I'm afraid that the true Transhumanists in this world don't realize that that's what they are, and that the people who call themselves transhumanists are really sci-fi nerds (not that there's anything wrong with that *too early in blog to burn bridges*) or they're some sort of weird pseudo-scientist... or worse... a techno-philosopher. At any rate, I thought it might be beneficial to discuss ere what an actual Trans-humanist stands for, both for the benefit of anyone who may help the H+ cause and in order to save my own name as an active Trans-humanist.
First of all, what do Trans-humanist believe? According to Wikipedia.org, a Trans-humanist is someone who
"...support the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable."
By that definition, most progressives are Trans-humanists, Most people in fact. The terms science and technology cover a wide range of things such as vaccines, medicines and nutritional supplements which are used by a vast and growing number of people every day to improve their mental and physical capacities. Not to mention, it's probably safe to say that the better part of the population would like to eradicate all instances of, "disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death."
So where does a Trans-humanist really differ from the rest of society? The answer lies in the word itself: TransHumanist. While the general population may use science and technology to maintain or improve their health, they adhere to a definition of "health" that most Trans-humanists would find unacceptable. We (Trans-humanists) hope to be healthier than a "healthy" human, which still falls ill or is injured quite easily. We hope to, one day, be better that human, beyond human, Posthuman. In the mean time, however, we are only Transhuman, in the "in-between" stage, the adolescence of posthumanism. Before I scare you away though, hear me out.
We're not all talking about people walking around with robot arms capable of lifting cars and cybernetic eyes that can see for miles (although we all support the right of anyone who wishes to do so) Here's the basic outline of the H+ Platform:
1) Any scientific research that could result in the development of technologies which may be beneficial to people should not be hindered by government (and by extension, religion). This includes bio research (such as cloning and stem-cell research), nano-research (such as nano-computing and nano-structures), neurochemical research, cognition study, communications research and cybernetic research. (Within the realm of Scientific Ethics, of course)
2) People have the right to do anything to their own bodies that they want. Many basic body modifications are ruled as "Self-Mutilation" in some state law.
3) Human Rights are top priority, as well as the preemptive campaign for "PostHuman" rights. (Including the right to seek medical treatment and the right to wear and use implanted devices)
In a broad manner of speaking, a competitive athlete is a trans-humanist. Athletes monitor their diets and activity levels and take special interest in their health and hygiene in order to boost performance.
Here is a list of Technologies that Trans-humanists commonly endorse:
- Life extension
- Cybernetics
- Bio-mechanical engineering
- Nano-structures and computing
- Communication Technology
- Genetic Research
- Prosthetic Research and Design
- Neurology
- Psychology
- Pharmacology
Now that you pretty well understand the view of the H+ Movement, you may be wondering to yourself why anyone would stand against it. In my experience, opposition comes from three sources: Scientific Skepticism, Religious Contradiction and what I personally call the "Leave good-enough alone" argument.
Scientific Skepticism of Trans-humanist ideals is a common type of opposition to the movement. Skeptics believe (some scientists, some not) that the H+ Movement has fallen victim to a phenomenon known as "future hype" whereby the movement interprets recent technological development as evidence of accelerated change and over-estimates technological advancement in the future. While it is true that there is a "fringe" element to the movement, with many (usually less educated) members making grandiose claims about the state of humanity in the next 50 or so years, the majority of trans-humanists are interested only in the technology of today and how to develop in in the right direction. I personally find that the lion's share of unfounded scientific claims or over-hyped technological predictions belong to the "Life-extension" sub-community (more especially those concerned with immortality) These groups are very susceptible to their own psychology. They fear death and so they subconsciously pad the numbers, hoping that the technologies that they prophecy will one day save them from that fear. In other words, life-extensionists and immortalists are prone to predicting vast and unprecedented technological development within their natural life-times. This phenomenon does add to the outside observations of "future-hype" tendencies.
