Transhumanism (abbreviated as
H+ or
h+) is an international and
intellectual movement that aims to transform the
human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly
enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
[1][2] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of
emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the
ethics[3] of using such technologies.
[4]
The most common transhumanist thesis is that human beings may
eventually be able to transform themselves into different beings with
abilities so greatly expanded from the natural condition as to merit the
label of
posthuman beings.
[2]
The contemporary meaning of the term "transhumanism" was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of
futurology,
FM-2030, who taught "new concepts of the human" at
The New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and
worldviews "transitional" to posthumanity as "
transhuman".
[5] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher
Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a
futurist philosophy in 1990 and organizing in
California an
intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.
[5][6][7]
Influenced by seminal works of
science fiction,
the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted
many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives,
including philosophy and religion.
[5] Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic,
Francis Fukuyama, as among the "
world's most dangerous ideas",
[8] to which
Ronald Bailey
has countered that it is rather the "movement that epitomizes the most
daring, courageous, imaginative and idealistic aspirations of humanity".
[9]
History
According to
Nick Bostrom,
[2] transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for
immortality in the
Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in historical quests for the
Fountain of Youth, the
Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.
There is debate about whether the
philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence on transhumanism despite its exaltation of the "
Übermensch" (overman or superman), due to its emphasis on
self-actualization, rather than technological transformation.
[2][10][11][12] The transhumanist philosophies of
Max More and
Stefan Lorenz Sorgner have been influenced strongly by Nietzschean thinking.
[10] By way of contrast,
The Transhumanist Declaration[13] "...advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals)".
Early transhumanist thinking
Julian Huxley, the biologist who popularised the term
transhumanism in an influential 1957 essay.
Fundamental ideas of transhumanism were first advanced in 1923 by the British geneticist
J. B. S. Haldane in his essay
Daedalus: Science and the Future,
which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of
advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would
first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and
unnatural". In particular, he was interested in the development of the
science of
eugenics,
ectogenesis
(creating and sustaining life in an artificial environment), and the
application of genetics to improve human characteristics, such as health
and intelligence.
His article inspired academic and popular interest.
J. D. Bernal, a crystallographer at
Cambridge, wrote
The World, the Flesh and the Devil in 1929, in which he speculated on the prospects of
space colonization and radical changes to human bodies and intelligence through
bionic implants and
cognitive enhancement.
[14] These ideas have been common transhumanist themes ever since.
[2]
The biologist
Julian Huxley
is generally regarded as the founder of transhumanism, after he used
the term for the title of an influential 1957 article. The term itself,
however, derives from an earlier 1940 paper by the Canadian philosopher
W. D. Lighthall.
[15] Huxley describes transhumanism in these terms:
Up till now human life has generally been, as Hobbes described it,
'nasty, brutish and short'; the great majority of human beings (if they
have not already died young) have been afflicted with misery… we can
justifiably hold the belief that these lands of possibility exist, and
that the present limitations and miserable frustrations of our existence
could be in large measure surmounted… The human species can, if it
wishes, transcend itself—not just sporadically, an individual here in
one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as
humanity.[16]
Huxley's definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one
commonly in use since the 1980s. The ideas raised by these thinkers were
explored in the
science fiction of the 1960s, notably in
Arthur C. Clarke's
2001: A Space Odyssey, in which an alien artifact grants transcendent power to its wielder.
[17]
Japanese
Metabolist architects produced a manifesto in 1960 which outlined goals to "encourage active metabolic development of our society"
[18] through design and technology. In the
Material and Man section of the manifesto, Noboru Kawazoe suggests that:
After several decades, with the rapid progress of communication
technology, every one will have a “brain wave receiver” in his ear,
which conveys directly and exactly what other people think about him and
vice versa. What I think will be known by all the people. There is no
more individual consciousness, only the will of mankind as a whole.[19]
Artificial intelligence and the technological singularity
The concept of the
technological singularity, or the ultra-rapid advent of superhuman intelligence, was first proposed by the British
cryptologist I. J. Good in 1965:
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far
surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since
the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an
ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would
then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence
of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent
machine is the last invention that man need ever make.[20]
Computer scientist Marvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and
artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.
[21] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers such as
Hans Moravec and
Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.
[22][23] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966,
FM-2030 (formerly F. M. Esfandiary), a
futurist who taught "new concepts of the human" at
The New School, in
New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to
posthumanity as "
transhuman".
