Annalee Newitz’s Vitriolic Anti-Transhumanism Tuesday, Mar 4 2008
transhumanism 11:55 pm
Annalee Newitz, a tech writer in the Bay Area, is making it into the public eye again with her new blog, io9. I occasionally read her columns in the Chronicle and other places. Unfortunately, while an obvious tech head and science fiction fan, Ms. Newitz is a strident anti-transhumanist who argues that gaining control over the human genome is a “stupid dream”. Read her well-known opinion piece, “Extropian Trash”, published in the SF Bay Guardian in 2004:
I HATE the extropians. I just can’t say enough bad things about their whole stupid, late-1980s Los Angeles robot cult philosophy, which I’m convinced was inspired by a combination of Christianity, transactional analysis and (perhaps worst of all) the science fiction of Robert Heinlein.
Picture this: It’s 1985, and a bunch of people, too young to have been hippies, too old to understand yet that MIT’s Media Lab is doomed to be irrelevant, are still recovering from having grown up during the 1960s “rocket age.” Now they’re living in California doing boring jobs or going to stupid private universities, and the flying cars they were promised on The Jetsons are nowhere to be seen. Plus, nobody has cured cancer, the light-filled aliens haven’t arrived to impart wisdom and there still isn’t an anti-aging drug they can take to preserve their wrinkle-free, preternatural tans.
So they get into self-improvement, but with a high-tech twist. They call their movement “extropy” – you know, like the opposite of “entropy,” which is the process of slowing down and descending into chaos. Extropy is supposedly a way of always progressing, growing and transforming oneself – particularly by using science. The extropians decide that science is going to save them from everything, especially growing old and dying. It will be just like heaven, only with a lot more tantric sex and smart drugs.
Some of them start theorizing that in the future they’ll be able to upload their brains into computers. Others request that their bodies or heads be cryogenically frozen after they die so that they can be revived, Futurama-style, in a far-distant future where everything is perfect and glorious and subject only to the laws of extropy.
(Continue here.)
Before I say anything else, I want to state that calling any group of people “trash” is reprehensible. Journalists should not be held to a lower standard of common decency than other people just because they’re trying to use shock tactics get more readers. I call on Ms. Newitz to withdraw her characterization of a human group as trash.
Thinking about Ms. Newitz’s absolute hatred towards transhumanists (equaled only by Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama), I think it’s based mostly on politics, her impression that transhumanism is derived from libertarian philosophies that she so despises. If transhumanism emerged and was presented in a left-wing fashion, I doubt she would have such a strong adverse reaction. Fact is, there are transhumanists of all political stripes. According to the 2007 WTA member survey, 47% of members consider themselves left wing, up from 36% in 2003. So many of the transhumanists Ms. Newitz is calling “trash” actually have political positions sympathetic to hers. (Although the beginning of the article references extropians, later the word “transhumanists” is used interchangeably with it.)
Transhumanism is not inspired by Christianity. That is why the word “humanism”, as in “secular humanism” is part of the very word itself. Two-thirds of WTA members are atheist or agnostic, compared to just 12% at the national level in the US. The connection with Christianity is being drawn because transhumanists seek radical life extension, and Christian mythology (as well as many other world religions) also seek radical life extension in the form of an afterlife. But this connection is superficial: the majority of people in society are interested in leading long, healthy, lives, so neither transhumanists nor Christians are special in this regard.
Newitz tries to connect transhumanism to flakey New Age philosophies popular in the Los Angeles region, but again, the connection only stretches about as far as where the movements were founded. New Age ideas are only entertained by a tiny minority of transhumanists, much fewer than would be expected for a randomly selected group. Being predominately secular, transhumanists advocate skepticism and the scientific method. Newitz’s New Age attack on transhumanism seems to come from more of a “what dirt can I dug up/make up?” rather than anything substantial.
Newitz goes on to say “they proselytize for rampant individualism”, but again, this is a mistaken connection between the extropianism of the mid-90s and the more politically diverse transhumanism of the 00s. Even extropians today have stepped back from associations with any particular political philosophy. Prominent transhumanists today put far more emphasis on collective issues and responsible personal decision-making than Newitz insinuates.
