Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'

Science has already advanced a long way with extending the human life span through medical developments. However, the transhumanists wish to go much further, including, for example head replacements, and create ways to enable people to be happy through medications far more advanced than current pharmacology. It is hard to know how much is scientifically possible. Would a head transplant enable the same person to exist? The main emphasis is not simply about life extension but about enhancement.

Walker points out,
'Up to about the late 1990s, objections to transhumanism tended to focus almost exclusively on the unlikelihood of transhumanism rather than its desirability. The idea that technology could be used to radically enhance human beings was criticised (often simply lampooned) as being science fiction. After the birth of the first cloned animal in 1996- Dolly the sheep- the tide started to change. Critics of transhumanism began to begrudgingly concede that some of the proposals of transhumanists might be technically possible, and turned to questions of desirability or ethical rightness.'

In this thread I am raising both aspects of the debate. What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Sy Borg »

Jack, I see the ethical issues as irrelevant. Objections to transhumanism will be about as effective as objections to any new, extremely useful technology. Anything that the west declines to do due to ethical concerns will be done by someone else, or by corporations large enough to be a law unto themselves. So we can take progress in this area as a given, only slowed by ethics, but never halted.

I expect the changes to continue to be incremental, one implant at a time. A successful head transplant is not only a long way off, but quite possibly won't even be a viable option. By the time technology and knowhow is advanced enough to swap people's head over, there will surely be better options like smart nanobots or implants.

Implants cost money. Transhumanism is not for all. One of the most stunning examples of how different people's outcomes will be came when Trump caught COVID. Under normal circumstances an obese septuagenarian in a super high stress job would be in deep trouble. Instead he was surrounded by a swarm of the best doctors in the country and, with intensive treatment, he was fine in a few days. If this level of help was available to the general populace, COVID deaths would have been reduced by maybe 99%, given how easily someone who should have died could be cured. So, enhancements and augmentation to humans will only be available to the to VIPs, billionaires and their closest allies.

As other species die out, and humanity splits between transhumans and humans, the latter will fill the role currently filled by animals, being considered to be either resources, vermin or ignorable.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by stevie »

JackDaydream wrote: April 17th, 2022, 7:41 pm Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'
...
What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?
So there is a community of believers called "'transhumanists" believing in what others than themselves should do and believing in their own imaginations. I'd say their system of thought is not only mere speculation based on imaginations of what only they themselves imagine to be a "better world" but also an ideology since it dictates what individuals should do. As long as they stay among themselves they are free to believe whatever they like and pursue a conduct in line with regulations but when they strive for influence on political decisions they are likely to become as dangerous as any other sectarian ideological collective.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by LuckyR »

This topic is a perfect example of the fundamental difference between what can be done, what should be done and what will be done. Let me tell you what I mean. When I was a kid lots of "futuristic" magazine covers touted two common topics: flying cars and video phones. Neither was possible at the time. Both are possible now, but no one drive/flies to work but everyone has a smartphone. The reason no one uses flying cars even though they exist is because there isn't a compelling reason for it that outweighs the substantial hurdles to developing it's support system. The hurdles for video calls was much, much smaller.

By the time transhuman technologies can be done, there will be bigger problems to solve, such as what to do with the billions of displaced climate refugees from the tropics.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

Sy Borg wrote: April 17th, 2022, 9:04 pm Jack, I see the ethical issues as irrelevant. Objections to transhumanism will be about as effective as objections to any new, extremely useful technology. Anything that the west declines to do due to ethical concerns will be done by someone else, or by corporations large enough to be a law unto themselves. So we can take progress in this area as a given, only slowed by ethics, but never halted.

I expect the changes to continue to be incremental, one implant at a time. A successful head transplant is not only a long way off, but quite possibly won't even be a viable option. By the time technology and knowhow is advanced enough to swap people's head over, there will surely be better options like smart nanobots or implants.

