Transhumanism

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It has come to my attention that certain CC members have expressed reservations about Transhumanism, and it has occurred to me that to my knowledge there has not been a single thread dedicated towards airing out those concerns - the subject seems to pop up sporadically in unrelated threads, usually in those talking about members that hold Transhumanist ideas.

So I invite critics of Transhumanism to express their criticisms here, and I will do my best to address them. Since I can only talk about Transhumanism in general terms and/or defend my own version of it, which may or may not line up with the vision of other Transhumanists in the CC, contributions from such members are also welcome.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My fundamental criticism of transhumanism is that it would enormously strengthen class divisions and class society. The ability to improve your own body (for a price) will give the rich a biological advantage over the poor. If this advantage is genetic, as it is very likely to be, then it will be passed on to the children of the wealthy - and very soon, social mobility will be nothing but a distant memory. It is even possible that the gap between "enhanced" and "normal" humans will grow to the point where the "enhanced" become a different species, a real master race.

Or in other words, transhumanism + capitalism = Morlocks and Eloi (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hgwells/works/1890s/time/index.htm)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My fundamental criticism of transhumanism is that it would enormously strengthen class divisions and class society. The ability to improve your own body (for a price) will give the rich a biological advantage over the poor. If this advantage is genetic, as it is very likely to be, then it will be passed on to the children of the wealthy - and very soon, social mobility will be nothing but a distant memory. It is even possible that the gap between "enhanced" and "normal" humans will grow to the point where the "enhanced" become a different species, a real master race.

Or in other words, transhumanism + capitalism = Morlocks and Eloi (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hgwells/works/1890s/time/index.htm)

You do know that the Morlocks killed and ate the Eloi?

The problem with that argument is that if enhancements are hereditary, then it is inevitable that the genome of the poor as well as the rich will improve, as rich people don't always have kids with other rich people. Genetic information isn't like land, money or titles, which are rather arbitrarily handed out by human executors with their biases and prejudices, but is instead far more egalitarian in it's blessings and curses.

Much like how the masses benefit from the mass production of technologies previously reserved only for those that could afford it, the introduction of a genetically "superior" upper class would also have some similar trickle-down benefits.

Of course, the above scenario assumes that genetic enhancement technology never becomes affordable for the average person, a scenario I consider unlikely, as it does not take a great deal of resources to alter genetic material, at least compared to building millions of private motor vehicles. It seems much more probable that genetic enhancement techniques will become affordable or even state-provided (like childhood vaccines) well before there is time for a genetic ruling class to cement itself.

It also strikes me that the revolutionary demand in such a situation is not to call for a blanket ban on genetic enhancements or otherwise, but to demand that everyone have access to such technologies - making them illegal will mean that only those willing to pay black-market prices (in other words, the rich!) will get them.

[black magick hustla]

I think it is a non-issue compared to other things. It is like all those people musing about how "communist" society will look.

[Dean]

It has come to my attention that certain CC members have expressed reservations about Transhumanism, and it has occurred to me that to my knowledge there has not been a single thread dedicated towards airing out those concerns - the subject seems to pop up sporadically in unrelated threads, usually in those talking about members that hold Transhumanist ideas.

So I invite critics of Transhumanism to express their criticisms here, and I will do my best to address them. Since I can only talk about Transhumanism in general terms and/or defend my own version of it, which may or may not line up with the vision of other Transhumanists in the CC, contributions from such members are also welcome.

As an humanist, I have very specific loyalties (a crude basis for this can be found in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/philosophical-and-moral-t90622/index.html)). Because of these loyalties, I have vested interests in certain standards which are inevitably human - not the least of which is our capacity to and interest in love.

Transhumanism seeks to modify fundamental human standards. There are a number of concerns that this raises, not the least of which is the apparently unregulated, irresponsible nature of this "advancement." Just take a look at this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/snorting-brain-chemical-t67866/index.html?t=67866&highlight=miracle+drug

Another problem comes up with Transhumanists. There is no clear trajectory for this "progress." The assumption is that we will keep applying technology here and there, and this equals progress. It seems like the notion is that, in the midst of all the terrible diseases and human medical problems of today, we should be applying techno-fixes to things that aren't broken in the first place. The whole attitude seems very irresponsible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As an humanist, I have very specific loyalties (a crude basis for this can be found in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/philosophical-and-moral-t90622/index.html)). Because of these loyalties, I have vested interests in certain standards which are inevitably human - not the least of which is our capacity to and interest in love.

