Over at More Than Human, Ramez Naam has a few sensible observations to make regarding the term "transhumanist".

I tend to take the view that almost everyone is a closet (or at least potential) transhumanist.

That is to say, when presented with a biotech product that will produce a clear improvement in their lives and that 1) is reasonably affordable; 2) has been demonstrated as safe; and 3) doesn't carry an awful social stigma, I believe the majority of Americans and Europeans would be willing to use the product...

...I don't think I need to convince the hardcore Kassians of anything to have a positive effect. If I can reach the people who are uncomfortable with biotech enhancements simply because they don't understand them, and educate those people on some of the myths and realities, I think that's enough to sway public policy.

I tend to agree with that, and I enjoy hearing it proposed in a sober, sensible manner.

This line of thinking also contributes to my dislike of the term "transhumanist". I think it's a horrible word from a PR standpoint. It adds a taint of weirdness - the very thing that makes people uncomfortable - to technologies that will either not work or will have straightforward benefits.

Amen to that. The term conjures up precisely the wrong image, and generates the exact opposite of popular appeal. You look at some of the folks who really go for it, and you get a sinking feeling. Much the same could be said, of course, for any group with a Mission.

In my mind, there's no need for the label at all. The vast majority of things transhumanists want, if they work as advertised, will be desired by millions of mainstream consumers...

A situation devoutly to be wished for. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the enthusiasm these developments can generate. It's sometimes difficult, looking at the wonderful possibilities around us, not to be swept away on a tide of irrational exuberance. I'll take optimism over pessimism any day, but, yeah, it can be overdone.

I'm about halfway through Mr. Naam's book and thoroughly enjoying it. It has much the same temper and tone as the passages quoted above. More on that when I've finished it. While careful to stay grounded throughout most of the book, in the final two chapters he allows himself a little more latitude for the "sense of wonder" stuff.

Yes, I skipped ahead to the end.

If the technologies he speculates about are actually brought into being, then humanity is in for some big changes. Some readers (Ms. Schaub?) will immediately think "Borg", or "Comprise". That's the kneejerk negative.

A more positive outcome might be more like John C. Wright's "The Golden Age". If he hasn't already done so, I would urge Mr. Naam to check it out. It's a great read.

Hey, if Dr. Schaub can spout fiction with a straight face, then so can I.