From: George Dvorsky (sentdev@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 06:54:34 MST
http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1564&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Tihamer Toth-Fejel
<ttf@rc.net >
A number of years ago, the L-5 society was practically torn in two by a very
divisive issue: President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative that would
militarize Space while opening it up for settlement. It seemed that half the
membership were peace-loving hippies, while the other half were military
personal convinced that SDI was the only way out of the Mutual Assured
Destruction. Personally, I was torn not only because I had friends on both
sides, but because my own sympathies were divided.
Wisely, the L-5 leadership refused to take sides in this ideological battle,
and the organization survived to merge with National Space Institute to form
the present National Space Society. It may be slightly premature today
(perhaps not, given Geron Inc.'s recent lengthening of telomeres), but I see
the MMSG and the nanotech community coming to a similar juncture with
respect to Transhumanism. Twice before in our nation's history have we been
faced with the question of what it means to be human. The first time we
flubbed it badly, and brother slaughtered brother in the bloodiest war this
nation ever fought. The second time, which we are now experiencing, the
issue is more abstract, and twenty years went by before anyone was shot, but
the issue still tears a hole in the heart of this nation. With
transhumanism, the issue will be even more visible than in the case of
slavery, and it will not be possible to avoid taking sides on the issue.
Introduction
It seems that the molecular manufacturing revolution will be the last one
for the human race. This is because we are made of atoms, and since we will
have the ability to remake ourselves, we will. So we must ask the difficult
question of what it means to be human. The concept of a Transhuman has been
coined to describe what comes after Homo Sapiens, but what does that really
mean for us, the ordinary humans? Are we individually transformed, or just
sloughed off like old skin cells?
In order to seriously consider the issue of transhumanism, a few approaches
should be considered, and we need to understand the following:
The precise characteristics of a Transhuman being, with an unambiguous
definition of terms
The technological steps necessary to the emergence of the Transhuman race
The assumptions of the Transhumanist Imperative
Historical events that may alert us to potential pitfalls.
Keep in mind that predicting the future under such chaotic conditions is a
type of lunacy engaged only by angels and fools, which is probably why it is
so much fun. Unfortunately, I cannot provide any clear answers -- at best
I've tried to ask difficult questions that may hopefully permit others to
reach the correct conclusions.
Characteristics of a Transhuman Being
What does it mean to achieve the Transhuman condition? At first glance, it
is obvious that the Transhuman should be smarter, stronger, healthier, and
better than us in every way. But the word "better" has some interesting
connotations when we look at the concept of transhumanism in closer detail.
Would the Transhuman be a better voter, or a better consumer, or a better
politician? More fun-loving? Less suicidal? Would he/she/it be more ethical,
more legalistic, or completely amoral? Would the Transhuman be an
individual, or a hive mind?
Comparing ourselves to our prehominid ancestors, it is obvious that in terms
of muscular strength, we are not stronger than they are. A 150 pound
chimpanzee can throw Arnold Schwarzenegger across the room. On the other
hand, our tools enable us to force our desires over all other animals --
this is why humans rule Earth, albeit often inefficiently and capriciously.
In addition to tools and other physical artifacts that manipulate the
environment with more horsepower and/or precision than muscles can deliver,
humans rule this planet because of their social inventions, including
language, writing, political hierarchies, and money. Obviously, our
intelligence is the trait that differentiates us more than any other from
every other Terran species. So it seems reasonable that Transhomo
individuals will be more intelligent than ourselves. This can occur by
increasing bandwidth of the interface of people and computers. For example,
my letters and articles in every field are much better if I write them while
I have the world's knowledge at my fingertips -- i.e. access to the World
Wide Web. In terms of data processing, however, the Web itself is a static
repository of knowledge facts, ideas, and links. The Foresight Institute is
trying to make the Web more effective by including back links, which will
effectively double the types of relationships that ideas can have. Image how
much it might improve when the links are as rich as those in linguistic
networks and natural language software, and as active as processors in
neural networks. Actually, Java applets may be one mechanism by which this
could occur. At some point then, such enhancements may enable the Web to
"wake up" into one form of a Transhuman.
