Informative
Report
Transhumanism
cannot be completely understandable unless one frames it within a specific
narrative, reference point, or makes it somehow tangential to “normal” human
concerns. It must invoke a worldview, relatable to the present moment in time,
and pave the way for a unique historical outlook that will, in one way or
another, shape the path of the inevitable future. For this assignment, I
focused on the contemporary ideological presuppositions of what has been called
by some an intellectual “movement,” and by others a new form of scientismic
“religion.” By one noted outside observer, it has even been called “the world’s
most dangerous idea” (“The World’s Most Dangerous Idea”). I chose to review
Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2005 TED talk, where he discussed the problem
of existential risk to humanity, the problems of human death, and the ways in
which we can, if we so choose, eliminate human negativity. I also decided to
incorporate humanity +’s ‘Transhumanist Values’ page, which explains the
overall vision that the “converted,” or at least apologetically-minded, have
for the future of human experience. I have also found individuals, filmmakers,
and writers who cast a critical eye on this topic, and remain skeptical enough
of the short-sightedness of future technology to voice concern, sound the
pre-emptive alarm bells, and to warn of the misguided potential of our all-too-human
capacity to misuse technology. By interviewing two people, of the former and
later philosophical viewpoints, a student and writer collectively, I have
effectively discovered an essential disconnect between the roughly “pro” and
“con” positions.
The
central thesis of Nick Bostrom’s 2005 TED talk was that there are three primary
human problems at the present moment, in terms of a “long view” of our future. The
first is death, and “roughly 90% of everyone who has ever lived has died”
(Bostrom). The annual death rate is
about 56 million, with aging causing roughly two-thirds of this grim statistic.
Because this problem is so large and “normal,” it doesn’t appear to be
recognized as such by most people at large. Particularly, most people don’t even
seem to think of death as being a
problem. It grinds up against the naturalistic-imperative and bio-conservative
impulse of our species. Existential risk, the “threat to human survival or to
the long term potential of our species” (Bostrom), was another topic that was
discussed. Four recent studies were cited, with probabilities of long-term
human survival ranging from not less than 20% to 50%, given present-day factors
in the human condition. Basically, the overall risk to human extinction is
substantial. Reducing this probability by even 1% would save an estimated 60
million people from death, annually. At this point, the moral quandary would
seem to indicate that existential risk remains perhaps an even larger problem
than death in general. The third, more subtle problem is that many humans are
simply unhappy with life, from a subjective perspective. Specifically, this is
that “life isn’t usually as wonderful as it could be” (Bostrom). Bostrom cites
illness, involuntary death, unnecessary suffering, cruelty, lack of
opportunities for growth, and memory/cognitive-loss as being central to this
problem. “Suppose we fixed this” (Bostrom), he asks. Perhaps, most
significantly compelling, Bostrom raises the question on whether or not our
current situation is the best we can do. He then discusses possible ways in
which we can instead focuses on improving the quality of life, appealing to
longer and healthier life spans, greater subjective well-being, enhanced
cognition, self-directed personal growth, and better interpersonal, moral, and
intellectual development. The main way in which these changes could be brought
about are by changing the individual, in short our very biology; human nature
itself must change if we are to approach the future with any degree of moral
responsibility. Overall, Bostrom’s insights invoke a spectrum of possible
states of being, which serve as a prelude to further development of these basic
ideas, notably evident in the work of David Pearce, author of the Hedonistic Imperative and proponent of
the Abolitionist Project, an reverse-utilitarian philosophically-grounded
technological plan to eliminate suffering in all sentient life.
