Редактирование: Criticism of transhumanism (раздел)

== The view that human existence needs to be simplified, rather than enhanced ==
''Main: [[neo-luddism]] and [[anarcho-primitivism]]''

Some critics assert that humanity is currently too profligate in use of planetary resources, and needs to be returned to a simpler lifestyle that uses fewer resources (rather than moving to a lifestyle with a greater reliance on technology).

This criticism of transhumanism can be viewed as a secular version of the religiously-driven criticism from the previous subsection.

However, regarding the question of over-use of planetary resources, and the associated adverse impact on the environment, transhumanists anticipate that smart combinations of improved technology and improved social relations can reserve the trend towards environmental problems. This argument is developed in the book [http://rameznaam.com/the-infinite-resource/ "The Infinite Resource: the power of ideas on a finite planet"] by [http://rameznaam.com/books/ Ramez Naam].

For example, here's an extract from [http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/05/ideas-bank/science-will-save-the-planet-if-we-let-it a 2013 article by Ramez Naam], "Science will save the planet (if we let it)":

<blockquote>
We live on the edge of what our planet can sustain.  Carbon emissions are heating the atmosphere. Fisheries have decimated life in the oceans. Agriculture has led to the destruction of half of our forests. Meanwhile, the global population is set to increase by two billion people by 2050. Billions more will rise out of poverty, hungry for richer diets, larger homes, cars and greater access to energy and manufactured goods.

We will not get out of this situation by living simply. Even the most draconian reductions will not suffice to avoid dangerous climate change or to make enough food available to feed nine billion people a western-style diet. Nor will we escape this by ending growth -- almost all of which will happen in the developing world. It would neither be just nor feasible to deny the majority of humanity access to the riches the developed world has enjoyed for years.

There is only one way out of this situation. We must grow the size of the global pie -- increase the resources we have available, whilst reducing our impact on the planet. That means new developments in science and technology. But they can only help the world if we accept what science has to offer us, even when it conflicts with our reactions...

Our responses to things we deem "unnatural" are strong. But science is our best tool to understand -- and save -- the world around us. We must learn to set our emotions aside and embrace what science tells us. GMOs and nuclear power are two of the most effective and most important green technologies we have. If -- after looking at the data -- you aren't in favour of using them responsibly, you aren't an environmentalist.
</blockquote>