Before going any farther in analyzing the Transhumanist viewpoint, it is
important to be as objective as possible. Of course, this is impossible, but
stating some fundamental assumptions will make open discussion more
fruitful. I believe in Existence, Truth, and Love. Translated in the real
world, that means that I fight to survive, because if I'm dead, then nothing
else has much value to me. Second, it is important for me to learn as much
as possible about my surrounding environment (i.e. the whole universe) and
my place in it. This will increase my chances for survival, and help me love
wisely. Finally, my positive relationships with everyone with whom I come
into contact will make my survival and learning worthwhile. There are a
number of concepts implicit in this world-view, including the idea that the
universe is real, that it is at least partially knowable, and that it is
worth living in.
My philosophical bias stated, let's take a look at the Transhumanist
Principles:
1. Transcend: Strive to remove the evolved limits of our biological and
intellectual inheritance, the physical limits of our environment, and the
cultural and historical limits of society that constrain individual and
collective progress.
2. Pragmatism: Use whatever tools prove effective toward this goal.
Technology, and the intellectual disciplines used to develop it, are
currently among the most effective such tools.
3. Memetic propagation. Support the proliferation of transhumanist
principles and goals, consciously setting an example that others may follow
or promoting the principles of transhumanism directly. Spread awareness of
the dangers of technophobia, coercion, anti-humanism and other destructive
ideologies.
4. Achievement. Whether seeking health, fitness, intellectual goals, or
financial or social success or political accomplishment, strive to achieve
your individual ambitions. Cooperate with other innovators and optimists to
reach goals both personal and global.
5. Diversity. Promote human efforts to grow and adapt to an ever-changing
universe. Tolerate people of all schools of thought that do not seek to
limit the extent or variety of your achievement. Discourage any attempts to
impose will or ideas through coercion.
6. Evolution. These principles should evolve, in order to address the needs
of future Transhumanity; but resist any change in the principles that limits
Transhuman activity.
These principles sound as good as motherhood and apple pie, but they deserve
a closer look. The first point seems to make "Trancend" a goal of
self-actualization and self-realization. Self-realization seems to be a
restatement of Socrates' dictum, "Know thyself", and as such seems very
good. It seems to me that an important aspect of self-realization is to know
your limits. For example, if I'm standing on the top of the Empire State
Building, and I want to get to the bottom quickly, it is important to accept
the fact that I if I just step off, then the consequences are not very
conducive to my survival. On the other hand, what if I have a parachute? Or
(a few years from now) what if I've redesigned my body into a T-1000
Terminator so that I could survive the fall? In the first case, I may
frighten a few people and break a city ordinance. In the second, if I land
on a non-augmented human (perhaps an Amish tourist), the impact will kill
him. In both cases, my own survival is not directly affected by my actions,
but that of other people's is. Is this important? From a pragmatic
viewpoint, it depends on how much I depend on them. The fact of the matter
is that we are social animals, and our technology is a social construct.
Therefore our survival depends on other people, most of whom we will never
meet. Thus enlightened self-interest informs me that I should not endanger
other people because of their limitations, even if my choices pose no danger
to myself. But what if society mandates uncomfortable dress codes, allows
economic slavery, penalizes creativity, and generally infringes on my
freedom? In that case, how much should I respect it? It seems that this
tension between society and the individual will exist in the Transhuman
condition as much as our own.
The second Transhumanist principle of pragmatism is another wonderful
sounding principle that seems nebulous up close. Pragmatic choices are
always made in light of specific goals, but pragmatism is only a means to an
end. If the end is not specified, someone could use pragmatic means to
achieve evil goals.
In the Transhumanist Principles, the word "limit" is applied to five
different fields: the biological, intellectual, the physical, cultural, and
historical. The usage insinuates that we should rebel against all natural
limits. Is the use of the word "natural" as in the laws of physics, or as in
the nature of being human?
If it is used in the first sense, then is there any value to being
"natural"? Are human beings "natural"? Thalomide and Chyrnoble should teach
us to be humble with our tool-making intelligence, but as Peter Kohk points
out, if human beings don't develop the technology to build a Space-faring
civilization, the next KT meteor will wipe out 99% of the Terran species,
including us. Such an interspecies "White Man's Burden" is as inescapable as
it is heavy.
