Lately there has been some questioning (on mailing lists, in my head, in discussions with various others) as to where I stand on the subject of "transhumanism". It's been very confusing but I think I've gotten to the point where I can probably express something semi-coherent on that subject. At least I hope I have, because as long as I'm in charge of it, my blog is most certainly not going to be filled up with stuff like this. Ideally, this will be the only post on this particular subject I'll ever write. Seriously. This is just something I need to get out of the way so I can move on to other, more interesting, more fun, and (hopefully) more useful things.
Also, I figure it's inevitable that eventually my parents and other family members will find and read this blog, and I've been pondering for a while what sorts of conversations that might lead to. So it might be worth having something like this here for their edification. I don't spend a lot of time writing about transhumanism per se, but my name is still associated with the word now, so I figure I might as well explain how that happened, what my interpretation of transhumanism started out as, and what it presently is.
Background and First Impressions
I first encountered the word "transhumanism" while searching for information about human life extension -- something I've had an interest in for many years (as a kid I was fascinated by time travel stories, and at a certain point, that fascination merged with a long-time interest in medical stuff when I realized that very long-lived people effectively traveled through a lot of time!).
And initially, I honestly saw transhumanism as nothing more than a vague attitude held by technologically-inclined nerdfolk -- an attitude which basically sought to question predominant cultural attitudes surrounding life, death, bodily form, and the relationship between these things and philosophical notions like "meaning". I also saw "transhumanism" as a term of convenience -- something I could punch into Google if I wanted to get a whole bunch of people's opinions about the ramifications of people living for an average of 500 years someday, or of people modifying themselves to be able to breathe underwater, etc.
So...to make a long story short, I started using "transhumanist" as a shorthand term to describe a particular set of apparently-interrelated interests I had. I started writing more about these interests, especially longevity. And I started communicating more and more with others who shared similar interests. It was a lot of fun, and it compelled me to start reading and learning a lot more about particular areas of science, technology, politics, and ethics.
Further Involvement
Eventually, I somehow found myself being nominated for a position on the Board of Directors of the World Transhumanist Association. The WTA is an organization devoted to "promoting the ethical use of technology to extent human capacities", and prior to being nominated I'd been a member of the WTA email list and acquainted with several individuals that either served on the Board themselves or held other positions.
I was very reluctant to run for the Board at first, never having been much of a "joiner", but after some deep internal deliberation (and after obtaining assurance that Directorship wouldn't require a substantial time commitment or much of anything beyond occasionally participating in e-mail discussions) I decided to accept the nomination.
My main motivations for joining the Board were twofold: (1) I'd never done anything like it before, and I was curious, never having been much for extracurricular activities in school, and (2) I saw some good things in what I perceived "transhumanism" to be at the time, but I also saw some huge, gaping voids as far as the community's grasp of diversity and disability issues, and I figured I might be able to help address these voids. Additionally, I figured that being a member of a pro-longevity organization might help me better figure out how to further longevity advocacy goals, which remain of paramount importance to me.
Part of me still feels like that whole process happened a bit too quickly, and if I'd known then what I know now, it's possible I'd not have accepted the nomination or the position. But on the other hand, in some respects, I wouldn't have been able to get to the point of knowing what I know now without having been appointed to the Board and participating in the ensuing discussions. So I definitely don't regret the experience. It's just strange to look back to how I saw things even a year ago and realize how much different (and more complicated) they look now.
As noted earlier in this writing, my initial impression of transhumanism was that it simply described a very loose, very basic future-positive attitude -- something I'd pretty much had my whole life anyway. I didn't undergo some strange "initiation rite" or have any sense that I'd "joined" anything -- I just sort of went, "Oh, that's what you call that set of interests," and went about my business.
But...between joining the WTA, participating in discussions with various people interested in technology, culture, and ethics, and simply reading the writings of folks who both did and did not consider themselves "transhumanists", I gradually came to realize that there was a lot more going on (politically and subculturally) than I'd initially perceived.
