Transhumanism?

Transhumanism is generally defined as human enhancement, in a scientific or technological sense. The issue of course is much deeper than just "enhancement", and that's what I've been trying to make sense of recently.

In a much broader sense, transhumanism could be looked at as the pursuit of the escape of human instinct in one form or another. A good example to start with is the urge to procreate.

Mating and procreation might once have been looked at as one single act. The process of finding a mate, the act of sex, and eventually childbirth, were all one continuous process. It is easily noticed that this one coherent process has since been bastardized, and abstracted into many different acts that do not necessarily follow from one to the next.

The physical desire for sex, and the emotional desire to have children are both still very present in all societies, for obvious reasons. But these acts are no longer coupled in much the same way. Sex is pursued entirely outside of the context of procreation, and in doing so we have, in a very ironic way, ruined the entire biological purpose of sex in the first place. Now, while I can't cite the actual inception of the use of sex as a form of recreation, it still serves as a good example of escaping instinct. For where the instinct to reproduce and the physical need for sex were once essentially the same instinct, they now exist in discreet forms. People are choosing not to have children as a result of sex.

One could easily state the case that one of the first examples of transhumanism was the domestication of animals, and the invention of agriculture. Both of these are clearly technologies, and both of them allow us to prolong life, enhance our well being, and gain very real control over the way we live. Transhumanist opponents often fail to look at the full scope of what "technology" really encompasses: anything from simple tools to modern computers. In reality, long ago did our societies begin our transhumanist evolution, it is just now with the possible technologies in the foreseeable future that it is really starting to worry a few people.

I understand that comparing agriculture and medicine to advanced cybernetics and human modification is somewhat dangerous, as the implications of these two worlds of technology are seemingly different. However the only real difference is that one of these technologies is extremely well established and present, and the other exists only in the world of science fiction at the moment. It is important to understand however, that radical opposition to transhumanism is not only a hopeless battle, but very dangerous as well.

Whether or not people are on board with the technologies being developed right now, there isn't much we can do to stop the work being done, in much the same way that the bush administration can't really stop stem cell research. What we should hope to do instead, is to help, with extreme caution and care, the development of these technologies, so that they are to be used under the same principles we guide our societies with today.

Without care, these technologies will immediately, and obviously, end up in the hands of the wealthiest persons across the globe. This doesn't mean much for the short term, but if genetic superiority is determined exclusively by wealth, there lies an incredibly pressing concern that these new strata of society will dominate, and eventually out breed the rest of society. I think GATTACA provides a better critique on this possible future than I could ever hope to. We have to keep in mind that this isn't just a work of science fiction, but a possible future that is becoming more real every day.

If used right, and used fair, these technologies could be used to improve the lives of everyone living on the planet, but this can only be achieved if we actively aid and monitor the development of these technologies. Opposition in this case doesn't provide a solution, it merely sets the path for a more dystopic future.

The End & the Means

Knowledge and wisdom come not from the ability to commit to memory experiences in life, but rather from the ability to comprehend the significance of them. This is why trivia is useless; it occupies the memory without stimulating the mind. Computers will always be better at tasks in memorization. It is therefore important not to seek facts, but evidence. Not to seek truths, but observations. It is only as we pine for the hunt that we find our prey. The conclusions we draw from our walk in life aren't as important as the walk itself. It is the walk that gives the end significance, not the other way around. If we could attain clarity without reaching clarity, we would not be enlightened, in quite the same way that in winning the lottery a person doesn't suddenly understand how to make equivalent sums of money.

This is not to say that our goals are not important, but finding the path that takes us to them is what gives the goals their existential weight. Our mind has a strange habit of denying or sabotaging opportunities which, unconsciously, we don't even believe we deserve. This is why wealth is so illusory. Once we can attain the things we desire without "earning" them, we lose the ability to feel the sense of reward our mind grants us upon reaching a goal.

As a counter argument, many would sardonically suggest poverty to those who scorn wealth. Poverty, or more pertinently extreme debt, is quite the opposite of wealth. Yes, of course economically, but more importantly in the sense of reward just mentioned. While wealth grants immediate and meaningless access, poverty gives a sense of continuous denial: we can't enjoy the things we attain, because they are paltry supplements to the whole of what we need. To a man in severe debt, very few things short of complete relief of debt will provide lasting satisfaction.

Our Invisible Hand

Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by how much little control we actually have over our own emotional state and temperament. Day to day, minute to minute, our lives are strung together by a myriad of events and tasks essential to both our survival and enjoyment, but rarely do we take interest in the cause of our desires, wants, and even long term goals.

You're sitting at your computer, reading lines of text that I've written for a reason that completely escapes me, and all the sudden you feel something. A push? a pull? an unclear, indistinct feeling that simply demands attention. Suddenly you find yourself gazing around the room for a second, getting a drink of water, perhaps remembering to call someone you haven't been in touch with, the action itself isn't important because the interesting phenomena is that initial feeling, distraction. For some reason completely out of our control we are directed by a force, a sort of internal conductor in our waltz through life.

So what? Who cares if our attention escapes us occasionally, and we pursue other activities, right? If the scope of this humanly feature was that small, it wouldn't be that interesting, but it was probably the same odd, elemental desire the brought you to the computer in the first place.

We can almost look at life as being moved along by a series of spontaneous urges, and persistent ones. Persistent urges often relate to survival and ideas of happiness such as: relationships to other people (sexual and platonic), wealth, religious and spiritual pursuit, etc, While spontaneous urges are what occupy literally all of our free time (un-planned, un-scheduled time).

Much more to be said on this topic later, but as for now, try to consider the reasons for your actions and you might start to observe how decisions we claim as our own tend to be sparked by much more than just the conscious mind.