From: Mark Walker (tap@cgocable.net)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2001 - 16:53:43 MDT
Waldemar Inghdahl wrote:
<> > > Transhumanism has everything to do with lawn chairs, microwave owens
and Pokemon collectable trading cards.
> > >
> > > If a certain technology is developed it may have many good and
practical applications, but it may also be applied in bad and impractical
ways. Technology is a venue to make humanity's problems more agreeable, but
it is not the fundamental part of transhumanism
> > >
> >
> > This is false. Without technology you cannnot transcend the
> > limits that bind us including the evolution-imposed limits to
> > our rationality and the range and breadth of our reason.
> > Technology is utterly necessary (but not sufficient) for
> > transhumanism to succeed.
>
> Like Anders Sandberg, I don't agree.
>
But, but, but.. Anders does not deny that technology is not necessary, not
at least as far as I can see. Here is the relevant part of his post on this
matter:
"I disagree. Imagine a world where no technological advance beyond
today's technology is possible. Transhumanism would still be a workable
philosophy, even if we couldn't become immortal or jupiter brains using
technology. That is because it contains more than the dream of being
posthuman: there are a lot of limits to overcome using what we have and
can create. In the limit of no technology at all trnshumanism becomes
humanism, of course. But we differ in that we see that technology and
other rational means can help us become better when they are available,
and not just the "software" of humanism such as education.
Transhumanism is often easily recognized by flashy ultratech, but I
would say that Grameen International Bank is really a transhumanist
endeavor in a very real sense - using applied sociology, economy and
mobile phone technology to empower people. "
What I think Anders is saying is that big flashy technological breakthroughs
are not necessary for the transhumanist project to succeed, not that
technology tout court was not relevant. I guess I am inclined to take the
stronger position that technology, strictly speaking, is not a necessary
condition for transhumanism. My thinking that it is at least a sufficient
condition for transhumanism that we attempt to perfect ourselves by becoming
posthuman. One means to become posthuman, it seems, is to take up Plato's
suggestion
(_The Republic_ 459-461) to selectively breed humans--which (typically) does
not require any technology. Obviously this would be the long way to becoming
posthuman, but it does show that technology is not necessary. (It may not be
as long as one might imagine either. It is interesting to think what might
have been if Plato's suggestion had been implimented in his own time.
Consider that there has been about 33 generations since Plato--allowing for
a very conservative (at least until recently) 3 generations per century--and
salmon can speciate in 13 generations simply by reproductive isolation (Cf.
Hendry, A.P., J.K. Wenburg, P. Bentzen, E.C. Volk, and T.P. Quinn. (2000).
"Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from
introduced salmon." Science 290: 516-518). It has even been argued
(controversially) that Homo sapiens speciated on a single genetic change
involving the laterilization and hemispheric specialization of the brain.
See, T. Crow (1999) Did Homo Sapiens Speciate on the Y Chromosome?"
(http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.001) (I don't believe
Crow's thesis, but it is nevertheless interesting).
If this is right, i.e., that it is logically possible to realize the
transhumanist project without technology, then it seems that ludditism and
transhumanism are not mutually exclusive. Of course to say that it is a
possible position to combine these two is not to say that it is a probable
position.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:14 MST