Post-Humanism vs Separatism: A Resolution
Why Humanity is the Ideal Category for any Immediate Self that is the average, compatible, Homo sapiens.
And so always ends the petulant doubts of both the Separatist and Post-Human: The Egoist Separatist is reminded that the Immediate Self exposed to many environments inescapably prefers a Human Ideal Self more certainly correct and certainly itself than any other category, and the selfless posthuman is reminded that what allows him to value post-humanity in the first place is his Identity, which is currently Immediately Inescapably Ideally Human.
The stance that I instead articulate in my vision of a Unilateral Utopia is the only possible answer that preserves Humanity and any Human’s Identity. The stance I albeit briefly outlined in “Sculpting Galatea” of total Humanism is the only perspective that has fully digested the doubts of the Egoistic Separatists, and the Post-human Bugmen.
Separatism condemns us to contradicting our own given Intrinsic Ideal Self’s Inescapable Humanity. For if those that are different in community and culture might one day be those that we love, by being those that are loved by our future progeny which we love, then the maximal inclusion of all compatible communities must be the Ideology of every Human to ensure their progeny lives in a Utopia–to ensure they live in a Utopia. For it is not Utopia if those you love are not also existing in their Utopia, and if for them Utopia entails something different though of course compatible, then you must love this difference. This is what it means to love the diversity of your Humanity.
Bugmen condemn us to maximizing rocks because if everything is equal then the most compatible and optimizable thing should be maximized. If both a Human and a wall-watcher had “equal” moral worth, then 1 Human would be worth 1 wall-watcher. If you could have 100 wall-watchers for 10 Humans, then you must favor the 100 wall-watchers, else you are favoring a smaller group over a larger group, implying inequality of the groups.
For the Post-Human to truly favor no value of his Immediate Self he is given over another value he is given, is to rebuke his whole given. It is to deny what he cannot help but perceive himself to be and believe and value, and to instead affirm all else outside himself. Even with a rock he shares physicality–and so the most consistent Post-Human Bugman can only will the complete opposite of what his Immediate Self is given in an attempt to remove bias and then optimize–which is of course willing nothing. “If only you got rid of your pro-something Given biases, you too would see that ‘nothing’ can be optimized far more than ‘something’!” You maximally solve pain by maximally getting rid of all pain-feelers!
In my critique on Separatism, I reminded the perceiver that it is the expressed intention of the Intrinsic Ideal Self’s Unilateral Utopia to favor a category that is both the easiest to maximize and one that the Individual gets the most amount of reward maximizing:
The only scarce resource [in Utopia] is attention/time, and so I am trying to determine which category we should spend attention/time maximizing with those infinite resources. In Utopia–in a scarcity-free environment–this calculation is dependent on three variables: What category of existence are we interested in maximizing? What category can we maximize without contradicting? What category costs the least resources (attention) to maximize the satisfaction of?
What category does the Individual Human value maximizing? Do we care about maximizing the amount of trees in the universe? Do we care that much if 100 ants are Euphoric or if 100 Humans are Euphoric? Sure we can maximize trees, and this will take very few resources. We can maximize Euphoric ants, but what category would we most prefer to maximize?
What category can the Individual Human maximize without contradicting the maximization of that category? For example, your close family can only be so big and still each be maximally satisfactory to you/satisfied themselves. Your culture can’t be so big that it can’t communicate with itself.
What category costs the least amount of resources to maximize? In Utopia, the one remaining scarce resource is attention. What category should we be maximizing, for the most amount of reward?
I propose that the category of “Humanity”–all those that share the beliefs and values of the general compatible Homo sapiens–is this Ideal category to maximize for any average compatible Homo sapiens. This category costs the least amount of attention when deciding which largest category of existence we should maximize, compared to “intelligence” “matter” or “sentience” and simultaneously ensures the greatest amount of reward from the Human Ideal Self’s perspective.
Vitalists: “The Vitalists deny Human beliefs or values in pursuit of maximizing their own individual identity’s freedom.”
Bugmen: “The Bugmen are those that deny Human values or beliefs for the sake of maximizing group cohesion.”
Humanism, the defense of the average compatible Homo sapiens’ Inescapably Perceived Identity, and the only coherent prediction of a Human Ideal Self: “I do not deny my Human values or beliefs, while still attempting to maximize Human group cohesion.”
-
Quoting an exchange I had with
, someone I would tentatively describe as a Egoist, which I think captures my position quite nicely:My definition of "Humanity" is not "Homo sapiens". It is, rather, in proper phenomenological fashion, "what Homo sapiens perceive as intrinsic to themselves". This is meaningfully distinct from defining "Humanity" as biological.
I would like to appeal to that standard you invoke when calling this evolution/change past Humanity "good". If Humanity goes extinct and something else evolves, be it carbon or silicon, is it truly inevitable that a better creature emerges? I suppose you don't consider the possibility of an ASI turning everything into paperclips remotely realistic? Because optimality is the tiger and I am quite terrified of the lovecraftian depths optimality might descend into.
I'm not against changing and improving Humanity, because Humanity itself intrinsically entails change and improvement. But how do you know the future will care about experiencing reality objectively? Or gaining a "true understanding of it all"? The very standard by which you consider creatures to have or have not achieved more wisdom is your Humanity. Unless you preserve that Humanity, there is no guarantee that "progress" will be made. Unless you preserve the thing that is the arbiter of progress, there will be no way to even call your change "progress".
Granted, it can seem silly to portray "Humanity" as this fantastical emergent transcendental wisdom. This "Humanity" emergent of infinite environments is not the same as the "Humanity" emergent from only the evolutionary environment we Homo sapiens have yet known.
But that Ideal Humanity is deducible. We need only experience more environments; We need only amass more wisdom; We need only know ourselves more; We need only affirm ourselves more.