Transhumanism

{{bronze}}
[[File:Transhumanism h+.svg|thumb|right|165px|We're 
Hydrogen 
ions  
 better than you, stinky [[humanist]]s!]]{{philosophy}}

{{cquote|An immortal being could not be [[Freedom|free]]. No choice would be meaningful, because all could be deferred. Life itself would become the only value, [[sadist]]ically affirmed by the background mortality of others/ Anxiety about accidental death and assassination would fill the [[mind]], dissolving any capacity to think of anything (or anyone) else. One notices this tendency in the company of people who are trying to live forever. Knowing that we are mortal is what allows us to take risks, even little ones such as leaving the house to get coffee or pick up a kid from school If we really had everything to lose at every moment, we would curl up in a ball.|||Timothy Snyder<ref>''On Freedom'' by Timothy Snyder (2024) Crown. ISBN 9780593728727.</ref>{{rp|205}}}}
{{cquote|You know what they say the modern version of [[Pascal's Wager]] is? Sucking up to as many Transhumanists as possible, just in case one of them turns into [[God]].|||Julie from ''Crystal Nights'' by Greg Egan<ref>''Crystal Nights and Other Stories'' by Greg Egan (2009) Subterranean. ISBN  1596062401.</ref>}}

'''Transhumanism''' (or '''H+'''), an intellectual movement, is greatly influenced by science fiction and presents an idealistic point of view of what technology ''could'' do for humanity in the future, not what it '''can''' do; it's all hypothetical.<ref>''Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future'' by James Hughes (2004) Westview Press. ISBN 0813341981.</ref>  Transhumanism explores the benefits and repercussions of what technology could do for humanity; however, it assumes the technological boundaries are nonexistent.<ref name="Mercer">''Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement'' by Calvin Mercer (2014) Praeger. ISBN 1440833257.</ref>

==Speculation==
How plausible is transhumanism?  In the 1930s, many sensible people were ''sure'' human beings would never get to the [[Moon]] and that was just one of many [[prediction]]s that turned out incorrect.<ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions Incorrect predictions] on Wikiquote</ref>  Early 21<sup>st</sup> century people do not know one way or the other what will be possible in the future. However, the scientific claims of transhumanism still need to be examined critically, because some of these technoscientific prophecies may not be plausible; after we ''got'' to the moon, people expected we'd have a permanent colony there by the end of the century.<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258340596_Is_Transhumanism_scientifically_plausible_Post-_Predictions_and_the_Human_Predicament Is Transhumanism scientifically plausible? Post- Predictions and the Human Predicament]</ref>

While frequently dismissed as mere speculation at best by most [[rationalist]]s<ref>[http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-march-2012/rationalist-approach-transhumanism-and-singularity.html A Rationalist Approach to Transhumanism and the Singularity]</ref> (especially in light of the many failures of [[artificial intelligence]]), transhumanism is a strongly-held belief among many computer [[geek]]s, notably synthesizer and accessible computing guru [[Ray Kurzweil]], a believer in the "technological [[singularity]]," where technology evolves beyond humanity's current capacity to understand or anticipate it, and Sun Microsystems founder and Unix demigod Bill Joy, who believes the inevitable result of [[Artificial intelligence|AI]] research is the obsolescence of humanity.<ref>[https://archive.is/uulVH The Robot Menace]</ref>

==The promise of transhumanism==
Certain recent technological advances are making the possibility of the realization of transhumanism appear more plausible: [[Scientist]]s funded by the [[United States Armed Forces|military]] developed an implant that can translate motor neuron signals into a form that a computer can use, thus opening the door for advanced prosthetics capable of being manipulated like biological limbs and producing sensory information.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20090514045724/http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/508399/scientists_race_to_create_biological_prosthetic_arm_for_wounded_soldiers/index.html Scientists Race to Create ‘Biological’ Prosthetic Arm for Wounded Soldiers], RedOrbit</ref> This is on top of the earlier development of cochlear implants, which translate sound waves into nerve signals; they are often called "bionic ears."<ref>{{wpa|Cochlear implants}}</ref>

