The article below, by Margaret Somerville, about “transhumanism” is an example of one of those that left me totally dumbfounded and asking what next? Surely there are not really “transhumanists” out there?
At what price, Immortality?
Look up "transhumanism" in Wikipedia and you will find an extensive entry, with enough hyperlinks to keep you occupied for a very long time.
Wikipedia tells us that "the contemporary meaning of the term 'transhumanism' – which is now symbolized by H+ (human plus) ... (is) an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities."
The transhumanists believe that we should use the convergence of new technologies, such as nano-, info-, bio-, neuro-and robo-technologies, which are unprecedented in human history, to evolve beyond being human. They advocate changing ourselves from Homo sapiens to Techno sapiens. Transhumanists see us as presently in the transhuman stage on our way to becoming post-human – that is, not human at all. They describe natural humans – whom they refer to as "unmodified humans" – as "becoming an obsolete model."
Transhumanists know that many of their ideas frighten people and have taken steps to reduce this fear. For example, "in 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the World Transhumanist Association changed its name to 'Humanity+' in order to project a more humane image."
Another fear-reducing strategy they've employed is to argue they're not proposing anything radically new or different, because we have already set out on the path to a post-human future, in that we are using technology to enhance and extend our human capacities, for example, cellphones, the Internet, medical prostheses and so on. They also point out that we have always done so – for instance, with reading glasses or dentures. They propose that the latest possibilities are just more advanced examples of the same phenomenon made possible by remarkable advances in science. In short, they argue that what they are advocating is not different in kind from what we've already accepted as ethical and desirable and, therefore, any fear is mistaken.
As well, the transhumanists rightly believed that the one idea everyone would buy into was life extension, or even immortality, and they intentionally put this front and centre of their agenda. They propose two approaches to achieve this.
"Life prolongation" repairs nature as it fails with regenerative medicine, including organ transplants, stem-cell therapies, and so on. "Age retardation" envisions a future in which the genes that control aging are reprogrammed so we would reach puberty at say 40 years of age or later, middle age around 150 years, and old age well into our hundreds and perhaps, eventually, not at all.
The transhumanists' ultimate dream is of eternal life – either here on Earth or, possibly, on another planet – through the use of technology. Consequently, transhumanism could be viewed as a "techno-utopian, secular religion": Like many religions, it seeks and promises immortality through transcendence and transformation, but realized through science, not traditional religion.
Because we all have a natural fear of death and annihilation, immortality is a very attractive concept. But would the new immortal "techno me" or "techno you" – our brain contents downloaded onto a computer or robot – truly be us, or just a machine? I believe we would be the latter. And that brings to mind the concept of "genetic reductionism" – the belief that we are nothing more than gene machines or "genes-Rus" – which I also reject.
Some transhumanists describe people who oppose their goals as "technophobic" and "neo-luddite" (the scientific equivalent of calling someone a dinosaur). For instance, I've been labelled in an editorial in Nature magazine, as "Canada's neo-luddite bioethicist."
Let me be clear. There is an enormous amount of good that can be achieved with our new technoscience, especially regenerative medicine. The issue is where we draw the line between ethical and unethical use of it. One approach I find helpful is to ask whether we are using it to repair nature when it fails or to do something that is impossible in nature. The former usually raises far fewer ethical concerns than the latter, although, of course, it's not the only relevant question in deciding on ethics. However, as I know from personal experience and criticism when I've used this approach, "transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically 'natural' as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst," and "the natural" as having no inherent moral value.
Another distinction that might help to distinguish ethical technoscience interventions from unethical ones is whether the intervention affects the intrinsic being or essence of a person – for instance, their sense of self or consciousness – or is external to that. The former, I propose, are always unethical, the latter may not be.
Which leads to a related issue at a much more general level: transhumanists do not accept that there is any "essential natural essence to being human" that must be respected, an essence that I believe we must hold on trust, untampered with, for future generations. It is difficult to define what constitutes this essence, without referring to a soul or at least a "human spirit" – the latter of which does not require any religious belief, but does require that we see ourselves as more than just machines. The fact that at least a large majority of transhumanists are atheists and they do see humans as machines might explain, in part, why they believe no such respect is required. (MARGARET SOMERVILLE) Read more . . .
Let me tell you I am proudly and quite happily a neo-luddite!!