"increasing excitement around and support for the development of transhumanist technologies (life extension, human spaceflight, brain-computer interfaces, gene editing, personal robots, AI, nanotech)."
I'd say there has been a distinct cooling in support for human spaceflight, as it's become evident that it's never going to amount to more than wasteful joyflights for the ultra-rich and vanity projects like the ISS. In particular, the enthusiasm of people like Musk for settlement of Mars has focused increasing attention on the fact that it's impossible. A moon base might just be feasible, but entirely pointless.
Less dramatically, hopes that nanotech and gene editing would be transformative rather than useful have faded away. And human life extension has gone nowhere in terms of maximum lifespans, though we have done a good job in reducing premature deaths. Lots more centenarians but no sign that anyone is ever going to live past, say, 125. For the other items on the list, it's too early to tell.
Nice...I am sure every age and era will have its own interpretations and factions regarding Transhumanism. ( agree the way forward is really to focus on Unlimited Abundance. We literally have an entire universe to play with; much of it currently unreachable; but quite a bit is reachable. The cost of computing and energy is trending basically to the cost of infrastructure and transmission. Sadly there are many humans and societies that want power for themselves, and elimination of opposing views and beliefs. So one of the great challenges is to come up with a new narrative of life, society, and religion. The atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion and ideology are staggering. If one conducts a side by side comparison of the principles, goals, death, and end-of-times narratives of the major religions, what pops up is that many are fundamentally intolerant, and in some cases, promote violent elimination of opponents. We need to get past that hurdle ... it's festering everywhere. So, we need to fix the story of existence, and highlight boundless abundance available to all.
The problem with transhumanism isn't the concept itself, but often the transhumanists who present the movement as "human enhancement," which isn't the true meaning of the idea. The word "transhumanism" stems from the term "transumanar", coined by Dante Alighieri in the Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, verse 70). Dante used this term to describe the transcendence of the human condition, both biological and corporeal. In the story, Dante reaches a state beyond human, not through physical enhancement, but through spiritual and intellectual transformation over the course of his journey. He becomes “transhuman” because, by the end of his experience, he no longer fits the limited conditions of what medieval Christian society considered a biological man of flesh, bone, and blood.
In this sense, the true meaning of "transhuman" doesn’t refer to physical or biotechnological enhancement but to a reconfiguration of what it means to be human. Modern transhumanism, with its emphasis on technologies like artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and brain-machine interfaces, seeks to push the boundaries of humanity, challenging traditional definitions of identity, body, and mind. However, the central issue raised by transhumanism is not about human enhancement itself—something that, in other contexts, is called human enhancement and can be entirely beneficial—but rather about what constitutes "being human."
Transhumanism fundamentally challenges this definition, opening the door to the idea that humanity as we know it may evolve, be surpassed, or even be applied to life forms that biological humans might not recognize as human, such as artificial intelligences. And it’s exactly this idea that causes discomfort. Humans have been the dominant species on Earth for millennia. The notion that a new class of beings—more advanced or different—might one day replace humanity as the dominant species on the planet (or even in the solar system, depending on what the future holds) sparks fear and resistance. This fear isn't just about biological evolution but also about a potential reorganization of power and identity. Humanity could cease being the center of creation and instead become just one form of life among others.
Thus, the problem isn't transhumanism itself, but how it’s perceived as a threat to human existence and the established order. Rather than being merely a means to question what it means to be human and our place in the world and universe, it’s often seen as an imminent existential apocalypse where humanity will be replaced by "perfect" elite beings. However, this fear should not be confused with the core goal of transhumanism: to challenge, enhance, and expand our understanding of what it means to be human and even to question the very idea of human supremacy.
"increasing excitement around and support for the development of transhumanist technologies (life extension, human spaceflight, brain-computer interfaces, gene editing, personal robots, AI, nanotech)."
I'd say there has been a distinct cooling in support for human spaceflight, as it's become evident that it's never going to amount to more than wasteful joyflights for the ultra-rich and vanity projects like the ISS. In particular, the enthusiasm of people like Musk for settlement of Mars has focused increasing attention on the fact that it's impossible. A moon base might just be feasible, but entirely pointless.
Less dramatically, hopes that nanotech and gene editing would be transformative rather than useful have faded away. And human life extension has gone nowhere in terms of maximum lifespans, though we have done a good job in reducing premature deaths. Lots more centenarians but no sign that anyone is ever going to live past, say, 125. For the other items on the list, it's too early to tell.
Nice...I am sure every age and era will have its own interpretations and factions regarding Transhumanism. ( agree the way forward is really to focus on Unlimited Abundance. We literally have an entire universe to play with; much of it currently unreachable; but quite a bit is reachable. The cost of computing and energy is trending basically to the cost of infrastructure and transmission. Sadly there are many humans and societies that want power for themselves, and elimination of opposing views and beliefs. So one of the great challenges is to come up with a new narrative of life, society, and religion. The atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion and ideology are staggering. If one conducts a side by side comparison of the principles, goals, death, and end-of-times narratives of the major religions, what pops up is that many are fundamentally intolerant, and in some cases, promote violent elimination of opponents. We need to get past that hurdle ... it's festering everywhere. So, we need to fix the story of existence, and highlight boundless abundance available to all.
The problem with transhumanism isn't the concept itself, but often the transhumanists who present the movement as "human enhancement," which isn't the true meaning of the idea. The word "transhumanism" stems from the term "transumanar", coined by Dante Alighieri in the Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, verse 70). Dante used this term to describe the transcendence of the human condition, both biological and corporeal. In the story, Dante reaches a state beyond human, not through physical enhancement, but through spiritual and intellectual transformation over the course of his journey. He becomes “transhuman” because, by the end of his experience, he no longer fits the limited conditions of what medieval Christian society considered a biological man of flesh, bone, and blood.
In this sense, the true meaning of "transhuman" doesn’t refer to physical or biotechnological enhancement but to a reconfiguration of what it means to be human. Modern transhumanism, with its emphasis on technologies like artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and brain-machine interfaces, seeks to push the boundaries of humanity, challenging traditional definitions of identity, body, and mind. However, the central issue raised by transhumanism is not about human enhancement itself—something that, in other contexts, is called human enhancement and can be entirely beneficial—but rather about what constitutes "being human."
Transhumanism fundamentally challenges this definition, opening the door to the idea that humanity as we know it may evolve, be surpassed, or even be applied to life forms that biological humans might not recognize as human, such as artificial intelligences. And it’s exactly this idea that causes discomfort. Humans have been the dominant species on Earth for millennia. The notion that a new class of beings—more advanced or different—might one day replace humanity as the dominant species on the planet (or even in the solar system, depending on what the future holds) sparks fear and resistance. This fear isn't just about biological evolution but also about a potential reorganization of power and identity. Humanity could cease being the center of creation and instead become just one form of life among others.
Thus, the problem isn't transhumanism itself, but how it’s perceived as a threat to human existence and the established order. Rather than being merely a means to question what it means to be human and our place in the world and universe, it’s often seen as an imminent existential apocalypse where humanity will be replaced by "perfect" elite beings. However, this fear should not be confused with the core goal of transhumanism: to challenge, enhance, and expand our understanding of what it means to be human and even to question the very idea of human supremacy.
Good solid summary of both sides of the conspiracy issue on transhumanism.
I like the term optimalism - it has a positive ring to it, and doesn't smack of science fiction.
It is a good point that the term is not very good. Optimalism sounds like a more accurate term.