[24] In 1972,
Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" in his book
Man into Superman.[25][26] FM-2030 published the
Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.
[27]
Growth of transhumanism
Cover of the first issue of
H+ Magazine, a web-based quarterly publication that focuses on transhumanism.
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.
[28] At the
EZTV Media venue, frequented by transhumanists and other futurists,
Natasha Vita-More presented
Breaking Away,
her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from
their biological limitations and the Earth's gravity as they head into
space.
[29][30] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in
Los Angeles,
which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from
Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the
Transhumanist Arts Statement[31] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show
TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1986,
Eric Drexler published
Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[32] which discussed the prospects for
nanotechnology and
molecular assemblers, and founded the
Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform
cryonics, the Southern California offices of the
Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of
Extropy Magazine was published by
Max More
and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own
particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the
Principles of Extropy, and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:
[33]
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 [...].
In 1992, More and Morrow founded the
Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new
memeplexes
by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a
mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first
time during the rise of
cyberculture and the
cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers
Nick Bostrom and
David Pearce founded the
World Transhumanist Association
(WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward
the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of
scientific inquiry and
public policy.
[34] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted
The Transhumanist Declaration.[13] The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA (later
Humanity+), gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:
[35]
- 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.
- 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.
In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their
futurist visions and needed to be addressed.
[5] A particular concern is the equal access to
human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.
[36] In 2006, a
political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the
libertarian right and the
liberal left resulted in a more
centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director
James Hughes.
[36][37]
In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased
operations of the organization, stating that its mission was
"essentially completed".
[38]
This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading
international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a
rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to "
Humanity+".
[39]
In 2012, the transhumanist Longevity Party had been initiated as an
international union of people who promote the development of scientific
and technological means to significant life extension, that for now has
more than 30 national organisations throughout the world.
[40][41]
The
Mormon Transhumanist Association was founded in 2006.
[42] By 2012, it consisted of hundreds of members.
[43]
The first transhumanist elected member of a Parliament is
Giuseppe Vatinno, in Italy.
[44] In 2015, Vatinno became a member of the Board of Directors of Humanity+.
[45]
Theory
It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of
posthumanism
and how this philosophical movement should be conceptualised with
regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or
activist form of posthumanism by its
conservative,
[8] Christian[46] and
progressive[47][48] critics.
A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is
the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will
evolve and eventually will supplement or supersede it. Transhumanism
stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation
of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement
(i.e.
biological uplift),
[5] but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of participant evolution.
[49]
Nevertheless, the idea of creating
intelligent artificial beings (proposed, for example, by roboticist
Hans Moravec) has influenced transhumanism.
[22] Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "
apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "
cultural posthumanism" in
humanities and
the arts.
[50]
While such a "cultural posthumanism" would offer resources for
rethinking the relationships between humans and increasingly
sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in
this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "
autonomous liberal subject", but are expanding its "
prerogatives" into the realm of the
posthuman.
[51] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of
humanism and
Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.
Some
secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist
freethought
movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist
mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to
resolving human concerns (i.e.
technocentrism) and on the issue of
mortality.
[52]
However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it
be its philosophical or activist forms, amounts to a shift away from
concerns about
social justice, from the
reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward
narcissistic longings for a
transcendence of the human body in quest of more
exquisite ways of being.
[53]
As an alternative, humanist philosopher Dwight Gilbert Jones has
proposed a renewed Renaissance humanism through DNA and genome
repositories, with each individual genotype (DNA) being instantiated as
successive phenotypes (bodies or lives via cloning,
Church of Man,
1978). In his view, native molecular DNA "continuity" is required for
retaining the "self" and no amount of computing power or memory
aggregation can replace the essential "stink" of our true genetic
identity, which he terms "
genity".
Instead, DNA/genome stewardship by an institution analogous to the
Jesuits' 400 year vigil is a suggested model for enabling humanism to
become our species' common credo, a project he proposed in his
speculative novel
The Humanist – 1000 Summers (2011), wherein humanity dedicates these coming centuries to harmonizing our planet and peoples.
The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to
technoself studies,
an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all
aspects of human identity in a technological society and focusing on the
changing nature of relationships between humans and technology.
[54]
Aims
Raymond Kurzweil believes that a countdown to when "human life will be
irreversibly transformed" can be made through plotting major world
events on a graph.
