Thank you, Max, for an insightful, well-written post. I just returned from a debate in the Middle East where I had to argue with two religious debaters that human healthy longevity can be beneficial for all societies regardless of Global North or Global South, rich markets or poor markets, old or young. With many years defending the core values or principles of transhumanism against misconstrued academic and journalistic balderdash, I have finally disassociated myself from this low-transhumanism in favor of high-transhumanism of Extropy. If anyone is interested, please read the Transhumanism Affirmation, which you can find online. Max contributed to it! https://www.transhumanismaffirmation.org/
Yes, we talked about low-end and high-end transhumanism. For others: I think of low-end transhumanism as including those people at conferences yelling out "Immortality!" and "Singularity!" and those who feed misunderstandings of the philosophy by not distinguishing their personal enthusiasms from transhumanism itself.
Excellent, I was just thinking we needed someone to dispel the recent surge in lunacy around the idea of transhumanism being a religion (there have been countless such examples of late)!
David Pearce's choice of title for his manifesto will forever haunt him. His project is not 'hedonistic' in a vapid and stupid sense; to paraphrase: 'our descendents may be serenely well motivated high achievers. Their productivity may far eclipse our own.'
It is the deathists who oppose life-extension, and those who stall progress, who are against reason and life - not us transhumanists!
I value Dave Pearce and respect his work. I have never valued the Hedonistic Imperative or the need for absolute happiness. I prefer peace of mind, joy, and I enjoy moments of reflection that makes me sad or even angry as necessary biological and psychological release .
I won't put words in his mouth, but he often emphasizes the abolition of involuntary suffering specifically. That's his main point of focus, and when he talks about gradients of wellbeing, he doesn't advocate for undiscerning bliss. 'Blissful but not blissed out,' is something he emphasizes often. If offered the choice, would it not be better to be motivated by gradients of well-being, the lower ends of which surpass even the peak experiences that darwinian human brains can sustain? Perhaps; it's difficult to know how we ought to navigate the space of possible minds - perhaps sadness and anger should persist.
It is a fascinating question. I would think it sensible if we could give people a safe, effective, and reliable way to abolish depression, anxiety, and other extremely awful mental states while not suppressing less drastic negative states that may be valuable in learning and improving.
Agreed, although it's difficult for us to know at present whether the functional part of those 'less drastic negative states' could be preserved without the negative affect (genetic outliers eg. Jo Cameron indicate it could be). If so, improvement and learning could be always profound or pleasurable, and I can't think of a reason why we would preserve the 'raw feels' of suffering if it has no irreplaceable functional role.
A manifesto needs a snappy title. “The Hedonistic Imperative” was the best I could think of. Apt alternatives, e.g. “Our Moral Obligation To Use Biotechnology To End Involuntary Suffering Throughout The Living World In Favour of Information-Sensitive Gradients of Well-Being” don’t carry the implication I’m urging a life of drink, drugs and debauchery; but lack the same punch. But what does “well-being” consist in? (cf. “Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals)” - The Transhumanist Declaration, 1998, 2009) Here transhumanists diverge. But what needs stressing is (1) we’re not talking about coercive bliss; and (2) ratcheting up hedonic set-points to enrich default quality of life is consistent with being e.g. an Aristotelian virtue ethicist like Max.
(Despite life-long celibacy, I've no principled objection to "wallowing in pleasure" as Max puts it. The beauty of hedonic uplift via set-point recalibration is you aren't forced to choose. Even in a future world underpinned by gradients of superhuman well-being, Mill’s "higher pleasures" can take precedence over the pleasures of the flesh.
Thanks for your comments, David. My comment about "wallowing in pleasure" does not represent your very thoughtful Hedonistic Imperative and I regret that my offhand comment could suggest otherwise.
I sympathize about the difficulty of choosing a snappy title and how that can lead to misunderstandings. Even the term "transhumanism" has that problem, as some people take it to mean doing away with humanity, rather than the self-transformation of those humans who choose it.
Mill's view is interesting. He moved away from classical Benthamite utilitarianism while not entirely abandoning the approach. Whether or not the "higher pleasures" idea really fits with the utilitarian approach is a difficult question.
I was already thinking about writing a piece about utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and transhumanism. When I do, I will also ponder the Hedonistic Imperative and do my best to give it a fair shake.
BTW, a radical version of a similar view can be found in F.M. 2030's writings in which he advocated for abolishing suffering not just among humans but throughout the animal kingdom. That goal seems to me far more difficult and far in the future than achieving the abolition of aging or development of superintelligence.