Later in the article, Newitz writes, “transhumanism definitely has the potential to catch on big time”, as it’s “it’s already fairly popular among members of the nerd elite, who’ve got money and control the blogosphere”. Here, she is absolutely correct. Transhumanism is catching on more every year. I would know, as I’ve been watching transhumanist ideas since I was a teen. I only hope transhumanism catches on even more, and that more transhumanists emphasize personal responsibility over rampant individualism.
Another thing that bothers me about Newitz’s criticisms is that they seem hypocritical. She says she hates the transhumanist philosophy, but seems perfectly comfortable with transhumanist entities in science fiction. A glance at her blog shows entries on superheroes, robotics, nanomedicine, and more. Her site banner is a creepy, strung-out girl with numerous brain implants conspicuously growing from her scalp. Ms. Newitz, you are already helping spread and promote transhumanist ideas!
On her blog, Newitz primarily focuses on science fiction, which is imaginary. Most transhumanists focus on technologies that are either already real or are in active development. Which is more relevant to the real world? Real technology, obviously.
I believe a lot of Newitz’s attacking of transhumanism is based on her perceived opposition of transhumanist technologies to liberal ideals such as equality. But preventing the introduction of transhumanist technologies worldwide would require a totalitarian dictatorship. Otherwise, they will surely be adopted. People want to be healthier and live longer, and calling them “trash” for wanting these things won’t stop them. If one country passes laws against transhumanist technologies, people will just move.
I believe that Ms. Newitz would actually be interested in transhumanism as it is today if she read up a bit on it, but I have the feeling that she probably recoils away from any transhumanist web page in horror, dismissing it without thinking. I suggest she read the WTA FAQ, which answers questions like “will new technologies only benefit the rich and powerful?” and “will extended life worsen overpopulation problems?” She might learn something.
Update: More confusion. On her homepage, Newitz links James Hughes, author of Cyborg Democracy, one of the most prominent transhumanists there is. In a recent interview with WIRED, when asked “What will the blog’s longer features focus on?”, she answers, “The idea that we’re going to be enhancing and modifying our bodies at a fundamental level is interesting. We’re already seeing it in animals — we’ve already got drugs to make fruit flies gay and fearless mice.” So, she’s completely comfortable with transhumanism as long as it doesn’t smell libertarian to her? Body modification is okay but radical life extension is not? Make up your mind!
I am also worried about a possible growing phenomenon that Newitz seems to partially embody: that it’s hip to be mean. Growing up across the Bay from Berkeley my entire life, I sometimes get the impression that some radical leftists are engaged in an arms race to see who can be more angry and rude to their enemies. This is anathema to what leftism in the San Francisco Bay (and around the world) should really be about: love, peace, and compassion.
It sounds like she has a grudge against someone. It sounds very personal, like she was attacking an individual or group that she had some kind of bad blood with.
It’s a little strange that an editor would allow an article like that go to press. They probably had no idea of what she was talking about.
Well, this is just another chapter in the culture war with the technoprogressives, right? She’s not a bioconservative, she wouldn’t accept that actually existing transhumanism owns ideas like nanomedicine and borgophilia, and reading the FAQ is not likely to change her mind. It is about politics, but it’s also about sensibility.
It sounds, for the most part, like undiluted vitriol mixed with a more than modest smattering of ignorance.
By the end paragraph, it sounds more like she is attempting to use the invisible pigeon-holing council to appropriate Transhumanism towards a political ideology… or in short, that she is trying to box transhumanists in with Neo-Conservative nonsense which has caused such damage to the U.S. in recent years.
I am confessing, though, that it is a bit disheartening that such undiluted self-centered pap would make it past any prestigiously serious minded editor.
In order for people to live forever in the transhumanist future, some people will still have to live like trash.
Someone please tell me why intelligent people still have this zero-sum attitude.
To be fair on her, she doesn’t actually call extropians trash. The article mentions trash twice.
1. In the last paragraph she says that “in order for people to live forever in the transhumanist future, some people will still have to live like trash”.
