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

Transhumanism - Considering Ideas From Existentialism and Religion

Why and How Should We Build a Basic Income for Every Citizen?

Can Machines Be Moral Actors?

Are hierarchical theories of freedom and responsibility plausible?

Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?

Living, intelligent patterns in Conway’s Life


ieet books

A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century
Author
Ilia Stambler


comments

dobermanmac on 'Can Brain Implants Make Us Smarter?' (Sep 15, 2014)

dobermanmac on 'Genetically Engineered Ethical Super Babies?' (Sep 15, 2014)

PhilOsborn on 'Do Cognitive Enhancing Drugs Actually Work?' (Sep 13, 2014)

spud100 on 'Longevity Research Program is Established in Israel' (Sep 12, 2014)

spud100 on 'I, Quantum Robot' (Sep 12, 2014)

David Pearce on 'What Does Utopia Look Like?' (Sep 12, 2014)

PhilOsborn on 'Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)' (Sep 11, 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

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Enhancing Virtues: Self-Control and Mindfulness
Aug 19, 2014
(9111) Hits
(0) Comments

“Lucy”: A Movie Review
Aug 18, 2014
(6896) Hits
(0) Comments

Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)
Aug 29, 2014
(5079) Hits
(1) Comments

An open source future for synthetic biology
Sep 9, 2014
(4184) Hits
(0) Comments



IEET > Rights > Disability > Neuroethics > FreeThought > Personhood > Privacy > PostGender > Economic > ReproRights > Life > Access > Enablement > Innovation > Implants > Health > Vision > Futurism > Contributors > Gennady Stolyarov II

Print Email permalink (10) Comments (7809) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Common Misconceptions about Transhumanism


Gennady Stolyarov II
By Gennady Stolyarov II
Ethical Technology

Posted: Mar 6, 2013

Transhumanism is often misunderstood and maligned by who are ignorant of it – or those who were exposed solely to detractors such as John Gray, Leon Kass, and Taleb himself. This essay will serve to correct these misconceptions in a concise fashion. Those who still wish to criticize transhumanism should at least understand what they are criticizing and present arguments against the real ideas, rather than straw men constructed by the opponents of radical technological progress.

After the publication of my review of Nassim Taleb’s latest book Antifragile, numerous comments were made by Taleb’s followers – many of them derisive – on Taleb’s Facebook page. (You can see a screenshot of these comments here.) While I will only delve into a few of the specific comments in this article, I consider it important to distill the common misconceptions that motivate them. Transhumanism is often misunderstood and maligned by who are ignorant of it – or those who were exposed solely to detractors such as John Gray, Leon Kass, and Taleb himself. This essay will serve to correct these misconceptions in a concise fashion. Those who still wish to criticize transhumanism should at least understand what they are criticizing and present arguments against the real ideas, rather than straw men constructed by the opponents of radical technological progress.

Misconception #1: Transhumanism is a religion.

Transhumanism does not posit the existence of any deity or other supernatural entity (though some transhumanists are religious independently of their transhumanism), nor does transhumanism hold a faith (belief without evidence) in any phenomenon, event, or outcome. Transhumanists certainly hope that technology will advance to radically improve human opportunities, abilities, and longevity – but this is a hope founded in the historical evidence of technological progress to date, and the logical extrapolation of such progress. Moreover, this is a contingent hope. Insofar as the future is unknowable, the exact trajectory of progress is difficult to predict, to say the least. Furthermore, the speed of progress depends on the skill, devotion, and liberty of the people involved in bringing it about. Some societal and political climates are more conducive to progress than others. Transhumanism does not rely on prophecy or mystical fiat. It merely posits a feasible and desirable future of radical technological progress and exhorts us to help achieve it. Some may claim that transhumanism is a religion that worships man – but that would distort the term “religion” so far from its original meaning as to render it vacuous and merely a pejorative used to label whatever system of thinking one dislikes. Besides, those who make that allegation would probably perceive a mere semantic quibble between seeking man’s advancement and worshipping him. But, irrespective of semantics, the facts do not support the view that transhumanism is a religion. After all, transhumanists do not spend their Sunday mornings singing songs and chanting praises to the Glory of Man.

Misconception #2: Transhumanism is a cult.