The
second published work I read in preparation for this discussion was humanity
+’s ‘Transhumanist Values’ page, which further raises the moral questions involved
with transhumanism. As stated, “humanity will be radically changed by
technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human
condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations
on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement
to the planet earth” (“Transhumanist Values”). Generally speaking, I think this
resource provides a valuable and informed overview on the topic as a whole. It
discusses primarily what transhumanism is about, and then proceeds to explain
how and why this might be a desirable mutation in the human species. Ideologically,
one of the single most prescient summations of transhumanism is that it views
human nature as a “work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn
to remold in desirable ways” (“Transhumanist Values”). Furthermore, this
article specifies that, as an ideology, transhumanism fundamentally recognizes
not only its own perceived absurdity, from the standpoint of a Dr. Frankenstein,
that future technology has the potential to be misused based on
short-sightedness, but also that it should be a primary concern to fully
acknowledge and agree upon the idea that technology should be used to help,
rather than to harm, humanity. By delving into known human limitations, the
main argument invoked to justify that we should use technology to overcome our
present lack of our perceived ‘full potential’ is that “the limitations of the
human mode of being are so pervasive and familiar that we often fail to notice
them, and to question them requires manifesting an almost childlike naiveté”
(“Transhumanist Values”). These biological limitations include the aging
process, cognitive and bodily short-comings (undeveloped sensory modalities,
for example), and the general lack of conscious self-control we exhibit in
terms of our largely genetically-determined emotional/psychological constraints.
Indicating the limitations of the current human intellectual capacity, the
article poses the possibility that:
our human brains
may cap our ability to discover philosophical and scientific truths. It is
possible that failure of philosophical research to arrive at solid, generally
accepted answers to many of the traditional big philosophical questions could
be due to the fact that we are not smart enough to be successful in this kind
of enquiry. Our cognitive limitations may be confining us in a Platonic cave,
where the best we can do is theorize about “shadows”, that is, representations
that are sufficiently oversimplified and dumbed-down to fit inside a human
brain (“Transhumanist Values”).
This all seems to pose further
realizations, because in many ways we undoubtedly are subject to many
various forms of limitations as a species. The values and expectations we
assume are largely shaped by our genetic wetware, combined with cultural norms
and external influences. We seem to be trapped within a vestige of design
flaws, born into a world we had no hand in shaping.
In
my first interview, I discussed these ideas with a fellow thinker and ‘apologetic,’
who goes by the pseudonym ‘sumphilosopheô.’ Basically, I asked a range of
questions ranging from standard to specific. One of this individual’s main
contentions in arriving at a personal definition of transhumanism was that it
can be defined as being “the freedom of your body to change as you choose
through technologies, but also the most likely way to survive a technological
singularity…Transhumanism is doing [more] with what we have now as well as
being open-minded to possible new discoveries in making a better world” (sumphilosopheô).
The first part of this is what is known as ‘morphological freedom,’ which can
roughly be described as an individuals’ right to alter his/her own body,
including gender identity, enhanced capabilities, changed biology, and so forth.
The other part, that of a technological singularity, is about coping with a
theoretical point at which our external prosthesis evolves more quickly than we
as humans are able to keep up with, meaning that we would have to augment ourselves
in order to stay ahead of the curve. On the other hand, sumphilosopheô compared
the current transhumanist debate with that between theists and atheists, in
that there are some who have no respect for science yet still gladly accept the
tangible make-life-easier benefits it brings about, while disregarding and
oftentimes actively fighting against the potentially logical conclusions that
can be drawn from transhumanist thinking, saying that some
will not see
technological advances as a way to solve moral dilemmas or a way to mitigate
strife between countries. Neither will they think too much about some
unspeakable consequences in technologies abuses or unforeseen consequences of
certain technology use in certain cases. This is because [many] people do not
think about the future (sumphilosopheô).
It
was interesting to consider that many transhumanists tend to agree with these
basic ideas, that oppositional short-sightedness is just as inadequate in
reasonably dealing with the future as is the tendency for things to go wrong, and
for our inventions to escape from the laboratory before they are deemed to be
safe. In further discussing this disconnect, largely between the concepts of
‘faith’ and ‘reason,’ sumphilosopheô stated that “investment based on probabilistic reasoning is not the same as certitude. With probabilistic reasoning
one can change their position if reason demands, but this is not so with faith.
Faith is limited 'depending' on what one holds dogmatically” (sumphilosopheô).
