In contrast to our recent discussions on religious extremism, transhumanism offers an alternative position that is no less radical yet potentially rewarding. The ideology of transhumanism is comparable to secular humanism in that both advocate the importance of individuality and personal growth. However, where these two positions diverge is in regards to the future of human evolution. In this article I would like to firstly offer a broad definition of transhumanism, followed by the arguments both for and against its implementation. Finally, I would like to discuss the possibility of society adopting a transhumanist position in order to fully realise our human potential.
Transhumanism proposes that in order to take advantage of our natural abilities, a complete embracing of technological progress is necessary. Specifically, and where this position differs from the more conservative and broader topic of humanism, transhumanists believe that self- enhancement to achieve this goal through the use of emerging technology is entirely justifiable. The details of such modifications include a large variety of breakthrough technologies; transhumanists vary individually based on personal preference although the end goal is similar. Cryogenics, mind-digitalisation, genetic engineering and bionic enhancement are all possible methods proposed to usher in a ‘post-human’ era.
A secondary goal (and flowing as a consequence from the first) of transhumanism is the elimination of human suffering and inadequacies. By removing mental and physical inequalities through a process of self-directed evolution (enhancement or prenatal genetic screening/selection) the transhumanist argues that social divides will also be eliminated. Specifically, an improvement of human faculties through cybernetic augmentation is thought to eliminate the gap between intellect. It puts society on an equally intelligent footing. Likewise, the genetic engineering approach hopes to select intellect and physical prowess either pre-birth or post-birth through genetic modification. Mind-transfer or digitalisation proposes to extend both our lifespans (indefinitely) and our mental capacities. The trade-off here is our loss of the physical.
Many transhumanists regard such enhancements as not only natural, but necessary if humanity is to truly understand the world in which we live. They argue that the natural process of evolution and ‘old-fashioned’ practice/training is too slow to equip us with the necessary skills with which to undertake research in the future. One example is space travel. Human bodies are arguably not designed for prolonged exposure to the rigors of space. Bones become brittle and radiation vastly increases the chances of cancer developing (not to mention the unknown psychological and physiological effects of permanent space-habitation). Eliminating such ‘weaknesses’ would allow humans to more efficiently conquer space by removing the need for costly habitation modules and protective shielding. But does self-augmentation create more problems than it solves?
Certainly, from a moral point of view, there are a multitude of arguments levelled at transhumanism. While the majority of these arguments hold merit, I intend to argue that once the initial opposition based on emotional responses is exposed, the core principles of transhumanism really can improve the quality of life for many disadvantaged people on this planet. While the attacks on transhumanism come in many different forms I will instead be concentrating on the moral implications of endorsing this position.
The threat to morality posed by transhumanism has been levelled by both the theistic and the scientific community alike. This argument postulates that 1) ‘contempt of the flesh’ is immoral in the sense that rejecting our natural form and processes is also a rejection of god’s power and intent and 2) rather than removing divides, transhumanism will actually operate in reverse, creating increased discrepancies between those with the ability to improve and those that don’t – the creation of a ’super-class’ of human and vast disparities in wielded power. The first point is easy enough to dismiss (from an atheistic point of view). Delving deeper, philosophical naturalism, to a degree, proposes that natural effects arrive from natural causes, thus the introduction here of artificial causes results in artificial effects. The problem lies within us being created from natural ’stuff’ therefore how can we predict with any accuracy or confidence the outcome of unnatural processes? The second point proposes that democracy itself may be threatened by transhumanism. The potential for abuse by the emergent ’superhuman’ class is easy enough to see. The only rebuttal hope I offer here is that surely self-improvement would aim to not only improve rational faculties, but also emotional – humans would naturally seek to improve our ability to empathise, cooperate and generally act in a morally acceptable manner.
The divide between the intellectually/physically rich and poor can only be closed if transhumanism is enacted uniformly. Unfortunately, the capitalist society in which we live most likely ensures that only the monetarily rich will benefit. Since money does not necessarily equate with moral goodness and intelligence, we are thus in dire straits as transhumanist ideology will quickly be abandoned in the pursuit of dominance and power. Therefore, transhumanism is probably the world’s most dangerous idea (Fukuyama, 2004). The potential for great evil is dizzying. Fortunately, the reverse is also true.