A cult, unlike a broader philosophy or religion, is characterized by extreme insularity and dependence on a closely controlling hierarchy of leaders. Transhumanism has neither element. Transhumanists are not urged to disassociate themselves from the wider world; indeed, they are frequently involved in advanced research, cutting-edge invention, and prominent activism. Furthermore, transhumanism does not have a hierarchy or leaders who demand obedience. Cosmopolitanism is a common trait among transhumanists. Respected thinkers, such as Ray Kurzweil, Max More, and Aubrey de Grey, are open to discussion and debate and have had interesting differences in their own views of the future. A still highly relevant conversation from 2002, "Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity", highlights the sophisticated and tolerant way in which respected transhumanists compare and contrast their individual outlooks and attempt to make progress in their understanding. Any transhumanist is free to criticize any other transhumanist and to adopt some of another transhumanist’s ideas while rejecting others. Because transhumanism characterizes a loose network of thinkers and ideas, there is plenty of room for heterogeneity and intellectual evolution. As Max More put it in the “Principles of Extropy, v. 3.11”, “the world does not need another totalistic dogma.” Transhumanism does not supplant all other aspects of an individual’s life and can coexist with numerous other interests, persuasions, personal relationships, and occupations.

Misconception #3: Transhumanists want to destroy humanity. Why else would they use terms such as “posthuman” and “postbiological”?

Transhumanists do not wish to destroy any human. In fact, we want to prolong the lives of as many people as possible, for as long as possible! The terms “transhuman” and “posthuman” refer to overcoming the historical limitations and failure modes of human beings – the precise vulnerabilities that have rendered life, in Thomas Hobbes’s words, “nasty, brutish, and short” for most of our species’ past. A species that transcends biology will continue to have biological elements. Indeed, my personal preference in such a future would be to retain all of my existing healthy biological capacities, but also to supplement them with other biological and non-biological enhancements that would greatly extend the length and quality of my life. No transhumanist wants human beings to die out and be replaced by intelligent machines, and every transhumanist wants today’s humans to survive to benefit from future technologies. Transhumanists who advocate the development of powerful artificial intelligence (AI) support either (i) integration of human beings with AI components or (ii) the harmonious coexistence of enhanced humans and autonomous AI entities. Even those transhumanists who advocate “mind backups” or “mind uploading” in an electronic medium (I am not one of them, as I explain here) do not wish for their biological existences to be intentionally destroyed. They conceive of mind uploads as contingency plans in case their biological bodies perish.

Even the “artilect war” anticipated by more pessimistic transhumanists such as Hugo de Garis is greatly misunderstood. Such a war, if it arises, would not come from advanced technology, but rather from reactionaries attempting to forcibly suppress technological advances and persecute their advocates. Most transhumanists do not consider this scenario to be likely in any event. More probable are lower-level protracted cultural disputes and clashes over particular technological developments.

Misconception #4: “A global theocracy envisioned by Moonies or the Taliban would be preferable to the kind of future these traitors to the human species have their hearts set on, because even the most joyless existence is preferable to oblivion.

The above was an actual comment on the Taleb Facebook thread. It is astonishing that anyone would consider theocratic oppression preferable to radical life extension, universal abundance, ever-expanding knowledge of macroscopic and microscopic realms, exploration of the universe, and the liberation of individuals from historical chains of oppression and parasitism. This misconception is fueled by the strange notion that transhumanists (or technological progress in general) will destroy us all – as exemplified by the “Terminator” scenario of hostile AI or the “gray goo” scenario of nanotechnology run amok. Yet all of the apocalyptic scenarios involving future technology lack the safeguards that elementary common sense would introduce. Furthermore, they lack the recognition that incentives generated by market forces, as well as the sheer numerical and intellectual superiority of the careful scientists over the rogues, would always tip the scales greatly in favor of the defenses against existential risk. As I explain in “Technology as the Solution to Existential Risk” and “Non-Apocalypse, Existential Risk, and Why Humanity Will Prevail”, the greatest existential risks have either always been with us (e.g., the risk of an asteroid impact with Earth) or are in humanity’s past (e.g., the risk of a nuclear holocaust annihilating civilization). Technology is the solution to such existential risks. Indeed, the greatest existential risk is fear of technology, which can retard or outright thwart the solutions to the perils that may, in the status quo, doom us as a species. As an example, Mark Waser has written an excellent commentary on the “inconvenient fact that not developing AI (in a timely fashion) to help mitigate other existential risks is itself likely to lead to a substantially increased existential risk”.

