Why are transhumanists such dicks?
Apologies for the clickbait headline, but “politics and
philosophy of transhumanism” was a bit of a snooze-fest.
I’ve been around and interviewed quite a lot of self-identified
transhumanists in the last couple of years, and I’ve noticed many of them
express a fairly stark ideology that is at best libertarian, and at worst
Randian. Very much “I want super bionic limbs and screw the rest of the world”.
They tend to brush aside the ethical, environmental, social and political
ramifications of human augmentation so long as they get to have their toys.
There’s also a common expression that if sections of society are harmed by transhumanist
progress, then it is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good (the greater
good often being bestowed primarily upon those endorsing the transhumanism).
That attitude isn’t prevalent on this forum at all – I think
the site tends to attract more practical body-modders than theoretical transhumanists
– but I wondered if anyone else here had experienced the same attitudes in
their own circles? What do you make of it?
Comments
I feel like a lot of transhumanists also already see themselves as 'more than human' and start from a place where they already reassure themselves that they're already at or near the top of humanity. Grinding however seems to start from being just human and building on that, grinding away and upgrading as new knowledge is shared and new techniques are forged. Including actually doing that forging and research to bring new tools and techniques to the community. Not just ourselves. The community. I think that's a big part of it.
It's something I've definitely noticed, and part of what puts me off on the former, but draws me into the later.
Edit: Glims... that opener right there is 100% wonderful!
I would dare say that many grinders feel like we ARE the disenfranchised. There are so many possibilities just beyond reach, so many things that a bit of money or crossing a few "ethical" lines would yield. For our own benefit, sure, but for all of humankind as well. Because of this feeling of disenfranchisement, we're willing to risk being that broken egg. It's an informed decision and one we actively seek. To push boundaries, to reach for a future that we know is just over that next rise. And if when we top that rise, should we see another "unreachable" goal (and we surely will), so much the better. Every time we tell a person about our implants spreads information, makes them look at the world a little differently, brings them a little further up the ladder of transhumanism themselves. Every failure we make that we share with the world helps to increase our knowledge base and helps us advance. In essence, every step we take that we share with others is advancing the human condition.
I too have noticed that many of the more vocal, self-described transhumanists tend to espouse political ideologies that strike me as ethically repugnant, so much that I hope they are simply politically ignorant. "The Transhumanist Wager" terrified me. Spend some time on the poorly-named facebook group "Scientific Transhumanism" for plenty of examples of either willful ignorance or disgust of identity issues (gender, race, and disability politics). @Frank 's story about the eugenicist is no longer surprising, or the horrifying Proactionary Transhumanist article @Frank also exampled.
And it maybe it shouldn't be a surprise. There are multiple societal factors contributing to the sharing of extreme libertarian views, conservative social values, and transhumanism. The first is as @Glims pointed out. To put that point another way, ""The most obvious answer is that there is an even more pronounced bias among longevists (or indeed transhumanists in general) towards IT professionals, mathematicians and similar professions, and there is of course also a strong gender bias in those professions" (Aubrey de Grey...I think). That gender bias and political bias has appeared numerous times in recent media. Remember, it's all about ethics in video game journalism. See also the rise of the neoreactionary ideology, and look at the majority of it's subscribers.
There is a seductive intellectual ease to transhumanism. Transhumanists is concerned with future of all humanity (or just a few lucky immortals), that sticky and squishy issues like the poor, the environment, or politics and identity in general are just not a concern. Certain transhuminists have an ultimate goal, one that is on intellectual level that transcends traditional humanity and thus traditional morality, and the ends justify the means.
However I do think transhumanism is an apolitical ideology (disregarding Mr Istvan and a handful of others), thus it intersects with all sorts of ethical persons. IEEET, The Mormon Transhumanist Association (bare with me here), for example. There was an organization seeking to crowdfund a feeding the hungry program called "Transhumanists against hunger." The work of Kate Darling discussing the ethical and empathetic issues between robots and humans. They all share transhumanist values along with a more empathetic and collectively-centered values than the "transhumanist dicks" first mentioned.
Assholes are everywhere. I do wish there were louder organizations of ethically and politically-minded transhumanists, but the argument could be made they'd fail because they'd only appeal to a certain class of liberal, intellectual elite (like me).
Cory Doctorow: Do you feel that the world is, on balance, improved by technology?
Well, if you ask that question from the point of view of almost anything in this world that’s not a human being like you and me, the answer’s almost certainly No. You might get a few Yea votes from the likes of albino rabbits and gene-spliced tobacco plants. Ask any living thing that’s been around in the world since before the Greeks made up the word “technology,” like say a bristlecone pine or a coral reef. You would hear an awful tale of woe.