It could be considered as yet another expression of technofetishism. It could be considered a marginal phenomenon, one of many in postmodern times. It could, in extreme manifestations, be considered delusion. It could be ignored, especially under the conditions of the global crisis.
However, this intellectual, technological, ideological (and ultimately political) current called transhumanism that has been making some noise internationally for quite a few years now, is interesting. For many reasons. Even because it is not necessary (as a “current”) in the evolving paradigm shift (see another reference in this issue), and yet it condenses and publicly expresses many of its characteristics.
Here, for example, are some enthusiastic remarks from a priest of this techno-religion, from 4 years ago [1]:
Human technology is an invaluable phenomenon. It is something that grows exponentially: for every step we take, our next steps are even more significant and easier to achieve.
Our inventions are all around us, every day, making every aspect of life easier. Some say this is something frightening. I am a futurist; I consider it invaluable.
…
Here is a plan that is even more exciting than human technology: human technology. Which means, putting technology inside human beings.
Transhumanism, as it is known, is the process of enhancing our selves with high technology; the state where technology is not simply an extension of ourselves – as a smartphone might be – but part of ourselves.
In shorter terms, futurists refer to transhumanism as H+ or humanity plus. Just two symbols are enough to indicate that technology can make us better than we are.the fathers of metamodernism
Transhumanism, an issue so deeply rooted in most of today’s high technology, has ancient origins… Since the time of the biblical tree of life, human literature has been full of examples of the desire to become something superior to what we are.
In the 19th century, the Russian philosopher Fyodorov wrote about the possibility that science, one day, might allow us to become immortal or to resurrect the dead. His views sparked many discussions, which were as hopeful as they were fantastic, but for the first time, they were notably serious.
In 1923, the geneticist J.B.S. Haldane wrote that any progress in genetics and technology applied to humans would be ugly, unnatural, and blasphemous. From some perspectives, he was right. More time has been spent on the ethical side of human enhancement than on creating the relevant technologies.
…
It was Julian Huxley – brother of the famous science fiction writer Aldous – who first used the term transhuman, defining it as “man remaining man but transcending himself by discovering new possibilities and potentials beyond his human nature.” The following decade brought a new definition (transhumanism as a transition to a state beyond human) that sparked discussions in academic circles.
In the following years, transhumanism has entered discussions about artificial intelligence and the Singularity by prominent figures in these fields, such as Marvin Minsky and Ray Kurzweil among others. Kurzweil, who outside his circle of supporters is more famous for his views on the Singularity, believes that transhumanism is a cornerstone toward human immortality.The ideas of transhumanism and posthumanism are closely intertwined. The posthuman condition is the destination: humans transform their nature through various means—technological, spiritual, genetic. The posthuman condition has much in common with the idea of the Übermensch, a philosophical concept of Nietzsche’s, which can be traced in many ways: racially by the Nazis, eugenically in much of the related philosophy, and through technology.
If the posthuman condition is the destination, then transhuman is the journey. The term refers to people who adopt the technologies and ideologies that lead to posthumanity, becoming transitional: between what we will eventually become and what we are now.
…
But there are people who already live as transhumans today, and the quality of their lives (and in some cases their very lives) can be attributed to posthuman technological capabilities.
If one looks back and considers the good these technologies have done for people—people you may know personally—the fog dissipates immediately. For many people, for the families of those who were deaf and now hear thanks to cochlear implants, or for the families of those with severe heart conditions who live thanks to their pacemakers, these specific devices exist. They are not wishes or hopes. And that is a reason for joy and optimism.
The cochlear implant is an invaluable invention. Indeed, it is a poor substitute for true hearing… But it is an invaluable invention because, in relation to hearing, it directly connects to the nervous system to send electrical signals from sound to the brain. Even if it does so in a less than satisfactory way today, it is a step toward something even better. This expensive implant is intended for those who are completely deaf or very close to becoming so. If they want to hear, there is nothing else. The impressive thing is that they are often able to have conversations with each other and hear one another without any other assistance.Imagine what such devices will look like in a few years. In Star Trek, Next Generation, Geordi La Forge is a blind engineer who uses a “visual processor” to see. This device does not replace the lack of human vision, as is done with the cochlear implant and hearing. It allows him to see spectra of light that are outside normal human vision. When will these auditory implants improve so as to extend the spectrum of human hearing beyond what is naturally possible even with the best ears?