A general conference for transhumanism could be beneficial. As you (Max) said, 'transhumanism' encompasses a lot. There are many points of disagreement and differences of emphasis which are not incompatible with each other, e.g (potentially) Extropianism and Abolitionism, which we could all do well to iron out.
I'm of the mind that if suffering (as distinct from pain or struggle) is neither functionally necessary nor necessary to access certain states of well-being (including those states which for Darwinians can only be accessed through difficulty and self-overcoming), then it should be dispensed with in favor of a limitless, constantly sublime expansion of transhuman possibilities. Extropianism and Abolitionism, in this case - and pardon me if I've made any category errors - would not be incompatible with each other, and Abolitionism could be included within a version of Extropianism or something of the sort.
Perhaps San Francisco, or Scottsdale, or London, or somewhere else that I can't think of, would be best for such a conference if it would work out!
Those who wish to engage seriously with religious Transhumanism (which, as Max points out, is not denoted by Transhumanism) can avoid a straw man by engaging with the Mormon Transhumanist Association or the Christian Transhumanist Association.
On a separate note, I want to comment on one of Max's statements: "Philosophies of life serve some of the roles of religions but differ in lacking a belief in supernatural entities, reliance on faith, or worship."
Almost all religious Transhumanists reject anti-naturalism. And probably most embrace what might be considered supernaturalism only to the extent that the concept may be interpreted consistently with that of naturalism -- like the concept of superintelligence may be interpreted consistently with that of intelligence, or the concept of superhumanity may be interpreted consistently with that of humanity. Personally, I think "supernatural" is generally more harmful than helpful to communication about religion or anything else.
Worship is something that I probably haven't discussed with Max before. Just briefly, I'll mention that worship, insofar as I and many (if not most) other religious Transhumanists would advocate it, should be understood as something along the lines of humble emulation (not so different from the humble emulation that Nick Bostrom advocated in a recent paper on the "Cosmic Host") -- and most certainly not anything akin to groveling.
There are some curious cases that can be argued as philosophical or as religious views such as someone with very strong confidence that we are living in a simulation and that we can discern the purpose of the simulation. This doesn't explicitly invoke the supernatural but it is not essentially different. The same view held very tentatively would be more clearly a philosophical than religious view, as I see it.
Readers interested in this issue should read Lincoln's New God Argument. (Lincoln, do you want to provide a link to the most recent version?)
Thanks, Max. Sure. Although in need of some updates, this website is a good starting point, with additional links at the bottom of the home page. https://new-god-argument.com/
Lincoln, your post reads like a promotion for your religious views rather than a comment on Max More's ideas in his post, which I assume took considerable thought for Max in providing an objective synopsis as to why transhumanism is not a religion.
Lincoln thinks quite carefully about these issues and I do not mind him commenting here. As I noted, his New God Argument is interesting and, at a minimum, no less worth thinking about than much speculation about a Singularity.
Imho, the New God Argument and religious interpretation of the Singularity are worthy concepts. However, to be very clear, these are not part of transhumanism. While theories and practices can and do co-exist simultaneously, this takes your post into a new area rather than focusing on the topic of this discussion regarding misinterpretation of transhumanism as a religion.
Max’s distinction between Transhumanism and religion depends on accounts of both. While I agree with Max that Transhumanism does not denote religion, I don’t always entirely agree with his account of religion. My comments were intended briefly to provide some insights into why his account of religion may be too narrow, and thus imply why his distinction may merit additional refinement.
I’ll add that I am perfectly comfortable with whatever moderation Max may wish to perform on my comments. No hard feelings if and when he feels like I may be diverging too far from the intent of his post.
I am addressing Mr. Tabbi’s article, which Max referenced in his post. In it, Mr. Tabbi characterizes transhumanism as an “ersatz religion.” This claim deserves a clear rebuttal. To frame transhumanism as a quasi-religious belief system—an “immortality cult” or strain of techno-utopianism—is a misrepresentation. Transhumanism has, from its inception, been grounded in evidence-based science and a rigorous commitment to the ethical application of technology. Whether you agree with Max's account of religion is not the issue.
Thank you, Max, for an insightful, well-written post. I just returned from a debate in the Middle East where I had to argue with two religious debaters that human healthy longevity can be beneficial for all societies regardless of Global North or Global South, rich markets or poor markets, old or young. With many years defending the core values or principles of transhumanism against misconstrued academic and journalistic balderdash, I have finally disassociated myself from this low-transhumanism in favor of high-transhumanism of Extropy. If anyone is interested, please read the Transhumanism Affirmation, which you can find online. Max contributed to it! https://www.transhumanismaffirmation.org/
Yes, we talked about low-end and high-end transhumanism. For others: I think of low-end transhumanism as including those people at conferences yelling out "Immortality!" and "Singularity!" and those who feed misunderstandings of the philosophy by not distinguishing their personal enthusiasms from transhumanism itself.