Misconception #5: Transhumanists want to turn people into the Borg from Star Trek.

The Borg are the epitome of a collectivistic society, where each individual is a cog in the giant species machine. Most transhumanists are ethical individualists, and even those who have communitarian leanings still greatly respect individual differences and promote individual flourishing and opportunity. Whatever their positions on the proper role of government in society might be, all transhumanists agree that individuals should not be destroyed or absorbed into a collective where they lose their personality and unique intellectual attributes. Even those transhumanists who wish for direct sharing of perceptions and information among individual minds do not advocate the elimination of individuality. Rather, their view might better be thought of as multiple puzzle pieces being joined but remaining capable of full separation and autonomous, unimpaired function.

My own attraction to transhumanism is precisely due to its possibilities for preserving individuals qua individuals and avoiding the loss of the precious internal universe of each person. As I expressed in Part 1 of my “Eliminating Death” video series, death is a horrendous waste of irreplaceable human talents, ideas, memories, skills, and direct experiences of the world. Just as transhumanists would recoil at the absorption of humankind into the Borg, so they rightly denounce the dissolution of individuality that presently occurs with the oblivion known as death.

Misconception #6: Transhumanists usually portray themselves “like robotic, anime-like characters”.

That depends on the transhumanist in question. Personally, I portray myself as me, wearing a suit and tie (which Taleb and his followers dislike just as much – but that is their loss). Furthermore, I see nothing robotic or anime-like about the public personas of Ray Kurzweil, Aubrey de Grey, or Max More, either.

Misconception #7: “Transhumanism is attracting devotees of a frighteningly high scientific caliber, morally retarded geniuses who just might be able to develop the humanity-obliterating technology they now merely fantasize about. It's a lot like a Heaven's Gate cult, but with prestigious degrees in physics and engineering, many millions more in financial backing, a growing foothold in mainstream culture, a long view of implementing their plan, and a death wish that extends to the whole human race not just themselves.

This is another statement on the Taleb Facebook thread. Ironically, the commenter is asserting that the transhumanists, who support the indefinite lengthening of human life, have a “death wish” and are “morally retarded”, while he – who opposes the technological progress needed to preserve us from the abyss of oblivion – apparently considers himself a champion of morality and a supporter of life. If ever there was an inversion of characterizations, this is it. At least the commenter acknowledges the strong technical skills of many transhumanists – but calling them “morally retarded” presupposes a counter-morality of death that should rightly be overcome and challenged, lest it sentence each of us to death. The Orwellian mindset that “evil is good” and “death is life” should be called out for the destructive and dangerous morass of contradictions that it is. Moreover, the commenter provides no evidence that any transhumanist wants to develop “humanity-obliterating technologies” or that the obliteration of humanity is even a remote risk from the technologies that transhumanists do advocate.

Misconception #8: Transhumanism is wrong because life would have no meaning without death.

Asserting that only death can give life meaning is another bizarre contradiction, and, moreover, a claim that life can have no intrinsic value or meaning qua life. It is sad indeed to think that some people do not see how they could enjoy life, pursue goals, and accumulate values in the absence of the imminent threat of their own oblivion. Clearly, this is a sign of a lack of creativity and appreciation for the wonderful fact that we are alive. I delve into this matter extensively in my “Eliminating Death” video series. Part 3 discusses how indefinite life extension leaves no room for boredom because the possibilities for action and entertainment increase in an accelerating manner. Parts 8 and 9 refute the premise that death gives motivation and a “sense of urgency” and make the opposite case – that indefinite longevity spurs people to action by making it possible to attain vast benefits over longer timeframes. Indefinite life extension would enable people to consider the longer-term consequences of their actions. On the other hand, in the status quo, death serves as the great de-motivator of meaningful human endeavors.

Misconception #9: Removing death is like removing volatility, which “fragilizes the system”.

This sentiment was an extrapolation by a commenter on Taleb’s ideas in Antifragile. It is subject to fundamentally collectivistic premises – that the “volatility” of individual death can be justified if it somehow supports a “greater whole”. (Who is advocating the sacrifice of the individual to the collective now?) The fallacy here is to presuppose that the “greater whole” has value in and of itself, apart from the individuals comprising it. An individualist view of ethics and of society holds the opposite – that societies are formed for the mutual benefit of participating individuals, and the moment a society turns away from that purpose and starts to damage its participants instead of benefiting them, it ceases to be desirable. Furthermore, Taleb’s premise that suppression of volatility is a cause of fragility is itself dubious in many instances. It may work to a point with an individual organism whose immune system and muscles use volatility to build adaptive responses to external threats. However, the possibility of such an adaptive response requires very specific structures that do not exist in all systems. In the case of human death, there is no way in which the destruction of a non-violent and fundamentally decent individual can provide external benefits of any kind worth having. How would the death of your grandparents fortify the mythic “society” against anything?

