[elicksaur]

Nitpicking like this sounds like something a cult member would say to make a Motte-and-bailey argument.

“Don’t worry, I’m not one of those silly TESCREALs, I’m just a transhumanist!”

What does this distinction add to or take away from the thrust of the analysis?

[tim333]

I don't think it's a nitpick. Wikipedia has

>Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being

Which isn't a cult, just tech to live better etc. Making out it's something else makes the argument a bit meaningless.

[IsTom]

You can be transhumanist (want to improve humans with technology) without all the rest of what the article is refering to. It's just conflating way too much.

I think that transhumanism (the way that you'd find on wikipedia) is a noble pursuit and what article describes is a bunch of hogwash that I'd never hear of outside of anglosphere.