Transvision 2007 New Scientist Coverage Analysis Tuesday, Oct 30 2007
transhumanism 1:29 pm
Lots of transhumanism coverage in the news lately.
Immediately on my mind is the New Scientist piece, “Death special: the plan for eternal life” and its accompanying video.
Reading the article made me feel a little squirmy. I don’t think the author had negative intentions at all: she just reported what she saw in the limited space she had. But I think that articles like this getting written show that transhumanism is doing something wrong.
The report was included as part of a special series on the topic of death. (Hence the indicator “Death special”.) Of course, this is because transhumanists are encouraging an engineering approach to combating human aging. But I often worry that this side of transhumanism is somewhat overemphasized. Again, no fault of the author here, I’m just looking at transhumanism in the mirror and commenting on what I see.
Although life extension is a big part of the transhumanist vision, there are other very important technologies, futuristic as well as contemporary, that I think deserve similar if not greater timeshare. Technologies mentioned in the article included: uploading, AI, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and cybernetics. Egan wrote, “More immediate issues facing humanity, such as poverty, pollution and the devastation of war, tend to get ignored.” This is disappointing. I see transhumanist efforts as parallel to many conventional humanitarian initiatives.
For instance, the recent CRN conference that I attended last month had a number of transhumanist-oriented discussions, as well as many on basic research in nanotechnology, patent law, etc. The first talk was given by Lisa Hopper, founder of humanitarian giant WorldCare. As you can read in my coverage of the conference, Lisa talked at length about the connection between everyday humanitarian goals and future technologies that will enable them to be carried out more effectively, especially molecular nanotechnology. I talked to a WorldCare employee who had recently come back from aid work in sub-Saharan Africa about how nanotechnology is enabling passive nanoscale filtering of brackish water, circumventing the need for foul-tasting chemical purification techniques. Look at the potential for molecular manufacturing to make it faster and easier to construct housing and basic goods, and I see a very powerful connection between organizations like the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, who advocates the humanitarian use of technology, and WorldCare, its parent organization, which uses technology to pursue humanitarian goals. The World Transhumanist Association should be highlighting these connections in their literature.
Is it wise to put uploading on display at the forefront of transhumanism’s interface with the public? I don’t think so. There are enough near-term issues that deeply inspire transhumanist sentiments that I think we should focus on those for the most part, scaling back more speculative discussions of mind uploading. What about: stem cells, NNI-style nanotechnology, synthetic biology, bioethics, patent law, rapid prototyping, and even software security? I don’t think discussions of molecular manufacturing, cybernetics, and superintelligence should be excluded, but we require a more continuous spectrum of dialogues connecting together present-day technologies with more futuristic iterations of these technologies. This will make it clearer in the eyes of the public (and to ourselves) that there is no real fanciful leap of faith involved in talking about technologies of the second category as opposed to only those of the first.
This was made clear at the other big event last month, the Singularity Institute’s Singularity Summit 2007. Many of the speakers are working on projects relevant right now, as well as offering their predictions and recommendations for how to move forward in light of more futuristic possibilities. This combination of near-term and long-term thinking is critical for connecting transhumanist foresight to the pragmatic realities of the real world. All great futurist thinkers should be capable of doing this. That way there’s no conceptual disconnect that leaves people saying, “huh?” If a futurist prediction sounds highly discontinuous, there should be a good underlying reason for that property: for instance, switching to a world where human productivity is rapidly accelerated due to the availability of brain implants. We should be able to say, “If Y occurs then X is also likely”, instead of saying “X will certainly happen!”
So September was the ninth annual meeting of the World Transhumanist Association. I look forward to the next one, the big 10th anniversary Transvision. But I hope that we wise up in our interactions with the press and the public. People want to know: “why is transhumanism relevant to me?” They don’t care about many of our intensely focused philosophical tangents.
Will transhumanism, as a movement, ever go mainstream? Should it? Maybe people will widely adopt transhumanist technologies without ever explicitly acknowledging themselves as “transhumanists” per se. People who use computers rarely call themselves “computerists”, even if that’s what they are.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I think that transhumanism has potential to go mainstream, but it will probably require both a) astonishing examples of how technological advancements really are linked to humanist and ecological concerns AND b) that the concept of human is rethinked, in another words, a more complex relationship between mind and matter, content and expression of social agency will need to be established.
Section a) is easier to advocate, but b) is harder. If b) fails, most of the blame should go to basic educational institutions not challenging people to think critically about the relationship between oneself as a thinking substance and a bodily substance, separated from the concept of a human (at least as biological determinism). We need a cyborg theory of social agency widely accepted in order for section b) to work. And that won’t happen if people generally think of identity as a question of biological organism’s determinism instead of mind endowed with a purely accidental body with its, at times tragic, flaws and failings (which we will need to highlight).
We need to do away with matter racism in relation to the emergence of thought. But how are we going to go about that, I don’t know. Like I said, one “trick” could be to shift the ontological paradigm of social agency from human to cyborg. Unfortunately the concept of cyborg is perhaps too aestheticized, littered with certain connotations from popular culture, when at it simplest the definition of a cyborg is simply a mind with a body as its tool to interact with the world.
–
Otto Valtakoski, a transhumanist student of philosophy from Jyväskylä, Finland
October 30th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I completely agree with you in the fact that we have to get our priorities right. Yes, it is wonderful to get together and talk and speculate, but it is also important not to neglect the potential of technology of overcoming human limitations and improving lives right now. The next TV could be devote one day just to review the astonishing potential that now is in our hands to alleviate poverty and suffering. Your example about nanotech for purifying water, the new Public Private Partnership model for developing drugs against neglected diseases, the new docking models for drug development and the tools it would deliver to the new distributed teams of drug development, beyond the PPP model, new diagnostics, faster PCR, the RepRap, there is a lot of material, and based on that we could extrapolate the next two days, but having committed speakers, not just paying lip service.