Implants cost money. Transhumanism is not for all. One of the most stunning examples of how different people's outcomes will be came when Trump caught COVID. Under normal circumstances an obese septuagenarian in a super high stress job would be in deep trouble. Instead he was surrounded by a swarm of the best doctors in the country and, with intensive treatment, he was fine in a few days. If this level of help was available to the general populace, COVID deaths would have been reduced by maybe 99%, given how easily someone who should have died could be cured. So, enhancements and augmentation to humans will only be available to the to VIPs, billionaires and their closest allies.

As other species die out, and humanity splits between transhumans and humans, the latter will fill the role currently filled by animals, being considered to be either resources, vermin or ignorable.
The political dimensions of transhumanism seem a cause for concern. I often think of it in the context of the decline of the human population but you are correct to speak of it occurring in the context of species dying out. Human beings can find ways of coping with environmental changes, especially climate change, in ways which animals cannot.

The idea of the inequalities of who may or may not be able to gain access to forms of enhancement is important because it suggests an elite majority living on to control the masses. It could end up with the superhumans being like overlords or 'gods' controlling the masses, and a possibility of hierarchies of power and access to such enhancements. It could go hand in hand with the rise of totalitarianism, which, at times, I fear is on it's way. Amidst the time of the pandemic changes like apps for access, more cashless transactions and digital ways of being do seem changes which could be part of totalitarianism coming. It is sometimes hard to know what is going on behind the scenes and the idea of aspects not involving ethical consideration does indicate the way in which many human beings are excluded from what is happening, possibly with many in the dark, only seeing the surfaces of news headlines.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

stevie wrote: April 18th, 2022, 1:36 am
JackDaydream wrote: April 17th, 2022, 7:41 pm Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'
...
What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?
So there is a community of believers called "'transhumanists" believing in what others than themselves should do and believing in their own imaginations. I'd say their system of thought is not only mere speculation based on imaginations of what only they themselves imagine to be a "better world" but also an ideology since it dictates what individuals should do. As long as they stay among themselves they are free to believe whatever they like and pursue a conduct in line with regulations but when they strive for influence on political decisions they are likely to become as dangerous as any other sectarian ideological collective.
Speculation over technology and transhumanist science is different from the speculation about the philosophical questions of existence. The latter are a matter of opinion whereas what developments are taking place is about knowledge of what is happening in science because it is about advances which are being developed in the here and now. It may not be fantasy and of finding out what is going on and what projects are being funded. It may be about specific science research. The hardest part may be gaining access to information, but that doesn't mean that it is not possible.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

LuckyR wrote: April 18th, 2022, 2:57 am This topic is a perfect example of the fundamental difference between what can be done, what should be done and what will be done. Let me tell you what I mean. When I was a kid lots of "futuristic" magazine covers touted two common topics: flying cars and video phones. Neither was possible at the time. Both are possible now, but no one drive/flies to work but everyone has a smartphone. The reason no one uses flying cars even though they exist is because there isn't a compelling reason for it that outweighs the substantial hurdles to developing it's support system. The hurdles for video calls was much, much smaller.

By the time transhuman technologies can be done, there will be bigger problems to solve, such as what to do with the billions of displaced climate refugees from the tropics.
There is a difference between fantasy ideas and what happens. Flying cars haven't come but driverless trains are a real possibility. When I read science fiction books from the past I am more amazed to see how out of date they seem because so much of what has developed goes beyond what was imagined. I read Orwell's '1984' about 5 years ago and Huxley's, 'Brave New World' around about that time. Both books seemed out of date. If people who were alive over 100 years ago or more knew of so many aspects of life which we take for granted, including communicating all across the globe on devices and Zoom, it is likely they would be said that it is impossible. But, of course, there is so much which is unpredictable, including aspects of nature.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Sy Borg »

JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 3:53 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 17th, 2022, 9:04 pm Jack, I see the ethical issues as irrelevant. Objections to transhumanism will be about as effective as objections to any new, extremely useful technology. Anything that the west declines to do due to ethical concerns will be done by someone else, or by corporations large enough to be a law unto themselves. So we can take progress in this area as a given, only slowed by ethics, but never halted.

