<i>Harry Potter</i>and the Aims of Transhumanism: A Magical Critique of Technological Immortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harry Potter can be read as a critique of transhumanist aims of achieving immortality or radical superlongevity. The salience of transhumanism for Harry Potter is seen through the way that magic functions as an analogue to technology, and through the centrality of death throughout the series. Transhumanists pursue radical superlongevity by three pathways: bioengineering, cyborg engineering, and mind uploading. Each of these pathways, when applied heuristically to the magical pursuit of immortality in Harry Potter, receives explicit rejection in the text alongside the commendation of Harry’s non-pursuit of it. By way of analogy, Harry Potter’s perspective on death and immortality, which is informed in part by the Christian tradition, offers readers a critique of certain transhumanist aims along the lines of other ethical and religious analyses of the movement, and speaks to the deep desires and longings lying at their heart.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".