Humanism Versus Transhumanism In Politics

The original paper, How To Fix The Government, included a section which categorized the relevant landscape for political architecture as mental, physical, and conscious. This includes a noted correspondence between the mental and the left brain, and between the physical and the right brain. These categories will continue to be applied here.

I want to start by visiting the meaning of humanism. From Oxford Languages:

"humanism (noun) an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

... (a movement in history) ...

"(among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centered on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual."

A humanist relies upon humans, and places emphasis upon common human needs. Within this, I would revisit the word human. A member of our species can be broken down into mental, physical, and conscious. Is modern man relying on humans?

In the second part of the definition above, there is mention of ignoring "the unintegrated and conditioned nature of the individual". That would seem lopsided to me. We really should make sure to consider the conditioned and unintegrated parts of ourselves. I suppose then we can be whole, which is what I would recommend.

Now let's look at the meaning of transhumanism (same source):

"transhumanism (noun) the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology."

I have to take exception as to the actual meaning of this word. Like humanism, I'm going to give transhumanism the ability to be lopsided, but in this case, to be in the wrong context, or interpretation of itself. I find the modern age, as exhibited by the Flynn Effect, to be potentially full of more left-brain-centered people. To me, this would make the mind a root for a new development, wherein the root itself is transhumanist; it is for humans to be more centered in their thinking minds. This is not the same as a right-brained root, that being the humanist being, as it is put, with emphasis on its physical attributes and experiences. The right-brain side is the physical side, and includes activities, experiences, and feelings, and its own bearing.

I think modern contributions to left-brain activity include any examples of working with information. This includes information via various mediums, such as books, newspapers, radio, TV, film, cyberspace, pornography, and video games. I think it includes knowledge. I will propose that a greater left-brain load has occurred in the modern age, and that modern living is, overall, a more mental experience, and a less physical one. I propose that based upon conditioning, the modern man, on average, is less humanist, and more transhumanist than before. I would also propose that a person who grew up watching TV might react to stimuli differently than a person who did not.

I am reminded of characters in the 1976 film Network, where William Holden played the pre-TV generation, and Faye Dunaway played the TV generation in a film about TV, and he said to her, "War, murder, and death are the same to you as bottles of beer." I would call such a thing amoral and disconnected, and suspiciously transhumanist. America's first child-TV-generation comes to its adulthood in the 1970s. We may be more transhumanist today than any who were adults before the 1970s.

The problem I see with moving into the thinking mind, is that as a center, there may be this sense of a fundamental need to eliminate the physical parts of oneself, in order to solve problems, hence modern transhumanist philosophy; to eliminate the problems associated with one's own physical existence. I take these to be problems from the standpoint of the thinking mind, where all that a physical body or world can do is interrupt an otherwise perfectly free and autonomous thinking mind - even to the point of existing as a mind forever. I disagree with transhumanist thinkers, because I do not characterize this as the advancement or evolution of man; I view this primarily as a mental disorder, for being lopsided, with interesting new things to think about when physically augmenting our species. To me, natural evolution isn't the method for these developments. The mind is the method, here, and from the mind is not from the physical world. I draw a line at the source of a given development or evolution, and I distinguish between physical and mental sources.

Moving on, I distinguish between the more humanist and transhumanist lives. What are each of these like? One is the experience of life, and the other is of mind. In today's political climate, I would say there is plentiful cause for humans to look at the news, to where there are public injustices, and to then have feelings, and to respond. I see a number of major reasons why this process has not gone well. People are supposed to feel, and react to a series of political catastrophes. I see a blind side to the more transhumanist and less humanist modern man. Watching the news becomes a mental habit that displaces the physical world.

A transhumanist may not be as inclined to reach out to fellow humans, or to humbly resign under the circumstances to physical, humanist democracy, or one vote per human as the thing to rely most highly upon. A humanist would feel something when they see bad things in their news, and they would humbly, and to the actual physical extent of themselves, reach out to their humble fellow physical humans, on common problems. If they were being maimed and killed, what would humanists do?