Elimination of inequality is a noble goal of transhumanism. It also attainable from two main angles of attack. Through the means – universal adoption of technology that removes the necessary conditions for suffering to occur (eg disability, sustenance, shelter – uploaded minds stored on digital media) and through the ends – augmentation and improvement that creates superior organisms that live harmoniously. Perhaps this is a necessary step in order for humanity to fully realise its potential; taking charge of our species’ destiny in a more directed and controlled manner than blind evolution can ever hope to achieve.
But arguably, the transhumanism dream is already happening. Society, in a way, is habituating us to the changes that must occur if transhumanism is to be adopted. Psychologically and philosophically, the ideas are out there and being debated regularly. The details, while not finalised, are being worked over and improved using (mostly) rational methodology. Internet and other wireless communications methods have begun the process of ‘disembodiment’ that the digitalisation of human minds surely requires. The internet has facilitated an exponential growth of non-traditional social interaction, existing mostly on the digital plain. Thus, we are already developing the necessary mindsets and modifications to etiquette that transhumanism requires. Cosmetic surgery, while not altogether a morally appropriate example (due to its use and abuse) is also a moving trend in society towards self-modification. On the other hand, negative examples such as psychological disorders such as self-harming and anorexia are salient reminders of how these trends can manifest themselves in untoward ways.
Therefore, the fate of transhumanism rests squarely on its ability to tread carefully across the moral tightrope; too liberal and abuse is inevitable. Too conservative and its full potential is unrealised. Left-wing supporters of transhumanism (Marvin Minsky et al) are, unfortunately, the main public face of this ideology. Their ideas are too liberal, and dangerous if used as a springboard for implementing transhumanist principles. Such examples only serve to highlight the potential for this position to be abused for personal gain. Aging scientists desperate to continue life without the frailties of decaying flesh. They look to the future like a boy dreams of one day living the space-age tales of science-fiction novels. This is not what transhumanism is supposed to be about. It is the practical realisation of a humanist life philosophy; how we could possibly use the technological tools at our disposal to create a utopian society and encourage exponential individualistic growth.
Unfortunately many obstacles remain in the path of a future where humanity transgresses its shortcomings. Morally, the question comes down to a simplistic decision. Why should we be afraid to improve what we currently leave to chance? Surely it is ‘more moral’ to realise the potential of every individual, rather than leaving it down to the throw of a dice. Allowing a child to live a life of disability and suffering as opposed to one where all opportunities are open to them has to be morally acceptable. The only uncertainty in this equation is whether the means justifies the ends.
Transhumanist ideals must be regulated and monitored if they are to be implemented appropriately and uniformly. Just as there are people now who chose not to embrace modern technology, so too will there be people who chose not to augment themselves with improvements. Such people must be respected if transhumanism is to be morally just, and does not delegate groups of people to lower levels of status or the exhibits of future-museums. Just as liberty was used to create a choice to proceed with technological advancement, so too must the liberty of those who chose not to be protected and cherished. After all, the creation of diversity is what makes us human in the first place. To sacrifice that for the sake of ‘progress’ would be a travesty and ideological genocide of the worst kind.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
28 October, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
“Man is a rope, tied between beast and superman – a rope over an abyss”: Friedrich Nietzsche
Leave it to you to pen an interesting think-piece to elicit discussion.
I think you are right in your observation that we are already
becoming “transhumans” piecemeal, a bit at a time. Especially so in the case of the medical area where bionics (replacing organs and limbs with the artificial) is moving so rapidly. Also true in improved athletic training methods that result in people regularly breaking previous records, almost yearly. And medical care for the aged, closing in on cancer cures, one at a time. The importance of nutrition and exercise in maintaining health into later years is now understood, unlike previous centuries. Compared to the typical life-span in Greek and Roman times (assessed as about 35 years) today’s 70-80 year life expectancy in the advanced/technological nations would seem like “superhuman” already. The real possibility that we will approach an expectancy of 100 for large numbers of people in the next few decades seems incredible.
Our intellects seem to be less pliable and amenable to improvement. As you note, we have made major electronic improvements in long-distance communication (phones, TVs, Internet, etc.). Sure can’t yell loud enough to be heard around the world, but we can communicate that far using technology. Also in memory augmentation (written text, pictures, internet storage), and in ability to do complex calculations (a $10 calculator).
