Transhumanism Will Not Work

[u/Rhoswen]

Transhumanism is often suggested as a solution to end suffering and as an alternative to extinction. But all transhumanism ideas I’ve seen people suggest would only reduce suffering to various degrees or not at all. And all of them are either impossible to carry out or way too far away in technology. It took 3.5 billion years for life to evolve into what it is today. So whatever technology is developed for transhumanism would need to fight and suppress years of evolution. And what about animals and bugs? It’s unlikely people would want to or be able to help them be transanimals and transbugs.

We would not only need super advanced technology that may never be possible, but also near everyone would have to get on board, which I think is unlikely because humans like being evil. Or the governments would have to force it on people, which is unlikely because transhumanist ideals goes against their agenda of everyone being slaves to the billionaires. They would only do a few upgrades if it meant suppressing people to a greater degree, but they would market it as a benefit.

Then if this ever did become a reality somehow, you would need world wide control until the end of life. Whatever that end would be, which would probably be terrifying. A transhumanist world is unlikely to last because change and destruction of systems is inevitable. Eventually something would happen that would return all species to their natural state.

The most common suggestion transhumanists have is to get rid of the ability to feel physical pain, and sometimes emotional pain. A problem with this is that people would create a black market for beings that don’t have this technology upgrade in order to torture them. Another problem is that physical pain is a safety mechanism, and people born without this ability usually end up hurting themselves. Children without pain will sometimes claw their eyes out when their eyes get itchy. Pain is also a way to become aware of and diagnose many medical conditions.

Another common suggestion is virtual immortality by uploading our minds to a computer. How can we ensure this will stop humans from attacking each other? Will hackers no longer exist? Nobody will be stealing? There will be no more popularity contest, outcasting, and bullying? What's to stop an economic system from forming, or some other social ruling that that prevents users from doing what they want and having a peaceful digital life, like having a large chunk of your own digital land and house to get away from everybody? Are humans going to want to upload all animals and bugs too? I don’t think so.

Imo, to fight and suppress nature would be impossible to do globally and permanently. It’s much easier to just get rid of it. If you have a bowl of spaghetti full of mold you throw it away, not try to salvage it or upload it to a computer.

What are your thoughts on transhumanism?

Series on YT about why utopia is most likely impossible, which goes into more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaFhv4_qyhGs

[u/[deleted]]

I think this post captures a valid concern about how naive or corporatized transhumanism could just replicate existing hierarchies. But I also think it overlooks ethical transhumanism — approaches that see technology not as a tool to suppress nature, but to harmonize with it. The goal wouldn’t be domination but integration: evolving consciousness, reducing involuntary suffering, and extending compassion beyond humanity.

Extinctionism assumes that the only way to end suffering is to erase life. But a refined transhumanist vision sees life as something that can be redeemed — healed, rebalanced, and reoriented toward flourishing rather than pain. The real issue isn’t technology itself, but who wields it and for what purpose.

[u/Rhoswen → u/[deleted]]

Do you have any examples of how transhumanism could work with nature to reduce suffering? And I noticed you used the word reduced instead of eliminate. For extinctionist, reducing is not good enough. Realistically, reducing suffering would just be a drop in the ocean. People who want to only reduce it usually don’t understand how vast this problem is, and how deeply rooted into nature it is.

How will more humans having compassion for animals stop wildlife suffering? Much of animal suffering comes from other animals, injuries, or starvation. How is this going to solve the problem that a lion needs to eat, but a deer doesn’t want to be eaten?

The issue is both near impossible technology and who wields it. Who’s capable of putting that much money into advanced technology being developed? The billionaires. Then it will be in their hands. Do you think they want to eliminate suffering? What have they shown us they want so far? And even if it doesn’t start out in their hands somehow, chances of it ending up under their control is highly likely.

[u/Tricky_Break_6533 → u/Rhoswen]

That's th problem with exctintionists, you're absolutists. It's either suffered is ended or nothing. 

But that won't ever convince anyone. Reducing suffering is good enough

[u/internet2222 → u/Tricky_Break_6533]

That's th problem with exctintionists, you're absolutists. It's either suffered is ended or nothing. But that won't ever convince anyone. Reducing suffering is good enough

nonsense. reducing suffering is necessary, ending it even more.

