Re: Definitions for Transhumanism

Anders Sandberg (
10 Apr 1998 18:44:39 +0200

"Scott Badger" <> writes:

> Though I appreciate you responding to it, I'm not sure my definition is as
> heretical as you suggest.

(the day we get transhumanist heresies, that day I quit; however, there
are certaily *mistaken* transhumanist ideas in need of correction :-)

> But, it does appear that we have a hierarchy or needs and when the
> baser one are met, we "tend" to seek to meet higher order needs and
> this appears to be a trans-cultural phenomenon.

I wonder if this is true in general? While it is a common phenomenon,
it seems that there are so many possible higher order goals we can set
up that it is not clear that the goals involving getting mental and
physical tools for further self-actualization will be the most common,
let alone dominant. There are plenty of people who begin to strive
after what appears to be dead-end goals which prevent further growth,
such as a constant passive mystical state. But I think you have a
point in that a large fraction of people would, if all their basic
needs were met, likely start developing.

> I think it's what
> truly sets us apart from the other life forms on the planet. We're
> just not satisfied with homeostatic routines. In a way, we embody
> the very forces of evolution that brought us here on both an
> individual and a societal level.

We are in some sense underdefined, we can consciously set up our own
goals and act on them, and this undermines homeostatic
routines. Fortunately.

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y