A question about transhumanism

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

I wrote a paper on the subject a while back, but I'm curious as to what people here think.

Should we ever get to the point of integrating technology with human biology (as some scientists suggest will occur in the next 30 years or so), when does a "human" as we know it today stop being "human" and become transhuman/posthuman? How do you think transhumans/posthumans would be received be society? Would they be afforded the same rights as flesh-and-blood folk, or will our kids and grandkids be gearing up for a new civil rights battle?

[ret5hd]

1. i think we can safely stop calling them human when they start sexually reproducing transhumans.

[Orrex]

6. That's so hot!

:freak:

[BlooInBloo]

2. How one classifies things is a matter of choice/convention/whatever, not true/false....

But for the question you actually meant to ask, it doesn't matter, since notionally, rights attach to a *person*, which is not the same concept as *human*. Upon taking that on board, there's no theoretical worry.

[boobooday]

3. I wear a medical device -- it runs on a double-A battery

and keeps me alive (24/7). Am I transhuman? (I actually prefer the term "bionic.")

[Odin2005]

5. to a small degree yes.

Indeed, we are all marginally transhumans to a greater or lesser extent now with how much technology has become part of our everyday existance.

[Odin2005]

4. Transhumanist here.

IMO what must happen is that the philosophical-psychological concept of Personhood must be divorced from the biological concept of "humanity".

Sadly, I suspect that transhumans and sapient AI will be treated as non-persons by those with an anthropocentric mindset, especially by luddite types among the left (technology is evil!) and the right (they have no souls!).

[Phoonzang]

8. Did you ever read The Artilect War by Hugo de Garis

He's convinced there's eventually going to be a war between Transhumanists (who he calls Cosmists) and Luddites (who he calls Terrans) over the development of super-intelligent AIs. I can't say I think his theory is that far out.

[Orrex]

7. The question is a matter of degree, rather than kind

I have fillings in my teeth, one capped tooth, and I wear glasses. Without the glasses it would be very difficult for me to function productively, and I'd certainly have a tough time reading a monitor screen. For that matter, if I hadn't gotten my fillings, the cavities that necessitated them might have abscessed--a potentially fatal condition.

So I'd say that I am, to a degree, a transhuman, and so is the woman next door with the titanium hip and the guy across the street with the pacemaker.

The first response in this thread (to which I replied in characteristically mature fashion) really hit the core of the matter: when transhumans breed true, then they can be said to be "not human." But so what? If they're sentient, then they should be afforded the same rights and considerations granted to humans.

Of course, the rights granted to humans should already be granted to all humans, but we know damn well that this isn't the case...

[Posteritatis]

9. As Orrex said, it's a degree-not-kind thing

(For the record, I identify mostly as a democratic transhumanist. I sympathise a lot with several elements of libertarian transhumanist views, though most extropians I know piss me off.)

Transhumanism is far from a monolithic worldview; there's a variety of utterly incompatible groups of thought within the broader concept, and even if there weren't some subtle things which are going on right now would be considerably different from, say, someone altered to live underwater or in zero-G. The integration of technology with human biology has been going on for years. "But that's different!" most people would say, because it's already happened and most of them are used to it.

I think if we started seeing radical modifications to people - by current standards, I mean, like use of genetics and functional rather than merely aesthetic body modifications, and definitely if any modifications can be inherited - there would be a huge uproar, lots of things getting reflexively banned (as is the standard response these days to anything new), etc. Right now, you bring the concept up in a typical forum online, there's already a lot of idiots who start babbling about Nazism, or who make arguments consisting entirely of science fiction references, or otherwise devolve into cliches the instant the topic comes up. I'm astonished (and pleased) as all hell that those weren't the bulk of the responses here already. The reactions would be worse, far worse, IRL, once the Sanjay Guptas of the world started talking about the new fad warping America's children or whatnot.

I might just be being pessimistic about it. I really hope I am. But if it becomes at all common, I am worried there's gonna be a serious backlash, particularly in North America and western Europe but probably less so elsewhere. There will be people jailed or worse for some of the things they do, and there's going to be some interesting court battles over whether they were allowed to do things, or whether the government was allowed to forbid them. There's a lot of ugly discussion around the idea already, and people have been pre-prejudiced against it for quite some time (I'm looking at you, Star Trek).

As for your first question, I have a flexible definition of "human" in the first place. Hell, a lot of people do by the standards of most of our grandparents. I don't like drawing a bright line and saying anything on this side is human and anything on that side is not; the closest I could come to that would be a speciation event, but at least initially I'm assuming folks on both sides would still self-identify as human. (In the case of a group of people actually speciating, that would be another hideous court case or twelve. "Is it still murder if they aren't homo sapiens anymore?")

Personhood rather than humanity is a vastly more important both legally and philosophically anyway, and that one's entirely independent of the physical state of the person. That would be an upside legally, though, as most rights law is based on personhood first and foremost. And we've got at least some precedents on genetics-based discrimination - hell, Bush signed a law into effect forbidding insurance companies from denying policies or coverage based on genetics, which certainly sprained my paradigms.

I dunno. I think acceptance of the idea will grow when people implement various transhumanist ideas in a level beyond "PAY ATTENTION TO ME NEWS PEOPLE," but I also think there's going to be a great deal of fear and knowledge-free condemnation of people too.

[phantom power]

10. Here is one of my favorite quotes about transhumanism:

"Being a cyborg isn't about microchips. It's about running shoes."

[Sandrine for you]

11. Transhuman will be human in the same that ....

human are animal. Human is animal, but more than animal. In the same way, transhuman will be human, but more than human.

[anigbrowl]

12. I feel obliged to link to White Zombie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXpbrGBIGxw

BTW yes, I'm an avid transhumanist. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of merging my brain with a computer. I'm a bit more into cybernetics than genetics, unless they find a way to make genetic enhancement retroactive. Besides, the cyborg accidents won't be as gross as the genetic ones.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

13. Recommending

some light reading on the subject from a Japanese comic artist: Shirow Masamune. Shirow has explored several avenues of transhumanism, most notably in his Appleseed graphic novels (1-4) and the epic,political and spiritual Ghost in the Shell. Both sagas take place in a relatively near future; Appleseed explores utopianism and the struggle between humans, cyborgs, bioroids (entirely engineered humans), and AI. Ghost in the Shell explores a world where brain-to-computer interfaces have opened the door to brain hacking, and whether a person can still be considered human if they've replaced their entire body with an artificial one..

Before anybody starts poo-pooing comics, Shirow's comics writing is as dense as any prose, and his art simply jaw=dropping.

[Ready4Change]

14. I think that will only be determined in hindsight.

And once it becomes obvious that there are true transhumanists, the question won't be whether we should extend rights to transhumanists, but whether THEY will extend rights to old fashioned humans.

[Posteritatis]

15. Why does a transhumanist tyranny follow? (nt)

[Ready4Change]

16. Ask the neanderthals

Or breeds of cow that don't produce much milk, or older employees who don't, or can't learn to use computers.

It's a drive toward more and more efficient use of available resources. It won't be anything personal or devious. Just a matter of good budget handling.

[Posteritatis]

17. All those presuppose said tyranny; they don't explain why it would happen (nt)