From: Nick Bostrom (bostrom@ndirect.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 20 1998 - 16:39:27 MDT
Thanks for all the answer-suggestions that have been posted. I'm
collecting the tidbits. Now we turn to:
TRANSHUMANISM AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND CULTURAL VIEWPOINT
What are transhumanism's philosophical and cultural antecedents, and
how is it distinguished from other, similar ideas?
Me: The FAQ discussion is also taking place on the transhuman list,
and I posted something there today that is relevant to this question.
I paste it at the end of this messege. The other suggested answers
below are ones that Henri Kluytmans posted earlier:
What prominent thinkers are associated with transhumanism?
Is transhumanism a cult/religion?
-It is definitely not a cult. Although it is not a religion it
seems to fill the same niche in our mind as religion does.
Won't things like uploading, cryonics and AI fail because
they can't preserve or create the soul?
-Experiments and accidents (electro-stimulation, drugs, damage,
surgery) show that almost all aspects of the human "spirit" (i.e.
mind) can be linked to physical locations or physical processes in the
brain. This leads to the strong assumption that the "spirit" is
completely stored only in the physical matter of the brain.
-Almost all neuro-biologists agree that the complex behavior displayed
by the network of connections between the neurons is sufficient to
explain the emergence of the human mind.
Is there transhumanist art?
[Natasha, open the floodgates!]
============
Erik wrote:
> > What I want, in order to call something a definition, is a
> > necessary and sufficient condition: x is a transhumanist if and
> > only if x is D. With D="Seeks to improve the human condition by
> > rational means." the definition fails, since there are
> > counterexamples -- all non-transhumanist humanists for example.
>
> If all non-transhumanist humanists would be working on improving the
> human condition by objectively rational means, we would not need
> transhumanism. But this is obviously not the case. There are often
> certain philosophical core beliefs which cannot be rationally
> argued. Transhumanism's main point should be to slaughter all sacred
> cows.
Make cat food out of unproductive pensioners? ;-) It's good and well
that transhumanism is iconoclastic, but that's not really all we are
about. Many people are doing that (especially teenagers). We're also
trying to develop a constuctive alternative. But many
non-transhumanists think they are doing that too.
What sets us apart, I think, is our view that technology will
dramatically transform things in the not-too-distant future and that
it is basically a very good idea to apply science and technology to
overcome human mental and physical limits - to become posthuman. That
is what I take to be the essense of transhumanism.
Transhumanists are also, on the whole, humanists, which is a more
inclusive concept (just as extropians are transhumanists). As
humanists, we believe that humans should be allowed to develop their
full human capacities and that we should apply rational methods to
improve the human condition rather than expecting that some deity will
do the job for us. From humanism we also inherit, I think, the idea
that divisions based on race, nationality, religion etc. are secondary
and that primarily we are humans and should strive to cooperate
internationally for peace and prosperity. Tolerance, freedom of
thought and speech, human rights, believing in the importance of both
art and science, and the ideal of "one world" are other core humanist
values that transhumanists share.
So I think if you look at how secular humanists define their
philosophy you will find that "improving the human condition with
rational means" does not really capture what sets us apart, what makes
us distinct from non-transhumanist secular humanists. Even though it
might on some occasions be a useful rethorical ploy to define our
position as a truism, I think it is better if we are upright in
describing what we are.
(Also, if we are hoping to be taken seriously by academics, you can't
hope to get away with "improving the human condition with rational
means"! You'd be laughed to pieces by any philosopher, for example, or
more likely you'd just be ignored.)
_____________________________________________________
Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics
n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:22 MST