Transhumanism ~ Sakinorva Databank

The Sakinorva Databank

Transhumanism

Philosophy

in Science, Technology, and Engineering

Transhumanism ~ Sakinorva Databank

Transhumanism

Philosophy

Science, Technology, and Engineering

e

i

n

s

f

t

p

j

function

ennea

variant

socio

psyche

ENTJ 4

INTJ 3

3w4 4

5w6 2

sp/so 3

LIE 8

LVFE 3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

h

e

x

a

c

o

total votes 36

7

7

6

3

5

8

3

Click to toggle markup guide.

bold	bold
italic	italic
hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"	[hyperlink to "contextualizing functions"](https://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions)
	(i){https://i.imgur.com/g0oL9CB.png}

You may not modify this entry's picture.

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/06 (Wed) 17:13:34 #8184
	In response to post #8183. Okay that's a start, but what if pressure is literally insurmountable and exists as an aftershock from entities that practically create the world around you? Being numb to that pressure doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's insignificant—that just means the consent barrier has been erased entirely... and why is that not an infringement upon freedom? And btw The State isn't the only thing with a monopoly on violence (not sure how you're defining it though)

Editing post #8184 by strawberry crisis Okay that's a start, but what if pressure is literally insurmountable and exists as an aftershock from entities that practically create the world around you? Being numb to that pressure doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's insignificant—that just means the consent barrier has been erased entirely... and why is that not an infringement upon freedom? And btw The State isn't the only thing with a monopoly on violence (not sure how you're defining it though)
Replying to post #8184 by strawberry crisis

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/06 (Wed) 16:57:39 #8182
	In response to post #8181. I'm disappointed in how you responded but:And this is the big problem I think you have, people do not do things for money for it's sake, people do thing because they want to do things, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, it is not all about profitThe point is that the pressure exists and that pressure is what drives a lot of all this. I don't have to directly respond to it, but I will be in its sphere of influence. Stop taking individual bits of what I'm saying and try to form your own context out of it. There is nothing "absolute" or "objective" about power just like no concept is. What a dumb thing to try and wrap me up in. None of this has to do with absolutes or laws or specific ways—it's about formation, trends, your place in the world, how to seek better answers, and a better way of thinking.

Editing post #8182 by strawberry crisis I'm disappointed in how you responded but:<br>And this is the big problem I think you have, people do not do things for money for it's sake, people do thing because they want to do things, Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, it is not all about profit<br>The point is that the pressure exists and that pressure is what drives a lot of all this. I don't have to directly respond to it, but I will be in its sphere of influence. Stop taking individual bits of what I'm saying and try to form your own context out of it. There is nothing "absolute" or "objective" about power just like no concept is. What a dumb thing to try and wrap me up in. None of this has to do with absolutes or laws or specific ways—it's about formation, trends, your place in the world, how to seek better answers, and a better way of thinking.
Replying to post #8182 by strawberry crisis