However, our intrinsic intellectual abilities are still not much advanced over the ancients, if at all. It still takes years of study to master a field, and there are still huge numbers of people who are intellectually disadvantaged, and the devices mentioned above just don’t make them any smarter. The idea of direct computer-brain connections seems to be getting press lately, so maybe the bionic revolution will give us integrated, plug-in cell phone chips and memory augmentation devices in a couple of decades. However, will it be possible to make the less bright among us at least “high normal?” I don’t think we have a clue as to how to improve inherent intellectual abilities yet. Plugging a cell phone chip into the brain is just an extension of what we do already with those things hanging from our ears.
So, I am relatively optimistic that work to improve human biology will continue in coming decades. Baring the onset of the New Dark Age the Islamic Fundamentalist fruitcakes want to impose on the world, we will have medical and bionic progress that improves opportunities for health and longevity (if you can pay for them). In a hundred years, existing human biology and external technology augmentation will probably have been exhausted in this regard, and (unpopular as it may be) eugenics (selective breeding and genetic modification) may be the only way to make a more “super” superman.
As far as intellectual and moral improvement goes, I am much less optimistic. It seems that not just the meek are inheriting the world, but the stupid. It isn’t all just raw IQ that is in short supply (whatever that is), but we also have a cultural problem of respecting and encouraging education. It is interesting that longitudinal studies of IQ scores in Western nations (where people under 20 are regularly tested) seem to have been increasing the past few decades. This is generally attributed to some positive benefits from TV and computer interaction at early ages. Stimulating the brains; but still large percentages drop out of high school, averaging about 25% across the U.S. and as high as 50% not completing in some inner city locales. Hardly progress toward “superhumanity”.
I don’t think an integrated computer will help someone who doesn’t want to learn calculus in the first place. Uploading brains into the “global brain” (e.g.; Kurzwell and Vinge and their Singularity hypothesis) will just make the machines dumber, but won’t necessarily help make the people smarter.
Moral improvement? Whenever that subject comes up we get a strong dose of returning to the basics: religious ideas of morality that were first written down 1500 to 2500 years ago. So is the future “superman” (or woman) going to be just a Muslim or Christian who lives 120 years in good health? Pardon me if that doesn’t seem like much of a “transhuman” to me.
Thus, the easiest aspects of transformation to superhuman/transhuman abilities are the medical and biological ones. Intellectual improvement , even with computer implants and augmentation seems still to be questionable in its effects (let alone its technical feasibility). Moral improvement is probably out of reach, until some reasonable number of us can agree on what it means to be “good”, and can convince the rest, without killing them off as in previous history.
Robopsychologust and story protagonist Susan Calvin, in the ninth story of nine comprising Asimov’s “I Robot” (the book, not the movie), asserts that robots are a cleaner, smarter, and better species. They deserve to inherit the world. Then she dies. So maybe the real transhumans are creatures that do not have all the mixed-up moral and religious baggage humans have carried around since the Stone Age.
But we can probably have more discussion about that.
DHQ
29 October, 2007 at 12:58 pm
vulcanis
DHQ, your Nietzsche quote seems quite apt for the theme of this discussion; our future seems ripe with potential but also incredible danger.
I agree on your comments involving the relationship between intelligence and power. I think this is a major problem we need to overcome. Is division within humanity natural? Despite our best efforts, will we ever be able to consider our fellow man on equal footing? Or is this obstacle one of the defining characteristics of a future society, one that must be navigated successfully in order for a new era to be realised?
I also agree on your comparison of intelligence throughout the ages. The great geniuses of ancient times seem to be just as mentally capable as those from this generation. The only differing factor is the time taken to develop technology and ideas. Intelligence, it seems, remains static however the technological tools develop slowly over time and extend that intelligence. Thus, it could be argued that transhumanist positions (such as augmentation) is the only natural way forward (in terms of trully increasing man’s abilities – otherwise they could stagnate).
Your use of Asimov is welcomed; such a fantastic author who had the knack of developing realistic science-fiction. Perhaps we should take a lesson from the humaniform robots Daneel and Giskard by learning to challenge and break our laws of robotics (societies norms and moral standards) and push the envelope of personal/societal progress.
Thanks again for the comments!
