banner
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70
@kaviros1970.bsky.social
22K followers 17K following 930 posts
"One planet, one home, one species, with kindness, justice, love, health, help, and peace, so that our species can reach a higher level. All good things for everyone. My posts are not standalone. To fully grasp their meaning, they must all be read together
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6m
However, the essential question behind all this is whether these movements can influence politics faster than the rate of technological development. The answer largely depends on how many people become aware of these issues and choose to support — or even join — such initiatives.
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6m
The fact that there are people working on drafting a Transhumanist Bill of Rights or attending UNESCO meetings means that there is a counterbalance to the narrative of “inevitable elitism.”
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 7m
The existence of such groups gives us a very important message: the future is not merely something that “will happen to us.” It is something we can consciously shape through ethics and political action.
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 7m
Popular / Democratic Transhumanism (Left/Democratic Transhumanism) is perhaps the most relevant response to these critiques, as it combines a technological perspective with a socio-economic analysis.
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 21h
1 1 4
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
From the traditional Left: they are criticized for focusing on technocratic “fixes” and for ignoring the underlying economic systems (capitalism) that produce the inequality they claim to fear.
5
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
From the conservative or bioconservative side: they are criticized for being “unnatural,” for “playing God,” and for threatening human nature.
2
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
Their stance on “universal access” and the “common good” is the only one capable of achieving broad social consensus in the long term.

Interestingly, these movements are attacked from all sides of the political spectrum — a sign of their uniqueness.
2
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
The key issue is achieving ethical credibility. While private oligarchs are driven by profit and national security agendas are guided by geopolitical dominance, these movements possess a weak but crucial advantage: they can propose an ethically sustainable path.
2
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
However, the development of these technologies is global. International regulatory frameworks are needed (e.g., through the UN or UNESCO), but these are extremely slow and vulnerable to political pressures.
3
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 1d
Organizations (such as Technoprog) that collaborate with national bioethics councils have significant influence at the regional and national levels (e.g., in France and the EU).
1 2
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
1 4
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
Lobbying pressure from big business is overwhelming.
There must absolutely be a Framework for Legitimization.
The big question is: Who has the authority to legislate and enforce these rules?
1 5
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
There is, unfortunately, a huge imbalance of power.
The resources and influence of groups like Humanity+ or the U.S. Transhumanist Party cannot compare with the resources of corporations like Musk’s, or the research programs funded by states such as China and the United States.
1 3
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
Despite good intentions, these movements face enormous challenges.
1
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
Transhumanism as a movement for the common good.
Their existence proves that the future is not predetermined. The battle over who will control post-human technologies is not theoretical; it is a political and legislative reality already underway.
2 4
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
2
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
Technology is a tool. It has no inherent morality. Morality comes from us — from who controls it and for what purpose.

At this moment, there is a visible and active network of organizations that recognize the dangers of the elitist scenario and are actively trying to shape an alternative model:
1 7
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 2d
Hope lies in organization and moral pressure.
There are movements that resist, but they must become more numerous, stronger, better supported, and able to communicate the essential stakes of everything that is coming for our future.
1
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
4
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
Will it be a small group of private individuals driven by profit and their own pursuit of immortality?

Or will we manage these advances as a common good, with ethical boundaries, transparency, and moderation that serves the collective interest?
7
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
Knowledge becomes a commodity, locked behind patents and inaccessible to the public good.

So the real question is not “Will we extend life or enhance the brain?”, but “WHO decides how and for whom these things are done?”
5
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
When the same people who control the means of production (Musk, Bezos, etc.) also control the means of biological and cognitive production (Neuralink, genomics companies), along with politicians and establishment powers around the globe, they effectively control the future.
1 4
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
This is not just inequality. It is biological apartheid. The most dangerous point.
5
kaviros1970.bsky.social
HumaN-70 @kaviros1970.bsky.social · 6d
If longevity and cognitive enhancements become privileges of the wealthy, we are de facto creating two different types of human beings: those who live 100+ healthy years with super-intelligent children, and those who suffer and die young from problems that have been solved for decades.
2 5