the concept of 'homo deus' - latin for 'human god' - is something i mentioned repeatedly in my prior essays and always elaborated on a tiny bit, but never described in a complete way, so i decided to make up for this and explain what exactly is that i understand as 'homo deus'. it's essentially the same thing nietzsche described as 'the ubermensch' - the future form of a human free of limitations, who would see present humans as weak and primitive; i prefer to use the term 'homo deus' even with all my nietzschean sentiments because of the fascist associations. unfortunately, the fascists appropriated nietzsche quite a lot. i have to say, though, that for him the idea was rather vague. he never specified what that human of the future would be characterised by, besides not caring for present societal limitations such as morality and religion; and never specified what the way to there would entail, aside from liberating ourselves from these constructs. one can say i've taken what nietzsche had about it and developed from there. i have my own concept of homo deus and the journey that leads there.
first principle is that evolution is a process that's best described by game theory and statistics, more specifically these concerning probability, and whatever species undergoing it passively is bound to the "laws of nature" (natural selection) as determinant for their fate. evolution is heartless, and it does not pursue the 'best' outcome according to human values. 'survival of the fittest' = 'survival of these who have the most efficient mechanisms to survive and reproduce'. they don't necessarily have to be the most intelligent or most complex - sometimes, like in tapeworms and other parasites, being 'fit' and adaptation as well as the dirction of evolution itself is about being less complex and not having senses that aren't necessary in the environment - or the 'best' morally, actually they're very likely to be immoral, since evolution is based on what is the most likely with the present conditions, not what is 'the best' according to humans.
furthermore, if the species is moved into a different enviornment or the environment changes quickly, the definition of 'the fittest' also changes rapidly, and therefore is definitely not objective, but relative to the conditions the species is facing, and whatever bottleneck effect situations they end up involved in, which are completely and entirely random.
a species that's relying on it for its further development, whatever they do and whether they agree with, is bound to follow the random current they ended up in, and to have to adjust their own choices to 'the laws of nature' - all naturalism relies on humans functioning under the same rules as the rest of nature. while it's largely true, because humans are biological animals, nature doesn't know such a thing as morality, philosophy, science, religion or art, or culture overall, or indiviudal abstract intelligence and individual expression, so trying to apply the same rules to the human species in contexts that concern these often ends up harming both the culture and the individuals.
i subscribe to the theory that human abstract intelligent evolved mainly in the mechanism of sexual selection; i have multiple arguments for that, including multiple genetic traits the human brain shares with fitness indicators in other species such as the peacock tail - disproportional amount of the animal's genes involved, easily showing any mutations or errors because of complex construction, ends up affected by most genetic and environmental diseases both, etc. no matter what mechanism it evolved in, though, it was seemingly beneficial for the organism to make decisions for itself over following instincs, since it shortened the reaction time and increased the variety of reactions to pick from, while also increasing the likelyhood of picking the appropriate on to the situation. it evolved until it created a brain that's narcissistic and fell in love with itself - most humans, inlcuding me, can say we love fruit of culture such as books, art, science et cetera, and that's because our own brains have simultaneously evolved to appreciate other humans' achievements. they became values for us over things such as reproducing - at least for these of us who are more refined; yes, i'm a taking a jab at the naturalists now. the complex decision-making and group interactions, and attempts to adapt to larger groups, although that has barely just began (about 10 thousands years ago), created individuality - and the individual intellect capable of going against their own genetic programming. the crown achievement in terms of this is contraception - the intellect opposing the most basic genetic programming which is to reproduce and carry the genes on. i don't think this is enough, though.
i for one actually think 'playing god' is a "good" thing - beneficial in terms of liberation of the individual, and the only path to said liberation is defeating biology and ending the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens as a darwinist process, replacing it with humanity taking its own reproduction and evolution into its hands and subjugating it to logic - understood as thinking based on causativity, reasons, causes, goals, results moreso than some eugenicist ideal.
part of it is certainly taking control of our reproduction, which is already being realised since contraception - abortion, plan b, prenatal scanning, all that - these are the early steps to what i hope will eventually result in the ability to use genetics to eliminate disease and adapt quickly to changing conditions, and overall no accidental reproduction, but instead adjusted to conditions, goals et cetera. i do not support central planning since i do not support the idea of the state. i think we should get smarter as a whole species and popularise the mentality of planned parenthood, the idea that new human beings with the whole impact wrong upbringing can have on them and the damage they can do if their psyche gets skewed enough is some kind of a private matter beyond the pregnancy, which of course goes under the laws of bodily autonomy.
speaking of which: i believe technology and science should be used to separate reproduction from sexuality and the female body/sex. why? because as long as the female body is a necessary means for survival of the species it's going to be treated like an object and approached with entitlement, and as long as sexuality - which is a strictly private matter - will be connected inevitably to the idea of bringing up the new generation of humans, which is a matter that affects everyone, sexuality will be treated as a public problem. i don't want it to be treated that way and i believe that would go in the way of aforementioned individual liberation, and as long as women are needed as a tool for carrying on the cultural heritage of humanity et cetera, their bodies and personhood won't be approached on par with men. thus i believe the only way to end misogyny effectively and forever is to eliminate the female body as necessary element of reproduction process - i mainly mean artificial wombs. that would also eliminate the 'public sexuality' problem, and would be a step towards communal childrearing - ironically the more 'natural' form, while the nuclear family with its power relations is mainly a post-agricultural revolution invention; that should make parenthood less personal, and afford for more involvement of distant family, family friends and other adults who share the community, so that reproduction can be more about nurturing and teaching new humans with a personhood who will impact the community than a matter of personal wants or idiotic religious pressure. i want it to be completely optional and a matter of being ready to love someone vulnerable and teach them, meeting the point in life where you want to become a nurturer, rather than forgetting a condom in passion or fucking unprotected because that feels like the default. i think artificial wombs and "relegating" reproduction of technology would also erase the inequalities between mothers and fathers and the mutual resentment, as both would have an equal investment and equal 'legitimation' for parenthood. some things i was asked include:
i also strongly believe reproduction should be separated from sexuality; for multiple reasons, one being that it's the inherent connection of reproduction and sexuality that makes sexuality a political matter. with how much the human brain has developed, sexuality has become highly intellectualised and impacted by culture; at this point i believe it should be left to the individual to derive pleasure from, and play a role in connectting communities and social structures - which according to freud are all unconsciously libidinal anyway. i believe that relegating reproduction to technology pretty much solves this issue.