Even DIY transhumanism or 'biohacking' is becoming an option, with people installing magnetic implants, allowing them to feel [[magnet]]ic and [[electric field]]s.<ref>[http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/enhanced/scrapheap-transhumanism Scrapheap Transhumanism], ''H+ Magazine''</ref>  Others have taken to wearing belts of magnets, in order to always be able to find magnetic north. Prosthetic limbs with some level of touch are also now being developed, a major milestone.<ref>[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-09/14/darpa-creates-feeling-prosthetic-arm], ''Wired''</ref>
One notable individual who's received magnetic finger implants is [[Zoe Quinn]].<ref> [http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/cyborgs-among-us-human-biohackers-embed-chips-their-bodies-n150756] ''NBC News'' </ref> The current scientific consensus seems unclear: although humans are not thought to have a magnetic sense, there is a {{wpl|cryptochrome}} [[protein]] in the eye which could potentially make humans capable of {{wpl|Magnetoreception||,}} like certain other mammals such as mice and cows appear to be.<ref name=Foley>[http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n6/full/ncomms1364.html Human cryptochrome exhibits light-dependent magnetosensitivity] by Lauren E. Foley et al. (2011) ''Nature Communications'' 2:356. doi:10.1038/ncomms1364.</ref>

==Criticisms==
===Scientific criticisms===
====Whole brain emulation====
"Whole brain emulation" (WBE) is a term used by transhumanists to refer to, quite obviously, the emulation of a brain on a computer. While this is no doubt a possibility {{cn}}, it encounters two problems that keep it from being a certainty anytime in the near future.

The first is a [[philosophical]] objection: For WBE to work, "[[strong AI]]" (i.e. AI equivalent to or greater than human intelligence) must be attainable. A number of philosophical objections have been raised against strong AI, generally contending either that the mind or [[consciousness]] is not computable or that a simulation of consciousness is not equivalent to true consciousness (whatever that is). There is still controversy over strong AI in the field of philosophy of mind.<ref>See North Carolina State University's [http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/risks/ai/strong/ Strong AI page] for arguments for and against strong AI and other issues relating to it.</ref> If human brains are physical systems, and the Physical Church-Turing Thesis holds, then a Turing machine can compute any process that can happen in the human brain, and strong AIs must be possible. But there is no clear proof or disproof for the Physical Church-Turing Thesis yet.<ref>Gualtiero Piccinini, [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1093/bjps/axr016 The Physical Church–Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold?]</ref>

A second possible objection is technological: WBE may not defy physics, but the technology to fully simulate a human brain (in the sense meant by transhumanists, at least) is a ''long'' way away. Currently, no computer (or network of computers) is powerful enough to simulate a human brain. Henry Markram, head of the Blue Brain Project, estimates that simulating a brain would require 500 petabytes of data for storage and that the power required to run the simulation would cost about $3 billion annually. (However, in 2008, he optimistically predicted this it would be possible ten years from 2008.)<ref>Lehrer, Jonah. [http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/out_of_the_blue/ Out of the Blue]. ''Seed Magazine''. March 3, 2008</ref> In addition to technological limitations in computing, there are also the limits of [[neuroscience]]. Neuroscience currently relies on technology that can only scan the brain at the level of gross anatomy (e.g., f[[MRI]], PET). Forms of single neuron imaging (SNI) have been developed recently, but they can only be used on [[animal]] subjects (usually [[rat]]s) because they destroy neural tissue.<ref>[http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/november/neuron-imaging.html New imaging method developed at Stanford reveals stunning details of brain connections], Stanford School of Medicine</ref>

The problem with emulating a brain is not just the hurdle of creating a digital model of the brain, which contains 100 billion neurons, nor the fact that the brain is fluid, which makes it difficult to predict the way molecules will travel in the brain. The biggest problem is the fact that our brain is not a singular entity which functions on its own, it is an organ whose function is connected to our whole body (consisting of over 37 trillion cells, and a similarly massive microbiome). More importantly, its function and behavior is a product of interaction with the massive and complex biological world and universe we live in, much of which we are yet to fully understand. If we simply created a digital model of a brain on a computer, it would just be a dead model on a computer. If you really wanted it to function like a real brain, you would need to create an environment which is an exact replica of our universe for it to function within. Oh, it would probably need a body too. Unless we somehow gained ultimate, god-like knowledge and understanding of the universe and everything within it, then built a computer powerful enough to create an exact copy of our universe, then created a digital version of our universe on said computer, our digital brain model (or anything which we try to emulate) is never going to behave the same as the real thing.