Discoveries and Realizations
For one thing, while I'd always been aware of the existence of a "fringe" element (basically, folks whose approach to technology is decidedly eschatological in tone), I'd not been aware of the degree to which this fringe element was distorting the overall cultural discourse surrounding certain technological and scientific endeavors.
In some respects, this fringe element seems to be responsible for the widespread misconception that there are only two kinds of people -- those who "support technology" and those who "fear technology". In fact, there are plenty of people who seem perfectly capable of treating "technology" (which has its own various definitional problems, but anyway) as neither god nor monster, but as a tool, used and fashioned and shaped per the needs, creative ambitions, and values of sentient persons.
To frame "technology discourse" in such a heavy-handed manner that you reduce the world's population to falsely-dichotomous "transhumanist" and "Luddite" factions is to remove much of the necessary nuance in this discourse -- nuance that does and will continue to affect the real lives of real people indefinitely.1
For another thing, I've come to realize that it annoys me when all people seem to want to talk about is the subculture itself -- what it means, what people belong to it, what people don't, how to "promote" it, etc. And I'm not the only one. Justice DeThezier, Canadian social entrepreneur and fellow WTA Board member (until January 23, when his term ends) has become disenchanted with the whole transhumanism thing and is therefore disassociating himself from it. He writes:
...the more months passed [following getting involved with transhumanism], the more my angst grew about how the term "transhumanist" was giving me an identity at the cost of achieving of my goals. It also seemed that I was spending far more time trying to convert people to transhumanism and knee-jerkingly defending this ideology against hysterical attacks but also fair and accurate criticisms, than actually contributing to the social struggle to democratize the costs, risks and benefits of new technologies.
I can sympathize very strongly with Justice here, though in my case I've never been the least bit interested in "converting people to transhumanism" (I'm not even entirely sure what that would mean, considering how diffuse the definition of transhumanism seems to be). It's not as if many people actually need to be "talked into" wanting to work for better lives and more opportunities for people the world over, after all.
I've also not felt personally slighted by any of the various criticisms of transhumanism that people have put forth (though of course, I'm always happy to help clear up misconceptions about what I and other individuals actually think, and have done so before), so I'm definitely not inclined to want to spend my time "defending transumanism". The way I see it, if transhumanism is a philosophy/subculture/nerd club/whatever capable of standing on its own as a worthwhile endeavor, it can (and will) do so without being shielded as if it were some sort of wounded bird.
If people find it fun, interesting, and useful to spend their time defending, defining, and recruiting for transhumanism, far be it from me to begrudge them that. But that kind of thing simply isn't for me.
Like Justice, what I do consider to be tremendously important is the "social struggle to democratize the costs, risks, and benefits of new technologies".
From a personal standpoint, I also consider it important to advocate for specific things -- research to address age-related health concerns, equal rights, respect, and ethics for autistic/disabled/atypical people, morphological liberty, and cognitive liberty.
Indentification Issues
At this point in time I'm not finding being identified by others as a transhumanist to be hindering my longevity and morphological/cognitive liberty activism or other goals.
I suspect that my name is likely to be associated with "transhumanism" for quite a while to come.
And to me, that just isn't a big deal. I'm okay with it. People can call me a purple duck if that's what I look like to them, and so long as the descriptor "purple duck" doesn't become intimately associated with "evil people who like to step on puppies" (or something similarly awful), I won't complain.
I have better things to do, and worry about, than whether so-and-so thinks I am (or am not) considered a member of such-and-such subculture. To me, that's like the equivalent of Star Trek fans moaning over whether or not they're "Trekkers" as opposed to "Trekkies".
Not to say that language can't be important in one's personal politics of identification and disidentification (something that seems to be getting more dynamic and multifaceted for pretty much everyone these days), but right now, I have no inclination to spend any more time or energy trying to figure out what my "relationship to transhumanism" is.
