Towards Immortality: The Economist’s World in 2007 on transhumanism
From The Economist, The World in 2007 print edition, ”Towards immortality”: Science can be a little scary. Its potential to transform life itself has led to predictions that we might re-write our own genetic make-up or merge our minds with machines. But 2007 will show that it is not these sci-fi possibilities that are of immediate concern. Real possibilities of changing our human nature are creeping up from a less obvious direction.
The potential to alter our nature and lifespans elicits strong reactions. The transhumanists—a loose coalition of scientists, technologists and thinkers who seek opportunities to enhance the human condition—see change as desirable. Human nature, says Nick Bostrom, an Oxford University philosopher and advocate of transhumanism, is “a work in progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remould in desirable ways…we shall eventually manage to become posthuman, beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have.” Others argue that we will never have sufficient wisdom to make ourselves more than we are. Francis Fukuyama of Johns Hopkins University describes transhumanism as one of “the world’s most dangerous ideas”. But whatever you may think, the possibilities for changing your nature by direct biochemical intervention are arriving now.
There is no greater goal for transhumanism than the conquest of death. Some of the most controversial advocates of technological improvements to humans, including Ray Kurzweil, an American inventor and author, and Aubrey de Grey, a gerontologist and chairman of the Methuselah Foundation, argue optimistically that immortality may become achievable for people who are alive today. But even without the yet-to-be-invented technologies that they say will make this possible, there are good reasons why we can hope to live a lot longer.
Transhumanists question the conventional wisdom that the human lifespan is coming to a natural limit. History shows that every limit announced by experts is quickly overturned…
That leaves us with the great unresolved debate in transhumanism: whether, if we choose to “enhance” ourselves, we can say we are the same person afterwards, and whether that matters. But one thing is certain: whatever ailment drugs may be developed to treat, if they can also be used to provide someone with a competitive advantage, or prolong life, people will take them.
Next entry: LA FILOSOFIA TRANSUMANISTA ED ESTROPICA TRA PENSIERO RAZIONALE E TECNOLOGIA
Previous entry: Transumanar o Trasumanar?




