FAQ II

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="31200b71erlcgo.jpg"> <div> <B>The Astrolabe</B><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Astrolabe"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <A HREF="http://www.transhumanism.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.transhumanism.org"><U><IMG SRC="2e954560.jpg" border=0 width="84" height="86" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="126" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 14 WIDTH="120"><div> <A HREF="seattlewta.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Seattle WTA"><U><B>Seattle WTA</B></U></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 28 WIDTH="120"><div> <A HREF="transhumanist_faq.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Frequently Asked Questions"><U><B>Frequently Asked Questions</B></U></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 14 WIDTH="120"><div> <A HREF="faq_iii.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="FAQ III"><U><B>FAQ III</B></U></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 28 WIDTH="120"><div> <A HREF="values.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Human Values in a Posthuman World?"><U><B>Human Values in a Posthuman World?</B></U></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 14 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="chapter_news_seattle_chapter_news.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SWTA Forum"><U><B>Seattle Chapter News</B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#EEEEEE HEIGHT= 14 WIDTH="120"><div> <A HREF="faq_ii_m.htm#back_to_top" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>Back to Top</B></U></A></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="7" WIDTH="190" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#FFFF99 HEIGHT= 21 WIDTH="53"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="21" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="53" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#330099 WIDTH="96"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="21" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="96" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#006666 HEIGHT= 44 WIDTH="53"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="44" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="53" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP BGCOLOR=#A6CAF0 WIDTH="96"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="44" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="96" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#EEEEEE" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I><B>FAQ II</B></I></div> <div>  <A NAME="back_to_top"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></div> <div> <A HREF="#3_5______shouldn_t_we_concentrate_on" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>3.5. Shouldn't we concentrate on current problems, such as improving the situation of the poor, rather than putting our efforts into planning for the "far" future?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#3_6______will_extended_life_worsen" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>3.6. Will extended life worsen overpopulation problems?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#3_7______is_there_any_ethical_standard" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>3.7. Is there any ethical standard by which transhumanists judge "improvement of the human condition"?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#3_8______what_kind_of_society_would" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>3.8. What kind of society would posthumans live in?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#3_9______will_posthumans_or" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>3.9. Will posthumans or superintelligent machines pose a threat to humans who aren't augmented?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_______transhumanism_and_nature" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4. TRANSHUMANISM AND NATURE</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_1______why_do_transhumanists_want_to" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4.1. Why do transhumanists want to live longer?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_2______isn_t_this_tampering_with" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4.2. Isn't this tampering with nature?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_3______will_transhuman_technologies" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4.3. Will transhuman technologies make us inhuman?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_4______isn_t_death_part_of_the" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4.4. Isn't death part of the natural order of things?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#4_5______are_transhumanist_technologies" TITLE="FAQ II"><U><B>4.5.  Are transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>3. SOCIETY AND POLITICS,</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><B>con't.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="3_5______shouldn_t_we_concentrate_on"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>3.5      Shouldn't we concentrate on current problems such as improving the situation of the poor, rather than putting our efforts into planning for the “far” future?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>We should do both. Focusing solely on current problems would leave us unprepared for the new challenges that we will encounter.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many of the technologies and trends that transhumanists discuss are already reality. Biotechnology and information technology have transformed large sectors of our economies. The relevance of transhumanist ethics is manifest in such contemporary issues as stem cell research, genetically modified crops, human genetic therapy, embryo screening, end of life decisions, enhancement medicine, information markets, and research funding priorities. The importance of transhumanist ideas is likely to increase as the opportunities for human enhancement proliferate.