A fairly short Episode 7 of EIW Audio is now available—as noted in the episode I did not prepare a science lesson this time (though I hope to do more of those in the coming year) and I focused here on talking about transhumanism as a concept, followed by a quick discussion of bias, followed by more commentary on I Was A Teenage Popsicle, since I’m quite enthused about seeing this sort of thing in literature that isn’t explicitly science-fiction.
As far as the discussion of transhumanism goes, to get some perspective on why I felt the need to discuss the terminology a bit, I recommend the following links:
1. Transhumanist Sects at Michael Anissimov’s Accelerating Future
2. Transhumanist Trainwreck at Dale Carrico’s Amor Mundi
3. The World Transhumanist Association website
So, to basically summarize what I said in the podcast, I see transhumanism as far more than an attitude than as a club. I wouldn’t agree with efforts to turn it into a club, and frankly I don’t think they’re necessary—people who have a strong need for group association will perceive it and create it even if nobody makes an attempt to “market” it as such. (See: ten gazillion “fansites” out there devoted to everything from Harry Potter to knitting.) I see the term “transhumanism” as a means to find interesting people to talk to and as a powerful information-mining tool—and that’s it. I think that groups OF transhumanists can get together and organize to accomplish goals, but that the focus should always be on the goals themselves, and not on whether so-and-so is or isn’t really a transhumanist, or how we can “recruit” other transhumanists, etc. (Not that I’ve seen much of this, though.)
Turning the concept into an identity draws focus away from things like, “How do we defeat age-related disease and death?” and “How do we improve health care?” and “How can we help to ensure maximal morphological and cognitive liberty?” and “How might biotechnology help fight disease and address issues like hunger in developing nations?”
As social animals, humans already have a built-in mechanism for organizing—yes, even autistic humans, as is evident from sites like Aspies for Freedom. There’s no real need to convince people that “something” is worth joining, rather, there’s a tremendous need to focus on specific issues and attempt to transmit accurate and clear information that will enable people to address those issues. Perceiving this, I write articles here about longevity research in the hopes that actual longevity research will become more widely known and supported, and I write about neurodiversity for the sake of hoping to bring about greater respect for, and acknowledgement of, different kinds of brains.
I am a member of the WTA, mainly because I think there is a need for people from different backgrounds and philosophical positions in such organizations (I’m especially concerned about disability rights being properly represented), but this in no way means that I feel the need to agree with all the other members on everything! Keeping dialogue going is essential, and though I can see why some people might just want to bypass such organizations altogether (I’m usually one of those people—there’s a reason I understand cats!), sometimes it’s at least worth trying the experiment.
And, in case I haven’t communicated this clearly enough already, there’s a difference between using appropriate descriptive terms (particularly when they help you find information) and mucking about with identity politics.
Listen/View
IEET Blog