29 October, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
The vast majority of things we (humans) have accomplished in the past 10,000 years (since the agricultural revolution) have been improvements external to the human genome. Accomplishments of engineering and medicine are all essentially external things we do to shape our living environment and improve our health (surgery, vaccination, public sanitation and health). The bionics and computer chip implant work continues that pattern of doing what we can to improve and augment human life from the outside. We don’t want to belittle those accomplishments, because those of us living in modern countries benefit from the hard won struggles of the past.
Nonetheless, we are still, when born, the same primitive creatures that fought the ice 50,000 years ago: same basic metal abilities, same strength, and the same basic potentials. The Trans-human vision is not just to make a Cro Magnon (us) as comfortable and healthy as possible, but to begin raising a new breed of creatures that are somehow better than human. That means we are probably going to have to address the basic human genetic endowment itself, employing genetic engineering and selective breeding. Cloning humans is a step in this direction: when you find a better combination of abilities consolidated in a single individual, make a lot of copies of him/her and help those good genes spread thru the population.
“Better”, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder. We have had the “New Soviet Man” who seemed to be basically a cog in the Soviet economic machine with no individuality allowed; we’ve had the “Great Cleansing” of the Nazi’s, wanting to eliminate all the bad (“non-Aryan” ) blood (e.g., genes) from the reproductive pool of Germany; and we’ve had several people speaking out in the past century all the way back to Galton about using eugenic means to eliminate undesirable genes from the population (by sterilization) like those producing inherited diseases (including stupidity).
If there is an Achilles’ Heel in the ideas of Tran humanists it is that they assume that we can actually produce “better” creatures without falling into the traps of the 20th century that previous “improvement” movements have succumbed to. You have to select the characteristics deemed “better” and use genetic or selective breeding techniques to increase the prevalence of those features in the population, over successive generations. Selecting the “good” or “better” unfortunately means you have to select against the “bad” features, or in effect, eliminate the people who carry the “bad “genes from the reproductive pool. We know we don’t like the kind of society in which authorities can do that.
I think that leaves us in a quandary: if we really sought to create a post-human species by modifying the genome, how could we actually do it? Maybe in some place like China or North Korea the effort could be hidden, but not likely anywhere else for long.
So we are presently stuck with continuing external augmentation efforts (e.g., bionics and brain-computer tie-ins, et al). We may be in something of an evolutionary cul-de-sac: our basic Cro Magnon genome has been pushed near to the limits (physically, intellectually, emotionally), but efforts to transcend it involve doing great evil to some of our people (e.g., the great Aryan cleaning) in the hope that the genome of future generations will be “improved”. The challenge to Trans humanism, if it is to be anything other than verbal posturing, is to find ways to create a breed of “improved” people, without also doing great evil to those in the rest of the population.
I guess we have to keep trying to polish up that old Cro Magnon chassis a little more.
DHQ
29 October, 2007 at 8:28 pm
vulcanis
Transhumanism is the most controversial subject I have yet to come across in philosophy. Your comments regarding Fascism and Communism are salient examples of where ‘improvement’ can go wrong.
I think where transhumanism differs is its wide scope. Improvement can come about through a variety of technological means; genetic selection is but one way. Cybernetic enhancements, brain disembodiment and clinical immortality are some of the ways this end can be achieved. The difference is that transhumanism can respect the wishes of others to remain ‘natural’ or modify the self only slightly. In addition, the ideals of transhumanism encompass that of humanity itself, rather than the delusions of one power-wielding dictator. The individual retains power over how far they would like to go.
Having said that, the potential for error and misuse is tremendous. The whole process would need to be so gradual as to remain under the radar (disguising potential timepoints where abuse could be attainable). I have been thinking about how this could be realised.
Perhaps transhumanism could be the first ‘real’ religion; creating an immortal afterlife ala “The Matrix” whereby downloaded minds are free to live in eternal bliss. Once the first cycle of life is finished, the next begins where the body is discarded and intellectualism is pursued. Those that wish to remain in touch with society could take on an elder-consultant role, indirectly guiding Earthly affairs through their wisdom and contemplation. Other individuals who have neither the ability nor inclination to help the greater good can instead live their immortal lives in a “Nexus” environment (Star Trek: Generations) where time seems to stand still (when Picard enters the Nexus to find Kirk chopping wood – “How can you be from the future, I just got here!”) to outside observers and the mind inside the barrier can live out fantasies unabated.