I would not be surprised if I see something like this before the end of my life.We have seen a wave of transhuman development in recent years. Australian researchers this year created a technology that allows people with disabilities to operate a computer. In 2004, a quadriplegic received a chip implanted in his brain that allows him to open his emails and play games solely through his thoughts. This development means that people like him will soon be able to write answers to the emails they receive.
After 40 years of academic fervor and debates regarding the concept of transhumanism, we don’t need to wait any longer. We see it happening.
…
Hymns—and a large part of the stereotypes commonly used in advertising campaigns of this kind. Here’s one. Because the announcement of the brand new world may encounter reservations, objections, or even cause fears (justified or unjustified—that’s a matter of personal opinion), a psycho-ideological trick is employed. Don’t worry, this is old news, it started a long time ago… So, this brand new world is nothing more than what you always wanted; or, if not you, others… Wow! Since the time of Adam and Eve, haven’t we wanted immortality? Huh? (And that meddling fellow took it away for one measly apple!)
Immortality, which seems to greatly preoccupy supporters of transhumanism, has a vast religious past, and not only in monotheistic religions. We’ll return to it briefly later on. First, there are other characteristics of transhumanism, much more earthly and secular.
Initially, transhumanism, whether in its “transitional” version of transhumanism or in its final form of posthumanism, involves almost the entire spectrum of cutting-edge technologies, and not just information technology / cybernetics. There is a particular emphasis on biotechnology and genetics, but material technologies are also needed, and so on.
Among the “eponymous” figures of transhumanism, which as an ideological and technological movement has existed for approximately 25 years1, one encounters three types of people (who obviously hope to become the first transhumans): specialized technicians in various fields of cutting-edge technologies, from neuroscience, consciousness studies2, and various branches of genetics, to robotics, information technologies, and cybernetics. Secondly, “high-risk” entrepreneurs ready to fund “bold ideas” in technological applications, under the condition (not always certain) that they will make much more money subsequently. And thirdly, journalists, “shapers of public opinion,” and the like—in other words, classic demagogues and swindlers, as usual.
Regardless of the kind of (ignorant) supporters that transhumanism (or whatever similar concept it might be called) currently has or may acquire in the future, we claim, without any possibility of error, that it constitutes a fundamental ideology legitimizing the stratum of relatively high-status (and well-paid) technoscientists, along with their funders and promoters, within the emerging new paradigm. It is an ideology that legitimizes numerous research efforts, experiments, conclusions, and applications which, in general, are not presented piecemeal to the disempowered masses, and which could provoke dangerous suspicion if they were not all packaged together with the (familiar) beautiful, general, and pseudo-emotional wrapping about the good of humanity.
If all these had the exclusive goal of healing the wounds of humanity (a large part of which have social/class origins and do not need “high-tech” solutions!), and, mainly, if they actually healed them, one would say: ok, it’s worth the effort. But as it became clear in the above excerpt, and as we will see in other examples to follow, the ambitions of transhumanism are much greater. They are as great as those of the researchers, the experimenters, the implementers, who create new, obvious “needs” (within quotation marks obligatorily from our side) and satisfy them only to create others, and others, and others. The issue is not for the deaf to hear and the blind to see. The issue is to have (more correctly: for some segment of our species to have) “broad spectrum” hearing and vision. Full spectrum dominance, as it is called (in the US) in military terms, the absolute superiority (of the American army).