This line of thought can be seen as coming from both directions of the debate,
between the extremes of blind techno-optimism and rash Luddite hysteria. In
other words, it would be reckless to hold onto any kind of view of ‘perfection’
for humanity, just as it would be impractical, inconsiderate, and selfish to
deny the application of science for those who it would most benefit, to at the
very least ensure life-sustaining capabilities.
My
second interviewee for this assignment was Carlos A. Mejia, co-founder and
contributing writer for a website called ‘TransAlchemy.’ This website, as well
as its’ self-produced documentary entitled Age
of Transitions, deals with the issues of social control that inevitably
arise with the advent of advanced technological expansion. The articles and
documentary delve into the history of old eugenics, master-race theories, and
the potential for a loss of human freedom if a technotopian elite is able to
impose its’ will upon the masses. More pressingly, and while obviously not
adopting a hardcore neo-Luddite or anarcho-primitivist philosophy, this camp
imparts a deep suspicion of the motives behind the desire to alter fundamental
human nature, from the perspective of a global power structure, and warns of
the very-much-real potential for misguided and shortsighted technological
expansion, such as the roboticization of the human will. In our brief
interview, conducted through email, Mejia discussed in general what is evidentially
happening between realism and post-realism:
In short, take a look at what is happening
with technologies [such] as augmented reality and you will understand what is
happening. Cyberspace and real reality are merging. This has serious
implications to the actual nature of what the universe truly is. Virtual or
real,… this will have to [be] explored more [before] moving forward (Mejia).
In
this interview, I made it a point to ask many of the same questions I had asked
sumphilosopheô, to further understand how these basic philosophical differences
could be understood. For the most part, many of the same concerns were invoked.
When asked about public-perception and the mainstreamization of transhumanism
as an ideology, Mejia said that “most of those technologies have been to aid
someone that is handicapped in some way. Once we start to see people augment
themselves for cosmetic reasons vs. need is when we will see the debate heat
up” (Mejia). Indeed, the issue of need versus desire has long been on my mind,
in terms of attempting to figure out how a society collectively determines when
and where to draw the line. Further along in the interview, Mejia remarked that
he hopes “we don't start to look at non-augmented humans in the future with
disgust. It is quite possible that we may start to develop a type of species
racism… Human perception will sling wildly in all sorts of directions” (Mejia).
The question posed that garnered this response had to do with the discussion of
how technology is changing human self-perception, and indeed this has been a
topic brought up in movies such as Gattaca,
where it is quite reasonable to imagine a future society-caste-system that
views “enhanced” humans with a sort of superiority-complex over those who could
not, or refused, to participate. It invokes Brave
New World as well, the idea that post-realism may be a form of frantic
self-identification with the
technological apparatus that we blindly allow to run wild. Overall, it is that
by neglecting to keep tabs on where this technology is taking us and only
asking serious questions when it is already too late to reverse the process, we
stand the possibility of succumbing to mere and mindless slaves to our technocratic
machinations. Further along in the interview, I was directed to a number of
articles clarifying the interviewee’s position on many of the topics discussed. When asked about how Mejia saw future-shock
playing out over the course of the next several decades, his reply was “adapt or
die! It may get that extreme” (Mejia).
Comparing
the readings and the interviews, it’s clear that most people thinking along
these lines, whether for or against radically altered human nature, and to
whatever extent, seem to agree and share the viewpoint that not only must these
topics be thoroughly considered now,
but that it’s quite clear no one really wants to see technologically having a
negative effect upon humanity. To
whatever degree it’s worth arguing whether or not technology up to this point
has made life fundamentally better or worse for the human experience, it’s interesting
to consider that inevitably technology will
expand its capabilities whether we like it or not. This fact alone
necessitates a body of discussion. The mere phenomena of process B happening
faster than the time it took for process A to transpire because it had process A to build upon, seems to indicate that the
more time we choose to wait to confront the issues that lay before us, the
greater possibility there is for our technology to exceed our grasp. Technology
is more than invention, it is a way of doing things as well. This meaning is derived
from the direct French translation of the term, where dualism predicated upon
time aggregates an underlying, axiomatic realization that much of the work we
do in contemplating the future rests in the hands of the unknown. Media
theorist Marshall McLuhan once quipped that it seems as if we drive into the
future using only the rear-view mirror for our guidance. We have the past to
analyze and to extrapolate from, but we simply do not know where the past
combined with the present may take us along our path down history’s time stream.
