Transhumanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.133.14.127 (talk) at 23:02, 9 May 2006 (→History). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:Posthuman Future.jpg
Posthuman Future, an illustration by Michael Gibbs for The Chronicle of Higher Education's look at how biotechnology will change the human experience

Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human physical and cognitive abilities and ameliorate what it regards as harsh aspects of the human condition, such as disease and aging. Transhumanism cultivates the academic study of the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1]

Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in California began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".

Transhumanism's vision of a deeply transformed future humanity has attracted many sympathizers, as well as critics from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by a prominent sympathizer as the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity;"[2] while according to a prominent critic, it is the world's most dangerous idea.[3]

History

The term transhumanism was first introduced in the 20th century by biologist Julian Huxley (brother of author Aldous Huxley) who defined transhumanism in 1957 as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".[4] Some defining themselves as transhumanists today refute the influence of Huxley on contemporary transhumanism. However, in 2006, Simon Young, author of the book Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto (Prometheus Books, New York)asserted that all transhumanist thought originated with Huxley's vision of 'evolutionary humanism.'

In his article A History of Transhumanist Thought, the founder of the WTA, Nick Bostrom, finds ancient precedents for transhumanist thinking in various mythic expressions of a human desire to acquire new capacities. Bostrom locates transhumanism's more immediate roots, however, in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. The Marquis de Condorcet is the first thinker whom he identifies as speculating about the use of medical science to extend the human life span. In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was J.B.S. Haldane's 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of genetics and other advanced sciences to human biology.[1]


The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), an Iranian-American futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School for Social Research in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman" (short for "transitory human").[5] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the popularization of the concept of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman. FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.[6]

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "third way" futurist ideology, while John Spencer of the Space Tourism Society organized many transhumanist space-related events. Natasha Vita-More presented the experimental film "Breaking Away" (1980) at the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists.[7] FM-2030, Spencer, and Vita-More met and soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's transhumanist courses and audiences from Vita-More's transhumanist artistic productions, as well as some from the space and astrophysics community. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement, and, six years later, produced the cable TV show "TransCentury UPdate" on transhumanity. This talk show reached over 100,000 viewers.[8]

In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[9] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first nonprofit company to research, advocate for and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a nexus for futurists. Not all these were involved in "transhumanism", or even familiar with the term, though some eventually had a pioneering role in what would later become known as transhumanism.

In 1988, philosopher Max More founded the Extropy Institute and was the main contributor to a formal doctrine for apolitical and libertarian transhumanists, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy in 1990.[10] In 1990, More gave "transhumanism" a new 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 […]." [11]
File:We Can Rebuild Him.jpg
An illustration for Sync magazine of a speculative scenario for humanity's first steps into a transhumanist future

In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an organization with a liberal democratic perspective.[12] In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[13] The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[14]

  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.

A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic with a high profile in the transhumanist movement. [15]

In May 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute made a decision to cease operations of the organization, stating that its mission was "essentially completed".[16] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization.

In immediate response (May 2006), the establishment a new organization, the World Transhumanist Society, was announced, with the express aim of countering the perceived dominance of the WTA by the fringe political left. The founder of the WTS, Simon Young, author of the newly published book, Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto (New York: Prometheus Books, 2006), advocates a political stance of 'Soft Libertarianism', in direct opposition to calls from dominant members of the WTA for 'global governance'- the free distribution of enhancement technologies to the world's populus, regarded as economically naive at best, and at worst, a recipe for a return to totalitarian 20th century eugenics.

Thus, while some commentators have prophesised that politics in the 21st century will be dominated by the battle between 'transhumanists' and 'bio-luddites', the argument between individualism/libertarianism and collectivism/socialism goes on.

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

Theory and practice

Converging technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, informational and cognitive technologies (NBIC) for enhancing human performance.

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science, and technology to foster humanitarian principles and values, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual, rather than collective, level. Progressive transhumanists anticipate the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers, while libertarian transhumanists seek to remove legal impediments to exercising claimed rights to use advanced technologies to improve themselves and their offspring.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists an ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a post-Darwinian phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change. To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futures studies and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology.

Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human brain. Though some propose anatomical and peripheral nervous system enhancement, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.[17]. More generally, transhumanists support the convergence of emerging 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. Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human.[18]

Transhumanists therefore support the recognition of morphological freedom as a civil liberty, so as to guarantee individuals the option to become cyborg, transhuman or posthuman, which they see as the next significant evolutionary steps for the human species. They speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate such a quantum leap by the midpoint of the 21st century.[19][20]

Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, believe that the pace of technological evolution is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which in turn may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[20] Transhumanists who foresee such massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, they also explore the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change, and frequently propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Nick Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[21]

On a more practical level, as proponents of personal development and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.[22] Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, 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.[23] Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities exist to provide support and forums for discussion and working on collaborative projects.

Currents

There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:

Spirituality

File:Holy Tech.jpg
Holy Tech, an image by Alex Ostroy for a Wired magazine article on Digitalism, a theory that looks to information science to assume roles traditionally assigned to religion and God.

According to surveys conducted by the WTA, 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. A minority, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophical traditions or, as with Christian transhumanists, have merged their beliefs with established religions.[12]

Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality. Several belief systems, termed new religious movements, originating in the late 20th century, share with transhumanism the goals of transcending the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the body (Raëlism) and mind (Scientology). While most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, some speculate that future understanding of neurotheology will enable humans to achieve control of altered states of consciousness and thus "spiritual" experiences.[24]

The majority of transhumanists are materialists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media.[25] Most 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.[26] A continuing dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.[27]

Fiction and art

Further information: Transhumanism in fiction
File:Neuromancer gibson.png
William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) examined the concepts of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, genetic engineering, and cyberspace long before these ideas were fashionable in popular culture.

Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary science fiction often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many horrific or dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

The cyberpunk genre, exemplified by William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) and Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include The Xenogenesis Trilogy (1987–1989) by Octavia Butler; the "Culture" novels (1987–2000) of Iain Banks; The Beggar's Trilogy (1990–94) by Nancy Kress; much of Greg Egan's work since the early 1990s, such as Permutation City (1994); Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; and The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006) by Michel Houellebecq.

Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Such treatments are found in films (Bladerunner, 1982; Gattaca, 1997; The Matrix, 1999), television series (the Ancients of Stargate SG-1), manga and anime (Ghost in the Shell), role-playing games (Rifts) and computer games (Deus Ex). Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot (although the distinction between the two is not universally seen as useful).

In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, mentioned above, transhumanism has been represented in the visual and performing arts by Carnal Art, a form of sculpture originated by the French artist Orlan that uses the body as its medium and plastic surgery as its method. The American performer Michael Jackson used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen treatment to transform his artistic persona over the course of his career so as to blur indentifiers of gender, race and age. The work of the Australian artist Stelarc centers on the alteration of his body by robotic prostheses and tissue engineering. Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic and the American media artist Matthew Barney. A 2005 show, "Becoming Animal," at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, presented exhibits by 12 artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human.

Criticisms

Criticisms of transhumanism can be divided into two main categories: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles of transhumanism (ethical criticisms). These two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when the ethics of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge is considered. Some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in novels and fictional films which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.

Practical criticisms

Futurehype argument

File:Futurehype.jpg
Bob Seidensticker's Futurehype (2006) is an elaboration of technorealism.

In his 1992 book Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy, sociologist Max Dublin points out many past failed predictions of technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as scientism, fanaticism and nihilism by some in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to millenarian religions and Marxist ideologies.[28]

In his book Redesigning Humans (2002), biophysicist Gregory Stock, despite his sympathies for transhumanism, is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the cyborgization of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and Kevin Warwick. He believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from cyberware but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism and biochemistry.[29]

Those thinkers who defend the likelihood of massive technological change within a relatively short timeframe emphasize what they describe as a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. This emphasis is clear in the work of Damien Broderick, notably The Spike (1997), which contains his speculations about a radically-changed future. Kurzweil develops this position in much detail in his book, The Singularity Is Near (2005). Broderick points out that many of the seemingly implausible predictions of early science fiction writers have, indeed, come to pass, among them nuclear power and space travel to the moon. On the other hand, he says, many unforeseen innovations have appeared. Broderick expects the future to be very strange, which is not to say that particular predictions will be correct. He also emphasises the core rationalism of current predictions of very rapid change, including the proven track record of such observers as Kurzweil in predicting the pace of innovation.[30]

Ethical criticisms

Critics or opponents of transhumanism often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition 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 health care, 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. At least one self-described socially progressive organization, the Center for Genetics and Society of Oakland, California, has come into existence with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term cloning and germline gene alteration.