====Immortality, cryonics and mind uploading====
{{main|1=Immortality|3=Cryonics|5=Mind uploading}}
{{cquote|First, let me say that I’m all in favor of research on aging, and I think science has great potential to prolong healthy lives…and I’m all for that. But I think immortality, or even a close approximation to it, is both impossible and undesirable.|||[[P.Z. Myers]]<ref>https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/22/a-short-argument-against-immortality/</ref>}}
Another transhumanist goal is mind uploading, which is one way they claim<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/mind-uploading-2045-futurists_n_3458961.html ‘Mind Uploading’ & Digital Immortality May Be Reality By 2045, Futurists Say]</ref><ref>[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35786771 The immortalist: Uploading the mind to a computer]</ref> we will be able to achieve immortality. Aside from the problems with WBE listed above, mind uploading suffers a philosophical problem, namely the "swamp man problem." That is, will the "uploaded" mind be "you" or simply a copy or facsimile of your [[mind]]? However, one possible way round this problem would be via incremental replacement of parts of the brain with their cybernetic equivalents (the patient being awake during each operation). Then there is no "breaking" of the continuity of the individual's consciousness, and it becomes difficult for proponents of the "swamp man" hypothesis to pinpoint exactly when the individual stops being "themselves." It does, however, run directly into a similar problem, the "Ship of Theseus" problem: when all of the brain's parts have been replaced, is it still fundamentally the same as the original brain? Furthermore, if the parts of the old brain were somehow to be restored and reassembled into a brain in a way that restored the consciousness inherent in the full brain, would it be considered the original brain- and if so, would this mean the cybernetic brain is no longer the original? (In L. Frank Baum's ''Wizard of Oz'' books, this is the origin story of the Tin Woodsman, who later ends up in a dispute with a man built from his old body parts over this very subject.)

[[Cryonics]] is another favorite of many transhumanists. In principle, cryonics and revitalization are only remotely possible in the broadest sense. If one day we can repair all damages freezing does to biological membranes and proteins in a human body (or, at least, a human brain), revert all DNA damages that naturally accumulate during the freezing, and restore all necrotic and lysed cells to their states before the person died, we can then bring a frozen person back to life. When compared to these technological requirements, the difficulties mind uploading is currently facing seem trivial.

====Radical life extension====
Fighting aging and extending life expectancy is possible — the field that studies aging and attempts to provide suggestions for anti-aging technology is known as "biogerontology". [[Aubrey de Grey]] has proposed a number of treatments for aging. In 2005, 28 scientists working in biogerontology signed a letter to ''EMBO Reports'' pointing out that de Grey's treatments had never been demonstrated to work and that many of his claims for anti-aging technology were extremely inflated.<ref>Huber Warner et al. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371037/?tool=pmcentrez Science Fact and the SENS Agenda], ''EMBO Reports''. 2005 November; 6(11): 1006-1008.</ref> This article was written in response to a July 2005 ''EMBO reports'' article previously published by de Grey<ref>de Grey, Aubrey (July 2005). "Resistance to debate on how to postpone ageing is delaying progress and costing lives". ''EMBO reports''. 6 (S1): S49–S53. PMID 15995663.</ref> and a response from de Grey was published in the same November issue.<ref>de Grey, Aubrey (November 2005). "Like it or not, life-extension research extends beyond biogerontology". ''EMBO reports''. 6 (11): 1000. PMID 16264420.</ref> De Grey summarizes these events in "The biogerontology research community's evolving view of SENS," published on the Methuselah Foundation website.<ref>de Grey, Aubrey. "[http://www.mfoundation.org/files/sens/Gandhi3.htm The biogerontology research community's evolving view of SENS]". Methuselah Foundation. Retrieved on July 1, 2008.</ref>

Radical life extension is not without issues of realism, besides what the EMBO Reports says, in reality, the increment of life expectancy is slowing down, and it is unlikely that the percentage of people living to 100 years old will ever exceed 15% for females and 5% for males without any means to slow aging<ref>[https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00702-3 Implausibility of radical life extension in humans in the twenty-first century] by S. Jay Olshansky et al. (2024) ''Nature Aging'' 4:1635–1642. doi:10.1038/s43587-024-00702-3.</ref>; moreover, despite the impressive developments in computer technology and artificial intelligence in recent decades, the progress of scientific and technological innovation is slowing down in general,<ref>[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time] by Michael Park et al. (2023) ''Nature'' 613:138–144. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x.</ref> and the progression of computer technology has so far failed to translate to medicine, which means we should not realistically expect that there will be big breakthrough in medicine, and thus should not realistically expect that aging will be slowed or cured, therefore we should not expect the demographic trend that the increment of life expectancy is slowing down will be changed by future technological progress.

