From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2000 - 14:42:43 MST
Nick Bostrom wrote:
> Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
> >there are a heck
> >of a lot of transhumans who are technocratic, socialist, fascist,
> >liberal democrats, conserative republicans, etc. (This is not name
> >calling; most of those who are, for example, transhuman fascists
> >self-identify that way.)
>
> You could be a transhumanist of any of those brands (although some are more
> likely than others) but NOT a fascist one. There has been considerable
> discussion about this and the general view was (correctly IMO) that fascism
> is logically incompatible with transhumanism. To see this we must
> understand (1) our roots in humanism, and (2) the strong emphasis that
> transhumanism places on individual choice.
Responding to this post puts me in a difficult position. I must
preface my claims by pointing out a couple of facts:
1) I consider myself to be a transhumanist; I agree with a literal
interpretation of all of the articles in the Transhumanist
Declaration.
2) I'm not a fascist.
The reason that I must preface these claims is that I'm about to argue
that somebody could be a transhumanist and be a fascist, and, in doing
so, I'll suggest the sort of arguments that a fascist might make in an
attempt to show that he really is a transhumanist. Since these are
the sort of arguments that a fascist would make, they will obviously
be positive towards fascism.
I do not believe that these arguments are correct. I merely intend to
show that someone could consistently hold them, could be an honest
fascist transhumanist.
> Regarding (1), consider the final clause in the Transhumanist Declaration
> (http://www.transhumanism.com/declaration.htm):
>
> "Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in
> artificial intellects, humans, non-human animals, or possible
> extraterrestrial species) and encompasses many principles of modern secular
> humanism."
>
> Suppression of one group by another clearly violates the "well-being of all
> sentience" clause. Moreover, if you read any summary of secular humanism
> (you can find several on the web) you will see that it is totally contrary
> to fascist policies. (I know of just one instance of a self-ascribed
> "fascist transhumanist" and he is simply misusing the term "transhumanist"
> just as much as if someone called himself a "fascist extropian".)
While I happen to agree with Article 7 of the Transhumanist
Declaration, I assert that it is not part of what it is essentially to
be a humanist or a transhumanist to respect non-human animal
sentience. Indeed, many self-ascribed secular humanists emphasize the
absolute priority of human sentience over animal sentience. (I'm sure
they didn't even consider artificial sentience or extraterrestrial
sentience.)
Fascists have a notoriously restricted sense of what it is to be truly
human. They have been known to sterilize persons with "genetic
impurities" and to enslave and imprision those whom they considered
"subhuman." We find this position appalling, but fascists do not.
A fascist with a consistent restricted sense of what it is to be
"human" may argue that the domination of one race over another is
characteristic of the "human" character of one race relative to the
other less evolved or mutant race. Were the fascist correct about
this definition of "humanity," it would be no less implausible to
expect a humanist fascist than to expect a humanist who believed that
it was the right of humanity to dominate over horses, cattle, sheep,
etc.
Again, this fascist argument is wrong, but saying so amounts to saying
that fascism is wrong, not that it is inconsistent with
(trans)humanism.
> Regarding (2), see e.g the following section from the FAQ
> (http://www.transhumanist.org/#ethical)
>
> "Is there any ethical standard by which transhumanists judge "improvement
> of the human condition"?
>
> Transhumanism is compatible with a variety of ethical systems, and
> transhumanists themselves hold many different views. Nonetheless, the
> following seems to constitute a common core of agreement:
>
> According to transhumanists, the human condition has been improved if the
> conditions of individual humans have been improved. In practice, the
> individual is usually the judge of what is good for himself or herself.
> Therefore, transhumanists advocate individual freedom, especially the moral
> right for those who so wish to do to use technology to extend their mental
> and physical capacities and to improve their control over their own lives.
>
> From this perspective, an improvement to the human condition is a change
> that gives increased opportunity for individuals to shape themselves and
> their lives according to their informed wishes. Notice the word "informed".
> It is important that people are aware of what they are choosing between.
> Education, freedom of information, information technology, idea futures,
> and potentially intelligence amplification, can help people make choices
> that are more informed. (Idea futures is a proposed market where people
> would place bets on uncertain scientific hypotheses or predictions about
> the future, thus encouraging an honest consensus. Hanson (1990).)"
Even under a relatively normal definition of what it is to be human,
fascists usually also have (incorrect) consequentialist arguments in
favor of genocide and racial slavery, arguments that most individuals
benefit more than minorities are harmed by fascism. They might argue
that a tiny minority ("the Jews," for example,) has the character of
making life considerably worse for the rest of human society, and that
punishing members of this racial minority is as justifiable on the
grounds of human welfare as the punishment of a human criminal for his
crimes: though the criminal is human, punishing criminals makes life
better for all the rest of us.
This fascist argument is wrong. Although punishing criminals does
make us better off, harming minority groups does not improve human
welfare. But if you believed that it did, you might consistently
argue that you do support the welfare of all of humanity, even under a
relatively normal definition of humanity, but insist that striking out
against racial minorities is good for the welfare of individuals.
> - It's worth emphasizing that just because transhumanism does not include
> something per definition, that doesn't mean that denying it is a reasonable
> thing to do for any individual transhumanist. For example, nothing in
> transhumanism implies that the Earth is round, so in principle you could be
> a flat-earth-transhumanist. That would not be contradictory, just very
> stupid. Similarly with some political beliefs. It would be a mistake, IMO,
> to try to bake every reasonable belief into the definition of
> transhumanism. That way lies dogma and futile system-building. Much better
> to see transhumanism for what it is - an evolving body of views and values
> relating to some of the issues raised to the prospect of radical human
> enhancement technologies.
I agree with this. Returning to my original point that transhumanism
is not extropic except to the extent that individual transhumanists
promote extropic ends, I think that we should be clear that being a
transhuman you can believe in a lot of silly things. Extropy is a
relatively filled out point of view relative to transhumanism, so
while we should expect some overlap of extropy and transhumanism, we
should also expect some area of the transhumanist circle not to
overlap in any way with Extropianism.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:20 MST