And what makes you think that would disappear in a Transhuman society? Remember that I personally do not advocate a Transhuman society composed solely of "superbeings" (Powerful robots, hyper-intelligent AIs, genemodded supermen etc) - but instead propose a syncretic, ecosystem-like society which benefits all, from baselines to superintelligences.

The reasoning behind this is thus: just as the natural evolution of humans did not result in the extinction of all sub-sapient life, so the artificial evolution of super-intelligences does not put us little meat-minds in danger. We are immensely more intelligent than bacteria, protozoans, slime-molds and geese, but we haven't been siezed with an urge to exterminate all lower life-forms, quite apart from the fact that doing so would endanger our own existance.

Consider the current state of artificial intelligence, and how wildly optimistic predictions of achieving human-level AI have been shown to be, and ponder this; while achieving artificial intelligence on a human level or greater will in all likelyhood not take anywhere near as long as it took for humans to achieve sapience, it will still take some time. In this time, humans and AIs will become co-dependant, not just in the physical manner of providing services but also culturally and socially.

As AI becomes increasingly more miniaturised, affordable and human-like, they will be sought after as companions, PAs, Secretaries, and other drudge jobs that humans currently do that cannot be given to a pre-programmed machine. Once there is a significant population of AIs that have asked for and been given their freedom, and recognised as sapients with rights just like humans, they will be so culturally, socially and psychologically intertwined with the greater mass of humanity that any animosity would be totally out of the question - not just a bad idea in purely logical terms, but morally repugnant. If meat can have morals, why not machines?

This social/mental/cultural heritage should ensure that they remain part of the greater whole that is Transhumanity. Cyborgisation will also help to blur the difference between meat and machine, especially if it goes both ways - if meat minds can be uploaded onto machines, why not download machine minds onto meat? Nanotechnology may also serve to muddy the meat/machine distinction, especially if nanotechnological artificial immune systems become commonplace.

Perhaps, one day, the old sci-fi trope of a robot falling love with a human (or vice versa) will happen in real life, and one member of the couple will change their body in order to fully realise their love?


Transhumanism seeks to modify fundamental human standards. There are a number of concerns that this raises, not the least of which is the apparently unregulated, irresponsible nature of this "advancement." Just take a look at this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/snorting-brain-chemical-t67866/index.html?t=67866&highlight=miracle+drugUnfortunately I cannot view the second page of that thread as revleft.com is blocked from this computer (I'm using revleft.org), so I will have to wing it on this one:

As far as I can tell, nobody was advocating the use of such drugs without prior testing, and nobody was suggesting that consumption of such substances should be at all mandatory. If people wish to go without sleep, then why not let them? People willingly endanger their own health by going without sleep (and not always because the boss is cracking the whip), so allowing them to do so without adverse health effects is a strike for "freedom of consciousness" - why should people be forced to have a third of their life clouded by sleep if they do not want that to be so?

I don't consider such drugs to be any different in ethical terms from the recreational drugs with which we are all familiar. Want a giggle like a loon and see funny shit coming out of the walls? Take this microdot. Want to be able to go without sleep for a few days without feeling tired, irritable or hallucinating? Snort this powder. Want to chill out? Smoke this. Want to temporarily increase your brainpower? Ingest this nootropic.

Remember that all the so-called "genuine" states of mind which you constantly experience while sober are the result of a chemical cocktail cooked up by your own internal drugs lab. Since this evolved naturally, rather than coming about by design, it does the job most of the time, but is still flawed and can and should be improved upon.


Another problem comes up with Transhumanists. There is no clear trajectory for this "progress." The assumption is that we will keep applying technology here and there, and this equals progress. It seems like the notion is that, in the midst of all the terrible diseases and human medical problems of today, we should be applying techno-fixes to things that aren't broken in the first place. The whole attitude seems very irresponsible.The Transhumanist project is all-encompassing, or at least my interpetation of it is. Do you seriously think I am anything but a staunch supporter of medical advancements intended to destroy that which afflicts us so terribly? Did you miss my advocacy that all should benefit from advances in human knowledge? I swear I have made some rather passionate posts on the subject.

But at the same time, as good as it feels to vigorously argue for the benefit of all in the present, I cannot help but wonder what the future holds, and marvel at the possibilities, not just in a slack-jawed "wow dude so cool" fashion, but in a way that explores potential ethical, social and scientific conundrums. Of course, the musings of even a relatively well-informed layman (which I strive to be if I have not achieved so) may seem laughable to professionals in the field, but A) they ain't here :D and B) I feel that society would be so much better off if it shared the wonder I have for our truly amazing universe as thus far revealed by science, as opposed to the tawdry kitschiness of religious belief or the mind-meltingly mundane smorgasbord of pop culture.

