|
A peer-reviewed electronic journal
published by the Institute
for Ethics and ISSN 1541-0099 16(1) – June 2007 |
|
Singularity Warfare: A Bibliometric
Survey of Militarized Transhumanism Woody Evans http://jetpress.org/16/evans.html Abstract This paper examines a number of terms related to
transhumanism, and their prevalence in military and government
publications. Transhumanism and the
technologies attendant to the movement have clear implications for militaries
and insurgencies. Although
strategists in all camps must begin to plan for the possible impacts of such
technologies if they wish to stay relevant and ready on a global scale, the
impact of transhuman values is all but nonexistent in the military
literature. This paper concludes that
the lack of transhuman terms in military journals illustrates an ignorance of
transhumanism amongst military thinkers and policy makers. 1. Introduction Transhumanism,
the philosophical movement which employs advanced technologies to further
rational humanism (Bostrom, 2005, 2), has something to say about many fields
of human inquiry and activity, including medicine, information science,
sociology, and, even military science.
In the New solutions are needed to military
problems, post-9/11, and new tactics and strategies are encouraged in the
military (U.S. Department of Defense, 2001).
Problems such as improvised explosive devices, a non-conventional
weapon, certainly beg non-conventional solutions (McKenna, 2005). DARPA funds research into advanced
technologies for military application, including research into artificial
intelligence (U. S. Congress, House, 2005).
For some transhumanists, artifical intelligence is a key factor in the
approaching techno-social singularity (Kurzweil, 2006, 40). For the military, again, the interest in
the technology is absent of any interest in the philosophy. A post-singularity world would be geo-politcally
destabilized, to say the least, and the world that emerges from such a
singularity, though by definition impossible to predict or perhaps even to
understand from our current position, would certainly be a world that both
nation-states and insurgents would wish to control. We have seen, in a variety of
settings and circumstances, that a small group of people with access to new
technologies can coordinate devastating attacks. From the events on September 11, 2001, when 19 men were able to
use their knowledge of communications and transportation technology to kill
2,973 people (National, 2004, 311), to the infamous Arkan's guerilla tactics
using cell phones to network troops in Yugoslavia (Sterling, 2003, 129-131),
to the grave possibility of dirty bombs and weaponized biological agents
looming on our horizon, we can hardly doubt that insurgents are incorporating
advancing technologies into their strategies (Jervis, 2005). Of course, there is nothing new about
bioterrorism, but technological advances make it easier to implement, and much
deadlier; there is nothing new about propaganda, whether from empires or
guerillas, though advances in communications allow new uses for new media by
terrorists to powerful effect (Der Derian, 2005). Nations and terrorists are groping
to understand what power is available to what factions, and which
technologies will best enable and empower their own sides. The technology, even as we may move toward
singularity, leaves us wondering what to do next, what is possible, and what
it all means for our security.
Whether or not the philosophy of transhumanism can act as a liberating
and democratizing force in the world is a question beyond the scope of this
essay. However, the fact that “transhuman technology”, like weaponized
biotechnology, may be deployed in asymmetrical warfare against democratic
interests is reason enough to hope that strategic thinkers are paying
attention to the technologies, ideas (WTA, Declaration, 2006), and
aspirations attached to transhumanism, if, indeed, the tendency of
transhumanists is to work toward peace. 2. Statistical Observations This essay tightly limits its
scope; nevertheless, within the parameters of this research, we find that the
transhumanist terms described below appear 5190 times in the journals and
periodicals examined. The terms are:
artificial intelligence; biotechnology; nanotechnology; posthuman;
transhuman. Occurrence of Transhuman Terms
Chart:
The terms were taken from the World
Transhumanist Association's website (WTA, FAQ, 2006), and all appear on the Frequently
Asked Questions pages. These terms
are arguably among the most fundamentally important to the concerns of
transhumanism as a whole; their appearance on the WTA's FAQ confirms their
importance to the field. There are,
of course, many other terms under the transhumanism umbrella besides the 5
used here, and a more thorough study, including a greater number of terms and
a more diverse set of terms, should be conducted in the future. Also note that I searched artificial
intelligence as an exact phrase ("artificial intelligence"), and
that I did not truncate any of the terms (that is, I searched for the term
transhuman, not for transhuman* or transhumanist). I searched all publications
available in the Military &
Government Collection (MGC), an EBSCOhost database. This database "provides
cover-to-cover full text for nearly 300 journals and periodicals and indexing
and abstracts for nearly 400 titles," according to EBSCOhost’s
description. The MCG is mainly an
academic source, although it provides titles for news and general reading
related to military matters, as well. As seen in the chart above, the
"hard science" terms (artificial
intelligence, biotechnology,
and nanotechnology) together
garnered 5176 of the 5190 hits. Artificial intelligence brought back
2563, biotechnology brought back
1662, and nanotechnology brought
back 951. Posthuman and transhuman
brought back a combined 14 hits (8 for posthuman,
6 for transhuman). Many of the results for artificial intelligence were in
publications such as the In summary of the findings, this
brief bibliometric experiment reveals a great many technical articles dealing
with the science and technology of artificial intelligence, biotechnology,
and nanotechnology, but very little of substance dealing with transhumanism
itself, as a movement or as a set of ideas. 3. So What? Simply put: transhumanism, as a
philosophy, does not yet impact military science in any significant way. One may wonder: why should
transhumanism impact the military?
Again, this question is beyond the scope of the current essay;
however, if the civilian leadership of United States Military in particular
were to adopt a political/philosophical position that employed not only the
technology important to transhumanism, but also its humanistic stance, the
policies of spreading democracy and capitalism globally might be strengthened
with consistency and legitimacy. As we have seen, the hard science
and technology – such a vital foundation to transhumanism – is widely present
in the titles indexed in MCG. It
stands to reason, then, that though the idea of transhumanism itself has yet
to take hold on those working in military strategy, military science, and
policymaking, the technological foundations of transhumanism are already
affecting the literature. Ideas such
as nanotechnology and artificial intelligence may begin to
inspire political actors as they have transhumanists; and as these
technologies continue to impact our world, the idea of transhumanism may too
begin to affect military and strategic thought. But this will not happen as an affect of using the technology
itself, if technology continues to be understood, as it has so long been
seen, as an apolitical force (Barr, 1998, 27). There must be greater dialogue between civilian policy makers,
military strategists, and transhumanist thinkers if humanism (or
transhumanism) is to flourish in such a technologically advanced world;
indeed, without such dialogue, transhumanism may be easily labeled an
insurgent or terrorist movement itself, as Nick Bostrom suggests in his
recent essay on the history of transhumanist thought (19-20). We can only hope that if transhumanism
spreads with this technology, the positive humanism it is built from might
improve the effects of advanced technologies on the geopolitical world-stage. Things could, however, take a
darker turn. For “there is no silver
lining without its cloud,” to quote Bruce Sterling on the social impact of
the Internet, and with stakes so high we cannot afford to forget that we are
“empowering people we’re afraid of, and we cannot handle the consequences of
the social change, some of which are always dark” (Godwin, 2004). If transhumanism can become an important
node in the semantic web of military terms, it might shine light into the
shadows cast by the grim uses of the technologies associated with it. References Barr, Jean. 1998. Common Science?: Women, Science, and
Knowledge. Bostrom, Nick. 2005. “A History of
Transhumanist Thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14.1 http://jetpress.org/volume14/bostrom.html
(accessed 28 September, 2006). Der Derian, James. 2005. Imaging
terror: logos, pathos and ethos. Godwin, Mike. 2004. Cybergreen. Reason Online. http://www.reason.com/0401/fe.mg.cybergreen.shtml
(accessed October 1, 2006). Jervis, Rick. 2005.
Pressure-triggered bombs worry Kurzweil, Ray. 2006. “Reinventing
Humanity: The Future of Machine-Human Intelligence.” Futurist. 2: 39-46. McKenna, Ted. 2005. No Silver
Bullet for IEDs. Journal of Electronic
Defense. 28: 18-20. National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks upon the Office of Management and Budget.
“Department of Defense.” The Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html
(accessed 12 October, 2006). Sterling, Bruce. 2003. Tommorow Now. U. S. Congress. House. High-Performance Computing Revitalization
Act of 2005, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., 2005, H Report
109-36. U. S. Department of Defense. “Rear
Adm. Quigley Interview with World Transhumanist Association.
“The Transhumanist Declaration: (5).” World Transhumanist Association. http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/
(accessed 13 October, 2006). World Transhumanist Association.
“The Transhumanist FAQ.” World Transhumanist Association. http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/
(accessed 29 September, 2006). |