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhuman technologies will tend to work well together and create synergies with other parts of human society. For example, one important factor in healthy life expectancy is access to good medical care. Improvements in medical care will extend healthy, active lifespan - “healthspan” - and research into healthspan extension is likely to benefit ordinary care. Work on amplifying intelligence has obvious applications in education, decision-making, and communication. Better communications would facilitate trade and understanding between people. As more and more people get access to the Internet and are able to receive satellite radio and television broadcasts, dictators and totalitarian regimes may find it harder to silence voices of dissent and to control the information flow in their populations. And with the Internet and email, people discover they can easily form friendships and business partnerships in foreign countries. A world order characterized by peace, international cooperation, and respect for human rights would much improve the odds that the potentially dangerous applications of some future technologies can be controlled and would also free up resources currently spent on military armaments, some of which could then hopefully be diverted to improving the condition of the poor. Nanotechnological manufacturing promises to be both economically profitable and environmentally sound. Transhumanists do not have a patent solution to achieve these outcomes, any more than anybody else has, but technology has a huge role to play.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>An argument can be made that the most efficient way of contributing to making the world better is by participating in the transhumanist project. This is so because the stakes are enormous - humanity's entire future may depend on how we manage the coming technological transitions - and because relatively few resources are at the present time being devoted to transhumanist efforts. Even one extra person can still make a significant difference here.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <div>  </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="3_6______will_extended_life_worsen"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>3.6      Will extended life worsen overpopulation problems?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Population increase is an issue we would ultimately have to come to grips with even if healthy life-extension were not to happen. Leaving people to die is an unacceptable solution.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A large population should not be viewed simply as a problem. Another way of looking at the same fact is that it means that many persons now enjoy lives that would not have been lived if the population had been smaller. One could ask those who complain about overpopulation exactly which people's lives they would have preferred should not have been led. Would it really have been better if billions of the world's people had never existed and if there had been no other people in their place? Of course, this is not to deny that too-rapid population growth can cause crowding, poverty, and the depletion of natural resources. In this sense there can be real problems that need to be tackled.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>How many people the Earth can sustain at a comfortable standard of living is a function of technological development (as well as of how resources are distributed). New technologies, from simple improvements in irrigation and management, to better mining techniques and more efficient power generation machinery, to genetically engineered crops, can continue to improve world resource and food output, while at the same time reducing environmental impact and animal suffering.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Environmentalists are right to insist that the status quo is unsustainable. As a matter of physical necessity, things cannot stay as they are today indefinitely, or even for very long. If we continue to use up resources at the current pace, without finding more resources or learning how to use novel kinds of resources, then we will run into serious shortages sometime around the middle of this century. The deep greens have an answer to this: they suggest we turn back the clock and return to an idyllic pre-industrial age to live in sustainable harmony with nature. The problem with this view is that the pre-industrial age was anything but idyllic. It was a life of poverty, misery, disease, heavy manual toil from dawn to dusk, superstitious fears, and cultural parochialism. Nor was it environmentally sound - as witness the deforestation of England and the Mediterranean region, desertification of large parts of the middle east, soil depletion by the Anasazi in the Glen Canyon area, destruction of farm land in ancient Mesopotamia through the accumulation of mineral salts from irrigation, deforestation and consequent soil erosion by the ancient Mexican Mayas, overhunting of big game almost everywhere, and the extinction of the dodo and other big featherless birds in the South Pacific. Furthermore, it is hard to see how more than a few hundred million people could be maintained at a reasonable standard of living with pre-industrial production methods, so some ninety percent of the world population would somehow have to vanish in order to facilitate this nostalgic return.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhumanists propose a much more realistic alternative: not to retreat to an imagined past, but to press ahead as intelligently as we can. The environmental problems that technology creates are problems of intermediary, inefficient technology, of placing insufficient political priority on environmental protection as well as of a lack of ecological knowledge. Technologically less advanced industries in the former Soviet-bloc pollute much more than do their advanced Western counterparts. High-tech industry is typically relatively benign. Once we develop molecular nanotechnology, we will not only have clean and efficient manufacturing of almost any commodity, but we will also be able to clean up much of the mess created by today's crude fabrication methods. This would set a standard for a clean environment that today's traditional environmentalists could scarcely dream of.