I'm an Atheist, Therefore I'm a Transhumanist

[rug]

Posted: 12/05/2013 2:45 pm
Zoltan Istvan.
Visionary; Philosopher; Author of bestselling novel 'The Transhumanist Wager'

Sometime in the next decade, the number of worldwide godless people -- atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with religion -- is likely to break through the billion-person mark. Many in this massive group already champion reason, defend science, welcome radical technologies, and implicitly trust and embrace modern medicine. They are, indeed, already transhumanists. Yet many of them don't know it because they haven't thought much about it. However, that is about to change. A transformative cultural storm comprised of radical life improving technologies is set to blow in soon.

Broadly defined, the word transhuman means beyond human. The growing transhumanist social movement encompasses and encourages virtually all ideas that enhance human existence via the application of science and technology. More specifically, transhumanism includes the fields of radical life extension, Singularitarianism, robotics, artificial intelligence, cryonics, genetic engineering, biohacking, cyborgism, and many other lesser known fields of science.

The core of transhumanist thought is two-sided. It begins with discontent about the humdrum status quo of human life and our frail, terminal human bodies. It is followed by an awe-inspiring vision of what can be done to improve both -- of how dramatically the world and our species can be transformed via science and technology. Transhumanists want more guarantees than just death, consumerism, and offspring. Much more. They want to be better, smarter, stronger -- perhaps even perfect and immortal if science can make them that way. Most transhumanists believe it can.

The transhumanism movement is quickly growing. Actually, it's exploding. Last year, press coverage on the subject soared.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/im-an-atheist-therefore-i_b_4388778.html

[rrneck]

1. I am me.

Labels are just post-it notes, and last about as long.

[cbayer]

2. Agree.

[rug]

4. "Visionary" is a particularly suspicious label.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. Very true.

[cbayer]

3. He's got a real Ayn Rand thing going on.

And describing himself as a visionary is kind of a put off from the get go.

[rug]

5. Don't forget "best-selling novelist."

[Jim__]

6. Sounds utopian!

The core of transhumanist thought is two-sided. It begins with discontent about the humdrum status quo of human life and our frail, terminal human bodies. It is followed by an awe-inspiring vision of what can be done to improve both -- of how dramatically the world and our species can be transformed via science and technology. Transhumanists want more guarantees than just death, consumerism, and offspring. Much more. They want to be better, smarter, stronger -- perhaps even perfect and immortal if science can make them that way. Most transhumanists believe it can.

That always works out so well.

[rug]

10. Sounds like Khan.

[kaiden]

7. Sounds like Dan Brown's INFERNO.

[okasha]

9. Sounds like eugenics.

What happens to the humans who don't become "trans?"

[rug]

11. An interesting implication.

[MisterP]

15. JD Bernal said we'd be "Melanesians" to be culled if we ever got in the space-jockey species' way

[rug]

16. What do you think he meant by that?

[MisterP]

17. this BTW is literally what Glenn Beck's afraid of

Bernal even posited that the scientists would be the ones to become pure mind, leaving humans proper to their non-scientific, childlike, “larval,” “Melanesian existence of eating, drinking, friendliness, love-making, dancing and singing,” the human stage of evolution subtly ruled by the scientist stage. “[H]umanity—the humanity that counts—might seem to change en bloc, leaving behind in a relatively primitive state those too stupid or too stubborn to change.” Once planet and species had served their purpose—of creating this emotionless, objective scientist-deity—“There may not be room for both types in the same world . . . The better organized beings will be obliged in self-defence to reduce the numbers of the others, until they are no longer seriously inconvenienced by them.”

[rug]

18. Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't heard this before.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. So you are opposed to all bioengineering of human beings because it is "like eugenics"?

[rug]

13. She made no statement about bioengineering, omly about this visionary's view of transhumanism.

What do you think of his vision?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. "she" has not responded.

bioengineering of humans is a substantial part of transhumanism. I just wonder where she draws the line, and exactly where bioengineering of humans, or if you prefer, transhumanism transforms into eugenics.