The point is that we should not be forced to adopt the statement of Jeff
Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park,
where he conjectured that the scientists were so concerned with whether or not
they could bring the dinosaurs back to life, that before doing so, they never
stopped to ask whether or not they should.
This brings the discussion to additional similarities between the articles and
interviews. Collectively, Bostrom, humanity+, and sumphilosopheô agree with
Mejia in terms of declaring basic human rights to be primary in the discussion,
and that avoiding the dangers of technology needs to be a fundamental priority.
We see this today with the debates
centered around genetically modified foods, the Internet, and nuclear power.
It’s obvious that all technology possess a dark underbelly. Fire can burn people, agriculture can destroy
land. Treating technology as an end in itself misses the point. There exists a
degree of ‘acceptable risk’ that we tacitly agree to in many of our day-to-day
interactions with technology, such as privacy, identity theft, even getting
into an automobile. Involuntary coercion, retainment of a sense of personal
identity, and global security issues seem to be indicative of this general
attitude. As the ‘Transhumanist Values’
page states,
To start with,
transhumanists typically place emphasis on individual freedom and individual
choice in the area of enhancement technologies. Humans differ widely in their
conceptions of what their own perfection or improvement would consist in. Some
want to develop in one direction, others in different directions, and some
prefer to stay the way they are. It would neither be morally unacceptable for
anybody to impose a single standard to which we would all have to conform.
People should have the right to choose which enhancement technologies, if any,
they want to use. In cases where individual choices impact substantially on
other people, this general principle may need to be restricted, but the mere
fact that somebody may be disgusted or morally affronted by somebody else’s
using technology to modify herself would not normally a legitimate ground for
coercive interference. Furthermore, the poor track record of centrally planned
efforts to create better people (e.g. the eugenics movement and Soviet
totalitarianism) shows that we need to be wary of collective decision-making in
the field of human modification. (“Transhumanist Values”).
Evidently,
we will be eventually required to strongly consider how this generally agreed upon
universal desire for essential human freedom among transhumanist proponents and
critics alike can be maintained.
In
contrast to the posthuman dreams shared by myself, Bostrom, humanity+, and sumphilosopheô,
it’s at the very least refreshing to see the critical and arguably more
level-headed approach taken by Mejia and the TransAlchemy website. Unlike the
former viewpoint, Mejia proposes that we should be increasingly more skeptical and suspicious of the
possibilities for ulterior motives by those who may hold the key to the
transhumanist door. While the general conclusions of preserving human rights
may more-or-less have the same flavor, Mejia represents a point of view that
thoroughly recognizes the elephant in the room that many of the bright-eyed transhumanists
may unconsciously choose to ignore. Mejia, perhaps unlike many transhumanist
thinkers too focused on technological possibilities to stop and ask themselves
the deeper questions, can notice the rise of a particular new form of
scientism. Specifically, Mejia can see through utopian hopes enough to
recognize hints of a potential disaster-in-the-making. Already, he sees “people
like cybernetics professor Kevin Warwick talking about humans as an inferior
species to cyborgs…Some may even see the humans as the angelic beings and true
children of god and so on” (Mejia). Furthermore, he specifies that “there is no
telling how all the belief structures will look at humans once
greater-than-human entities dwell among us” (Mejia). Perhaps, inherently dangerous
thinking needs to be called out bluntly, as in the form of calling spades. In
stark contrast to Bostrom et. al., Mejia draws his attitudes by looking at the
present form of social control mechanisms in place. Technologists and utopians oftentimes tend to
omit these factors from their futurist imaginings. To someone who is a member
of a cult, they are not in a cult. I think this can be seen as an essential truism.