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Nanotechnology will also make it cheaper to colonize space. From a cosmic point of view, Earth is an insignificant speck. It has sometimes been suggested that we ought to leave space untouched in its pristine glory. This view is hard to take seriously. Every hour, through entirely natural processes, vast amounts of resources - millions of times more than the sum total of what the human species has consumed throughout its career - are transformed into radioactive substances or wasted as radiation escaping into intergalactic space. Can we not think of some more creative way of using all this matter and energy?</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Even with full-blown space colonization, however, population growth can continue to be a problem, and this is so even if we assume that an unlimited number of people could be transported from Earth into space. If the speed of light provides an upper bound on the expansion speed then the amount of resources under human control will grow only polynomially (~ t</B><B>3</B><B>). Population, on the other hand, can easily grow exponentially (~ e</B><B>t</B><B>). If that happens, then, since a factor that grows exponentially will eventually overtake any factor that grows polynomially, average income will ultimately drop to subsistence levels, forcing population growth to slow. How soon this would happen depends primarily on reproduction rates. A change in average life span would not have a big effect. Even vastly improved technology can only postpone this inevitability for a relatively brief time. The only long-term method of assuring continued growth of average income is some form of population control, whether spontaneous or imposed, limiting the number of new persons created per year. This does not mean that population could not grow, only that the growth would have to be polynomial rather than exponential.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Some additional points to consider:</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>In technologically advanced countries, couples tend to have fewer children, often below the replacement rate. As an empirical generalization, giving people increased rational control over their lives, especially through women's education and participation in the labor market, causes couples to have fewer children.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If one took seriously the idea of controlling population by limiting life span, why not be more active about it? Why not encourage suicide? Why not execute anyone reaching the age of 75?</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B>If slowing aging were unacceptable because it might lead to there being more people, what about efforts to cure cancer, reduce traffic deaths, or improve worker safety? Why use double standards?</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B>When transhumanists say they want to extend lifespans, what they mean is that they want to extend healthspans. This means that the extra person-years would be productive and would add economic value to society. We can all agree that there would be little point in living an extra ten years in a state of dementia.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B>The world population growth rate has been declining for several decades. It peaked in 1970 at 2.1%. In 2003, it was 1.2%; and it is expected to fall below 1.0% around 2015. (United Nations 2002). The doomsday predictions of the so-called “Club of Rome” from the early 1970s have consistently turned out to be wrong.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B>The more people there are, the more brains there will be working to invent new ideas and solutions.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B>If people can look forward to a longer healthy, active life, they will have a personal stake in the future and will hopefully be more concerned about the long-term consequences of their actions.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>References:</B></div> <div> <B>United Nations</B><B>. The World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision</B><B> (United Nations: New York, 2002). </B><A HREF="http://www.gov.za/reports/2003/unpdhighlights.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.gov.za/reports/2003/unpdhighl"><U><B>http://www.gov.za/reports/2003/unpdhighlights.pdf</B></U></A></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="3_7______is_there_any_ethical_standard"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>3.7      Is there any ethical standard by which transhumanists judge “improvement of the human condition”?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Transhumanism is compatible with a variety of ethical systems, and transhumanists themselves hold many different views. Nonetheless, the following seems to constitute a common core of agreement:</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>According to transhumanists, the human condition has been improved if the conditions of individual humans have been improved. In practice, competent adults are usually the best judges of what is good for themselves. Therefore, transhumanists advocate individual freedom, especially the right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical capacities and to improve their control over their own lives.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>From this perspective, an improvement to the human condition is a change that gives increased opportunity for individuals to shape themselves and their lives according to their informed wishes. Notice the word “informed”. It is important that people be aware of what they choose between. Education, discussion, public debate, critical thinking, artistic exploration, and, potentially, cognitive enhancers are means that can help people make more informed choices.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhumanists hold that people are not disposable. Saving lives (of those who want to live) is ethically important. It would be wrong to unnecessarily let existing people die in order to replace them with some new “better” people. Healthspan-extension and cryonics are therefore high on the transhumanist list of priorities. The transhumanist goal is not to replace existing humans with a new breed of super-beings, but rather to give human beings (those existing today and those who will be born in the future) the option of developing into posthuman persons.