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/06 (Wed) 13:48:27 #8180
	In response to post #8155. I was not originally going to respond to this because you trail off into fantasy ideological territory when how I'm urging you to look it this issue depends on directly looking at the world around you and understanding the conditions that created it more intuitively rather than claiming that "state regulation" is what primarily created the issue of regular people being unable to seize control of the market to make it work for them when the reality is that power, no matter where it comes from, will be against you, and the control both governmental and corporate entities have and how they interact with one another is what limits your freedom, so I'll now ask that you look at specific interactions between systems in power (or the system that includes them) such as that which you will find in the American healthcare industry, where Democratic politicians, under the pressure of Bernie Sanders' call for Medicare for All, were forced to respond to the appeal of his message with one that would both contrast with his message and sound more appealing to voters but also generate voter outreach, which is where healthcare giants would come in and save the day by whispering the free-market idea of "choice," the freedom to choose between different healthcare plans, into these politicians' ears while lining their pockets with bundled donations and shifting the mass media narrative over to the efficacy of Medicare for All in terms of cost, in turn stacking up power against Sanders and his message while big media consumers begin to fret over "losing" their healthcare despite Medicare for All saving money in the long term and covering all citizens; but if we're going to clash and claim "it's this" or "no, it's that" without thoroughly explaining the mechanisms of how we believe the world works in a way that actually has to do with the world around us, we will end up thinking too ideologically, where centuries-old theory is supposed to explain (with a one-track message, no less) how this extremely complex mess we're in actually has an incredibly simple solution, which I think could almost work if ONLY such theory talked about conditions that create outcomes in a way that adequately frames reality in a way that is consistent with what is actually happening. "I think something being 'overchecked' rather than 'unchecked' is the real problem" is an issue because the very framing of the problem is off-base and the fact that a system isn't working for people can't be always be defected to how much it is in check but rather how it is built. What irks me about free-market economics is that the ideal world imagined by its proponents is shown to be realistic by pointing at the world around you and communicating it in terms of the Economy, which is a concept familiar enough for people to be able to accept the framing offered by the theory, but none of them ever explain how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly effect economics where The State is the big enemy to watch for and created the monster that is crony capitalism today. Anyway, I wanted to respond to you because I wanted to offer you a fun way of looking at things like the original issue: people leaving behind nuance and reasoning and instead only identifying their colors to other people. These social dynamics help nobody but people who can make use of that fact—developing consumer demographics by manufacturing alignments through gamifying interaction to create teams and validation bubbles is the perfect way for people with access to websites that people like to visit to profit. Generating widespread engagement is the ideal way of expanding your market demographic and hosting it in such a way where teams are what drive social dynamics are in incredibly convenient way of organizing that engagement. And social dynamics don't have to be that way. If I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to turn this website into a niche that caters to very specific audience; if I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to open the website up to bigger number of people. One of these options generates more market power. How I care about the website may as well be driven by how I treat these market demographics, and the distance I maintain from those demographics is perhaps what determines where I exist within the market-product-consumer relationship: my power within the market, over my product, and over the consumers. No matter what we say about my individual power in this relationship, I will always be limited by the inherent subjugation created by market forces that urge me to respond to issues with an incentive I never asked for—this is the erasure of choice, both for me and the consumer.

Editing post #8180 by strawberry crisis I was not originally going to respond to this because you trail off into fantasy ideological territory when how I'm urging you to look it this issue depends on directly looking at the world around you and understanding the conditions that created it more intuitively rather than claiming that "state regulation" is what primarily created the issue of regular people being unable to seize control of the market to make it work for them when the reality is that power, no matter where it comes from, will be against you, and the control both governmental and corporate entities have and how they interact with one another is what limits your freedom, so I'll now ask that you look at specific interactions between systems in power (or the system that includes them) such as that which you will find in the American healthcare industry, where Democratic politicians, under the pressure of Bernie Sanders' call for Medicare for All, were forced to respond to the appeal of his message with one that would both contrast with his message and sound more appealing to voters but also generate voter outreach, which is where healthcare giants would come in and save the day by whispering the free-market idea of "choice," the freedom to choose between different healthcare plans, into these politicians' ears while lining their pockets with bundled donations and shifting the mass media narrative over to the efficacy of Medicare for All in terms of cost, in turn stacking up power against Sanders and his message while big media consumers begin to fret over "losing" their healthcare despite Medicare for All saving money in the long term and covering all citizens; but if we're going to clash and claim "it's this" or "no, it's that" without thoroughly explaining the mechanisms of how we believe the world works in a way that actually has to do with the world around us, we will end up thinking too ideologically, where centuries-old theory is supposed to explain (with a one-track message, no less) how this extremely complex mess we're in actually has an incredibly simple solution, which I think could almost work if ONLY such theory talked about conditions that create outcomes in a way that adequately frames reality in a way that is consistent with what is actually happening. "I think something being 'overchecked' rather than 'unchecked' is the real problem" is an issue because the very framing of the problem is off-base and the fact that a system isn't working for people can't be always be defected to how much it is in check but rather how it is built. What irks me about free-market economics is that the ideal world imagined by its proponents is shown to be realistic by pointing at the world around you and communicating it in terms of the Economy, which is a concept familiar enough for people to be able to accept the framing offered by the theory, but none of them ever explain how conditions actually affect the world without relying on magical butterfly effect economics where The State is the big enemy to watch for and created the monster that is crony capitalism today.<br><br>Anyway, I wanted to respond to you because I wanted to offer you a fun way of looking at things like the original issue: people leaving behind nuance and reasoning and instead only identifying their colors to other people. These social dynamics help nobody but people who can make use of that fact—developing consumer demographics by manufacturing alignments through gamifying interaction to create teams and validation bubbles is the perfect way for people with access to websites that people like to visit to profit. Generating widespread engagement is the ideal way of expanding your market demographic and hosting it in such a way where teams are what drive social dynamics are in incredibly convenient way of organizing that engagement. And social dynamics don't have to be that way. If I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to turn this website into a niche that caters to very specific audience; if I wanted to, I could manufacture conditions to open the website up to bigger number of people. One of these options generates more market power. How I care about the website may as well be driven by how I treat these market demographics, and the distance I maintain from those demographics is perhaps what determines where I exist within the market-product-consumer relationship: my power within the market, over my product, and over the consumers. No matter what we say about my individual power in this relationship, I will always be limited by the inherent subjugation created by market forces that urge me to respond to issues with an incentive I never asked for—this is the erasure of choice, both for me and the consumer.
Replying to post #8180 by strawberry crisis

