![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Transhumanism (Expanded)
Aug. 7th, 2012 10:35 amTranshumanism is, at its most basic, the philosophy that humans should rise above the constraints imposed by their physical forms. This can mean anything from downloading one’s consciousness into a computer to making oneself effectively immortal to turning one’s body into a giant duck.
It is my opinion that otherkin (and the associated subcultures) and neuroatypical individuals have a rather useful perspective on transhumanism, as psychologically they are already transhuman. Transhumanism is often criticized for distancing individuals from humanity. Otherkin and neuroatypical individuals, however, call into question the value of ‘humanity’, and what it means.
Transhumanism and Biotechnology: The word ‘transhumanism’ usually (especially in its opponents) conjures up images of a dystopian future populated by soulless Borg-like individuals. Alternatively, it conjures up images of a race of superhumans that have view other humans as ‘lesser’. Even its proponents often view transhumanism in a mechanical light, talking about uploading consciousness into machines.
Much transhumanism is arguably more along the lines of ‘superhumanism’—it promotes augmenting already existing human capabilities, such as intelligence, perception, or physical attributes. In my opinion, true transhumanism requires adding a capability that was not previously there, or substantially changing one’s morphology or physiology.
Generally, transhumanism falls into one of several categories:
1. Improving already existing physical traits
2. Using advanced technology to increase intelligence, improve memory, etc.
3. Substantially altering morphology
The concept of biotechnology is not alien to transhumanists, despite their focus on silicon and metal. Nonetheless, when it does appear, it generally doesn’t involve substantially modifying human body structure. Instead, it focuses on making people immune to disease, or live longer. Or, sometimes, being incredibly tough, strong, and quick. All of these are well enough, to be sure.
But this ignores an entire aspect of transhumanism. Instead of using biotechnology to make a ‘perfect’ human, biotechnology might well be used to give a human animalistic features. Not for any pursuit of perfection, either—instead, because either that individual feels more comfortable in a different form, which they regard as a reflection of their inner self, or because they idealize that form. In otherwords, rather than being a tool to enforce conformity, I regard transhumanist biotechnology as a tool to increase self-expression. Regard tattoos, and how they allow one to express one’s identity. Then apply the same principle to the body itself.
My inner self is cheetah. Ideally, my external body would to some degree reflect this. That means claws, ears, digitigrade stance, fur, tail, muzzle, and, preferably, the ability to shift between four legs and two; that’s as close as I’m going to get to shapeshifting any time soon. I would be delighted to have that form. And I know others who would not only would like to have a form more reflective of their inner self, they have an intense psychological need for it—species dysphoria and all. Unless these same people are making the argument that transgendered people shouldn’t transition, it makes little sense for them to say that those who are transspecies shouldn’t transition. Both deal with the same fundamental concept—the right to change one’s body. Of course, one who opposed transhumanism might argue that the body of a transgendered person, no matter what gender they change to, is still human. But this argument can be dismissed simply by pointing out that exterior form has relatively little to do with the most fundamental innate qualities of someone—and gender and species are very much fundamental qualities.
Transhumanism as it Relates to Identity: Not all transhumanist-like philosophies limit themselves to changes in the body. Transhumanism itself says nothing about changes in psychology—which is understandable, given that much of what they are interested in isn’t particularly radical in the realm of psychological implications.
But we, otherkin and the associated subcultures, would, in all probability, show a heavy preference for the sort of transhumanist technologies that would have radical pyschological implications. Of course, in the realms of the mind, in many respects we are already transhuman. Our behaviors and identity transcend the species Homo sapiens. When I use the term ‘spirit’ in 'spiritual transhumanism' (shorter than 'transhumanism that deals with concepts that often relate to spirituality), I do not use it in the sense of ghosts and angels. I use it in the sense of psychology—but specific parts of psychology, parts often associated with the concept of ‘spirit’.
Spiritual transhumanism is not quite the same thing as removing human tendencies that we might not want, like change blindness or inattentional blindness. Making the mind able to multitask better, for instance, could theoretically be done by altering how information is processed, and while it would be transhuman (or at least suprahuman), it would not be in the realm of spiritual transhumanism, because spiritual transhumanism deals in identity and similar aspects of human psychology. I do not think multitasking falls under such guidelines… though perhaps I should, given how diverse I know identity can be. In any event, altering that aspect of human psychology would, for most people, not alter their identity in any substantial manner. In large part this is due to people believing that they can multitask effectively even when they can’t.
Then the question might be, “What transhumanist technologies would lead to spiritual transhumanism?” Altering body morphology to be somewhat like another species might be the obvious example, but there are others. Extreme adaptation for a specific environment or task could result in changes in identity; if I am given abilities that make me able to survive underwater my identity will likely be different than if I make myself arboreal. Such changes would not have to be physical, though. If my memory is altered so that I can recall things with perfect accuracy and clarity, that very well could alter my identity tremendously. At the same time, though, it might not alter someone else’s identity if they were not acutely aware of the flaws of memory. Gross physical effects are more likely to alter someone’s identity than changes to their psychology, since they may not notice the changes on a conscious level.
