Transhumanism or Primitivism?

[Blue3]

Transhumanism or Primitivism?

Which is better?





Transhumanism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Primitivism

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blue3]

Can people explain their choice?

[Small L]

They're both terrible. I voted for primitivism because it at least seems like a way we could live (considering we already have before). Transhumanism is just utopian nonsense.

[White Trash]

Where's the option for taking all of humanity back to the 19th century? (Moderate Hero)

[Lechasseur]

They're both terrible. I voted for primitivism because it at least seems like a way we could live (considering we already have before). Transhumanism is just utopian nonsense.

Where's the option for taking all of humanity back to the 19th century? (Moderate Hero)

[Dr. MB]

I'm all for life extension if we develop the technology, but I don't support becoming immortal cyborgs.

Primitivism on the other hand, we take back 10,000 years of progress.

So both are bad.

[°Leprechaun]

I voted transhumanism, but I wonder if a mixture of both would be good, well sort of.
I admire the Amish, but they are quite that primitive.

There obvious problems with science and technology (global warming, nuclear weapons etc),
but if used properly they can advance the world towards a sort of transhumanism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Primitivism every time.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Primitivism every time.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Let me put it this way: if you force me to choose between Ted Kaczynski and Chairman Mao, I would pick the former.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Let me put it this way: if you force me to choose between Ted Kaczynski and Chairman Mao, I would pick the former.

😂...
Basically this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For f**k's sake dude, put a damn trigger warning before these images.

[Georg Ebner]

They're both terrible. I voted for primitivism because it at least seems like a way we could live (considering we already have before). Transhumanism is just utopian nonsense.

Where's the option for taking all of humanity back to the 19th century? (Moderate Hero)

Better back into BURCKHARDT's "AltEuropa" (="OldEurope", i.e. before 1789).

[Goldwater]

Transhumanism sounds a bit too utopian, but I will still take it over completely undoing modern society.

[Blue3]

Primitivism every time.

Why is that?

[Vosem]

The transhumanist thesis in the first post of this thread is nonsense, but a more limited form of transhumanism (that people should try to use GWAS data, which already exists in the 2010s, to try to eradicate genetic and lifestyle diseases and promote traits that parents see as desirable) is actually pretty central to my worldview, although it doesn't come up often in discussions of the politics of a given moment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They're both terrible. I voted for primitivism because it at least seems like a way we could live (considering we already have before). Transhumanism is just utopian nonsense.

Where's the option for taking all of humanity back to the 19th century? (Moderate Hero)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

transhumanism.

Reasoning:

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This question sounds pretty much like "are you religious or not?"

Not necessarily. It's not at all obvious to me that being a transhumanist would necessarily preclude certain forms of (say) Buddhism, except in the sense that in orthodox Buddhism gods are at a disadvantage relative to humans because they're too content and thus too complacent to seriously pursue enlightenment. I once read somewhere that it's also possible to cram transhumanism into a Jewish framework, although the source didn't specify how.

[Horus]

Not a fan of either but I can at least see the benefits of transhumanism

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

joking aside, Transhumanism all the way.

1) Robotic body parts are cool
2) biological immortality? I certainly would like that. Just as long as it's not invulnerability. Yknow, in case.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I recently read an interesting Atlantic article (the article itself isn't at all recent, but I just ran across it the other day) about Ted Kaczynski that talked a bit about the origins of contemporary primitivism in the technopessimism (my word) of the immediate postwar intellectual class. Here it is. I think the perspective of the article is a little too "progress towards what?" in its rejection of technopessimist attitudes, but that's characteristic of the times in which it was written.