Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

#21: Your nanorobotics future: life truly becomes ‘magical’

Meaning, Value and the Collective Afterlife: Must others survive for our lives to have meaning?

From German Idealism to American Pragmatism

Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb

#22: Ray Kurzweil on Rationality and the Moral Considerability of Intelligent Machines

Should we criminalise robotic rape and robotic child sexual abuse?


ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
Author
Martine Rothblatt


comments

CygnusX1 on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 17, 2014)

instamatic on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 17, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 16, 2014)

instamatic on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 15, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 15, 2014)

Axiom on 'IEET Audience Wants Regulation of DIY Biohacking' (Dec 14, 2014)

Kris Notaro on 'Four questions for Social Futurists, and others' (Dec 14, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Does Religion Cause More Harm than Good? Brits Say Yes. Here’s Why They May be Right.
Nov 18, 2014
(21139) Hits
(2) Comments

Review of Michio Kaku’s, Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century
Dec 15, 2014
(8311) Hits
(0) Comments

What Will Life Be Like Inside A Computer?
Dec 7, 2014
(8105) Hits
(0) Comments

Bitcoin and Science: DNA is the Original Decentralized System
Nov 24, 2014
(7429) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Life > Vision > Contributors > Kyle Munkittrick

Print Email permalink (8) Comments (11172) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


We Have Always Been Transhuman


Kyle Munkittrick
By Kyle Munkittrick
Pop Transhumanism

Posted: Jun 10, 2009

There is an absolutely stellar article in the New York Times about Dr. Richard Wrangham’s essay “Catching Fire.” Go read it now. If you finish it and want to know even more, like I did, go read the Slate review as well.

For those of you tweaked out on the internet with no patience, let me hit you with a key blockquote to get us started:

Apes began to morph into humans, and the species Homo erectus emerged some two million years ago, Mr. Wrangham argues, for one fundamental reason: We learned to tame fire and heat our food.

“Cooked food does many familiar things,” he observes. “It makes our food safer, creates rich and delicious tastes and reduces spoilage. Heating can allow us to open, cut or mash tough foods. But none of these advantages is as important as a little-appreciated aspect: cooking increases the amount of energy our bodies obtain from food.”

He continues: “The extra energy gave the first cooks biological advantages. They survived and reproduced better than before. Their genes spread. Their bodies responded by biologically adapting to cooked food, shaped by natural selection to take maximum advantage of the new diet. There were changes in anatomy, physiology, ecology, life history, psychology and society.” Put simply, Mr. Wrangham writes that eating cooked food — whether meat or plants or both —made digestion easier, and thus our guts could grow smaller. The energy that we formerly spent on digestion (and digestion requires far more energy than you might imagine) was freed up, enabling our brains, which also consume enormous amounts of energy, to grow larger. The warmth provided by fire enabled us to shed our body hair, so we could run farther and hunt more without overheating. Because we stopped eating on the spot as we foraged and instead gathered around a fire, we had to learn to socialize, and our temperaments grew calmer.

Whoa. Now, this whole idea has particular resonance for me and on multiple levels, but first let me just note something: my first job that wasn’t working for one of my parents was as a dish washer at a ritzy country club. There were no prices on the menus, twenty-dollar cocktails and little tupperwares of butter that cost more than my weekly salary. This place was the tops. One day one of the chefs turned to me and, while laughing, said, “You know, I have the most primitive job in the world.” I asked him what the heck he meant as he seared a preposterously thick filet mignon with imported herbs. “What I mean,” he answered, “is that it is my job to stick animal flesh into fire.” I don’t think he knew at the time he was postulating an anthropological breakthrough.

Image Source Flickr user St_Gleam
Image Source Flickr user St_Gleam

Wrangham’s theory is brilliant, postulates a lot of “if/then” scenarios that can be tested against various fields of research (evo-bio, archeology, etc.) to see if they further explain or further obfuscate the vagaries of human evolution, and is readily graspable by the average armchair scientist (me). I was trying to turn this over in my head to get to the implications when I read the Slate review and realized they’d done it for me:

This is a fantastically weird way of looking at evolutionary change. Basic evolutionary theory teaches us that our physical selves are shaped by a genetic lottery in a cruel world. Random mutations in DNA change our biology, affecting anything from what we look like to how our immune systems work. The environment then selects who will go on to live and reproduce. But if cooking pushed us across a species threshold, it means that our biology is also shaped in completely unintended ways by cultural innovations. The impact of culture on biology was first proposed in the late 19th century by philosopher and psychologist James Baldwin, but it’s only in very recent times that exciting experimental work has tried to gauge the evolutionary effects of behaviors, like language and domestication. In the case of cooking, Wrangham’s proposal counters a universal human understanding of how the world works. Claude Levi-Strauss observed that most human cultures draw a line between nature and culture, thinking of one as raw and the other as cooked. Humans—whether they are hunter-gatherers, friends of the earth, or company officers of Archer Daniels Midland—reliably see themselves as the chefs controlling the transformation. But if Wrangham is right, this simple way of seeing things becomes oddly blurred: If cooking transforms nature, and cooking changed us, then human nature is … cooked?

I love love love that last bit. I have a suspicion - as I do with all “this one thing changed everything” theories - that Wrangham’s theory is the supreme example Baldwin might have been looking for, but not the lone catalyst. What if we consider cooking, language, and domestication together as aspects of the extended human phenotype, that is, as our technologies? If we lump them together, noting that all three potentially occurred among habilus to some degree or another and served as the force that pushed habilus to become erectus, well, then things become a bit more interesting. We can rephrase the if/then from above as, “If technology transforms nature, and technology changed us, then human nature is … technological?” The logic holds.

