Coup de Culture Alert: Wanting to be "Extraordinary" Without Working for It
From time to time I have pointed out the sad yearning so many seem to feel that their lives would not seem so lacking if only they could somehow be extraordinary--without having to actually work to achieve anything special. This desire is often the basis of movies and television shows (wonderfully explored in the provocative television program The 4400, which I reviewed here). It is the reason for the popularity for on line computer games like Second Life, and is the core dogma of religious transhumanism, where a gene modification here, or a cyber implant there, will make one immortal, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, you get the drift.
Even as millions of children still die in destitution from diseases like malaria and measles, malnutrition, dirty water, etc., we in the decadent West are pouring fortunes into the effort to enable anyone to become extraordinary without personal effort. This phenomenon is discussed in an interesting column published by futurist Andy Miah in the Guardian, who notes that the European Parliament has appointed a commission--is that all we ever do anymore?--to look into the ethics and science of enhancement. (Right, like the EU Parliament would ever enact any meaningful regulation even if it had the power.)
Miah's main purpose in writing is to take a deeper look at where all of this is leading. One problem I see is that the desperate yearning to attain--as opposed to achieve--extra-ordinariness is beginning to distort the purposes of medicine, from a healing/palliating/wellness promoting profession into a lifestyle-enabling technocracy. Miah gets that too and asks an important question. From his piece:
Meanwhile the US has gradually been transforming health care into enhancement care and, perhaps by implication, losing sight of basic healthcare needs. In a world that is increasingly concerned about technological domination and dependence, we are becoming enhancement junkies. We nip here, tuck there, whiten our teeth, reduce the width of our waists, and even go on game shows for the chance of winning expensive, invasive cosmetic surgery. What is it that people seek by undergoing such transformations?
I am not sure, but I suspect that many people have a black hole in their souls where community, or God, or tradition used to be, and they are desperate to fill it.Miah has his own ideas--to more easily become wealthier, to become more attractive to gain romance, etc.--which are true too, of course, but I think are part of my black hole theory, not distinct from it.
Is this cause for concern? I say absolutely on a number of levels; from misplaced priorities (see children dying from measles), to a concern about what easy extra-ordinariness could do to self motivation, the problem of escapism becoming the cake instead of the frosting, unintended consequences (we are the species that built the unsinkable ship Titanic) etc.
With a few reservations, Miah is far more enthusiastic, his main concern being that enhancement could result in a boring sameness:
The kinds of enhancements we must seek for humanity should not lead us towards a world where we all aspire to look the same as each other, which is a criticism often levelled at the cosmetic surgery industry. Rather, we should encourage human enhancements that amplify human variation. That's what I expect from human enhancement technologies and this is what humanity excels in, as the history of fashion reveals.But if that trap can be avoided, Miah yearns for a "culture of enhancement":
Once we have expanded the options as far as possible, we will be able to observe how the choices of technological enhancement are as rich and complex as the choices we make about other aspects of our identity.It always gets down to me-me/I-I in this field, doesn't it? The human enhancement agenda is really just solipsism run amok.
This is all part of the coup de culture, in which a utopian hedonism drives us, like a drug addiction, to ever more radical attempts to find the "high," as our growing collective neurosis about suffering threatens to impose a deadly eugenic utilitarianism upon the weak and vulnerable who can't keep up. It is precisely what Huxley warned against in Brave New World.
Labels: Coup de Culture: Human Enhancement. Transhumanism. Andy Miah.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:14 AM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
Wesley, you've mischaracterized religious transhumanism. I know many self-identifying religious transhumanists (in fact, I probably know more of them than anyone else in the world). Nearly without exception, each will tell you that hard work and compassion are central aspects of his world view.
Lincoln: I wasn't saying individual transhumanists don't have compassion. I would never say that. I was saying that transhumanism is part of a destructive coup de culture.
Here is a transhumanist who agrees with me.http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/03/wesley-j-smith-on-the-coup-de-culture
I think your being anal-retentive. A lot of transhumanism is a load of hype (especially the stuff about AI and the singularity). However, people do have a fundamental right to bodily autonomy and to do what they want with themselves, as long as they do not cause harm or make themselves into a burden for the rest of us.
You might not approve of some choices that people may make. However, it is a personal, private matter that is not a legitimate subject of public debate. There is a clear distinction between the private and the public. Making a political issue out of my personal life choices is an offensive intrusion into my privacy.
You need to back off and chill out.
