Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto,
by Simon Young.
(2006). New York: Prometheus Books.
Those expecting this book to be the
definitive statement of transhumanist philosophy and ideas will
be disappointed. “A Transhumanist Manifesto,” with an
emphasis on the indefinite article, is just that – an
idiosyncratic, personal statement by a broad-minded, well-read
“layman” – “a piano player, even!”
The book breathlessly tries to cover
transhumanist art, immortality, Romanticism, Postmodernism,
memetics, Buddhist anatta, Prometheus, genetic
engineering, Star Trek, Enlightenment, evolution, ecology,
humanism, socialism, liberalism, economics, ethics,
homosexuality, eugenics, psychology, psychiatry, Jungian
personality typology, Nietzsche’s will to power,
existentialism, Frankenstein, Superman, robots, epistemology,
nihilism, science, consilience, monism,
schizophrenia, zombies, Descartes, uploading, egalitarianism,
sublimation, Orpheus, Maslow, original sin, creative living,
selfish genes, the Sermon on the Mount, Prozac, Epsilonia,
libertarianism, Camille Paglia, the noosphere, the meaning of
life, ‘agnostoskepticism,’ ‘sciphobia,’ ‘bispectism,’ ‘eugoics,’
and countless other needlessly neologized topics.
Much as one might praise Young for his
ambition, the book is simply incapable of supporting an extended
treatment of any of these topics or of forging them into a
rigorously defended and explained world-view. Those looking for
an explanation of transhumanism must continue to resort to the
Web sites of the World Transhumanist Association and the Extropy
Institute. Full-length, published works on the general topic of
transhumanism are few – for example, Naam’s More Than Human,
Joel Garreau’s Radical Evolution, or even Regis’s
mocking treatment, Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman
Condition, of sixteen years ago.
Young’s ‘manifesto,’ echoing the language of
the failed Communist one, sets forth an overarching agenda of 24
points, after which he criticizes Bio-Luddism at length and then
attempts to outline a comprehensive philosophy. Young is at his
best discussing transhumanist art, critiquing postmodernism, and
aiming for a unification of science and spirituality in rational
ethics, unabashed ‘scientism,’ ‘warm logic’ and ‘mind of God
theology.’ Young is least convincing when he attempts to reduce
the complexity of human personalities to four ‘neurohumors’ and
when he advocates the casual use of psychiatric drugs to produce
a single, preferred personality type. I believe someday humanity
will understand the exact biochemistry of the brain and
so be able to influence it intelligently and reversibly, but
that time has not yet arrived. Until then, while neuroscience is
in its infancy, it would be wise to draw back from damaging our
minds. There is probably a good reason why Nature produces such
a wide variety of human personalities, and personality types
different from Young’s could remind us why we should appreciate
much of this variety.
Despite such wrong-turns, one has to admire the
spirit of advocacy in Young’s call to optimism, science, and
using technology to advance the survival and well-being of
humanity. Humans have emerged from the crisis of World War II
with a deep pessimism, skepticism, misanthropy, irrationality,
and spirit of defeatism. Humanity, as it were, has been knocked
off its stride and saddled with immense doubt about its ability
to make the world a better place, its ability to judge value,
and even its right to exist. Humanity needs to recover its
balance and its stride, recover faith in itself, and rekindle
its flickering hopes and dreams. Young’s remedy for the
collective, intellectual malaise of our times recalls the
prescient treatment of the same theme by F.M. Esfandiary
(FM-2030) in Optimism One and Up-Wingers.
Hopefully, many more laypeople will soon take up the challenge
of the future with this sort of optimistic and ambitious
attitude.
PDF Version