Playing God argument

File:Playing God, Redesigning Life.jpg
Appeal to the Playing God argument is perennial in debates about bioethics.

"Playing God" criticisms take two main forms, theological and secular.

The first form is based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual God. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,[31] in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral," implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature."

The second form is aimed mainly at attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human embryos. It emphasizes the issue of biocomplexity and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological evolution. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist Stuart Newman, is based on the recognition that the cloning and germline genetic manipulation of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic development. Accordingly, it would create unacceptable risks to apply such processes to human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.[32]

The first argument does not trouble transhumanists since most secular bioethicists reject it as irrelevant to public policy in a society that embraces freedom of religion. To the extent that it relies on a supposed sin of defying God's will, secular thinkers argue that it is not morally binding on non-believers and is inappropriate as a political argument.

Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, transhumanists say that a greater risk lies in not using genetic engineering and other emerging technologies, because present technologies threaten the environment [33] and large numbers of humans die from potentially solvable problems. The implication is that the potential benefits of enhancement technologies outweigh the potential harms, with the moral imperative, if any, being to use the technologies as quickly as possible.[34] Further, transhumanists add that "tampering with nature" is something that humans have done for millennia with every technology, with tangible benefits. [35] Some transhumanists argue that parents have a moral responsibility called procreative beneficence to make use of genetic engineering methods, assuming they are safe and effective, to have healthy children with maximum potential. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called procreative liberty. [36]

Terminator argument

File:Terminator.jpg
In The Terminator (1984) and its sequels, intelligent machines rise against human beings

A notable critic of what some see as transhumanist hubris is Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who argued in his essay Why the future doesn't need us, that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. He evokes, for example, the "grey goo scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[37]

Related notions were voiced earlier by Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, an avowed neo-luddite zealot, and culture jammer Kalle Lasn, who claimed that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish technology development.[38]

British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees argues, in his book Our Final Hour, that advanced science and technology brings as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific progress; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[39]

Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as the Green movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[40] (Skynet, the malign computer network of the Terminator film series, represents a fictional version of this scenario.)

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 proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive. In his television series Connections, science historian James Burke dissects several views on technological advance, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. 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 anti-science and technophobia.

One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, planners 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.[21]

Brave New World argument

File:Bravenewworld2.jpg
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World

Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices, judged as fundamental to civilized society, would be destroyed or greatly altered. In his book Our Posthuman Future and in a Foreign Policy magazine article,[3] political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas because it may undermine the progressive ideals of liberal democracy that it ostensibly favours, through a fundamental alteration of "human nature" and an erosion of human equality. The German social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that human values are tied to a species identity that is, in part, biologically based. This leads Habermas to suggest that the human "species ethic" is susceptible to being undermined by genetic alteration.[41] Bioconservatives, such as Kass, Fukuyama, and Habermas hold that attempts to significantly alter the natural human state (specifically through human cloning and human genetic engineering) are not only inherently immoral but also threats to the social order.

In an article in Reason Online, 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.[2] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[42]

Enough argument

File:Enough.jpg
Bill McKibben's Enough

In his book Enough (2003), environmental ethicist Bill McKibben has argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germline genetic engineering, nanotechnological enhancement and radical life extension.

He claims that it would be morally wrong for human beings to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging and death and and genetic constraints on 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 could be overcome technologically. Furthermore, even the goal of using germline genetic modification for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities.[43]

Transhumanists and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology, such as Ronald Bailey, reject 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

File:Gataca Movie Poster.jpg
Gattaca

McKibben also advances one of the most widespread criticisms of libertarian transhumanism: that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "biotech divide" (see the film Gattaca (1997) for a fictional depiction of this scenario).

