The Tranhumanist Cult Test

Movement Dynamics and Zealotry

• Several commenters generalize: any future‑oriented philosophy tends to produce zealots, and at extremes can become cult‑like or political.
• Early and late phases of movements are seen as especially zealot‑heavy; others say many “zealots” are actually status‑seekers using ideology instrumentally.
• There’s debate over whether outward zeal requires sincere belief; some think performative fanatics still count as zealots.

NorCal, Tech, and Cult Ecosystems

• Some argue Northern California’s wealth and culture make it a natural hub for “goofy” or extreme movements, including transhumanist and rationalist offshoots, backed by large pools of capital.
• Others note transhumanist ideas are historically broader than Silicon Valley, but agree current clustering is heavily NorCal‑centric.
• Mental health and trauma are mentioned as common in extreme circles, with concern that moneyed backers, not just vulnerable followers, may need constraints.

Singularity: Concept vs. Mythology

• Strong disagreement on what “the Singularity” means:
  • One camp: a technical idea—an “event horizon” where accelerating tech (esp. AI) makes future prediction unreliable.
  • Another: a faith‑based projection promising quasi‑religious outcomes (end of death, suffering, poverty, etc.).
• Some see attempts to call it “just math” as whitewashing; others say religious analogies (Rapture, God, eschaton) are overplayed or intellectually sloppy.

What Is Transhumanism? Narrow vs. Extreme

• One faction defines transhumanism minimally: using tech to improve human function (glasses, insulin pumps, pacemakers); critics say this dilutes the term until meaningless.
• Others insist it’s about actively seeking radical enhancement and accepting even species‑level changes (genetic engineering, mind‑uploading, posthuman futures).
• The thread distinguishes more moderate “augment humans” views from more radical “replace/obsolete humans” views, and from broader TESCREAL ideology.
• There’s concern about a motte‑and‑bailey pattern: retreating to “just glasses” when criticized, while movement rhetoric often includes superintelligence, immortality, and cosmic expansion.

Soul, Identity, and Continuity

• Debate centers on whether copying or “backing up” a mind preserves the original self or merely creates a new instance.
• Some participants reject any special “soul” and see continuity as functional; others fear irretrievable loss of the present consciousness.
• A conservative/humanist position stresses unknowns about consciousness and insists on protecting the biological human condition and its associated virtues (love, duty, sacrifice) before pursuing radical uploads or posthuman states.

Religion, Cults, and Morality

• Multiple commenters argue transhumanism (especially its more eschatological wing) behaves like a religion or millenarian cult: sacred texts, salvation narratives, “digital deities,” and contempt for doubters.
• Others counter that one can have atheist, materialist “religions,” but that doesn’t automatically invalidate empirically grounded speculation about AI and biotech.
• Ethical disputes include whether all tech that “improves” is good, how to define “improvement,” and whether current power holders make further development too risky.

Critiques of the Article and Discourse

• Some think the article builds a straw‑man “cult transhumanism,” misstates history, and conflates a narrow extreme faction with the broader movement.
• Others find the cult framing apt, arguing that literary and cultural depictions of transhumanist futures are often cautionary, not aspirational.
• There is meta‑frustration with terminological nitpicking and with both hysterical denunciations and overly sanitized self‑descriptions of transhumanism.