Transhumanism and Nietzsche

I’ve been looking into T-humanism lately and I find it to be absolutely fascinating!

It got me thinking about what Nietzsche would think of it. I opine that he would be both for and against it. The reason that, I believe, he would be against it is because many within the T-humanism movement aren’t, really, seeking to augment human nature; but rather to escape it. Nietzsche would find this particular T-humanist impulse to be ’ nihilistic '. But at the same time, the coin could be flipped in favor of ’ life-affirmation '; T-humanism could significantly augment human intelligence, longevity and well-being. One could even interpret the actualized transhumanist as the ‘Overman’; Nietzsche stated that there are no absolute truths, just interpretations. And I can see a strong resemblance between the N. concept of the ’ Overman ’ ( the self-overcomer ) and the augmented T-human being, even though N. probably didn’t have T-humanism in mind, when he conceived of the ’ O-man '.


Augmenting human nature necessitates escaping it. Escape to transcend and evolve. Not escaping would mean non-change and stagnation. Nature is constantly overcoming itself, this would just be a bigger step than the usual and some people are afraid to take it.

True - In order to become greater, sometimes, ’ breaking away ’ from a condition/state is necessary, but I’m aiming at people’s mentalities, in this thread. The movement consists of two types of mentalities: those with a nihilistic ( resentful towards nature ) mentality and those with a life-affirming mentality. Example: a feminist might be inclined to support T-humanisn, because it could allow her an opportunity to escape her genetic-hardwiring as a female, whereas an individual who loves life and desires to prolong his own with a perpetual process of self-becoming/growth would find Transhumanism to be appealing, because it would be in accord with his life-affirming state of mind. The latter is not ‘anti-nature’, like the former.

Nietzsche, the Overhuman, and Transhumanism

Nature augments itself, essentially genes randomise and in an advancing human culture that would mean advancement of humanity. We either stagnate, go backwards or go forwards.

Consider our future competition AI and robots etc, they would probably watch countdown and laugh at us making rudimentary sums and simple word usage. They would know maths and linguistics as a lower function of their intellects ~ a bit like how a 1970’s calculator is better at basic math than humans. Mixing up letters and words e.g. The above and poetry, is partly just logic problems which for us is hard, for AI, well they would be built from logic paths in their processors.

So what happens if you put both human and artificial intelligence together?

I think our or at least my mind isn’t very good at what calculators are good at, but they have a brain equal to a part of ours the size of a lentil.

Do any of you think you have supreme intellects which couldn’t be improved? If you were trying to resolve a problem that a robot can easily do, wouldn’t you be improved if you had an extra bit of brain for doing that shit?

I reckon that our minds cannot perceive reality fully, and so are limited. It isn’t until we expand that intellect that we will be able to understand the world!

I want eyes that can see down to quantum soup when required, and i think the above intellect will perceive it is a part of that when observing it ~ like a rule of the universe or something [well relativity perhaps]. …a mind that can cross universes perhaps, but we wont know until we can see it.

Why is a resentment of nature nihilistic? Or why such a negative sounding term, when we should be moving away from nature [is less advanced than us].

The former wants to escape its genetic hardwiring as a female, the latter wants to escape its genetic hardwiring as a mortal. Both want to escape their present nature, overcome it, change it.

Since nature is the sum of all there is, all that exists, being anti-nature would literally translate into being anti-existence. I’m against the arbitrary distinction nature-artifice. Wherever people try to draw the line it ultimately appears to be arbitrary each time I’ve seen it. Continuing on that, how can you say f.e. that a female wanting to become a male f.e. is anti-nature if she/he/it also wanted to prolong her/his/its life? If we can agree that in order to become greater, breaking away from a condition/state is necessary, why wouldn’t that extend to the condition/state of gender?

I’ve seen some females that after a hormone treatment look like males and some males that after a hormone treatment look like females.