If the word natural is used in the second sense, then what does it really
mean to rebel against what we are? As a tool-using species, it is human
nature to manipulate our environment. This isn't a technological issue, but
a metaphysical one, similar to the ones that philosophers engage when
debating the essence, form, and nature of things. As finite primates, I
suspect that we must recognize our inherent nature (e.g. social animals made
of atoms and utilizing energy) and when we make decisions in accordance with
these insights into our true character, we will be most effective in
reaching our goals. But what ought those goals be? What is our true nature?
How malleable is it, even if we can manipulate every atom in our bodies?
What is it about us, that if we change it, then we are no longer humans?
Putting a name on it (Transhuman) doesn't explain anything.
Everyone certainly works to achieve goals, but it is obvious that what most
of the world thinks of transcendant goals for most of human history are not
listed in the Transhumanist list. The goals listed are significantly
materialistic, and in fact are quite low on Maslow's hierarchy. People
respect heroes like Ghandi, Jesus, and Buddah because the goals they set
touched a need far deeper than health, fitness, money, or power.
The science of ecology has shown that diversity aids survival. However, as
David Brin points out, valuing diversity for its own stake is
self-contradictory, and there are other values may be considerably more
important than diversity (e.g. personal and species survival).
The Transhumanist Principles proclaim that coercion should be discouraged,
which sounds like a worthwhile goal, but how is this to be accomplished? Is
it to be taxed, with the military might of the government behind it? What
would prevent a psychotic killer from running amok? What prevents an
abortionist from destroying an 8-month-old fetus in one wing of a hospital
while in another wing, a doctor tries to save the life of patient of the
same age? Should an entity's personhood depend on whether or not he/she/it
is wanted? On what grounds does a prosecutor charge a person who shoots
abortionists? Is it because abortionists are old enough to vote for
prosecutors? Nanotechnology will undoubtedly make birth control 100%
effective, so the abortion issue should go away. But the Transhumanist
Principles do not address the underlying issues involved in the abortion
debate -- the definition of personhood and the inalienability of a human's
right to life. These unresolved underlying issues will return with a
vengeance. There have been 35 million abortions (i.e. failures of birth
control) since Roe v. Wade, and this is with birth control methods that are
generally more than 90% effective. It doesn't matter what one's beliefs
about abortion are, something is wrong with this picture, and I am afraid
that the emergence of Transhumans will magnify the confusion.
A Transhumanist position against anti-humanism also seems commendable, but
it contradicts the last point of evolving with no limits on Transhuman
activity. What if Transhumans mutate in to a form of anti-humanism? Unless
everyone becomes Transhuman (some people will refuse for emotional and/or
religious reasons), what happens to the ones who stay behind? Will they
become beloved pets? Or legally protected endangered species that can be
poached with little consequences?
Finally, the above Transhumanist principles seem very self-referential -
they don't say very much because so much is left undefined.
Steps to the emergence of Transhomo Sapiens.
In order to pave the way for Transhomo Sapiens, we must be able to augment
and rebuild ourselves in a number of different ways. The steps on the way to
becoming Transhuman involve the human-directed assembly or growth of new
person-like entities including:
Clones - differently aged identical twins (Daisy shows that we're just one
step away. Actually, fairly reliable rumor has it that human cloning has
already been done, but the embryos were destroyed).
Bio-enhanced humans - primitive examples include humans with artificial aids
such as steroids or pacemakers. More advanced examples included enhanced
telemerase production (as demonstrated last year by Geron Corporation) and
brainstem implants.
Cyborgs - human brains encased in (possibly specialized) robotic bodies.
These are extreme cases of bio-enhanced humans.
Xoxes -- atomically identical copies of humans; instant clones with
identical brain structure and hence the same memories.
Doppelgangers - modified xoxes.
Corpsicles - People whose hearts have stopped, and are by current definition
dead, but their blood is replaced with antifreeze, and their bodies frozen
in liquid nitrogen -- in the hope that they can be thawed and repaired.
Drexler wryly calls them people with whole-body frostbite. This is a
last-ditch experimental medical procedure aimed at saving someone's life.
Uplifts - animals with Homo Sapiens-level intelligence (through genetic
engineering or other techniques).