Therapy, healing, are static states: you try to correct an inability based on current social capabilities and notions of perfection. The followers of transhumanism do not intend to limit themselves to the duties of “high-tech monks”! When, therefore, the examples of “corrections” of disabilities, impairments, and diseases run out—and this happens quickly, since the same set of “problems to be solved” has been used throughout the 20th century without notable successes despite tremendous techno-scientific leaps—the time has come for the most authentic and strongest argument in favor of transhumanism: the theory (and reality) of the evolution of species. The argument goes like this: haven’t all species on the planet evolved from that original matrix / mother cell? They have—and rightly so. Then, why should the evolution of our species be prevented through means that it itself creates, rather than by natural compulsions? What is it that should stop our evolution, now that we can finally design and accomplish it on our own as a species?
Indeed. If one approaches transhumanism as a step or steps of “evolution of the species”, the argument seems disarming. There are even figures, including cinematic ones (former feminists, members of lgbt+ cosmopolitan communities), who characterize precisely this version of “species evolution” as liberating. However, it is not at all a matter of such an issue. On the contrary, it concerns the evolution of capitalism! Because only under capitalist hegemony (and thus only under strict capitalist terms, from every perspective) can that which Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, called chthonic forces—namely, the sciences and technologies—evolve to such a degree that they appear not merely as a natural phenomenon, but certainly as a Hyper-natural one.
This, therefore, which appears as “evolution of the species”, since it does not concern (and cannot possibly concern) the overwhelmingly vast majority of the passengers of this planet, is evolution of technical capabilities on the part of those who monopolize the capabilities of our species. And again, the previous excerpts are revealing in their manner. Vision and/or hearing across a broad spectrum (thanks to technological implants or genetic mutations) would simply be destruction for our species—and certainly no upgrade. The reasons are simple and easily understandable: our brain cells would be bombarded by multiple (in number and intensity) visual and auditory signals/stimuli, and it would be impossible for them to process or even simply recognize them. We would need an entirely different brain…
However, what would be destruction for our species could be useful for a certain segment of it, under very specific conditions and for specific periods of time: the high-class warriors/operators of all kinds of super-weapons.
At this point, one can see the developments (the techno-scientific and not the religious ones) even in the “holy grail” of transhumanism: immortality. A first basic discovery for the “aging” of our cells and the extension of their life has already been made: it is called telomerase. Together, however, the fragmentation of the mirror of immortality was also discovered, at least in this way3:
There are many types of cells (in organisms) that must die, at specific phases, based on the “experience” acquired through the evolution of life on the planet. If they continue to reproduce beyond their “phase,” then the corresponding tissues will continue to grow; and if this happens, then the organism will die. Not from old age, but from “disproportionate development.” That’s bad!
The proof that the argument of “species evolution” is fallacious, and that what is actually happening is the evolution of technical means that a part of our species can use against everyone, within and outside the species, comes when the priests of transhumanism are asked about something very annoying. This is called eugenics.
– Question: Some make comparisons between transhumanism and eugenics: how do you feel about this comparison? Is it valid? Is there a beneficial potential for “positive eugenics” in today’s world?
– Answer4: There is no comparison between transhumanism and the coercive management of human beings. By its very nature [“nature” of transhumanism; ha!] and at the core of its ideology, transhumanism values human rights. Human rights include individual freedom and the right to enhancement, as well as the right against forced enhancement. Transhumanism promotes human enhancement for good purposes, based on freedom of choice.
I think the word eugenics has such a bad taste in humanity’s mouth that we should try to make it a positive concept. Historically, the horrific crimes against the human species committed by criminal hands are condemnable. These crimes were committed by criminals: from clitoridectomy5 to the violent captivity of other people, against their psychology and physiology. Someone might call these eugenics, but in reality they are not. It is a term that has been associated with the Germans under Hitler’s influence…
– Question: What do you think about using genetic editing to make improvements to the human condition? I’m not asking about preventing diseases, but rather about creating “better” traits.
– Answer6: Excellent idea. Don’t we constantly try to improve ourselves through education and exercise? So this is an attempt to influence gene expression directly. It would be great if we could do it directly. You add a gene and boom!! you gain an upgraded tendency for learning. I would really like something like that.
– Question: Is there a difference between transhumanism and genetic editing in relation to its eugenic past?