I'd much rather apply whatever time and energy resources I have (outside those necessary for my engineering job and other practical obligations) to working with the Methuselah Foundation, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and the new autistic advocacy group I've just recently become involved with -- and of course, to things like reading, painting, watching movies and hiking with my significant other, and just generally enjoying the little, silly, random, and surreal elements of life that help make existence wonderful.
I respect Justice's choice to "announce" his leaving transhumanism, but in my case, I just don't see that there's really anything substantial enough to "leave". (To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "If you wish to study a granfaloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon.")
And that isn't, and shouldn't be taken as, an insult to anyone who presently finds the concept of "transhumanism" useful or cohesive as an identification, ideology, or movement.
Sometimes, the absolute best formulation of a concept or association is one in which it remains in the background as a kind of organizing vector for certain ideas, but that doesn't insist on taking center stage and out-weighing other, more specific concerns.
For me, transhumanism is only useful, and only coherent, when it serves in this background capacity -- sort of as a search term I might use to find people or topics of interest, or as a means of describing the academic study of the implications of certain technological speculations on concepts like self, personhood, etc.
When I try to hold it up as an "ideology" or some kind of "team" to cheer for, it simply deflates and winks into nothingness. I have no idea if this will make sense to anyone who hasn't experienced a guided tour of the inside of my brain, but it's the best way I can think of to describe what happens when I try to imagine "promoting transhumanism" for its own sake.
So, What's Next?
Next January, my WTA Board term will be up, and I don't plan on running again. As much as I can see overlap between my interests/goals and the interests and goals of some who do consider "transhumanist" as a key part of their identity, I just don't feel any passion for "promoting the subculture" or engaging in banner-waving on its behalf.
As to whether I "continue to identify as a transhumanist" -- that depends on what you mean by "identify as". Sure, it makes sense as a term of convenience in some contexts (and there are people with whom I think I could safely use the term without having them jump to the conclusion that I'm some kind of robot-worshipping technozealot), but overall I don't seem to have the same kind of attachment to the term that some of the more subculturally-invested folks do. So that's my position right now. Sorry I can't make it more concise or tidy, but that's language for you.
Of course, regardless of what words end up tacked next to my name in common context, I will try to do my best to do whatever I can (that lines up with my principles, ethics, and interests) while still a WTA Board member.
And I certainly don't plan to stop communicating with the various fascinating, interesting people I've come into association with over the past year and a half or so -- many of these people I now consider colleagues, and some I have come to consider friends.
I'm not leaving any of the mailing lists I'm presently on -- despite vacillating between thoughtful discussion and junior-high-cafeteria antics, the good stuff makes wading through the occasional flamewar quite worth being subscribed.
You can also bet I'll keep attending local meetings/workshops on longevity, human modification technologies, artificial intelligence, and related philosophical/speculative topics as they occur and as my schedule permits -- tapping into the wealth of intellectual/educational opportunities available in the Bay Area over the past year has been a rare and unexpected delight to behold.
All in all, I look forward to a busy, interesting, exciting, and productive 2008!
1 - For instance, there's a lot of good cultural criticism coming from the disability-rights community -- some of which gets weirdly dismissed as "luddism" by some of the more technocentric folks -- with regard to how the widespread depersonalization of disabled persons sometimes leads to the inappropriate and coercive application of particular modifications and "treatments".
It strikes me as nothing short of preposterous that disabled/disability activists (who are frequently the earliest adopters of many advanced technologies, and whose very existences tend to force them and others to question long-held concepts of embodiment, functionality, etc.) would be excluded from discussions likely to lead to decisions that will affect them before anyone else.
10 comments:
Well-written.
I'd like to hear a bit more about your time on the WTA Board - you mentioned being curious about what it was like, but then never really seemed to answer the question for us. How did you find the discussions there?
