May 09 2008 / by Alvis
Category: Culture Year: General Rating: 4 Hot
An editorial piece.
Fueled by accelerating change, transhumanism
(H+), the belief that humans can and should consciously evolve past
our current limitations, is on the rise. It’s a safe bet that over
the coming years this budding philosophy, or memeplex, will make
its way into the minds of millions of humans, maybe more. However
it lines up with reality, transhumanism will exert a big impact on
our future (barring a near-term cataclysmic event, of course).
Certain aspects of transhumanism appeal to my logical and
emotional parts. Logically, I can see that accelerating change will
transform the human body and the human brain, perhaps enabling
immortality, telekinesis, teleportation, possibly even
“transcendence.” Emotionally, I like the idea of establishing
greater control over my environment in order to best externalize my
imagination (fostering peace, health, happiness), transform my
existence and, essentially, play in the universe however I damn
well choose.
However, when attempting to simulate the future, particularly a
hyper-fast
Kurzweilian future
or Ted Modis’
moderately
slower future , I’ve found that I cannot embrace a wholly
transhumanist-compatible view of the years to come because
transhumanism, unsurprisingly, fails to provide an adequate
definition of the term “human”. (cont.)
What exactly is this “human” that we are supposed to extrapolate
into the future? Is it an individual animal? A member of a species?
A self-aware “software” that resides in the forebrain of an
advanced mammal? Several combined pieces of software? Software
combined with external knowledge and information? Does it depend on
nature? Can it be distinguished form the system in which it
resides? Can it exist without the broader system?
While I do, at this moment, agree that the near-term future can
and should produce healthier, happier, more capable, longer-living
humans, I am not at all confident that either “I”, other humans or
the system will continue agree with these transhumanist principles
as our environment changes around us. The very same accelerating
change that is pushing open the door to transformation and
super-humanity is also increasing the likelihood of scenarios that
either require no humans, dilute human existence (super brain,
evolving into something not human rather than H+), put humans at
odds with one another (drastically limiting what’s possible for the
individual), or place the human in a system that trumps the will of
the human (Earth or Universe as computer).
Without defining what exactly a human is, how can we possibly
make enough sense of myriad possible futures in order to decide
which ones are preferable and/or most likely?
What if a certain human death or decay rate is determined to
best advance the whole system? What if the technological
singularity breaks apart and recombines individual humans, much
like a computer system? What if we blur together with other humans,
organisms or software? What if our true will is contained in an
individual taking a Total Recall-esque voyage through a simulation?
What if we determine that individual human existence does go on and
that death is preferable? What if…
In order to solve a problem, one must first quantify its
components. Transhumanism adequately describes near-term
human/social values and makes a compelling argument for a
preferable human future, but its failure to define what we are
limits its potential future relevance. This does not mean that
transhumanism is wrong, or that we won’t discover that
transhumanist values will and should guide us for hundreds of years
to come, just that it is currently an incomplete philosophy that I
can rely on to a limited extent when considering the future. I will
not be able to say that I adhere to H+ values until I either 1)
feel emotionally compelled to say that I am, or 2) am convinced
that the most likely and/or desirable path for humanity is the
ongoing pursuit of super-humanity.
For the time being, my logic and emotions dictate the belief
that we are part of a life system and that our primary goal should
be for that system to survive and thrive, making me a
trans-systemist. S+ rather than H+. But hey, if the right data
comes in and my simulation of the future (or lack thereof) changes,
then I may well be convinced to join the ranks of transhumanists,
or some branch thereof.
Until then, I will continue to ask, “Why should or should I not
become a transhumanist?”
Comment Thread ()