To sum up, fighting against aging and death has always been fighting a losing battle, and this may still be the case in the future.

====Scientific disputes====
Worst of all, some transhumanists outright [[Willful ignorance|ignore]]{{cn}} what people in the fields they're interested in tell them; a few AI boosters, for example, believe that neurobiology is an outdated science because AI researchers can do it themselves anyway. They seem to have taken the analogy used to introduce the computational theory of mind, "the mind (or brain) is like a computer", and taken it literally. Of course, the mind/brain is not a computer in the usual sense.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/ 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers], ScienceBlogs</ref> Debates with such people can take on the wearying feel of a debate with a [[creationist]] or [[global warming denialism|climate change denialist]], as such people will stick to their positions no matter what. Indeed, many critics are [[Straw man|simply dismissed]] as [[Luddite]]s or woolly-headed [[Romanticism|romantics]] who oppose scientific and technological [[progress]].<ref>[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/129 The Trouble with "Transhumanism": Part Two], IEET</ref>

===Ethical and political criticism===
====Bioethics====
Transhumanism has often been criticized for not taking [[ethical]] issues seriously on a variety of topics,<ref>[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/munkittrick20110817 A Conversation on the Ethics of Transhumanism], IEET</ref> including life extension technology,<ref>Jaynce C. Lucke and Wayne Hall. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299249/ Who Wants to Live Forever?], ''EMBO Reports''. 2005 February; 6(2): 98-102.</ref> cryonics,<ref>[http://archive.today/FT2sS Medical Ethics Symposium Demystifies Cryonics]</ref> and mind uploading and other enhancements.<ref>Susan Schneider. [http://web.archive.org/web/20131003103426/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sls/documents/Schneider-Mindscanproofs.pdf Transcending and Enhancing the Human Brain], ''Science Fiction and Philosophy''.</ref><ref>MJ McNamee and SJ Edwards. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563415/ Transhumanism, Medical Technology, and Slippery Slopes], ''Journal of Medical Ethics''. 2006 September; 32(9): 513-518.</ref> Francis Fukuyama (in his doctrinaire [[neoconservative]] days) caused a stir by naming transhumanism "the world's most dangerous idea."<ref>[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism Transhumanism], ''Foreign Policy''. See also the [http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/dangerous.html response by Nick Bostrom.]</ref> One of Fukuyama's criticisms, that implementation of the technologies transhumanists push for will lead to [[Social Darwinism|severe inequality]], is a rather common one.

One of the most common concerns is the abuse of hypothetical future brain implant technology by governments, militaries, coorporations or any other nefarious acting groups & individuals. The premise of having implants and surgeries which could alter your brain and personality, threaten your mental autonomy & privacy, and/or allow strangers to potentially read or control your thoughts and behavior, is not something that would appeal to most sane individuals. Being forced or pressured to receive unwanted surgeries and implants in the future due to societal pressure to keep up with "enhanced" individuals is another major concern. Many transhumanists either ignore these concerns or insist that their vision of the future is the "right" or "natural" path of humanity, regardless if many people fear or disagree with it. They often present their future cyborg vision of humanity with a very forceful, "Resistance is Futile" undertone. Rather than viewing them as "utopian idealists", many people view their vision for the future as a dystopian nightmare.

