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.
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".)
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).)"
- 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.
Dr. Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy
Yale University
Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:34 MDT