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply
reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability and malnutrition around the globe,
[35]
transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the
applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the
individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for
future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality
of
all life,
while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition
fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating
congenital mental and physical barriers.
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a
perfectionist 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
transhuman phase of existence in which humans
enhance themselves beyond what is naturally human. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate participatory or
directed evolution.
Some theorists such as
Raymond Kurzweil think that the
pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances, but possibly a
technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.
[55]
Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally
maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the
possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose
options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For
example, Bostrom has written extensively on
existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including ones that could be created by emerging technologies.
[56]
While many people believe that all transhumanists are striving for
immortality, it is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing
director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
(2011-2012), surveyed transhumanists. He found that, of the 818
respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality.
[57] Some of the reasons argued were boredom, Earth's overpopulation and the desire "to go to an afterlife".
[57]
Empathic fallibility and conversational consent
Certain transhumanist philosophers hold that since all assumptions about what others experience
are fallible,
and that therefore all attempts to help or protect beings that are not
capable of correcting what others assume about them no matter how
well-intentioned are in danger of actually hurting them, all
sentient beings deserve to be
sapient. These thinkers argue that the ability to discuss in a
falsification-based way constitutes a
threshold that is not arbitrary
at which it becomes possible for an individual to speak for
himself/herself/itself in a way that is not dependent on exterior
assumptions. They also argue that all beings capable of experiencing
something deserve to be elevated to this threshold if they are not at
it, typically stating that the underlying change that leads to the
threshold is an increase in the preciseness of the
brain's
ability to discriminate. This includes increasing the neuron count and
connectivity in animals as well as accelerating the development of
connectivity in order to shorten or ideally skip non-sapient childhood
incapable of independently deciding for oneself. Transhumanists of this
description stress that the genetic engineering that they advocate is
general insertion into both the somatic cells of living beings and in
germ cells, and not purging of individuals without the modifications,
deeming the latter not only unethical but also unnecessary due to the
possibilities of efficient genetic engineering.
[58][59][60][61]
Ethics
Transhumanists engage in
interdisciplinary approaches to understand and evaluate possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on
futurology
and various fields of ethics. Unlike many philosophers, social critics
and activists who place a moral value on preservation of
natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically
natural as problematically nebulous at best and an obstacle to progress at worst.
[62]
In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates, such as
Dan Agin, refer to transhumanism's critics, on the political right and
left jointly, as "
bioconservatives" or "
bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the 19th century
anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.
[63]
A belief of counter-transhumanism is that transhumanism can cause
unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the
social plane. This can be compared to steroid use, where athletes who
use steroids in sports have an advantage over those who do not. The same
scenario happens when people have certain neural implants that give
them an advantage in the work place and in educational aspects.
[64]
Currents
There
is a variety of opinions within transhumanist thought. Many of the
leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant
revision and development.
[65] Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:
- Democratic transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.[66]
- Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a proactive approach to human evolution.[33]
- Immortalism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that radical life extension and technological immortality is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.[67]
- Libertarian transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.[63]
- Postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.[68]
- Singularitarianism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.[55]
- Technogaianism,
an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies
can help restore Earth's environment and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.[66]
Spirituality
Although many transhumanists are
atheists,
agnostics, and/or
secular humanists, some have
religious or
spiritual views.
[34] Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as
immortality,
[67] while several controversial
new religious movements
from the late 20th century have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals
of transforming the human condition by applying technology to the
alteration of the mind and body, such as
Raëlism.
[69]
However, most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus
on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and
healthier lives, while speculating that future understanding of
neurotheology and the application of
neurotechnology will enable humans to gain greater control of
altered states of consciousness, which were commonly interpreted as
spiritual experiences, and thus achieve more profound
self-knowledge.
[70]
Transhumanist Buddhists have sought to explore areas of agreement
between various types of Buddhism and Buddhist-derived meditation and
mind expanding "neurotechnologies".
[71] However, they have been criticised for appropriating mindfulness as a tool for transcending humanness.
[72]
Many transhumanists believe in the compatibility between the human
mind and computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human
consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media (a speculative technique commonly known as
mind uploading).