You and Justice leaving the board can't help but remind me about Eliezer's recent post of evaporative cooling of group beliefs. I would imagine that if lots of existing transhumanists were overly concerned with things that were actually beside the point, then it'd be good to have more moderate influences on the Board to remain as a voice of reason. Of course, if you don't see the transhumanism as a coherent cause in the first place, then you might not have a reason to care about WTA's overall atmosphere. The image that the general public has of transhumanists is likely to influence their attitude towards technologies associated with transhumanism, though.
Finally, I'm working on a book (in Finnish) about transhumanist-related technologies, and I'd like to include the disability rights view over subjects like genetic engineering and personality modification. So far your blog is the only place where I've read about this view - are there any good essays or other resources about that point of view that I could familiarize myself with?
Hi xuenay,
I'm actually still on the Board until next January -- neither Justice nor I is resigning, since his term officially ends this month anyway. He's just timing the end of his term served with his decision to disembark from the H+ subculture more cleanly (something that I respect, but that I don't personally see a need to do, for reasons outlined in my post).
I will still be a Director until January 2009 unless someone (or the WTA membership) calls for an earlier resignation, however, that seems unlikely seeing as the other Board members pretty unanimously discouraged such a thing when I asked them about that possibility. I noted that I didn't have the kind of "passion" that someone else might be able to bring to the position, and was promptly told that there was enough passion to go around already and that they appreciated having someone who didn't get all in a snit over every little thing (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it). It feels horribly hubristic to think of myself as a "voice of reason" (it's more that I hate drama and gossip and will avoid such things whenevr possible), but something like that is probably going to comprise the rest of my term with the WTA. And I feel pretty good about that prospect, actually.
As far as the actual experience of serving on the Board -- well, honestly, it's not too different from being on any random e-mail list except it's lower-traffic, slightly more formal, and sometimes I get to vote on things (moderation policy, fundraising policy, FAQ content, etc.).
Oh, and I also ended up volunteering to send out new member packets in the mail because there was this huge backlog of people that needed packets when I joined, and I really didn't like the idea of people reading on the website, "Join and get some stuff in the mail!" and then never actually getting stuff. So sometimes I put packets into envelopes and mail them to people, which is pretty easy and very occasional.
Another thing about being on the Board is that I've gotten to meet/know a few interesting people that seem like they'd be a lot of fun to work on projects with (PJ Manney, for instance -- she and I don't seem to write in the same dialect, and initially we "talked past" each other a lot, but she's been incredibly receptive to new information about autism and related matters and is a really neat person in general).
Regarding "not seeing transhumanism as a coherent cause" -- that's about the size of it for me, I'm afraid.
It's weird -- transhumanism seems plenty coherent to me in terms of it being a basic attitude or set of interests, but the moment I try to start thinking about it as an ideology to "get behind", it suddenly becomes incoherent.
I suspect this happens because that formulation of transhumanism approaches widget-dom, and I can't really deal with widgets and expect to make any intellectual headway. I just end up going around in circles and feeling like I'm being pressured (not necessarily by a person, though -- sets of ideas can create pressure as well) to recite a party line instead of say what I actually think.
You said: The image that the general public has of transhumanists is likely to influence their attitude towards technologies associated with transhumanism, though.
I've thought about this. And after much internal deliberation, I've concluded that transhumanism is probably itself a "transitional" term -- e.g., at a certain point, things presently considered "technologies associated with transhumanism" will simply become new, emerging, and mainstream technologies. Humanity is always likely to be in a state of flux, and I see transhumanism as a sort of cultural marker indicating a certain stage within that flux. I imagine that technologies far weirder and more capable than most of the things dreamed about by present-day transhumanist-identified folks will someday exist, however, "transhumanism" will probably forever be associated with a particular set of speculative technologies (whether or not those technologies ever actually take shape).
Wow, I'm really rambling now. I will have to get back to you later on references for disability stuff, but remind me if I don't respond on that within a few days, because there's a ton of good stuff out there I'd like to link you to.
