(Trans)humanist thoughts
March 17, 2008
In London the other day I had dinner with an engaging transhumanist and a couple of scholars who are somewhat skeptical of the transhumanist project (since it was London, perhaps I should say sceptical). Not all transies are equally engaging (one once listed me alongside the Unabomber in his catalogue of “bioconservatives”), though there is something inherently intellectually refreshing about smart people who ask fundamental questions and seem happy to follow unconventional arguments pretty much wherever they lead (no use using reductio ad absurdum arguments here, as they tend to smile and plead guilty as charged). Peter Singer is another engaging intellectual bookend who illumines all from his “extreme” posture, on a related though distinct plane of conversation.
The point I have begun to press in these interlocutions with transies is twofold. First, those among them who are basically into “radical life extension” should drop the moniker. RLE is controversial in many aspects, but the idea of people living longer is about as transhuman as the fact that we are getting taller (I read on the web that the Dutch are now the tallest nation). The transie project, even before it resolves into the post- prefix, is trans-. RLE enthusiasts should trim their sails and rebrand as humanists who want more of the same. Of course, they would need to ditch the merchants of immortality who plan to have Scottie beam them up into hard drives, and focus on the amazing stuff that worms and mice are teaching us.
But more generally, it seems to me that the transies proper are their own worst enemies. If they really want to persuade us of the merits of aspiring to cyborgdom with its vastly superior opportunities for, well, everything except old-time human biology – they should stop going on about it. In particular, they should cease to suggest that incremental advances in human function (such as prostheses of various kinds and certain drug uses) are the beginnings of the transhuman effort, and press the argument that these are all as human as they can be. Of many of these current efforts this is plainly true, as they are generally unambiguously therapeutic in their use. Of some, it may not be. The transies’ theme should be “don’t worry,” not “get excited, Homo sap. is about to come to an end.” Their interests lie in boiling the human lobster, not confronting it with a species-wide firing squad.
Not that they will listen to me. But we do need to find ways to defuse the extremes if we are going to build in the middle ground. Those of us who are pro-tech and pro-human need to shape the future – and ground its discussion in something other than the alternative of cyborgiana or a return to the caves.