2. The article is headlined “Extropian Trash”. Now the headline may have been written hastily by a site editor based on the last paragraph. Even if Newitz herself wrote the headline, it could mean that the extropian agenda is trash, not its proponents.
So I don’t think there’s any need to call on her to withdraw a characterisation that she didn’t explicitly make.
Her opening gambit of declaring her hate for the entire group is a bit nasty, mind you.
I’d also like to say that the answers in the WTA FAQ about the points she raises aren’t entirely reassuring. To address the fear that new technologies will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and powerful, the FAQ says that society can always reduce inequality with progressive taxation and community programmes. But the reality today is that we live in an era of increasing income inequality and taxation is getting more regressive, with corporations and the ultra-rich more and more able to evade tax. The powerful tend to lobby successfully against any attempt to make them share their wealth with the state. I don’t want to be ruled over by an immortal Dick Cheney with six hearts and laser vision.
“47% of members consider themselves left wing, up from 36% in 2003″
- indeed. I answered “centre” on that survey I think. Here in the UK I am considered marginally right wing, but by US standards I would be considered left-wing. I fall into the “libertarian left” quadrant on the political compass. So I’m at least one non-right-wing transhumanist.
Newitz is, unfortunately, a prime example of that small subclass of people involved in the IT industry who fundamentally see the entire operation as nothing more than a dodge, and have little respect for the actual predictive or futurist content of science-fiction, though she’ll go on and on for hours about how wonderful is that reprehensible zombie Battlestar Gallactica currently souring my opinion of the Sci-fi Channel further and further because–ooh!–Cylon sex! How transgressive!
Recall if you will her “experiment” to game the system of voting on Digg.com last year. I am no great fan of social media, but I enjoy the site’s content as a constant source of interesting new links to browse during a day’s idle time. I occasionally “digg” links to articles that I personally find amusing or enlightening, yet I have no real interest in interacting too much with the site. Ms. Newitz had the idea to expose how easy it is to get an article “dugg” enough times so it makes the front page by paying a company to cast votes at something she posted on the site. The whole point of this exercise was to demonstrate how social media system centering on user voting interaction can be gamed–yet she gave the distinct impression that the whole exercise was not a legitimate experience in proving a point but a jeering sort of “See how easy it is to screw with these idiots and their dumb site?” kind of joke.
I have excessively little respect for her opinions on any matters concerning the IT industry, the growth of the Web, or any other matters–especially science-fiction, where I find her general opinions concerning the genre to be little more than blather. In fact, I don’t believe she even understands the concept of hard sci-fi.
Right now, she’s probably gloating that you wrote such a large amount of text concerning her. Really, her opinion of transhumanism and any other related topic only matters to her, and not to anyone else.
She hates facebook as well. It would seem that there are many ideas, shows, books or software applications to be hated.
Gaining control over the human genome is a stupid dream ? Thousands of gene therapy clinical trials and actual successful development of genome control would show that statement and her beliefs are wrong.
“Journalists should not be held to a lower standard of common decency than other people just because they’re trying to use shock tactics get more readers.”
If anything, journalists should have higher standards, because their words are so widely distributed. I am surprised that this was ever published in print- when was the last time a writer explicitly called some group “trash” in, say, the NYT or the Chronicle?
“Really, her opinion of transhumanism and any other related topic only matters to her, and not to anyone else.”
Unfortunately, a great many intelligent people still care what journalists think.
I was going to post a long and intensive rant here — but I decided to make it a post on my own blog. Here’s a link. To summarize: Annalee is pathetically wrong, and here’s why:
Yikes.
io9 is published by Gawker, so perhaps (in traditional Gawker style) they’re specifically angling to be the steamy controversial rag for the field.
It’s a tabloid culture I don’t much care for.
On the plus side, transhumanism got a reasonable and positive mention in the NYT as connected to gene sequencing clientele-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/research/04geno.html
“Transhumanism is not inspired by Christianity. That is why the word “humanism”, as in “secular humanism” is part of the very word itself.”
Is the suffix “-humanism” in this case really used because transhumanism is a subset of humanism?
Surely it would have originally stemmed from the simple description of an entity as trans-human?