another step i believe humanity needs to take is taking control of its habitat - the planet; i mean rational, strategic control, not in the stupid way like it has been going on some centuries now where it's just thoughtless inflicting of radical changes for monetary gain. i believe there should be planned strategies of both protecting the existing natural spheres and inflicting harmonic change, operating with awareness; that along with taking control of its own further development. yet another thing - removing biological limitations; what i mean is things such as both genetic and environmental disease, eventually aging nd death. i don't really care how; whether it's genetic modification or technological accommodation, or something else; i don't care if it's human dna experiments or uploading human consciousness on alternative storage device, had that turned out possible. i don't really care for morality as far as it doesn't harm actual, living people. i don't care about harm to concepts and philosophical 'ghosts' such as "human dignity" or otherwise. i don't believe any naturalistic sentiments that aren't based in actual measurable harm are worth considering, and i don't care if people have 'custom ordered' blonde haired blue eyed babies; i believe combating racism and other oppression should happen probably before we get to that stage, and also that immediately jumping to these mythical 'custom babies' mentally is a mark of operating heavily within a capitalistic framework where billionaires get to play eugenics; but in any event if that did happen it's comparable to sex selective abortions. if women want to abort potential girls, it's a matter of eliminating misogyny and misogynistic constructs, not of outlawing abortion. i see that similarly.
something that probably is necessary to occur before we liberate ourselves from biological limitations is fully liberating the individual from artificial limitations, societal, so i assume some sort of a revolution needs to happen first before we progress to homo deus; i need to read more revolutionary theory to figure out how to bite this part, i had been apolitical for some years due to exhaustion with politics, and so i've only been dabbling in politics again lately. i've therefore not read much communist theory as of yet, and i don't find myself competent to talk about revolution; basically what i know now is that the wider 'society' needs to be deconstructed in favour of smaller communities based on free association, and well, structures such as the state need to go.
the final thing i believe will lead to transformation into homo deus - aside from removing the societal, cultural limitations, the biological limitations of aging and disease, and the sexual and reproductive limitations along with the misogyny tied to them - would be allowing the individual complete agency in changing their body and mind, that includes allowing whatever impact on the biochemistry of the brain is available and can be taken with full awareness, hence why i'm on principle opposed to outlawing narcotic substances (which can be used in a smart way or in a stupid way, but i believe the stupid should be allowed their stupidity, as long as they're not psychotic, demented or children). it also includes whatever body modification is available and desired for any reason, including modifying sex traits and species traits. yes, that includes turning oneself into a grotesque creature if they so desire, of course after thinking this decision through and exploring where the desire came from, and making sure this is the route they want to take about it. yes, it includes pursuing androgynity, and erasing visible differences between sexes, which would contribute positively to deconstructing gender. regardless, i believe the final result would be that individuals would be both so removed from the biological reality of a species and so different from each other in all ways that i'll be arguable whether they can be called a species or are completely liberated even from that construct; if they could be called one, though, they would appear as 'homo deus' with 'homo sapiens sapiens' as an ancestral species, and it would be the first case of a species knowingly taking a turn to transform into another rather than it happening passively based on darwinist selection.
that's where the homo sapiens sapiens dies. that's also where darwinist evolution dies in context of homo sapiens sapiens. mind it, i love evolutionary biology, and i love reading and learning about evolution as a process, and the way it operates on the laws of probability; i also want to end it, though. sometimes ending what you love is a founding act for something better, so strongly that i even experience the excitement about it; imagine it - the abstract intellect created by evolution then ending it and subjugating to the principles of logic that were created by evolution. there's some sort of an ouroboros or full circle element happening here - and it's beautiful, isn't it?
i really hate naturalism, as i've clarified in the past, and all religious fundamentalisms as inherently naturalist since any intelligent design allows for some sort of an intended order which either cannot be abolished or there's a moral boundary and obligation not to change it; i believe naturalistic morality is one of the first things we need to let go in order to leave homo sapiens sapiens behind and become ancestors to the new species that will replace us and hopefully be more rational in managing resources. most importantly i hope it'll produce individuals fully liberated from limitations on their potential, who are able to fully live out said potential in terms of crearting. in other words, i believe homo deus will realise the full potential of humanity in terms of art, science and otherwise culture, and be happier individually, which to me personally matters less but is of course still very important. i suppose then the 'civilisation of death' the christians are warning about is the one most friendly to life as i understand it - life as a force that pursues constant creation, growth and improvement, and if it has any 'point' or 'meaning' whatsoever it's to endlessly develop itself. that's the kind of life i'm willing to support, adore and glorify. i do not, and will not, glorify approaching life with pity and mercy - attitudes that are inherently about positions of power and have an element of disdain or sense of superiority in themselves. i don't really care about it from the moral pov, but i do really love life, and love specific living beings around me, and i don't want to pity them - i respect them way too much. i want to nurture them and bring out what is the strongest and the best in them instead; that's the kind of love i have to offer, and the way i love life, mine and in general. thus:
all hail 'the civilisation of death'!