Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jmyeet 25 days ago
Transhumanism doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations. I'm glad this article does mention it but it doesn't really do it justice. Transhumanism is very big with Silicon Valley billionaires but it's actually pretty dark.

First, it's an extension of meritocracy (in the capitalism sense where poverty is a personal moral failure) as well as Protestant prosperity gospel. That is, you are superior if you're rich. Period. So Homo Sapiens 2.0 is really just "my progeny" from the billionaire's perspective. It's also why the likes of Elon has so many children.

Second, it's just eugenics.

There is an alternate future where humanity gets to enjoy the fruits of automation and AI where we have to work less and have richer lives. That's not where this is going. We are instead bouldering towards vastly increased wealth inequality.

How I see this going is towards the cutting of all public services except policing. AI will enable and enhance the police and surveillance state to protect wealth while everyone else sees lowering real wages and increased desperation. This will give rise to more fascist, apartheid states as some out-group (eg migrants) will be blamed for these ills. And as always happens, the in-group will increasingly shrink.

Ultimately, this leads to neu-fuedalism where the only jobs and housing are on the estates of trillionaires. People own almost nothing.

And if it doesn't go this way, it's going to be very, very violent.

1 comments

You've got an unusual idea of what transhumanism is. I think the general understanding, as Wikipedia puts it is

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

Nothing about being rich, doing eugenics or Elon cranking out kids.

Keep reading Wikipedia [1]:

> The tradition of human enhancement originated with the eugenics movement that was once prominent in the biological sciences, and was later politicized in various ways. This continuity is especially clear in the case of Julian Huxley himself.

> The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "new eugenics", a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics. In their 2000 book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, non-transhumanist bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.

> Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to human–posthuman caste warfare.

More [2][3][4].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism#New_eugenics

[2]: https://academic.oup.com/book/31995/chapter-abstract/2677640...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/28/nick-bost...

[4]: https://cne.news/article/2163-three-women-ten-children-how-e...