Excellent, I was just thinking we needed someone to dispel the recent surge in lunacy around the idea of transhumanism being a religion (there have been countless such examples of late)!
David Pearce's choice of title for his manifesto will forever haunt him. His project is not 'hedonistic' in a vapid and stupid sense; to paraphrase: 'our descendents may be serenely well motivated high achievers. Their productivity may far eclipse our own.'
It is the deathists who oppose life-extension, and those who stall progress, who are against reason and life - not us transhumanists!
other examples I came across recently: https://iai.tv/articles/the-false-religion-of-transhumanism-auid-3006 | https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/a15b1f25-a772-4ab1-82af-2e4927224950 | https://julesevans.medium.com/how-did-transhumanism-become-the-religion-of-the-super-rich-d670a410b01a | unfortunately status quo bias prevents people from understanding how bad the status quo in fact is, and how good technology could make life if we got our act together.
I value Dave Pearce and respect his work. I have never valued the Hedonistic Imperative or the need for absolute happiness. I prefer peace of mind, joy, and I enjoy moments of reflection that makes me sad or even angry as necessary biological and psychological release .
I won't put words in his mouth, but he often emphasizes the abolition of involuntary suffering specifically. That's his main point of focus, and when he talks about gradients of wellbeing, he doesn't advocate for undiscerning bliss. 'Blissful but not blissed out,' is something he emphasizes often. If offered the choice, would it not be better to be motivated by gradients of well-being, the lower ends of which surpass even the peak experiences that darwinian human brains can sustain? Perhaps; it's difficult to know how we ought to navigate the space of possible minds - perhaps sadness and anger should persist.
It is a fascinating question. I would think it sensible if we could give people a safe, effective, and reliable way to abolish depression, anxiety, and other extremely awful mental states while not suppressing less drastic negative states that may be valuable in learning and improving.
Agreed, although it's difficult for us to know at present whether the functional part of those 'less drastic negative states' could be preserved without the negative affect (genetic outliers eg. Jo Cameron indicate it could be). If so, improvement and learning could be always profound or pleasurable, and I can't think of a reason why we would preserve the 'raw feels' of suffering if it has no irreplaceable functional role.
A manifesto needs a snappy title. “The Hedonistic Imperative” was the best I could think of. Apt alternatives, e.g. “Our Moral Obligation To Use Biotechnology To End Involuntary Suffering Throughout The Living World In Favour of Information-Sensitive Gradients of Well-Being” don’t carry the implication I’m urging a life of drink, drugs and debauchery; but lack the same punch. But what does “well-being” consist in? (cf. “Transhumanism advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals)” - The Transhumanist Declaration, 1998, 2009) Here transhumanists diverge. But what needs stressing is (1) we’re not talking about coercive bliss; and (2) ratcheting up hedonic set-points to enrich default quality of life is consistent with being e.g. an Aristotelian virtue ethicist like Max.
(Despite life-long celibacy, I've no principled objection to "wallowing in pleasure" as Max puts it. The beauty of hedonic uplift via set-point recalibration is you aren't forced to choose. Even in a future world underpinned by gradients of superhuman well-being, Mill’s "higher pleasures" can take precedence over the pleasures of the flesh.
Thanks for your comments, David. My comment about "wallowing in pleasure" does not represent your very thoughtful Hedonistic Imperative and I regret that my offhand comment could suggest otherwise.
I sympathize about the difficulty of choosing a snappy title and how that can lead to misunderstandings. Even the term "transhumanism" has that problem, as some people take it to mean doing away with humanity, rather than the self-transformation of those humans who choose it.
Mill's view is interesting. He moved away from classical Benthamite utilitarianism while not entirely abandoning the approach. Whether or not the "higher pleasures" idea really fits with the utilitarian approach is a difficult question.
I was already thinking about writing a piece about utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and transhumanism. When I do, I will also ponder the Hedonistic Imperative and do my best to give it a fair shake.
BTW, a radical version of a similar view can be found in F.M. 2030's writings in which he advocated for abolishing suffering not just among humans but throughout the animal kingdom. That goal seems to me far more difficult and far in the future than achieving the abolition of aging or development of superintelligence.
A general conference for transhumanism could be beneficial. As you (Max) said, 'transhumanism' encompasses a lot. There are many points of disagreement and differences of emphasis which are not incompatible with each other, e.g (potentially) Extropianism and Abolitionism, which we could all do well to iron out.
