poignant Terence McKenna wisdom:

"Obviously if we're experiencing more change now in a year than we previously experienced in a thousand years, we can propagate that trend into the future and see that a day will come when we will experience more change in an hour than we have experienced in the past 20-30 thousand years.  A situation like that is unimaginable.  So we call it a singularity: a place where the normal rules of modeling break down.  Modern religions have anticipated the singularity by calling it the eschaton or the end of time.  Technological communities have anticipated the singularity by thinking in terms of artificial intelligences or something like that.  In whatever form it takes, we seem to be on the cusp of a dramatic evolutionary leap into a deeper order of complexity than biology or biology plus culture has been able to provide.  We're on the brink of something truly awesome and unknown.  Are we going to retain the monkey meat, are we going to hang onto the body and through the body have a connection to the rest animal nature?  Or are we going to become disembodied streams of electrons moving in virtual realities that are contained entirely in circuitry?  I think this will probably go both ways.  There will be fundamentalists who want nothing to do with technological transformation, and there will be utopians who won't be able to get enough of it.  This is probably the moral frontier where we each personally must make a stand.  How much of the new technology and its reality-redefining qualities do we want to take in to our own lives?"


"That's the curious thing about the folks at the Stanford conference. Some were from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, an offshoot of the World Transhumanist Association, which advocates the transformation of our species through drugs, "genetic engineering, information technology ... nanotechnology, machine intelligence, uploading, and space colonization." [...] These are weird people with weird ideas. But sometimes it takes a weirdo to see what's odd about what the rest of us call normal. [...] Maybe the cockeyed thinking of transhumanists is what allows them to see the illogic of the way we dope kids with caffeine while banning other stimulants. Maybe that's why they find it odd that we denounce steroids as cheating but ignore athletes who get Lasik or muscle-enhancing surgery. Maybe that's why they look back at the doubling of human life expectancy in the last century and wonder why we shouldn't try to double it again. To our hunter-gatherer ancestors, they figure, we already look posthuman. Meanwhile, they look at cyborg technology and see in it what's human."

– Slate.com national correspondent William Saletan, Among the Transhumanists: Cyborgs, self-mutilators, and the future of our race., Sunday, June 4, 2006

"Clearly, transhumanists have some work to do, if the idea that humans may be on the verge of self-directed evolution is to become common currency."

– R.U. Sirius, h+ #1 editorial

mainstream futurism -> technoprogressivism -> transhumanism -> posthumanism

Clarification Practice Run Assignment

Affective Response:
             As the topic I have chosen brings together the intersection of transhumanism and post-realism, I decided I needed to reinforce my understanding of the cultural and philosophical backbone that has shaped what largely rests upon an attempt to define the underlying assumptions of  ushering in an entirely new self-image for humans in the 21^st century.  I had basic questions like what some of the ideas were in dealing with how advanced technology would construct a new material reality, and how the social systems dependent on them would respond in changing the architecture of experienced life.  I also wanted to know how a rapidly changing self-image is expected to play out.  So, I turned to an obscure and out-of-print book by cyberculture pioneer R.U. Sirius called 21^st Century Revolutionary, in which surprisingly the basic tenets about how “reality”-changing technologies would change human self-perception today were very accurately and thoughtfully constructed in this collection of writings composed between 1984 and 1998.
             Sirius was a synthesizer of thought, and he was responsible for launching a very influential magazine during the ‘90s called Mondo 2000.  It’s only in retrospect now that commentators, media theorists, and cultural critics alike look back to realize what an impact this magazine had on drilling the cyberspace meme into the collective psyche.  As our lives today are ubiquitously entrenched in digital communication and scientific breakthroughs, a lot of the magic associated with contemplating the possibilities of then-emerging technological phenomena (i.e., the Internet, virtual reality, smart drugs, artificial life, artificial intelligence, life extension, media appropriation, concepts like ‘electronic freedom,’ nanotechnology, etc.) have become so commonplace as to fade from popular vision.  The underlying assumptions about where these emerging forms may be taking us has been my main set of questions.  As R.U. Serious is now editor for a new magazine, called simply “H+,” which is an abbreviation for” transhumanism,” I thought plumbing the depths of his original assumptions and intentions while riding the ‘90s wave of cyberculture would help me formulate tentative answers.  I feel that overall his idea have proven essentially that the real magic of transhumanism and post-realism lies ahead in the not-to-distant future.
             In some ways, I feel that changes in the future will take place so fast that even ahead-of-the-curve thinkers will be at a loss when confronting the reality that will envelop us.  There are still many questions to be asked and ethics committees to be set up to deal with the possibilities of what future technologies hold.  There are fundamental issues of what being human means.  Never before, I think, has a species contemplated its own nature to such an extent.  For example, what will be the reaction of the first person who decides to upload him/herself entirely onto a silicon chip, to exist purely in virtual space?  In the shorter term, what will be the reaction to skin-pigment modification that will allow people to turn their skin colors blue, green, and purple?     