30 October, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Humans developed an “in group/out group” discrimination reflex eons ago. Members of my social group (tribe) are to be protected, the “others” are enemies on sight and are to be run off or killed. It served some purpose in early times when game was limited, and there was no benefit in having larger cooperative groups than the extended family or tribe.
However, we are stuck with it today, and have chopped ourselves up into these religious clusters, ethnic groups, nations, etc. It remains a source of much of the conflict around the planet; e.g., the Kurds want their own nation, tribal conflict in Africa, etc.. We are a tribal species. My point here is that Trans-humanists are likely to be considered “outsiders” by normal humans and may be considered to be”the enemy” by most normal humans. Science fiction has many stories and novels depicting how an augmented human becomes the focus of hatred and subsequently is hunted down. “Slan”, an early novel by Grandmaster A. E. Van Vogt comes to mind.
The public acceptability of the Trans-human agenda is thus a matter of whether the envisioned changes are perceived as being truly life-enhancing, and available to all (or almost all), or whether they are perceived to be elitist augmentation for just a select few. If a magic life extension drug were discovered, but only millionaires were able to afford the treatment, it would be a real source of social conflict. When the subject of human cloning was in the news a few years ago, I seem to recall an article about how a state like China might pursue development of a special breed of “superman” as soldiers. Then make a million copies of them as a super army. There is always a downside to any technology fix, if it is in the hands of nut cases.
So anyone undertaking a major effort to improve a subset of the species may have to hide the entire enterprise. That is probably feasible in the short term, but sort of violates the theme of making an “improved humanity”. If the old humanity just continues to breed and fight and foul the nest (planet earth), where’s the advantage of having a few supermen/women with exhalted intelligences and physiques?
If the changes and improvements are not available to most everyone (e.g., vaccination for diseases), and if word does get out, the enterprise is likely to be destroyed. Trans-humanists will be perceived as monsters (that old reflex kicking in) and like in the classic Frankenstein movie, the townsfolk will assault the castle and burn it to the ground. “Science be dammed, we must protect the tribe”.
Some of the transhumanist visions seem alluring (upload my consciousness to a Matrix before my body dies), but the infrastructure of society will have to support the development of the new “superhuman” option and sustain the improved population, unless they can somehow jump on a starship and zoom off to make their own society someplace else. I’ve often wondered about the cryogenics fringe and how unlikely it is that this (or any) society will remain stable and protect them for several centuries. Like the grave robbers who have broken open almost all of the royal Egyptian tombs, once the society collapses, or is overrun by some other group, the support for buried kings, or superhumans may also collapse.
It looks like a dicy endeavor to me.
DHQ
31 October, 2007 at 1:22 pm
vulcanis
Further Reading;
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/degrey07/degrey07_index.html
Biogerontologist discusses the plausibility of longetivity ‘escape velocity’, that is, the rate at which repairative gene therapy must progress in order to produce immortality.
31 October, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
I wish we could get some more of the visitors to your web page to contribute to these discussions, like MJackson. You seem to have quite a few visitors, but they don’t stay around to contribute to the dialog. You are picking out some interesting issues to write essays on to initiate the feedback.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
DHQ
31 October, 2007 at 8:18 pm
vulcanis
DHQ,
If you weren’t around this would be a boring place indeed. If only one person enjoys something that I have created, then that is more than enough for me! I appreciate you taking the time to check in every so often.
Stay tuned, it’s Wednesday night and that means another essay is in the works!
1 November, 2007 at 8:50 pm
madmonq
…”like to discuss the possibility of society adopting a transhumanist position in order to fully realise our human potential.”
Since when have we ever used our technological advances solely for good?
“…the transhumanist argues that social divides will also be eliminated”
“The potential for great evil is dizzying. Fortunately, the reverse is also true.Society, in a way, is habituating us to the changes”
Society is habituating us to the change? You mean first world society. Third world society is worrying about feeding their family. Much less a chip in the head that filters commercials. That’s why your nonsense works. You are not taking them into consideration from the start. Good way to eliminate the social divides, by ignoring them. We’ve done that for years and it hasn’t worked yet.
How ’bout we feed the poor before you find new ways to save us via mechanized masterbation? What crap.
1 November, 2007 at 10:26 pm
vulcanis
Madmonq,
“Since when have we ever used our technological advances solely for good?”