I expect the changes to continue to be incremental, one implant at a time. A successful head transplant is not only a long way off, but quite possibly won't even be a viable option. By the time technology and knowhow is advanced enough to swap people's head over, there will surely be better options like smart nanobots or implants.

Implants cost money. Transhumanism is not for all. One of the most stunning examples of how different people's outcomes will be came when Trump caught COVID. Under normal circumstances an obese septuagenarian in a super high stress job would be in deep trouble. Instead he was surrounded by a swarm of the best doctors in the country and, with intensive treatment, he was fine in a few days. If this level of help was available to the general populace, COVID deaths would have been reduced by maybe 99%, given how easily someone who should have died could be cured. So, enhancements and augmentation to humans will only be available to the to VIPs, billionaires and their closest allies.

As other species die out, and humanity splits between transhumans and humans, the latter will fill the role currently filled by animals, being considered to be either resources, vermin or ignorable.
The political dimensions of transhumanism seem a cause for concern. I often think of it in the context of the decline of the human population but you are correct to speak of it occurring in the context of species dying out. Human beings can find ways of coping with environmental changes, especially climate change, in ways which animals cannot.

The idea of the inequalities of who may or may not be able to gain access to forms of enhancement is important because it suggests an elite majority living on to control the masses. It could end up with the superhumans being like overlords or 'gods' controlling the masses, and a possibility of hierarchies of power and access to such enhancements. It could go hand in hand with the rise of totalitarianism, which, at times, I fear is on it's way. Amidst the time of the pandemic changes like apps for access, more cashless transactions and digital ways of being do seem changes which could be part of totalitarianism coming. It is sometimes hard to know what is going on behind the scenes and the idea of aspects not involving ethical consideration does indicate the way in which many human beings are excluded from what is happening, possibly with many in the dark, only seeing the surfaces of news headlines.
Yes, I think at least some technology-enhanced totalitarianism is inevitable. China appear likely to be first. This is what nature does. It sticks entities together and then integrates them ever more tightly over time.

What is a brain but control system over numerous cell communities? However, humans have more capability and flexibility than cells, so one would expect less control exerted on them than on, say, cells or eusocial insects. Impressive as AI is, I think humans minds that are free to explore topics will still be needed - at least by any society hoping to compete in the medium term. A human brain has a capacity in the region of 2.5 petabytes. By contrast, the entire internet has around 1,200 petabytes of information - roughly 500 humans' worth.

The class distinctions you speak of are already here. VIPs and billionaires might as well be gods, given the difference between their lives and level of control, and that of the rest of us. This is especially the case in authoritarian states. When I was a child I would be sent to Sunday school and mouth the words of hymns that praise a questionable deity. Chinese children today do more or less the same thing at school, except their questionable deity is Xi.

Agree about cashless transactions. No better way to gain absolute control. I use cash wherever possible because cash's relative privacy is a luxury that will soon not be available.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:32 am
JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 3:53 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 17th, 2022, 9:04 pm Jack, I see the ethical issues as irrelevant. Objections to transhumanism will be about as effective as objections to any new, extremely useful technology. Anything that the west declines to do due to ethical concerns will be done by someone else, or by corporations large enough to be a law unto themselves. So we can take progress in this area as a given, only slowed by ethics, but never halted.

I expect the changes to continue to be incremental, one implant at a time. A successful head transplant is not only a long way off, but quite possibly won't even be a viable option. By the time technology and knowhow is advanced enough to swap people's head over, there will surely be better options like smart nanobots or implants.

Implants cost money. Transhumanism is not for all. One of the most stunning examples of how different people's outcomes will be came when Trump caught COVID. Under normal circumstances an obese septuagenarian in a super high stress job would be in deep trouble. Instead he was surrounded by a swarm of the best doctors in the country and, with intensive treatment, he was fine in a few days. If this level of help was available to the general populace, COVID deaths would have been reduced by maybe 99%, given how easily someone who should have died could be cured. So, enhancements and augmentation to humans will only be available to the to VIPs, billionaires and their closest allies.

