Transumanar

Five Points for European (and World?) Transhumanism

The transhumanist movement faced with “political” issues.

In response to a some concerns recently raised in the framework of Associazione Italiana Transumanisti’s mailing list with respect to the positions within the transhumanist movement on a number of important issues, I came up with five points that I believe should denote the “party line” of this organisation, and that I would like to share here with a broader public.

1) The struggle for access to technologies cannot be ignored in favour of some eschatological vision of eternal solutions to all conflicts. I am referring here to access to both future, possibile technologies and already existing technologies; both at a social and at an international level; and especially to technologies that are crucial to individual and collective survival and self-determination (in fact, transhumanists are among those most likely to struggle everywhere for their own access, as well as that of their biological and spiritual children and of their communties however defined, against prohibitionisms and monopolies of all sorts).

2) It is not reasonable to expect that it be generally accepted that the amount of currency units an individual or an entity is credited with in the databases of financial institutions is a universal and “divine” sign implying an exclusivity (or priority) right in the access to technologies, so that those not profiting from such advantage should peacefully surrender to their lot.

3) Fundamental research and its technological and educational infrastructure are essential for our future. More importantly, to the kind of future we would like to live in, and to the values we promote. Now, the investments required by fundamental research cannot be adequately sustained by the mere funds possibly devoted to it by business organisations. In fact, it is disputable that the market can sustain breakthrough-oriented, high-risk, long-term research at all, let alone research the returns of which appear to be radically unpredictable.

4) No compromises are really acceptable with regard to freedom of research and to the freedom of biological and reproductive self-determination, especially in view of ideas aimed at the globalisation of absolute and universal values of a more or less overtly metaphysical foundation.

5) Technological developments cannot, and above all should not, be taken for granted. Specific technological achievements can never be presumed to self-produce irrespective of the legal framework, societal investments, and dominant cultural values, and are rather to be considered as the goal of a deliberate, political will able to establish the pre-requisites for their flourishing. Even supposed virtous circles, positive feedbacks and recursive technologies require bootstrapping and the maintenance of a compatible environment along their entire life cycles. Discussions on what to do best with future technologies and and how to “regulate” them are fine, but often sound too much like the proverbial cavemen fighting over the spoils of a mammuth they have not taken down yet in the first place. A continuing acceleration in the pace of techno-scientific progress, or any flavour of Singularity, are certainly a legitimate hope and a distinct possibility, but in no way a guaranteed outcome, especially with regard to the issues which are the most relevant for actual people, namely the “when?” and the “where?”. To opine otherwise involves tranforming transhumanism in a tea club, gathering people just in order to applaud politely from the side what is supposed to take place anyway, or in the kind of cults where no action whatever is prescribed, faith and contemplation being all they are about. Worse, it risks to induce some transhumanists to concentrate on a debate with neoluddites on how best to “govern” what for the better and the worse both sides consider, with a naive extrapolation of trends actually jeopardised from many angles, as largely inevitable developments; and desist from any initiative aimed at actually conquering the destiny envisioned by its leading thinkers and precursors.

Posted by Stefano Vaj on 01/21 at 11:20 AM

Great post, and I think everyone here will agree with 1, 2, 3, 5. Perhaps the only “difficult” point is 4: “No compromises are really acceptable with regard to freedom of research and to the freedom of biological and reproductive self-determination”.

Of course, some issues come immediately to mind. I certainly could not sleep well knowing that someone out there is experimenting with deadly viruses to make them even more deadly, without a very thorough safety control system open to public investigation. Same thing tomorrow for runaway replicant nanotech.

Also, I would not sleep well knowing that that someone out there is pursuing scientific knowledge or reproductive freedom with methods that do, or will, or may cause extreme pain and unhappiness to other sentient beings without their consent. This applies to some experiments on humans, but also to some issues related to reproductive freedom. For example if someone wants to produce a limbless, blind and deaf child with a very high vulnerability to cancer, I will probably try to do something to stop it.

But these are quite extreme cases. Barring such exceptional cases, I agree with Stefano. In particular, the principle of research and reproductive freedom must always take priority over abstract moral opinions on victimless crimes. In other words, I do not accept any restrictions to research and autonomy based on abstract “ethics” when no actual harm to a concrete person is done.

In those cases where (there is a significant possibility that) concrete persons (other than the perpetrators) are actually damaged as a consequence of research or biological and reproductive choices, I will reluctantly accept restrictions and regulation. But only in such cases, and with great care: regulation itself is a runaway replicant process - often regulators start with good intentions and end on the slippery slope of regulation for its own sake, for the pleasure to control the lives of others in the name of abstract “ethics”. This cannot be tolerated.

In summary: absolute and unrestricted freedom of research and biological and reproductive self-determination when no actual harm comes to other persons as a result. This must be the principle. Some degree of regulation may be tolerated as an exception to this principle in very specific cases where there is a significant possibility that other persons are damaged.

Posted by on 01/23 at 06:37 AM