Periphrastic Response:
               In this collection of early writings, Sirius seems to argue for post-scarcity liberation as one of his main conceptual contributions, which when asked to describe put it as “basically a premature post-industrial vision of a cybernetic culture in which alienated labor and scarcity was all but eliminated by technology” (16).  Today, the major holy grail in nanotechnology (molecular engineering) is what’s known as a nanoassembler, which would theoretically allow for the creation of material objects through design code the same way virtual objects can be constructed through software.  The greatest recent leap forward in this emerging technological phenomena has been the creation of carbon-based nanotubes, which is seriously being considered as a revolutionary new material for all elements of structural engineering.  Like the increasing drop in price of computer chips versus increase of performance power, nanotechnology holds the intrinsic capacity to eliminate, or severely cheapen, material desire.  How, exactly, a world of decreased or eliminated material scarcity would even make comprehensible sense can be explained through libratory idealism:  “Cyborgization, nanotechnology—these things have already arrived but they’re also in process of intensification.  As far as adapt of die goes, we need to marry the conceptual nihilism necessary for human adaptability to rapid technical change to an instinctive libratory humanity.  So we engage—rather than oppose—this technical zeitgeist and demand that it’s first goals be to make life materially better for everybody” (23). 
             Elsewhere, Sirius demonstrates, as have his predecessors and antecedents, the concrete evolutionary drive for transcending human limitations (space flight, life extension, the conquering of certain diseases, etc.) as well as the potential theoretical possibilities for ourselves in the future:  augmented, cyborgized, or post-biological.  It’s quite feasible that all three will be attempted.  In some sense, we are already augmented.  We wear eyeglasses, take health-enriching drugs, and utilize computers to solve complex problems.  Synthetic prosthesis is already used to overcome the deficiencies of the differently-abled or impaired, such as artificial legs and hearing aids.  And in some ways, post-biological thinking has already entered into the working processes of genetic engineers.  As Sirius writes, “Under the influence of the silicon chip, biotech, artificial life, space exploration, biological computing, the hope of nanotechnology, the Hubble telescope, advanced medical techniques, advances in gerontology, designer drugs, and virtuality, we now have among us an apparent new species, superhumanity’s “early adopters.”  The nascent wish for transcending the troubling limitations of the meat has long been surpassed by a near hysterical impatience with its limitations.  With all this technical magic and hyperreality at our fingertips, the primate wonders, why must this ridiculous slab of flesh still suffer?” (35).
             However, the downsides of emerging technological possibilities are also emphasized.  We shouldn’t get too utopian, as Sirius writes, “Of course, this battle to define the terms of superhumanity is bracketed by failure.  All of our technological reality hacks seem to have their costs.  Things break down.  Artificial organs malfunction.  The Biosphere II loses its oxygen supply.  Smart drugs cause ulcers…thing…break…down.  As Bruce Sterling told Mondo 2000, “…if you could become a cyborg for reasons of intellectual ecstasy, one day you’d discover that you’d passed out in the street and there are roaches living in your artificial arm” (36).  So, to find a balance between sensible possibilities and downright lunatic ravings, between paradise-engineering and Brave New World, and between eliminated scarcity and us being slaves to our robot overlords, I think it’s pragmatic to thoroughly consider what approach emerging technologies can safely take to enhance our lives without causing more harm than good.  I still wonder how this would happen without emphasizing the extremes of human nature (steroid-addled athletes and Botox-dependent beauty queens) that new abilities oftentimes produce, and how realistically we are to producing a post-work leisure pleasure-dome society where many people actually aren’t starving and living in poverty.