I'm of the mind that if suffering (as distinct from pain or struggle) is neither functionally necessary nor necessary to access certain states of well-being (including those states which for Darwinians can only be accessed through difficulty and self-overcoming), then it should be dispensed with in favor of a limitless, constantly sublime expansion of transhuman possibilities. Extropianism and Abolitionism, in this case - and pardon me if I've made any category errors - would not be incompatible with each other, and Abolitionism could be included within a version of Extropianism or something of the sort.
Perhaps San Francisco, or Scottsdale, or London, or somewhere else that I can't think of, would be best for such a conference if it would work out!
I look forward to your article on meta-ethics. I’m still trying to figure out what I believe on this topic.
Thanks for taking the time to set things straight, Max! The degree to which otherwise intelligent people misunderstand transhumanism is astounding!
Mostly they read journalistic accounts and don't bother to read the core documents.
Those who wish to engage seriously with religious Transhumanism (which, as Max points out, is not denoted by Transhumanism) can avoid a straw man by engaging with the Mormon Transhumanist Association or the Christian Transhumanist Association.
On a separate note, I want to comment on one of Max's statements: "Philosophies of life serve some of the roles of religions but differ in lacking a belief in supernatural entities, reliance on faith, or worship."
Almost all religious Transhumanists reject anti-naturalism. And probably most embrace what might be considered supernaturalism only to the extent that the concept may be interpreted consistently with that of naturalism -- like the concept of superintelligence may be interpreted consistently with that of intelligence, or the concept of superhumanity may be interpreted consistently with that of humanity. Personally, I think "supernatural" is generally more harmful than helpful to communication about religion or anything else.
"Faith," among religious Transhumanists, is generally interpreted in ways that are inconsistent with what I understand Max's intent to be when he uses the word. He and I discussed this at length some years ago. https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/10/dynamic-faith-in-pancritical.html
Worship is something that I probably haven't discussed with Max before. Just briefly, I'll mention that worship, insofar as I and many (if not most) other religious Transhumanists would advocate it, should be understood as something along the lines of humble emulation (not so different from the humble emulation that Nick Bostrom advocated in a recent paper on the "Cosmic Host") -- and most certainly not anything akin to groveling.
There are some curious cases that can be argued as philosophical or as religious views such as someone with very strong confidence that we are living in a simulation and that we can discern the purpose of the simulation. This doesn't explicitly invoke the supernatural but it is not essentially different. The same view held very tentatively would be more clearly a philosophical than religious view, as I see it.
Readers interested in this issue should read Lincoln's New God Argument. (Lincoln, do you want to provide a link to the most recent version?)
Thanks, Max. Sure. Although in need of some updates, this website is a good starting point, with additional links at the bottom of the home page. https://new-god-argument.com/
Lincoln, your post reads like a promotion for your religious views rather than a comment on Max More's ideas in his post, which I assume took considerable thought for Max in providing an objective synopsis as to why transhumanism is not a religion.
Lincoln thinks quite carefully about these issues and I do not mind him commenting here. As I noted, his New God Argument is interesting and, at a minimum, no less worth thinking about than much speculation about a Singularity.
Imho, the New God Argument and religious interpretation of the Singularity are worthy concepts. However, to be very clear, these are not part of transhumanism. While theories and practices can and do co-exist simultaneously, this takes your post into a new area rather than focusing on the topic of this discussion regarding misinterpretation of transhumanism as a religion.
Max’s distinction between Transhumanism and religion depends on accounts of both. While I agree with Max that Transhumanism does not denote religion, I don’t always entirely agree with his account of religion. My comments were intended briefly to provide some insights into why his account of religion may be too narrow, and thus imply why his distinction may merit additional refinement.
I’ll add that I am perfectly comfortable with whatever moderation Max may wish to perform on my comments. No hard feelings if and when he feels like I may be diverging too far from the intent of his post.
I am addressing Mr. Tabbi’s article, which Max referenced in his post. In it, Mr. Tabbi characterizes transhumanism as an “ersatz religion.” This claim deserves a clear rebuttal. To frame transhumanism as a quasi-religious belief system—an “immortality cult” or strain of techno-utopianism—is a misrepresentation. Transhumanism has, from its inception, been grounded in evidence-based science and a rigorous commitment to the ethical application of technology. Whether you agree with Max's account of religion is not the issue.
Taibbi used to be good, but hasn't been in years. :-(
...I still read his 'Goldman Sachs bloodsucking vampire squid' article...it's a classic :-)
"Transhumanists acknowledge current human nature and understand that advanced technology is the way to eventually make changes"
There does not seem to be much discussion of this matter in Transhumanist circles tho. It is a subject I am very interested in.