Transhumanist vs. Posthumanist
(Spoilers for PALISADE 29!) This is not mega important, but it's interesting to me! Re: the edit to change the PALISADE 29 spoiler block from saying "transhumanist" to "posthumanist and accelerationist" - the historical accelerationism is obviously totally correct, but I would absolutely argue that Dahlia is a transhumanist, not a posthumanist. Definitions differ, obviously, but the one I've always gone by is that transhumanism is about "improving" humanity through technological innovation until humans become something "better" than human, whereas posthumanism is critical of the human-centric concept of "person" in the first place. The former comes from Enlightenment thinking and science and positivism and is totally compatible with imperial bullshit, and it seems to me exactly like what Dahlia is doing. I'd propose changing that back to transhumanist. What do people think? Rigormorphis (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having not read much on the subject I was mostly thinking of what has been said on the podcast, that the Mirage, for example, is transhumanist and the Branched are posthuman. I thought mayyybe Dahlia's attempt to eventually synthesize forms of selfhood was posthuman in aim, even if what we get of their methods is transhuman. And ludicrous. (Aside from that -- they're also the person who (in narration?) called the Branched 'creatures so monstrous they ought not be given names' and I can't tell if that's been made retroactively aspirational in some way, should be interpreted the same way as before, or what. Which isn't a problem, exactly -- blank spaces and accidents are valuable. Anyway.) Changing it back is fine with me. 1smalldragon (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would argue that unless someone explicitly rejects humanity, transhumanism is functionally a superset of post-humanism. But then again they sort of did that........ Chemiosmotic (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)