What is so staggering about this revelation is that it means humans are not the product of evolution the way other primates are in that humans, should Wrangham’s theory hold, are the evolutionary result of technological pressure and selection on a species. Erectus evolved from habilus due to technology and, concurrently, sapiens evolved as a species maximized to use technology. So, if technology is natural, and we (Homo sapiens sapiens) are a natural product of technology, then whither the boundary between the two? Is it us?

Every debate I engage in, every discussion I have about some abomination of transhumanist thought (i.e. steroids, cloning, immorality - take your pick), I just try to work backwards along the scale. Cloning is bad? What about twins? IVF? What about neo-natal units? Ultrasound? Nutrition guides? Medical expertise and assistance? Sanitary living and birthing conditions? It inevitably regresses back to Clan of the Cave Bear.

My point is that the bioconservative reaction of “it’s unnatural” has always been untenable due to this infinite regress, but Wrangham’s theory does one better: it shows that humans have never been natural, they’ve always been aided and evolutionarily influenced by technology. And if that’s the case, well then, not only have we never been natural, but we’ve always been something else, a species whose very evolution is intertwined with the technologies it produces. Homo sapiens sapiens is naturally technological. In a word: transhuman. To be human, it would seem, is to be transhuman.

I need to sit on this for a while longer, but expect some explications using Foucault, Grosz, Haraway, Firestone, Freud and Merleau-Ponty in the near future.


Kyle Munkittrick, IEET Program Director: Envisioning the Future, is a recent graduate of New York University, where he received his Master's in bioethics and critical theory.
Print Email permalink (8) Comments (11173) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


I’m afraid I find Mr. Wrangham’s theory anything but brilliant. It doesn’t stand up to critical thinking.

He writes: “Apes began to morph into humans, and the species Homo erectus emerged some two million years ago, Mr. Wrangham argues, for one fundamental reason: We learned to tame fire and heat our food.”

Who’s the “We”?  If “we” means humans, then the morphing took place before the taming of fire, making the taming of fire irrelevant to the evolution. If “we” means the apes (I realize he means “ape-like” creatures), then, assuming the centrality of fire-taming, there was no need to morph any more!





It would seem that your logic is what doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

To be true (as in logical), this makes several assumptions that clearly are unscientific:
“If “we” means the apes (I realize he means “ape-like” creatures), then, assuming the centrality of fire-taming, there was no need to morph any more! “

Your idea of critical thinking is amusing.





Anthropologists need to be on the lookout for the chimps’ “Quest for Fire” scenario. Then we will know who is mankinds’ heir.





This guy Wrangham’s work has been around for a while (I’ve seen it cited as early as 2001). Things got dry where our ancestors were about 2 million yrs ago, so they adapted. That somehow included eating tubers and one dropping into a fire is not an unlikely first cooked meal. Then it becomes a good idea to figure out how to make a fire and do it again, and so on.

The thing about him saying this is the beginning of male-dominated culture is a bit questionable. Cooking women don’t need more protection than non-cooking women. What probably happened was the less volume of food meant smaller pelvises for women, which meant a narrower birth canal, which meant a baby that had to grow more brain after birth, which took more looking after, which meant an advantage for men to spend more time helping the kids grow. This is the beginning of the pair-bond, and homo ergaster is when male bodies shrunk compared to other apes and hominids. So actually this invention of cooking is not the beginning of male dominance culture, just the changing of the society from group-dominated to a single male and female pair, i.e. the invention of the husband and wife. That’s the idea, anyway.

@abraham: His point is that we formed what make up our human features starting with this moment. Before we started using fire and cooking food, we were not human in the sense that we had small brains, hair all over, etc., etc., that which morphologically and behaviorally distinguishes us from other apes. In an arid place there may have been enough natural fire that we started cooking by learning to eat the cooked food before “taming” fire over time. Just taming fire itself didn’t make us human and we have never “stopped morphing” ever, but started the longer process.





Evolution is not a terminal process.





so, at the risk of babbling ignorantly (I’m no grad student or science major for that matter, but I do read a bit)...I wanted to comment on your theory about culture, technology and evolution.  I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve been pondering for awhile as to how culture must effect our sexual selection and hence our evolutionary path.  If people alter themselves to appear more desirable than the attractiveness given to them genetically, is this not changing what may have been a more natural sexual selection?  Richard Dawkins got me to thinking in the Ancestor’s Tale (tail, lol) about the role memes may have played in our evolution.  Can memes not be a form of technology and/or culture?  The conveyance of an idea can change the course of evolution? 
Cool stuff, glad I found your blog, I plan on bookmarking it and checking in from time to time.
thanks.





Abe’s Uncle: In my critique, I was not criticizing evolution at all, I was criticizing Wrangham’s logic. You didn’t address my argument at all, though you criticized me for it.





@ NickC: I agree his male-dominated society stuff is a bit questionable. I don’t know if your answer is any better either, not because your logic is faulty (it makes sense to me) but in that it’s just so hard to know what it was like then. Also, we don’t know which aspects of society were “male” and which were “female,” so it’s hard to say who did what.

@ JoJo: Thank you! I plan on doing some stuff with Dawkins and sexual selection fairly soon. What you’re talking about, “memes as a form of technology and/or culture” is absolutely possible and Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett and feminist philosopher Elizabeth Grosz all discuss how. It’s great. I’m drafting some stuff on that as we speak!





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: For-profit health insurance is an obscenity

Previous entry: Existential Movie War

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376