IEET Treasurer Giulio Prisco reports on his public debate on transhumanism at the University of Lausanne, January 24, 2007, before an audience of 300.
I gave a simple and non threatening introduction to transhumanism trying to present clear concepts with simple language and without too many big words. Shortly after the beginning I wore my glasses and said that glasses are an example of “transhumanist” technology invented centuries ago. Glasses are, indeed, a simple means to overcome a typical human limitation. In Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose”, monks react to the recently invented eyeglasses as to an invention of the devil and a means to cheat god’s will (nothing new under the sun).
I discussed the meaning of “human dignity”, a concept frequently used (in a badly distorted sense) by bioluddites against human enhancement. According to their distorted concept of human dignity, used for example against embryonic stem cell research , a microscopic lump of cells has the same dignity as a thinking and feeling person. Actually, it has more: protecting the dignity of the embryo justifies, in their absurd opinion, refusing to develop therapies that could improve our lives.
So I showed a slide with Christopher Reeve before his accident (playing Superman) and after the accident (in a wheelchair), and asked the audience to consider whether abstract “ethical” arguments against biotechnology can justify condemning *real* people to unhappiness.
Sometimes I think that they love their abstract “human dignity” but hate actual persons. This is not surprising, as they are the intellectual descendants of those who burned Giordano Bruno and so many other persons for their ideas. Should we accept moral lessons from them? I don’t think so. When abstract concepts are seen as equally or more important than real persons, they can be used to justify torture and murder. I think 3rd millennium’s ethics must give priority to persons over abstract ideas and big words. Of course, a person cannot be defined in terms of biology: sooner or later there will be uploaded humans who do not posses even a molecule of original human genetic material, and the only reasonable definition of person will then be based on mentality.
Then I presented some basic transhumanist concepts including age and death as diseases, the prospect of immortality, conscious artificial intelligences of (more than) human level, identity as a computational pattern, and the future technology of mind uploading. I stated on many occasions that transhumanists are not blind to the fact that emerging transhumanist technologies will have a very deep social and political impact but, on the contrary, think we should discuss and study options to manage their impact.
There were the usual questions, e.g. why live forever (answer: why not), why don’t we think of starving children (answer: we do), why do we live (answer: because). Many people came to me with more questions after the debate. I do not think I “converted” the audience, not even half of it, but I do think I persuaded some people to at least develop an interest in transhumanism. I was interviewed by the press and TV.
The seminar was available on real time webcast and is still available at the URL given here. The direct URL of the Quick Time streaming file is this. The pictures above have been extracted from the video stream. I placed the PPT presentation in the Second Life meeting hall.
IEET Blog