I'd like to point out that Cochlear Implants are a noticeable departure from your observation that many disability/disabled groups often adopt very advanced technology before anyone else. This was not--is not--a welcome development. The assumption is that Deaf people want to hear. After a lifetime of quietness or silence, noise is disturbing, unpleasant, and very difficult to adapt to. And they use 4 batteries a day (a friend of mine in St. Louis has one). Just because it's available doesn't mean people will use it. You mention group identification and in reference to Autism, disability identification. I am not disabled because I am Deaf. I am disabled because other people consider me so. I am able to "trick" people into thinking I'm perfectly "normal". Who's to say that I am not? It's easier with hearing aids sure, but it's more frustrating. After hearing a cassette tape that demonstrated how much someone with my hearing ability wearing hearing aids would hear (sorry), my Dad told me he was amazed at how little I can hear. Considering how much I hate the "noise" I hear with and without Hearing Aids, I never ever want to have normal hearing!
The problem is that people who do not match up to "average" people are considered disabled or different. What's the problem with that? It's because human bodies are thought of as machines and that if something different occurs, it is considered a malignant occurence--automatically bad. Women used to be considered an incurable disease because they didn't have the same body parts as men. I am not a machine, nobody is a machine, what is happening in my or your or anybody else's bodies usually isn't malignant. Those that are were probably developed to help control the human population. Emotionally upsetting but theoretically understandable. That's the only real issue I have with your longevity theories. The human population would have to shrink a lot--and that's not happening any time soon.
I know this comment has virtually nothing to do with transhumanism, but thank you for sharing your views with you. I never even knew that that kind of mind-set existed--rather, I knew it existed, I didn't know the "name" of it.
Although I have to admit, transhumanism sounds rather existential.
kakalina said:
I'd like to point out that Cochlear Implants are a noticeable departure from your observation that many disability/disabled groups often adopt very advanced technology before anyone else. This was not--is not--a welcome development.
Well, there's an argument to be made there that cochlear implants aren't exactly "advanced". :P They presently require major surgery to install, they don't work for everyone, they subject people to the risk of infections (including really nasty ones like meningitis), etc. But I think my observation still stands in the sense that those who are getting cochlear implants probably tend to be Deaf -- I don't think many people just randomly install them for the heck of it, though in the future that might become more commonplace. And as a result of some people's use of cochlear implants, medical/neuro scientists are getting a "free lunch" as far as being able to study how the brain can adapt to certain technology interfaces, etc.
Basically, I'm making the point that when there's a new body or functionality-modifying piece of technology, those who adopt it first tend strongly to be individuals commonly defined as "disabled". And there's kind of a social problem here that needs addressing, which is that due to societal expectations, disabled people are often expected to "experiment" on themselves (or let themselves be experimented on) in particular ways, which has the potential to create a coercive environment.
Some people love experimenting on themselves and tinkering with their morphology, and that's fine, but when a new technology comes out that will be first or primarily applied to a particular group of people, it's essential to get input from that group and not just say they're being silly or alarmist for being reluctant to embrace it. Cochlear implants may be interesting, and I certainly think people should be able to try them out if they want to, but they're certainly not miraculous or without risk!
After a lifetime of quietness or silence, noise is disturbing, unpleasant, and very difficult to adapt to.
Well, the world is definitely filled with a lot of unpleasant noise, that's for sure! Like my neighbors' ridiculous car alarms...
Just because it's available doesn't mean people will use it.
Oh, of course not. And that's the way it should be -- I'm all for having various technologies and modifications available to those who want them, but nobody should be obligated to use such things.
There is not, and should not be, some kind of "formula system" wherein people are told, "Okay, you have this characteristic, therefore, you need to use this particular technique/technology/treatment/etc." That's the kind of thing people should be able to decide for themselves, not be (directly or indirectly) coerced into (via regulations or social expectations or whatnot).
Considering how much I hate the "noise" I hear with and without Hearing Aids, I never ever want to have normal hearing!