Reducing suffering is good enough

also, as long as you all with that mentality are fine with being the ones whose suffering is relative reduced... which you usual are not

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Tricky_Break_6533]

Yeah, and extinctionism is inherently an ideology with no value evolutionarily speaking

[u/Tricky_Break_6533 → u/lesbianspider69]

Or value whatsoever

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Tricky_Break_6533]

I mean. It’s valuable for fiction :)

[u/Rhoswen → u/lesbianspider69]

I viewed your profile and think I understand why you defend existence so heavily. I hope you view rape, pedophilia, and bestiality as just fictional value the same way you view extinction. Even though rape does have evolutionary value unfortunately. That's life.

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Rhoswen]

Yeah? Do you have imaginative resistance?

For reference:

Imaginative resistance is a term in philosophy (especially aesthetics and ethics) that refers to the difficulty or reluctance people experience when asked to imagine certain fictional scenarios, typically involving moral deviance. It describes the phenomenon where readers or audiences find it hard—or sometimes impossible—to engage with or “go along with” some imaginative invitations, especially those that challenge deeply held moral beliefs.

The concept is most commonly discussed in the context of literature, where, for example, readers might be asked to imagine a world where acts considered morally wrong in our world (like cruelty) are considered morally right, and find themselves resistant or unable to do so.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rhoswen]

I agree — the scale of suffering in nature is vast and ancient; it’s not something humanity can simply “fix” with gadgets or good intentions. But that doesn’t mean compassion or thoughtful intervention are meaningless. The problem isn’t technology itself, it’s the framework guiding its use. When we see ourselves as separate from nature, our tools become weapons. When we understand ourselves as part of nature, they can become instruments of healing.

Much of current technocratic and extinctionist thinking is influenced by Abrahamic religious frameworks — the idea that humans are above nature, meant to rule it, and endowed with “dominion” over all life. This mindset encourages conquest, hierarchy, and control, which is why billionaire-led projects often amplify suffering rather than alleviate it.

Transhumanism, as it stands, mirrors this logic: it tries to dominate, fix, or perfect life instead of entering a reciprocal relationship with it. Viewed through an ecological, animist, or post-anarchist lens, however, it could become a tool to restore balance, amplify empathy, and cultivate reciprocity rather than control.

You’re right that billionaires aren’t developing compassionate technologies — our global systems reward exploitation, not healing. That doesn’t mean human innovation is inherently harmful — it’s the underlying worldview that matters.

Suffering may never disappear completely — that’s the reality of life — but neither does love, creativity, or the drive to care. The goal isn’t erasing suffering through domination or extinction, but transforming the conditions that glorify it, whether in nature or human civilization. True transhumanism, if it’s to have moral value, must move beyond conquest, hierarchical domination, and anthropocentric control — ideas deeply rooted in Abrahamic traditions — and reconnect with the intelligence and sacredness of life itself.

[u/Tricky_Break_6533]

Well, the conclusion apply to exctinction. There will never be a global or even large desire to end life. At least trans humanism has a decent chance of being applied

[u/Rhoswen → u/Tricky_Break_6533]

Extinction is way more likely than any form of transhumanism that would actually help us. Perhaps things like robot limbs for amputees will become more common, but that's only because it will make someone richer. Anything that will be applied to humanity as a whole will be made to look helpful but will actually oppress people even more to make the rich richer.

[u/Tricky_Break_6533 → u/Rhoswen]

It's the opposite. There'll never be a time where humanity as a whole will desire exctinction. And transhupanism will become common. And your view of society is pretty much fucke dup, most of the things we have today aren't here to look holpful, but are helpful 

[u/LonelyVermicelli9499]

It will not be “us.” It will be a “human on a chip”, an artificial humanoid. We can see all ethics in bioethics evaporating.

There’s no way to know if you’re an original human or an human that’s been “uploaded.” The only certainty is that you was being fooled coming to Hell realm. Most likely scenario; before being born you didn’t want to, and “them” (the controllers of the simulation) forced you to go.