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The non-disposability of persons partially accounts for a certain sense of urgency that is common among transhumanists. On average, 150,000 men, women, and children die every day, often in miserable conditions. In order to give as many people as possible the chance of a posthuman existence - or even just a decent human existence - it is paramount that technological development, in at least some fields, is pursued with maximal speed. When it comes to life-extension and its various enabling technologies, a delay of a single week equals one million avoidable premature deaths - a weighty fact which those who argue for bans or moratoria would do well to consider carefully. (The further fact that universal access will likely lag initial availability only adds to the reason for trying to hurry things along.)</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhumanists reject speciesism, the (human racist) view that moral status is strongly tied to membership in a particular biological species, in our case homo sapiens. What exactly does determine moral status is a matter of debate. Factors such as being a person, being sentient, having the capacity for autonomous moral choice, or perhaps even being a member of the same community as the evaluator, are among the criteria that may combine to determine the degree of somebody's moral status (Warren 1997). But transhumanists argue that species-identity should be de-emphasized in this context. Transhumanists insist that all beings that can experience pain have some moral status, and that posthuman persons could have at least the same level of moral status as humans have in their current form.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>References:</B></div> <div> <B>Warren, M.-A. </B><B>Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things</B><B> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="3_8______what_kind_of_society_would"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>3.8      What kind of society would posthumans live in?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Not enough information is available at the current time to provide a full answer to this question. In part, though, the answer is, “You decide.” The outcome may be influenced by the choices we make now and over the coming decades. In this respect, the situation is the same as in earlier epochs that had no transhuman possibilities: by becoming involved in political struggles against today's social ills and injustices, we can help make tomorrow's society better.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhumanism does, however, inform us about new constraints, possibilities, and issues, and it highlights numerous important leverage points for intervention, where a small application of resources can make a big long-term difference. For example, one issue that moves into prominence is the challenge of creating a society in which beings with vastly different orders of capabilities (such as posthuman persons and as-yet non-augmented humans) can live happily and peacefully together. Another concern that becomes paramount is the need to build a world order in which dangerous arms races can be prevented and in which the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can be suppressed or at least delayed until effective defenses have been developed [see “Aren't these future technologies very risky? Could they even cause our extinction?”].</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The ideal social organization may be one that includes the possibility for those who so wish to form independent societies voluntarily secluded from the rest of the world, in order to pursue traditional ways of life or to experiment with new forms of communal living. Achieving an acceptable balance between the rights of such communities for autonomy, on the one hand, and the security concerns of outside entities and the just demands for protection of vulnerable and oppressed individuals inside these communities on the other hand, is a delicate task and a familiar challenge in political philosophy.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>What types of society posthumans will live in depends on what types of posthumans eventually develop. One can project various possible developmental paths [see “What is a posthuman?”] which may result in very different kinds of posthuman, transhuman, and unaugmented human beings, living in very different sorts of societies. In attempting to imagine such a world, we must bear in mind that we are likely to base our expectations on the experiences, desires, and psychological characteristics of humans. Many of these expectations may not hold true of posthuman persons. When human nature changes, new ways of organizing a society may become feasible. We may hope to form a clearer understanding of what those new possibilities are as we observe the seeds of transhumanity develop.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="3_9______will_posthumans_or"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>3.9      Will posthumans or superintelligent machines pose a threat to humans who aren't augmented?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Human society is always at risk from some group deciding to view another group of humans as fit for slavery or slaughter. To counteract such tendencies, modern societies have created laws and institutions, and endowed them with powers of enforcement, that act to prevent groups of citizens from assaulting one another. The efficacy of these institutions does not depend on all citizens having equal capacities. Modern, peaceful societies have large numbers of people with diminished physical or mental capacities along with many other people who may be exceptionally physically strong or healthy or intellectually talented in various ways. Adding people with technologically enhanced capacities to this already broad distribution of ability would not necessarily rip society apart or trigger genocide or enslavement.