Not having children doesn’t solve anything. That’s just an abandonment of the future. It directly harms people who need help - the elderly, those with disabilities and medical conditions, etc.

Even better, don’t eat chicken either. Chicken still takes up more land simply by requiring land to grow feed. Anything plant-based will be a better solution.

Ban advertisements.

I get your concern (this is the first time I’m hearing about it and oof). I would however point out that the core of transhumanism is the idea that we should have the freedom to modify our own bodies however we want. This is how I’ve always heard it used and how I’m going to keep using it.

I do understand where those people are coming from, though. If you have the technology to e.g. eliminate sickle cell anemia and choose not to do it, that’s as much eugenics as choosing to do so. I don’t know how to square that with individual liberty. Having parents decide is…not necessarily a great solution. Having society decide is also not a good solution, but probably the one we’ll have to end up doing.

As a grouchy old sci-fi nerd, can anyone explain why they think transhumanism is bad? Some Googling just leads to people claiming that it’s ‘anthropocentric’ - as if you can’t improve your body AND also care for nature at the same time.

Just build some power line SMH my head

None of these points are relevant. Nobody is selling SMRs as better than large-scale plants (at least I hope they’re not). The point of SMRs is that they are much easier to bring in and put down. A huge portion of the world still runs on fossil fuels, often with frequent brownouts or scheduled blackouts. Being able to bring in a RELIABLE non-fossil fuel power plant at a smaller scale would be huge. Distributed solar has some pretty awesome potential for individual households if you don’t care about on- demand power, but you do eventually need something for your denser cities etc.