As other species die out, and humanity splits between transhumans and humans, the latter will fill the role currently filled by animals, being considered to be either resources, vermin or ignorable.
The political dimensions of transhumanism seem a cause for concern. I often think of it in the context of the decline of the human population but you are correct to speak of it occurring in the context of species dying out. Human beings can find ways of coping with environmental changes, especially climate change, in ways which animals cannot.

The idea of the inequalities of who may or may not be able to gain access to forms of enhancement is important because it suggests an elite majority living on to control the masses. It could end up with the superhumans being like overlords or 'gods' controlling the masses, and a possibility of hierarchies of power and access to such enhancements. It could go hand in hand with the rise of totalitarianism, which, at times, I fear is on it's way. Amidst the time of the pandemic changes like apps for access, more cashless transactions and digital ways of being do seem changes which could be part of totalitarianism coming. It is sometimes hard to know what is going on behind the scenes and the idea of aspects not involving ethical consideration does indicate the way in which many human beings are excluded from what is happening, possibly with many in the dark, only seeing the surfaces of news headlines.
Yes, I think at least some technology-enhanced totalitarianism is inevitable. China appear likely to be first. This is what nature does. It sticks entities together and then integrates them ever more tightly over time.

What is a brain but control system over numerous cell communities? However, humans have more capability and flexibility than cells, so one would expect less control exerted on them than on, say, cells or eusocial insects. Impressive as AI is, I think humans minds that are free to explore topics will still be needed - at least by any society hoping to compete in the medium term. A human brain has a capacity in the region of 2.5 petabytes. By contrast, the entire internet has around 1,200 petabytes of information - roughly 500 humans' worth.

The class distinctions you speak of are already here. VIPs and billionaires might as well be gods, given the difference between their lives and level of control, and that of the rest of us. This is especially the case in authoritarian states. When I was a child I would be sent to Sunday school and mouth the words of hymns that praise a questionable deity. Chinese children today do more or less the same thing at school, except their questionable deity is Xi.

Agree about cashless transactions. No better way to gain absolute control. I use cash wherever possible because cash's relative privacy is a luxury that will soon not be available.
I do see it as worrying, especially as I was just doing some research online and one document which I came across was a Gov. UK site. These are a series which have emerged on so many policy areas in England in the last couple of years relating to tax, employment, housing and benefits. It has been during the time of the pandemic that these have been the only way of undertaking many such activities.

The Gov. UK site which I just found is 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' (13 May 2021) and is a summary of a much longer documentary. It is referring to developments in the UK, Germany, Sweden and Finland on brain-computer interfaces. These appear to involve 'the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines'. Also, 'The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already being widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centre perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle. '

There is a disclaimer in the site saying that the project does not represent the position of the UK government or the Ministry of Defence. However, the fact that the project has such an official site indicates that such human augmentation is extremely important on the agenda in the UK at the present time.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

It may be fiction/fantasy, but Olaf Stapledon's "Last and first men" covers a lot of what you are thinking about here.

Just a thought...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 18th, 2022, 9:02 am It may be fiction/fantasy, but Olaf Stapledon's "Last and first men" covers a lot of what you are thinking about here.

Just a thought...
Yes, it does seem that some science fiction writers have explored the further possibilities of the human or posthuman condition as ways in which humanity may evolve. Even Nietzsche's idea of the 'superman' touches upon this because it is partly a response to mortality and existential angst which may lead people to explore and try to extend the limits of what it means to be human.

I have been reading Yuval Noah Harari' s ' Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016) and he speaks of the way in which 'for modern people death is a technical problem that we can and should solve.'

Of course, it is not that simple because there are so many ways to die, but human beings often value their lives and its pleasures so much...
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Sy Borg »

JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:59 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:32 am
JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 3:53 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 17th, 2022, 9:04 pm Jack, I see the ethical issues as irrelevant. Objections to transhumanism will be about as effective as objections to any new, extremely useful technology. Anything that the west declines to do due to ethical concerns will be done by someone else, or by corporations large enough to be a law unto themselves. So we can take progress in this area as a given, only slowed by ethics, but never halted.