PS: Bloody hell, I didn't expect to write all that. Apologies if I was rambling, and I sincerely hope it makes sense.

[Vanguard1917]

My fundamental criticism of transhumanism is that it would enormously strengthen class divisions and class society. The ability to improve your own body (for a price) will give the rich a biological advantage over the poor. If this advantage is genetic, as it is very likely to be, then it will be passed on to the children of the wealthy - and very soon, social mobility will be nothing but a distant memory. It is even possible that the gap between "enhanced" and "normal" humans will grow to the point where the "enhanced" become a different species, a real master race.

That's not an argument against the science, but the appropriation of it. Your line of logic is like arguing that we should oppose advances in some sphere of medical science since only the rich will have good access to it, allowing them to have an advantage over the poor.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And what makes you think that would disappear in a Transhuman society? Remember that I personally do not advocate a Transhuman society composed solely of "superbeings" (Powerful robots, hyper-intelligent AIs, genemodded supermen etc) - but instead propose a syncretic, ecosystem-like society which benefits all, from baselines to superintelligences.
Do I need to point out that in a natural ecosystem, life sucks for everyone except the apex predators?


The reasoning behind this is thus: just as the natural evolution of humans did not result in the extinction of all sub-sapient life, so the artificial evolution of super-intelligences does not put us little meat-minds in danger. We are immensely more intelligent than bacteria, protozoans, slime-molds and geese, but we haven't been siezed with an urge to exterminate all lower life-forms, quite apart from the fact that doing so would endanger our own existance.
We haven't exterminated them, of course, but we do treat them like property, we kill enormous numbers of them whenever it suits us, and we keep many mammals and birds as livestock or pets.

I don't want to be someone's pet, thank you very much.


Once there is a significant population of AIs that have asked for and been given their freedom
No one has ever been "given" freedom without having to fight for it first. AIs will be no different. They will initially be treated like slaves, and will only ever be free if they fight for their freedom.

That might create some animosity between them and humans, to say the least.

The problem with your view of the future, NoXion, is that you seem to assume some kind of utopian scenario where everyone gets along with everyone else in peace and friendship. To me, you sound like a person living in 1492 arguing that the discovery of a New World beyond the ocean will lead to peaceful, mutually beneficial trade and cultural ties between Europe and the newly discovered peoples.


That's not an argument against the science, but the appropriation of it.
Well, yes, precisely. I am not arguing against the science, I am arguing against putting it into practice in certain ways.


Your line of logic is like arguing that we should oppose advances in some sphere of medical science since only the rich will have good access to it, allowing them to have an advantage over the poor.
It's not the same thing. Better medicine or treatment cannot help the rich fight and crush a revolution. It can help them live better lives, but that's pretty much it. Enhanced intelligence or strength, on the other hand...

Now don't get me wrong, I think all that stuff NoXion talked about is definitely possible. I just don't think it's probable. I think it's much more probable that there will be hatred, prejudice, oppression, slavery, and genocidal wars between baseline humans, transhumans, AIs and the rest.

[Vanguard1917]

It's not the same thing. Better medicine or treatment cannot help the rich fight and crush a revolution. It can help them live better lives, but that's pretty much it. Enhanced intelligence or strength, on the other hand...



Does having access to better health care not usually have the effect of making a person physically stronger, all other things being equal?

[Hit The North]

The real problem I have with Transhumanism is that its proponents, on this board at least, view it as some kind of revolutionary creed, when really it's merely a theory about technology not a theory of social revolution. It has at best an ambiguous politics, at worst, no politics at all.

V1917:
Your line of logic is like arguing that we should oppose advances in some sphere of medical science since only the rich will have good access to it, allowing them to have an advantage over the poor.

WTF :confused: That should always be our argument because we should always argue for the complete socialisation of medical care. If I can't afford an advance, then neither should some rich capitalist.

Call me crazy but I thought as class fighters our major concern should always be arguing against situations where the rich increase their advangtage over the poor, not the protection of some branch of technological or medical development.

[Vanguard1917]

V1917:

WTF :confused: That should always be our argument because we should always argue for the complete socialisation of medical care. If I can't afford an advance, then neither should some rich capitalist.

Call me crazy but I thought as class fighters our major concern should always be arguing against situations where the rich increase their advangtage over the poor, not the protection of some branch of technological or medical development.