[rug]

31. That's why the question was asked. The OP doesn't seem to have a line.

[cbayer]

14. How do you draw that conclusion from what she said?

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Because of the use of the word 'eugenics'

It's a long time since anyone has thought eugenics a good thing. There's nothing in the article about limiting improvements to a certain group of people, but okasha has decided to say that's what it sounds like.

If okasha thinks eugenics is a good idea, and doesn't intend 'sounds like eugenics' as a criticism, then I apologise for misinterpreting.

Warren Stupidity has asked for clarification of this use of the word. I think okasha does need to expand, or it would be a fairly useless contribution to a discussion.

[cbayer]

24. Eugenics has some really negative connotations.

My understanding of it was that it was the practice of controlling who could and could not procreate. Bioengineering, on the other hand, has a completely different meaning for me and would include things like GMO crops.

I guess I have difficulty seeing how eugenics could be considered a good thing when it came to humans, though I can see how some aspects of bioengineering might be.

He didn't ask for clarification by the way, He took her statement, expanded it to a whole new category and drew a conclusion about what she meant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. No, he didn't expand anything, nor did he draw a conclusion

Bioengineering is a significant part of the article. okasha said 'sounds like eugenics', and asked 'what happens to the humans who don't become "trans?"' Warren asked if they are opposed to all bioengineering, phrasing the question in a way implying he expects the answer 'yes' - because okasha has made the blanket 'sounds like eugenics' about the entire article.

"My understanding of it was that it was the practice of controlling who could and could not procreate" - yes, that is the main aspect of it we remember, and that's why it seems so strange for okasha to use that to summarise the article.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. It was a question. An unanswered question.

[cbayer]

25. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

As I noted above, eugenics has always been about "breeding" and the control of people's reproduction to me, and has, therefor, had a very negative connotation.

Bioengineering, on the other hand, is a totally different thing. There was recently an article about the ability to address some aspects of trisomy 21 during fetal development. That might be an aspect of bioengineering applied to humans that I could support.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. "transhumanism" is inevitable. What that will mean is debatable.

We are integrating both mental and physical biological processes with non-biological technology. That is just a fact. As many technologists have noted, at some point in the integration of mental processes with technology we will reach the point where consciousness is portable. Also, and in parallel, this vast web of computational technology we are building will simply be much smarter than we are, see Kurtzweil on "the singularity". You can of course deny the former, by claiming that consciousness is some meta-physical entity separate from biological mind, you will be wrong in my opinion, but the latter is just a matter, pun intended, of "how soon", and also "how will we know".

[cbayer]

29. As we move in that direction, ethical and moral questions will become critical.

And we will have to decide where to draw the line.

There is the danger of disregarding or marginalizing those who can't be perfected. Does "breeding" become an issue?

Who gets access to the technology that can extend life.

I do not believe that computational technology will be smarter than we are. That's the stuff of science fiction, imo, and it's made for some great stories. It could happen at some point in the very distant future, but our understanding of the brain is, frankly, primitive at this point.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. "those who can't be perfected" ?

This is no more or less of an ethical issue for bioengineering than it is today for plain old access to health-care. This society of ours doesn't seem to think that health-care, using bioengineering or not, is a right.

Breeding is already an issue. The theistic crowd is generally against all forms of breeding technology other than missionary position. You seem to be attempting to somehow re-introduce eugenics here, but that is almost completely a separate issue, unless, for example, you believe that a woman choosing to abort a fetus after learning that a severe genetic birth defect is present is "eugenics" in the same realm as nazi extermination programs.

[cbayer]

36. Theists are against all kinds of breeding "technology" other than the missionary position?

That has to be one of the strangest things I have read here.

I'm not trying to reintroduce eugenics at all. Just trying to explore the difference between eugenics and bioengineering.

When the story about being able to address trisomy 21 in the fetal stage, there were those who felt this might cross the line into eugenics. Personally, I don't think it does, but there are those who treasure the differences that Downs children bring into this world and who think we should not try to change it even if we can.

I don't agree with those people, but I see where they are coming from.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. " The theistic crowd is generally against "

nice edit job. And yes you are trying to re-introduce eugenics into bioengineering.

