|
A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute
for Ethics and ISSN 1541-0099 23(4) – September 2014 |
Book review: Ted Chu’s Human
Purpose and Transhuman Potential: A Cosmic Vision of Our Future Evolution
Michael
E. Zimmerman
University
of Colorado
michael.e.zimmerman@colorado.edu
Journal
of Evolution and Technology
- Vol. 24 Issue 2 – September 2014 - pgs 85-88
Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential may
be the most important book in favor of transhumanism since Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2005). It is well-organized, well-written, and
insightful, remarkable in its scope, and the work of an author with outstanding
credentials in finance and economics (former chief economist at
General Motors, and former head of investments for Abu Dhabi). Ted Chu is
clearly familiar with the movement and power of capital. If Kurzweil’s book,
that of an extraordinarily accomplished inventor, caught the attention of
people in Silicon Valley, Chu’s may have a similar effect in the industrial and
financial worlds.
Chu
urges us to create “Cosmic Beings” (CoBe), techno-posthumans who will vastly
surpass us in their intelligence and in many other ways. Achieving this vision will
require the efforts of an increasingly unified humankind, and Chu seeks to
facilitate high-level transhumanist conversations on a global level, especially
among and between Chinese and Americans, since they belong to the two countries
that may hold the key to CoBe. With his
high-level background in the worlds of finance and industry, and because he was
raised in China and did his graduate work in the United States, Chu appears
well situated to reach influential people in both countries.
He
sees humankind as a crucial but transitional moment in a long-term evolutionary
process that will leave Earth far behind. Three overarching themes structure Chu’s
exploration of these ideas: evolution, religion, and Friedrich Nietzsche’s
philosophy. In fact, given the extent to which he appropriates and transforms
Nietzsche’s thought in the light of evolutionary thinking and technological
possibilities, Chu could have subtitled his book Nietzsche 2.0.
Calling
on the evolutionary paradigm that now informs virtually all fields of investigation,
Chu maintains that, although humankind is an end in itself, it is also a means
to a still higher evolutionary end. We are a transitional species that can and
ought to take part in the conscious
evolution needed to bring forth CoBe. The customary idea that humankind
represents the peak of terrestrial evolution is contradicted by the on-going
processes of cosmic evolutionary activity. In other words, there is more – and better – to come. Maintaining the status quo is not a viable option, according
to Chu, because humankind is at existential risk. A meteor that struck our planet
could terminate the self-conscious life that has evolved here. If life, especially
self-conscious life, is rare in the universe, such an event would be a cosmic
tragedy. Like Hans Moravec and Kurzweil before him, Chu claims that human
cooperation in the generation of techno-posthumans may eventually lead to a
transformation of the entire cosmos. The stakes – human extinction, on the one hand, and
creation of CoBe, on the other – could
not be higher as we contemplate the goals posited by transhumanism.
Chu’s
second major theme concerns the importance of the world’s great spiritual
traditions for CoBe. Many of those traditions arose during what Karl Jaspers
called the Axial Age, which occurred between 800 and 200 BC. Two influential
traditions, Taoism and Biblical monotheism – especially Christianity – not only resonate with one
another (despite obvious differences), but also may be read as supporting the
dangerous venture of surpassing ourselves by creating CoBe. Whereas the Biblical
tradition regards God as the eternal, unchanging Creator, Chu interprets God as
a transcendent creative principle at work in cosmic evolution. On this
approach, we are made in God’s image, but this requires and empowers us to honor
God by being be creators in our own way. One of our opportunities is to create enormously
intelligent beings that are not burdened by the constraints imposed by our
genetic heritage.
By drawing
on ancient spiritual traditions, both Eastern and Western, Chu reaches out to
an audience wider than libertarian transhumanists, many of whom are atheists. At
the same time, his thesis that the quest for transcendence is central to
Christianity and the West allows him to challenge secular humanists who seem
satisfied with humankind as it has evolved until now. Chu suggests that the
yearning to transcend should always be tempered by the traditional Chinese
recognition of human limitations and resistance to change.
Chu
deploys a rhetorical strategy designed to “move” readers from many different
backgrounds – religious and atheist, liberal
and libertarian – to
see that their own values can be reconciled with those associated with creating
CoBe. He draws from notable politicians and political theorists from left and
right – citing Mao Zedong as well as
Ronald Reagan – to suggest that CoBe may provide
a rallying point that transcends existing political ideologies. Chu makes clear
his own strong commitment to CoBe even while acknowledging that achieving it
will be neither easy nor painless. In a lengthy section in which he replies to
objections and concerns about transhumanism and CoBe, he reveals both the
transhumanist opportunity and its possible costs, which could be very
significant. Such a massive historical shift might provoke even more wrenching
socio-cultural changes than those that accompanied the Industrial Revolution.
