Transhumanism

Note transhumance is a different concept with a similar name.

Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an intellectual and cultural movement analyzing and supporting morphological freedom and the use of new sciences and technologies to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition.

Overview

Biologist Julian Huxley coined the term transhumanism in 1957 and defined it as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature". Huxley's definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.

In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), an Iranian-American futurist who was teaching "new concepts of the Human" at New School University, began to identify as "transhuman" (a short hand for "transitory human") people who were adopting technologies, lifestyles and world views that were transitional to "posthumanity". In 1968, Abraham Maslow referred to transhumans in Toward a Psychology of Being while, in 1972, Robert Ettinger also referred to them in Man into Superman[1].

However, in 1990, Dr. Max More gave the emergent philosophy of transhumanism its modern definition: "Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […]." ^[2]

Dr. Anders Sandberg describes modern transhumanism as "the philosophy that we can and should develop to higher levels, physically, mentally and socially using rational methods" while Dr. Robin Hanson describes it as "the idea that new technologies are likely to change the world so much in the next century or two that our descendants will in many ways no longer be 'human'."

The Transhumanist FAQ[3], prepared by the World Transhumanist Association, gives the following two formal definitions:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

Transhumanists generally support emerging and converging technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, mind uploading and cryonics.

Since some observers, such as Ray Kurzweil, believe the pace of technological evolution is accelerating, many transhumanist thinkers speculate that the next 50 years will yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity. Transhumanism maintains that this is desirable and that humans can and should use technology to become more than human.

Enlightenment and humanistic roots

Following in the tradition of Enlightenment-influenced 19th century political, moral and philosophical thought, transhumanism seeks to build upon the global knowledge base for the betterment of all humankind.

Derived in part from the philosophical traditions of secular humanism, transhumanism asserts that there are no 'supernatural' forces that guide humanity. While largely a grassroots and broadly based movement, transhumanism does tend toward rational arguments and empirical observations of natural phenomena; in many respects, transhumanists partake in a culture of science and reason, and are guided by humanitarian principles and values.

Specifically, transhumanism seeks to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, malnutrition and oppressive governments around the globe. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanism argues there exists an ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition. If humanity enters into a post-Darwinian phase of existence in which humans are in control of evolution, transhumanists argue that random mutations will possibly be replaced with rational, moral, and ethical, but most specifically, guided change.

To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. This includes the use of futures studies and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology.

History of transhumanism

Robert Ettinger, known widely as the "father of cryonics" due to his 1962 book Prospect of Immortality[4], laid one of the foundations for modern transhumanism with his 1972 book Man Into Superman[5].

Early transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the central transhumanist hot spot. Here, FM-2030, who had articulated the Upwingers Manifesto[6] in 1978, lectured on his Third Way futurist ideology.

Natasha Vita-More exhibited "Breaking Away" at EZTV Media[7], a venue for transhumanists and other futurists to meet. FM and Natasha met and soon they began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's transhumanist courses and audiences from Natasha's transhumanist artistic productions.

In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement[8] (and, in 1997, the Extropic Art Manifesto of Transhumanist Arts[9]), and, in 1988, produced the cable TV show "TransCentury UPdate" on transhumanity. This talk show reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1986, Dr. Eric Drexler published his famed book on nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, Engines of Creation,^[10] and founded the Foresight Institute.

Although the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a nexus for futurist thinkers and technologists who all shared a rational technophilia, not all activists who were interested in improving the human condition were involved in "transhumanism". Most did not know of the word, although some were certainly pioneering in what is now transhumanism.

In 1990, a formal doctrine for libertarian and apolitical transhumanists took the form of the Transhumanist Principles of Extropy[11].

And, in 1999, the liberal democrat World Transhumanist Association drafted and adopted the Transhumanist Declaration[12].

Today, the Extropy Institute, founded by Max More in 1988, and the World Transhumanist Association, founded by Dr. Nick Bostrom and David Pearce in 1998, are among the largest transhumanist organizations.

For a roster of individuals who have identified themselves or been identified by others as advocates of transhumanism, see the list of transhumanists.