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A common worry is that inheritable genetic modifications or other human enhancement technologies would lead to two distinct and separate species and that hostilities would inevitably develop between them. The assumptions behind this prediction should be questioned. It is a common theme in fiction because of the opportunities for dramatic conflict, but that is not the same as social, political, and economic plausibility in the real world. It seems more likely that there would be a continuum of differently modified or enhanced individuals, which would overlap with the continuum of as-yet unenhanced humans. The scenario in which “the enhanced” form a pact and then attack “the naturals” makes for exciting science fiction but is not necessarily the most plausible outcome. Even today, the segment containing the tallest 90 percent of the population could, in principle, get together and kill or enslave the shorter decile. That this does not happen suggests that a well-organized society can hold together even if it contains many possible coalitions of people sharing some attribute such that, if they unified under one banner, would make them capable of exterminating the rest.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>To note that the extreme case of a war between human and posthuman persons is not the most likely scenario is not to say that there are no legitimate social concerns about the steps that may take us closer to posthumanity. Inequity, discrimination, and stigmatization - against or on behalf of modified people - could become serious issues. Transhumanists would argue that these (potential) social problems call for social remedies. (One case study of how contemporary technology can change important aspects of someone's identify is sex reassignment. The experiences of transsexuals show that some cultures still have work to do in becoming more accepting of diversity.) This is a task that we can begin to tackle now by fostering a climate of tolerance and acceptance towards those who are different from ourselves. We can also act to strengthen those institutions that prevent violence and protect human rights, for instance by building stable democratic traditions and constitutions and by expanding the rule of law to the international plane.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>What about the hypothetical case in which someone intends to create, or turn themselves into, a being of so radically enhanced capacities that a single one or a small group of such individuals would be capable of taking over the planet? This is clearly not a situation that is likely to arise in the imminent future, but one can imagine that, perhaps in a few decades, the prospective creation of superintelligent machines could raise this kind of concern. The would-be creator of a new life form with such surpassing capabilities would have an obligation to ensure that the proposed being is free from psychopathic tendencies and, more generally, that it has humane inclinations. For example, a superintelligence should be built with a clear goal structure that has friendliness to humans as its top goal. Before running such a program, the builders of a superintelligence should be required to make a strong case that launching it would be safer than alternative courses of action.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>References:</B></div> <div> <B>Yudkowsky, E. </B><B>Creating Friendly AI: The Analysis and Design of Benevolent Goal Architectures</B><B>. (2003, Version 1.0). </B><A HREF="http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/index.html"><U><B>http://www.singinst.org/CFAI/index.html</B></U></A></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <div>  </div> <div>  </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_______transhumanism_and_nature"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4     TRANSHUMANISM AND NATURE</B></FONT></div> <div>  </div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_1______why_do_transhumanists_want_to"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.1      Why do transhumanists want to live longer?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>This is a personal matter, a matter of the heart. Have you ever been so happy that you felt like melting into tears? Has there been a moment in your life of such depth and sublimity that the rest of existence seemed like dull, gray slumber from which you had only just woken up?</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is so easy to forget how good things can be when they are at their best. But on those occasions when we do remember - whether it comes from the total fulfillment of being immersed in creative work or from the tender ecstasy of reciprocated love - then we realize just how valuable every single minute of existence can be, when it is this good. And you might have thought to yourself, “It ought to be like this always. Why can't this last forever?”</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Well, maybe - just maybe - it could.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When transhumanists seek to extend human life, they are not trying to add a couple of extra years at a care home spent drooling at one's shoes. The goal is more healthy, happy, productive years. Ideally, everybody should have the right to choose when and how to die - or not to die. Transhumanists want to live longer because they want to do, learn, and experience more; have more fun and spend more time with loved ones; continue to grow and mature beyond the paltry eight decades allotted to us by our evolutionary past; and in order to get to see for themselves what wonders the future might hold. As the sales pitch for one cryonics organization goes: </B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>“The conduct of life and the wisdom of the heart are based upon time; in the last quartets of Beethoven, the last words and works of `old men' like Sophocles and Russell and Shaw, we see glimpses of a maturity and substance, an experience and understanding, a grace and a humanity, that isn't present in children or in teenagers. They attained it because they lived long; because they had time to experience and develop and reflect; time that we might all have. Imagine such individuals - a Benjamin Franklin, a Lincoln, a Newton, a Shakespeare, a Goethe, an Einstein [and a Gandhi] - enriching our world not for a few decades but for centuries. Imagine a world made of such individuals. It would truly be what Arthur C. Clarke called `Childhood's End' - the beginning of the adulthood of humanity.” (Cryonics Institute)</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>References:</B></div> <div> <B>Cryonics Institute. </B><A HREF="http://www.cryonics.org/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cryonics.org/"><U><B>http://www.cryonics.org/</B></U></A></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="4_2______isn_t_this_tampering_with"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.2      Isn't this tampering with nature?