Misconception #10: Immortality is “a bit like staying awake 24/7”.

Presumably, those who make this comparison think that indefinite life would be too monotonous for their tastes. But, in fact, humans who live indefinitely can still choose to sleep (or take vacations) if they wish. Death, on the other hand, is irreversible. Once you die, you are dead 24/7 – and you are not even given the opportunity to change your mind. Besides, why would it be tedious or monotonous to live a life full of possibilities, where an individual can have complete discretion over his pursuits and can discover as much about existence as his unlimited lifespan allows? To claim that living indefinitely would be monotonous is to misunderstand life itself, with all of its variety and heterogeneity.

Misconception #11: Transhumanism is unacceptable because of the drain on natural resources that comes from living longer.

This argument presupposes that resources are finite and incapable of being augmented by human technology and creativity. In fact, one era’s waste is another era’s treasure (as occurred with oil since the mid-19th century). As Julian Simon recognized, the ultimate resource is the human mind and its ability to discover new ways to harness natural laws to human benefit. We have more resources known and accessible to us now – both in terms of food and the inanimate bounties of the Earth – than ever before in recorded history. This has occurred in spite – and perhaps because of – dramatic population growth, which has also introduced many new brilliant minds into the human species. In Part 4 of my “Eliminating Death” video series, I explain that doomsday fears of overpopulation do not hold, either historically or prospectively. Indeed, the progress of technology is precisely what helps us overcome strains on natural resources.

Conclusion

The opposition to transhumanism is generally limited to espousing some variations of the common fallacies I identified above (with perhaps a few others thrown in). To make real intellectual progress, it is necessary to move beyond these fallacies, which serve as mental roadblocks to further exploration of the subject – a justification for people to consider transhumanism too weird, too unrealistic, or too repugnant to even take seriously. Detractors of transhumanism appear to recycle these same hackneyed remarks as a way to avoid seriously delving into the actual and genuinely interesting philosophical questions raised by emerging technological innovations.

These are questions on which many transhumanists themselves hold sincere differences of understanding and opinion. Fundamentally, though, my aim here is not to “convert” the detractors – many of whose opposition is beyond the reach of reason, for it is not motivated by reason. Rather, it is to speak to laypeople who are not yet swayed one way or the other, but who might not have otherwise learned of transhumanism except through the filter of those who distort and grossly misunderstand it. Even an elementary explication of what transhumanism actually stands for will reveal that we do, in fact, strongly advocate individual human life and flourishing, as well as technological progress that will uplift every person’s quality of life and range of opportunities.

Those who disagree with any transhumanist about specific means for achieving these goals are welcome to engage in a conversation or debate about the merits of any given pathway. But an indispensable starting point for such interaction involves accepting that transhumanists are serious thinkers, friends of human life, and sincere advocates of improving the human condition.


Gennady Stolyarov II is an actuary, science-fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, and composer. He recently wrote Death is Wrong, an illustrated children’s book on indefinite life extension. Mr. Stolyarov is Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress.


Print Email permalink (10) Comments (7810) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


Sure, by no means is transhumanism a cult or religion, but see that image of the “transhumanist” woman? Where are all the photos of “sexy” transhumanist men? Also, the IEET is “left of the middle” politically, so that photo doesn’t really go with our technoprogressivism, or does it? We tried to tackle some of these issues here:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20130304

and here: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20120518

I want to see images of normal “transhumanist” men and womyn. I think, even though we are programmed a bit, from natural selection, to think of this and that as “sexy” the future will be post-gender anyway.

“Transhumanism is wrong because life would have no meaning without death.” I totally agree that there is no place for death if it can be avoided, and if people have the choice to live longer or go under euthanasia voluntarily.

