Nick Bostrom (
Thu, 6 Aug 1998 16:28:14 +0000

Kathryn Aegis wrote:

> I have missed something about the way this FAQ was originally organized, but
> aren't most these actually 'transhumanist technologies'? When I hear the
> phrase 'transhumanist concepts' I think of 'transhuman', 'posthuman', as
> well as the 'singularity' and the various paths of evolution. This may be a
> function of the manner in which the English language is used on my side of
> the Atlantic--North Americans tend to use the word 'concept' to indicate a
> broader idea rather than a concrete manifestation. Can someone clarify this?

Burch called it 'technologies'. I changed it to 'concepts' for two reasons. First, I wanted to explain what the singularity is supposed to be and I cound't fit it under any other section. Second, the notion of a transhuman technology is a little strange - a cogwheel or a rubber band are techenologies that are very useful for transhumanist purposes, so it's unfortunate to give the impression that only some fancy sci-fi future tech would qualify as transhuman.

If there's a problem with "concept" we can change it to something else -- not "applications" though, since the singularity is hardly an application.

Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method London School of Economics