More in the comics, I would say. In the films he only has one self-modification: the fusion device in his chest, and that is more of a medical device required to keep him alive than an actual transhumanist augmentation. In the comics, Stark has to continually modify his biology to keep up with the enhancements to his armor/fight more powerful villains.
Actually Captain America is perhaps a better example. He becomes a super soldier not by accident, but by volunteering for an experimental human-enhancement procedure.
Not really; in the films he is constantly upgrading his suits, and has gone through 7 (IIRC). We almost always see some improvement from suit to suit (ability to fold up into a portable suitcase; improved firepower; resistance to cold; etc.). In addition, per Wikipedia, in Iron Man 3 Stark will be injected with a supersoldier virus, called Extremis.
I think the suit definitely counts as human augmentation. Plus, he designs his augmentations himself. Captain America just used the technology of some guy who then promptly proceeded to die, making the process unrepeatable for some reason. Stark is constantly refining his stuff.
Saying the suit makes Stark a transhuman is like saying my car makes me a transhuman. One of the characters even flies away with one of Stark’s suits in the second movie, so it isn’t really a part of him in any sense. Yes Iron Man’s technology progresses, but so does Batman’s.
Plus, he designs his augmentations himself. Captain America just used the technology of some guy who then promptly proceeded to die
Ok, that might make Iron Man a better or more interesting character, but Tony Stark is not actually an augmented person in the movies. (Again, except for his fusion device thing, but that’s the equivalent of a pacemaker, it restores normal mobility but doesn’t augment his abilities).
How about a cyborg whose arm unscrews? Is he not augmented? Most of a cochlear implant can be removed. Nothing about trans-humanism says your augmentations have to be permanently attached to your body. You need only want to improve yourself and your abilities, which a robot suit of that caliber definitely accomplishes.
And, yes, obviously transhumanism is defined relative to historical context. If everyone’s doing it, you don’t need to have a word for it. That we have a word implies that transhumanists are looking ahead, and looking for things that not everyone has yet. So, no, your car doesn’t make you a trans-humanist, but a robotic exoskeleton might be evidence of that philosophy.
It depends. If a person loses an arm and gets a mechanical prosthesis to restore normal functioning, that isn’t transhumanist. If they get a prosthesis because they want to be super strong (or whatever), that is transhumanist.
That we have a word implies that transhumanists are looking ahead, and looking for things that not everyone has yet.
Transhumanism isn’t about any technology, it specifically refers to augmentation of humans themselves.
If it functions normally then it’s a little bit transhumanist, because there might be advantages to having limbs you can detach if you want to. Also, mechanical limbs are more easily replaced and wouldn’t require food to maintain.
This is reminding me of Manny’s assortment of arms for different purposes in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress—they aren’t the center of the story, they’re almost a cool background detail.
And then there’s the waldos in Heinlein’s “Waldo”—arms of various sizes which mimic the movements of the user. I’m a bit surprised that they don’t exist already, but a casual search suggests that they don’t.
This conversation sounds a little bit to me like the conversation in disputing definitions.
Taboo transhumanism or something, perhaps? I think that these superheroes count as significant positive change at least, one of the things NancyLebovitz described in the title post.
The OP asked for transhumanist fiction, not for fiction about transhumans; these are different things. A story by cavemen about a society with cars would be an example of transhumanist fiction.
The obvious counter-example is iron man, especially in the films.
More in the comics, I would say. In the films he only has one self-modification: the fusion device in his chest, and that is more of a medical device required to keep him alive than an actual transhumanist augmentation. In the comics, Stark has to continually modify his biology to keep up with the enhancements to his armor/fight more powerful villains.
Actually Captain America is perhaps a better example. He becomes a super soldier not by accident, but by volunteering for an experimental human-enhancement procedure.
I like the comics already. That heart magnet thing just seemed so contrived.
Not really; in the films he is constantly upgrading his suits, and has gone through 7 (IIRC). We almost always see some improvement from suit to suit (ability to fold up into a portable suitcase; improved firepower; resistance to cold; etc.). In addition, per Wikipedia, in Iron Man 3 Stark will be injected with a supersoldier virus, called Extremis.
I think the suit definitely counts as human augmentation. Plus, he designs his augmentations himself. Captain America just used the technology of some guy who then promptly proceeded to die, making the process unrepeatable for some reason. Stark is constantly refining his stuff.
Saying the suit makes Stark a transhuman is like saying my car makes me a transhuman. One of the characters even flies away with one of Stark’s suits in the second movie, so it isn’t really a part of him in any sense. Yes Iron Man’s technology progresses, but so does Batman’s.
Ok, that might make Iron Man a better or more interesting character, but Tony Stark is not actually an augmented person in the movies. (Again, except for his fusion device thing, but that’s the equivalent of a pacemaker, it restores normal mobility but doesn’t augment his abilities).
How about a cyborg whose arm unscrews? Is he not augmented? Most of a cochlear implant can be removed. Nothing about trans-humanism says your augmentations have to be permanently attached to your body. You need only want to improve yourself and your abilities, which a robot suit of that caliber definitely accomplishes.
And, yes, obviously transhumanism is defined relative to historical context. If everyone’s doing it, you don’t need to have a word for it. That we have a word implies that transhumanists are looking ahead, and looking for things that not everyone has yet. So, no, your car doesn’t make you a trans-humanist, but a robotic exoskeleton might be evidence of that philosophy.
It depends. If a person loses an arm and gets a mechanical prosthesis to restore normal functioning, that isn’t transhumanist. If they get a prosthesis because they want to be super strong (or whatever), that is transhumanist.
Transhumanism isn’t about any technology, it specifically refers to augmentation of humans themselves.
If it functions normally then it’s a little bit transhumanist, because there might be advantages to having limbs you can detach if you want to. Also, mechanical limbs are more easily replaced and wouldn’t require food to maintain.
This is reminding me of Manny’s assortment of arms for different purposes in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress—they aren’t the center of the story, they’re almost a cool background detail.
And then there’s the waldos in Heinlein’s “Waldo”—arms of various sizes which mimic the movements of the user. I’m a bit surprised that they don’t exist already, but a casual search suggests that they don’t.
This conversation sounds a little bit to me like the conversation in disputing definitions.
Taboo transhumanism or something, perhaps? I think that these superheroes count as significant positive change at least, one of the things NancyLebovitz described in the title post.
Sure. I think we just have different definitions of the term. Not much to be gained here.
The OP asked for transhumanist fiction, not for fiction about transhumans; these are different things. A story by cavemen about a society with cars would be an example of transhumanist fiction.