For more diversity we could have a goal: At least two speakers from every continent (except Antarctica and maybe we can find one there, lol), it does not matter if we are not able to bring them in the flesh, we can set video conferences, after all, that is fairly easy and we are supposed to be in the cutting edge concerning technology. I really do not know for sure, but I know one thing: We are able as a group to overcome the problem of shitty resource allocation without investing lots of money. Videoconferences are just an example, if we are creative we can improve things for next TV (BTW, where is it going to be?).
October 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
We aren’t sure where it’s going to be yet. It might be in the Bay Area. Having two speakers from every continent would be inappropriate because WTA membership is not split equally among the continents, and neither is the human population itself. A tele-speaker from Africa would be interesting. Asia has very little transhumanist activity except for India and Russia (Moscow), which is almost European. A tele-speaker from Australia would be novel but not particularly addressing your concerns about Third World participation. South American speakers are great and we’ve had them in the past, as well as staging TV04 in Caracas of course. But of course North American and European speakers are likely to be in the majority.
Transhumanism really is about cutting edge technology, and cutting edge technology is developed in rich nations. It may spread beyond them, but it often starts in the developed world, with well-educated, well-funded Americans and Europeans. Therefore I think that these Americans and Europeans deserve a disproportionate focus when the topic at hand is development of advanced technologies. This is not racism or nationalism, just pragmatism. It doesn’t mean I think the opinions and views of people from other countries and socioeconomic classes should be ignored. We have to strike a balance between getting the attention of the rich and powerful (who can actually affect the evolution of technology intimately) and hearing the concerns of the less fortunate, for whom emerging technologies can do the most good.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:27 am
Transhumanism has already gone mainstream if you consider people with heart transplants, artificial hip joints, cochlea implants, prosthetic limbs or spectacles to be transhumans.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:33 am
Michael, I am afraid I do not write very good when I am sleepy.
I am not calling for those to be the only speakers, neither for equally numbered speakers for everywhere, and of course I know Europeans and Americans will be the overwhelming majority, that will be reflected in the physical attendance to the conference, as always has been. If the total amount of speakers remains the same, having 6 (or three) from Asia (That yes, is a very big place, and very diverse), Africa and Australia (Or New Zealand, if we can get Vik Olivier, for instance) won’t be an astounding distortion of the WTA demographics while bringing more diversity. Have all of them to be H+ers? Not necessarily, as long as they speak about interesting issues, we just had great speakers at TV 07 that were not H+ers.
Sure, we have to attract rich people too. We just tried that last TV. I do not know if the organizers achieved what they were expecting for.
Concerning this comment “This is not racism or nationalism, just pragmatism.”, I think is not necessary, it is perfectly obvious that you are not racist nor nationalist and that most of the cutting edge technology is developed in developed countries. Pragmatism is necessary and that is the reason I will leave Venezuela once I get my degree.
Let me state this clearly: I am not saying that TV should become and aid conference, never. I love to speculate and discuss about the Fermi Paradox and FAI, I wish I had implants right now and I want more GM food on my plate, that at the same time I eat it, vaccinates me. If that would be gone from TV we’d end with other thing, different and probably not as fun as TV is, with that ingredient of “what if” it already has, besides I love that what if, after all, I won the Haldane Award with an essay about a very unlikely subject. All I am calling for is for a first day when current achievements and developments are shown and not only for the poor people, but emphasizing its role for them. Maybe a special track of conferences or a subsection focused on the subject, that’s what I meant when I said that from the base we develop the first day we can extrapolate.
I hope you understand better my point now, and I hope also that this is not “all your base are belong to us” English.
Guido.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I completely understand what you guys are talking about when you say: “This is not racism or nationalism, just pragmatism.”. I realize even the most rich of us are still poor and suffering compared to what we all might be in 100 years. And yes, it is fun to see at least a few of the richest of us soaring at faster rates in a large part based on the large numbers of labors at the bottom making such heights possible. While one feels happy for those soaring at the tops, it is, at the same time, impossible to avoid the pain when one see the still struggling large number of masses at the bottom, who are still having troubles paying for things like diabetic supplies if they are diabetic.
The most troubling part for me, is the way the current, largely, hierarchical systems, is so destructive of freedom for the troubled masses at the bottom. For example, a person born in a poor country, or a person with a debilitating disease, which forces them to spend all their resources just to survive. While those fortunate enough to be born healthy, and in a rich society, get to instead invest what they have in making that much more wealth, pushing them closer to the top of the hierarchy, where only a few people really are free and get to make all the decisions for everyone else.
I think Bill Gates is a prime example. He’s achieved all this wealth from society and the world, and now he gets to decide how to spend all the wealth, and what problems he wants to focus on first. But is letting him make all the decision, and getting all the glory, the best possible kind of justice in such a world? Maybe instead of some of the disease work he has chosen to work on, and receive all the glory for, perhaps some of the people in third world countries would instead first simply choose to have a working sanitary sewer system in their neighborhood, or maybe some good schools? Is it truly just that all the rich and healthy people get to make all the decisions and control everything and everyone else, according to their desires while the desires of the people at the bottom are completely unknown and ignored?
Tearing down these kinds of hierarchies is one of the goals of http://www.canonizer.com. It seeks to know concisely, quantitatively, and derived from a bottom up grass roots level, what it is people most value and want first. Then, Maybe, some people like Bill gates, instead of making all the decisions on their own on how their immense wealth is spent, and expecting all the glory, might instead be able to simply fund and help achieve the true desires and priorities of the masses at the bottom, from whence their wealth largely originated. Shouldn’t the people at the bottom also have at least some say in all this?