Dialectical Response:
             Perhaps it’s not an understatement to conclude that this text raises more questions than it answers.  At its peak, Mondo 2000 and this book helped pave the way for the corporate versions of cyberculture and digital media:  Wired, decentralized media in general, I-Pods, etc.  They also introduced the public at large to the basic tenets of what was then a specific version of transhumanism.  It synthesized technological growth in all areas and brought mainstream culture into the fold.  It answers in some ways what hurdles need to be overcome before humanity will be ready to accept the frightening and liberating aspects of radically shifting self-images brought on by radically advanced technological possibilities.  It sets a frame work for thinking about these possibilities, about how the world now operates, and how the pace of scientific developments can feasibly occur in relation to our adoption of its products.  This book seems to parallel a lot of my own attitudes concerning the future (self-directed) evolution of humanity.  A lot of the concepts, ideas, and thinking seem downright self-evident, given the unprecedented growth of technology throughout my lifetime, from seeing the family Betamax player switch  to VHS to DVD to Blu-ray in less than 25 years.  But, I still have many lingering questions.  I remain skeptical in some ways that the same kind of advance can/will happen to ourselves in such a short time-frame.  However I do think our conceptual architecture will dramatically change.  That realization has been confirmed by this text. 

Sirius, R.U. 21^st Century Revolutionary:  1984-1998. Belgium: Fringecore, 1999.

       My Question                          Text Answer                      My response

How are social systems                Post-scarcity                    Noble vision but currently
going to cope?                                                                       at snail-pace development

How will technology                   Enhanced abilities
shape self-perception                   and evolved technologies        Seems self-evident given

