From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 16:36:57 MST
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 09:07:00AM -0800, Richard Steven Hack wrote:
>
> It has always amused me that libertarians (not accusing you of being one,
> just using this as an example of a point) that are members of the Lib Party
> tend to want to distance themselves from anarchism because they're afraid
> of being considered "kooks". The problem is - they already ARE considered
> kooks by the mainstream. They will never NOT be considered kooks by the
> mainstream. Transhumanists are in the same boat. No matter how you try to
> hide it, the basic worldview of Transhumanism is and never will be
> acceptable to the vast majority of the population - at least until actual
> concrete positive results of Transhumanist technology (especially
> substantial life extension) are actually available at a reasonable price to
> everyone.
Are our ideas and goals served by ignoring what other people think about
us or even ignoring them? I would say definitely no to that. In fact,
this tendency to regard "us" transhumanists as the enlightened few who
"get" it and the rest as either uneducated, mistaken or a luddite
opposition is one of the factors keeping transhumanist ideas from
becoming mainstream. If you have already decided the others won't get
it, you will not think much about ways of helping them get it. If you
regard them as irrelevant, you also end up regarding their economic,
political and research impact as irrelevant. Sure, stuff we like may be
developed by other people, but if transhumanists do not spread their
ideas the development will be aimed by other memes - memes that most
likely will be against transhumanist ideals.
Saying technology is the driver puts the cart in front of the horse. It
leaves out the circular interplay of technology and culture, and makes
for a simplistic view that technology will advance of its own and that
it will create a cultural climate amenable to the things we desire.
Reading up on the history of technology and ideas is a good way of
dispelling this simple view.
I have just arrived home from a meeting where I and two fellow
transhumanists presented our latest book. Not a book obviously screaming
"transhumanism is good! hack your genes!" but instead showing how the
debate about genetic engineering have developed the last 30 years and
what we can learn from it so that the upcoming debate about
nanotechnology and other radical technologies will not become the
polarized mess we currently find ourselves in. It was well received by a
fairly broad bunch of reasonably influential Swedish decisionmakers,
businesspeople and journalists - exactly the mainstream we seek to
influence in order to get towards a transhuman society. A small step in
the right direction, slowly building a case that will help people
integrate ideas of technological transformation into their worldview.
But for this to work we have to dress in suits and ties, learn to
explain why freedom, technology and progress are good things and show
that our vision is not just realistic but also the right thing to do.
> Those who wish to preserve the "humanism" "in" Transhumanism (as
> I implied with my Gnostic reference in another post, there isn't any
> humanism in it, despite whatever 1930's social movements existed) are
> doomed to failure, because Transhumanism is at its heart a philosophy - and
> especially an attitude - of *transcending* human nature to a *non-human*
> nature. And as I pointed out in my "fight or flight" comments, human
> nature (for most people) *cannot* accept the idea that *anyone* is better
> able to survive than they. It is a primitive, I suspect hard-wired (for
> most people) response in the brain based on our primate competitive
> heritage and our evolved reaction to our ability to imagine and
> conceptually understand our own death (which I don't believe animals can
> do).
I disagree. You are mixing up the two senses the word human can be used
in: as denoting homo sapiens, and as denoting the important parts of
rational subjects. If you look at the original humanist ideas, you will
find that they are not dependent on the subjects to belong to the
species homo sapiens - that is just implicitely assumed since there were
no ๓ther examples around. Pico Della Mirandola's discussion of human
dignity suggests as a fundamental human trait our ability to change
ourselves according to our will and knowledge. I hardly expect that you
seek to remove that trait from yourself as a posthuman. The humanist
concept of human is rather an entity with rational abilities, that acts
as a free moral subject and has the potential to grow - it could just as
well apply to AIs, aliens or uplifted animals.
If you regard transhumanism as a move away from humanity, it would be
interesting to hear what you consider it as a move *towards*, and why
that move is desirable for human individuals.
> Transhumanists are people who, for some reason, either don't have that
> reaction (because our genes skipped that one maybe) or have consciously
> identified and overcome it. Such people are at absolute odds with the rest
> of the human race. And trying to change those odds will not work (barring
> nanotech to directly change everybody else's brain structure - which could
> happen, I suppose.)
So I guess you don't believe in Christian transhumanists? :-)
I think assuming transhumanists to be genetically different or the
result of some special revelation overthrowing the illusions plaguing
the rest of humanity is quite premature. It is just a convenient and
self-congratulatory way of isolating oneself. Assuming this you don't
need to spread your ideas to other people (either they save themselves
or they are automatically lost). Combined with the idea that people will
become transhumanists when enough transhuman tech has appeared it means
you can just sit around waiting for the rapture - there is no point in
doing anything outwards, not even in enlightened self-interest.
I consider this to be a serious mistake. In the past many other groups
have reached roughly similar ideas - the Czech communists in the late
30's, the objectivists, plenty of cults - and the results have been
generally disastrous. The groups that ended up controlling the meme pool
were those who talked to people, that got involved in society and
articulated their visions.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:49 MST