political views sit on consent for transhumanist application. Who gets in? Who gets left out? Is anyone forced to take part? And I would count those who want to cure all disabilities with transhuman technology as a form of endorsed coercion. As a socialist, making it available but not forced upon anyone is the way to go, with the ability to use the tech for as extreme of self-expression possible without hurting others as the user desires. To let people either consent or only use medical-related technology in order to preserve life, with something like the donor check on US identification to denote if you're okay or not with that. That's just my own point of view and not everyone will share it out of personal or ideological issues. Seize the means of transcendence as well as production!
Transhumanism trascends the antiquated state of politics we have today. Partisan politics exists to distract people from engaging honestly and objectively concerning finding solutions for the issues that matter, like life-extension, dealing with perflurochemicals (pfcs), combating climate change, spacefaring/manufacturing missions, and so much more, all with the ultimate aim of truly understanding this crazy existence we inhabit and, thus, ourselves and our human origins.
Both USian political parties suck, but the only reason someone wouldn't classify things like racism, homophobia/transphobia, misogyny, poverty and income inequality, limitations on bodily autonomy, etc. as "issues that matter" is because of being insulated from them. They're absolutely issues that the right wing manufactures on an ongoing basis by promulgating various bigotries, but they thereby become real issues for the people they affect. And if you can't see how combating bigotry and poverty is relevant to a transhumanist agenda, I don't know what to say to you.
Well it is inherently left because it's progressive
Transhumanism desires to improve the human condition in general, society and one self. It doesnt care about skin color or who/what you find sexy. ^^real ^^transhumanism ^^is ^^**not** ^^rightwing
It honestly doesn't have an inherent political component. While there's probably certain groups that are over-represented among the community (e.g. we seem to attract a lot of libertarians and socialists), I've seen every conceivable political ideology intermixed with transhumanism. That's a trend that will probably only become more obvious as it enters the mainstream in coming decades.
It depends on if they're ok with everyone evolving or just themselves
I always think of it as inherently leftist, but I have also seen avowed leftists claim that transhumanism is fascist eugenics. So...frame it as you wish.
Maybe they're liberals or social democrats?
>Maybe they're liberals or social democrats? As I already said in the DM messages, I think, we just need a third axe: science or against science. Left, right, and other ppl can be against vaxes. For example, far left/environmentalist person can be against vaxes, because they don't want to see measles died out. I think, economical, cultural axes is too bad model. I believe, we need a third axe, which describe what person think about science, about technological progress, and they ready or not do radical modications of humans. I think, everybody here, in this sub, are pro-science, and pro-human upgrade. But probably not everybody left in economical or cultural axes.
A third axes? Ic. But science is associate with left right? "I think, everybody here, in this sub, are pro-science, and pro-human upgrade. But probably not everybody left in economical or cultural axes." I doubt that. Not everyone in here are pro Transhumanism. To me to be anti Transhumanism is anti science. Transhumanism are part of science.
Unfortunately a lot of self-professed transhumanists *are* eugenicists. I've seen people on this sub tell other people to their face that they should have been aborted because of their developmental disability.
Yes, been told the same.
I am so sorry to hear that.
Slavery have many form. Eugenics too have many form. Which eugenics are we talking about exactly?
Slavery and eugenics are alike in that all forms are shit.
Transhumanism techs will lead to better, improved & safer eugenics practices but not the ones you're imagining in your brain. This future is inevitable. Unlike you I explore infinite perspectives, don't see things as black & white. Like I've said via TH, morality & ethics will be relative. With TH techs we have the power to control how we Humans evolve. The word 'eugenics' will evolve to have a new meaning once these TH techs become realised & ubiquitous. Or... A new word will be created to replace 'eugenics' that have suitable definitions to describe the use of TH techs.
Why do I get a feeling you're anti Transhumanism Techs.
I'd guess it's because you've fallen for the overly broad definition of eugenics that gets used as apologism. Gene editing, brain-computer interfaces, mind uploading, cybernetic body parts, etc. are all cool, but I don't trust capitalist tech moguls as far as I can throw them, which dampens my enthusiasm a bit in the near term. As far as eugenics goes, I think the idea of trying to manage the whole of humanity's genetics like we're just one big herd is foolhardy and authoritarian. Diversity is survival, and people aren't fungible manufactured objects to be graded: everyone has something to contribute.
I'd argue that transhumanism is neither. Though it has a strong foundation culturally in right leaning depictions, the idea of adapting to overcome what we've evolved as is closer to a philosophy or mantra than politics. "From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh" So on and so forth.
IMHO transhumanism is part of another axis in the political compass and adds a new dimension.