HEC - Human Equivalent Computer (in raw switching power, this will likely
happen within the next year or two, depending on which assumptions on
makes.).
Artificial Intelligence agents-- software that passes the Turing Test,
possibly modeled on existing humans.
Androids - humanoid robots with an artificial brains. Requires that AI
agents work as expected.
Uploads -- software that simulates people's thought processes to the point
that they are not only seem to be people, but that they are actually the
people they simulate (we will leave as an exercise for the reader to
determine in what sense -- i.e. objectively or subjectively -- this is
really real).
HINTs -Hyper Intelligent Nanotech Transhumans - humans who have used
nanotechnology to increase their memory capacity, processing speed, and raw
brainpower
One particular bio-enhancement is the ability to live longer with more
youthful bodies -- a goal which has been drawing closer as medical
technology learns more about how the human body works at a molecular level.
An additional advantage of achieving this goal is that not only do we get to
build the first Transhuman, but we might also get to become one.
As psychoactive drugs are designed for particular mental diseases, it is
natural to ask, where does the disease end, and where does the personality
begin? If you underwent a treatment that permanently removed a severe
tendency to ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), would the resultant person
really be you? What if you were psychologically disturbed because of a
childhood or prenatal trauma? Can we simply remove the memory of the trauma,
or must we do a lot more in order to heal someone? If we follow the former
option, then we would need to also remove the natural reaction to the
trauma. But given the holographic nature of the brain, this means adjusting
billions of neurons. Will you still be you after such an adjustment?
Transhumanism is obviously an outgrowth of humanism, so it would be
worthwhile to examine some of the issues surrounding ordinary humanism. Even
though humanism is derived from the joining of Greek and Judeo-Christian
values, the Catholic Church has been a tireless critic of some aspects of
humanistic philosophy for hundreds of years. So some of her theologians have
had a lot of time to think about some of these issues, and their reasoning
may be instructive. Currently, they have only addressed, with mixed results,
three of the steps toward the emergence of Transhumans.
Mother Teresa had a pacemaker, leading one to infer that the Church does not
consider bio-enhancement intrinsically wrong, although some methods may be
considered illicit (e.g. treating Parkinson's disease with aborted fetal
tissue, or transplanting the organs of condemned criminals).
Cloning is considered immoral for the same reason that birth control is
condemned -- it drastically separates the unitive and procreative aspects of
the ultimate physical expression of love. This depends on the Aristotelian
and Thomastic views of "natural law", which determines the "nature" of a
thing by looking at it's purpose, presupposing one who "gives purpose." At
any rate, it is not clear why this separation is "intrinsically disordered."
A recently approved document, Identity and Status of the Human Embryo has
stated that "The embryo is a human being from the moment of conception and
should be treated as such." The document regards as ''aberrant and morally
illicit'' the in vitro production of embryos for commercial or industrial
use, human cloning, the use of human embryos to produce ''monsters'', and
the production of animal-human ''hybrids'' by transferring human embryos
into animal wombs and vice versa. The Church has often spoken against in
vitro fertilization (the source of most frozen embryos), again because of it
separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, but she maintains that
all frozen embryos should be ''guaranteed the chance of life.'' Pope John
Paul recently spoke on the ''inalienable rights'' of frozen embryos and said
that ''the fairest answer to the question of whether or not these unwanted
embryos should be killed came from the German parliament, which proclaimed
the embryo's right to live in 1991.'' This indicates that the Catholic
Church seems to have accepted cryonics without a blink, contrary to the
deathoid prejudices of many Christian fundamentalists. Then again, after
apologizing about her role in the Galileo affair, she also seems to have
accepted most of Darwinian evolution, while holding fast to the beliefs on
faith and morals that she has taught for 2000 years. This combination of
flexibility and stability is unusual for any human organization, much less
for the world's oldest. Then again, perhaps her longevity may be explained
by it. There may be important lessons here when human life spans reach
thousands of years.
Assumptions
With any issue, it is the unstated assumptions that usually hide the most
serious errors. For example, Meadow's famous "Limits to Growth" computer
program predicted the collapse of human civilization by 1990, after assuming
that the human environment stopped at the upper edge of the atmosphere, and
that technological progress would stop. What are the unstated assumptions of
the Transhuman condition?