“Misconception #3: Transhumanists want to destroy humanity. Why else would they use terms such as “posthuman” and “postbiological”?” - In my opinion it is really about the mind, the brain and mind of the human that will be enhanced – therefore post-gender and posthumanism is about using technology to increase, in progressive positive ways – the nature of the mind. If I could have more memory, multitask better, and have added sensory organs attached to myself, like sonar, by all means, I would chose to – there is no reason I can think of not to enhance consciousness and the mind in a progressive leftist leaning way by way of consent and choice. We also need to make these technologies available to ANYONE who wants them. Think of the possibilities: curing mental diseases like dementia, depression, ADD, drug addiction, addictions in general, schizophrenia, etc.

The possibilities seem endless, but I would like to personally see global wealth distribution, education for all of humanity, good healthcare, housing, etc come along with transhumanism. Science can indeed figure out how to live in a post-scarcity future while increasing the standard of living for all minds that want it. It is a matter of dismantling hierarchy, patriarchy, power, and increasing radical democracy, education, and the valuing of egalitarianism, in my opinion.





It’s doubly ironic and funny to be accused of moral retardation and having a death wish when there’s virtually no conceivable path toward long-term viability for humanity without enhancement technologies. Even if we do manage to eke out a few more millennia of “the most joyless existence,” the oblivion which this is supposedly preferable to is then guaranteed.

That being said, the author is also wrong to overstate the case in the other direction, downplaying existential risks and for some reason asserting that the risk of nuclear annihilation is “behind us.” If anything, it’s more of a threat than ever, with more powers having access to these weapons, which are now much more powerful than when they were last used, along with the countless ones that have gone missing during the chaotic dissolution of the USSR. And remember, this is just one particular plate we’ve had to keep spinning for the past few decades, with several very close calls - many more plates are on the way. When I consider this reality, I become very pessimistic indeed.

I love that pic of Kurzweil with the sign. I’d love to see one like that of him in a sandwich board.





“In the case of human death, there is no way in which the destruction of a non-violent and fundamentally decent individual can provide external benefits of any kind worth having. How would the death of your grandparents fortify the mythic “society” against anything?”

Forget about my grandparents, let’s take my father. Of all the deaths that have occurred in the world so far, his was the one that caused me the most pain.

So, how did my father’s death fortify “society” - this entity whose desirability, as the author correctly points out, depends entirely on the extent to which it benefits rather than damaging its participants - against anything?

I certainly don’t intend to attempt a comprehensive reply to that question, but it does for me raise another one, namely: what will happen to this “society” if and when we manage to defeat ageing?

Of all the “misconceptions” of transhumanism listed by the author, this is the one that in my view cannot be dismissed quite as easily as many transhumanists and (other) life extensionists seem to want to.





@Peter: The risk of cultural and psychological stagnation is indeed the most valid potential threat. We already know that science moves forward one funeral at a time, and can see today the dangers of gerontocracy. The defeating of aging could make these problems worse, although the introduction of AI and IA will likely serve as enough of wild cards to disrupt the system from stagnating.





What are IAs? Intelligent Animals?  If so wouldn’t that just create more competition and clash of cultures?





Intelligence amplification -brain-computer interfaces, neuroprostheses, etc.





“Intelligent Animals?  If so wouldn’t that just create more competition and clash of cultures?”

Intelligent Animals would create more sports heroes!
BTW SHaGGGz, re your mail, want you to know for certain I did not send you a message concerning punks and goths, skin color and complete equality—even I wouldn’t write something such as that. Don’t even know what goth is save it has something to do with youthful white culture.
Last thing I remember was punks sticking safety pins in their earlobes.

 

 

 





@SHaGGGz
I don’t think it’s only stagnation. Time and time again I here that overpopulation and resource scarcity are “myths”, but they don’t look like myths to me. And what about distribution? Who will have access to this exciting new technology? And how will the rest of us feel?

I’m not saying these are conclusive reasons to oppose radical life extension (I certainly don’t), but they are, in my view, risks worth focusing on.





@Peter: Those are also valid concerns, though I feel those of resource scarcity and overpopulation are often understood as being more zero sum by most than they really are, and thus somewhat overblown.

The question of distribution is the other big one, and it largely depends on whether we resolve this Gilded Age like the last one, with a sort of Newer Deal. Having more democratic transhumanist think tanks such as this one get their message out is going to be a factor in that.





@SHaGGGz: Quite so.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: David Pearce - Interview: on the nature of consciousness and mind

Previous entry: Transhumanism and Money

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,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376