I think you are working to separate things that are connected. The idea that males and females are not or need not be considered two separate biological categories, that in fact women are not necessarily the only sex that can give birth, the idea that 'gender' defines sex and not the other way around, are things Rothblatt argues in his book. The idea that we can evolve past biology and nature is very much connected to transgenderism. The transgender industry is trying to glue together new versions humans via technology. I'm just not sure what you're not seeing here.
I hate to say, "no u", but.... How many works of transhumanists have you read? (Incidentally, I'd like answers to the previous questions also). This analysis isn't much more than "these guys want to change biology and those guys want to change biology, it's all the same.
"Evolving past biology and nature" is something we do all the time. IVF, prosthetics, antibiotics. Transhumanism just follows this to its logical conclusion. The idea that there's a problem with moving "past nature" is no different than those who said that painkillers during birth were wrong because it broke God's punishment that women should suffer during birth.
The problem with the trans thing isn't that it's "against nature", or whatever, but that it doesn't work as advertised, many poor souls are being duped into lifelong mutilation, women's spaces are being invaded etc etc. What's wrong with that isn't that it's "beyond biology" but that it inflicts vast amount ls of needless suffering. Again: show me where that stuff is supported by prominent transhumanists and you'll have a point.
The idea that we can (and should) alter the most fundamental aspect of nature and biology to suit a cadre of wealthy elitists with god complexes is dangerous.
Before I answer that, let me note that is a completely separate issue from whether or not transhumanists are pushing radical transsexualism (they're not) or funding it (ditto). Good. We've established that.
One question about the rest of this: Why? What is wrong about altering the "most fundamental aspects of nature"?
What are you talking about? Agriculture? Look at any country in Europe, you will see how much Agriculture has changed every aspect of nature. Electricity? Ditto. Steel? Plastics? Industrialisation? (Good luck having women's emancipation without that!) Transport? Telecommunications?
Or is it changes to human biology that are yucky to you? Like, what? Antibiotics? Antiseptics? (think how much of the natural mortality rate is reduced by those!) How about contraception? Doesn't get much much fundamental to biological than that. Incubators? Or what about modern prosthetics that allow the crippled to dance? Or the lame to walk?
I am doing you the courtesy of ignoring that line about "wealthy elite", because in my experience that leads to a level of discourse nit far removed from sticking (((triple parentheses))) all over the place.
I enjoy your writing and podcasts. You're an honest voice, a reasonable one and that is rare on the website. You just seem uniformed about transhumanism. Which is fine; no one can be informed about everything. I am uninformed about tons of things.
Let me know if you ever want a recommendation for a guest for your show who is a transhumanist.
Aella I don't know. I would dearly like to know what on earth earns Fleischman the term "sociopathic".
(I can't resist adding this: when looking up her transhumanist views, one of the top hits was a page dunking on her for, wait for it, her anti-trans views).
I think you are working to separate things that are connected. The idea that males and females are not or need not be considered two separate biological categories, that in fact women are not necessarily the only sex that can give birth, the idea that 'gender' defines sex and not the other way around, are things Rothblatt argues in his book. The idea that we can evolve past biology and nature is very much connected to transgenderism. The transgender industry is trying to glue together new versions humans via technology. I'm just not sure what you're not seeing here.
I hate to say, "no u", but.... How many works of transhumanists have you read? (Incidentally, I'd like answers to the previous questions also). This analysis isn't much more than "these guys want to change biology and those guys want to change biology, it's all the same.
"Evolving past biology and nature" is something we do all the time. IVF, prosthetics, antibiotics. Transhumanism just follows this to its logical conclusion. The idea that there's a problem with moving "past nature" is no different than those who said that painkillers during birth were wrong because it broke God's punishment that women should suffer during birth.
The problem with the trans thing isn't that it's "against nature", or whatever, but that it doesn't work as advertised, many poor souls are being duped into lifelong mutilation, women's spaces are being invaded etc etc. What's wrong with that isn't that it's "beyond biology" but that it inflicts vast amount ls of needless suffering. Again: show me where that stuff is supported by prominent transhumanists and you'll have a point.
The idea that we can (and should) alter the most fundamental aspect of nature and biology to suit a cadre of wealthy elitists with god complexes is dangerous.
Before I answer that, let me note that is a completely separate issue from whether or not transhumanists are pushing radical transsexualism (they're not) or funding it (ditto). Good. We've established that.
One question about the rest of this: Why? What is wrong about altering the "most fundamental aspects of nature"?
What are you talking about? Agriculture? Look at any country in Europe, you will see how much Agriculture has changed every aspect of nature. Electricity? Ditto. Steel? Plastics? Industrialisation? (Good luck having women's emancipation without that!) Transport? Telecommunications?
Or is it changes to human biology that are yucky to you? Like, what? Antibiotics? Antiseptics? (think how much of the natural mortality rate is reduced by those!) How about contraception? Doesn't get much much fundamental to biological than that. Incubators? Or what about modern prosthetics that allow the crippled to dance? Or the lame to walk?
I am doing you the courtesy of ignoring that line about "wealthy elite", because in my experience that leads to a level of discourse nit far removed from sticking (((triple parentheses))) all over the place.
I enjoy your writing and podcasts. You're an honest voice, a reasonable one and that is rare on the website. You just seem uniformed about transhumanism. Which is fine; no one can be informed about everything. I am uninformed about tons of things.
Let me know if you ever want a recommendation for a guest for your show who is a transhumanist.
I'll think about it for sure. Though all the transhumanists I've encountered (Aella, for example, Diana Fleischman...) strike me as sociopathic haha
Aella I don't know. I would dearly like to know what on earth earns Fleischman the term "sociopathic".
(I can't resist adding this: when looking up her transhumanist views, one of the top hits was a page dunking on her for, wait for it, her anti-trans views).