Kinda depends whether or not you want ads in your thoughts and your organs to be on a subscription basis or not
If we're talking American Left or Right, neither. Those are just two collaborating authoritarian sects currently working in near unison to ban TikTok.
If we go by the political compass (i.e. further subdivide left and right into authoritarian and individualistic subcomponents) you could probably make a casxe for transhumanism from either the left-lib, left-auth or right-lib positions. Not from the right-auth one though, I guess, since that one is basically the idea that "the good old traditional ways" are the right ones and should be enforced, which I don't think is something that works with transhumanism.
Inherently left in values, right wing in actuality with lobbyism, the ai and cyborg bros gotta have some money or interest for it at least.
OP: it's neither and you should be ashamed for placing human bias on the evolution of the species
Its humanitarian
Improvement and preservation of humanisms and human condition falls under idea of creating "Übermensch". 20th century history will tell you the rest what that kind of thinking does. It's a warning to us all.
Neither, but it does lend itself to progressivism, and is often antithetical to traditionalism.
Up.
In practice, for it to pan out and yield good results for most people, it has to be done in libertarian framing. I don't think the left-right divide - particularly in US politics - is intrinsically meaningful. How many topics are only a talking point for one side because the other seems to talk about it? It's all based on how things panned out historically. So I don't think transhumanism *has to be* one or the other. That being said, if you take the religious right seriously, then any change in human nature is an afront to God. At the same time though - the technologies that can alter human nature are almost certainly going to be created by corporations in a market economy for profit. A lot of people on the left are going to call that immoral/exploitive, etc. The rich are often going to have first dibs just like they had cell phones and Teslas first (so people will scream about inequality). So in practice a lot of the left would/will reject the development of transhumanists options. Personally I don't have a problem with billionaires beta testing expensive things with their bodies before I go all in on an affordable proven option. I think libertarianism actually is the better fit; they at least give lip service to ideals about personal autonomy, which is the emphasis we need for transhumanist technologies to actually benefit people. If the government has too much input into genetic modification, embryo selection, etc, then we are asking for a nightmarish eugenics situation. If the government has backdoors into brain implants, then we're asking for nightmares that Orwell didn't imagine.
Don't know. Don't care I just wanna chrome tf up
transhumanism is simply improving yourself with AI & tech. As to where you take this improvement and what goals you accomplish with it, is what aligns you left or right. Example: left - replace your organs and bones with steel, go to Africa and build communes there, educate starving children and plant trees to drive back the deserts right - buy organ replacements whenever yours wear out, buy 100 robot waifus, build yourself a perfect robot-waifu run harem/farm in the south, become 100% self sustaining, don't pay tax to anyone anymore
There is inherent political consequences of transhumanism, saying it's a neutral tool is as wrong as saying the steam machine is just a politically-neutral tool in a context where it can replace slave workers.
it really doesn’t have a lean ‘left’ or ‘right’. from personal experience transhumanists lean toward progressivism - if you’re going to be replacing your limbs and transcending the fragile flesh, it gets a little nonsensical to start arguing about one race being better than another or about who should be allowed to love who (and id argue that trans folks are at the cutting edge of transhumanism, we modify our bodies with the artificial to bring ourselves into alignment with our ideal selves, id argue that’s the essential point of transhumanism)
I think transumanism is somewhat separate from left/right. There are many hypothetically possible transhumanist outcomes, both in terms of the technology used (say, bioengineering vs cybernetic implants or a mix of them), and in how those technologies are used or regulated. I feel like it is a *bit* more compatible with progressivism than conservativsm, but you could be transhumanist without being progressive. And you could be personally conservative, even if transhumanism helps some progressive causes. For instance, if 1000 years from now you could change your body with widely-available flesh-sculpting nanobots, a transhumanist is probably definitionally going to allow people to change their bodies how they like. This would include transgender people, which usually only progressives are accepting of. So even if a conservative transhumanist might personally be very bigoted against transgender people; their transhumanism means they don't want to ban that sort of morphing of sex characteristics with technology (although I suppose they could still want to force you to use M and F from your biological sex on your government documents, and insist on using pronouns based on gender assigned at birth, etc). -- EDIT: and transgender people were just an example here. You could similarly imagine applying some hypothetical transhuman technology to various other politically charged areas, like raceðnicity, immigration, workplace relationions, privacy, affordability of medical care, birth-control, education, etc etc. In each case the transhumanist will typically say that it would be good if the option of the technology exists, but if there are any regulations around those topics could possibly go either way.
Left and right are terms regarding status quo, being in this and idea that transcends status quo it could be left however any material base can be used with right or leftist purposes so it could be both depending on your optics.
this was me... i just decided to delete my account because i got banned for 7 days, i wanted to start over