Religion may be the largest (partially) unified opposition to Trans-humanism. Many religions, world-wide, hold it as truth that human-kind was "created." Not only that, but they believe that taking that design into our own hands is blasphemous or sacrilegious in some way. Often times it is cited that "God made us in his own image" and that "In order to make a more perfect human, you would have to assume the existence of a more perfect God, which is (of course) unthinkable." These types of arguments are rarely worth fighting. People who look to the views and opinions of civilizations which failed and who had no point of reference for moral decision making in the type of society in which we live currently, are obviously severely reactionary. Worse, those who look to the words of others as opposed to their own opinions are idiots. Trying to discuss any progressive policy with them is going to be a waste of time for either party. However, in the event that unfounded belief or outdated moral codes should interfere with the betterment of humanity (medical research for instance) then it is every person's duty to fight against such decisions.
Finally, "Leave Good-Enough Alone," or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," The idea that the human condition is at it's most optimal state currently and that any further attempts at perfecting it will simply be superfluous and cumbersome, or in some views, damaging. This is, in my own opinion, alarmingly short-sighted. While your life may be satisfactory, there are millions on this planet that are not. Furthermore, to think that we haven't already use technology to alter mankind for the better is a complete fallacy. Immunization, for instance, altering the internal record of our immune system to prepare in in case of attack from specific, life-threatening diseases. Or any type of medical technology whatsoever, if you've ever taken an aspirin for a headache, you've used technology and scientific research to improve the quality of your life. It's obvious that the human model will continue to work on this planet for a long time, but working and exceeding are two different concepts. In order for the most people to live truly happy lives, science and technology cannot be hindered.
I feel it is important to mention that the term Science and Technology is not meant to undermine the importance of psychology (which is a science, after all) or any other research which isn't generally perceived as "progressive." Even though the H+ movement is defined by the desire to be more than human, the most basic tenant could be thought of as the "ruggedization" of humanity, in order that it might survive the test of time better. In a way, by becoming Post-human, we hope to preserve the essence of mankind. With that, I'll end this rant.
More on this subject later, but first, a few things Trans-Humanist activists may consider:
- Lobby for Scientific Research, protest any hindrance to legitimate development.
- Refrain from the use of the word "Humanity" to describe positive personal attributes, this was only accurate by default when used in opposition to the term "Animal" (A folly in and of itself, but with philosophical merit) And Post-humans, people will be forced to shed their "humanity" by definition, but they will still be expected to be personal, philosophical, sympathetic, etc. Perhaps a more appropriate term is "Personality"
- As an elaboration on the last point, keep in mind that right now all "people" are "humans" and vice-versa. In the future this may not be the case, remember that part of your agenda is to preserve the rights of a group which wishes to be recognized as "non-human"
(All humans are people, but not all people are human, some are posthuman (whether cyborg or biomorph). Looking further ahead, some "people" may even be completely artificial "Turing Positive" machines)
- Get in the habit of taking care of your tech. One day it will have to take care of you.
Goodnight all.
So where does a Trans-humanist really differ from the rest of society? The answer lies in the word itself: TransHumanist. While the general population may use science and technology to maintain or improve their health, they adhere to a definition of "health" that most Trans-humanists would find unacceptable. We (Trans-humanists) hope to be healthier than a "healthy" human, which still falls ill or is injured quite easily. We hope to, one day, be better that human, beyond human, Posthuman. In the mean time, however, we are only Transhuman, in the "in-between" stage, the adolescence of posthumanism. Before I scare you away though, hear me out.
We're not all talking about people walking around with robot arms capable of lifting cars and cybernetic eyes that can see for miles (although we all support the right of anyone who wishes to do so) Here's the basic outline of the H+ Platform:
1) Any scientific research that could result in the development of technologies which may be beneficial to people should not be hindered by government (and by extension, religion). This includes bio research (such as cloning and stem-cell research), nano-research (such as nano-computing and nano-structures), neurochemical research, cognition study, communications research and cybernetic research. (Within the realm of Scientific Ethics, of course)
2) People have the right to do anything to their own bodies that they want. Many basic body modifications are ruled as "Self-Mutilation" in some state law.
3) Human Rights are top priority, as well as the preemptive campaign for "PostHuman" rights. (Including the right to seek medical treatment and the right to wear and use implanted devices)
In a broad manner of speaking, a competitive athlete is a trans-humanist. Athletes monitor their diets and activity levels and take special interest in their health and hygiene in order to boost performance.