Perhaps transhumanism has gained some philosophical baggage since then?
And isn’t transhuman in some ways opposed to mere humanism, in which man is famously the measure of all things?
Transhumanism isn’t a subset of humanism, more like an extension, or an upgrade. I daresay it is better than humanism: much more relevant in today’s high-tech and rapidly changing world. It is not really “opposed” to humanism. Humanism is fine, as is a religious stance. People can believe whatever they want. It’s a free country (in my country anyway). For more on the relationship between H+ and H, I quote the Transhumanist FAQ, drafted by over two dozen key transhumanists:
“Transhumanism can be viewed as an extension of humanism, from which it is partially derived. Humanists believe that humans matter, that individuals matter. We might not be perfect, but we can make things better by promoting rational thinking, freedom, tolerance, democracy, and concern for our fellow human beings. Transhumanists agree with this but also emphasize what we have the potential to become. Just as we use rational means to improve the human condition and the external world, we can also use such means to improve ourselves, the human organism. In doing so, we are not limited to traditional humanistic methods, such as education and cultural development. We can also use technological means that will eventually enable us to move beyond what some would think of as “human”.”
“I am surprised that this was ever published in print- when was the last time a writer explicitly called some group “trash” in, say, the NYT or the Chronicle?”
She doesn’t explicitly call the group trash, though.
To quote Steve:
“Perhaps transhumanism has gained some philosophical baggage since then?”
Sounds like it. Transhumanism is beginning to adopt much of the “personal transformation” style rhetoric we hear from the not-so-secular humanists, with none of the subsequent foot-washing missionary work.
I kinda liked her article tbh, I think she brings up a big secular elephant in the room; “Extopian Trash” may indeed refer to the LEAVINGS of the transhumanist agenda, those without long term health insurance. Newlitz’s criticism of those who preach yet turn their backs on the dusty masses is trenchant and must be acknowledged.
I am a ‘transhumanist’, I am reconsidering this now that it appears to actually have an ethos.
Billy Burton, I invite you to read the link I provided in these self-same comments. Your attitude is inappropriate to the conversation at hand: there is no justification for the belief that transhumanists are going to leave anyone “in the dust.” Moreover, there is even LESS justification for the use of this idea to agitate against the development of the technologies //at all//.
She thinks the human genome project is a stupid dream?
Geez, talk to all the mainstream scientists, corportations and not to mention regular joes who are supporting work with the genome. If she thinks nothing will happen there, she’s going to be in for a big disappointment!
Newitz is a good writer who often writes about interesting things, and is often a pleasure to read when she does not focus on her vitriolic anti-transhumanism. The same thing can be said of our friend Carrico.
I think they originate from a mix of misunderstood Leftist ideology, decadent romanticism and silly religious, or in their case probably New Age, notions of reverence for nature, humility and similar crap. I say misunderstood because real Leftist thinkers are not given to New Age-ish whining.
What they really hate is the notion of empowerment and achievement: the dangerous idea that you can get things actually done if you work hard enough and smart enough. They love all losers, and hate all winners.
Another thing they hate is common sense. This can be seen in some recent threads on Carrico’s blog, where he demonizes the common sense “every coin has two sides”. Of course they would like every coin to have just one side, theirs.
Another thing they hate is common sense. This can be seen in some recent threads on Carrico’s blog, where he demonizes the common sense “every coin has two sides”. Of course they would like every coin to have just one side, theirs.
If you actually read it, you’ll see he’s saying most things have more than two sides. Please, show higher standards of argument than him.
Re: “If you actually read it, you’ll see he’s saying most things have more than two sides. Please, show higher standards of argument than him”
So he did. But on an equivalent point, that politics is more complex (i.e. with more than two sides) than 20th century left-right black and white ideologies, he uses to say (with personal insults of course) that left-right black and white ideologies are still the only valid framework for politics, and that if you don’t agree with him you are a fascist. My conclusion is that he will say everything and the contrary of everything to claim that his opinion is the only valid one. Hence “Of course they would like every coin to have just one side, theirs”.
