From: George Dvorsky (sentdev@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 08:09:53 MDT
http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/transitory_human.aspx?articleID=2002-10-09-2
The Next Great Threat to Oppression and Inequality
Transhumanism doesn't threaten human dignity, as Wesley J. Smith argues in
National Review Online, but is the logical next step for civil liberties
George Dvorsky
Betterhumans Staff
[Wednesday, October 09, 2002] "Misanthropic" was one accusation. Then there
was "science uber alles mentality" and "advance the march toward Brave New
World."
These are just a few of the ways Wesley J. Smith described the burgeoning
Transhumanist movement in his September 20, 2002 National Review Online
editorial "The Transhumanists: The Next Great Threat to Human Dignity."
And so continues the war against civil liberties, the firing shots coming
this time from the ambiguous right (Smith has worked with and is a friend of
Ralph Nader). In his editorial, Smith paints a picture of Transhumanism as a
dystopic ideology that is attempting to convert humanity into a kind of
grotesque chimera. While at the bottom of most Transhumanist to-do lists,
transgenics remains an interesting possibility in the quest to improve the
quality and potential of human life; but creating monsters is hardly on the
agenda.
This, however, is the tact that Smith chooses to use in his failed attempt
to discredit Transhumanism. He resorts to exaggeration, misrepresentation
and wild speculations. He uses slippery slope arguments and a language
intended to invoke squeamishness and Huxleyesque imagery. His editorial
becomes murkier and murkier, culminating in his introduction of animal
rights into the picture, at which point he declares the whole lot of
Transhumanists, animal rights activists and bioethicists as anti-people.
Yet, it is exactly because of this tact that it becomes hard to take Smith
seriously. Anyone who would take time to learn about Transhumanism would see
it not as a great threat to human dignity but as a movement concerned with
increasing human freedom and happiness. Smith, however, has taken a
reactionary position. And in doing so he has allied himself with historical
roadblocks to liberty and equality.
Next step in civil liberties
If Transhumanism is the "next great threat to human dignity," what have been
the previous threats?
Considering that Transhumanism is essentially a progressive libertarian
bioethic, one must consider the past one hundred years of
biologically-oriented social reforms. Civil libertarians fought against the
ownership of women and were successful in introducing women's suffrage. They
fought for the acceptance of divorce laws. They helped to abolish racial
segregation and worked to establish the acceptance of inter-racial
marriages. They struggled for gay rights and are close to seeing the
establishment of legal same-sex marriages. They advocated the use of birth
control, and continue the movement that keeps abortion legal. They helped to
eliminate alcohol prohibition, and are now working to see that soft drugs
like marijuana are decriminalized.
Today, arguing for the right to control our own bodies, some civil
libertarians have joined with the advocates of scientific freedom to combat
irrational hysteria surrounding in vitro fertilization, and continue to
support research into stem cells, therapeutic cloning and genomic and
germ-line therapies. Others are working to extend the protection of rights
to animals.
So, these have been the previous threats to human dignity? Enlightened and
progressive approaches to civil rights and freedoms?
Achieving greater human equality
Smith had the effrontery to suggest that Transhumanism is a threat to the
current state of "universal human equality." That such a thing as universal
human equality exists today is news to me. Variations in physical and
cognitive abilities permeate the human condition. But this is hardly the
issue; what guarantees human equality are normative and democratic judicial
and social systems.
Smith's declaration of human equality reveals a greater complacency to
broader social and medical issues, and should frustrate anyone striving to
see a reduction in poverty, disease, disabilities, malnutrition and
suppressive governments around the globe. Transhumanists are actively and
energetically assessing the potential for future technologies and innovative
social systems to determine how they could be utilised to improve the
quality of all life. According to James Hughes, Secretary of the World
Transhumanist Association, "Transhumanism is (or at least can be) a way to
make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of
legal and political equality, by eliminating congenital mental and physical
barriers to equality."
Another argument posed by Smith is that Transhumanism is explicitly eugenic.
Once again, Smith resorts to rhetorical scare mongering by using a socially
taboo word, the intimation being that Transhumanists are promoting
state-managed birth control. Eliezer Yudkowsky, a member of the Board of
Directors of the World Transhumanist Association, stated recently that
Transhumanists "advocate the right of individuals to define themselves
physically and psychologically using new technologies." Additionally, says
Yudkowsky, the WTA is "opposed to groups attempting to forcibly impose a
single physical and psychological definition upon the rest of the world,
including groups seeking to outlaw consensual self-transformation, and
groups espousing exclusionary, racist and hate-based views such as
eugenics."
One could alternatively read into Smith's argument an opposition to parental
control over the genetic makeup of their offspring. If this is the case,
Smith would seem to be advocating a kind of authoritarian Brave New World of
his own. Most Transhumanists believe that parents have the right to not only
have a child, but to determine its characteristics and not leave it to the
genetic roll of the dice. As Hughes has stated, "Transhumanists are for
genetic improvement of the population as the result of individual choices."
Extending human rights
Animal rights activists would be interested to know that they, along with
Transhumanists and other progressive bioethicists, have been assessed by
Smith as misanthropic. Smith's speciest and anthropocentric attitudes barely
warrant refutation; that sentient animals are deserving of greater respect
and rights is self-evident.
Moreover, the scientific evidence to back these claims is becoming stronger
with each passing year. Non-human animals are more conscious and emotional
than previously assumed. Smith's sense of morality would seem to apply to
organisms with human DNA only, a stance that I find quite irresponsible,
incompassionate and bigoted. And yet despite this, we are supposed to take
his specific brand of ethics seriously.
In total, Smith's editorial seems like a manifesto in favour of the status
quo and against increased freedom. It also demonstrates how the struggle to
guarantee and expand the rights that individuals have over their bodies
faces continued opposition.
The 21st century will be characterized by this dispute. Transhumanists have
firmly established themselves as the promoters of progressive bioethical
legislation in the tradition of civil libertarianism. If Smith's article is
any indication, however, that position will not be represented, and
refutations of Transhumanism will instead be characterized by
misinformation, hysteria and ignorance. If I'll be permitted my own literary
analogies, that's more of an Orwellian future than a Brave New World. And
it's one I don't want to live in.
=================================
George P. Dvorsky, Vice-president
Toronto Transhumanist Association
http://toronto.transhumanism.com
http://sentientdevelopments.com
george@betterhumans.com
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:29 MST