Too bad it's paid access. Wish somebody would copypaste the article.

That's pretty much my take on it, Simon, all technologies are basically "transhuman" to some degree.

Today, if anything, it's a word that may be used to provoke people to contemplate radical new technologies that are becoming science fact.  Eventually it's going to be either redundant or dated (if it's not already), and that's if it gains a significant mainstream recognition at all.

Either way it doesn't really matter to me.  Most people I talk to are technologically oriented enough that I don't even use the word.

Simon wrote:
"After all, we could argue that most, if not all, technologies are transhumanist. It's just a matter of perspective, and degree.  Is the era of transhumanism as a distinct philosophy and ideology over? After all, humans have always been transhumanist."

These words bring to mind the Transhumanist philosophy of the late F.M. 2030, who felt most people to at least an extent were Transhumanists (even if they didn't know it!).  Other branches of Transhumanism, such as Extropianism, saw being a Transhuman as more of an all or nothing thing.  

I think the leaders of the late Extropian Institute are pointing the way by re-inventing themselves as an organization focused on the Procautionary Principle.  This concept is to be the "sledgehammer" of Transhumanist argument in showing how we as a society must move forward with new technologies in a spirit of prudence and public discourse, as compared to those who would want to spread unrestrained fearmongering/worst case scenario thinking so that scientists would be greatly hampered or even halted from researching crucial and potentially revolutionary technologies.

"Experts" like Leon Kass and Jeremy Rifkin will fully own the battlefield of public opinion and government policy unless we let people know they are not the only serious viewpoint out there.  And even then we must  market our ideas and arguments so that everyone from politicians to the common person on the street will be able to understand and appreciate them.  Unless we do well in this conflict we may not see the type of world develop that we are dreaming about.

I'm grateful that we have people like Anders Sandberg, Nick Bostrom, Max More, Natasha Vita-More, Damien Broderick, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Bruce Klein, Aubrey deGrey, Bart Kosko, Dr. James Hughes, Ray Kurzweil, and Simon & George to be spokesman for Transhumanist ideas.  
But I do think we can all take part in this and that developing a truly "grassroots"  Transhumanist movement could be one of the big things which need to be done over the coming years.

Best wishes,

John      

People are still trapped in what Kurzweil calls the intuitive linear view (as opposed to the reality of exponential growth). They see what's going on immediately, but how many see the deep future implications, like uploading?

Besides, all people know is that it's possible - no sign of popular views on ethics. I think at least a slight majority is more sympathetic to Kass and his ilk. Bioconservatives seem to appeal to higher human values; transhumanism seems selfish, technophilic, and irresponsible at first glance (to Joe Average, at least).

Finally, never underestimate the power of ridicule.

I strongly agree with the two points:

1) All technology is transhumanist because, all technology by definition extends human ability.
2) Technology renders the magical commonplace. The shock diminishes.

However there still needs to be advocacy and clarification. The WTA and like organizations should view themselves like the Electronic Frontier Foundation--a group which doesn't merely fight against foolish legislation but also advocates good regulation.

If the WTA must stay above partisan political and legal battles, then there must be some organization that does this. Some group must counter misinformation and poor information. This group must propose pragmatic alternatives to ill-informed legislation. Our opponents have lobbyists, we need them too.

"This group must propose pragmatic alternatives to ill-informed legislation."

I'd like to see more forum topics on the relevant issues devoted to fact finding and clarification - with efforts to remove 'snowballing.' Once we've explored the aspects of an issue - we could have online opinion polls. The results of these polls might prove useful to political groups.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but far from "anachronistic" I think transhumanism is becoming increasingly *relevant.*

I don't see the main purpose of the movement being to shock people per se (ok, maybe for some H+ artists, but besides them), but rather to offer a coherent interpretation to the accelerating changes including arguments for core values that societies ought to respect (self-ownership and morphological freedom, as well as others) and a vision to help people guide their personal futures in ways that realize our shared dreams and avoid nightmare scenarios. That's hardly irrelevant now just because it is becoming more common for people to expect major changes in the near future, possibily within their lifetimes, in such things as longevity.

If the explicit values of the movement (rather than some implict tendencies we've supposedly always had as humans - through all the stumbling backwards and forwards through technical and social progress) are in fact becoming more common in popular culture, that is a measure of success and potential legislative leverage for the transhumanist activists and allies from all walks of life who set about to change the world. There is *plenty* left for the ongoing struggle.

Betterhumans.com is designed to reports on, and now discuss through blogs and forums, bleeding-edge developments in science and technology and their incorporation into society in ways that improve and expand human capacities. While it this focus provides a clear analysis of the changes we want and find important, I think it can easily lead to overoptimism because one necessarily is not attending to all the evidence of political distractions and short-term roadblocks (throughout the world), the continued ignorance and apathy of many - I *suspect* a safe majority - of people in the "developed" world, the often oppressive and sometimes broadly "risky" applications of technology, the power relations that are emerging and will continue to change due to changing tech, etc. We can't afford to distort our vision with rose-tinted glasses. There is a chance for a nuclear war within the next decade or two (not that I think we are likely to wipe ourselves out but it would still be pretty devastating to large areas of the world); the U.S. certainly isn't diminishing the likelihood by developing low-yield "tactical" nukes for busting deeply buried bunkers.

I'm certainly not arguing the prognosis is gloomy, but we should be aware of our own cognitive biases. I know you find Humanism quite anachronistic, but if we look at the global picture objectively, with the strong prevalence of religion and de-humanizing policies of exploitation, I find the basic mission of Humanism still quite relevant in most parts of the world (maybe not domestically in much of Western Europe or Canada, but certainly in the U.S. and in the global economic-power relations sustained by unrestricted transnational finance capital that ruins economies in third and second world nations that begin to ease the poverty of their citizens through social safety nets, etc.).

Best,
Ben

Actually, I find "transhumanism" a bit awkward as a concept. I suppose there's such an entity. My interest is and has been for decades (1) curing all diseases and healing injuries without damage, (2) preventing genetic errors, (3) extending the entire human lifespan, (4) increasing human abilities.
I suppose this set of more or less recurring themes in all cultures has a different name now because we're at the verge of begining to actually accomplish some of these things.