[73] One extreme formulation of this idea, which some transhumanists are interested in, is the proposal of the
Omega Point by Christian cosmologist
Frank Tipler. Drawing upon ideas in
digitalism, Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the
Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a
simulated reality within a megacomputer and thus achieve a form of "
posthuman godhood". Tipler's thought was inspired by the writings of
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a
paleontologist and
Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary
telos in the development of an encompassing
noosphere, a global consciousness.
[74][75][76]
Viewed from the perspective of some
Christian thinkers, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a
denigration of the human body, characteristic of
gnostic manichaean belief.
[77] Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as
neo-gnostic by non-Christian and secular commentators.
[78][79]
The first dialogue between transhumanism and
faith was a one-day conference held at the University of Toronto in 2004.
[80] Religious critics alone faulted the philosophy of transhumanism as offering no eternal truths nor a relationship with the
divine. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of
postmodern cynicism and
anomie.
Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look
at the actual content of the transhumanist philosophy, which, far from
being cynical, is rooted in
optimistic, idealistic attitudes that trace back to the
Enlightenment.
[81] Following this dialogue,
William Sims Bainbridge, a
sociologist of religion, conducted a pilot study, published in the
Journal of Evolution and Technology,
suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with
acceptance of transhumanist ideas and indicating that individuals with
highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as being a
direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their
spiritual beliefs.
[82]
Since 2006, the
Mormon Transhumanist Association sponsors conferences and lectures on the intersection of technology and religion.
[83]
Since 2009, the
American Academy of Religion holds a "Transhumanism and Religion" consultation during its annual meeting, where scholars in the field of
religious studies
seek to identify and critically evaluate any implicit religious beliefs
that might underlie key transhumanist claims and assumptions; consider
how transhumanism challenges religious traditions to develop their own
ideas of the human future, in particular the prospect of human
transformation, whether by technological or other means; and provide
critical and constructive assessments of an envisioned future that place
greater confidence in nanotechnology, robotics and information
technology to achieve virtual immortality and create a superior
posthuman species.
[84]
The physicist and transhumanist thinker
Giulio Prisco
states that "cosmist religions based on science, might be our best
protection from reckless pursuit of superintelligence and other risky
technologies."
[85] Prisco also recognizes the importance of spiritual ideas, as the ones of
Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov to the origins of the transhumanism movement.
Practice
While some transhumanists
[who?]
take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of
emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for
modifications to the human body, including heritable ones.
Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human
nervous system. Though some, such as
Kevin Warwick, propose modification of the
peripheral nervous system, the
brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.
[86]
In fact Warwick has gone a lot further than merely making a proposal.
In 2002 he had a 100 electrode array surgically implanted into the
median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system
directly with a computer and thus to also connect with the internet. As a
consequence he carried out a series of experiments. He was able to
directly control a robot hand using his neural signals and to feel the
force applied by the hand through feedback from the fingertips. He also
experienced a form of ultrasonic sensory input and conducted the first
purely electronic communication between his own nervous system and that
of his wife who also had electrodes implanted.
[87]
As proponents of
self-improvement and
body modification, including
gender transitioning,
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.
[88] Depending on their age, some
[who?]
transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the
benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in
life extension strategies and in funding research in
cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort, rather than remaining an unproven method.
[89]
Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range
of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and
collaborative projects.
[citation needed]
Technologies of interest
Converging Technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential
for synergy among nano-, bio-, info- and cogno-technologies, has become a
landmark in near-future technological speculation.
[90]
Transhumanists support the
emergence and
convergence of technologies including
nanotechnology,
biotechnology,
information technology and
cognitive science (NBIC), as well as hypothetical future technologies like
simulated reality,
artificial intelligence,
superintelligence,
3D bioprinting,
mind uploading,
chemical brain preservation and
cryonics. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become
more than human.
[91] Therefore, they support the recognition and/or protection of
cognitive liberty,
morphological freedom and
procreative liberty as
civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using
human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.
[92]
Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging
technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than
at the midpoint of the 21st century. Kurzweil's book
The Singularity is Near and Michio Kaku's book
Physics of the Future outline various human enhancement technologies and give insight on how these technologies may impact the human race.
[55][93]
Some reports on the converging technologies and NBIC concepts have criticised their transhumanist orientation and alleged
science fictional character.
[94] At the same time, research on brain and body alteration technologies has been accelerated under the sponsorship of the
U. S. Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the
supersoldiers of the United States and its allies.
[95]
There has already been a brain research program to "extend the ability
to manage information", while military scientists are now looking at
stretching the human capacity for combat to a maximum 168 hours without
sleep.
