Tech-progressivism: A stance of active support for technological development in general and for human practices of genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification in particular. Tech-progressives believe that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments. - Dale Carrico, Fellow, IEET
Consider the following scenario: the “jobless recovery” is not an aberrant event but an advancing condition. Within the next fifty years, automation gradually consumes all sectors of the workforce. To remain competitive, corporate boards even use artificial intelligence (A.I.) systems that act as 24-hour CEOs in a faster, more comprehensive, and more reliable manner. As the corporations discover that the lucrative activities are in servicing each other rather than consumers, the meager “trickle down” that does exist will be shut off entirely. At the very least, the possibility of a jobless future provides a compelling reason to consider basic income proposals, which is precisely what Marshall Brain of “HowStuffWorks.com” has provided.
Consider another scenario: due to fears regarding the possible applications of certain technologies, some fears legitimate, others pure hyperbole, blanket bans are instituted. Among the technologies banned are nanotechnology and recursively self-enhancing A.I. Unless a global police state of terrific scale, intrusiveness, and draconian disposition were established to effectively enforce such a ban, black markets would emerge. In black markets, responsible regulation is impossible. In the absence of security provided by international cooperation, risks of destructive applications (intentional or accidental) rise significantly. Catastrophes such as misuse of genetically engineered biological agents, the release of self-replicating “nanobots” not dependent on a rare feedstock, the instantiation of a badly programmed “superintelligent system,” and devastation from unforeseen dangers all become more likely, not less, and the specter of “existential risks” or threats to all intelligent life becomes increasingly vivid.
These are the sort of concerns entertained by tech-progressives, particularly Democratic Transhumanists (DTs). In order to better conceptualize the DT agenda, we might consider the political area mapped out by the “Political Compass” website. If the x-axis references cultural politics (Libertarian v. Authoritarian) and the y-axis references economic politics (Left v. Right), then DTs would be in the “Libertarian Left/Social Democrat” quadrant along with progressive Democrats, Greens, etc. But add a third dimension to this picture, a z-axis on biotechnology (bioconservative v. tech-progressive) and DTs are often in a sharp contrast with much of the recent pessimism of progressives concerning technological advancement.
Why have some representatives of the “Libertarian Left” sided with proponents for the “Authoritarian Right” (like Leon Kass and Francis Fukayama of the President’s Council on Bioethics) on biotech matters? The main element seems to be recurrent despair over the application of technology toward destructive ends. Particularly in the 1990s, the Left seemed to have lost hope of directing technology toward socially beneficial, environmentally responsible forms. Reactionary “deep ecology” also took root with its misanthropic ideology of humanity as a plague on nature (instead of an evolving part of nature). No doubt much skepticism was in order, with Social Darwinist supporters of corporate autocracy loudly proclaiming their enthusiasm. But was it really wise of progressives to abdicate their claim to the future of tech development and take up a position of knee-jerk dissent?
The writings of bioconservatives like Bill McKibben (Environmentalist), George Annas (Health Law/Human Rights), Richard Hayes (Sierra Club) and Wesley J. Smith (former Nader collaborator), provide perfect examples of reactionary positions in the biotech revolution. Their adulation of limits imposed on people by “the natural order” borrows from the very sort of conservative cultural assertions that have historically rationalized the suppression of supposedly “unnatural” medicines or behaviors (e.g. cadaver study).
Yet many in the modern Left are quite supportive of using technology to alter our own bodies and improve people’s lives: witness support for the Transgender community or somatic cell nuclear transfer also known as “therapeutic cloning.” Democratic Transhumanists hold the real issues are safety and equality, followed closely by bodily autonomy and not whether or not vague conventional conceptions of “humanness” are somehow challenged. Some of tech-progressives who also qualify as Democratic Transhumanists are James Hughes (Health Policy/Sociology), Donna Haraway (Feminist Academic), Dale Carrico (Rhetorician at Berkeley), and Ken MacLeod (SciFi Author), Bruce Sterling (SciFi Author) and George Dvorsky (Columnist). Hughes and Carrico are both leaders in the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technology (IEET).
The problem with the deep ecologist/bioconservative trend is that it is not concerned with human interest. In working to achieve a sustainable future, we should pay more attention to potential public goods like nano-scale engineering, which in thirty years could enable cleaner manufacturing and recycling techniques. Supposing certain technologies will help people to become not just healthy as we happen to know it today, but “better than well” such as effective life-extension therapies or nootropics (“smart-drugs”), why shouldn’t we embrace such developments if we can provide equal access in the social interest? The distinction between therapy and augmentation is artificial, and relative to expected conditions. Overcoming ancient congenital afflictions through genetic medicine and treating neurological conditions is just a glimpse of the possibilities that lie on the horizon, and I for one want progressive sensibilities guiding the manner in which they are realized so that they are safely regulated and quickly move beyond the privilege of a select few.
In the current U.S. political climate, the Left has been put in such a defensive position on all fronts that it can be difficult to attract attention to such issues. However, it is precisely now that the Left must reanalyze the ideological frames through which it addresses issues – particularly technological ones, which have the greatest potential to alter economic structures and cultural practices. To offer a positive, empowering political alternative, the Left needs to get off the bioconservative bandwagon and start exploring issues and articulating positions from a broadly tech-progressive stance.
To find out more about Democratic Transhumanism, I recommend reading James Hughes’ book, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, and his papers, columns, radio interviews, and blog, which can be found through his website at www.ChangeSurfer.com. The columns of Dale Carrico and George Dvorsky are also recommended and can be found at the Canadian futurist site www.Betterhumans.com.