Here is a list of Technologies that Trans-humanists commonly endorse:
- Life extension
- Cybernetics
- Bio-mechanical engineering
- Nano-structures and computing
- Communication Technology
- Genetic Research
- Prosthetic Research and Design
- Neurology
- Psychology
- Pharmacology
Now that you pretty well understand the view of the H+ Movement, you may be wondering to yourself why anyone would stand against it. In my experience, opposition comes from three sources: Scientific Skepticism, Religious Contradiction and what I personally call the "Leave good-enough alone" argument.
Scientific Skepticism of Trans-humanist ideals is a common type of opposition to the movement. Skeptics believe (some scientists, some not) that the H+ Movement has fallen victim to a phenomenon known as "future hype" whereby the movement interprets recent technological development as evidence of accelerated change and over-estimates technological advancement in the future. While it is true that there is a "fringe" element to the movement, with many (usually less educated) members making grandiose claims about the state of humanity in the next 50 or so years, the majority of trans-humanists are interested only in the technology of today and how to develop in in the right direction. I personally find that the lion's share of unfounded scientific claims or over-hyped technological predictions belong to the "Life-extension" sub-community (more especially those concerned with immortality) These groups are very susceptible to their own psychology. They fear death and so they subconsciously pad the numbers, hoping that the technologies that they prophecy will one day save them from that fear. In other words, life-extensionists and immortalists are prone to predicting vast and unprecedented technological development within their natural life-times. This phenomenon does add to the outside observations of "future-hype" tendencies.
Religion may be the largest (partially) unified opposition to Trans-humanism. Many religions, world-wide, hold it as truth that human-kind was "created." Not only that, but they believe that taking that design into our own hands is blasphemous or sacrilegious in some way. Often times it is cited that "God made us in his own image" and that "In order to make a more perfect human, you would have to assume the existence of a more perfect God, which is (of course) unthinkable." These types of arguments are rarely worth fighting. People who look to the views and opinions of civilizations which failed and who had no point of reference for moral decision making in the type of society in which we live currently, are obviously severely reactionary. Worse, those who look to the words of others as opposed to their own opinions are idiots. Trying to discuss any progressive policy with them is going to be a waste of time for either party. However, in the event that unfounded belief or outdated moral codes should interfere with the betterment of humanity (medical research for instance) then it is every person's duty to fight against such decisions.
Finally, "Leave Good-Enough Alone," or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," The idea that the human condition is at it's most optimal state currently and that any further attempts at perfecting it will simply be superfluous and cumbersome, or in some views, damaging. This is, in my own opinion, alarmingly short-sighted. While your life may be satisfactory, there are millions on this planet that are not. Furthermore, to think that we haven't already use technology to alter mankind for the better is a complete fallacy. Immunization, for instance, altering the internal record of our immune system to prepare in in case of attack from specific, life-threatening diseases. Or any type of medical technology whatsoever, if you've ever taken an aspirin for a headache, you've used technology and scientific research to improve the quality of your life. It's obvious that the human model will continue to work on this planet for a long time, but working and exceeding are two different concepts. In order for the most people to live truly happy lives, science and technology cannot be hindered.
I feel it is important to mention that the term Science and Technology is not meant to undermine the importance of psychology (which is a science, after all) or any other research which isn't generally perceived as "progressive." Even though the H+ movement is defined by the desire to be more than human, the most basic tenant could be thought of as the "ruggedization" of humanity, in order that it might survive the test of time better. In a way, by becoming Post-human, we hope to preserve the essence of mankind. With that, I'll end this rant.
More on this subject later, but first, a few things Trans-Humanist activists may consider:
- Lobby for Scientific Research, protest any hindrance to legitimate development.
- Refrain from the use of the word "Humanity" to describe positive personal attributes, this was only accurate by default when used in opposition to the term "Animal" (A folly in and of itself, but with philosophical merit) And Post-humans, people will be forced to shed their "humanity" by definition, but they will still be expected to be personal, philosophical, sympathetic, etc. Perhaps a more appropriate term is "Personality"
- As an elaboration on the last point, keep in mind that right now all "people" are "humans" and vice-versa. In the future this may not be the case, remember that part of your agenda is to preserve the rights of a group which wishes to be recognized as "non-human"
(All humans are people, but not all people are human, some are posthuman (whether cyborg or biomorph). Looking further ahead, some "people" may even be completely artificial "Turing Positive" machines)
- Get in the habit of taking care of your tech. One day it will have to take care of you.
Goodnight all.
No comments:
Post a Comment