[96]
Neuroscientist
Anders Sandberg
has been practicing on the method of scanning ultra-thin sections of
the brain. This method is being used to help better understand the
architecture of the brain. As of now, this method is currently being
used on mice. This is the first step towards uploading contents of the
human brain, including memories and emotions, onto a computer.
[97]
Arts and 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 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. In the decades immediately before transhumanism emerged as
an explicit movement, many transhumanist concepts and themes began
appearing in the speculative fiction of authors of the
Golden Age of Science Fiction such as
Robert A. Heinlein (
Lazarus Long series, 1941–87),
A. E. van Vogt (
Slan, 1946),
Isaac Asimov (
I, Robot, 1950),
Arthur C. Clarke (
Childhood's End, 1953) and
Stanisław Lem (
Cyberiad, 1967).
[5] C. S. Lewis'
That Hideous Strength (1945) contains an early critique of transhumanism.
In a series of science fiction novels by
Neal Asher, the protagonist is an augmented human who carries out missions for "Earth Central Security", an
artificial intelligence and
superhuman
coalition. The author portrays a variety of augmentations in addition
to the copying of memory and human minds into crystals and the presence
of both benevolent and malevolent artificial intelligences.
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
Blood Music (1985), by
Greg Bear;
The Xenogenesis Trilogy (1987-1989), by
Octavia Butler;
The Beggar's Trilogy (1990–94), by
Nancy Kress; much of
Greg Egan's work since the early 1990s such as
Permutation City (1994) and
Diaspora (1997); The
Culture series of Iain M. Banks;
The Bohr Maker (1995), by
Linda Nagata;
Altered Carbon (2002), by Richard K. Morgan;
Oryx and Crake (2003), by
Margaret Atwood;
The Elementary Particles (Eng. trans. 2001) and
The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006), by
Michel Houellebecq;
Mindscan (2005), by
Robert J. Sawyer; the
Commonwealth Saga (2002–10), by
Peter F. Hamilton; and
Glasshouse (2005), by
Charles Stross. Some of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its
postcyberpunk offshoot.
Dan Brown's novel
Inferno focuses on the theme of transhumanism. In an interview with
Today,
Dan Brown said "Transhumanism is the ethics and science of using things
like biological and genetic engineering to transform our bodies and
make us a more powerful species".
[98]
Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other
media during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Such treatments are
found in
comic books (
Captain America, 1941;
Iron Man 1963;
Transmetropolitan, 1997;
The Surrogates, 2006),
films (
2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968;
Blade Runner, 1982;
Gattaca, 1997,
Ex Machina, 2015),
television series (the
Cybermen of
Doctor Who, 1966; the
Borg of
Star Trek: The Next Generation, 1989,
Battlestar Galactica, 2003,
Black Mirror, 2011),
manga and
anime (
Galaxy Express 999, 1978;
Appleseed, 1985;
Ghost in the Shell, 1989;
Neon Genesis Evangelion, 1995; and the
Gundam metaseries, 1979),
video games (
Metal Gear Solid, 1998;
Deus Ex, 2000;
EVE Online, 2003;
BioShock, 2007;
Half-Life 2, 2004;
Crysis, 2007;
Deus Ex: Human Revolution; 2011;
[99] Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, 2016) and
role-playing games.
Carnal Art, a form of
sculpture originated by French artist
Orlan, uses the body as its medium and
plastic surgery as its method.
[100] French biological anthropologist Dr. Judith Nicogossian also works on representations of the hybrid body.
Debate
The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse public controversy.
[101]
Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms:
those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved
(practical criticisms) and those objecting to the moral principles or
worldview sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism
itself (ethical criticisms). Critics and opponents often see
transhumanists' goals as posing threats to
human values.
Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program
are novels and fictional films. These works of art, despite presenting
imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as
touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.
[5]
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that
adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the
dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel
Brave New World, by
Aldous Huxley.
[citation needed]
Feasibility
In
a 1992 book, sociologist Max Dublin pointed to many past failed
predictions of technological progress and argued that modern futurist
predictions would prove similarly inaccurate. He also objected to what
he saw as
scientism, fanaticism and
nihilism by a few in advancing transhumanist causes. Dublin also said that historical parallels existed between
Millenarian religions and
Communist doctrines.