I agree with Michael's assessment that a change in culture is happening. I disagree with your assessment, Wesley, that this change in culture will be entirely destructive. No doubt: there are transhumanists with destructive world views. However, you called out religious transhumanists in particular, and my experience is that such transhumanists do not resemble your characterization of them, either individually or ideologically. My experience is more varied with secular transhumanists, but even there I would say that the majority do not match your characterization.
kurt9: Anal retentive I may be, but these are important issues to discuss. Some of the areas are legitimate areas of public policy, such as transhumanism's goal of engineering embryos to order. Some are not, such as the poor fellow depicted in the photo. Whether to spend a dime of tax money on this is worth debating, as is whether to try and convince philanthropies not to fund it. And that's just the beginning.
So, there's a lot to discuss, whether you like it or not.
There is a distinction between public and private in definition, but in certain aspects of community life, it is harder to pinpoint.
So-called "personal" behavior nearly always has some effect on how one interacts with others, to start with.
And interstingly, it is the public agitation for the right to do as you please in private that has brought such discussions into community discourse.
I think that it's important to recognize what Wesley is talking about-governments are spending money on this crap while people starve and die of treatable illnesses.
I don't want anything to do with anyone with a tattoo or a piercing. I don't think women should pierce their ears, either. As if not losing an earring is more important than one's physical integrity. It's horrifying, and that's how stupid people are and have been for millenia. If we don't think the human body is perfect as it is and not to be tampered with, there IS something wrong with us. YOU DON'T SEE NON-HUMAN ANIMALS BEING IDIOTS LIKE THAT, NOW, DO YOU? SHOW THEM THEY RESPECT THEY DESERVE -- MORE THAN A LOT OF US DO.
Wesley, I agree with you that the reproductive issues such as cloning and genetic engineering of kids is a legitimate matter of public debate. I may not agree with your positions on these issues, but I do acknowledge that they are legitimate. My criticism of you is directed exclusively to your criticisms of what competent adults do to themselves.
Perhaps I am confused over what you mean by "enhancement". I usually interpret this phrase as something that adults do to themselves, like methods of healthy life extension or these so-called "smart" pills (I think these are a load of bull, but that's a discussion for another day). By reading your response to my previous comment, you obviously include all of the repro-genetics stuff under the rubric of "enhancement". If this is true, then I stand corrected from my previous comments.
However, in matters of what competent adults do to themselves (like healthy health extension), such is entirely a private matter. Now, debates over public funding of these technologies is, of course, a subject of public debate. But, in general, what competent adults do to themselves is a private matter and a concept of "bodily autonomy".
Kurt9: I have generally stated that I don't care if adults want to become purple people eaters. But there are caveats. For example, I don't think their self modifications should be allowed to change the germ line. I don't think that taxpayer money should be spent on it, and I don't think it should be a matter covered by health insurance. I also think that human experimentation rules should apply.
Most of my objections, beyond the embryo issues--thanks for your reasonableness there--have to do with the eugenic values of transhumanism, and my belief it is mostly a pipe dream.
Wesley, generally I got no problem with that.
Radical life extension is going to be real. But I think of the rest of transhumanism is a fantasy.
Wesley, with regards to eugenics, we transhumanists are the least of your concerns. If were you, I would be much more concerned about the trend towards socialized medicine. Socialized medicine effectively puts the taxpayer on the financial hook for the health care of other peoples' kids. This gives the taxpayer a big time incentive to ensure that only "healthy" kids are born. By making me the keeper of my brother, you make it so that I want ensure who my brother is.
I think we both really don't want to go down this path.
Kurt9: You will get no arguments from me. I have been worrying that issue much more than transhumanism.
Although, when I saw Aubrey de Gray lecture, he said that money should be given to his research instead of for health care in Africa. I found that, to say the least, disturbing.
Wow, Wesley. Did you get that on tape?
No, but I wrote about it contemporary with the event:Her's the blog entry. www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/06/catman-cometh.html
I also wrote it up for the Weekly Standard, but the site is down at the moment so I can't link.
It seems healthy to me to leave well enough alone. We shouldn't mess with the other animals in laboratories and we shouldn't mess with ourselves. It's not enough to rejoice in being what one is, and in being alive? It takes discipline and patience to act with wisdom. Transhumanism, like vivisection, shows a lack of self-respect.
Gee, Wesley, I just wish SHS understood how vivisection was the precursor to the coup de culture.
Although, when I saw Aubrey de Gray lecture, he said that money should be given to his research instead of for health care in Africa. I found that, to say the least, disturbing.With regard to public finance, you may be right. However, I got to tell you that I'd be lying if I were to say that I don't have a vested interest in the financing of Aubrey de Grey's SENS research.
We shouldn't mess with the other animals in laboratories and we shouldn't mess with ourselves.See, there's a slight problem. We've been made with a finite shelf-life, and that's entirely unacceptable.
Kurt: Well, I find it acceptable, as you just said, we WERE made; we didn't make ourselves or set the terms. I'm not religious, just logical.
Yeah? Well, I'm a tough customer.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home