What is Transhumanism today in France?
Marc Roux
2013-10-25 00:00:00

I will present in the first part the particular understanding of Transhumanism as members of the Association Française Transhumaniste and I’ll give an overview of our key ethical and political positions. In the second part, I’ll discuss various proposals that we are promoting for a techno-progressive future.

1.) Values & principles :

1.1.) general reminders



First some general reminders.



In our opinion, there is not one Transhumanism, but some transhumanisms. Indeed, the problems concern all the cultural and political field.





I would argue that it is precisely this multiplicity of transhumanist thought that proves how much it is alive and successful.



That said, there are still points on which we, Transhumanists, often agree, regardless of our tendencies.

WHO. The human condition is moving.



The first question to ask is: what is human? While not necessarily answering the question, transhumanists believe above all that the human condition is a moving condition. From our essentially materialist point of view, humans today are the result of a process of evolution of life over millions of years since the appearance of our species. There is no evidence that this process is complete, even if the conditions in which it operates have changed. In other words, the people of today are not the people of tomorrow as we are not the people of yesterday. Yet all these people are ... humans! This is important for issues such as dignity, respect, and what makes a being a person under the law.

WHAT. The person took over.



The spectacular development of science and technology called the "NBIC convergence"1 could help lead, or guide, the development of individuals and species.





This "chosen evolution," as opposed to the "suffered evolution" we people came from, along with animals and plants, would eventually result in a movement that began at least from the Renaissance and which, far from being fundamentally new, would allow us to progress to a new level.





Let us be clear: transhumanism is less a rupture than continuity. This obviously does not mean that we all understand and master the complexity of life, far from it. But we, humans, are beginning to be able to intervene in this process, and there is every indication that this is only the beginning. It seems likely that humanity will learn to control more and more of their own biological destiny.



That is, as some say, if we do not destroy ourself before we tackle evolution itself ;-)



WHY? What do we do with humans?



This fundamental question requires an absolutely necessary wider debate.



➢ Do we intervene to only the minimum degree, staying as close as possible to a "therapeutic" approach, accompanying an evolutionary process that for a long time is no longer governed soley by « natural selection » but primarily by changes in our environment?



➢ Or do we assume our knowledge, the legacy of the history of human thought, and go forward? And if so, under what conditions can we consider intervening more heavily, to go beyond therapeutic approaches to offer a true "enhancement" of individuals or the species?



But more important than any other question is the question: Why? To do what and for which reasons?

HOW? What is enhancement?



This raises a host of other issues, the one calling the other: what is really an enhancement, an improvement? What really matters, which will change the face of humanity? Is this or that improvement, useful for the individual, also useful for the species (and vice versa)? What directions (plural) could take these actions? What dangers could arise? And so on.

1.2.) Predominant values ?

Conservatism of the current decision-makers



So far, the public was not interested in all this. It is mainly the elites (political, economic and even scientific) that have taken on these issues. In France, it is only recently that it is a matter of real public debate.2



Thus, the phenomenal success of a video game like, Deus Ex: Human Revolution3





did much to break the circle of elite debate. But, while some promise a bright future (I think for example to the essay by Laurent Alexandre, La mort de la mort),4 the debate in France is still in its infancy.



However, it appears that the choices made by decision-makers are guided by a deep conservatism. Whether it's the votes cast two years ago by the French national representation in connection with the revision of the bioethics laws, or the previous recommendations of the National Advisory Board for Ethics (CCNE), when we touch the bottom of the reasons given, it always comes to the same conclusion: don’t touch the taboo of what is alive! And it seems that we are just now witnessing the same phenomenon around the issue of medically assisted procreation, a debate that resembles the debate around gay marriage.



From the point of view of Transhumanism, it is time to break free of such shackles, particularly because there are values ​​that we feel are more important. Even more important than the importance of the living things there is the importance of the conscious thinking beings.

An apology



(Consciousness and not living at the top of our scale of values)



Whether you are a biologist or a young mother, we are all fascinated by the « miracle » of life. This group of cells that is struggling to continue to exist, against all odds, is admirable.



And yet ... even more than life, what is valuable for human beings is "higher consciousness", the conscious thought which, not content to be, on the contrary wants to exist.



It is science, especially the latest advances in cognitive science, that make me say that human thought now allows living things to create a more powerful reality on this planet, to control the environment and anticipate the future5.