– Answer: I don’t think I understand what you mean by “eugenic past”. If this has anything to do with the extermination of humans, transhumanism is in the completely opposite position. If we’re talking about improving the human condition of those who are alive today, yes, that’s transhumanism. What we’re saying is: “Let’s find more effective ways for improvements.”
– Question: Should we perhaps talk about the benefits and risks of a kind of prospective eugenics based on genetic recombination?
– Answer7: Eugenics in the US from 1907 to 1981 included the compulsory sterilization, by government decision, of 65,000 individuals, in order to “improve” the genetic pool. The new technology allows parents to make genetic decisions for their children in the same way they decide on ritalin or silicone implants to “improve” their behavior or appearance. If parental decisions regarding reproduction were to be prevented, the government should intervene again—but this time against the improvement of the genetic pool. Giving the same name (eugenics) to these two different scenarios seems unnecessarily confusing. Should we talk about benefits and risks? Yes. Often, and by bringing into the discussion as many perspectives as possible.
It is evident that the ghost of eugenics haunts the transhumanists, and they try to fortify themselves against it as best as they can. They have papers. They are (neo)liberal and not statist. They serve positive eugenics and not negative. And most importantly, this is what they indirectly but clearly say: Since you do everything (and often pay as much as you can) to “improve” yourselves individually—gyms, diets, hygiene measures, silicone implants, plastic surgeries in general, vitamins, medications, preventive exams over and over again… what’s your problem with transhumanist eugenics? What you’re already doing, then, what is it?
They are right regarding the dominant ethos in the societies of developed capitalism. However, this very correctness proves ours: it is not about any “evolution of the species”—unless, for example, botox constitutes such an “evolution.” On the contrary, it is an arsenal of capitalist neoliberal competition of all against all: stronger, faster, smarter, younger, taller… more—more—more, against others. If ten out of a hundred find a way (transhumanist…) to grow to 1.90 meters, then those above the “average” will pursue the reward of their superiority—professionally, romantically, etc. And they will find it. If all 100 reach 1.90, then the social significance of that height will be the same as if all 100 were 1.60. That is, none!
All the rhetoric of transhumanism is contentious, competitive, warlike, eugenic—in a democratic way, naturally, and with respect for “human rights”… No coercion—except those born from the fears of social rejection. No violence—except that caused by deprivations and alienations. No exclusion, everyone a cyborg—but class-stratified, as always, based on the laws of the market…
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #04 – 10/2015
- (From Sarajevo no 51, May 2011): In 1990, Max More, proclaiming himself a “strategic philosopher,” wrote a manifesto titled Principles of Extropy, which became the first “gospel” of the fusion of “human” and new technologies. Eight years later, the World Transhumanist Association was created, which in 1999 issued the “Transhumanist Declaration” according to which transhumanism is:
– The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desire for fundamental improvement of the human condition through applied reason, especially through the development and widespread availability of technologies that reduce aging and enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological abilities.
– The study of alternative possibilities, promises, and potential risks of technologies that will allow us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of ethical issues associated with the development and use of such technologies. ↩︎ - Indicatively: cyborg no 2, spring 2015, Hey teacher leave our brains alone! (first notes on neuroscience) and cyborg no 3, summer 2015: are consciousness and memory techno-scientific “objects”? ↩︎
- More in Sarajevo no 93, March 2015, eternal youth around the corner. ↩︎
- We don’t know if it’s a matter of style or anything else, but the interviewee appears under a pseudonym, as Natasha Vita – More. She is nevertheless presented as a pioneer of the transhumanist movement and president of the board of directors of Humanity +, the global transhumanist organization. Her real name is not difficult to find. She is called Nancie Clark and is a professor at the for-profit university of advanced technology and a member of the institute of ethics and technology development. In 1983 she wrote a “transhumanist manifesto”, a list of 13 phrases of all things. ↩︎
- Classic evasion maneuver. Clitoridectomy is barbaric, but it has nothing to do with eugenics! ↩︎
- From molecular biophysicist and transhumanist Maria Konovalenko, who is a research program coordinator at the Life Extension Foundation. ↩︎
- George Church, genetic engineer, transhumanist. ↩︎