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2020/05/02 (Sat) 20:10:12 #8165
	In response to post #8161. I think what you've said here makes sense. I suppose on a website like this, there really is no other evidence to go off of as to what someone was thinking other then the username of the person who voted, your guesses as to why they voted that way and whatever they put in the comments. I guess I just have three questions then. 1: First, you seem to be conflating bad typist with someone. Unless I've misunderstood you've done this several times in the past. Why dose the fact that someone is ignorant about one topic, like MBTI, make them a moron. 2: My second question then is this, how am I supposed to know what votes need explanation at which ones don't? Everyone's views seem obvious to them until there confronted on it, and even then, I do have other things that need to get done. I don't think it's fair to expect me to spend all my mental energy arguing about personality theory on the internet. I'm asking genuinely, this a problem I've been thinking about. I do honestly want to keep talking to you, even though you do tend to be a little exhausting, your someone who always tries to figure why people think the way they do, even when you think there stupid. 3: My last question concerns what you said about how I think about my definitions cognitive functions. I did say I was going to answer that question, in fact I said I would get back to you a couple months ago. I thought I would have a gap of time when I wasn't busy, but I was wrong, and so then I went back to my regularly scheduled busyness. I can't guarantee for sure I'll have the time or energy to write, but if I do, it I would probably have to put aside some time to work out how to say what I want to say, and then write what I basically estimate would be a very small essay on the subject. I would try and make it as comprehensible as possible, but people sometimes have trouble understanding what I mean to say, admittedly I'm a fair bit lazzier online then I would be on a paper, but still. I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this, are you really that interested in hearing what someone who you view as an imbecile has to say? I'd be will to do my best to write it if that's really something you would want to read, but I wouldn't blame you if you weren't that interested.

Editing post #8165 by Tman I think what you've said here makes sense. I suppose on a website like this, there really is no other evidence to go off of as to what someone was thinking other then the username of the person who voted, your guesses as to why they voted that way and whatever they put in the comments. I guess I just have three questions then.<br><br>1: First, you seem to be conflating bad typist with someone. Unless I've misunderstood you've done this several times in the past. Why dose the fact that someone is ignorant about one topic, like MBTI, make them a moron. <br> <br> 2: My second question then is this, how am I supposed to know what votes need explanation at which ones don't? Everyone's views seem obvious to them until there confronted on it, and even then, I do have other things that need to get done. I don't think it's fair to expect me to spend all my mental energy arguing about personality theory on the internet. I'm asking genuinely, this a problem I've been thinking about. I do honestly want to keep talking to you, even though you do tend to be a little exhausting, your someone who always tries to figure why people think the way they do, even when you think there stupid.<br><br>3: My last question concerns what you said about how I think about my definitions cognitive functions. I did say I was going to answer that question, in fact I said I would get back to you a couple months ago. I thought I would have a gap of time when I wasn't busy, but I was wrong, and so then I went back to my regularly scheduled busyness. I can't guarantee for sure I'll have the time or energy to write, but if I do, it I would probably have to put aside some time to work out how to say what I want to say, and then write what I basically estimate would be a very small essay on the subject. I would try and make it as comprehensible as possible, but people sometimes have trouble understanding what I mean to say, admittedly I'm a fair bit lazzier online then I would be on a paper, but still. I guess what I'm really trying to ask is this, are you really that interested in hearing what someone who you view as an imbecile has to say? I'd be will to do my best to write it if that's really something you would want to read, but I wouldn't blame you if you weren't that interested.
Replying to post #8165 by Tman