But it is transhumanism that leads me to say that, today, this conscious human thought could serve its own emergence independently. Not to be a product just of life, but to be the product of itself. It could then largely free itself from the fragility of its original biological origin. It could learn how consciousness itself works, and thus be better able to integrate neurostructural mechanisms that will allow us one day no longer be subject to its dictates, but to participate with it in our own destiny, and freely write our consciousnesses.



Thought, conscious or not, moreover, seems to be increasingly our reason for living. Since the development of human consciousness we are no longer guided by a biological imperatives and instincts for survival. We depend ever more on the meaning we give our own lives. But what does that make us able to find or invent as a meaning to our lives, if it's not conscious thought itself? Imagine: an earth having lost all trace of life may seem a terrible desolation, but a universe having lost all traces of human thought? Jean-Paul Sartre expressed in his autobiography, Les mots, that this idea (a universe without meaning supplied by humans) was one of his greatest terrors. It is an abyss without any hope that I refuse to imagine.

Nor does imagining posthumans or aliens, or believing in deep ecology, ideas which puts the destiny of thought or of life in the hands of beings or systems having nothing to do with humans - in my opinion do anything to eliminate this fear. this would not be a popular way to present the transhumanist case. The search for a continuation of conscious thought of human origin should be the goal.

Free the individual, increasingly

But before we get there, before freeing the mind, a first concern for most Transhumanists is expanding individual freedom.



In my opinion, one of the values ​​shared by most transhumanists is inherited from the Enlightenment: the free disposal of his body is inalienable as long as it does not affect the freedom of others.



The result is a multiplicity of demands that society, or rather the state, particularly in France, still persists in refusing. I will return to this point later in detail.



However, before explaining what technoprogrssive proposals that the French Association of Transhumanists may make I have to take two final precautions.

1.3.) Two pitfalls

Deny the excesses of the market logic



Several major obstacles stand in the way of the path of successful Transhumanism. These pitfalls are quite clearly identified by those who identify a technoprogressives.



One of the most dangerous, if not the worst, pitfalls arises from the excesses of market logic as our dominant, governing system particularly in the last two or three centuries. is this market logic trending today toward the privatization of all knowledge and even of living? The growing concentration of capital and economic power causes excessive social inequalities, doesn’t it? I think we need to take seriously the neoluddite's warning6 when they argue that, in a system so unequal, any technological advance can only serve to reinforce inequalities7. The technoprogressives refuse the logic of absolute capital concentration, because it seems to them it carries a risk that could be fatal to Transhumanism itself: that a majority of people increasingly refuse the use of certain scientific advances. Beyond even such a blockage of scientific progress, the destabilization caused in our society by a level of extreme inequality, history (in Russia and France, for example) has shown repeatedly, can lead to disorders sufficient to cause social collapse.



Another aspect of the same pitfall is consumerist logic. In a system where one of the main purposes is to increase the accumulation of capital, when the accumulation machine needs more and more consumption of goods and services, some of the players are constantly seeking the best possible ways to control of the economic behavior of consumers. It seems for example that the advertising companies are the largest private investors in cognitive science. Many already today swear by the magic of "neuromarketing"8. For them, it sometimes seems that the ideal transhuman would be a consumer on demand.



But beyond the danger that such a prospect poses to our freedoms, this logic seems to me very deadly because it is based on the merits of a principle of irresponsibility, the idea that all property and all resources can be privatized and consumed indefinitely. It denies the notion of a "commons" and denies the idea that our planet, and thus humanity for a long time, has limitations. (We only have to see the difficulty with which the system reacts to the climate crisis, when major economic interests prevent states from agreeing on urgent measures to be taken). From this perspective, the transhumanist idea of human enhancement could result in an augmentation of consumption, precipitating our absurd rush headlong toward the wall of ecological constraints.



Thus, Technoprogressives, perhaps unlike other proponents of Transhumanism, want to pay attention to improving the social and ecological environment they consider necessary for humanity, for the human thought process, or even what humanity will become in the future.

Refuse the excesses of scientism



Another well known problem, which may be equally important, is a level of trust in the technical progress that borders on religious faith, a belief that « science will solve all our problems! »



From the perspective of the French Association of Transhumanists, it goes without saying that every technical advance brings hopes and at the same time, risks. We have already paid dearly for the rushed development of technologies like nuclear weapons to asbestos.



If we want to seriously consider the use and development of technologies that can powerfully transform the social and biological condition of humanity, then certainly there are risks that we should learn to minimize. For in the potential of some technologies of human enhancement probably lie some global "existential risks," that is to say the possibility of endangering the very existence of humanity9: losing control of a super virus, creating hostile artificial Intelligence, nanoparticle pollution, a drastic increase in lifespan resulting in a drop of procreation, or a combination of various technological disasters, ecological and social...