I can understand that -- I have super-hypersensitive hearing personally, and often I have to wear ear plugs or noise-cancelling headphones in public places (and at work) because I get easily overloaded/overwhelmed/pained by the noise.
In my opinion, hearing could easily be considered a disability in many respects -- it's only because most people can hear that it isn't! People who can hear need accommodations (like volume control), assistive technology (like ear plugs for use in loud working environments), and are also often highly dependent on an audio-based means of communication (speech). Interesting...
That's the only real issue I have with your longevity theories. The human population would have to shrink a lot--and that's not happening any time soon.
One of these days I really need to sit down and write a clear, comprehensive address of the overpopulation issue. I've been meaning to for years, actually, but I have never gotten around to it.
Basically, I don't think overpopulation is likely to be a big problem over the long term even with drastically increased longevity -- I think people just need to learn to use resources more wisely and sustainably.
Also, with increased availability of birth control, more people are simply choosing to have fewer (or even zero) children, so the population growth is likely to keep slowing down as more people get access to contraceptives.
And...eventually humans might build space colonies or (in the distant, distant future) find other planets to live on.
Not only that, but even if age-related death goes away as a result of medical advances, people will still be vulnerable to disease and accidents.
Finally, I think that regardless of the potential for overpopulation, we still have an ethical obligation to save people's lives if we can.
I don't think people should be medically discriminated against because they are old -- old people have just as much of a right to effective medical care as anyone else. Depending on old people to die "on schedule" as a primary means of managing population/resource allocation is a really, really terrible long-term strategy. I think we need something better, and while coming up with that "better something" might be difficult, it's still well worth trying.
All very interesting. I did not know anything about this subject. I will have to give it some thought. Good luck on all your goals this year!
One thing I have been meaning to ask you. Is your strong interest (best term I could think of) in longevity medicine just a manifestation of a deep seated fear of your own mortality?
Gash: Um...no. I don't believe anyone has any awareness of anything after death, so there really isn't anything to be afraid of, per se. I don't like the idea of dying simply because I love being alive so much -- that's a very different thing from being "afraid of one's mortality". But the whole longevity thing isn't, and has never been "just about me". It's about the fact that even if you cured cancer and provided proper sanitation and such to everyone living in 3rd-world countries, all those people you saved would eventually get old and die of things like heart disease anyway.
And...while I fully realize that bodies are not (and likely never will be) invulnerable or immortal, I still think it's well worth doing whatever we can to provide effective health care to people of all ages, including the elderly -- basically I think there's so much awesome in life that trying to help people keep existing consciously for as long as possible is a very worthwhile goal.
I do have a survival instinct and a desire for self-preservation, but that's not the same as a "deep-seated fear of mortality". I'm pretty sure I've already managed to face and stare down that particular fear -- I sort of got a sudden and freaky sense of my own mortality when I was around 20 or so.
When I talked to my parents about it my stepmom actually said something that has stuck with me ever since: "So, what are you going to do, just sit in a cave and wait to die?"
I realized at that moment that there was absolutely no point in angsting over mortality -- that all anyone could do was find their own meaning in life, regardless of how long it did or did not turn out to be. I do believe that life is good and that more life is better (and I'm going to do whatever I can to live as long and healthy a life as possible), but I don't hinge my ability to appreciate existence on some kind of emotional conviction of infinite life. That is, finite lives are still well worth living.
There is absolutely no way to ever guarantee indefinite existence into the future, so anyone who wants to be emotionally healthy had best just deal with that fact.
Oh, and Marla: Thanks for the well-wishing, and I wish the same for you and your family. :)
I can tell you i have always been into science. speaking in evolutionary terms, there is no way humans exist. we are so far beyond all other life forms on this planet -- it would be like hitting the lottery every day. no need to survive explains our understanding of outerspace etc. my mother waS an atheist, my father a non-practicing catholic. i knew as a really small child, and still know now, we are not like any life form on this planet. we are focused on way too much bullshit,\.
Post a Comment