Can you explain how your new animation style 'post biological interface' is not transhumanism?

I think this is transhumanism. However definitions are key. I would define transhumanism in two ways. One is more ontological and the other is more technological however overlapping with ontology.

Usually transhumanism is concerned with technological implants that are for the enhancement of human biology either through increased cognitive ability or life extending technology that maximizes biology. I don’t speak for farsight at all, but I hear Courtney discussing the necessity of AI usage and collaboration. Depending on how 3.0 unfolds, if implants are discussed and the painted future involves these implants which there have been several projects that discuss this somewhat vaguely this could be considered transhuman if the technology becomes embedddd in human nature that becomes a necessity, and the human cannot exist or thrive without it. It would be on the low transhumanism side if the technology can be removed from biology and only used when needed (like visors etc).

But ontologically, within the ISBE ontology, you already have a priori non-technology based transhumanism. Human nature is generally designed as a body and soul hylomorohism. One human “soul” paired with one body and a way that is permanent. A human only has one body. In the ISBe formulation the ISBE or soils can incarnate in many different bodies. It’s beyond human.

@Kathy Gorecki:

Definition: Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.

This, in itself, is not a bad thing.

It becomes a bad thing if technology which you reject is forced upon you. This would be slavery, because the people who force you against your will claim ownership over your body.

This is how you can distinguish the good ETs from the bad ETs. The good ETs will never force you to use technology you don't want to use. They will rather defend your right to not use it.

They will also not manipulate you into consent if you are not informed about what the technology does and how it works. Instead, they will explain it to you, and they will ensure that you can opt out whenever you want.

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/77040-free-will-and-contracts

@Keymaker:

"well .. 85% of the western world took the covid injection .. for a virus that didn't exist"

And the main reason, besides existential fear, was their belief in authority. It can't be bad if authorities say it's good.

Good people would never use a position of authority to make you accept a vaccine. Instead, they would explain to you how it works, why it works, provide evidence that it works, make clear where the risks are, and accept when you decide to not take it.

The Covid scam was just one of many proofs that we live on a prison planet.

And the uncomfortable truth is: Most of the prison guards are humans.