Therefore, technoprogressive transhumanists want to be more than particularly attentive to technological risks, and keep at the forefront the dangers that their anticipations sometimes make them alone able to get a glimpse of, not to reject a rational and responsible application of the "precautionary principle", a principle which is in the French Constitution, that would be used rationally and responsibly, to require politicians to discharge their responsibilities, in order to better support technological progress and ensure that it is in fact in the direction of human progress.



Thus, transhumanist thought advances more every day - some might say inexorably - in the direction of political action.



But in France, where are we? To answer, for now I propose to begin to tell you, in my second part, that the proposals of technoprogressivism can be.



Technoprogressive proposals



For over two years, the French Transhumanist Association has worked on a program of demands for society in general and for politicians in particular.



At this stage it is still underdeveloped and focuses only on four areas which we consider paramount. The fundamental freedoms, the social/political question, education and research.



Freedoms:

In the area of ​​freedom, we want at this stage to emphasize the need to expand individual freedoms and especially the freedom to dispose of our own body as we choose. Western societies have undoubtedly become very liberal in terms of morality if we measure the scale of history. In century since the roaring twenties our societies have generally continued to allow more individual emancipation. Yet it seems there is still work to do to loosen the laces of the social corset. We are still prisoners of many taboos.

Freedom to dispose of our own body



One of the main claims of world Transhumanism, found for example in Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto (1991), is the widest possible freedom to use and enhance one's own body. It is significant that the prospect of the cyber-organism was used by that American philosopher as a means of promoting women's liberation. The emancipation of women is still incomplete and a radical freedom to dispose of our body can be a powerful way to advance this cause, which I will come back to it.



But without going immediately to the Cyborg, the Transhumanist believes that society and the state should intervene as little as possible in individual choices about the body, and the choices of parents or future parents.



Concerning the predetermination or modification of genetic characteristics, for example, as long as it doesn’t produce overt social disorder, we do not see how the community can justify a ban on genetic choices in principle. The arguments - such as those derived from the reactions of the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas10 - justifying such a ban on the grounds of deprivation of an essential indeterminacy of the individual necessary for the construction of his personality and freedom, these arguments seem purely speculative. They are not based - and for good reason - on any evidence, and are certainly more dependent on fears inspired by deep religious feelings: do not "play god". In fact, the social determinations of freedom and personality, which have always existed, are far more consequential than any genetic determinations are likely to be. But unfortunately, society adapts every day to these social constraints on freedom.



But let's talk specifics. Now I want to highlight two examples and very current practices that are prohibited by French law and which we believe should as soon as possible be made to the discretion of each individual. I will cite the case of surrogacy (in french la Gestation Pour Autrui) and the use of psychoactive substances.



Surrogate Motherhood



Surrogacy (or GPA in french) is not, strictly speaking, a human enhancement technology. One might therefore ask what it has to do in a program of transhumanist demands. It seems however that it is regulated by the same logic that could allow us to be as independent as possible, to more fully be the master of our own bodies. As part of a relationship between consenting adults, the voluntary and free provision of this reproductive function poses no difficulty for the development of the future child. On the contrary, in the context of a society that has accepted and well integrated this possibility of procreation, sSurrogacy should not cause any more problems than adoption.



Psychoactive substances



The French Transhumanist Association also takes part in the more general movement of all those who seek the liberalization and decriminalization, for personal use, of psychoactive substances. But for our purposes, we are not so concerned with what is considered a "drug" but rather with all pharmacopoeia, scientific or traditional, which can yield improved states of arousal, concentration, memory, imagination, and so on. While acknowledging the obvious dangers associated with a risk of addiction or the harmful effects of substances that remain to be avoided, Transhumanism advocates for greater freedom and greater respect for the responsibility of the users.



Society:



In the International transhumanist nebula, the French Transhumanist Association: Technoprog! is the only organization to call itself "techno-progressive," that is to say that we not only want to encourage technological progress, but much more to put technology at the service of collective human progress.



Techno-Progressivism



We do not want a society in which biological or cybernetic enhancement is restricted only to a minority of rich wealthy. The fear that humanity may develop at two or more speeds, and in which the equality of the enhanced and unenhanced would be questioned, are justified. This is why our association claims that, in contrast to the libertarian transhumanist model that could benefit only the ruling classes, another Transhumanism is possible, one that gives access to enhancement technologies to the many.