This criticism is also voiced by democratic transhumanists, such as techno-progressive bioethicist James Hughes. In his book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future (2004), Hughes argues that biopoliticians must articulate and implement public policies (such as universal health care and vouchers which cover human enhancement technologies) in order to attenuate this problem, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. This, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies available only to the wealthy on the local black market or overseas in countries where such a ban is not enforced.[44]

Frankenstein argument

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Acknowledging the power of biotechnology to make profound changes in organismal identity, bioconservative activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact. In the extreme this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal hybrids, parahumans or even replicants (see the novels Frankenstein (1818) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), and the film Blade Runner (1982) for fictional depictions of these scenarios), but even lesser dislocations of humans and nonhumans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. They propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent these potentially dehumanizing projects from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[45][32][46]

Objecting to what Isaac Asimov termed the "Frankenstein complex", transhumanists and non-anthropocentric personhood theorists, such as James Hughes, reply that if they are sentient, all these creations would still be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship as any other person. They conclude that the coming ethical issue which must be dealt with is not the creation of monsters but what they view as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism" that would judge and treat these creations as monsters.[12]

Eugenics Wars argument

File:Khan3.jpg
Khan: the archetypal eugenic superman, from the Star Trek television series and movies.

A trenchant argument against transhumanism comes from Marxist-oriented critics who allege social bias in the use of concepts such as "limitations", "enhancement", and "improvement". Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, for example, has suggested that transhumanism's concentration on the individual body as the locus of solutions to social inequities represents the triumph of the market economy.[47] Other critics see the eugenic, social Darwinist and even "Übermensch" ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what transhumanism might unintentionally encourage, fearing future "Eugenics Wars" (a speculative form of class conflict) as the worst-case scenario.[48] Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of genetic enhancement technologies could lead to human-posthuman conflict and new forms of genocide.[46][49]

For most of its history, eugenics has manifested itself as a movement to involuntarily sterilize the "genetically unfit" and encourage breeding of the genetically advantaged. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racialist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful timeframe through selective human breeding. Some transhumanists instead advocate a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics, arguing that the use of reproductive and genetic technologies to increase the probability of a healthy, happy, and multiply talented child is a responsible and justifiable application of parental reproductive rights. Others holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.[36][50][51]

Notes

  1. ^ a b Bostrom 2005
  2. ^ a b Bailey 2004
  3. ^ a b Fukuyama 2004
  4. ^ Huxley 1957
  5. ^ FM-2030 1989
  6. ^ FM-2030 1973
  7. ^ "EZTV Media". Retrieved May 1. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Vita-More 1982
  9. ^ Drexler 1986
  10. ^ More 1990-2003
  11. ^ More 1990
  12. ^ a b c Hughes 2005
  13. ^ World Transhumanist Association 2002
  14. ^ World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005a
  15. ^ Sandberg (undated)
  16. ^ Extropy Institute 2006
  17. ^ Walker 2002
  18. ^ Naam 2005
  19. ^ Sandberg 2001
  20. ^ a b Kurzweil 2005
  21. ^ a b Bostrom 2002
  22. ^ Kurzweil 1993
  23. ^ Kurzweil 2004
  24. ^ Hughes 2003
  25. ^ Sandberg 2000
  26. ^ Glenn 2003
  27. ^ Campbell and Walker 2005
  28. ^ Dublin 1992
  29. ^ Stock 2002
  30. ^ Broderick 1997
  31. ^ International Theological Commission 2002
  32. ^ a b Newman 2003
  33. ^ World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005b
  34. ^ World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005c
  35. ^ World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005d
  36. ^ a b World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005e
  37. ^ Joy 2000
  38. ^ Kaczynski 1995
  39. ^ Rees 2003
  40. ^ Arnall 2003
  41. ^ Habermas 2004
  42. ^ Blackford 2003
  43. ^ McKibben 2003
  44. ^ Hughes 2004
  45. ^ Otchet 1998
  46. ^ a b Darnovsky 2001
  47. ^ Giesen 2004
  48. ^ Hughes 2002
  49. ^ Annas, Andrews and Isasi 2002
  50. ^ Humphrey 2004
  51. ^ Silver 1998

References

Notable manifestos, organizations and portals not discussed in main article

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=52392991"