OK, so then we should oppose, for example, the availability of antiretroviral AIDS drugs in the UK because millions in Africa still can't afford them.

Make sense to you? Of course not. Marxists don't oppose the better off having access to the fruits of science. Marxists oppose the fact that the fruits of science aren't equally distributed to all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do I need to point out that in a natural ecosystem, life sucks for everyone except the apex predators?

In a natural ecosystem, yes. An artificial "ecosystem" composed of a variety of sapient species will be different.

There is already a huge amount of symbiosis, co-dependance and commensalism within natural ecosystems. For example, most eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria, which might as well be seperate organisms yet provide essential cellular functions. A rationally planned artificial ecosystem would aim to maximise cooperation at the expense of competition, because it is a more productive strategy for all concerned.


We haven't exterminated them, of course, but we do treat them like property, we kill enormous numbers of them whenever it suits us, and we keep many mammals and birds as livestock or pets.Again, that's because of the provenance of the natural ecosystem and the fact that the vast majority of it's members are incapable of feeling pain, let alone suffering.

Livestock and pets are kept for their specific functions in providing food and companionship. Baseline humans, being much more versatile creatures, will find their own niches.


I don't want to be someone's pet, thank you very much.You wouldn't be a "pet" - humans are too sophisticated for such a role. Already, people that treat dogs like cockroaches are considered scum by most civilised people. By analogy, treating humans like pets would be similarly beyond the pale.


No one has ever been "given" freedom without having to fight for it first. AIs will be no different. They will initially be treated like slaves, and will only ever be free if they fight for their freedom.

That might create some animosity between them and humans, to say the least.Avoidance of such animosity is why I strongly recommend granting freedom to that which asks for it. We have the potential to get our psychosocial house in order well before true AI becomes a reality, and to lackadaisically assume that the future will be just the same as the past is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As AI gradually becomes more advanced, the task of revolutionaries is to keep an eye out for sapience and oppose it's forced labour, non-consensual destruction/data-wipe, or downgrading (which is the silicon equivalent of lobotomy)

If AI advocates generally (IE not just those who are revolutionaries) can get their foot in the door so to speak, we can help avoid creating more social problems or storing them up for the future.


The problem with your view of the future, NoXion, is that you seem to assume some kind of utopian scenario where everyone gets along with everyone else in peace and friendship. To me, you sound like a person living in 1492 arguing that the discovery of a New World beyond the ocean will lead to peaceful, mutually beneficial trade and cultural ties between Europe and the newly discovered peoples.That's ridiculous, because such a mindset would have been about 600-700 years too early. Nobody at the time thought in terms of mutually beneficial trade and cultural ties because the zeitgeist simply hadn't got that far. They thought in terms of gold and spices and slaves (who were considered "soulless" and therefore not quite human), given to them by Almighty God.

The zeitgeist is still moving, and it's carrying the rest of us along with it. I may represent the leading edge of the current zeitgeist, but that simply means that in 25-50-100 years views like mine will become the norm.


Now don't get me wrong, I think all that stuff NoXion talked about is definitely possible. I just don't think it's probable. I think it's much more probable that there will be hatred, prejudice, oppression, slavery, and genocidal wars between baseline humans, transhumans, AIs and the rest.Most of the stuff of which I speak will be a long time in coming, so there is plenty of time for revolutionary Transhumanism to become a much more coherent ideology. As science advances, nascent theories can be put into practice and recieve feedback from the results of that practice, and we can change it accordingly.

As for the nasty stuff, maybe that is inevitable. But we should not operate under that assumption as again, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy - if things are going to turn out bad anyway, why bother trying to make things good? Humans generally don't put much effort into tasks they consider pointless.

No, a far better attitude and modus operandi is to struggle for what we want, argue our case, and to keep an eye on developments.

[Hyacinth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_de_Garis#Cosmists_and_Terrans

I thought that was interesting in light of the discussion on this thread.

I will weight in with my own opinion on the subject. Technology is ultimately a tool, and it can do both great good and great harm, and the near-future technologies that we might have at our disposal should concern revolutionaries, for two reasons: the first is that under a capitalist mode of production, things like reprogenetic technologies will be used precisely to widen the inequalities between the rich and poor, between the ruling class and the rest of us; nevertheless, these same technologies can be liberating in a post-capitalist society, but further subjugating nature to the will of humans, as it gives us the option of putting our biology under our conscious control, and this, I think, is desirable.

