A Transumanist Loses That New Time Religion
Well, this is refreshing: Transhumanist and now former James Hughes disciple Justice De Thezier, has made a New Year's Resolution to "quit transhumanism." In the blog Cyborg Democracy, De Thezier, the founder of the Quebec Transhumanist Association seems to have recognized that transhumanism is something of a quasi-religion rather than a truly rational philosphy. He writes:
Transhumanism is a rather desperate pipe dream that, ironically, replaces the role of religion for many of its "rationalist" adherents. Good for De Thezier for seeing that truth and deciding to pursue other agendas....[H]aving invested so much time and energy in promoting transhumanism--and, let's be honest, having been seduced by the siren songs of a ''posthuman future''--I came to the awkward realization that I, a self-professed free and critical thinker, had willingly blinded myself to the flaws of transhumanism, which I became increasingly aware were *inherencies* that undermine any diversity of views or ''leftist awakening'' among transhumanists:
1. An uncritical support for technology in general and fringe science in particular;
2. A distortive ''us vs. them'' tribe-like mentality and identity; and,
3. A vulnerability to unrealistic utopian and dystopian ''future hype''.
After spending a year as the self-appointed yet half-hearted ''devil's advocate'' of the WTA, not only have I come to the conclusion that it is quite quixotic to think I or any lone individual can do anything to change what a prominent transhumanist has called ''the minimum constituents without which this ideology would not be what it is'', without being falsely accused of trying to ''reduce diversity'' or, worse, ''thought police''; but I've decided to quit transhumanism.
Labels: Transhumanism
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:51 PM
13 Comments
13 Comments:
Wesley, you regularly criticize Transhumanism without providing substance to justify your criticisms. In this case, what is it about Transhumanism that you consider to be a pipe dream, and why do you believe it to be a pipe dream? Also, when you say it's a pipe dream, do you say that in a manner analogous to how a human living 300 years ago might have described our contemporary world as a pipe dream? Or do you mean that you know the expectations of Transhumanism are simply impossible? I am confident that your criticisms of Transhumanism would be more valuable if they were less indiscriminate.
Lincoln: I have done that in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World and in articles. But briefly:
1. It is a pipedream because the technologies will never happen to permit us to upload our brains into computers, nor will we ever become close to immmortal.
2.It is eugenic in that it presumes the right to modify progeny genetically and in other ways to meet the desires of parents.
3. It is eugenic, because it presumes that some human attributes are superior and make for better humans.
4. It is a quasi-religion among materialists.
5. It is sad, and as Mr. de Thezier finally realized, it is unrealistically utopian.
That's a start. Thanks, Lincoln.
Wesley, what is your evidence for #1? It sounds like these:
http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/lincoln_cannon/archive/2007/07/11/3212.aspx
. . . yet may prove no more accurate. Given scientific and technological trends, there is reason to suppose our future is not so limited as you appear to be suggesting.
#2 is controversial among Transhumanists, and hardly the simple presumption you claim.
Regarding #3, some human attributes are more desired than others -- and therefore better to those who desire them. That's simply true, and even you must believe that (whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not) or you would not be writing the kind of blog you're writing.
I agree with #4. Are you suggesting that the quasi-religious aspect of Transhumanism is justification for calling Transhumanism a pipe dream? Is that your perspective on religion generally?
What is your evidence for #5? I suspect it's insufficient. Most Transhumanists I know are no sadder than normal, and many seem more optimistic than normal. That said, I know of no Transhumanist that regards the future with a naive utopian idealistic perspective. To the contrary, Transhumanists are among the most vocal advocates of recognizing and mitigating the extraordinary risks presented by emerging technology. For example, see the Lifeboat Foundation, which is a Transhumanist organization.
The burden is on transhumanists to demonstrate that these technologies can be developed and moreover, that it is desireable to do so. One of my beefs with deGray is that he advocated taking money from medical care for poor African to fund his anti-aging research. Children are dying of malaria, for goodness sake! Our priorities lie elsewhere than keeping us here in the world past our use-by date.
I am not against religion. But transhumanists tend to disparage faith based views and deem themselves rational and materialistic.
I didn't say transhumanists were sad. I have said that transhumanism is sad because it finds human life so inadequate. And utopians are bound to either be disappointed or turn to drastic means to obtain the ends that will never be found. I think that transhumanists will never turn violent, but many will grow very discouraged. I think the essay I linked to is the first of many.
Now, why not respond to what the former transhumanist had to say.
Ok, I am someone disillusioned with transhumanism now. I do not think radical life extension and uploading is possible.
However, I think cloning should be pursued. I want clones of Paul Krugman as he seems to be the only rational person around here. (just kidding)
I am starting to dislike de Grey, but I do appreciate his naming of his talk "Our Right to Life." That commment from de Grey disgusts me.
