I think there's a schism forming in transhumanism that, by 2030, will be obvious to everyone. It'll be similar to classic vs modern liberalism, with classic transhumanists being the grinder/diybio/body freedom maxis, and modern being the WEF/Davos/AI Safety types. They'll both agree that radical tech can improve the human condition, but the modern branch will be willing to embrace totalitarianism in order to (as they argue) prevent global catastrophe.
@JCorvinus There might be a third? Neuralink is sort of the institutionally regulated, and streamlined option for invasive neurotech. If FDA-approved wetware expands, there will be a split maybe, but they might actually align with the corpo-safetarians (idk if that's a good name or not, they are also generally more aligned or entrenched w/ a state).
@JCorvinus clarifications, corpo wetware-ist (who might be corpo-safeterians) vs corpo-skeptics and grey or even black market grinders
@JCorvinus Hm, think that schism already exists. I don't think AI alignment people are against body freedom—speaking for myself I'd be extatic about IES/neurohacking & c, and think most worries about those are way overblown.
But then again I don't think I would feel well represented at Davos (but I'm also not a freedom maxi)
@JCorvinus ah goddamn *ecstatic.
Also I think that ideologies move *very quickly* right now: 2030 is far in the future (think about effective altruism back in 2014, 8 years ago: definitely not on the public radar)
a Schelling point for those who seek one