I actually think James Hughes and a lot of other people who call themselves transhumanists are incredibly smart. In fact, I read a lot of blogs by transhumanists and a great deal of what I write is categorized as “transhuman” or “posthuman.” But I hate it when any sentiment or idea becomes dogma, and I think of extropians as the dogma wing of transhumanism.
I know it’s rough when columnists are humorously mean like I was in that column. I use exaggeration and sarcasm in my writing sometimes, but sometimes I’m googly-eyed and Utopian. I’m an opinion writer — that’s what we do.
Some of you may know that my pal R.U. Sirius has had it out with me over that column, and in his interview with me I clarified a lot of my points. Maybe it’s better to read that to get a more informed opinion of what I really think.
The movement she described reads nothing like “extropy.”
Annalee have you ever met Max More?
Annalee, I am still confused. If transhumanism was ever dogmatic (which I doubt), it hasn’t been since at least 2000. To make things clear, I wish you’d just come out and say “I’m a transhumanist” or “I’m not a transhumanist”. This isn’t about an in-group and an out-group, just making your position clear.
I’m looking for the interview by Googling the obvious terms, not finding it, guess I’ll ask R.U. about it.
So — is transhumanism dogmatic now or isn’t it? Is this about dogma or (insufficiently left) politics?
Anyway, I’ll post a link to the interview when I find it.
Michael I agree with you that transhumanism has never been dogmatic. Transhumanism has been about a set of ideas which were discussed and debates as they were formalizing. If it appeared dogmatic, it might be because humans like to dig into a set of ideas and explore them and often close off the rest of the world during this investigatory process. This is characteristic of researchers in all disciplines.
I also don’t think that political positions casting blows at each other is really transhumanist.
Rather, what is more transhumanist in scope is the act of carefully assessing where we are today and what type of future would be most advantageous for humanity. Then, developing the most approachable and doable means of resolving issues that humanity faces.
This is not about politics. It is about human compassion and the wherewithal to do something about it.
[...] Stance Response to Amor Mundi on Transhumanism Nuclear Terrorism High Cost of Force Protection Annalee Newitz’s Vitriolic Anti-Transhumanism Taking Global Risk and WWIII Seriously Human Arrogance Look to Inner, not Outer Space The Religion [...]
Dog dogs canine wonderland i love dogs com….
Personalized i love my dog stocking. Love dog members email marbellaron matches. Love your dog incorporated. Must love dog….
She’s not calling transhumanists trash, just their wild, utopian ideas which tend to leave out a large part of the world that is uneducated, poor, without electricity and has never even heard the word “transhumanism” which will effectively become the trash to the people with the money to evolve.
“Someone please tell me why intelligent people still have this zero-sum attitude.”
Maybe it’s because people are still living like trash no matter how much we develop our technologies in the affluent, developed world. Maybe focusing on stopping people from killing eachother over resources and religion would be a better way to avoid death than trying to artificially extend peoples’ lives.
Transhumanism is impractical and unrealistic, which is what I think she was getting at in her article. I don’t necessarily agree with her tone, or the title of it, but the rhetoric is about right.
Is there anyone out there who simply doesn’t want to be a part of the results of Transhumanism? Life extension might be OK. Curing the incurable disease might be OK as well. AI, friendly or not as proposed by Kurzweil seems a) unreachable in this century, b) considering current computer technology (have you ever programmed a computer Michael (or anyone else here, for that matter)? Current Source Code construction is inadequate to the task (so it does seem to be a silly dream).
Why does anyone want to be transhuman? You want your humanity taken away and transformed into something alien (to current humans? AI is possible eventually, but is it desirable (friendly or not)? Brain uploading seems undesirable as well. Why do I want to live forever as a machine simulation (without the six senses)? If Kurzweil and company want this, let them have it.
As for the haves and have-nots having access to these technologies, I think that is a moot point. Everyone will have access to this, but why do we want it? if it won’t enrich the human experience, I personally don’t want it. As the rich man said to Jesus, “Amost you persuade me.”, but not quite.
I won’t ever be a transhumanist unless I’m given some evidence about the personally life enriching benefits of said technology.
Never sure what to write in the comments. I always wonderful how much truth and accurate information are in blogs since there are so many.