|
A
middling introduction to Better Humans
David Wood
Surbiton, UK
Journal
of Evolution and Technology
- Vol. 15 Issue 1
-February 2006 - pgs
109-110
http://jetpress.org/volume15/wood.html
PDF
Version
Review
of Paul Miller, James Wilsdon eds. Better Humans: The Politics of Human
Enhancement and Life Extension (Demos, 2006)
Free for download
This is a book about a hugely important topic. It contains thirteen
different essays, by writers with a variety of viewpoints. The
essays are all short and easy to read. The editors are to be
commended for commissioning these essays, to promote public
discussion about the issues arising from the increasing potential
for technology to drastically uplift the capabilities of humans –
making us healthier, stronger, smarter, wiser, kinder, safer, more
connected, more contented, more fulfilled, more highly sensed, and
more alive. Yet the book disappoints. Although most of the essays
contain some good points (especially the ones by Nick Bostrom and
Arthur Caplan), they often seem to miss the big picture, and they
become sidelined in rather sour complaints. In short, there’s a
much better book waiting to be written, on this same topic of
“Better Humans”.
The big picture is what is sometimes called the transhumanist
vision. The “humanist” part of the word “transhumanist” indicates a
belief that our collective well-being is in our own hands – that is,
in the hands of humans – rather than being under the control of
mysterious supernatural or mystical entities. Although we humans
have flaws, we also have the potential to address our own flaws.
The “trans” part of “transhumanist” indicates that we humans can go
far beyond our present-day capabilities. We can radically transcend
the powers that we have inherited from countless generations of
evolution. The key to this improvement is in the wise application
of rapidly advancing breakthrough technologies, such as computer
miniaturization, artificial intelligence, smartphones, neuroscience,
pharmacology, stem cell therapy, gene therapy, and nanotechnology.
In reply to the objection that such enhancements are “unnatural”,
transhumanists say that the distinction between “natural” and
“unnatural” is an unnecessary distraction. There are all kinds of
things that people used to find unnatural, but which we now,
happily, take for granted. And in reply to the objection that such
enhancements “risk playing God”, transhumanists say that the failure
to seek to control our own destiny, via self-enhancement, leaves
human life in an impoverished and dangerous state.
When you dare to think about it, the drawbacks of the unenhanced
human state are severe. First, all too often, human life is snuffed
out in its prime – our vital spirits are sabotaged by our failing
bodies. Second, we are vulnerable to disasters such as tsunamis,
plagues, earthquakes, and meteorite strikes – not to mention
human-originated disasters including wars, terrorism, and famines.
Third, we are facing what the writer Thomas Homer Dixon calls “The
Ingenuity Gap”, in which the problems confronting modern society
seem to demand a higher calibre of reasoning, to solve them, than we
are collectively able to muster. Fourth, most of us suffer (to
varying extents) from one or more disabilities – whether congenital,
injury-inflicted, or aging related (such as senility). The
transhumanist vision is that, well within the lifetime of many
people now alive, human enhancement will take place to the extent of
very significantly addressing each of these problems, thereby
allowing us to experience life much more fully.
If you’re interested to explore the transhumanist vision further,
you might expect to find more details in the “Better Humans” book.
But whereas it will provide you with some useful pointers, you’ll
also have to put up with a fair amount of uninspired material, which
overly focuses on potential downsides of new technologies. For
example, you can read about the increased potential for government
surveillance and control of citizens, or the risk that some people
will (shock horror) gain preferential access to the benefits of
these technologies. Indeed, there are potential downsides of the
transhumanist undertaking, which require careful forethought and
public debate. But these downsides must not be allowed to obscure
the very significant potential upsides. It’s my judgment that this
collection of essays has put the balance too far over to the
“precautionary stance”, instead of the “proactionary stance”. The
precautionary stance would have strangled most of technology
development at its birth. It must not be allowed to unduly cramp
creative research into human enhancement.
For a more full-blooded introduction to the transhumanist vision, I
recommend Citizen Cyborg: Why democratic societies must respond
to the redesigned human of the future by James Hughes, Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future by Gregory
Stock, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil, and
Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology,
Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence will Transform our
World by Douglas Mulhall. Alternatively, take advantage of one
of the early fruits of enhanced human collaborative intelligence,
namely the Internet, to view the very considerable online material
about transhumanism.
I’ll make two more points in conclusion. First, some of the authors
confess to an imagination failure, thinking they’ll get bored if
they start living longer lives. This misses the point that
transhumanism is about life expansion just as much as it is about
life extension. Second, it may be true that aging is “natural”, but
so are lots of other diseases. That shouldn’t prevent us from
realizing that we should be tackling aging just as vigorously and
intelligently as we have tackled all kinds of other causes of decay
and death. |
