Anonymous #1 2w

It’s when you think Cyberpunk 2077 is really cool

4

Anonymous ___joker__ 2w

This is unironically true. That’s like the main reason people ascribe themselves to this idea. It’s pretty soy either way imo

4

it’s def not. it’s a new form of eugenics though, focused on using technology to achieve its goals.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

literally no one answered my question 💀

1

Anonymous #1 2w

here’s the Wikipedia summary then? like you could’ve googled it in all fairness.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

another portion of it. Btw, Julian Huxley was a self proclaimed eugenicist, so….

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Is there any evidence the modern transhumanist movement advocates eugenics? Your own screenshot says Moore laid the groundwork for the modern movement, not Huxley. In fact, Huxley seems to have simply tried to coin the term. Further down in the article:

1

Anonymous #1 2w

It’s basically about using science and technology to overcome limitations that ordinary humans face. There’s a focus on aging and superintelligence (usually through some brain-computer interface)

1

Anonymous #5 2w

let’s assume transhumanism achieves its goals (which is not limited to aging and super intelligence, but also genetic alteration) how would have access to this technology, in the most likely scenario? would a capable of reversing the aging process be evenly distributed amongst the rich and poor alike, or primarily focused on the richest in the world? what type of genes are targeted by transhumanism?

1

Anonymous #5 2w

there is a difference between cybernetics, and “trying to overcome limitations of our species” what are those limitations? who determines what is and what isn’t a limitation? we’re still in an era of increasing prejudice towards entire demographics on the premise of their immutable traits and genetics, and the richest amongst us are funding transhumanism. yes, it’s a modern form of eugenics.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

To expand: transhumanism is synonymous with cyberbionics. one can advocate for utilizing technology to expand our capabilities without inadvertently aligning themselves with eugenicists. (it’s primarily the “limitations” aspect in my opinion; and personally I don’t think it’s historical link to eugenics should be dismissed given its severity)

1

Anonymous #4 2w

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the early 20th century state-run sterilization programs most people associate with the term “eugenics” compared to the definition some people use today, which sets up a very slippery slope. The modern definition may treat IVF, genetic counseling, and prenatal screening as eugenics

1

Anonymous #5 2w

in all honesty, there is an argument to be made regarding potential eugenics via limiting who has access to those services it’s not like eugenics has disappeared from society, it’s just become much more hidden and systemically ingrained.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

(that is NOT to say that those services are inherently eugenicist, but that systemic oppression limiting those who have access to them could qualify as a form of subliminal eugenics)

1

Anonymous #4 2w

I think I agree with that. Part of the reason it’s “hidden” is because it’s significantly different from the old eugenics. You can argue that it comes down to intent. No one is trying to improve the “purify” the population like they did with the state-run programs. Nowadays, people most likely do not have the resources themselves to take care of a child with significant disabilities or believe it would be inhumane to have a child suffer for their entire life (which may only be a few hours)…

1

Anonymous #5 2w

…some ethical frameworks would still call that “new eugenics” and ableism (I don’t really agree, but I think it comes down to intent). But I think the argument is now that the *inequality* is eugenics, and that can be applied to transhumanism too. But modern transhumanism usually does not inherently advocate for eugenics

1

Anonymous #5 2w

I personally view the framing of “eliminating limitations” that many transhumanists hold as borderline eugenicist, but I can see where you’re coming from regarding how the lens of eugenics is commonly expanded to include many forms of inequality (which, I’d also justify in my opinion given the inherent intersectionality of the various forms of oppression that exist within the world)

3

Anonymous #4 2w

I don’t think individuals engaging in abortion is fundamentally related to eugenics, but I entirely agree with how you frame it through the lens of intent: someone getting an abortion to avoid submitting a child to a life of suffering is definitely very different from someone getting an abortion to avoid giving birth to someone of a certain demographic, or getting an abortion based on genetics, etc etc etc)

6

Anonymous #4 2w

It’s partially my reasoning for differentiating between transhumanism and other related fields such as cybernetics, bionics, etc

5