Joe's Guide To Transhumanism In A Nutshell!
Well, what is Humanism? It's a philosophy which tends to give privilage to human rights and dignity. Humanism often rejects superstition and seeks to base morality on rationality. There's a big emphasise on allowing people to do what they want, so it's pro civil-liberties. The British Humanist Association say "Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves." So we can now look at what transhumanism is. Transhumanism is the belief/philosophy that humans should be able to ethically enhance their bodies, mainly through technology. We're already in some stage already where people can augument their bodies significantly, but it's not at a stage where people can dramatically change
So we've looked at some applications of transhumanism, and it's potential benefits, but what is the opposition to this movement/philosophy? We'll take a look.
Opponants of the transhumanist network can be known as Bio-Luddites (bio being biological, duh, and luddites meaning afraid of technology). They present many arguments, here are some:
The thing is, natural doesn't make something good or bad. High levels of testostrome in people for example, leading to murder, rape and assult, stems from naturalness. Would we say that's a good thing? What about absolute selflessness? What about that? Well for one thing, we don't even know if that exists, so it's definatly not natural. So why condemn unnaturalness when history and a bit of common sense shows that naturalness should be seen as a neutral property?
Well for starters, technological progress is accelerating
Criticism and Opposition
So we've looked at some applications of transhumanism, and it's potential benefits, but what is the opposition to this movement/philosophy? We'll take a look.
Opponants of the transhumanist network can be known as Bio-Luddites (bio being biological, duh, and luddites meaning afraid of technology). They present many arguments, here are some:
It's unatural
The thing is, natural doesn't make something good or bad. High levels of testostrome in people for example, leading to murder, rape and assult, stems from naturalness. Would we say that's a good thing? What about absolute selflessness? What about that? Well for one thing, we don't even know if that exists, so it's definatly not natural. So why condemn unnaturalness when history and a bit of common sense shows that naturalness should be seen as a neutral property?
People were talking about jetpacks and hovercars in the fifties, why do you think it'l be any more accurate than what they say?
Well for starters, technological progress is accelerating
posted by Joe Mc'Lynch @ 7:07 PM
3 Comments:
At 16 December, 2009 00:57,
Tom Morris said…
My problem with transhumanism isn't that I oppose enhancement technology - I just don't think that enhancement means that you change the nature of being human.
A simple example: imagine science gives us some way of allowing us to run faster, perhaps by surgically enhancing muscle strength. Let's say that 500 people in Britain adopt for this surgery and can now run the 100m sprint as fast as Olympic sprinters do - all of them hit 100m in 10 seconds or better. Does this mean they have started the "transition" towards being post-human or trans-human?
Same for radical life extension. Let's imagine that we managed to extend human life by fifty years. Would that do it?
Of course not. We'd still be born, die, need to get educated, work, love each other, write poetry and music, philosophise, believe in supernatural beings, build skyscrapers, mindlessly kill each other over beliefs and social groupings, vote in tyrants and generally fuck things up.
Physical enhancement doesn't seem to cut it.
But maybe intellectual enhancement might make us be able to transcend humanity? I'm not sure about that either. You find all the great intellects: the scientists, artists, philosophers and poets - and they have just as many failings and all too human traits. The science lab and the university seminar room have just as much jealousy, competitiveness, pettiness - and plenty moments of joy and magnificence too. You think about the people who dissected Einstein's brain after he died - those guys are considered by most people as earnest but mistaken.
Similarly, I think transhumanism beats up a straw man. The most sophisticated objections to human enhancement aren't applicable to all forms of enhancement. Nobody really objects to people physically improving themselves. Show a steroid-laden bodybuilder to an ethicist and they are more likely to elicit pity or curiosity than condemnation. The question about physical enhancement or doping is whether or not it changes the sport. It's not really a question about humanity, it's a question about cycling or running or whatever.
The same goes for mental enhancement and examinations. A student takes a cognitive enhancement drug before their exam and aces it. They have an unfair advantage over their peers - the exam then doesn't measure their intelligence and attainment in the subject but rather who has the best chemist. But nobody would really object if they found out that the researchers working on cancer drugs popped the cognitive enhancer pill and subsequently invented a highly effective treatment for some form of cancer. The question here is one of equity and the purpose of an examination. To use a clumsy example, it's like the difference between a pistol in the hands of a cop and in the hands of a gangster. In the sport example, it's a question of whether, say, the Tour de France is a contest that tests the humans or the drugs.
These questions are a bit more complicated than simply "enhancement: yay or nay?"
At 16 December, 2009 00:59,
Joe Mc'Lynch said…
Tom you fool! It's not finished yet(and yet I still posted it)!
At 16 December, 2009 01:15,
Joe Mc'Lynch said…
Dude, did you just put the sorites paradox in my blog? Get out!
I think with transhumanism and bio-ludditism the fear of not 'being human' is more Ship of Thesus than anything, where little increments leads to a abrupt change in human phisiology. I think that's the fear, the unfamiliarity, the fear of changes in thought and appearance. I doubt it's rational.
Post a Comment
<< Home