Transhumanism
February 8th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
James Wilsdon of DEMOS, a U.K. think tank, has a thoughtful essay (subscription required) in the Financial Times on the occasion of the release of a new DEMOS collection of essays titled Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension. Here is an excerpt from Wilsdon’s essay:
This movement is known as transhumanism, and its central belief is that advances in science and technology will liberate us from the constraints of illness and ageing, and enable us to live longer, healthier lives. In its more modest form, transhumanism advocates the embrace of new technologies, such as smart drugs, cosmetic surgery and gene therapy, which can enhance our physical and mental capabilities and make us ‘better than well’. At the more radical end of the spectrum, you find futurists such as Ray Kurzweil, whose recent book ‘The Singularity is Near’, argues that ‘Ultimately we will merge with our technology… By the mid 2040s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will be billions of times more capable than the biological portion.’ Such predictions have provoked a fierce reaction, both from religious and cultural conservatives, who see transhumanism as an assault on human nature, and from the liberal left, which sounds alarm bells about the implications for equality and human rights. Francis Fukuyama has gone so far as to describe transhumanism as ‘the world’s most dangerous idea’. Yet as the technologies for human enhancement start moving from the pages of science fiction into the laboratory, and eventually into the marketplace, these responses are no longer sufficient. The basic impulse behind transhumanism is a progressive one: a desire to extend current models of medicine and healthcare in ways that would enable us to live longer, fitter and more fulfilling lives. Provided that enhancement technologies are carefully regulated, and opened up to genuine public debate, there is no reason why they should not enjoy widespread public support. Most of us, given the choice, would seize the opportunity to live well beyond our allotted ‘three score years and ten’, even if this required us to take a cocktail of new drugs. The explosive growth in cosmetic surgery shows just how quickly attitudes can change, with enhancements that were once taboo now part of the regular diet of TV makeovers and lifestyle magazines. The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension into the mainstream. Politicians and business leaders, who are already struggling to cope with rising pensions and healthcare costs, may be understandably reluctant to speculate about a world in which we all live (and work?) well into our second century. . . What is politics for if not to improve the quality – and length – of our lives? The transhumanists have done us all a favour by drawing the lines of a political battle that is yet to be fought.
Read the whole report here.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:54 am
You might like to check out a new book:
Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, Simon Young (Prometheus Books, New York, 2006)
Publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1785.html
Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022908/002-0934247-8290402?v=glance
Book Website: http://www.wcukdev.co.uk/simonyoung/
Blog: http://thetranshumanist.blogspot.com/
Info: designerevolution@btinternet.com
February 8th, 2006 at 10:17 am
We may be living in times Aldous Huxley could only imagine. Predictions about the conflict between seemingly inevitable trends in science and technology and our struggle to maintain our humanity have been argued about for quite some time, but similar to Malthusian predictions of overpopulation have seemingly been forestalled by parallel advances in governance and policy. Can this tenuous balance be maintained? Have we already crossed the threshold? Will we cut off our noses to spite our faces? Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat place.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“The big question is who will bring human enhancement and life extension into the mainstream.”
It’s already in the mainstream! How many people in the U.S. have cardiac pacemakers? Artificial or non-human heart valves? Multiple bypass heart surgery? Multiple arterial stents?
Regarding “enhancement”…how many people have laser eye surgery (so they don’t need glasses or contacts)? Drugs to treat depression? Insomnia?
February 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am
“Transhumanism” is not the evil some would suggest. Would anyone argue that offering recombinant insulin to your diabetic cousin or a hip-replacement to your grandmother is unethical. And yet genetic engineering and bioengineering have been and still are to some extent portrayed as unethical technologies.
Just as disease is natural, aging, accidents, and a less than desireable pedigree are also natural. “Unnatural” solutions to these problems are not evil just because humans invented them.
Some might argue, “but transhumanism is the enhancement of human nature, not the reparation of failing organs.” But curing a child’s hereditary cancer is enhancing that individual’s human nature. Afterall, he was born with that predisposition. Or, suppose that you injure your knee in a car accident and must have it replaced, only to find that your mechanical knee functions better than your pre-injury knee (unlikely). Do you feel guilty because your nature has been enhanced? Have you committed an unconscious sin by defying nature.
Others will say, “when life-enhanicing technology is available, only the wealthy will benefit” and they would be right. But this is the case with a lot of “life-enhancing” technology, at least in the time immediately following the commercial release. iPods, botox, cars, private jets, etc. are all examples of technology that enhance the lives of those fortunate enough to be able to afford them. It is not unjust that many people can’t benefit from having an iPod video, just unfortunate.
Certainly, a population living longer and healthier creates some societal challenges (challenges with which government has not acted responsibly so far). But this is common of all change (both the new challenges and inadequate or inappropriate government response). Unlike some change that occurs at once, however, life expectancy will not increase twenty years overnight. We can rest assured that such change as “transhumanism” requires will occur slowly enough to allow gradual societal acceptance.