I don’t understand the premise of your argument here; are you asking a rhetorical question or making a statement about my article? I don’t recall advocating that technology was ever used solely for good.
“Good way to eliminate the social divides, by ignoring them. We’ve done that for years and it hasn’t worked yet.”
I direct your attention to the beginning of the very paragraph from which that quote was taken. I state that transhumanism must be enacted UNIFORMLY, in otherwords, not just for the ‘rich’. If divides are to be broken down, then transhumanism offers ONE way of doing so. They are not ignored, but transcended.
“How ’bout we feed the poor before you find new ways to save us via mechanized masterbation? What crap.”
I think that final comment just about sums up your maturity for discussions such as this. You are missing the whole point of this exercise; its for hypotheticals, make-believes, thought experiments.
Unfortunately, people like yourself account for a great deal of the ignorant in society, making it difficult for people like myself to put out views and have them criticised appropriately. The way you are advocating is both immature and inaccurate (did you even read the whole article?).
Perhaps try reading the link I posted regarding immortality. It discusses how transhumanist principles can be applied to help the situation in the third world. Since you don’t like reading things all too well, I will summarise the main points;
“…it will necessarily be those who currently die of aging, so in the first instance it will predominantly be those in wealthy nations. But there is a very widespread appreciation in the industrialised world—an appreciation that, I feel, extends to the wealthy sectors of society—that progress in the long term relies on aiming high, and in particular that the moral imperative to help those at the rear of the field to catch up is balanced by the moral imperative to maximise the average rate of progress across the whole population, which initially means helping those who are already ahead. The fact that SENS is likely to lead to LEV means that developing SENS gives a huge boost to the quality and quantity of life of whomever receives it: so huge, in fact, that there is no problem justifying it in comparison the alternative uses to which a similar sum of money might be put…”
2 November, 2007 at 7:21 pm
madmonq
Dear Ernest Borgofnine,
No. The point of this exercise is a demonstration of public abuse, not of intellectual exercise. If you were so enlightened, you’d see I have a point. Criticized appropriately? Calling you on your ommissions is appropriate. The chance of abuse is high because we haven’t mastered ourselves enough.
Would I like to run upward to 55 mph in an orange track suit, date a tennis player and meet bigfoot? Sure I would. Another much more difficult task than waiting in line for a new pair of genes is something close to civil treatment of my brother/sister. Applying reason and compassion with action. Failing and trying again. Striving to be human is more difficult than acheiving metahumanity via technology. We haven’t demonstrated the maturity to worry about such things. Once we learn to take care of each other, then we can worry about downloading “Curb Your Enthusiasm” via retinal implants. Even Mr Data would rather be human than synthetic. Achieving something like worldwide brotherly/sisterly love should be our future goals.
An ipod I got. Peace of self? Still upgrading.
2 November, 2007 at 7:31 pm
vulcanis
Madmonq,
Surely you are proving your own point here (individuals do not get along with each other). Where is this hostility coming from? You are still missing the point of this article. I am not saying ‘this is what we should do’. Its a discussion about an idea. Its supposed to be flawed, otherwise there would be no place for discussion. Yet you seem to be feeling threatened by an alternative point of view…
I do see your point, that being we should focus on improving the situation before we try to change it. I simply think you could have shown it in a less hostile manner. Perhaps instead of being so cynical towards your fellow race, try having some ‘faith’ that there is intrinsic good in us.
Mr Data may have wanted to be human, but how many times did he de-activate his emotion chip when the going got tough? Fictional analogies aside, the fact still remains; humanity needs to remain open to new ideas if we are to improve as a species. I for one would welcome the ‘improvement’ of my human capacities. The ability to deactivate my faculties for distraction (urges, instincts, low-level processes) during study or taking an exam would be more than welcomed. Arguably, transhumanist principles are a major part of Eastern religion. The Buddhist acts to meditate and gain improved control over both the mind and the body. Their ‘will’ is extended to that which is usually hidden from direct control and influence. Transhumanists are trying to do the same thing! Albeit in a different way. They are playing the same game; its just a different level.
Unfortunately it seems some of us are still stuck in the ‘if it’s different (which is threatening), use emotion to smite it down’.