Ensure that all are able to choose enhancement



To ensure the widespread availability, it seems essential implement strong policies of redistribution, and that one of the cornerstones of that redistribution should be the establishment of a Universal Income at a high level support.



This concern for formal equality is the necessary requirement of our individual freedom because we know that there is no real freedom without guaranteeing everyone the minimum means to live that freedom.



Attention to any imbalances caused by the first enhancements



Our technoprogressive ​​approach is not limited to a concern for greater equality. It also involves attention to major social balances. It’s obvious that transhumanist developments would result - in fact it already results! - in social tensions, misunderstandings, perhaps opposition strong enough to produce major disturbances. It would be irresponsible to promote a Transhumanism deaf to the squeaks and cries of society. On the contrary, the French Transhumanist Association: Technoprog! wants to promote transhumanism through a wider debate. Its members are constantly seeking this debate, looking for possibilities to promote and organize it. AFT proposes that the issues of Transhumanism are subject to debate at all levels of society, that as much as possible information should be made ​​available to as many of the most dispassionate so that everyone can form an opinion with full knowledge of the facts.



Importance of the Internet



The importance of the Internet is now inescapable. The news of the last few years - I think especialy of the Arab revolution - have shown strikingly, to those who still doubted, how the Internet could be a factor promoting democracy.



Universal Internet



That's why AFT joined those who want universal access to the Internet. This access must be guaranteed the same way as any utility, and access should be guaranteed by the Constitution.



Net Neutrality



Projects such as the European ACTA or American SOPA, and the law called "Hadopi" in France, show that the states take a dim view of the independence and neutrality of the Net. With the pretext of a struggle against terrorism and counterfeiting, they seek to impose a control that, in fact, tends to limit both the freedom of the Internet and its neutrality. These restrictions cannot be permitted. AFT requires the search for even more freedom of expression and neutrality on the Internet.



Education:



Tthe first lever to facilitate a successful development of a transhumanist type is education. But we highlight two observations.



On the one hand, along with all the scientific community, we warn of the danger of the continuing decline in student numbers in science. This trend threatens the future of any society. But the consequences are not just economic.



Indeed, on the other hand, our time poses to citizens and public authorities the formidable challenge of technological convergence and acceleration. The increasing complexity of our technical environment that results from these two developments - convergence and acceleration – make our world more difficult to understand. For the average citizen, the common and understandable reaction to this lack of understanding is anxiety, fear and sometimes an irrational rejection of technology. When these feelings are joined by the, sometimes quite justified, feeling that the political and economic interests, the media and even the scientists themselves seek to manipulate the public, it is not surprising that the simple rejection of technology is transformed into neo-Luddite activism11.



For all these reasons, AFT advocates :



Focus on science education



A very important educational emphasis is scientific training. Science and technology education must be clearly encouraged, put in the spotlight so that courses attract many young people. In societies where manual work may increasingly require support by automated systems and where economic performance depends on multiple areas of knowledge, scientific training should be one of the main pillars of the construction of our future.



Training throughout life



But science education at school or university does not seem sufficient to ensure, at the best, people’s development in the transhumanist world in the making. Opportunities for training and reflection are necessary throughout life.



Upstream, it is not enough to worry about teaching a past world, throughout history, literature or the history of philosophy, or even a present world through science, geography, languages and so on. We believe it is an urgent need to teach young people and future generations to project themselves forward, to better anticipate the world in which they will live. For example, is it relevant to only plan for a life of 80 years if it may ultimately be much longer? In other words, we propose that the transhumanist questions be introduced early on, at least from middle school.





To prevent the consequences of such possible future shock it seems also very important that the transhumanist thought is presented to and discussed by all age groups. But since we're talking about training, it is also about preparing seniors to be able to choose to continue an activity - professional or not - well beyond the current retirement age.





Research:



The last area in which the French: Technoprog! began to put forward some proposals is - it won’t surprise you - in scientific research. I won’t tire you by developing a long speech calling for more resources. We need more resources for education and research, of course, but I would rather focus on some specific examples.



Support research on radical life extension



The work of Aubrey de Grey’s SENS, and in France by Professor Miroslav Radman at the Necker Hospital in Paris13 or Jean-Marc Lemaitre in Montpellier (CNRS-INSERM)14, on cellular aging suggest that a considerable extension of the length of healthy life is possible. We must therefore discuss now the possible ethical implications. But should we not also, and immediately, strongly support this research, so that if the societal responses are positive in the end, we are able to share it as soon as possible as many. The longer we delay, the more of us for whom it will come too late.



Do not hinder research



Apart from providing greater financial support for research, another dramatic factor blocking technological progress in France remains the outright prohibition of some lines of research, and I think of the particular case of the study and manipulation of human embryonic stem cells. The AFT:Technoprog! has invested in its small way in the debate preceding the latest revision of the bioethics laws of 2011. Our analysis is that, ultimately, the motivations that led the previous legislature to maintain the current prohibition (with derogations possible exception) are not only concerned about an ethical preoccupation to avoid exploitation or commercialization of the embryo, but also about religious values, either directly or largely drawn from Judeo-Christian taboos15. The way a part of the national representation has recently attempted to block the transition to a controlled licensing regime for embryonic stem cell research is characteristic of this religious taboo.



It seems to us that the secular French Republic, more than other human collectivity, cannot define its research policy on such grounds. Instead, it must proclaim freedom of basic research and therefore allow research on embryonic stem cells.





And with this, I conclude on our main current proposals.



Conclusion:



So I tried to give you an idea of ​​what motivates the fellows of the Association AFT: Technoprog!: Their values ​​and short-term goals. I say nothing of its modes of action but you can imagine that it is a lot on the Internet.



Conferences and online activism



We also organize conferences and the first four were mainly held in the Maison de la Recherche de la Sorbonne in Paris last two years. We are also concerned to have a media presence in the newspapers, radio and TV you can find references at the "media" page of our website.



Transhumanist coming out ?



You may also find that the Association AFT: Technoprog! currently represents the only formal organization representing the transhumanist movement in France. It is distinguished by its techno-progressive approach that pays attention to social and existential risks.



Nevertheless, it seems obvious that more and more voices are now heard here too, even in the academic world, which demand a wide debate on the issues posed by Transhumanism and that many of these voices are in fact advocates of human enhancement. But few simply say "yes, I agree with transhumanist thinking." In other words, the transhumanist current in France may well be more influential than it seems.



What we want to make humans, and why ?

We must all really begin to ask ourselves what we want to make humans and why we would do it like this or like that.



From our own thoughts, on behalf of the AFT: Technoprog!, I have to tell you that we defend the idea of ​​an open humanity, in solidarity, directed towards the free search for happiness for each and to the sustainability of free conscience for all. The idea of​​ an augmented humanity doesn’t make sense if it does not translate into an enhancement in our condition, as individuals and as a community.





For the Association Française Transhumaniste : Technoprog !




1 Since June 2002 and the report commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department Of Commerce (DOF), entitled "Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science: Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance".





2 See the tentative of public debate « Débat public sur les nanotechnologies » of 2009-2010 ( http://www.debatpublic-nano.org/ ).





3 See for example http://deusex.com/ and Article « Deus Ex Human Revolution: a transhumanist game? » Silicon Maniacs, September 30, 2011 (http://www.siliconmaniacs.org/deus-ex-human-revolution-un-jeu-transhumaniste/ ).





4 Laurent Alexandre, La mort de la mort, JC Lattès, April 2011).





5 See eg. Antonio Damasio, Le sentiment même de soi, Odile Jacob, May 2002 ; Jean-Pierre Changeux, Du vrai, du beau, du bien, Odile Jacob, November 2008.





6 Term referring, by comparison, the Luddism of the nineteenth century, pointing proactive technophobes, those who are ready to significant actions (rampage or political pressure) to slow, stop or even reverse the technological advances.





7 « Every innovation on the technology front causes a cascading deterioration of the balance of power between the powerfull and the powerless », http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com/spip.php?page=plan.





8 Marie Bénilde, « Scanner les cerveaux pour mieux vendre », Le Monde diplomatique, November 2007.





9 Nick Bostrom, « Existential Risks - Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards », Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9 - March 2002 (http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html ).





10 Jürgen Habermas, L'avenir de la nature humaine. : Vers un eugénisme libéral ?, Gallimard, November 2002.





11 After the movement of "GMO reapers," the association PMO (Pièce et Main d’œuvre) openly boasts a neo-Luddite position.





12 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, De la dignité de l’homme, translated from Latin and presented by Yves Hersant, bilingual edition, 2002.





13 See his recent book: Au-delà de nos limites biologiques, Plon, 2011.





14 "Le vieillissement des cellules est réversible", Le Monde, 10/31/11.





15 Act No. 2011-814 of 7 July 2011 concerning bioethics, and see the reports of parliamentary debates.





16 Eric Gaffet, research director at CNRS, in charge of the "Nanomaterials Research Group" at the University of Technology of Belfort-Montbéliard, Conference on "Nanotechnologies and Sustainable Development" 25 November 2010.