I expect the changes to continue to be incremental, one implant at a time. A successful head transplant is not only a long way off, but quite possibly won't even be a viable option. By the time technology and knowhow is advanced enough to swap people's head over, there will surely be better options like smart nanobots or implants.

Implants cost money. Transhumanism is not for all. One of the most stunning examples of how different people's outcomes will be came when Trump caught COVID. Under normal circumstances an obese septuagenarian in a super high stress job would be in deep trouble. Instead he was surrounded by a swarm of the best doctors in the country and, with intensive treatment, he was fine in a few days. If this level of help was available to the general populace, COVID deaths would have been reduced by maybe 99%, given how easily someone who should have died could be cured. So, enhancements and augmentation to humans will only be available to the to VIPs, billionaires and their closest allies.

As other species die out, and humanity splits between transhumans and humans, the latter will fill the role currently filled by animals, being considered to be either resources, vermin or ignorable.
The political dimensions of transhumanism seem a cause for concern. I often think of it in the context of the decline of the human population but you are correct to speak of it occurring in the context of species dying out. Human beings can find ways of coping with environmental changes, especially climate change, in ways which animals cannot.

The idea of the inequalities of who may or may not be able to gain access to forms of enhancement is important because it suggests an elite majority living on to control the masses. It could end up with the superhumans being like overlords or 'gods' controlling the masses, and a possibility of hierarchies of power and access to such enhancements. It could go hand in hand with the rise of totalitarianism, which, at times, I fear is on it's way. Amidst the time of the pandemic changes like apps for access, more cashless transactions and digital ways of being do seem changes which could be part of totalitarianism coming. It is sometimes hard to know what is going on behind the scenes and the idea of aspects not involving ethical consideration does indicate the way in which many human beings are excluded from what is happening, possibly with many in the dark, only seeing the surfaces of news headlines.
Yes, I think at least some technology-enhanced totalitarianism is inevitable. China appear likely to be first. This is what nature does. It sticks entities together and then integrates them ever more tightly over time.

What is a brain but control system over numerous cell communities? However, humans have more capability and flexibility than cells, so one would expect less control exerted on them than on, say, cells or eusocial insects. Impressive as AI is, I think humans minds that are free to explore topics will still be needed - at least by any society hoping to compete in the medium term. A human brain has a capacity in the region of 2.5 petabytes. By contrast, the entire internet has around 1,200 petabytes of information - roughly 500 humans' worth.

The class distinctions you speak of are already here. VIPs and billionaires might as well be gods, given the difference between their lives and level of control, and that of the rest of us. This is especially the case in authoritarian states. When I was a child I would be sent to Sunday school and mouth the words of hymns that praise a questionable deity. Chinese children today do more or less the same thing at school, except their questionable deity is Xi.

Agree about cashless transactions. No better way to gain absolute control. I use cash wherever possible because cash's relative privacy is a luxury that will soon not be available.
I do see it as worrying, especially as I was just doing some research online and one document which I came across was a Gov. UK site. These are a series which have emerged on so many policy areas in England in the last couple of years relating to tax, employment, housing and benefits. It has been during the time of the pandemic that these have been the only way of undertaking many such activities.

The Gov. UK site which I just found is 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' (13 May 2021) and is a summary of a much longer documentary. It is referring to developments in the UK, Germany, Sweden and Finland on brain-computer interfaces. These appear to involve 'the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines'. Also, 'The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already being widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centre perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle. '

There is a disclaimer in the site saying that the project does not represent the position of the UK government or the Ministry of Defence. However, the fact that the project has such an official site indicates that such human augmentation is extremely important on the agenda in the UK at the present time.
Let's consider the worries. Poorly-exercised or abused governmental or corporate power. Loss of autonomy. Loss of privacy.