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2020/05/02 (Sat) 14:39:37 #8159
	In response to post #8148. There are definitely a large portion who are overly optimistic, I'm not thinking of any individual thinkers mind you, more within the community as a whole. I'm not trying to bad mouth all Transhumanists, and I most certainly didn't mean to imply anything about your beliefs. When I posted my original comment, I would have had no way of knowing your thoughts on transhumanism; I only learned you were a transhumanist when you said so in this thread.

Editing post #8159 by Tman There are definitely a large portion who are overly optimistic, I'm not thinking of any individual thinkers mind you, more within the community as a whole. I'm not trying to bad mouth all Transhumanists, and I most certainly didn't mean to imply anything about your beliefs. When I posted my original comment, I would have had no way of knowing your thoughts on transhumanism; I only learned you were a transhumanist when you said so in this thread.
Replying to post #8159 by Tman

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/01 (Fri) 18:27:29 #8153
	In response to post #8146. "Also Google and social media give what people want, it is not like they make people use them without people wanting to use them, I see no problem in that, it is not what I want (social media, Google is actually still useful) but if I did not want to use Google I'd look for another service, just because few companies give a great service it does not mean it is wrong or bad? it does centralize it but it does not mean that competition will not exist in the future, just look at the history of internet and check for how many companies went to shit, Apple and Google and Microsoft started out of nowhere at some point. And like my mom does not need to use Tor as much as I do not need to use Facebook, people do nto seem to understand how easy it is for corporations, and even governments, to lose all their power, it is very easy, it is like chess, one wrong move and you lose all of your advantage. You really do not understand my points either because I agree with the "concentrated power" part, it's just that some things are really, really hard to change." This only demonstrates that you don't understand what concentrated power looks like. "One wrong move and you lose all of your advantage" does not change that corporate influence as it exists with its affect on the world will always dictate its choices to you while pretending they work for you, and that your ability as an individual to demand other "choices" is incredibly limited. It's fantasy. Like, are you seriously going to tell me that the health care crisis in the US doesn't exist because of the might of an industry that has willfully gone unchecked?

Editing post #8153 by strawberry crisis "Also Google and social media give what people want, it is not like they make people use them without people wanting to use them, I see no problem in that, it is not what I want (social media, Google is actually still useful) but if I did not want to use Google I'd look for another service, just because few companies give a great service it does not mean it is wrong or bad? it does centralize it but it does not mean that competition will not exist in the future, just look at the history of internet and check for how many companies went to shit, Apple and Google and Microsoft started out of nowhere at some point. And like my mom does not need to use Tor as much as I do not need to use Facebook, people do nto seem to understand how easy it is for corporations, and even governments, to lose all their power, it is very easy, it is like chess, one wrong move and you lose all of your advantage.<br><br>You really do not understand my points either because I agree with the "concentrated power" part, it's just that some things are really, really hard to change."<br><br>This only demonstrates that you don't understand what concentrated power looks like. "One wrong move and you lose all of your advantage" does not change that corporate influence as it exists with its affect on the world will always dictate its choices to you while pretending they work for you, and that your ability as an individual to demand other "choices" is incredibly limited. It's fantasy. Like, are you seriously going to tell me that the health care crisis in the US doesn't exist because of the might of an industry that has willfully gone unchecked?
Replying to post #8153 by strawberry crisis

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/05/01 (Fri) 17:44:56 #8147
	In response to post #8140. I don't particularly care about the rest of that (I don't like explaining myself and usually don't see a point), but I will say that your focus on a joke post from a year ago - in which I deliberately exaggerated my worst qualities and now don't feel is representative of me even in an ironic manner - is rather odd.