Keep burning those books, madmonq. Ideas can be scary, but once the veil of emotionality is removed and they are considered fairly, they aren’t such bad things to have.
9 November, 2007 at 10:28 pm
madmonq
If the idea is supposed to be flawed, then why are you against vehement disagreement? If someone is against a flawed idea, that doesn’t make it book burning, that may mean its a flawed idea. If I’m against a flawed idea, then I am for humanity right?
Decisions are infinitely easier when emotions are excluded. Understanding how to use emotion and logic within a balance is best. Not Data’s way but Picard’s. Eastern religion seeks betterment through meditation, not metal. If you are comfortable consuming lead with a mercury chaser, be my guest. Drinking the kool aid, grape or silver is always a bad idea.
10 November, 2007 at 10:15 am
vulcanis
The thing I took objection to was your hostility, not your criticism. You also attack me as though I was the creator of the whole transhumanist phenomenon. I am not proposing it as something that will be or even should be, just that it is an alternative option that is out there.
In your earlier comments you came across as very emotional and it took me back, I just can’t imagine getting that riled up by words on a screen, even if I don’t agree with them.
I do agree that emotion and logic should be used in conjunction. But how do you justify the use of emotion? Your emotion here, namely anger, has created a negative interaction between us, two people whom have never met. Instead of taking a step back and portraying your ideas appropriately you insult me by referring to my work as ‘crap’ and using derogatory descriptions of who I am (even though you really have no idea of me as a person). How is this use of emotion justified? It is simply a primal reaction to disagreement; getting yourself ready for conflict. Emotions such as wonder and awe, yes I agree we should encourage those. I think Eastern religions have something to tell us regarding the ultimate usefulness of emotionality in rational thought. Emotions are simply ‘get out quick’ mechanisms, ways of allowing your consciousness to notice the physiological changes that are occurring and act quickly without rational decision.
“Flawed” is entirely subjective. I am open to criticism but you still propose that you have some sort of ultimate perspective with which to falsify the ideas of others. You haven’t really stated exactly what is wrong with transhumanism apart from the fact that you seem to hate it with a passion. The article doesn’t state anywhere one exact way that should be taken, rather just a conglomerate of all the ideas that are out there.
I think the outcome of our discussions is basically that you should think about your delivery of criticism. If you don’t agree, fine, I am all for revision of ideas, that is what truly makes them fair and representative (not to mention great ideas). But in saying that, I do appreciate you taking the time to read my work.
7 February, 2008 at 6:19 am
vulcanis
In re-reading this article I would like to add the subsequent qualification.
Transhumanism, while interesting and scientifically motivating (in terms of providing the catalyst for innovation) does seem to indulge in a selfish aspect of human nature. That being the fear of death that is an constant source of concern and anxiety.
Although the extension of an organic being’s lifespan and augmentation of its abilities is not a solely sufficient reason to discount the principles of transhumanism. Specifically, biological contraints (old age, loss of functioning) should not stand in the way of an individual’s potential to succeed.
Ethically and neurobiologically, transhumanist ideas open up a can of philosophical worms. Specifically, is it ethical to either genetically or cybernetically modify an individual’s natural ability (even if the outcome is for the better)? Some would be (rightfully) concerned about the availability of such treatments, and the potential for a greater divide between people in society (in addition to that created by economic disparities).
The problem is only negated if such a technology is publicly operated and available to all in an equitable fashion. How such a method will be enacted remains to be seen, however it may run into trouble initially with the development phase (how to ethically experiment on humans, deal with failures and accommodate those who served as test subjects that are since superceded).
7 February, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
We already (in the US) have a social divide between those with health insurance and access to modern medical care, and those who cannot afford such insurance. All the Presidential candidates are promising to solve that problem, somehow. Probably with more money we borrow from China.
Seems like some of the offerings of Transhumanism may be very expensive, and thus would only be available to the rich few, thus exacerbating “have-have not” divides in the society. Robert Silverberg wrote a novel a couple of decades ago (sorry I don’t remember the title) in which he described a future society in which extreme longevity treatments were available, but cost millions of dollars every few years to keep your youth. Society divided into the long-lived (rich) and the normals (middle class and poor) with extreme tensions between the groups. So intense, that the long-lived had to move into fortified enclaves and hire private armies to protect themselves and the technology of longevity treatment.
Just one more thing for us to fight about.
DHQ