Any ideology is intrinsically biased, and bound to be inconsistent with a
wider, more globally informed experience of life. Although many transhumanists
would feel a moral prerogative to enhance the lives of the world’s
poverty-stricken, it does seem at times as if a self-indulgent mentality
prevails. For example, is it moral for privileged, Western-living
transhumanists to demand their own self-enhancement while a third of the
world’s population suffers from a lack of basic
human needs? Although Mejia doesn’t specifically mention this grim fact,
his research and outlooks seem to lead in this direction, which is looking at
the present-day situation: what’s happening with the world now? And indeed, many current forms of pro-transhumanist literature
spend far more ink waxing poetically on extravagant possibilities for
selective, self-directed augmentation
than with improving the situation regarding the plight of the underprivileged.
For some, including myself, it’s generally acknowledged that this must be
something that warrants significant attention. Finally, in terms of how a proclivity
for the fantastical can lead to an unquestioned disposition, Mejia quite
possibly offers a more realistic and down-to-earth approach towards the
transhumanist debate. He seems to acknowledge the oftentimes taken-for-granted
or unrecognizable idea that the roughly utopian position is like a raccoon blinded
by its own addiction to cluelessly reaching out for shiny things; Transhumanists
may fail to realize that the apparent light at the end of the tunnel might
actually be a train headed straight for us. Although all progress might be
change, not all change might necessarily be progress.
On
the basis of utilizing these resources and conducting these interviews, I think
I have finally theoretically grounded myself to further exploring these issues.
I have established an essential understanding of the debate between
transhumanists and cautious observers.
And while the larger debate between technoprogressives and bioconservatives
looms on in the background, I have been able through this research to note that
shades of grey are clearly apparent in an otherwise black and white issue. Attempting to consolidate this entire range
of discussion remains a complex undertaking, because the degrees of “pro” and
“con” standpoints are many and interwoven; I find myself oscillating back and
forth between these multifaceted gradients. Aside from perhaps somewhat coming
to grips with a very basic synthesis of these ideas, I am left with vague and
dim background internalizations of this knowledge. The idea of post-realism
again appears to dominate the central focus of my exploration. Philosopher
Terence McKenna described this as being akin to a ‘Balkanization of
epistemology.’ To me, post-realism is marked by a production of subjectivity.
Perhaps, from an art-historical perspective, post-reality simply designates a
condition of ourselves being aware of
constructing the parameters of our precognitive, perceptual judgment-making as such. So, in a sense, "post-reality"
is simply "post-deconstructionism.” As it relates to the phenomena we see
before us concerning future technology and our relationship surrounding present-day
technology, it seems as though my discoveries suggest further discoveries. To proceed
from this point, it would be incumbent upon me to examine specific technologies
in association with changing biological and material reality; to consider what
is being done at the present moment in the laboratories and universities that
are the cause of so much hope and so much fear.
Works
Cited
Bostrom, Nick. "On Our Biggest
Problems." Lecture. TED Talks. TED Global, Jul. 2005.
Mejia, Carlos A. Co-founder,
TransAlchemy. Personal Interview. 24 Oct. 2009.
Sumphilosopheô. Personal Interview.
22 Oct. 2009
“The World's Most Dangerous Idea.” Francis Fukuyama. Editorial. Foreign
Policy Sept./Oct. 2004.
"Transhumanist Values." Humanity+. 26 Oct. 2009
...