Editing post #8147 by Jacobus I don't particularly care about the rest of that (I don't like explaining myself and usually don't see a point), but I will say that your focus on a joke post from a year ago - in which I deliberately exaggerated my worst qualities and now don't feel is representative of me even in an ironic manner - is rather odd.
Replying to post #8147 by Jacobus

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/01 (Fri) 16:39:31 #8145
	In response to post #8142. > like go on basically any place on reddit that is not a complete bubble where people get banned if they disagree Reddit is probably among the worst sites for real discussion but I don't really want to get into it. I see typology communities just as "not exempt from the rule." > What you say about the internet is a thing I disagree tho, that is what the very popular internet is, you can use DuckDuckGo, Tor, whatever, maybe even create your own stuff, and social media is pretty easy to escape, I can use myself as an example, the only one I have (other than to quickly register/log-in some websites with like Facebook or Twitter which sometimes are required) is LinkedIn for obvious reasons. No, you're ignoring the larger dynamic here, which is what I'm pointing at. You as an individual may be able to escape, but what are the people doing? Where does the average person go when they're on the Internet? And don't forget how the culture web can still wrap you into those things even if you personally don't interact with social media... And yes, I'm not going to respond to the section about evil corporations because I fundamentally don't think you understand what my argument is and I frankly don't think you'll come to understand it if we spent days going back and forth on it. But the point isn't "evil corporations"—it's "concentrated power and systems that support a hierarchy of power that concentrates power are unjust and must be reevaluated." > I also think that for short-term transhumanism 3w4 makes sense and 3w4s are also likely to like it but the more long-term oriented and like the theory behind such ideas and like singularity, reductionism, artificial inteligence […] While the underlying "theory" or whatever works as the backbone for transhumanism may be 5, the idea of working toward the goal of Technological Progress through human-machine integration falls in line with the higher-and-higher mechanism of type 3. If the meaning is 3 but may use 5 means to get there, I still see it as 3.

Editing post #8145 by strawberry crisis > like go on basically any place on reddit that is not a complete bubble where people get banned if they disagree<br><br>Reddit is probably among the worst sites for real discussion but I don't really want to get into it. I see typology communities just as "not exempt from the rule."<br><br>> What you say about the internet is a thing I disagree tho, that is what the very popular internet is, you can use DuckDuckGo, Tor, whatever, maybe even create your own stuff, and social media is pretty easy to escape, I can use myself as an example, the only one I have (other than to quickly register/log-in some websites with like Facebook or Twitter which sometimes are required) is LinkedIn for obvious reasons.<br><br>No, you're ignoring the larger dynamic here, which is what I'm pointing at. You as an individual may be able to escape, but what are the people doing? Where does the average person go when they're on the Internet? And don't forget how the culture web can still wrap you into those things even if you personally don't interact with social media...<br><br>And yes, I'm not going to respond to the section about evil corporations because I fundamentally don't think you understand what my argument is and I frankly don't think you'll come to understand it if we spent days going back and forth on it. But the point isn't "evil corporations"—it's "concentrated power and systems that support a hierarchy of power that concentrates power are unjust and must be reevaluated."<br><br>> I also think that for short-term transhumanism 3w4 makes sense and 3w4s are also likely to like it but the more long-term oriented and like the theory behind such ideas and like singularity, reductionism, artificial inteligence […]<br><br>While the underlying "theory" or whatever works as the backbone for transhumanism may be 5, the idea of working toward the goal of Technological Progress through human-machine integration falls in line with the higher-and-higher mechanism of type 3. If the meaning is 3 but may use 5 means to get there, I still see it as 3.
Replying to post #8145 by strawberry crisis

	Tman INTP 5w4/1w9/4w5 Sx/Sp ILI 2020/05/01 (Fri) 16:37:26 #8144
	In response to post #8138. I thought what I meant by "overly optimistic" would be obvious. You said it yourself "it is probably the idea with the most potential out of all ideas, this and machine learning are the human ideas that have the most potential I believe, both negative and positive." I agree wholeheartedly. I only think that people tend to either focus on one extreme to the exclusion of the other, ethier claiming transhumanism will solve all our ill's while ignoring the thousands of ways it could go wrong, or else condemning it as a new form of black magic, and claiming to know with certainty that it will bring the end of days.