"1. It is a pipedream because the technologies will never happen to permit us to upload our brains into computers, nor will we ever become close to immmortal."
Is this no just as presumptuous as the transhuman saying they will happen and soon ? How can you know. I understand you inclination may be to ask me how do i know transhumanism's prognostications. I would be unable to do to do that. That would also be a Red-herring. If you claim to know our future what is the mechanism for your precognition?
People have in the past claimed technologies will never be possible. Powered flight, space travel, coupling with objects orbiting our planet. The very fact of saying a technology will not occur, or will occur is not sufficient predictor of if it will or not. On that particular set of opposing claims both the bioconservative and the transhuman are overly presumptuous.
" 2.It is eugenic in that it presumes the right to modify progeny genetically and in other ways to meet the desires of parents.
3. It is eugenic, because it presumes that some human attributes are superior and make for better humans."
on number 3 and 2: this is fact. Some attributes are superior. Intelligence provides more opportunities as does athletic ability. Beauty is more heavily valued by our species then lack-therof. Evidence of this can be found in statistical studies of beauty and hiring/ payroll practices of certain companies. If your intention is to push a natural agenda then you must realize beauty was imperative for human survival as a "honest signal" from 1 individual to another to demonstrate it's fitness. If you wish to ignore this and try to dilute it with compassion your in a sense pushing a transhumanist agenda yourself as you are trying to force humans to transcend their biological instincts that are very hard-wired. You are in a absolute sense trying to move humans away from their natural human state.Therefore for a parent to "desire" beautiful children or smart children is wanting what is best for them.
I don't consider myself a transhumanist. Some of what they say i agree with, some of it seems excessivly opitimistic as you and the article author stated. I must agree that human life is inadequate though. If i can explain my fears about life; it is that it's to short and that youth and fitness levels decline. I don't liek the prospect of slowly become less phsycially capable. If you find that particular fear of mine saddening then your unhappyness must be legendary when contemplating the beauty industry ( which is tasked with making people look younger). This just posted on the front of yahoo news as i was typing http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1699744,00.html. Artciles like this are not uncommen. The fitness industry which strives to preserve the function of the body and health must also provoke intense misery.
From waht i read in the De Thezier's article he was tired of the confrontational role he was placed in as well as being used as a recruitment tool. His intentions were to "contribute to the social struggle to democratize the costs, risks and benefits of new technologies" rather then be subjugated to this tactically defensive role. Without a doubt this is a fair reason to bow-out but i don't see where he reviles or discourages the advance of biotech other then saying the calculation of development is excessivly unrealistic.
hrk: Very interesting. Does the blog entry I linke resonate with you? If so, how?
FMJ: Because we value beauty more highly does not make it a superior attribute. It may be our valuing that is the problem. Our obession with beauty these days is a destructive force it seems to me.
But I didn't post this to argue with transhumanists. I want your opinion on the blog entry and what the former transhumanist had to say about his reasons for leaving the movement.
You might be intersted in an article I just posted titled, Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity. It's located here.
Re: "I have said that transhumanism is sad because it finds human life so inadequate"
Why sad? I find it beautiful. Those who find human life inadequate will make it better. I have seen people sick, unhappy, helpless, and dead. THIS IS SAD.
Lincoln said: "Wesley, you regularly criticize Transhumanism without providing substance to justify your criticisms. In this case, what is it about Transhumanism that you consider to be a pipe dream, and why do you believe it to be a pipe dream?"
January 09, 2008
Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...
"Lincoln: I have done that in Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World and in articles. But briefly:
1. It is a pipedream because the technologies will never happen to permit us to upload our brains into computers, nor will we ever become close to immmortal."
Based on what evidence?
I speak as someone who has no particular brief in favor of transhumanism, but who has had some experience with the relevant technologies.
What makes you think that, say, superconducting quantum interference detector technology won't evolve into a tool that could read the state of every neuron in the human brain and generate a useful model of an individual's neural net - thus "uploading" that person?
The issue isn't a matter of fundamental impossibility, but of insufficient computer processing and data transfer bandwidth, and insufficient understanding of how matter behaves when brought to the state where its quantum properties can be modified. In other words, we're waiting for Moore's Law to catch up with what we'd like to do with computers.
The most dangerous statement that even someone highly conversant with current technology can make is "That can't be done." Vannevar Bush (FDR's consultant on defense technology during World War II) said it about ICBMs, Admiral Leahy said it about nuclear weapons, and IBM once stated that the future market for computers would top out at something under ten units. There's nothing quite like expert testimony on what can't possibly happen.
Because August, the burden isn't on me. You have no evidence any of that will or can happen. It is a fantasy.
Transhumanists can dream on if they wish. And private money can be put into it if it wishes. But I don't think we should put a dime of public money chasing windmills when there are pressing present needs.
I meant, because Colorado. Synapse failure. Sorry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home