[102]
Although generally sympathetic to transhumanism, public health professor
Gregory Stock is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the
cyborgization of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil,
Hans Moravec and
Kevin Warwick.
He said that, throughout the 21st century, many humans would find
themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but would remain
biological. Primary changes to their own form and character would arise
not from
cyberware, but from the direct manipulation of their
genetics,
metabolism and
biochemistry.
[103]
In her 1992 book
Science as Salvation, philosopher
Mary Midgley traces the notion of achieving immortality by
transcendence of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of
mind uploading) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including
J. B. S. Haldane and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving
visions of escape from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the
pseudoscientific speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for
laymen and the remoteness of their
eschatological visions.
[104]
Another critique is aimed mainly at "
algeny" (a portmanteau of
alchemy and
genetics), which
Jeremy Rifkin
defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of
wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance".
[105] 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
cloning and
germline genetic engineering of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic
development.
Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use
such methods on 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 the 1964
Declaration of Helsinki).
Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species
are not automatically transferable to a new species without further
experimentation, it is claimed that there is no ethical route to genetic
manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.
[106]
As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human
subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by
transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice
technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing
laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome
from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.
[107]
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do
not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high
degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic
modification experiments in humans. However,
bioethicist James Hughes
suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of
humans at early developmental stages is the building of
computer models of the
human genome, the proteins it specifies and the
tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in
bioinformatics,
Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human
body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to
accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects
on virtual humans.
[5] Public health professor
Gregory Stock points to
artificial chromosomes as an alleged safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.
[103]
Thinkers
[who?] who defend the likelihood of
accelerating change
point to a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's
technological capacities. Kurzweil developed this position in his 2005
book
The Singularity Is Near.
Intrinsic immorality
It has been argued that, in transhumanist thought, humans attempt to substitute themselves for
God. The 2002
Vatican statement
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,[108] stated that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an
infrahuman
being is radically immoral", implying, that "man has full right of
disposal over his own biological nature". The statement also argues that
creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is
"unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious
experience and "
realizing more fully the image of God".
Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and
denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and
claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical
transhumanism promises, such as indefinite
life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of
utopian movements which seek to
create "heaven on earth".
[109][110] On the other hand, religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and
Ted Peters hold that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.
[111][112]
Other critics target what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body in the writings of Marvin Minsky,
Hans Moravec and some other transhumanists.
[51] Reflecting a strain of
feminist criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher
Susan Bordo points to "contemporary
obsessions with slenderness, youth and physical perfection",
which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways,
as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies
fostered by our culture."
[113] Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on
body modification.
Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that
transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the
logical yet tragic consequence of
atomized individualism and body
commodification within a
consumer culture.
[78]
Nick Bostrom responds that the desire to
regain youth,
specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body,
in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, and is therefore not
uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the
transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a
scientific project on par with the
Human Genome Project and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.
[2]
Loss of human identity
In the U.S., the
Amish
are a religious group probably most known for their avoidance of
certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing
that in the near-future there will probably be "humanish", people who
choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies.
They believe their choice must be respected and protected.
[114]
In his 2003 book
Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age,
environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including
germinal choice technology,
nanomedicine and
life extension
strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to
tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an
attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability
to
aging,
maximum life span
and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts
to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove
limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of
meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem
meaningful
in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically.
Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly
therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably
produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities.
He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing
particular technologies, using as examples
Ming China,
Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary
Amish.
[115]
Biopolitical activist
Jeremy Rifkin and biologist
Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in
organismal
identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings
because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and
artifact.
[106][116] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in
modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".
[117] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "
monsters" such as
human clones,
human-animal chimeras, or
bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from
social and
ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film
Blade Runner (1982) and the novels
The Boys From Brazil (1976) and
The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel
Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create
objectified and
socially unmoored people as well as
subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as
dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international
ban on human genetic engineering.
[118]
Science journalist Ronald Bailey claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed and support different conclusions when studied more closely.
[119]
For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about
embracing new technologies, but, though they shun television and use
horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of
gene therapy since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.
[103]
Bailey and other supporters of technological alteration of human
biology also reject the claim that life would be experienced as
meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with
enhancement technologies as extremely subjective.
Writing in
Reason magazine, Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in
alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of
Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human
health care benefits.