Currents within transhumanism

(in alphabetical order)

Anarcho-transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing post-scarcity anarchism and transhumanism.
Christian transhumanism, a religious philosophy synthesizing liberal Christianity and transhumanism.
Democratic transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.
Extropianism. An early school of transhumanism characterized by a set of principles regarding extropy.
Hedonistic Imperative, a moral philosophy based upon the belief in the necessity of using technology to eliminate suffering in all sentient life.
Posthumanism, a philosophy that seeks to transcend the principles of Renaissance humanism to correspond more closely to the 21st century's ideas of scientific knowledge.
Singularitarianism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, advocating deliberate action to effect and ensure its safety.
Technogaianism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that advanced technology can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing such technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.
Transhumanist socialism, a political philosophy synthesizing democratic socialism and transhumanism.

Practical transhumanism

As proponents of personal development and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.

Many transhumanists seek to become cyborg, transhuman or posthuman, which they see as the next significant evolutionary step for the human species. They believe biotechnological and nanotechnological innovations (such as nootropics, prosthetic enhancements, mind-machine interfaces, human genetic engineering, and molecular nanotechnology) will facilitate such a quantum leap by the midpoint of the 21st century.

Depending on their age, some transhumanists worry that they will not live to reap the benefits of these future technologies. However with this knowledge, many have a great interest in life extension practices, and funding research in cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method.

Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities exist to provide support and forums for discussion and working on collaborative projects.

Transhumanism and spirituality

Although some transhumanists report a strong sense of spirituality, they are for the most part secular. In fact, many transhumanists are either agnostics or atheists. There are, however, a number of transhumanists who follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophical traditions, and a minority of transhumanists who have merged their beliefs with established religions (such as Christian transhumanists). Some also look to the simulation argument as a synthesis of deism and digitalism.

Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality. However, some thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement emphasize that they merely wish to support the use of technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives. Some transhumanists hope that future understanding of neurotheology will enable humans to achieve control of altered states of consciousness and thus "spiritual" experiences.

Materialist transhumanists do not believe in a transcendent human soul. They often believe in the compatibility of the human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be uploaded to alternative media. Most materialist transhumanists subscribe to some version of personhood theory or at least judge as speciesist ethical theories that give overriding importance to membership in a biological species.

Criticisms

Criticisms of transhumanism can be divided into two main categories: those objecting to likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles of transhumanism (ethical criticisms).

Practical criticisms

Geneticist and science writer Steve Jones argues that humanity does not, and never will, have the technology that proponents of transhumanism seek. He once joked that the letters of the genetic code, A, C, G and T should be replaced with the letters H, Y, P and E. Jones claims that technologies like human genetic engineering will never be as powerful as is popularly believed.

In his book Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy, University of Toronto sociologist Max Dublin points out many failed predictions of the past technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as scientism, fanaticism and nihilism in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to millenarian religions and Marxist ideologies.

Most transhumanists, however, strongly reject the charge of fanaticism and nihilism, seeing it as inconsistent with the core rationalism of the movement. They also point out that almost every technological advancement of the last century, such as cloning which was previously believed to be impossible, was predicted by science fiction or non-fiction futurists.

Ethical criticisms

Critics or opponents of transhumanist views often favor enforcement of what they consider to be ethical behaviour, instead of improvements in technology, as the most effective way to improve society. Technological solutions may be compatible with other improvements, but some worry that strong advocacy of that strategy might divert attention and resources from social solutions. As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of political liberty and procreative liberty, and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and healthcare, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, human nature, and the morality of transhumanist aspirations.

Terminator argument

A notable critic of transhumanism is Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who argued in his essay Why the future doesn't need us,^[13] that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. This arguably alarmist conclusion was seized upon by neo-luddite and bio-luddite militants, such as Kalle Lasn, to reinforce their claim that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development.

British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees claims in his book Our Final Hour that advanced science and technology brings as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific progress, but tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.

Advocates of the primacy of the precautionary principle, such as the Green movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe humanity's collective intelligence should organize first and thus be ready to overcome any dangers from Skynet-like artificial intelligences that do not share human morality, thus avoiding any risk of bodily harm.

Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that the proposals of Joy, Lasn, Rees, and precautionist Greens are not realistic and sometimes are even counter-productive. The common transhumanist view is that society should take deliberate action to ensure the early, yet safe, arrival of the benefits of emerging technologies rather than contributing to technophobia and the Frankenstein complex.

One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which we would seek to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, we would strive to retard the development of harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful ones.

