Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
The problem with this statement, while 100% correct in certain vantages, is that it seems to set a universal standard of "evolutionary success" that is incoherent with the idea of passing such a judgment that evolution "succeeds". That is, evolution itself has no reason to CARE whether or not it is successful because as a mere statistical model that describes the process of speciation it really doesn't bear any emotional or rational judgment. If evolution guides a species one direction to benefit a generation, only humans would say "evolution has succeeded." Likewise, when the same adaptation encounters an evolutionary bottleneck where it actually sees to the demise of all those who have it, evolution doesn't have a voice to say, "oh shit, I failed".
Hence, in this context "evolutionary success" a purely anthropocentric judgment as it ever shall be, but in relation to an anthropentric motion then axiomatically it reduces to "whatever we think is a good thing".
|
So? Transhumanism is anthropocentric, why should it matter if "evolutionary success" is an anthropoocentric judgement? This just seems like a needless disgression.
Quote:
|
Thus, your question of what it is about being human (as we now know it) that sucks so fantastically becomes more relevant than the goal of excluding ourselves from a definition that would recognize it.
|
I'm not sure I follow. Are you agreeing with me that the definition of what is human to begin must be established before transhumanism can be strived for? I'm so fucking tired right now I can barely think, this had better make more sense tommorow morning.