It feels like this came out a bit lamer than i would have hoped for:
Exploratory
Essay
The
relationship between nature and technology remains difficult to resolve,
because oftentimes the general assumption among human beings is that we stand
apart; we tend to be special in some way that separates us from the rest of the
natural world, as evidenced by our rapid technological advances, societies,
higher cognitive functions, cultures, linguistic capabilities, externalization
of ideas, and perhaps most concretely our ability to manipulate matter on a
massive scale. From the point of view of nature, however, the span of human
existence represents at most the blink of an eye. We know that, for some reason,
novelty increases the rate of its own unfoldment over time. From the point of
view of nature, this has become the story of the human legacy, from
single-celled organisms to William Shakespeare to the contemplations of space
colonization, radically enhanced lifespans, and perhaps even virtual
immortality. How we choose to enter the next 100-300 years will be a critical
path for the human species, and it will undoubtedly reshape the definition we
have of ourselves in profound ways. With
this thought in mind, one of the questions I would like to pose in this essay
is what exactly “natural” means.
In the current manifestation of our own
digitally defined era, we can see that the rate at which global population is
growing has become close to exponential. As scientist, former university
professor, and author Gene Shiles notes on his website,
.. ..
For most of human history, up to
around 10 thousand years
ago
(generally accepted by science, although some place
the
time a few thousand years earlier), Earth's human
population
remained stabilized at around 8 to 10 million.
Since
then it has grown, at varying rates, to reach its
present
level of over 6,200 million (6.2 billion). This
growth
started when people began to grow crops and
domesticate
animals, which initiated the change from a
hunter/gatherer
subsistence (natural food supply) to a
technology-driven
food supply (agriculture). We note
that
about 620 (or more) humans are alive today (most
supported
by agricultural technology) for every one
human
who was supported by the natural food supply
of early
non-technological Earth ("Population Statistics - Earth's Population
Statistics and Growth Problems").
.. ..
Most of us are
aware that dogs are genetically descended from wolves and have been selectively
bred for thousands of years. Most of us are also aware that biotechnology has
been responsible (again, selective breeding) for our food supply. Corn,
tomatoes, and wheat would not appear, or be like what they are today, had it
not been for the invention of agriculture. Combined with domesticated animal
husbandry, the Neolithic revolution marked the point at which humans began to
shape the world around them. Primarily, this is why I don’t feel that
technology is intrinsically “unnatural.” In one sense, nature is technology. As mathematician and
interdisciplinary author Ralph Abraham writes in Chaos, Gaia, Eros, “the word nature
in ancient [Greek] times, referred to the materials, the characteristics, the
properties of things” (Abraham 14). So, it’s actually a Western philosophical
tradition not to distinguish between artifact (“man-made”) and the “natural
world.” Put simply, we are nature.
This means that airplanes are natural, computers are natural, concrete jungles
are natural. Via apotheosis, one cannot say (and probably wouldn’t) that eliminating
Polio was a bad thing. To return to the phenomena of the explosive population
growth, it can be seen that technology has allowed the historical death rate to
decline; humans live a great deal longer today. However, one problem solved
posed a new one, and that is how to effectively deal with finite physical resources
on an ever-greater populated planet. To this end, I would argue that further
biotechnological and nanotechnological advances are necessary. In the modern
world, technology is absolutely vital, as can be summed up in the person of Norman
Borlaug, whose higher-yield genetically modified crops saved an estimated
billion people from otherwise starving to death. Put simply, more technology, rather than less, seems
to be the way to go.
Many people today
are feeling what is called “future shock,” which is where change happens more
quickly than our ability to keep up with. The most advanced position of modern
science on why things in nature happen the way they do is more or less a
‘trend-less fluctuation,’ and yet all the while, human-derived technology has
been an engine which conserves the complexity it creates to propel yet further
complexity. I find it very reasonable to postulate that the current
philosophical debate about transhumanism is firmly centered on these curious
circumstances. This of course begs the issue of ‘post-realism’ once more. As
writer R.U. Sirius notes, speaking in terms of what he saw happening with
democratized media, and the blurring of lines between producer and consumer,
Realism without
imagination is mere reductionism. Realism is not a realistic response to
accelerating change. As we approach the apotheosis of the interpenetration of
human lives and media, and anarchic democratic access to the means of
communication, we sense the eruption of levels of mediated cognitive chaos that
is beyond our abilities to comprehend, predict, or define. And while tenured
academics might dream of slowing this digital demon down that it might be
parsed into a spirit of Amish-like rectitude, there is no solid ground upon
which to examine the corpus of current techno-sociopolitical reality. The whole
notion of a shared consensus, some kind of social center, is decaying at a
fever clip (Sirius 68).