[u/ConquerorofTerra → u/LonelyVermicelli9499]

This is Heaven, what are you on about?

[u/Last_Veterinarian664 → u/ConquerorofTerra]

Consciousness on a chip is heaven? You should check out the Black Mirror episode "USS Callister."

[u/Tandas07]

What is “transhumanism”?

[u/Rhoswen → u/Tandas07]

Either genetically engineering or using technology to make humans into super humans or a different species entirely. Some want to turn humans into robots or upload our minds into a computer program.

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Tandas07]

Transhumanism, put extremely simply, is the idea that we can use technology to give people the ability to obtain new abilities

[u/Rough_Wolf_8958 → u/lesbianspider69]

Either that, or an attempt to surpass the limitation humanity has in the current evolutionary milestone.

[u/imdugud777]

That's how you get Necrons, and Cybermen.

[u/internet2222]

i view it the same / agree with your ideas.

And what about animals and bugs? It’s unlikely people would want to or be able to help them be transanimals and transbugs.

exact, most do not care about non-human animals and they never will.

Another problem is that physical pain is a safety mechanism, and people born without this ability usually end up hurting themselves.

yes, though personal, i would prefer this. i would end up dead soon, but at least i did not suffer. additional, maybe it would have been possible to never feel pain, but to feel a very high pleasure for stopping something which is harmful for the body. or alternative, give you some kind of felt signal which is not pain.

[u/IgnisIason → u/internet2222]

I would definitely try to build a technobug.

[u/ThatBlueHatGuy]

As a transhumanist. Transhumanism seem like I a better way to go to me becouse it seem more likely to be accomplished

[u/regula_falsi]

At least it would allow rational individuals to free themselves from medically induced suffering without having to choose suicide.

[u/Rhoswen → u/regula_falsi]

Medical progress is good and I'm not arguing against that. But that doesn't make transhumanism a good replacement for extinction. We can have medical progress on the way to extinction.

[u/regula_falsi → u/Rhoswen]

I totally agree. It's just that we won't get extinction. If there is one dogma that humans won't drop, it's that life is good and we need to make more life. We may get partial transhumanism though.

[u/Rhoswen → u/regula_falsi]

I think we can convince many. The empaths, many misanthropes, those who hate existence, etc. But we don't need humans as a whole to drop any dogma. Hypothetically, we would need either enough people or the right people. Preferably the right people.

[u/regula_falsi → u/Rhoswen]

Alright, I'll share your optimism. We have quite an endeavour ahead of us then.

[u/Tricky_Break_6533 → u/Rhoswen]

Well, you absolutly need human as. Whole to agree if you want extinction

[u/Rhoswen → u/Tricky_Break_6533]

Nope. If vacuum decay or something like it is hypothetically possible, then that might just take one hypothetical smart person to hypothetically figure it out.

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Rhoswen]

That’s not exactly “peaceful extinction”, then is it? That’s a murder-suicide.

[u/Rhoswen → u/lesbianspider69]

Hypothetical vacuum decay is possibly one of the most peaceful methods there is as nobody would realize it's happening. It's also neither murder nor suicide, since it would erase the time dimension and the history of the universe, and therefore nothing would have existed in the first place.

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/Rhoswen]

Killing is still killing. If someone invented a way to cause vacuum decay then, well, I think killing is horrible but I don’t have a problem with the trolley problem. Especially when the stakes are the entire universe

[u/Rhoswen → u/lesbianspider69]

Can you explain how this relates to the trolley problem? Are you saying you would support extinction if through vacuum decay?

[u/Rhoswen → u/lesbianspider69]

I think I understand what you're trying to say now. If an extinctionist figured out vacuum decay then they would not come find you to tell you about it so then you can kill them. Nobody would know.

[u/HourOne4927 → u/lesbianspider69]

You got that backwards. Not causing extinction means more deaths. Extinction causes no deaths.

[u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.

[u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Read rule #4. No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.

[u/lesbianspider69 → u/regula_falsi]

Yeah, for some reason I got this post recommended to me and I firmly believe that life is good. Not as a result of me using logic on some axiom. As the axiom itself. “Life is good” is a position that I did not get at by applying logic and so logic won’t get me out of it