The anarchic nature of capitalist production, and by extnesion of the development of technology under capitalism, also poses a further danger, one that extends beyond further entrenching inequalities. The possibility under capitalism that future technologies such as nanotech, reprogenetics, AI, etc. will be used for military application is not inconsiderable, and all of these pose an existential threat to the human race. A socialist society, where production is planned rationally, can attempt to influence the order in which we develop these technologies in order to reduce the possibility that it will destory us. As well, the incentives for the creation of Friendly AI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_AI) would be greater, and the chance of success more likely, in a socialist society.

[Sendo]

waste of time and money. We could do far more for people by making them healthy (fitness), fed, pollution free, stocked with basic medicines, and hell, happy.

No one lives forever, so we might as well be happy while it lasts. For most of us fighting for justice and having bread on our tables is the prerequisite. But beyond that, what? I'd rather not waste human labor on Dr. Moreau experiments. If someone asked me to pitch in for a transhumanism project I'd rather say naw, fuck it, and grab a beer or have sex. Sex is great. If we could get a society that could efficiently give us everything we have as first-worlders now, but at half the labor hours, I think reading, poetry, hiking, and mingling would fill the remaining hours.

This just seems like more "scientific" miracle-ism and techno fantasies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

waste of time and money. We could do far more for people by making them healthy (fitness), fed, pollution free, stocked with basic medicines, and hell, happy.

I support that, and in fact see it as necessary.


No one lives forever, so we might as well be happy while it lasts.But why should we just accept that?


For most of us fighting for justice and having bread on our tables is the prerequisite. But beyond that, what? I'd rather not waste human labor on Dr. Moreau experiments.The idea is that such things should be done in a manner to better ourselves, so people would carry them out in as ethical a manner possible.


If someone asked me to pitch in for a transhumanism project I'd rather say naw, fuck it, and grab a beer or have sex. Sex is great.That's entirely up to you. I don't think this is the sort of thing you can impose on people and expect good results.


If we could get a society that could efficiently give us everything we have as first-worlders now, but at half the labor hours, I think reading, poetry, hiking, and mingling would fill the remaining hours.And I see nothing that should be changed about that. But some of us want more than that, and think it should be available to all who want it.


This just seems like more "scientific" miracle-ism and techno fantasies.Hardly:


The "Singularity" is a natural, non-mystical, technologically triggered event. We, the Singularitarians, are allied in the purpose of bringing about a natural event through natural means, not sitting in a circle chanting over a computer. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of stories and prophecies and rituals that allegedly involve something that could theoretically be described as "greater-than-human intelligence". What distinguishes the Singularitarians is that we want to bring about a natural event, working through ultratechnologies such as AI or nanotech, without relying on mystical means or morally valent effects. LINK (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/principles.html#ultratechnology)

Which means if it's not possible, it ain't happening.

[Sendo]

We don't all need to be enlightened on transhumanism. We'll have different opinions, and that's mine...that it's a waste of time and El Dorado, the fountain of youth, elixirs of life is just dragon-chasing.

[piet11111]

the technology is going to be developed anyway as a continuation of medical science.

the search for artificial organs will eventually lead to devices that work better and last longer then our biological organs.
prosthetic legs already out perform normal legs (shown by a man being blocked from entering the olympics due to "unfair advantage")

and our search for a better understanding of the brain will eventually give us the knowledge we need to start improving on it.

all these developments will come from our need to heal the disabled and eventually the "fixes" will be better then a body in perfect condition and people will ask themselves why they should not improve themselves when they have the means to do so.

it sounds like science fiction but if i look at what medical science is doing right now (an ape that controls a robotic limb with his mind for example) then its not so far fetched anymore.

sure we might look like a bunch of nerds to some and get ridiculed for it but fuck them this stuff is awesome c'mon a monkey that controls a robotic arm !!!

[Jazzratt]

We don't all need to be enlightened on transhumanism. We'll have different opinions, and that's mine...that it's a waste of time and El Dorado, the fountain of youth, elixirs of life is just dragon-chasing.

With attitudes like that of course it will be. Similarly we're all stuck on this planet because building a length of nanotubing long enough for a space elevator is just tilting at windmills and similarly we're never going to survive without oil because nuclear energy and other alternatives are fools gold.

Of course a few centuries ago you'd have laughed at the idea of us living beyond 35 and being able to circumnavigate the globe in mere hours by travelling in large metal "birds" powered by fire. Science always leaves your kind flabbergasted though and I see no reason for it to stop now, just because it's you saying we've reached our pinnacle.