Progress: The idea that humans are getting better and better naturally
assumes that we will eventually surpass ourselves. Forgetting for a minute
that anthropologists consider the 20th century the "Genocide Era", the
concept of human progress is an article of faith with some support. For
example, technology has transformed our lives in many ways, and many of
those ways are good. However, it is presumptuous to assume that this
progress will enable us to build something better than ourselves in our
essence. Though of course we will be able to build mechanisms that surpass
us in any of our well-defined characteristics -- for example bulldozers and
computers can move dirt and symbols better than humans can. Two software
programs, AM and EURISKO, caution against the optimistic view of attaining
or surpassing human self-creation. These programs were designed to modify
themselves, and were moderately successful at it -- AM "discovered" prime
number and Goldbach's conjecture, while Eurisko won the world championship
Traveler's War game two years running. However, as Lenat himself eventually
admitted, AM and Eurisko "seemed" to work by using a very quick "generate
and test" paradigm that was dependent on the richness of the syntax and
semantics of the underlying symbolic language on which it was written.
Actually, Lenat's work, as related to genetic algorithms, turned out to be
very useful at efficiently covering a solution space, but not at extending
it in new dimensions. We just haven't figured out how to do that.
Suffering: Transhumanism does not seem to have any coherent view of
suffering except as something to be avoided at all costs. Physically, that
may become possible, but even it there is a fair and just distribution of
seemingly endless resources, as long as Transhumans are finite beings, it
seems inconceivable that mental suffering will end. And since suffering will
exist, what is the best way to deal with it? The five ancient religions of
the world have survived for so long because they provide concrete ways for
people to deal with suffering. In Greg Bear's science fiction story Queen of
Angels, 99% of the population is under psychiatric care, and most are
augmenting themselves in some way, insinuating that the psychological
therapy is one answer to suffering. But psychiatrist Dr. Scott Peck points
out in The Road Less Traveled that the essential cause of neurosis is the
avoidance of legitimate suffering. People may come to a psychiatrist in
order to avoid their suffering, but in order for their anguish to be healed,
they must be willing to lean into their own pain.
Evil: The Transhumanist philosophy doesn't seem to recognize that evil
exists in this world (proof which can be found every night on the evening
news), nor does it offer any remedy for it. This is a fatal oversight.
Humanism: The assumption that humanism is the only correct viewpoint
pervades the Transhumanism. But is all world views make this assumption,
except ultra-tolerance, which is self-contradictory. Humanism certainly has
its share of problems. For example, the claim is made that humans determine
their own reason for existence. But we do not create ourselves. Certainly
people try, but can you imagine listening to a musician who has no talent?
Perhaps a Transhuman will simply load the proper software module, but will
that type of "music" be appreciated as being anything new under the sun? Any
career counselor will tell you that careers are not chosen at whim but
discovered when people understand themselves better.
Transhumanism as Religion
Anders Sandberg points out that Transhumanism is currently a religion:
The transhumanist memes often bind to memetic receptors normally linked to
religious memes, at least the typical western monotheistic religions. Both
types of memes have similar baits: the promise of a brighter future, health,
prosperity, freedom, happiness, immortality and eventual transcendence. The
difference is mainly how these changes should be achieved and what
implications they have. Both memes protect the host from many negative
emotions by providing an explanation for things and most importantly a
future goal... this is both good news and bad news for transhumanism.
Religoid memes have shown themselves to be extremely successful. But they
also often promote irrationality and mindless acceptance of the meme. And
transhumanism runs the risk of being subjected to convergent evolution, to
end up a religion.
He seems to say this as if it were a bad thing. He does not seem to realize
that any belief that is accepted without proof is, essentially religious
dogma, and that it is impossible for even a robot to navigate across a room
without the assistance of many non-provable assumptions about reality.
