Transhumanism – Between Sense and Nonsense...

I’m not sure, if I would (or should) call myself a „Transhumanist“ – sometimes I do, and then again, sometimes I do not. This has nothing to do with opportunism, but rather with unclear definitions.

I advocate the principal idea, that humans should have the right to enhance their living conditions and extend, improve and augment their biological limitations through the use of (advanced) technology. As a matter of fact, humans have already tried this for centuries, whereas their success is always dependent on the time’s technological stand and the socio-cultural framework. (Since I spend most of my time reading texts of various disciplines and analyzing data, summarizing the essentials, trying to memorize the important aspects, put them in understandable words and racing against time to keep all my data up to date, constantly deleting, revising and restructuring, I surely can imagine the great benefits of some proposed enhancement technologies – it would be nice if I could process the data directly and digitally). But in my view the basic “Transhumanistic” idea is not new.

I don’t regard the “intelligent machine” or the “Cyborg” as something totally new or alien, but rather as a product of evolution – or to be more precise: of human and technological “co evolution”. I am pro progress and pro technological advance, and I think that humans should not (and can not?) close their eyes in face of all the chances and opportunities current and new technologies may hold for mankind – despite the risks. And a risk-free world, as some people demand it, is simply an illusion – it also poses a risk not to take risks… This is the “Transhuman side” of me.

 
            On the other hand, “Transhumanism” is a greatly polarizing topic, as I remember an acquaintance’s comment using the term “Trash-humanism”.  Actually I’m not considering the religious or ethically motivated critics as most problematic – I respect different points of view (an aspect I’ll consider later in the text) – but rather some ideas posed by some “Transhumanists” themselves, that in a way make the philosophy look ridiculous and give it some connotation with “UFO-logy”. Cryoconservation (yeah, I like “Futurama”), “uploading” (or politically correct “transmigration”?), and immortalitymania (o.k., who does not want to have the chance to live forever?) are great catchwords for the press, but don’t contribute to “Transhumanism” being taken seriously. So, in my view (and this is only my view, open to dispute), one has to decide how to present oneself: as some “freaky offbeat group” (what was a “revolutionary singularitarian” again?), or as some intellectual movement interested in fostering progress and innovation in a responsible way? I‘d rather would like to be associated with the latter than with the first.
 

Critical Discourse

If there cannot be a definite “right” and “wrong” in science – only better or less suited hypothesis, finding a “right” or “wrong” in the context of ideologies is even “more impossible”. There have been people, who at first were quite skeptical and critical about me advocating some of the “Transhumanist” philosophies, but after a discussion we found out that surprisingly we had quite a few things in common. It wasn’t that reactionary “bioconservative” and not that “freaky technofanatic” who altercated about the future – or end - of humanity, although in some points we could not agree (e.g. regarding the beginning of life and some points about genetic engineering). But we agreed that it is important for the human to grow – not in the first place technologically, but as a responsible, respectful, considerate and caring human being, regardless of ones “outer shell” or “ideological standpoint”. (We also wondered how the usage of atomic energy for energy generation would have been perceived if humankind had never had the idea of building an “atomic bomb”…).

I find it shameful how some “Transhumanists” speak in such a disrespectful manner about religious people. One may not agree with their points of view (including myself) – and even regard those people as an obstacle for the fulfillment of ones own interest – but nonetheless they deserve respectful behavior (especially from people who advocate the respectful treatment of intelligent machines). 

In my view it is especially important for “Transhumanists” to serve as a role model by acting as responsible, respectful, considerate and caring entities who wish to achieve their goals through (advanced) technology – why not?

 
Responsibility

“Knowledge obliges”, so does technology. It obliges its users to be responsible and to deploy ones knowledge and abilities not to harm, but to help. “Transhumansim” also comes with responsibilities, and in my view does not only mean technological advance, but also advance in humanity. Some “Transhumanists” seem to send the “wrong message” (or at least messages that can be interpreted this way), that “post” means after, “humanism” humanity and “trans“ being on the way to it. In this sense I don’t regard it as surprising that Francis Fukuyama regards “Transhumanism” as “one of the world’s most dangerous ideas”, since a one sided transformation evokes associations with arrogance, power and dominion – or simply with a “Borg Collective” (ever noticed that one rarely encounters a positively portrayed Cyborg in science fiction? – why is it so?).  

    So what do “Transhumanists” want? Promote research, technology and innovation, spread some future optimism and optimism in regard to human character and responsibility, and serve as a platform for those advocating conscientious technological progress (and maybe some visions) that may improve human life, then I’m on it! Or do they just try to chase old religious dreams with other means? Then “Transhumanism” would indeed just be a kind of religion that has replaced God through some technological vision of salvation and eternal life  (o.k., maybe this would have better chances to work out than eternal life in heaven or the “mu” in Nirvana...). Or do “Transhumanists” actually want to become superior and powerful in order to dominate over those who opt against participating in this movement and initiate some sort of “enhancement arms race”? Then I doubt if humankind is really ready for this transformation.  Unfortunately the critics of “Transhumanism” aren’t quite sure about what these people really want.