Basically,
it’s clearly evident that lines are already, and will continue, to blur,
between such distinctions as therapy and enhancement, treatment and prevention,
possibly even need and desire. The dreams of a nanotechnologized system of
material comfort for all Earthlings looms in the minds of the scientists who
work quietly in their laboratories. However, Eric Drexler, author of the
seminal nanotechnology book Engines of
Creation, is well aware of the sociological implications of prophesying the
future for a still infant technology: “Political and economic trends are
notoriously fickle, and sheer chance rolls dice across continents. Even the comparatively
steady advance of technology often eludes prediction” (Drexler 40). So, one can
assume that hacking the design process of our material existence will probably
take quite some time, while meanwhile here-and-now problems abound. Still, and
perhaps more realistically significant, the appraisal of Slate national correspondent William Saletan, in his article “Among
the Transhumanists: Cyborgs, self-mutilators, and the future of our race,”
seems to ground our current state of proselytizing, contemporary distinction
blurring, and future techno-optimistic hope, when he writes:
"…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” (Saletan).
.. ..
How does this
transhumanistic view contrast with what ‘most people’ consider normal…or natural? One approach is to claim that
“God’s plan” is greater than all of us, and that meddling is best left to
divine intervention. However, it’s also interesting to note that many Christian
Scientists who refuse medicine, surgical treatment and transplants in favor of
faith based healing, will still wear eyeglasses, drink coffee, drive cars, etc.
This yet again poses more questions about where we collectively choose to draw
our lines in the sand. It combines the issue of ‘post-realism,’ (and its
relationship with transhumanism) with the distinction/boundary disillusion
between “natural” and “artificial.” As Howard Rheingold writes in Virtual Reality, quoting applied VR
pioneer Frederick Brooks “The danger of more and more realism is that you don’t
have corresponding truthfulness, you teach people things that are not so”
(Rheingold 45). And, as Rheingold himself comments, “The citizen of the
twenty-second century might find it hard to understand how the human race ever
managed to make do without the assistance of VR systems, just as we take the
usefulness of antibiotics, modern plumbing, electrical refrigerators, and
literacy for granted today” (Rheingold 46). This suggests the realization that
we define our technologies, just as much as our technologies define us.
Media theorist Marshall McLuhan had the notion
that we often drive towards the future using only the rear-view mirror for our
guidance, and, to take another metaphor, that we oftentimes “amputate” or
sacrifice a natural prosthesis for an artificial one. However, it appears as
though much of the modern NBIC (nano, bio, info, cogno) technological
development relies upon foresight as a valid and rational approach towards
trying to understand how the human race can deal, evolve, and grow with a
highly technical future. A final argument I would like to make with this in
mind is that technology is intrinsicly morally neutral. We may argue the
ethical credibility of certain, specific examples of technology, like nuclear weapons,
and how they are used, but the overriding imperative concerning technological
advancement seems to be that it is just as natural as we are.
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
Works
Cited
.. ..
Abraham, Ralph. Chaos, Gaia, Eros. San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1994.
.. ..
Drexler, Eric K. Engines of Creation. New York:
Anchor, 1986.
.. ..
"Population
Statistics - Earth's Population Statistics and Growth Problems." Books
That Look at the Future. 24 November 2009
...
.. ..
Rheingold,
Howard. Virtual Reality: The Revolutionary Technology of Computer-Generated
Artificial Worlds—and How it Promises to Transform Society. New York:
Touchstone, 1991.
.. ..
Saletan,
William. “Among the Transhumanists: Cyborgs, self-mutilators, and the future of
our race.” Slate. 4 June 2006.
.. ..
Sirius, R.U. 21st Century Revolutionary: 1984-1998. Belgium: Fringecore, 1999.