I think there is another component of modern man, but this one comes from another source. After 250 years of free market economics, I think that man has come to game this system and learn that whoever has the money wins, and anyone else may be just stuck with their morals (see Woody Tasch on Adam Smith). What goes along with this is to trust no one but oneself, when it comes to holding the cash, and I would add, when it comes to ownership and control. I think this will blend right in with transhumanism, because one's money and ownership can be taken as within oneself, and nowhere else, like the mind. Ownership occurs mentally, and I think one must get out of this place to find the more humanist things.

Humanist tactics were used in the 18th Century, when a legislature was democratically formed in the British colonies of America, called the Continental Congress. This began with town hall events, particularly in Massachusetts, as led by Samuel Adams in 1772, convening on the matter of "common rights and dangers". This modern proposition is asking for the existing three branches of government to remain, and for an organization in the fourth estate to be added. This could mean calling for reforms, or for whatever humanists would call for.

I think the game is afoot, and I will call it "find the humans", and I will imagine that when this game has been won, then modern man will be politically successful. Then maybe we can consciously choose to be transhumanist, and not do so quite so unwittingly.

I do believe that politics will be the first thing to suffer when man goes transhumanist, because in order to participate here, one must engage the keepers of the zoo, and not simply operate within the zoo itself. Transhumanists don't want democracy; they want to be isolated, but I do not think being isolated will be politically successful, and I do not think it will make us as happy as we could be, such as if we get more in touch with our humanist side and become more whole as the species we are. I view this outside-of-the-zoo experience as physical, where human activity and interaction will be involved. I find face-to-face interaction to also be a higher humanist quality than other, more diminished means of interaction. Modern society has applied great pressure on us that has caused us to feel lost inside of a giant machine.

Tens of millions of alternative news readers are acquiring knowledge, but I'm not seeing as much action. Historically, less than 10% of the people has been enough for revolution, but I think having a sense of revolution has accumulated to more than 10% of Americans today. What are we waiting for? Following politics can apply greater transhumanist pressure, due to being seemingly made of information. We have developed habits of knowledge, and this can turn political reality into passively watching YouTube. I think that 18th-Century Americans saw less injustice, and did more in response, which could be explained by our more transhumanist nature. I think the colonists used humanist tactics that modern man does not.

As referenced in the paper, some modern humanist attempts have been made, and either stopped, or failed to measure up to their opposition. Our most talented and skilled persons may be our most learned and most transhumanist, so I might watch out for learned people, too. Sometimes I think a busload of uneducated people who exhibit humanist responses to real political stimuli may be what we need, so that the common man may then be organized and proceed, but they will need to exhibit enough skill to ratify a workable set of bylaws. Really, I think in the bigger picture, a larger share of our species will have to exhibit the skill to solve its political problems, or that larger share will probably get screwed. The common man may be sheep for slaughter when anything greater than himself comes to dinner. Democracy is how the sheep win. As one might say in science today, in the study of flocks and herds, I sure wouldn't mind seeing a little herd intelligence today. Herds and flocks have alpha leaders, and the remainder use democracy to break away from their leaders.

I think the expression "common man" is humanist, and humanism is needed. I think it is a lack of humanism that causes the bad guys to score ten times as much as the good. This may come from not being humanist enough. Your community may end your life whether you like it or not, because they have that political power. My recommendation to you is to show more regard for your fellow man. I imagine human community is a part of how humans survive, and possibly even experience greater happiness, as a species. Community should be restored, and I think the right districting scheme can well contribute to that.

I will go back to what I originally said in the paper; either a reputable ratifying body, or a trusted network may be able to create a democratic organization. I think today’s working class includes many who appear ready to carry out a ratified set of rules.

I think that bringing about support for a democratic body would be a fundamental and important step to take for our future. I think we need to more genuinely, or in a more commensurate fashion, address contemporary political problems on their real scale, which means that no one is excluded, and I think that we need to amend infrastructure to our shared system, in order for it to be stable, robust, and free of private control, for today, and for our future.