Yet history is replete with the above, but many people still seemed to lead fulfilling lives. Consider how much autonomy or privacy people have in large traditional extended families. Almost none. Dictatorial kings and feudal lords weren't any better.

The fear is backsliding, losing the social gains of the last century, or more. However, when considered in the broad sweep of history, some backsliding is to be expected. It's not ideal when one is living in such a time, but it is at least preferable to being dead in such a time (arguably :). So it appears that retrograde forces will erase most of the social gains of the last century.

The future appears to hold ever tighter integration of humans in societies, but I doubt it will be a linear process. Not much in life happens in a neatly linear fashion, so it may be some decades before the walls close in, so to speak.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by JackDaydream »

Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 8:28 pm
JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:59 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:32 am
JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 3:53 am

The political dimensions of transhumanism seem a cause for concern. I often think of it in the context of the decline of the human population but you are correct to speak of it occurring in the context of species dying out. Human beings can find ways of coping with environmental changes, especially climate change, in ways which animals cannot.

The idea of the inequalities of who may or may not be able to gain access to forms of enhancement is important because it suggests an elite majority living on to control the masses. It could end up with the superhumans being like overlords or 'gods' controlling the masses, and a possibility of hierarchies of power and access to such enhancements. It could go hand in hand with the rise of totalitarianism, which, at times, I fear is on it's way. Amidst the time of the pandemic changes like apps for access, more cashless transactions and digital ways of being do seem changes which could be part of totalitarianism coming. It is sometimes hard to know what is going on behind the scenes and the idea of aspects not involving ethical consideration does indicate the way in which many human beings are excluded from what is happening, possibly with many in the dark, only seeing the surfaces of news headlines.
Yes, I think at least some technology-enhanced totalitarianism is inevitable. China appear likely to be first. This is what nature does. It sticks entities together and then integrates them ever more tightly over time.

What is a brain but control system over numerous cell communities? However, humans have more capability and flexibility than cells, so one would expect less control exerted on them than on, say, cells or eusocial insects. Impressive as AI is, I think humans minds that are free to explore topics will still be needed - at least by any society hoping to compete in the medium term. A human brain has a capacity in the region of 2.5 petabytes. By contrast, the entire internet has around 1,200 petabytes of information - roughly 500 humans' worth.

The class distinctions you speak of are already here. VIPs and billionaires might as well be gods, given the difference between their lives and level of control, and that of the rest of us. This is especially the case in authoritarian states. When I was a child I would be sent to Sunday school and mouth the words of hymns that praise a questionable deity. Chinese children today do more or less the same thing at school, except their questionable deity is Xi.

Agree about cashless transactions. No better way to gain absolute control. I use cash wherever possible because cash's relative privacy is a luxury that will soon not be available.
I do see it as worrying, especially as I was just doing some research online and one document which I came across was a Gov. UK site. These are a series which have emerged on so many policy areas in England in the last couple of years relating to tax, employment, housing and benefits. It has been during the time of the pandemic that these have been the only way of undertaking many such activities.

The Gov. UK site which I just found is 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' (13 May 2021) and is a summary of a much longer documentary. It is referring to developments in the UK, Germany, Sweden and Finland on brain-computer interfaces. These appear to involve 'the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines'. Also, 'The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already being widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centre perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle. '

There is a disclaimer in the site saying that the project does not represent the position of the UK government or the Ministry of Defence. However, the fact that the project has such an official site indicates that such human augmentation is extremely important on the agenda in the UK at the present time.
Let's consider the worries. Poorly-exercised or abused governmental or corporate power. Loss of autonomy. Loss of privacy.

Yet history is replete with the above, but many people still seemed to lead fulfilling lives. Consider how much autonomy or privacy people have in large traditional extended families. Almost none. Dictatorial kings and feudal lords weren't any better.

The fear is backsliding, losing the social gains of the last century, or more. However, when considered in the broad sweep of history, some backsliding is to be expected. It's not ideal when one is living in such a time, but it is at least preferable to being dead in such a time (arguably :). So it appears that retrograde forces will erase most of the social gains of the last century.