                                               Clarification Paper

Transhumanism and post-realism seem to have been a constant background directive in my work on understanding the philosophical implications of technology acceleration. Defining “reality” in the broadest possible sense has always been a tug-of-war between neurological relativity and the demands of the tribe or society one finds him/herself in. As we have truly entered into a global mode of thought via ubiquitous digital media communications technology, I think it’s prescient to look at the ways in which technological advance in general has shaped the direction of contemporary human society. It’s imperative to realize that unprecedented changes in applied science are occurring to a staggering degree, and that these changes placed upon the human condition will result in aberrant characteristics, and for many, difficult-to-stomach future possibilities. Put simply, technological possibilities are moving at speeds faster than society is currently able to comprehend.
                        From a post-industrial perspective, it’s obvious that we are living in very different time than at any other standpoint in documented history. For one thing, humans live a great deal longer. By today’s standards, the ability to extend the average human lifespan by hundreds of years doesn’t seem to be too far off, even by conservative estimates. The technology available today actually raises the prospect of extending the biological human lifespan indefinitely.  Effectively, we are now seriously contemplating the notion of physical immortality. Combined with other such seemingly far-flung prospects as the promises of advanced molecular nanotechnology, mind-uploading, genetic engineering, and the more immediate realizations of virtualized and cyborg possibilities, it’s clear that, in the short term, general philosophical approaches and appraisals need to be given some serious thought. As science fiction writer and futurist thinker Bruce Sterling comments in Frank They’s documentary film Technocalyps:
             “It's important to recognize that the posthuman epic is coming. It really is. It's what we             want… and it's kind of... you can see it written into the pages of magazines. The word of the prophet is on the subway walls here. We really do want to violate human limits now and we're getting closer and closer to the ability to do it. But, it's also important to realize that this is not the end of history. It doesn't solve any of our other problems; it just creates new problems that are going to intensify. And there's going to be more than one kind of posthumanity. And the mere fact that you're not longer human doesn’t mean you don't have the same personality problems you did before. It doesn't liberate you from yourself. It probably makes you more than you were before, not less. You're not going to clank and beat like Robocop. You're just going to have new abilities and new powers, and dealing with power is troublesome. If you have more power you have more responsibility, not less.”
             When beginning research on this topic, it became apparent that I needed to cover both the pragmatic aspects of what was envisaged during the past 20-30 years, and what new developments are occurring today, versus foreseeable and likely future possibilities.  In order to frame such a large body of research, I feel the need to study a wide variety of fields, from neurotechnology (synthetic neurobiology, neuropharmacology/ nutraceutical development, brain mapping, etc.) to reality augmentation (virtual reality, teleimmersion, perceptual cybernetics, neurocomputing) to genetic engineering (biomedical gerontology, modified animal/human organ transplantation, germ-line modifications etc.) to nonbiological intelligence development (artificial intelligence, artificial life, cyborgization, etc.).  Indeed, apart from imagining a post-Darwinian biological platform for our future offspring, it’s worth noting that computational intelligence has already been evolving at a rate about 10 million times faster than purely biological intelligence running on an architecture of DNA (Technocalyps).
             Davis Pearce, author of the “Hedonistic Imperative,” argues for the elimination and eradication of suffering via negative utilitarian ethics, not just for humans, but for all sentient life.  This bold endeavor, which he terms “the Abolitionist Project,” has gained momentum since it’s inception in the early ‘90s.  Max Moore, co-founder and chair of the Extropy Institute, seems to agree with Pearce in the film Technocalyps, where he espouses that “genetic engineering seems to be one of the most moral things we can do.”  He cites the flaws in Darwinian evolution, and indeed these seemingly aberrant results and defects produced by blind mutation and selective processes are also brought up in Pearce’s arguments.  Pearce mentions that he effectively is talking about eugenics when he postulates that physical and mental suffering can and should be eradicated from existence.  He argues that since eugenics is something that humans already practice when choosing mates, it would behoove an advanced species to consciously re-design itself:
             “The difference is that within the next few decades, prospective parents will be able to act progressively more rationally and responsibly in their reproductive decisions. Pre-implantation diagnosis is going to become routine; artificial wombs will release us from the constraints of the human birth-canal; and a revolution in reproductive medicine will begin to replace the old Darwinian lottery. The question is not whether a reproductive revolution is coming, but rather what kinds of being - and what kinds of consciousness - do we want to create?”
             It seems that although the prospect of consciously redesigning the human form physically is a likely scenario in the foreseeable future, a, equally rapidly developing form, that of nanotechnology, may be creeping up on us at a far faster pace of unfolding. As virtual reality programmer Marc Pesce states in R.U. Sirius’s book of interviews, True Mutations, “…the basic ideas of nanotechnology have infected chemistry, biology, and physics. Billions are being invested in research, both by government and industry. And we’ll start to see real nanotechnology products within the next 2 years. Yes, this means that the horrors of nanotechnology will become more and more possible as well, but in the meantime there may be some interesting cures and devices and lifeforms – ample reason for hope” (Sirius 218).
             To take an overarching view of all these possibilities and no doubt the reality-changing perceptions they inherently carry, it’s important, I think, to look at the bigger picture, if one even exists.  Ethnopharmacologist Terence Mckenna in Technocalyps poses the question:
             “Are we going to retain the monkey meat? Are we going to hang onto the body and through the body have a connection to the rest animal nature? Or are we going to become disembodied streams of electrons moving in virtual realities that are contained entirely in circuitry? I think this will probably go both ways. There will be fundamentalists who want nothing to do with technological transformation, and there will be utopians who won't be able to get enough of it. This is probably the moral frontier where we each personally must make a stand. How much of the new technology and its reality-redefining qualities do we want to take in to our own lives?"
             Overall, I feel that I have more than enough research material to delve into for this paper.  Looking through the Journal of Evolution and Technology and the archives of the World Transhumanist Association available through the library resources, as well as books I either have or can borrow on individual subjects such as nanotechnology or virtual reality, I think simply piecing these different technological and philosophical threads together will be the major challenge.  I am left with more questions than answers, and finding tentative explanations behind current bioethical or neurotheological approaches towards these issues will help me modify my own thinking on the subject of transhumanism and how it will undoubtedly shape future reality.
 