"Does "breeding" become an issue? "

"Breeding" is already an issue, and outside of the minority liberal theist faction, theists are against all forms of it other than the ones they claim their deity allows. They are generally against abortions for any reason, artificial insemination in all forms, etc. This is almost entirely outside of the high-tech bioengineering categorized as "transhumanism", so the question remains, are you against the "eugenics" of a woman choosing to abort a fetus after learning that it has a severe genetic defect?

[cbayer]

38. The theistic crowd is generally against….

Still a ludicrous statement.

What do you mean by breeding? One of the problems with some religious groups is that they only believe in "breeding". Sex for entertainment purposes is frowned upon by some groups and procreation (breeding) is the only valid reason for doing it. But most religions don't take this position.

So, I guess I am entirely missing your point here.

While the Catholic church (and other groups) are strongly against abortion, and probably will always be, I'm not sure how it or artificial insemination is pertinent to this discussion and would appreciate any clarification you might offer.

I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, whether it has to do with the state of the fetus or not and do not see this as eugenics in any way. Not sure where you got that idea.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Really? So the majority opinion among religious people in the US is not anti abortion?

Are you sure about that?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx

54% of christians of all denominations are "pro-life".
You can apologize anytime.

The religious, as stated, are frequently against all "un-natural" forms of conception. See for example the ludicrous "snowflake" campaign to "rescue" embryos left over from in-vitro procedures.

So you agree that a women aborting a fetus with a severe birth defect is not a bad thing? How is this not eugenics?

"the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics".

[cbayer]

41. Lol, apologize? Really?

The article actually says this:
48% of Americans call themselves pro-life and 45% pro-choice.

Religion is not correlated at all in this article except for the point that non-religious people tend to be overwhelming pro-choice and to say that "slight majorities of Catholics, Protestants, nonwhites, Southerners, and seniors are also pro-life."

This article focuses on the publics mis-perception that the majority of people in the country are pro-choice, when, in fact, it is pretty evenly split. The issue of religion is barely touched and not found to be very significant at all.

I continue to be confused about where you are coming from here. Are you arguing that eugenics is a good thing?

[Warren Stupidity]

42. 54-39.

As I said the majority, by a wide margin, among Christians, is opposed to abortion.

[cbayer]

43. Where do you get those numbers?

They are not in the article you cite.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. I don't think its entirely fair to compare trans-humanists to eugenics...

Eugenics was a belief later proven wrong that either social class or race were related to fitness, and that humans can be bred like domesticated animals. Its a mixture of social-darwinism(damn I hate that term, even Darwin was appalled by the idea), infantile adoption of Mendelian mechanics, and tying it up with some good old fashioned, 19th century "scientific" racism. The most appalling ways to implement these bad ideas is to sterilize the "undesirables" or eliminate them wholesale(genocide).

Trans-humanists believe that humans can(and should) radically transform themselves, in a way to remove human limitations of things like mortality and frailty through the use of technology. Generally speaking, it would be a choice of individuals, and indeed, for many traditional trans-humanists, this wouldn't even be a heritable condition, so no breeding programs can bring it about. We are talking things like cybernetics, brain uploading, and other technology that basically removes or reduces the importance of the biological component entirely.

In a way, this is happening, just not as radically as trans-humanists portray. Look at what cochlear implants are doing to the deaf community, within a few decades, as technology improves, the deaf community is likely to be no more. The question is this, is this a bad thing or a good thing?

In addition, what about the blind community? They are facing a similar situation with improvements prostetics for eyes, right now they can help the blind detect light and dark, and some color, at VERY low resolution, in the future, 20/20 vision, or better, in many cases much better(think Geordie Laforge on Star Trek: TNG) vision will be possible, and not in generations or centuries, but in a few short years or decades.

My own opinion is that basically any technology or technique that can make previously disabled people navigate the world as easily as fully abled should be encouraged whenever possible. Whether its prosthetics or finding ways to grow them biological components, either way helps.

Where I think trans-humanists get things wrong isn't technologically, but politically and economically, they are too optimistic, its one thing to support technologies that help make blind people see, or deaf people hear, its quite another to make sure all of these technologies are accessible to everyone.