Editing post #8144 by Tman I thought what I meant by "overly optimistic" would be obvious. You said it yourself <br>"it is probably the idea with the most potential out of all ideas, this and machine learning are the human ideas that have the most potential I believe, both negative and positive."<br>I agree wholeheartedly. I only think that people tend to either focus on one extreme to the exclusion of the other, ethier claiming transhumanism will solve all our ill's while ignoring the thousands of ways it could go wrong, or else condemning it as a new form of black magic, and claiming to know with certainty that it will bring the end of days.
Replying to post #8144 by Tman

	strawberry crisis enfp 7 2020/05/01 (Fri) 15:35:41 #8141
	In response to post #8138. > There is a thing I really love about discussion in this website - and other typology websites as well - which is that PEOPLE DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVE IN THINGS, they just say the things they believe in: It's more of a Modern Internet phenomenon than anything else. Online interaction in this era has largely become about distinguishing ourselves on the basis of our supposedly rudimentary values for the sake of finding "our people" or "our side." It doesn't seem to matter why we choose the "side" we do, but that we are on that side. It's a way of communicating that allows us to understand things only in black, white, and a little bit of gray: "This is a good, bad, neutral, sort of okay, fine, etc. opinion." I am so not a fan. It's exactly what creates that dynamic in which motives become obfuscated and individual voices and the nuance they bring die out as they come to align with and serve a group-driven agenda that lacks the sanity necessary to keep its own power in check. But there is a lot more to this than just the poor communication of values & what drive them... because ultimately this mode of interaction only works as a way to find people with your values rather than a way to show people your values. But it should make intuitive sense why the Internet propagates this kind of behavior: people don't know each other online. It's why you'll notice people talking to one another personally (usually over a long period of time) won't do this kind of thing (but also—talking one-on-one effectively forces elaboration anyway). I also wonder how social media ties into it. The Internet at this point essentially is just Google and social media, which is driven by presenting-the-sides-I-belong-to communication and disseminates this attitude on a culture-sized scale. It's undoubtedly a big influence that's made it to typology websites, but I think the bigger story here is simply how much influence social media companies have as a result of having gamified human interaction in this way. In this vein of things, ideas like transhumanism all too much represent the "constant growth" mindset that can be associated with technological progress and its advocates... while turning a blind eye to the consequences of yearning for and working toward advancing along a path that we—humanity as a whole—aren't ready for and never will be unless lucidity begins to pervade society and we tackle ethical problems rooted in things like corporations abusing their ability to access this technology & bend it to their will, or technology limiting people's freedom to exist in a world not bound by technology growing faster than we can keep up with it (as a response). When people put their faith into ideas like this, they ignore the real world that will eventually have to come and act as its backdrop and context, and within it, there's absolutely no way that it could work without resembling the same evil that has the power to create the culture that drives why the heck people don't seem to like explaining why they believe in things!

Editing post #8141 by strawberry crisis > There is a thing I really love about discussion in this website - and other typology websites as well - which is that PEOPLE DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY BELIEVE IN THINGS, they just say the things they believe in:<br><br>It's more of a Modern Internet phenomenon than anything else. Online interaction in this era has largely become about distinguishing ourselves on the basis of our supposedly rudimentary values for the sake of finding "our people" or "our side." It doesn't seem to matter why we choose the "side" we do, but that we are on that side. It's a way of communicating that allows us to understand things only in black, white, and a little bit of gray: "This is a good, bad, neutral, sort of okay, fine, etc. opinion." I am so not a fan. It's exactly what creates that dynamic in which motives become obfuscated and individual voices and the nuance they bring die out as they come to align with and serve a group-driven agenda that lacks the sanity necessary to keep its own power in check. <br><br>But there is a lot more to this than just the poor communication of values & what drive them... because ultimately this mode of interaction only works as a way to find people with your values rather than a way to show people your values. But it should make intuitive sense why the Internet propagates this kind of behavior: people don't know each other online. It's why you'll notice people talking to one another personally (usually over a long period of time) won't do this kind of thing (but also—talking one-on-one effectively forces elaboration anyway).<br><br>I also wonder how social media ties into it. The Internet at this point essentially is just Google and social media, which is driven by presenting-the-sides-I-belong-to communication and disseminates this attitude on a culture-sized scale. It's undoubtedly a big influence that's made it to typology websites, but I think the bigger story here is simply how much influence social media companies have as a result of having gamified human interaction in this way.<br><br>In this vein of things, ideas like transhumanism all too much represent the "constant growth" mindset that can be associated with technological progress and its advocates... while turning a blind eye to the consequences of yearning for and working toward advancing along a path that we—humanity as a whole—aren't ready for and never will be unless lucidity begins to pervade society and we tackle ethical problems rooted in things like corporations abusing their ability to access this technology & bend it to their will, or technology limiting people's freedom to exist in a world not bound by technology growing faster than we can keep up with it (as a response). When people put their faith into ideas like this, they ignore the real world that will eventually have to come and act as its backdrop and context, and within it, there's absolutely no way that it could work without resembling the same evil that has the power to create the culture that drives why the heck people don't seem to like explaining why they believe in things!
Replying to post #8141 by strawberry crisis