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Absolutely, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is often right to tamper with nature. One could say that manipulating nature is an important part of what civilization and human intelligence is all about; we have been doing it since the invention of the wheel. Alternatively, one could say that since we are part of nature, everything we do and create is in a sense natural too. In any case, there is no moral reason why we shouldn't intervene in nature and improve it if we can, whether by eradicating diseases, improving agricultural yields to feed a growing world population, putting communication satellites into orbit to provide homes with news and entertainment, or inserting contact lenses in our eyes so we can see better. Changing nature for the better is a noble and glorious thing for humans to do. (On the other hand, to “pave paradise to put up a parking lot” would not be glorious; the qualification “for the better” is essential.) [See also “Are transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?”]</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>In many particular cases, of course, there are sound practical reasons for relying on “natural” processes. The point is that we cannot decide whether something is good or bad simply by asking whether it is natural or not. Some natural things are bad, such as starvation, polio, and being eaten alive by intestinal parasites. Some artificial things are bad, such as DDT-poisoning, car accidents, and nuclear war.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>To pick a topical example, consider the debate about human cloning. Some argue that cloning humans is not unnatural because human clones are essentially just identical twins. They were right in this, of course, although one could also correctly remark that it is not natural for identical twins to be of different ages. But the more fundamental point is that it doesn't matter whether human clones are natural or not. When thinking about whether to permit human reproductive cloning, we have to compare the various possible desirable consequences with the various possible undesirable consequences. We then have to try to estimate the likelihood of each of these consequences. This kind of deliberation is much harder than simply dismissing cloning as unnatural, but it is also more likely to result in good decisions.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>These remarks hopefully should seem trivial. Yet it is astonishing how often polemicists can still get a way with arguments that are basically (thinly disguised) ways of saying, “It is good because it's the way it has always been!” or “It is good because that's the way Nature made it!”</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="4_3______will_transhuman_technologies"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.3      Will transhuman technologies make us inhuman?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>The important thing is not to be human but to be humane. Though we might wish to believe that Hitler was an inhuman monster, he was, in fact, a human monster; and Gandhi is noted not for being remarkably human but for being remarkably humane.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The attributes of our species are not exempt from ethical examination in virtue of being “natural” or “human.” Some human attributes, such as empathy and a sense of fairness, are positive; others, such as tendencies toward tribalism or groupishness, have left deep scars on human history. If there is value in being human, it does not comes from being “normal” or “natural,”  but from having within us the raw material for being humane: compassion, a sense of humor, curiosity, the wish to be a better person. Trying to preserve “humanness,” rather than cultivating humaneness, would idolize the bad along with the good. One might say that if “human” is what we are, then “humane” is what we, as humans, wish we were. Human nature is not a bad place to start that journey, but we can't fulfill that potential if we reject any progress past the starting point.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="4_4______isn_t_death_part_of_the"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.4      Isn't death part of the natural order of things?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Transhumanists insist that whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to whether it is good or desirable [see also “Isn't this tampering with nature?”, “Will extended life worsen overpopulation problems?”, and “Why do transhumanists want to live longer?”].</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Average human life span hovered between 20 and 30 years for most of our species' history. Most people today are thus living highly unnaturally long lives. Because of the high incidence of infectious disease, accidents, starvation, and violent death among our ancestors, very few of them lived much beyond 60 or 70. There was therefore little selection pressure to evolve the cellular repair mechanisms (and pay their metabolic costs) that would be required to keep us going beyond our meager three scores and ten. As a result of these circumstances in the distant past, we now suffer the inevitable decline of old age: damage accumulates at a faster pace than it can be repaired; tissues and organs begin to malfunction; and then we keel over and die.