IEET > Vision > Staff > Kyle Munkittrick > Technoprogressivism
New Atlantis’ Response to Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism
Kyle Munkittrick   Apr 9, 2010   Pop Transhumanism  

Transhumanism has a lot of opponents. Some people think we’re insane Robot Cultists drooling as we watch science-fiction movies and cowering in fear every time some aspect of our frail biology rears its head. Others think we’re immoral or philosophically confused or a hoard of imbeciles and will not deign to argue with us.

Then there is the category of people who probably fall under the banner of conservative, but given the utter meaningless of that term in the post Bush-Rove era, I’ll say there are those who are concerned about our good intentions being misled. These aren’t bad folks and they don’t think we are either. It’s sort of refreshing.

A blog for The New Atlantis, entitled Futurisms, is one of those refreshing sites. Nearly every blog post they put up makes me bang my head against the desk, but at least I’m doing it out of respect and not fury. I’m so used to finding people spew bile that I got all hot-and-bothered by one of their posts that I snarkily retorted. Adam Keiper responded and, instead of starting a comment ping-pong, I’m going to give this argument a full blog post. MAYBE TWO IF I’M FEELING LONG WINDED.

The article in question was Charles T. Rubin’s response to Hughes’ essay on Democracy vs Technocracy. For those who lack perfect memory, that one had a pretty awesome comment thread and I ended up posting about the rhetorical failings of many A.I. worshipers supporters. The essay is accompanied by what I must admit is a handy bit of photoshoppery with HAL 9000 wearing a crown – askew no less. Futurisms has been faithfully commenting on each of Hughes posts and making their own counter-point essay series in parallel. Ever so briefly, I want to point out the core failing of the, well, conservative (?? Is that fair, Futurism writers?) arguments made against Hughes.

The core failing is that… well, for Futurisms at least, the arguments made by the authors don’t lead anywhere. Every time one of their writers seems to be on the scent of some great critique of transhumanism, they just end up with something like “they’re moral relativists” or “the logical extreme of liberal values” or something else. The most recent critique of Hughes is telling. Rubin reads Hughes’ essay and comes to the conclusion that transhumanists would like a despot, but that some of us managed to retain juuuuuust enough American Government 101 to be wary – but really, we’d love a despot, especially a robotic one, because it’s from the future. I retorted by quoting Hughes’ admonition of despotism found within that very same essay, demonstrating the cherry-picking done by Rubin. Adam Keiper responded with:

To answer your question: All three of us have read Mr. Hughes’s series in its entirety. I don’t think Mr. Rubin’s post is an example of inappropriate cherry-picking. The Tocqueville quotation is a response to Mr. Hughes’s penultimate paragraph. And the line you seem to be objecting to in Mr. Rubin’s post is in response to Mr. Hughes’s last paragraph, where a reader would expect Mr. Hughes to state most clearly his deeply felt conclusions. Are you implying that Mr. Hughes simply didn’t mean what he wrote in his last paragraph: “If I could convince myself that turning our fate over to [an enlightened despot] was the only way forward I also would be tempted”?

I’m implying that Hughes didn’t mean what Keiper and Rubin construe him to mean. “If I could convince myself” is shorthand for “I just spent 10 paragraphs trying to convince myself that there is any real justification for despotism. In spite of the existence of Enlightenment despots as well as well respected apologists for despotism, I cannot convince myself despotism is ever justified, therefore I reject it. I, however, recognize the tantalizing nature of such arguments” Thus, he cannot even tempt himself. The reason I cited the more polemic paragraph made earlier by Hughes is that reflects the climax of his argument, his revelation and central point, while the line quoted by Rubin occurs in the denouement of the argument.

So in the end, what we’re left with is half an argument from Rubin – that transhumanists like Hughes might want a robotic despot even if they say they don’t – and to show how obviously bad it is, he quotes Tocqueville. Wow, what a crusher of an argument, Tocqueville’s “despots are bad” paragraph. Rubin’s retort to Hughes argument that despotism was bad is a quotation describing how bad despotism is. And that’s it. There is no “but an A.I. despot would be uniquely bad because X” or “Hughes wants democracy, but has trouble getting beyond generic platitudes. The big conflicts of liberalism show up in his microcosm of democratic transhumanism here and here.” But that doesn’t happen. There is no follow up.

The whole blog reads that way. It’s either “liberalism bad” or “libertarians bad” using the most worn-out generic arguments, like “libertarians want everything celebrated and allowed,” as they make against Mike Treder’s “Getting Used to Hideousness” piece. In short, I don’t know what the writers for Futurisms stand for, merely what they stand against. I mean, I’m not saying their not doing a good job being conservative, because what better exchange represents the conservative mind than “I’m going to do this!” “No.” “Why not?” “Because, we don’t do that.” Give me a why, writers of Futurism, give me some meat. Do you oppose cognitive enhancement? Why? Don’t just write cutesy blog posts about how dewy-eyed transhumanist goals are, hit us hard and hit us where it hurts. Pull out the Fukuyama cannons! Make it a Kass-tastrophe!

