Transhumanism results in the total eradication of what it means to be a human being.
The advancement of transhumanism allows for the authoritarian state to control any individual in frighteningly new ways. Even your thoughts will no longer be private. This is the pure rational argument against transhumanism.
The religious argument against transhumanism is that the fusion of man and machine is an unholy marriage that spits in the face of God. If man is made in God's image then altering that image fundamentally is the greatest violation against our Creator.
The religious argument is worthless, as are all arguments that stem from argument from authority.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods. Would it be faster with brainchips? Sure, but it will happen regardless.
It ultimately is a matter of survival. Those that adopt greater technology faster will out preform those that do not. Even if the West does not pursue this path China will. Either we adopt eugenics or transhumanism or we cease being relevant and go the way of the Amish, locked in small irrelevant communities that none-the-less have to bow to those with power.
Humanity being enslaved under transhumanism is not the only way for humanity to survive.
You fail to grasp what transhumanism really means.
If humanity's only path to survival is everyone becoming a automaton connected to other automatons, what is the point of survival?
Humanity has survived for millennia without transhumanism.
You are also delusional if you think China will succeed in advancing transhumanism in the scenario where the U.S. does not head on the path to transhumanism.
China has a culture of conformity not innovation.
They have not made any large scientific advancements in the last century. They constantly steal intellectual property from the U.S.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods.
I don't disagree that cybernetic enhancements are inevitable, and I'm not strongly for or against, but this doesn't make his argument irrelevant. Pushing for minimizing or having less of "Bad Thing" is a valid tactic even if some "Bad Thing" is unavoidable. It's like arguing you shouldn't build a wall at the border because illegal immigrants are going to get in anyway, through other means. Perhaps he wants to live in little Amish communities free of totalitarians, and protect that lifestyle for as long as possible.
I agree that Transhumanism isn't evil per say. It can be used for evil though, like a lot of stuff.
There's also lot more ways forward than you imply. Technological progression internal and external. Biological progression, internal and external. As well as status quo and regression, although those aren't viable long-term.
There's also lot more ways forward than you imply. Technological progression internal and external. Biological progression, internal and external. As well as status quo and regression, although those aren't viable long-term.
I covered all of those possibilities. Technological progression without advancing humans is either AI abandoning humanity (ceasing to exist) or transhumanism. Biological progression is, I suppose, more than just eugenics, but the ethical "concerns" are much the same. The status quo or regression are the same as annihilation. Without additional tech we cannot leave Earth. Not leaving Earth will inevitably result in Human extinction, by some method, over some timescale.
The major issue is that there is no way to stop technological advancement. Thus the side that has more Luddites loses. They cease to be relevant and those that embrace transhumanism or eugenics survive. I would prefer that the people like me survive.
Why is transhumanism evil?
There are three roads that lead forward:
We merge with the computers. (transhumanism)
We engage in extreme eugenics to stay ahead of the computers. (facisim)
We cease to exist. (luddism)
Transhumanism results in the total eradication of what it means to be a human being.
The advancement of transhumanism allows for the authoritarian state to control any individual in frighteningly new ways. Even your thoughts will no longer be private. This is the pure rational argument against transhumanism.
The religious argument against transhumanism is that the fusion of man and machine is an unholy marriage that spits in the face of God. If man is made in God's image then altering that image fundamentally is the greatest violation against our Creator.
The religious argument is worthless, as are all arguments that stem from argument from authority.
The totalitarian argument is not relevant because advertisement exists. Your mind is controllable without putting a chip in it. A-B testing and pharmacology are improving their methods. Would it be faster with brainchips? Sure, but it will happen regardless.
It ultimately is a matter of survival. Those that adopt greater technology faster will out preform those that do not. Even if the West does not pursue this path China will. Either we adopt eugenics or transhumanism or we cease being relevant and go the way of the Amish, locked in small irrelevant communities that none-the-less have to bow to those with power.
Humanity being enslaved under transhumanism is not the only way for humanity to survive.
You fail to grasp what transhumanism really means.
If humanity's only path to survival is everyone becoming a automaton connected to other automatons, what is the point of survival?
Humanity has survived for millennia without transhumanism.
You are also delusional if you think China will succeed in advancing transhumanism in the scenario where the U.S. does not head on the path to transhumanism.
China has a culture of conformity not innovation.
They have not made any large scientific advancements in the last century. They constantly steal intellectual property from the U.S.
I don't disagree that cybernetic enhancements are inevitable, and I'm not strongly for or against, but this doesn't make his argument irrelevant. Pushing for minimizing or having less of "Bad Thing" is a valid tactic even if some "Bad Thing" is unavoidable. It's like arguing you shouldn't build a wall at the border because illegal immigrants are going to get in anyway, through other means. Perhaps he wants to live in little Amish communities free of totalitarians, and protect that lifestyle for as long as possible.
I agree that Transhumanism isn't evil per say. It can be used for evil though, like a lot of stuff.
There's also lot more ways forward than you imply. Technological progression internal and external. Biological progression, internal and external. As well as status quo and regression, although those aren't viable long-term.
I covered all of those possibilities. Technological progression without advancing humans is either AI abandoning humanity (ceasing to exist) or transhumanism. Biological progression is, I suppose, more than just eugenics, but the ethical "concerns" are much the same. The status quo or regression are the same as annihilation. Without additional tech we cannot leave Earth. Not leaving Earth will inevitably result in Human extinction, by some method, over some timescale.
The major issue is that there is no way to stop technological advancement. Thus the side that has more Luddites loses. They cease to be relevant and those that embrace transhumanism or eugenics survive. I would prefer that the people like me survive.