Then there is the issue of enhancement, I was talking about people being "cured" of disabilities thanks to technology, but you can tune a cochlear implant to listen to frequencies beyond human hearing, and make them much more sensitive than human ears as well, does that make the person who has this enhanced hearing superior? What about those who are rich enough to buy an implant in the future, for the sole purpose of enhancement. Do we forbid this practice? Encourage it? Make it universal?

[cbayer]

26. Thanks for that.

These are concepts that are fairly new to me and I appreciate this discussion very much.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. I find it interesting, and its tackled by science fiction in any number of ways...

for example, the recent movie Elysium, while an Aesop on the need for universal healthcare, it also can be argued as being an Aesop on how technology can be used to improve the human condition, as long as its universally applied.

Its certainly not the first or last science fiction story with similar narratives.

I think the argument really ends up being about our nature as tool using primates, because extensive tool use is practically the only thing that is uniquely human. Yet, what are tools? They are merely extensions of our bodies and minds, so that we can accomplish things that wouldn't be possible with the human brain or muscle alone. Whether its a pulley to help hoist things much heavier than we can ever lift ourselves, or abacuses, that help us keep figures straight in our head. The written word is a tool, its memory made real, and given a type of permanence that extends far beyond our deaths, expanding knowledge just like levers extend our limbs.

We are in an extended time period of accelerating acquisition of knowledge, with technology struggling to keep up. And now we are beginning to be able to modify our bodies with intent, either through prosthetic or biotechnology, integrating our tools into ourselves, and using those tools to expand our abilities, and improve our health and lives.

The thing is that many people are scared of this development, but they seem to forget that just as we change the tools, the tools change us, and its been the use of those tools that is allowing us to think of other things besides survival, to think of equality, kindess, and to implement them more fully. Is it the beginning of a utopia? I don't know, utopias seem unrealistic. Frankly I would rather we have a goal of a flawed post-scarcity society, rather than a utopian society that still ends up short, because that is more likely to be dystopian, rather than utopian.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Eugenics is just dumb, regardless, as implemented by certain 'perfectionist' groups.

Diversity is a defense mechanism all its own. If you align humanity to a 'perfect ideal' engineered specification, you leave us one highly successful disease away from extinction.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. "Perfection" is a meaningless goal or status...

even when we use it as it should be, its, half the time, sarcastic or ironic, mostly because there is no such thing as perfection. Its too arbitrary to apply to anything.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Hmm, trans-humanism is too loaded a word, its an implicit endorsement...

of the idea of the Singularity, which is, I think, an idea with very little merit, especially when it comes to sudden, fundamental, changes in humans in general. I also view trans-humanists as being too optimistic.

I do believe in improving the lives and livelihoods of all people through the use of science and technology, with as few obstacles as possible, but I don't view that, alone, as trans-humanist, more like regular humanist.

[pinto]

33. Kick. Interesting discussion. A couple of points -

Whatever one's take on religion, I think we all see the benefits of advancements and implementations in science, technology, medicine, etc. And see how they increasingly interact.

Agree, this progress is inevitable and ongoing. Maybe it's a piece of "this is what we do". Build a better mousetrap. Rising standards of living, increased longevity, the role of research and development and our apparent ability to not only focus but conceptualize all may be a part of it.

The perfection concept bothers me a bit, as I read it. Not sure what that means. Who's in and who's out? In another time or place I may have been out. So my take is colored by that.

I remain optimistic.

The author of the blog is obviously promoting a book, fwiw.

[pinto]

39. Just coming back in. Again I stumble on the opening premise -

I'm an Atheist, Therefore I'm a Transhumanist.

Sometime in the next decade, the number of worldwide godless people -- atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with religion -- is likely to break through the billion-person mark. Many in this massive group already champion reason, defend science, welcome radical technologies, and implicitly trust and embrace modern medicine.

I still don't see the correlation. Many atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with religion as well as theists, adherents to some sort of spiritual practice or those simply unconcerned with religion in general champion reason, defend science, welcome radical technologies, and implicitly trust and embrace modern medicine.

There are well known extremes in all of those realms that are outliers. I think the author conflates the issues.