Here is an example: Futurisms and its writers don’t actually hold to any real values, which is why they are unable to import any of the transhumanist ideas into their value structures or effectively show why transhumanist ideas don’t fit. In fact, they have to use our own criteria against us, and they don’t do that very well. Alternatively I, for example, believe in natural rights, but that those natural rights are emergent and explain why a single human cell does not have the same rights as a child, and, furthermore, why a child does not have full citizenship but an adult does. Though our legal system doesn’t say it explicitly, this form of rights codification implies that rights stem from a specific level of cognitive aptitude allowing autonomy, sentience, empathy, and reflexivity allowing one to function in a polis.

When I stumbled across transhumanism late in my senior year at George Mason, I was able to incorporate ideas like uplift and non-human rights into my value structure without compromising other beliefs, such as that many animals are justly treated with fewer rights than humans because of their lower cognitive capacity. Alternatively, the writers at The New Atlantis have shown time and time again their ability to be reactionary and aggressively defend the status quo without needing to actually disclose what their values are or what the Good is, merely what exists in violation of it.

I’m tired of reading critiques of our arguments or eye-rolling posts about some future-hype scenario. Throw a punch TNA writers, I’ll take it on the jaw.

Also, stop leaning on Nietzsche for your arguments. What is it with conservatives obsessing over him? I will smear you across the table with Foucault if you pull that mustachioed lunatic out again. Seriously, stop beating a dead horse, you’re making me crazy (GET IT?).

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.
Nicole Sallak Anderson is a Computer Science graduate from Purdue University. She developed encryption and network security software, which inspired the eHuman Trilogy—both eHuman Dawn and eHuman Deception are available at Amazon, the third installment is expected in early 2016. She is a member of the advisory board for the Lifeboat Foundation and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.


Apparently the TNA guys have pretty much exactly the same mindset with regard to Hughes et al. as Hughes et al. have towards us SIAI supporters.

It’s very difficult for the political animals known as humans to end up commenting on what their perceived political opponents/competitors *actually* think.

A quick point: Adam Keiper of TNA emailed me after I wrote this post. In addition to being quite cordial, he noted that the task of Futurisms and TNA is to closely watch and critique transhumanists and other techno-optimists, not present a counter-philosophy. In his own words:

“We created the blog to monitor and critique the transhumanist/Singularitarian movement, not to set forth our own grand philosophical vision. You can of course glean from some of our negative arguments what we might want to affirm—or conserve, being conservatives—and you can probably get a fuller sense of it from poking through the archives of The New Atlantis proper. But (if you’ll let me abuse one of your lines), we’re not the chefs who are going to “give you some meat”—we’re more like the food critics who want to help you find a better restaurant.”

“I’m tired of reading critiques of our arguments or eye-rolling posts about some future-hype scenario. Throw a punch TNA writers, I’ll take it on the jaw.”

Nicely said and welcomed.

“Also, stop leaning on Nietzsche for your arguments. What is it with conservatives obsessing over him? I will smear you across the table with Foucault if you pull that mustachioed lunatic out again. Seriously, stop beating a dead horse, you’re making me crazy (GET IT?).”

Unfortunately this made me think of Mario w/ the mustachio. Let’s not argue in theory let’s argue so people besides ourselves can communicate about these topics.

I believe that there must be extreme points of view on both sides of any subject.  That dualism of “us vs. them,” while frustrating and sometimes downright infuriating, is an absolute necessity.

Beneath the petty namecalling and fearmongering, there are kernals of truth coming from both sides.  Only when those kernals have popped into the forefront of the discussion, can real, reasoned arguments take place.

In politics, you see the extreme left vs. the extreme right.  in the end, it is the moderates who make things happen.  It’s the people who stand somewhere in between who say “I see what you both want, now let’s compromise.”  Something similar might be happening here. 

I have never heard of TNA before, and I still need to look at their site in depth.  If they are doing what they claim to be, they seem to be those moderates who are not knee-jerking to some of the claims of Transhumanists and fighting to establish anti-tech laws and such.  They would seem to be the moderates who say, “progress is good, let’s just be careful and make sure we know what we’re doing.”  I say, more power to them.  Although I’m a new poster here, I have been following and other similar sites for a couple of years now.  I agree with much of the idealism and research I see going on here.  But not all.  I see the need to shoot for the future while keeping grounded in the now.

I look forward to seeing some good, thought-provoking, cultured debate.  I may even join in.

Hi Kyle, I resent your comment about AI “worshipers”, supporters, or whatever.  Using a derogatory term like that shows that you’ve already concretely chosen sides, are deploying factionalistic language, and aren’t really that interested in learning too much more about our position.  I find it interesting that none of us use that kind of language, but you do.

Your knowledge about Nietzsche is very naive, almost to absurdity.
Comparing him with Fuco, the relativist nihilist of value, is to your ignorance.
Your young brit American quick intellect don’t see the bastardized humanism called trans h+.
It is all about control mania and strutting brit monkey business.

I am worrying the ultimate military and police power, the action, action, do and do power, will like the transhuman machine beings of action.


YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Metaethics Makes Slow Progress

Previous entry: Six Easy Steps to Avert the Collapse of Civilization