True Transhumanism, Part 1

Dispelling misconceptions about the philosophy

Photo 233995896 | Honesty © Alena Dzihilevich | Dreamstime.com 

---

Join us for the Humanity+ Academy Debate: Dark Aeon/Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity. Sunday, October 15 · 11am - 12:30pm PDT. Author Joe Allen discusses and debates with Max More, Natasha Vita-More, and Nell Watson.

---

In the 1980s, groups emerged in which you could find discussions of not one, but many or all of these technologies: Artificial intelligence, neural networks, robotics, space habitation, life extension, human-computer interfaces, intelligence augmentation, cryptocurrencies, nanotechnology, virtual reality, enhanced reality, simulations, genetic engineering. At that time, most of these technologies were regarded as science fiction by the vast majority. Those of us who saw ourselves as transhumanists saw these as almost certainly part of our future. We saw them as powerful tools that could transform the human condition for the better.

In the early days, transhumanists (mostly extropians at that time) were accused of confusing science fiction with reality. The progress of technology and its current trajectory have validated our perspective on the capabilities of technology. Little room is left to dispute this perspective. But transhumanism is not merely the claim that these transformative technologies are possible. Transhumanism is a philosophy that says these technologies are possible and desirable when used wisely.

Critiques of and attacks on transhumanism have shifted from “that’s not possible” to “how can we stop this happening?” or “how can we control these technologies?” From being a largely obscure idea, transhumanism came to be described as:

“The most dangerous idea in the world” (Francis Fukuyama)

“The central civilization issue of our time” (Steve Bannon who also says, “this movement that will change everything in your world”)

“This ill-understood catastrophe” (Naomi Wolf)

“Transhumanism is a clear and present danger to every man, woman, and child on earth” (Patrick Wood).

If transhumanism is such a dangerous idea – whether dangerous to what is worthy or to what is not worthy – we had better be clear about what it is and is not.

Codifying, clarifying, and correcting the understanding of transhumanism is my job more than anyone else’s. (Those of you who already know, bear with me while I establish my bona fides.) Apart from first defining and explaining the philosophical framework of transhumanism, I wrote the Principles of Extropy and co-founded Extropy Institute along with its magazine and conferences to explore the concept and to spur the development of a movement – for want of a better term – based on transhumanism.

Recent critic and author of Dark Aeon: Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity, Joe Allen refers to: “The philosopher Max More, who made ‘transhumanism’ a household name.” He goes on to quote my 1990 definition. This is the one I provided to researchers from the Oxford English Dictionary who were looking to add the word to their legendary living list of words.

Although Dante and Huxley used the term earlier, I first (and independently) coined the modern sense of the term over three decades ago in my essay “Transhumanism: Toward a Futurist Philosophy.” My currently preferred definition:

Transhumanism is both a reason-based philosophy and a cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology. Transhumanists seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its current human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.

According to the Transhumanist FAQ, transhumanism is:

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

A corollary definition (also from the FAQ) focuses on the activity rather than the content of transhumanism:

The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

Thus, transhumanism is a life philosophy, an intellectual and cultural movement, and an area of study. In referring to it as a life philosophy, the 1990 definition places transhumanism in the company of complex worldviews such secular humanism and Confucianism that have practical implications for our lives without basing themselves on any supernatural or physically transcendent belief.

The growth of transhumanism as a movement and philosophy means that differing perspectives on it have formed. Despite all the varieties and interpretations, we can still identify some central themes, values, and interests that give transhumanism its distinct identity. This coherence is reflected in the large degree of agreement between definitions of the philosophy from multiple sources.

Transhumanists differ in many views and in what they emphasize. The core of transhumanism remains. I investigated some of the main currents within transhumanism in my overview essay in The Transhumanist Reader. My goal in this series of essays is to clarify this philosophy by explaining what it is not. As with any controversial view, critics often take the easy path by constructing straw men then proceed gleefully to burn them down and dance around the ashes. Some of the misunderstandings are implicit while others are stated explicitly in places such the Global Spiral debate, Erik Davis’s oft-cited book Techgnosis, Joe Allen’s recent Dark Aeon, numerous issues of New Atlantis, and  Human Forever: The Digital Politics of Spiritual War  by James Poulos, editor of The American Mind.

This series is an update and expansion of my 2008 contribution to the Global Spiral debate leading to the collection, Transhumanism and Its Critics. (Among those who corrected the critics’ misconceptions were Natasha Vita-More, Mark Walker, Russell Blackford, Michael La Torra, Martine Rothblatt, and Nick Bostrom.) In the six or seven essays to come, I will undress a cluster of misconceptions, revealing the naked truth beneath. In some cases, we will see that misconceptions come from trying to force transhumanism into a mold formed by religions. In others, it comes from focusing solely on one individual who may not be representative of transhumanism in the respect under discussion.

In the past, much criticism has come from socialists with their typical objection to any advance on the grounds that it is not instantly cheap for everyone. Increasingly, though, we are seeing criticism from a conservative and religious perspective.

Transhumanism as a worldview/philosophy for those who doubt traditional religions, who value life and humanity, and who seek continued progress while questioning traditional assumptions about human limits. This series will explain:

• Transhumanism is about continual improvement, not perfection or paradise.

• Transhumanism is about improving nature’s mindless “design”, not guaranteeing perfect technological solutions.

• Transhumanism is about critical rationalism, not omniscient reason or scientism.

• Transhumanism is not technocratic globalism nor is it about creating a machine god to rule us.  

• Transhumanism is about morphological freedom, not mechanizing the body.

• Transhumanism is about trying to shape fundamentally better futures, not predicting specific futures.

• Transhumanism is not Singularitarianism.

• Transhumanism is not posthumanism.

More to come soon! Remember, if you can, join us for a lively discussion and debate with Joe Allen, author of Dark Aeon. You don’t even need to scroll back up the page. Register free here.