Sandberg also claims that Christianity and Transhumanism don't necessarily
contradict each other, especially in the format of Teilhard de Chardin's
Omega Point. The idea that the entire universe will eventually become one
mind seems ludicrous until we realize that with molecular nanotechnology we
will be able to transform planets into Utility Fog, and stars into Dyson
Spheres. So from a scientific point of view, the idea of a human-derived
civilization reconstructing the universe into the Omega Point seems
plausible, if not inevitable. However, the Omega Point is also identified
with God, so our constructing it would be re-making God in our own image,
and/or ultimately becoming God. Unfortunately, the three monotheistic
religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, claim that Adam and Eve got
kicked out of the Garden of Eden for attempting to do just that. For that
reason alone, they will not embrace the pantheistic hubris of the Omega
Point.
Historical Lessons.
What is the logical conclusion of these assumptions? As Richard Neuhaus put
it, every atrocity begins with an error. Therefore, the implementation of
any self-contradictory philosophy will result in disaster. Stalin believed
that human beings were basically good, but that society was corrupting them.
He also believed that the end justified the means. Because of these two
incorrect beliefs, he liquidated 20 million of his own people. Pol Pot
shared similar beliefs and butchered half his own people in the killing
fields of Cambodia. More to the point, another group of people shared with
Transhumanism the idea of building a post-human race. They called their
proposed descendants the Master Race, and today, no other group has earned
itself such a secure title to evil. The emotional overtones of Nazism is so
powerful that even mentioning it causes people to stop thinking. But in
fact, it should make each group reflect on how their own philosophy may be
in some ways similar to what the Nazis believed. It may be most useful to
separate the philosophy of Nazism from its nationalism and its
anti-Semitism, both of which contributed to its popularity. What remains may
be more easily compared to beliefs popular globally in the 1930s, and even
today. If the Transhuman becomes a hive entity, then it would be very
similar to the Nazi idea of the fatherland, and the communist idea of the
State. This does not mean that it is wrong to sacrifice for one's group --
such self-sacrifice is beneficial for everyone under many conditions.
However, the error occurs when every individual is given a lower priority
than the idealized conglomerate, when in actuality it is the group that
exists for the benefit of the individual in a synergistic relationship.
Another, more serious error that the Nazis made was differentiating between
various grades of humanity, based on their capabilities and genetic
endowment. Will augmented people make the same differentiation? Probably --
it is an easy temptation to fall into. When I competed in the arena as an
All American wrestler, it was difficult not to look down on the "poor
spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray
twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." The feeling of superiority is a
very comforting feeling, especially after losing something of value. In the
case of the German people after the humiliation of WWI, many were probably
helpless to the seduction of feeling superior. Will a collapse of Social
Security around 2010 have the same impact? Will the crisis McKendree
mentioned earlier set up a fatal scenario?
The closest America has come to publicly admitting Nazi-like behavior is My
Lai. In People of the Lie, Peck examined the atrocities there and concluded
that his study " revealed the operation of gross intellectual laziness and
pathological narcissism at every level." From the point of view of a
psychiatrist, Peck has described the pathology of evil, and Transhumanism
has no defense against it. Specifically, evil begins with a person's
narcissistic tendencies that are warped by an over-riding fear of criticism.
This delusion of perfection prevents self-correction, and results in the
person lying first to themselves, and then to everyone else. After the lies
come fraud, abuse, and murder. Peck's prescription consists of loving the
person enough to tell him or her the truth, usually employing psychological
techniques. Bear also alludes to the universal necessity of psychological
help for every human being, and his heroine searches for truth, but
Transhumanism seems to avoid objective truth. This is fatal, not only
because science depends on assuming the existence of an objective truth, but
also because ideas have consequences and technology amplifies them. The
concept of transhumanism encompasses both eye-opening ideas and mind-blowing
technology. In Terminator 2, the T-800 tells John Conner, "You have in you
the power to destroy yourselves." But by the end of the movie, the T-800
learns the value of human life. The question is, when humans have such
difficulty remembering it, how will the Transhumans learn it?
More insistently than any other issue, Transhumanism challenges our notion
of what it means to be human. But we must answer another question: "Is
Transhumanism good?"
Also see:
In Defense of Humanity: Against Transhumanism
Nazism transhumanism and biological research
Are You An Extropian Transhumanist?
The Politics of Transhumanism
The Biological and the Silicon Modifying Humans for Deep Space Travel
Wetware
Outsourcing Big Brother
A Memes.org search for DARPA
A Google search for experiments,"on humans",Nazi,"space race"
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST