• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Trans-Humanism: The General Concept; The Vision; Possibilities

richardthomas

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
27
In 2008 I had the privilege of interviewing the now very sadly late Mac Tonnies, author of After the Martian Apocalypse and The Cryptoterrestrials. Below is that interview.

Richard: First things first, thank you so much for agreeing to do this interview. I've really enjoyed your appearances on BoA: Audio and other podcasts and am really looking forward to finally getting the chance to ask you some questions, myself.

In this interview, I want to mainly get your take on the Transhumanist movement and some concerns many (myself included) have about the whole idea of upgrading humanity. But first there is something else I've been wanting to ask you about that kind of relates to transhumanism a little bit.

I'm a huge fan of Nigel Kneale's Quatermass serials and films, particularly Quatermass and the Pit. What do you think of the central premise of the story: "That we owe our human condition here to the intervention of insects"?

Mac Tonnies: Cultures all over the world seem to have a special affinity with insect intelligence, a theme we seem to see reiterated in Western pop culture's eponymous image of the "Gray" alien. "Trippers" who ingest DMT sometimes describe similar insect-like entities. The question that naturally arises is whether we're indeed making contact with an intelligence external to our own minds or else tapping into some neural legacy.

Colony collapse disorder is at least as disturbing, albeit for different reasons. The global die-off of bees reminds us how intricately connected we are with the planet. Ultimately, there are no dispassionate, clinical observers; we're embedded in the experiment with no clear sight of its purpose -- assuming, of course, that it has one.

Richard: For people who don't know, what is "transhumanism" and why do you support the idea?

Mac Tonnies: Transhumanism is a simple blanket term for people who view technology as a means by which to augment and expand human prowess -- physically, cognitively and perhaps even spiritually. We're already knee-deep in an era of smart-drugs, genetic therapies and molecular manufacturing, so it's not exactly rash to attempt to anticipate future breakthroughs. For instance, there's reason to suspect that aging itself will eventually come to be viewed as a degenerative disease, much how we currently view diseases like polio or cancer. Given the ability to avert disease, relatively few among us will refuse to take advantage of new cures. So I suspect most of us are "closet transhumanists," whether we're explicitly familiar with the philosophical arguments or not.

Richard: Sci-Fi is littered with examples of what might be called transhumans or post-humans: from the Daleks and Cybermen of Doctor Who to the Borg and Augments of Star Trek. But how do you imagine these future creations? For example, do you think some might have a group consciousness like the Borg or maybe removed their emotions like the Cybermen?

Mac Tonnies: The Borg is a wonderful cautionary metaphor: the transhumanist equivalent to the Party in Orwell's "1984." Could transhumanist technologies be used unwisely? Certainly. But the same could be said for any technology, old or new. As with any endeavor with the potential to fundamentally alter our relationship with ourselves, we need to apply caution and forethought, which is what much of contemporary science fiction represents.

Richard: I'm all for giving sight to the blind, replacing missing limbs and that kind of thing. Restoring or making up for lost ability seems fine, since we're already doing it with things like false teeth and eye glasses, but I have to draw the line at trying to make "improvements" or "upgrading" people. Trying to create better or even "perfect" beings suggests there is something wrong, or worse, inferior about people now. Historically, this is a very, VERY dangerous idea. What are your thoughts on this?

Mac Tonnies: I would argue that we're all "inferior" in the sense that we're ill-adapted to essentially any lifestyle other than the one in which we happened to evolve. (Ask an astronaut.) I don't think any transhumanist thinkers want to create a "perfect" being; the operative goal is to empower the human species on an individual level. In a foreseeable future scenario, instead of being saddled with the genome one blindly inherits, one can choose to become an active participant -- and I find that possibility incredibly liberating and exciting. Transhumanism is not eugenics.

Richard: The whole idea of the post-human seems dangerously close to Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the Übermensch or Superman. How do we prevent transhumanism from being hijacked and turned into something evil the way Nietzsche's ideas were by Hitler and the Nazis?

Mac Tonnies: That's a legitimate risk. As with the "digital divide," it's likely that, at first, only the relatively wealthy will have access to modification technology -- whether a brain-computer interface, anti-senescence treatment or access to intelligence-expanding pharmaceuticals. But one of the appealing outgrowths of digital manufacturing is the ability to build on the atomic level: the sort of technology that could mature into a nanotech "assembler" that can produce desired goods from scratch. Machines like this could do an immeasurable amount of good for the developing world; one hopes they're inevitable, like the now-ubiquitous cellphone.

Richard: Human beings seem to find it hard enough to get on with other humans, never mind post-humans. What sort of relationship do you think will exist between us and post-humans? Will they be our slaves or will we be their pets?

Mac Tonnies: Neither. A posthuman civilization will probably have enough to think about without harassing its neighbors -- especially if they pose no threat. When I see the Amish, I'm tempted to speculate along similar lines. Almost invariably, some of us will eschew transhumanism for various philosophical or metaphysical reasons, but that doesn't necessarily entail antagonism or hostility.

Richard: Closely paralleling transhumanism, of course, is the whole idea of the "Technological Singularity." A point in our future history when computers advance beyond the limits of human intelligence and become the new leading source of great invention and breakthroughs in the world. How likely do you think Ray Kurzweil's predictions are that it will occur in the next few decades?

Mac Tonnies: I think Kurzweil's overly optimistic -- and naive in a sort of endearingly infectious way. Specifically, I don't think the post-biological future will arrive as abruptly as Kurzweil suspects. While I think many of his forecasts will indeed happen more or less as advertised, I foresee a more gradual -- and markedly less utopian -- transition. On the other hand, we might direly need the technologies Kurzweil describes in order to survive the excesses and hazards of the next century, and necessity is often the mother of invention.

Richard: Do you think the Singularity is something we should be preparing for in case it really does take place? For instance, do you think we need any new laws or other safeguards to prevent any possible dangers? (e.g. Robot rebellion.)

Mac Tonnies: Absolutely. We can continue to engage in a healthy dialogue about when and how the Singularity might arrive -- if ever -- but there's enough momentum to suggest some very real challenges in coming decades. Possible dangers include "designer" viruses and weaponized nanotech: inventions that could conceivably render us extinct. I don't think that's a risk we can afford to underestimate, regardless of one's intellectual biases.

Richard: Some speculate that superintelligent machines might develop their own goals that could be inconsistent with continued human survival and prosperity. What do you think of AI (Artificial Intelligence) researcher Hugo de Garis warning that such entities may simply choose to exterminate the human race?

Mac Tonnies: Roboticist Hans Moravec thinks the opposite is more likely: our mechanical offspring will think of us as parents and allow us to join them or perish of our own accord. Perhaps it seems cold, but that's evolution. If homo sapiens in ultimately usurped by something wiser and more capable, that's quite OK with me.

Richard: What are your plans for the future? I understand you've been working on a book on your cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, when do you think we might expect that?

Mac Tonnies: I'm fascinated by accounts of apparent UFO occupants and have been rethinking who or what we might be dealing with. I'm of the opinion that the extraterrestrial interpretation is incomplete. Could we be interacting with indigenous humanoids? That's the question I'm posing in the book I'm writing. Time will tell if it helps resolve the UFO enigma; I'll be satisfied if it makes readers a little less complacent.

Richard: Thanks again, I look forward to your future projects.

http://binnallofamerica.com/rr12.26.8.html
 
It's very sad that he died so young.
In all the photos he looked young and fit.
I guess his motivation for being into transhumanism was because he had an underlying heart condition, and he wanted to find a way to transcend human frailty?
 
I'm drawn very much towards transhumanism myself, without actually being a transhumanist; all the writing and editing I do for Orion's Arm assumes that we have a transhuman and posthuman future, and indeed it seems inevitable one way or another. I have no real argument with Mac Tonnies about that.

However I must say I disagree with him in almost everything he ever said about UFOs and especially his later ideas on the 'indigenous humanoid' explanation. There really is no need to invoke advanced, secret, indigenous humanoids with a vastly superior civilisation living hidden on our planet to explain the unidentified aerial phenomena that are reported; instead the explanation can be found in the inadequate perceptions and other failings of perfectly ordinary indigenous humanoids like you and me.
 
Another interview, this time with a transhumanist politician.

Meet the world's first transhumanist politician
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ician.html

18 September 2012 by Edwin Cartlidge
Magazine issue 2882.

It's not necessarily a negative thing for us to become less human, says transhumanist politician Giuseppe Vatinno

What is transhumanism?
Transhumanism is a philosophical doctrine that aims to continuously improve humanity. It promotes science and technology but with people at its centre. Ultimately, it aims to free humanity from its biological limitations, overcoming natural evolution to make us more than human.

How does transhumanism improve humanity?
It does this through the development of technologies that boost health and fight ageing and disease, by replacing lost or defective body parts and by improving the internet, communication technologies and artificial intelligence.

Is there a danger that transhumanism could actually make us less human?
Becoming less human is not necessarily a negative thing, because it could mean we are less subject to the whims of nature, such as illness or climate extremes. A beautiful sunset is positive, but the black death that struck Europe in the 14th century was not. We want to retain the positive aspects of nature and reduce the negative ones.

But could we become cyborgs?
This is more the realm of science fiction. But we are already taking steps in that direction. Look at Oscar Pistorius, the sprinter with two prosthetic limbs. He is able to beat able-bodied competitors.

Why do you think it is important to have a transhumanist politician?
Politics is the motor of society, so to bring the battle forward it is important to have a political dimension. I have opposed Italy's "Law 40" that places limits on assisted procreation and have been pushing for more nanotechnology in energy and environmental technology.

Is transhumanism more allied with left- or right-wing politics?
In the UK and the US recently, it has been closer to the left, probably because left-wing themes such as bioethics are important to transhumanists at the moment. But economically, the movement probably leans slightly more to the right. Freedom is very important in transhumanism, leading to a focus on individuals and free enterprise.

Is there a conflict with religion?
In my opinion, no. Transhumanism does tend to avoid recourse to an external deity and, in fact, most adherents are materialists. But there are also quite a few Hindu and Buddhist transhumanists, and even some Mormons.

Isn't transhumanism, in fact, a religion of science and technology?
Yes, in the sense that it could provide ethical principles. The scientific method implies an absolute honesty in producing data and searching for the truth. It could be a model of correctness. A philosopher might argue that a flower is blue rather than red, but science tells you unambiguously what colour it is.

Profile
Giuseppe Vatinno trained as a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome in Italy. In July, the centrist Alleanza per l'Italia politician became the world's first transhumanist to be elected as a member of a parliament
 
I've always been fascinated with the idea of mind/consciousness state uploading. Is it really a continuation? I think I could convince myself.

Keith Wiley’s “Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind Uploading”

...On the Extropy email list, the original online futurist discussion group, arguments about the philosophy of mind uploading were banned for a long while, as they seemed to go around and around in circles without ever getting anywhere new or interesting. But amidst all the confusion and passion that the topic attracts, new progress does get made regarding these issues, step by step as the years pass. A couple years ago I edited a Special Issue of the Journal of Machine Consciousness, on the topic of Mind Uploading, and in my opinion we got some pretty good papers — including from Randal Koene, who has energized the topic in recent years with his foundation of CarbonCopies.org. And this year we had a landmark book by Keith Wiley called “A Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind Uploading.” Wiley’s book digs into the philosophy of mind uploading far more carefully, deeply and rigorously than any mailing list post can do — and much more so than I can do justice to in this brief review.

Mind uploading is both a potential (in my view very likely) future technology, and a current tool for unfolding our understanding of personal identity and what it means. Wiley explores it from both of these aspects, but with a bit more focus on the latter. ...
http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/12/14/keith-wileys-taxonomy-metaphysics-mind-uploading/

wiley.jpg


A Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind-Uploading Paperback – September 13, 2014
by Keith Wiley
http://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Metaphysics-Mind-Uploading-Keith-Wiley/dp/0692279849




 
I've been reading some of the essays on Nick Bostrom's home page, some are about AI but some are about transhumanism. Interesting stuff all round. https://nickbostrom.com/
 
A review of:

The Human Reimagined Posthumanism in Russia By Colleen McQuillen, Julia Vaingurt. Published 09.20.2018. Academic Studies Press 278 Pages.

Consists of 12 studies of the deep history of posthumanism in Russian thought and culture. Covers Nikolai Fedorov, Cosmism, Science Fiction, modern Russian Posthumanism.

Posthumanism for Regular Humans Trapped in an Inhuman World: On “The Human Reimagined”
by Aaron Winslow


HUMANS, AS A SPECIES, have finally managed to combine all the worst tropes of cyberpunk novels with all the best scenes from disaster blockbusters: our identities are willingly outsourced to social media platforms; the largest nation-state on the planet uses a social credit system; digisexuality is a concept discussed in newspapers of record; teenagers in Eastern Europe may or may not have determined the election for the leader of the global empire; and AI robots are predicted to take our jobs in the next decade, around the same time that most of the planet is either underwater or on fire.

In other words, we live in a posthuman world. ...

However, despite the diversity of the field, most of the writing has been centered on issues in the United States and Western Europe. The resulting lack of a global perspective on posthumanism makes The Human Reimagined: Posthumanism in Russia (Academic Studies Press, 2018), edited by Colleen McQuillen and Julia Vaingurt, essential reading. The volume reimagines the field through 12 studies of the deep history of posthumanism in Russian thought and culture. In doing so, McQuillen and Vaingurt reorient posthumanism along radical, leftist, and utopic lines. What emerges is an introduction to a robust discourse in which Russian writers, philosophers, and artists used posthumanism to articulate politics, understand the rise and fall of a revolutionary state, and salvage utopic kernels from that rubble. ...

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article...in-an-inhuman-world-on-the-human-reimagined/#!
 
I have recently read "Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow" by Yuval Noah Harari. In it he points out that humans have pretty much defeated "3 of the horsemen of the apocalypse; starvation, epidemic, and war", and are on track towards defeating death this century. Obviously the victory isn't total, but he points to the startling fact that more people today die of diabetes (an obesity related disease) than war and starvation combined.

Then he goes on to suggest that the troubles of the 21st Century are ones we have barely begun to imagine, such as what a world goverened by algorithms might look like and what it might mean for the people living in it. It seems that algorithms may undermine all the underpinnings of liberal democracy far more efficiently than totalitarianism, and religious intolerance combined according to Harari.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/24/homo-deus-by-yuval-noah-harari-review

I have also been looking into the trans-humanist aspirations of the bio-hackers https://blog.bulletproof.com/beginners-guide-to-biohacking-101/

And the DIY world of CRISPR genetic sequencing https://www.broadinstitute.org/what...-spotlight/questions-and-answers-about-crispr

Certainly the problems of this century will be quite different to those of other centuries
 
Fascinating stuff here, extrapolating and suspicious, but grounded in currently stated aspirations.

 
TH paths to immortality.

Russian transhumanist Alexey Turchin has shared a new "roadmap to immortality," which proposes several different plans (with backup plans!) for extending human life through technology. Here's the gist, as he explains it:
Plan A. The most obvious way to reach immortality is to survive until the creation of Friendly AI; in that case if you are young enough and optimistic enough, you can simply do nothing – or just fund MIRI. However, if you are older, you have to jump from one method of life extension to the next as they become available. So plan A is a relay race of life extension methods, until the problem of death is solved.

This plan includes actions to defeat aging, to grow and replace diseased organs with new bioengineered ones, to get a nanotech body and in the end to be scanned into a computer. It is an optimized sequence of events, and depends on two things – your personal actions (such as regular medical checkups), and collective actions such as civil activism and scientific research funding.

Plan B. However, if Plan A fails, i.e. if you die before the creation of superintelligence, there is Plan B, which is cryonics. Some simple steps can be taken now, such as calling your nearest cryocompany about a contract.

Plan C. Unfortunately, cryonics could also fail, and in that case Plan C is invoked. Of course it is much worse – less reliable and less proven. Plan C is so-called digital immortality, where one could be returned to life based on existing recorded information about that person. ...
https://boingboing.net/2021/04/07/s...ect-the-dead-with-a-dyson-sphere-kind-of.html
 
Back
Top