The Value of ‘Humanity’: ‘Humanity’. I hear it said over and over again, that it’s somehow terribly important. But what exactly is humanity? Leaving aside the fact that many individuals get along just fine without humanity in the first place, is getting rid of it necessarily a bad thing?
Primarily, opponents seem to be arguing that transhumanism would create a feeling of distance from the human species. It is understandable that they might worry about this. Historically, feeling different when one was in a position of power led to abuse. However, there are several flaws with applying this to transhumanism.
Firstly, as history so aptly demonstrates, one does not need transhumanist technology to feel distanced from the human species. Class, gender, religion, ethnicity, and family ties can make one feel distanced not only from entire populations (Europeans enslaving Africas) but the human species as a whole (many dictators, arguably many people involved in business). And that doesn’t even take into account the atrocities, far, far worse than anything we have inflicted on each other, that we have performed to other species. Species that, in all probability, are sophonts.
Secondly, many people already have the psychology to feel distanced from humans. Sociopaths seem the most obvious example, but many otherkin also qualify. Many of these people, while they feel little to no emotional connection to the human species, nevertheless accord it the same rights and respect that they would any obviously sentient and sapien species. Instead of seeing humans as superior to other species, they often see humans as equals. Given our past history with other species, I think that that attitude is to be encouraged, rather than discouraged and feared.
Thirdly, one can feel an intense desire to protect and nurture what one is distanced from. I personally can testify that this is true. I feel distanced from reality sometimes, and often feel distanced from the human species and from society. Nonetheless, I regard it as my duty to protect them, simply because I am capable of moral reasoning not tied to my emotional reactions. Many of those who are distanced from humans are capable of that as well. Emotional distance does not automatically translate into hatred or oppression.
But would ridding oneself of ‘humanity’ cause problems? I would answer no, based on the idea that someone born with ‘humanity’ will likely have found rationalizations for their morality, rationalizations which could survive the process of losing an emotional connect with the human species. The purpose of rationalization are to give logical weight to emotional processes.
Of course, leaving ‘humanity’ behind would be difficult for someone who had it already. If someone just increased their speed, or made themselves resistant to disease, then they’d quite possibly not lose emotional connect with the human species, consider themselves part of the human species, and retain ‘humanity’. Even changing identity would not necessarily cause one to lose emotional connections with the human species. I don’t identify as anything that lives in the ocean, or rainforest, but I have strong emotional connections with those biomes.
It is my opinion that otherkin (and the associated subcultures) and neuroatypical individuals have a rather useful perspective on transhumanism, as psychologically they are already transhuman. Transhumanism is often criticized for distancing individuals from humanity. Otherkin and neuroatypical individuals, however, call into question the value of ‘humanity’, and what it means.
Transhumanism and Biotechnology: The word ‘transhumanism’ usually (especially in its opponents) conjures up images of a dystopian future populated by soulless Borg-like individuals. Alternatively, it conjures up images of a race of superhumans that have view other humans as ‘lesser’. Even its proponents often view transhumanism in a mechanical light, talking about uploading consciousness into machines.
Much transhumanism is arguably more along the lines of ‘superhumanism’—it promotes augmenting already existing human capabilities, such as intelligence, perception, or physical attributes. In my opinion, true transhumanism requires adding a capability that was not previously there, or substantially changing one’s morphology or physiology.
Generally, transhumanism falls into one of several categories:
1. Improving already existing physical traits
2. Using advanced technology to increase intelligence, improve memory, etc.
3. Substantially altering morphology
The concept of biotechnology is not alien to transhumanists, despite their focus on silicon and metal. Nonetheless, when it does appear, it generally doesn’t involve substantially modifying human body structure. Instead, it focuses on making people immune to disease, or live longer. Or, sometimes, being incredibly tough, strong, and quick. All of these are well enough, to be sure.
But this ignores an entire aspect of transhumanism. Instead of using biotechnology to make a ‘perfect’ human, biotechnology might well be used to give a human animalistic features. Not for any pursuit of perfection, either—instead, because either that individual feels more comfortable in a different form, which they regard as a reflection of their inner self, or because they idealize that form. In otherwords, rather than being a tool to enforce conformity, I regard transhumanist biotechnology as a tool to increase self-expression. Regard tattoos, and how they allow one to express one’s identity. Then apply the same principle to the body itself.
