Both.

Bit of both, though almost every transhumanist I've met have given me autism vibes

>>1310733
This. Some guys are pretty legit other is we wuz immortal and shit.

>>1310718
Transhumanism is an unethical idea and is the result of an excessive neo-liberalism. The technological enhancement will always be reserved for the rich.

>>1310976

So completely unlike every other technology ever, then. Got it.

>>1310718
Spivak, Buttler and Harraway all debate this.
Inb4 people without college education
>shitskin Spivak
>Jew Butler
>feminist Harraway

>>1310976
> Transhumanism is an unethical idea
How so? Because people must suffer from all kind of illnesses preventable by technology of a future?

>>1310992
Mitch?

>>1310988
Afforded to the rich first, due to insane startup costs, then slowly developed for a wider market as more firms want to get in on that sweet booty. Of course due to the nature of how shit works, the best stuff is still going to be exclusive to those who can afford it. Thus compacting their advantage(usually one solidified in birth) with even more cumulative bullshit.

It's going to behave like any other technology. David Rockefeller has has six heart transplants. You think he isn't holding out for sick robot arms?

>>1310976
Transhumanism is literally more advanced medicine and communication technology. If you see nothing wrong with curing your cancer and wasting electricity shitposting in a Bhutanese Phallus-Painting Masonry Guild while some Africans lack the most basic necessities and never touched a computer, there's no reason you should reject transhumanism.

Besides, many transhumanists are bleeding-heart cucks who give a significant portion of their income to charities. They support transhumanist research mainly because they want to solve our resource crisis and/or abolish death.

>>1310992
It's also unethical because, as I said, only the rich will be able to enhance themselves. The costs of these "treatments" will be too expensive. The people will continue to suffer from all kind of illnesses.

>>1311776
> only the rich will be able to enhance themselves
So... It is unethical because of your one prediction that could even not to be true? Or it is unethical for that reason that rich people must suffer?

>>1311786

Yes, silly, if anyone has to suffer, them everyone does! That's why I have deliberately contracted every disease.

>>1311776
Why aren't you protesting outside a pharmaceutical company?

>>1312033
>pharmaceutical company
Or private clinic, or some health club, or a fucking spa.

There have been some excellent studies showing how health and exercise is tied to wealth and "privilege", and it's not just because the middle class has more free time.
That doesn't mean we have to forsake exercise as unethical.

>>1310976
>technological enhancement will always be reserved for the rich.

Yeah, which is why Cars, Televisions, Computers, and Cell Phones are never owned by the poor.

>>1310976
It may be the only way to preserve one's consciousness after antibiotics are fully squandered