The future appears to hold ever tighter integration of humans in societies, but I doubt it will be a linear process. Not much in life happens in a neatly linear fashion, so it may be some decades before the walls close in, so to speak.
It would depend how far things went in loss of autonomy and privacy to know how bearable it would be. If, for example, people were microchipped at birth and the state had knowledge of almost everything they did, although those born into would know nothing else. It would also depend on what liberties were restricted. In a fully totalitarian society it would be unlikely that people would be able to express their ideas on a site such as this. There may be restrictions on what can be read and people may be forced to do certain work and certain relationships or friendships may be forbidden. There may be torture punishments and extremely poor living conditions.

I know that this all sounds a long way off but things can be introduced insidiously. One aspect which I do wonder about is the way in which information is shared on computer systems, such as medical information. There is increased third party sharing, such as links between organisations. Of course, people who work in the organisations are subject to rules, such as one would be in trouble if they looked up a personal acquaintance out of curiosity. However, with links between GPs and hospitals there can be increased sharing of sensitive information. It is questionable whether some aspects of this goes against the original confidentiality of the Hippocratic oath.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Sy Borg »

JackDaydream wrote: April 19th, 2022, 12:24 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 8:28 pm
JackDaydream wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:59 am
Sy Borg wrote: April 18th, 2022, 5:32 am
Yes, I think at least some technology-enhanced totalitarianism is inevitable. China appear likely to be first. This is what nature does. It sticks entities together and then integrates them ever more tightly over time.

What is a brain but control system over numerous cell communities? However, humans have more capability and flexibility than cells, so one would expect less control exerted on them than on, say, cells or eusocial insects. Impressive as AI is, I think humans minds that are free to explore topics will still be needed - at least by any society hoping to compete in the medium term. A human brain has a capacity in the region of 2.5 petabytes. By contrast, the entire internet has around 1,200 petabytes of information - roughly 500 humans' worth.

The class distinctions you speak of are already here. VIPs and billionaires might as well be gods, given the difference between their lives and level of control, and that of the rest of us. This is especially the case in authoritarian states. When I was a child I would be sent to Sunday school and mouth the words of hymns that praise a questionable deity. Chinese children today do more or less the same thing at school, except their questionable deity is Xi.

Agree about cashless transactions. No better way to gain absolute control. I use cash wherever possible because cash's relative privacy is a luxury that will soon not be available.
I do see it as worrying, especially as I was just doing some research online and one document which I came across was a Gov. UK site. These are a series which have emerged on so many policy areas in England in the last couple of years relating to tax, employment, housing and benefits. It has been during the time of the pandemic that these have been the only way of undertaking many such activities.

The Gov. UK site which I just found is 'Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm' (13 May 2021) and is a summary of a much longer documentary. It is referring to developments in the UK, Germany, Sweden and Finland on brain-computer interfaces. These appear to involve 'the binding agent between the unique skills of humans and machines'. Also, 'The growing significance of human-machine teaming is already being widely acknowledged but this has so far been discussed from a technology-centre perspective. This HA project represents the missing part of the puzzle. '

There is a disclaimer in the site saying that the project does not represent the position of the UK government or the Ministry of Defence. However, the fact that the project has such an official site indicates that such human augmentation is extremely important on the agenda in the UK at the present time.
Let's consider the worries. Poorly-exercised or abused governmental or corporate power. Loss of autonomy. Loss of privacy.

Yet history is replete with the above, but many people still seemed to lead fulfilling lives. Consider how much autonomy or privacy people have in large traditional extended families. Almost none. Dictatorial kings and feudal lords weren't any better.

The fear is backsliding, losing the social gains of the last century, or more. However, when considered in the broad sweep of history, some backsliding is to be expected. It's not ideal when one is living in such a time, but it is at least preferable to being dead in such a time (arguably :). So it appears that retrograde forces will erase most of the social gains of the last century.