	Jacobus INFJ 4w5 EIE 2020/05/01 (Fri) 14:21:29 #8139
	Transhumanism is nothing but an inverse Gnosticism in which the preservation and enhancement of matter is valued over life itself. It's fundamentally opposed to freedom of will and human dignity. The slavish, cowardly desire to create abominations in order to add a few years to the lifespan or whatever would be terrifying if it was not also ridiculous. I shall never forfeit my humanity for bondage to dead matter and I look down upon anyone who would consider such a thing.

Editing post #8139 by Jacobus Transhumanism is nothing but an inverse Gnosticism in which the preservation and enhancement of matter is valued over life itself. It's fundamentally opposed to freedom of will and human dignity. The slavish, cowardly desire to create abominations in order to add a few years to the lifespan or whatever would be terrifying if it was not also ridiculous. I shall never forfeit my humanity for bondage to dead matter and I look down upon anyone who would consider such a thing.
Replying to post #8139 by Jacobus

date	username	vote
21/07/28 20:21	Flower-like	ENTJ
20/07/29 12:01	bibliology	ENTJ
20/05/01 21:45	tch	ETJ
20/05/01 19:06	KashifIrfanBhatti	INTJ
20/05/01 02:35	Thyssen	INTJ
20/04/30 23:00	LadyX	ESTJ
21/07/30 10:37	Tman	ENT

date	username	vote
25/07/12 03:51	Woll Smoth	ENTJ
21/07/28 20:24	Flower-like	ENTJ
20/05/01 21:45	tch	ENTJ
20/05/01 19:07	fleetingpetals1	INTJ
20/05/01 19:06	KashifIrfanBhatti	INTJ
22/03/05 17:52	Tman	ENTJ
20/05/01 02:35	Thyssen	INTJ

date	username	vote
21/07/28 15:33	Flower-like	5w6
20/05/01 21:46	tch	3w4
20/05/01 19:06	KashifIrfanBhatti	5w6
20/05/01 15:37	strawberry crisis	3w4
20/04/30 23:00	LadyX	3w4
21/07/28 12:51	Tman	3w4

date	username	vote
21/07/28 15:33	Flower-like	sp/so
20/04/30 23:00	LadyX	sp/so
20/04/30 14:40	Tman	sp/so

date	username	vote
21/07/28 12:51	Tman	351
20/05/01 21:46	tch	351
20/05/01 19:06	KashifIrfanBhatti	531
20/05/01 02:35	Thyssen	531
20/04/30 23:00	LadyX	371

date	username	vote
25/07/12 06:08	nicotineseries	LIE
25/07/12 03:49	Woll Smoth	LIE
21/07/28 15:33	Flower-like	LIE
20/07/20 21:58	ethan	LIE
20/05/01 19:07	fleetingpetals1	LIE
20/05/01 19:06	KashifIrfanBhatti	LIE
20/05/01 02:35	Thyssen	LIE
20/05/01 12:07	Tman	LIE

date	username	vote
20/05/01 19:07	fleetingpetals1	LVFE
20/05/01 02:35	Thyssen	LVFE
20/05/06 10:49	Tman	LVFE