Works Cited

Pearce, David. “The Abolitionist Project.” The Hedonistic Imperative. 2007. 29 September 2009. < http://hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html>.
Sirius, R.U. True Mutations: Interviews on the Edge of Science, Technology, and Consciousness. Oakland: Pollinator Press, 2006.

Technocalyps. Frank Theys. 2006.

                   

What Did I Learn (pre-informative essay_

            What I’ve learned so far has actually been exemplifying the idea of “post-realism” even more than I would have previously expected.  The most surprising thing in general I have picked up was that there are quite a number of different voices and perspectives on the subject of transhumanism.  The concept, in and of itself, has taken on an entire mythic aura that I was previously unaware of, with ideas and beliefs ranging from non-Luddite “anti-transhumanists” to ardent fundamentalists.  My mind is actually spinning from multiple back-to-back hours of research and discussion.  I’ve begun to seriously consider the “anti-transhumanist” position because it makes a number of compelling arguments about short-sighted technological growth, and seriously questions the motives behind wanting to transcend biology and the “natural” order.  In the process of attempting to interview a couple of individuals proposing these ideas, a filmmaker & website blogger (which I’m still waiting on), I have begun discussions with two other individuals who I would classify as being more-or-less students, and I am; not quite “fundamentalist” but generally interested in the subject matter and quite knowledgeable about the basic tenets of transhumanism.  I am now also aware of differing perspectives about what is actually desired among transhumanists in general, ranging from morphological freedom, a desire to communicate these ideas more, and seeing technological advances as potentially solving moral dilemmas or being used to "mitigate strife between countries," as one of these individuals said.  For the most part, I can now be reasonably certain that there are basic maxims and assumptions which are central to most adherents of this philosophy.  On the flip-side, I can clearly see the risk between, as I have mentioned elsewhere, paradise-engineering and Brave New World.  Above all, there is still much I don’t know about this subject.  Before I began this investigation, I thought I had a general outline in mind concerning the evolution of this line of thought, from figures like FM-2030 the futurist, Hans Moravec the roboticist, Ray Kurzweil the technologist, Buckminster Fuller the polymath, Max Moore the extropian philosopher, etc., but now I realize there’s much more to this “movement.”  Just as there are many disparate areas of converging technologies that are being classified as “transhuman” (Nano, Bio, Info, Cogno being chief among them), there are also many views about the potential misuse for these developments in the future.  Chief among these fears stems from the history of “old” eugenics, the general malaise of social control theory, Big Brother, elitism, de-population programs, etc.  I need to explore this particular thread a little further to more fully understand where the critical position of transhumanism is coming from.  Obviously at the extreme end of “anti”-transhumanist thought one would expect to find neo-Luddites, anarcho-primitives, etc., but there are many grey areas in the overall subject matter.  I plan to more fully develop some potential conclusions (as if anything is ever really finalized) about this subject, and to carry on further correspondences.  There remains much I still don’t know.  For example, I need some hard facts about the current state of these technologies in general.  I have an inkling, but not an informed enough body of data in mind from which to generate reasonably substantive claims or inferences.  Also, I need to understand the roughly “anti,” or critical position further as well.  This gives me much to consider.  I have many more research links to follow up on, and I’m hoping to find more people to interview as well.  I figured that the more voices from different areas of the spectrum I could find, the more informed I would become.  As I remarked to one of the (“pro”) individuals in an email exchange, “to a lot of outside observers, you could easily replace "God" with "Science" in the ravings of a theist and have it come off as sounding reasonably transhumanish.  It's the idea of ‘scientism,’ i.e., "technology has all the answers."  This is definitely a huge part of the “post-realism” thread.  Technology is essentially a Promethean impulse, but like human behavior in general, it has its dark side as well.  So, I will further research and converse, and hopefully hear more perspectives in this matter as well.