As economists are wont to point out, however, “creative destruction”
characterizes any significant innovation.
In
addition, Chu makes three crucial points. First, there are no guarantees that
humankind can create CoBe, even if doing so becomes a significant human goal.
Second, promoters of transhumanism may be wrong in interpreting
transhumanism/CoBe as consistent with and contributing to cosmic evolution.
Third, because of such considerations, we ought not to speak of CoBe as a
pre-ordained cosmic destiny, because such discourse justified terrible deeds by
twentieth-century totalitarian movements.
The
third major theme of Human Purpose and
Transhuman Potential involves using the conceptual framework of evolution
to reinvigorate Nietzsche’s thinking in ways that make it applicable to the
possibility held out by transhumanism. The central question of the book is: Why are we here? That is, what is the
goal of human life? Chu takes very seriously the implications of what Nietzsche
calls the death of God. Much as Nietzsche posited the Overman as a goal for a
dispirited European humanity, Chu urges his readers to embrace the transcendent
aim of CoBe in order to restore profound meaning to human existence. According
to Nietzsche, goals are the perspectives needed to organize life. It is thus no
accident that the longest chapter in Chu’s book is devoted to the topic of
perspectives, including why and how to posit the perspective required to
justify the effort and risk involved in creating CoBe.
Strikingly
from an author grounded in economics, Chu views human well-being, including
economic prosperity, as primarily a means
rather than an end. To be sure, he does not oppose material, social, and
political development, which is good in itself and contributes to the
technical-scientific developments necessary for producing CoBe. The same
individual freedom, initiative, and creativity that generate wealth and
opportunity for billions of people are also crucial if humankind is to surpass itself.
Nevertheless, Chu regards the contemporary emphasis on utility maximization as indicating
that humankind is settling for the mediocre goals that Nietzsche’s Zarathustra ascribed
to “the last man.” Satisfied with the acquisition of material comforts, the
last man lacks the capacity to shoot the arrow of his longing beyond himself.
Close
students of Nietzsche’s thought would argue that Chu overemphasizes the prologue
to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where
Zarathustra says that humankind is something that must be overcome, and that
humankind walks a tightrope over an abyss between the ape and the Overhuman. Later
in the same work, Zarathustra changes
his account of the Overhuman. By speaking of CoBe much more often than of the
Overhuman, however, Chu indicates that he looks to the Overhuman as an
inspiration, rather than as a literal goal. Writing in the late nineteenth
century, Nietzsche could not foresee the new
cosmic narrative that was made possible by evolutionary theory, nor could
he anticipate the extraordinary scientific-technological breakthroughs that put
humankind on the brink of generating CoBe.
Whereas
Nietzsche assumed that the Overhuman would transfigure the human body, Chu’s
Nietzsche 2.0 maintains that CoBe will not be limited by the organic body,
which – despite its extraordinary
qualities – is both fragile and responsible
for the craving and aggression that create so much suffering. Nietzsche has Zarathustra
say that humanity must remain “faithful to the Earth,” and thus by extension to
the organic body. By contrast, Chu insists that humankind must remain faithful not
to the transient human body but rather to cosmic
creativity, in the face of which humankind is but a temporary phenomenon, a
stage along the way to something higher.
Some readers
will object that there is scant possibility of creating artificial
intelligence, so the whole notion of CoBe is implausible. No one is yet in a
position to say whether this objection will pan out, but we should have a much better
idea within about 25 years. Other readers will resist adopting the goal of
creating CoBe without receiving the informed consent of billions of people
whose lives may be dramatically changed – perhaps for the worse, at least for a
time – by efforts to realize such an
audacious project. Many postwar science fiction writers and film directors – artistic visionaries – depict future dystopias spawned
by efforts to create artificial intelligence. Hence, some readers will maintain
that we should adopt the “precautionary principle” regarding CoBe, that is,
disallowing it to go forward until concerns about possible negative outcomes
have been successfully addressed. Chu, however, points out that had this
principle been in place during the past 150 years, many of the most important and
beneficial technological advances would never have come to pass.
Chu
calls upon his readers to summon the courage needed to do something truly
extraordinary, even though significant risks would be involved in the process. Recognizing
that a significant majority of people will not adopt transhumanism, Chu in
effect appeals to those elites – scientific,
technological, industrial, financial, intellectual – who may be willing to commit themselves
to CoBe. Perhaps such elites in particular are acutely aware of the lack of a
higher, transcendent goal.
Chu
has made an outstanding contribution to the growing conversation about the
possibility and advisability of making CoBe a major human goal in the
twenty-first century. Even those who are critical of such a goal will need to
read and contend with his visionary work.