Thoughtful Tuesday: Transhumanism
[Welcome to Thoughtful Tuesday! You know the format by now: I rant, I rave, I reveal thoughts that bounce around in my head that don't necessarily make sense yet, but may do with a little more thought... This week, a particularly meaty subject that pops up on the blog fairly regularly: Transhumanism.]
It’s a long word that sounds a lot more complex than it actually is but the most important part of its definition, as defined by the Transhumanism Declaration (2002), is thus:
Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We [Humanity+] 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.
I know. This is serious business! But let’s not get bogged down with long, complex words and ideology. Transhumanism is, basically, the next step in human evolution; in enlightenment.
For the longest time imaginable we’ve been limited by our body. We push its boundaries, we perform feats of extraordinary endurance and power, but at the end of the day it is limited. Eventually, something snaps: a bone breaks, we grow senile — and, sooner or later, we die.
Progress in the areas of humanism and enlightenment are all about prolonging (and improving!) our mental, physical and and spiritual well-being. Thus, that’s exactly what transhumanism is all about: we’ve reached our current, imposed-by-our-physical-body limits; now it’s time to let technology do its thing. It’s time to modify our bodies to take us to the next level!
Let me just throw out some possible modifications (upgrades!) that are covered by transhumanism:
- Biotechnological implants/replacements. Strength, speed, eyesight and endurance limits/thresholds raised way beyond current human bottlenecks.
- Modification of our genetic makeup. This is the one that’s currently under scrutiny from the media. This area deals with the modification of ourselves (or our progeny) to make us inherently more resistant or to damage/pathology. Immunity to disease, removal of short-sight — that kind of thing (though obviously ‘designer babies’ with blue eyes and perfect, beautiful appearance would be quite popular…)
- Prevent ageing (aging). Transhumanism covers the slowing of aging, or even prolonging life until we’re effectively immortal (Who wants to live forever?). Cryogenics also come into play here, though the real ‘philosopher’s stone’ is immortality, of course. This will probably take a biotechnological form — replacement organs, repairing cellular damage, etc.
- A lot more that hasn’t been invented yet…! As a general rule, most things that are speculated or appear in sci-fi novels later appear in real life. We can expect to see some really crazy technologies appear in the future. Artificial intelligence (think Terminator), proper virtual reality (think holodeck in Star Trek) and my favourite — mind-uploading, ala The Matrix: ‘I know kung fu…’
Obviously, along with such awesome abilities come a seriously large number of issues, most of which are of an ethical nature:
You can’t play God!
You’ll turn… into a Frankenstein!
Perhaps it is the existential issue that is most worrisome: When do we stop being human? It’s certainly not when we replace the heart or any of the limbs. It’s the brain, right…? Or is it? How do we know until we try? Do we really trust Bible-thumpers that, let’s face it, know absolutely nothing about cybernetics? That’s why we’re afraid: we have absolutely no idea what we’re getting into. But if history has shown us anything, is it ever beneficial to shy away from, instead of facing, the oncoming torrent of technological progress?
As with any technology there are good and bad uses — as to what defines good or bad, I won’t attempt to state — using transhumanist technology is a two-edged blade. You could enhance only yourself or the genetics of your progeny — a selfish act? — or, with the same technology, you could genetically modify those living in sub-Saharan Africa so that they could live without food.
It’s not guns that kill people…
The thing is, I could go into the ethical repercussions, and whether transhumanism should be allowed or not… but… really, it’s inconsequential. We’re going to do it anyway. Of course there will be devout naysayers — sociologists, psychologists, humanitarians, Christians — (the whole gamut!) — but there always is. The truth — the technology – will out. You can’t stop everyone from kite-flying in thunderstorms.
There is something about technology. It’s all there, just waiting to be discovered. As I’ve already covered, we really like turning over stones. We really like uncovering mysteries. This is the biggest of them by far. What makes us human?
This is going to happen in the next decade, by the way. If you have moral, ethical or philosophical disagreements, you probably want to settle them now, before upgrades for your bionic eyes and ears start appearing in the supermarket.
If you like what you've read, or seen, or heard, subscribe to my RSS feed!
Alternatively, if you're new here, you might want to find out more about me, the author. Or perhaps you want to hear a posh Brit rant on about anything and everything (podcasts), or you want to read something more serious?
Related posts:
- Do androids dream of electric sheep?
- Thoughtful Tuesday: Have you ever felt EVIL?
- The danger of knowing too much
Of all the technologies in that list, the only one that really touches on ‘human nature’ is the life-extending stuff. Even then, we might adjust pretty quickly; the sorts of lifespans we’re lucky enough to have might have seemed impossible to fill to anyone without the benefits of modern medicine.
The question of what makes us human isn’t really an existential one but a question of essence, as it’s a question about what particular quality we pick out as the essential one in defining the human.
I think you overestimate how much people like finding answers, though, especially to metaphysics-type questions like ‘what is human?’.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pmYea, we’re currently gaining about a year every decade, apparently. Obviously when that comes down to 1 or 2 years every year, we become effectively immortal (there’s an interesting TED talk on that particular topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html )
I don’t presuppose that we like finding answers per se. More that we like poking at things; like the fabric of the universe. We don’t usually like the answers that arise from new knowledge, and it sometimes takes a long, long time to settle in… but it’s kind of hard to avoid scientific fact I guess (or is it…
)
September 30th, 2009 at 2:38 ami’m of the we shouldn’t play god camp. and as far as longevity goes.. what about world population?? i just don’t think the world could handle that many old folks or if we could live forever!
September 30th, 2009 at 6:57 amI should have been clearer; I’m really not cheery enough to believe that curiosity is a universal or near-universal quality.
This ‘playing God’ stuff has never made too much sense. There’s no clear way to determine what belongs in that category, not least because of the distinct lack of agreement about the beardy entity in question. There’s nothing in, say, genetic engineering, that inherently rules it part of divine mandate without also capturing organ transplants, life support machines and prescription eyeglasses. All of these, it could be argued, go against what’s ‘meant’ to happen because each compensates for some failing or other of the basic human body.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:11 amFloreta — I think (hope) we’re well into space or being discovered by other alien races by that stage. I think we have a little way to go on the overpopulation front. But we could just stop breeding, if it’s a real issue… (it’s been covered in a lot of sci-fi books I think)
I get your point AGD — and obviously this ‘playing God’ thing is very closely entwined with the ’soul’ concept. Don’t mess around too much, lest we sever our connection to God…
But now we’re not moving into correcting failures. We’re now going into augmentation, upgrades. Replacing parts of our brain that are merely ‘average’ with faster, cybernetic equivalents. I guess from the grand picture these are still ‘faults’ — anything that can be improved should be, eh?
September 30th, 2009 at 3:03 pmContests become a bit irrelevant down the pike, don’t they? Who wants to play Jeopardy when everyone on the game has downloaded the latest GoogleBrain patch? Similarly, would you stop athletes from making these upgrades? Would athletes be overmatched by us average folk? Imagine sports becoming an arena of relative weaklings, a glimpse into the past, when people couldn’t go-go gadget whatever.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:16 amYeah… well, they already had that guy who wanted to compete with ‘bionic’ legs — it was carbon fibre or something, and he was very, very fast. They ruled that he wasn’t allowed to compete (obviously…)
I already feel that way when watching sports, sometimes. But I compare them to video games — and cyber sports.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pmI remember that guy. You almost feel bad for him, though, because it’s not an upgrade, it’s a replacement.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:01 amYar, but how long until people have ‘accidents’ and lose their legs?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:05 am