Dear Diarrhea,
I will start a new chapter today. After a brief introduction of a couple relevant works, I would like to discuss the overlaps and conflicts in the definitions of posthumanism and transhumanism. Both expressions represent an idea of a future beyond the current form of humanity, but there are differences minor and not so minor that set the two apart.
There are multiple sides to this subject. One perspective of transhumanists sets the definition of posthuman as something perpetually prospective: since we do and will always define our current selves in the constant evolutional process as human, posthuman is consequently the step (any and all of the steps) beyond our present status, and is therefore by necessity a purely hypothetical concept. In this train of thought, the concept of transhuman simply stands in for human: each individual iteration of the homo sapiens sapiens is an element in transition from a (pre-)human phase to a posthuman one. Humanity is broken down into the binary of "this is who we are" and "this is who we can become," presenting the possible effects of new resources, including the renewing forms of the human body, on human behavior, thought, and nature.
A somewhat opposite perspective of posthumanism, though along similar lines, is the notion that we have always already been posthuman. As human culture and identity are built from the past, we are always, at any given moment, beyond what we think of as human. All points of reference by which we set the standards of humanity are already outdated, therefore we are, and have always been posthuman. In this frame of reference, the evolutionary process is incidental, if instrumental to having made us who we are; it is not a predictor of who we will be, and that question itself bears no relevance in this posthumanist perspective: the past exists outside the realm of the hypothetical, and therefore lends itself to more worthwhile analysis than the mere what ifs of the transhumanism.
A different way of understanding posthumanism is to consider it an un-anthropocentric model, the aim of which is to move as far past humanism as possible. It considers the human a social and cultural construct, the end product of its environment; and regardless of physical appearance or biological mechanics, this definition of human withstands all evolutionary change. This definition has the benefit of including radically different voices as human: people across the whole spectrum of sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, social status and economic standing qualify as equally human, if not equal in other respects. In addition, the definition also extends to physical augmentation, body swapping, all manner of robotics, and everything else potentially possible as scientific advancements open new doors. In effect, this approach to posthumanism, in concerning itself with the nature of humanity, provides such a broad definition as to be able to view a far broader context of relevant identifiers and contributors to human nature than many other strands of humanism.
In essence, we can summarize the two philosophies thus: transhumanism treats humanity as essentially a product of its own past, and the producer of its own future, and makes humanity's future the target of its analysis; whereas posthumanism concerns itself with the notion of humanity in the present tense, claiming it a product of its surroundings, acknowledging the influence of the past only as an environmental factor alongside many other equally significant contributors.
Thank you for reading, dear Diearrhea. With that, I leave you.
Best Regards,
-Márton Körtesi.