[120]
A different response comes from transhumanist
personhood theorists
who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling
some criticisms of this research, which science fiction writer
Isaac Asimov termed the "
Frankenstein complex". For example,
Woody Evans argues that, provided they are
self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and
uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights, responsibilities, and
citizenship.
[121] They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters, but what they characterize as the "
yuck factor" and "
human-racism", that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.
[34][122]
At least one
public interest organization, the U.S.-based
Center for Genetics and Society,
was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist
agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology,
such as full-term
human cloning and
germinal choice technology. The
Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the
Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
Socioeconomic effects
Some critics of
libertarian transhumanism have focused on the likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which
divisions between rich and poor are on the rise.
Bill McKibben,
for example, suggests 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 "genetic divide".
[115] Even
Lee M. Silver, the biologist and
science writer who coined the term "
reprogenetics"
and supports its applications, has expressed concern that these methods
could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and
"have nots" if
social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.
[123] The 1997 film
Gattaca depicts a
dystopian society in which one's
social class depends entirely on genetic modifications and is often cited by critics in support of these views.
[5]
These criticisms are also voiced by
non-libertarian transhumanist advocates, especially self-described
democratic transhumanists, who believe that the majority of current or future
social and
environmental issues (such as
unemployment and
resource depletion) need to be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (like a
guaranteed minimum income and
alternative technology).
Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to
unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James
Hughes, in his 2004 book
Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, argues that
progressives or, more precisely,
techno-progressives must articulate and implement public policies (i.e., a
universal health care voucher
system that covers human enhancement technologies) in order to
attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban
human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually
worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only
to the wealthy on the local
black market or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.
[5]
Sometimes, as in the writings of
Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.
[124] In his 2002 book
Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004
Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher
Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the
world's most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of
democracy (in general) and
liberal democracy (in particular) through a fundamental alteration of "
human nature".
[8] Social philosopher
Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book
The Future of Human Nature,
in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to
another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests
that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage
genetic alteration.
[125]
Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama and a variety of authors hold that
attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently
immoral, but also threaten the
social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of
social hierarchies or place new means of
control in the hands of
totalitarian regimes.
AI pioneer
Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as
misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and
Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.
[126]
In a 2004 article in the libertarian monthly
Reason, science journalist
Ronald Bailey
contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality
has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that
liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or
de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or
de jure
equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may
well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the
many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the
crowning achievement of the
Enlightenment is the principle of
tolerance". In fact, he says, political 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.
[9] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher
Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to
tradition and what they see as
alarmism involved in
Brave New World-type arguments.
[127]
Specter of coercive eugenicism
Some critics of transhumanism see the old
eugenics,
social Darwinist, and
master race
ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what the promotion
of eugenic enhancement technologies might unintentionally encourage.
Some fear future "
eugenics wars" as the worst-case scenario: the return of coercive state-sponsored
genetic discrimination and
human rights violations such as
compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the
killing of the institutionalized and, specifically,
segregation and
genocide of
races perceived as inferior.
[128] Health law professor
George Annas and technology law professor
Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-
posthuman caste warfare.
[118][129]
The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the
coercion involved in such policies and reject the
racist and
classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the
pseudoscientific
notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a
practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding.
[130] Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "new eugenics", a form of
egalitarian liberal eugenics.
[131] In their 2000 book
From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice,
non-transhumanist bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman
Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an
obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement
technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on
individuals'
reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize
public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.
[132] Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "
germinal choice" or "
reprogenetics")
[123] to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.
Existential risks
In his 2003 book
Our Final Hour, British
Astronomer Royal Martin Rees
argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of
disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a
halt to scientific activity. Instead, he calls for tighter security and
perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.
[133] Advocates of the
precautionary principle, such as many in the
environmental 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.
[134]
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 as opposed to the
technogaian current of transhumanism, which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series
Connections,
science historian James Burke dissects several views on
technological change, 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 position is a pragmatic one where society
takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of
safe,
clean,
alternative technology, rather than fostering what it considers to be
anti-scientific views and
technophobia.
Nick Bostrom argues that even barring the occurrence of a singular
global catastrophic event, basic
Malthusian and evolutionary forces facilitated by technological progress threaten to eliminate the positive aspects of human society.
[135]
One transhumanist solution proposed by Bostrom to counter existential risks is control of
differential technological development,
a series of attempts to influence the sequence in which technologies
are developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the
development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications,
while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies,
especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of
others.
[56]