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The quest for immortality is one of the most ancient and deep-rooted of human aspirations. It has been an important theme in human literature from the very earliest preserved written story, </B><B>The Epic of Gilgamesh</B><B>, and in innumerable narratives and myths ever since. It underlies the teachings of world religions about spiritual immortality and the hope of an afterlife. If death is part of the natural order, so too is the human desire to overcome death.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Before transhumanism, the only hope of evading death was through reincarnation or otherworldly resurrection. Those who viewed such religious doctrines as figments of our own imagination had no alternative but to accept death as an inevitable fact of our existence. Secular worldviews, including traditional humanism, would typically include some sort of explanation of why death was not such a bad thing after all. Some existentialists even went so far as to maintain that death was necessary to give life meaning!</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>That people should make excuses for death is understandable. Until recently there was absolutely nothing anybody could do about it, and it made some degree of sense then to create comforting philosophies according to which dying of old age is a fine thing (“deathism”). If such beliefs were once relatively harmless, and perhaps even provided some therapeutic benefit, they have now outlived their purpose. Today, we can foresee the possibility of eventually abolishing aging and we have the option of taking active measures to stay alive until then, through life extension techniques and, as a last resort, cryonics. This makes the illusions of deathist philosophies dangerous, indeed fatal, since they teach helplessness and encourage passivity.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Espousing a deathist viewpoint tends to go with a certain element of hypocrisy. It is to be hoped and expected that a good many of death's apologists, if they were one day presented with the concrete choice between (A) getting sick, old, and dying, and (B) being given a new shot of life to stay healthy, vigorous and to remain in the company of friends and loved ones to participate in the unfolding of the future, would, when push came to shove, choose this latter alternative.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>If some people would still choose death, that's a choice that is of course to be regretted, but nevertheless this choice must be respected. The transhumanist position on the ethics of death is crystal clear: death should be voluntary. This means that everybody should be free to extend their lives and to arrange for cryonic suspension of their deanimated bodies. It also means that voluntary euthanasia, under conditions of informed consent, is a basic human right.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It may turn out to be impossible to live forever, strictly speaking, even for those who are lucky enough to survive to such a time when technology has been perfected, and even under ideal conditions. The amount of matter and energy that our civilization can lay its hands on before they recede forever beyond our reach (due to the universe's expansion) is finite in the current most favored cosmological models. The heat death of the universe is thus a matter of some personal concern to optimistic transhumanists!</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is too early to tell whether our days are necessarily numbered. Cosmology and fundamental physics are still incomplete and in theoretical flux; theoretical possibilities for infinite information processing (which might enable an upload to live an infinite life) seem to open and close every few years. We have to live with this uncertainty, along with the much greater uncertainty about whether any of us will manage to avoid dying prematurely, before technology has become mature.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div>  </div> <div>  <A NAME="4_5______are_transhumanist_technologies"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#336666" FACE="Arial" ><B>4.5      Are transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>The environmental impact of a technology depends on how it is used. Safeguarding the natural environment requires political will as well as good technology. The technologies necessary for realizing the transhumanist vision can be environmentally sound. Information technology and medical procedures, for example, tend to be relatively clean.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Transhumanists can in fact make a stronger claim regarding the environment: that current technologies are unsustainable. We are using up essential resources, such as oil, metal ores, and atmospheric pollution capacity, faster than they regenerate. At the present rate of consumption, we look set to exhaust these resources some time in this century. Any realistic alternatives that have been proposed involve taking technology to a more advanced level. Not only are transhumanist technologies ecologically sound, they may be the only environmentally viable option for the long term.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>With mature molecular manufacturing [see “What is molecular nanotechnology?”], we will have a way of producing most any commodity without waste or pollution. Nanotechnology would also eventually make it economically feasible to build space-based solar plants, to mine extraterrestrial bodies for ore and minerals and to move heavy industries off-earth. The only truly long-term solution to resource shortage is space colonization.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>From a transhumanist point of view, humans and our artifacts and enterprises are part of the extended biosphere. There is no fundamental dichotomy between humanity and the rest of the world. One could say that nature has, in humanity, become conscious and self-reflective. We have the power to dream of a better ways for things to be and to deliberately set out to build our dreams, but we also have the responsibility to use this power in ways that are sustainable and that protect essential values.</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>