====Elitism and political utopianism====
A number of [[political]] criticisms of transhumanism have been made as well. Transhumanist organizations have been accused of being in the pocket of [[corporate]] and military interests.<ref name="Counterpunch">[http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/15/if-only-glenn-beck-were-a-cyborg/ If Only Glenn Beck Were a Cyborg], ''CounterPunch'' (Oh God.)</ref> The movement has been identified with Silicon Valley due to the fact that some of its biggest backers, such as Peter Thiel (of PayPal and [[Bitcoin]] fame), reside in the region.<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_packer?currentpage=all No Death, No Taxes], ''The New Yorker''</ref><ref>[http://ce399eugenics.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/immortality-2-0-a-silicon-valley-insider-looks-at-californias-transhumanist-movement/ Immortality 2.0: A Silicon Valley Insider Looks at California's Transhumanist Movement]</ref> Some writers see transhumanism as a hivemind of [[crank]]y and obnoxious techno-[[libertarianism]].<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/media/147978/the_ultimate_escape%3A_the_bizarre_libertarian_plan_of_uploading_brains_into_robots_to_escape_society?page=entire The Ultimate Escape: The Bizarre Libertarian Plan of Uploading Brains into Robots to Escape Society], AlterNet</ref><ref>[http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm The Politics of Transhumanism], presentation to the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science</ref> The fact that eugenicist Julian Huxley coined the term "transhumanism" and many transhumanists' obsession with constructing a [[Nietzsche]]an ubermensch known as the "posthuman" has led to comparisons with [[eugenics]].<ref>Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. [http://jetpress.org/v20/sorgner.htm Nietzsche, the Overhuman, and the Transhuman], ''Journal of Evolution and Technology''. Vol. 20; Issue 1 – March 2009, pgs. 29-42.</ref><ref name="Counterpunch"/> Like eugenics, it has been characterized as a [[utopia]]n political ideology.<ref>Michael Hauskeller. [http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=5766 Reinventing Cockaigne: Utopian Themes in Transhumanist Thought], ''Hastings Center Report'' 42, no. 2 (2012): 39-47.</ref> Jaron Lanier slammed it as "cybernetic totalism".<ref>[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier/lanier_index.html One Half a Manifesto], edge.org</ref>

====Religious objections and relations====
Some tension has developed between transhumanism and [[religion]], although there are many secular liberal people who are skeptical or opposed to transhumanism as well.{{cn}} Some transhumanists, generally being [[atheist]]ic [[philosophical naturalism|naturalists]], see all religion as an impediment to scientific and technological advancement and some Christians oppose transhumanism because of its stance on [[cloning]] and genetic engineering and label it as a [[heresy|heretical]] [[belief]] system.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2010/09/christianity-versus-transhumanism/ Christianity versus Transhumanism], ''Wired''</ref> Other transhumanists, however, have attempted to extend an olive branch to Christians,<ref>[http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/10/04/why-christianity-transhumanism-are-not-enemies/ Why Christianity and Transhumanism Are Not Enemies], ''H+ Magazine''</ref> and the Christian Transhumanist Association group on Facebook has over 1,100 members. 

Some religious transhumanists have tried to reconcile their religion and techno-utopian beliefs, calling for a "scientific [[theology]]."<ref>[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20100114/ Problems of Transhumanism: Atheism vs. Naturalist Theologies], IEET</ref> There is even a ''[[Mormon]]'' transhumanist organization.<ref>[http://transfigurism.org/ Mormon Transhumanist Association homepage]</ref> [[Irony meter|Ironically]] for the atheistic transhumanists, the movement has itself been characterized as a religion and its [[rhetoric]] compared to Christian [[apologetics]].<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/06/14/pitching-the-new-transhumanism-religion-in-the-nyt/ Pitching the New Transhumanism Religion in the NYT], ''First Things''</ref><ref>The title of this thread at the Kurzweil forum says it all: [http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/beginning-to-lose-faith-in-the-singularity-transhumanism "Beginning to Lose Faith in the Singularity/Transhumanism."]</ref> Interestingly the word transhuman first appeared in Henry Francis Carey’s 1814 translation of ''Paradiso'', the last book of the Divine Comedy as [[Dante]] ascends to heaven during the resurrection.<ref> [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/god-in-the-machine-my-strange-journey-into-transhumanism "God in the machine: my strange journey into transhumanism"] ''The Guardian''</ref>

==Politics==
The very small {{wpl|Transhumanist politics|transhumanist political movement}} has gained momentum with {{wpl|Zoltan Istvan}} announcing his bid for US president, with the Transhumanist Party and other small political parties gaining support internationally.