Posthuman Future argument

In his book Our Posthuman Future, neoconservative political economist Francis Fukuyama asserts that transhumanism may undermine the progressive ideals of liberal democracy it ostensibly favours, through a fundamental alteration of human nature and human equality. Bioconservatives, like Fukuyama, hold that any attempt to alter the natural human state (such as human cloning and human genetic engineering) is inherently immoral.

Libertarian science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested these claims by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. In fact, liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.

Loss of Meaning argument

Green activist Bill McKibben has argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germline gene therapy and radical life extension. He claims that it is wrong to tamper with fundamental aspects of ourselves (or our children), such as our vulnerability to aging and death and our genetic potentials for certain limited levels of physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" ourselves through such tampering would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. McKibben claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations can be overcome technologically. Furthermore, even the goal of using germline genetic modification for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably tempt us to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities.

Transhumanists and other supporters of emerging technologies, such as Bailey, deny the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless in a world with such technologies. They suggest, for example, that a person with greater abilities would tackle more advanced and difficult projects and continue to find meaning in the struggle to achieve excellence.

Gattaca argument

McKibben also advances one of the most widespread criticisms of (libertarian or apolitical) transhumanism: that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those of greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating gaps between wealthy and poor and creating a "biotech divide" (see the film Gattaca for a fictional depiction of this scenario).

Ironically, this is a criticism also voiced by democratic transhumanists, such as progressive bioethicist James Hughes, who prefer to articulate public policies (such as universal health care vouchers which cover HET) to attenuate this problem rather than ban these potentially beneficial technologies.

Brave New World argument

Biologist Stuart Newman and bioconservative activist Jeremy Rifkin argue, like the majority of precautionists, that since genetic engineering could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, designer babies or human-animal hybrids (see Frankenstein, The Island of Dr. Moreau and Brave New World for fictional depictions of these scenarios), strict measures should be implemented to prevent these dehumanizing projects from ever happening, usually in the form of an international criminal ban on human genetic engineering.

One reply made by transhumanists and non-anthropocentric personhood theorists, such as Hughes, is that, if they are sentient, all these creations would still be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship as any other person. Furthermore, they suggest that an uplifted animal, such as a gorilla genetically enhanced to gain human-like intelligence, could become the most effective spokesperson for the animal condition and animal rights. They conclude that the real ethical issue which must be dealt with is not the creation of monsters but the "human-racism" that would view and treat these creations as monsters.

Some thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as Russell Blackford, have also objected to the assumption that all these possibilities can be run together, rather than being treated on their individual merits, and to the slippery slope reasoning involved in the use of Brave New World-type arguments. According to this view, some innovations might, indeed, be unwise (at least in some circumstances), but they could be regulated without abandoning others that might bring benefits.

Eugenics Wars argument

The most virulent opposition to transhumanism comes from critics who allege subjectivity, perfectionism and biological determinism in the use of concepts such as "enhance" and "limitations", seeing eugenic or "master race" ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what transhumanism might unintentionally encourage, as evidenced by a cabal of crypto-nazis unsuccessfully trying to gain entry into the movement.

Health law professor George Annas is perhaps the most high-profile and forceful advocate of the position that the use of genetic enhancement technologies by national, ethnic, racial or religious groups at war with each other could lead to new forms of genocide.

Some transhumanists do advocate forms of liberal eugenics, but many others distance themselves from this term (preferring "reprogenetics") to avoid mistaken associations with the pseudoscientific and authoritarian practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.

Modern transhumanism essentially developed out of an American civil libertarian cyberculture. The idea of equating that culture's position on genetic therapy and enhancement with the eugenic policy of Nazi Germany or the impetus for a hypothetical future "Eugenics Wars" is seen by transhumanists and many non-transhumanists as absurd and libellous.

References

Books:

James Hughes. Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press, 2004. ISBN 0813341981
Ramez Naam. More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. Broadway Press, 2005. ISBN 0767918436
. ISBN 0-670-88217-8. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)
. ISBN 0-374-23643-7. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)

Web references:

^ "Transhumanism: A Futurist Philosophy". November 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
^ "Engines of Creation". November 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
^ "Why the future doesn't need us". November 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
^ "Who's Afraid of the Brave New World?". February 8. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

External links

Principles and manifestos

Organizations

Portals and on-line articles

Blogs