The future appears to hold ever tighter integration of humans in societies, but I doubt it will be a linear process. Not much in life happens in a neatly linear fashion, so it may be some decades before the walls close in, so to speak.
It would depend how far things went in loss of autonomy and privacy to know how bearable it would be. If, for example, people were microchipped at birth and the state had knowledge of almost everything they did, although those born into would know nothing else. It would also depend on what liberties were restricted. In a fully totalitarian society it would be unlikely that people would be able to express their ideas on a site such as this. There may be restrictions on what can be read and people may be forced to do certain work and certain relationships or friendships may be forbidden. There may be torture punishments and extremely poor living conditions.

I know that this all sounds a long way off but things can be introduced insidiously. One aspect which I do wonder about is the way in which information is shared on computer systems, such as medical information. There is increased third party sharing, such as links between organisations. Of course, people who work in the organisations are subject to rules, such as one would be in trouble if they looked up a personal acquaintance out of curiosity. However, with links between GPs and hospitals there can be increased sharing of sensitive information. It is questionable whether some aspects of this goes against the original confidentiality of the Hippocratic oath.
Yep, and it gets worse. The Australian government introduced an e-health system, ostensibly to allow practitioners to readily access information about patients to improve healthcare outcomes and efficiencies. The government also decided that health insurers should have access to those records. I opted out. It's madness for patients to give more information than necessary to a private company whose interests are antithetical to yours. It just gives insurance companies an opportunity to go "fishing" for ways of avoiding payouts.

Your scenario leads to an interesting question: If children are raised in the kind of controlled, dystopian society that you described, would people simply fall in line and lose their capacities? Or is there something inherent in "the human spirit", as is often claimed, that will always struggle for freedom against tyranny?

My own view is that, over time, the human spirit can be squeezed into whatever shape a dominant leader desires. My reasoning is based on the phenomenon of regressive evolution, where a species can lose certain features over generations, a famous example being fish that adapted to life in dark cave pools and lost their eyesight through redundancy. Generations of mentally constricted people in a totalitarian system like NK could result in humans with a stunted capacity for thought and creativity. Societal stratificiation would run deeper than just finances, reminiscent of Huxley.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Transhuman Futurism: What is Possible and What is Morally Desirable?

Post by Sculptor1 »

JackDaydream wrote: April 17th, 2022, 7:41 pm Mark Walker, in 'Transhumanism', in, 'What's Next: Even Scientists Can't Predict the Future or Can They?'(Ed Al-Khalili, 2017) defines the transhumanist movement in the following way:
'Transhumanists believe that we should use advanced technologies, such as pharmacology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and nanotechnology, to radically enhance humans_ sometimes referred to as "post humans"_ who are significantly improved when compared with us. Imagine a future world populated by a new species of post-humans who are far happier, more virtuous, more intelligent, and whose lives are measured in centuries rather than decades: this is the future transhumanists imagine and work towards.'

Science has already advanced a long way with extending the human life span through medical developments. However, the transhumanists wish to go much further, including, for example head replacements, and create ways to enable people to be happy through medications far more advanced than current pharmacology. It is hard to know how much is scientifically possible. Would a head transplant enable the same person to exist? The main emphasis is not simply about life extension but about enhancement.

Walker points out,
'Up to about the late 1990s, objections to transhumanism tended to focus almost exclusively on the unlikelihood of transhumanism rather than its desirability. The idea that technology could be used to radically enhance human beings was criticised (often simply lampooned) as being science fiction. After the birth of the first cloned animal in 1996- Dolly the sheep- the tide started to change. Critics of transhumanism began to begrudgingly concede that some of the proposals of transhumanists might be technically possible, and turned to questions of desirability or ethical rightness.'

In this thread I am raising both aspects of the debate. What do you understand about the nature of the various possibilities raised by the transhumanist agenda? Also, what do you see as the ethical issues involved?
Transhumance has progressed precisely 0% towards its goal. Cloning, even human cloning, and clever prosthetics are not transhumance in any meaningful sense. It is doubtful that they are even on the path to that goal.
Flying in a Jumbo Jet is not actually flying.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021