==So now what?==
The important thing about transhumanism is that while a lot of such predictions may in fact be possible (and may even be in their embryonic stages right now), a ''strong'' [[skeptical]] eye is required for any claimed prediction about the fields it covers.  When evaluating such a claim, one will probably need a trip to a library (or [[Wikipedia]], or a relevant scientist's home page) to get up to speed on the basics.<ref group=note>People should always do this any time they encounter [[extraordinary claim]]s.</ref>

==In popular culture==
[[File:Brainthatwouldntdie film poster.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Film poster for the film ''The Brain That Wouldn't Die'' (1962)]]
A common trope in [[science fiction]] for decades is that the prospect of transcending the current form may be positive, as in [[Arthur C. Clarke]]'s 1953 novel ''Childhood's End'' or negative, as in the [[Films|film]] ''[[The Matrix]]'', with its barely disguised salvationist theme, or the ''Terminator'' series of films, where humanity has been [[Cybernetic revolt|essentially replaced by machine life]].  Change so radical elicits fear and thus it is unsurprising that many of the portrayals of transhumanism in popular [[culture]] are negative.  The cyberpunk genre deals extensively with the theme of a transhumanist society gone wrong.

On closer inspection, this should not be surprising. Since transhumanism is ambitious about conquering age-related illnesses ({{wpl|extropianism}}), death ({{wpl|immortalism}}), ecological damage ({{wpl|technogaianism}}), gender differences ({{wpl|postgenderism}}) and suffering (abolitionism), a fictional world where this has already been achieved leaves a story with few plot devices to exploit. Additionally, it could be hard for the public to identify with flawless, post-human characters.

Among the [[utopia]]n visions of transhumanism are those found in the collaborative online science fiction setting Orion's Arm. Temporally located in the post-[[singularity]] future, 10,000 years from now, Orion's Arm is massively optimistic about genetic engineering, continued improvements in computing and materials science. Because only technology which has been demonstrated to be impossible is excluded, even remotely plausible concepts have a tendency to be thrown in. At the highest end of the scale is artificial wormhole creation, baby universes and inertia without mass.<ref>See http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-intro and http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/49a7d33abf557</ref> Perhaps the only arguably positive depiction of transhumanism in video games is the {{wpl|Megaman ZX}} series where the line between human and reploids has begun to blur. Defining at what point the definition of the singularity was met in the centuries long Megaman timeline can be a useful way of illustrating how nebulous the terminology is during a debate.

==See also==
*[[Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate]]
*[[Egotheism]]
*[[Futurism]]
*[[LessWrong]]
*[[Jeffrey Epstein]]

==External links==
*[http://hpluspedia.org hpluspedia.org] - H+Pedia, transhumanist wiki
*[http://hplusmagazine.com/ ''h+ magazine'']
== Further reading ==
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20140406081312/http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/huxley ''Transhumanism''], the 1957 paper by Julian Huxley coining the term
*Nick Bostrom. [http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/FAQv21.pdf The Transhumanist FAQ], Oxford University (See [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ Bostrom's homepage] for more articles on transhumanism)
*[http://jetpress.org/ ''Journal of Evolution and Technology''], a transhumanist theoretical journal published by the [http://www.ieet.org/ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology (IEET)]
*[http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/diaz20071216/ A Thinking Ape's Critique of Trans-simianism] (Humor)
*[https://youtu.be/6hKG5l_TDU8 I am the very model of a Singularitarian] (More humor, plus music!) [http://www.kurzweilai.net/i-am-the-very-model-of-a-singularitarian Lyrics] on Ray Kurzweil's site
*[http://dresdencodak.com/ Dresden Codak], transhumanist comics oh my goodness
*[http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2009/01/condensed-critique-of-transhumanism.html A Condensed Critique of Transhumanism], Dale Carrico
*[http://savageminds.org/2008/07/31/transhumanism-vs-anthropology/ Transhumanism vs. Anthropology], Christopher Kelty
*Is ''[[Futurama]]'' the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdyc7BpKic0 Best Argument Against Transhumanism?], PBS
*Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. [http://transhumanism.asu.edu/pdf/2007_news_challenges.pdf Facing the Challenges of Transhumanism: Philosophical, Religious, and Ethical Considerations], Arizona State University
*Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron. [http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/theory-californianideology-main.html The Californian Ideology], University of Westminster
*Keith A. Bauer. [http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/46654/ Transhumanism and Its critics: Five arguments against a Posthuman Future], ''International Journal of Technoethics''
*Philippe Verdoux. [http://jetpress.org/v20/verdoux.htm Transhumanism, Progress, and the Future], ''Journal of Evolution and Technology''
*Charlie Stross, [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2022/07/crimes-against-transhumanity.html Crimes against Transhumanity], antipope.org

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

[[Category:Futurism]]
[[Category:Oligarchic escapes]]
[[Category:Transhumanism| ]]

Categories: Futurism, Oligarchic escapes, Transhumanism