My inner self is cheetah. Ideally, my external body would to some degree reflect this. That means claws, ears, digitigrade stance, fur, tail, muzzle, and, preferably, the ability to shift between four legs and two; that’s as close as I’m going to get to shapeshifting any time soon. I would be delighted to have that form. And I know others who would not only would like to have a form more reflective of their inner self, they have an intense psychological need for it—species dysphoria and all. Unless these same people are making the argument that transgendered people shouldn’t transition, it makes little sense for them to say that those who are transspecies shouldn’t transition. Both deal with the same fundamental concept—the right to change one’s body. Of course, one who opposed transhumanism might argue that the body of a transgendered person, no matter what gender they change to, is still human. But this argument can be dismissed simply by pointing out that exterior form has relatively little to do with the most fundamental innate qualities of someone—and gender and species are very much fundamental qualities.
Transhumanism as it Relates to Identity: Not all transhumanist-like philosophies limit themselves to changes in the body. Transhumanism itself says nothing about changes in psychology—which is understandable, given that much of what they are interested in isn’t particularly radical in the realm of psychological implications.
But we, otherkin and the associated subcultures, would, in all probability, show a heavy preference for the sort of transhumanist technologies that would have radical pyschological implications. Of course, in the realms of the mind, in many respects we are already transhuman. Our behaviors and identity transcend the species Homo sapiens. When I use the term ‘spirit’ in 'spiritual transhumanism' (shorter than 'transhumanism that deals with concepts that often relate to spirituality), I do not use it in the sense of ghosts and angels. I use it in the sense of psychology—but specific parts of psychology, parts often associated with the concept of ‘spirit’.
Spiritual transhumanism is not quite the same thing as removing human tendencies that we might not want, like change blindness or inattentional blindness. Making the mind able to multitask better, for instance, could theoretically be done by altering how information is processed, and while it would be transhuman (or at least suprahuman), it would not be in the realm of spiritual transhumanism, because spiritual transhumanism deals in identity and similar aspects of human psychology. I do not think multitasking falls under such guidelines… though perhaps I should, given how diverse I know identity can be. In any event, altering that aspect of human psychology would, for most people, not alter their identity in any substantial manner. In large part this is due to people believing that they can multitask effectively even when they can’t.
Then the question might be, “What transhumanist technologies would lead to spiritual transhumanism?” Altering body morphology to be somewhat like another species might be the obvious example, but there are others. Extreme adaptation for a specific environment or task could result in changes in identity; if I am given abilities that make me able to survive underwater my identity will likely be different than if I make myself arboreal. Such changes would not have to be physical, though. If my memory is altered so that I can recall things with perfect accuracy and clarity, that very well could alter my identity tremendously. At the same time, though, it might not alter someone else’s identity if they were not acutely aware of the flaws of memory. Gross physical effects are more likely to alter someone’s identity than changes to their psychology, since they may not notice the changes on a conscious level.
The Value of ‘Humanity’: ‘Humanity’. I hear it said over and over again, that it’s somehow terribly important. But what exactly is humanity? Leaving aside the fact that many individuals get along just fine without humanity in the first place, is getting rid of it necessarily a bad thing?
Primarily, opponents seem to be arguing that transhumanism would create a feeling of distance from the human species. It is understandable that they might worry about this. Historically, feeling different when one was in a position of power led to abuse. However, there are several flaws with applying this to transhumanism.
Firstly, as history so aptly demonstrates, one does not need transhumanist technology to feel distanced from the human species. Class, gender, religion, ethnicity, and family ties can make one feel distanced not only from entire populations (Europeans enslaving Africas) but the human species as a whole (many dictators, arguably many people involved in business). And that doesn’t even take into account the atrocities, far, far worse than anything we have inflicted on each other, that we have performed to other species. Species that, in all probability, are sophonts.
Secondly, many people already have the psychology to feel distanced from humans. Sociopaths seem the most obvious example, but many otherkin also qualify. Many of these people, while they feel little to no emotional connection to the human species, nevertheless accord it the same rights and respect that they would any obviously sentient and sapien species. Instead of seeing humans as superior to other species, they often see humans as equals. Given our past history with other species, I think that that attitude is to be encouraged, rather than discouraged and feared.
Thirdly, one can feel an intense desire to protect and nurture what one is distanced from. I personally can testify that this is true. I feel distanced from reality sometimes, and often feel distanced from the human species and from society. Nonetheless, I regard it as my duty to protect them, simply because I am capable of moral reasoning not tied to my emotional reactions. Many of those who are distanced from humans are capable of that as well. Emotional distance does not automatically translate into hatred or oppression.
But would ridding oneself of ‘humanity’ cause problems? I would answer no, based on the idea that someone born with ‘humanity’ will likely have found rationalizations for their morality, rationalizations which could survive the process of losing an emotional connect with the human species. The purpose of rationalization are to give logical weight to emotional processes.
Of course, leaving ‘humanity’ behind would be difficult for someone who had it already. If someone just increased their speed, or made themselves resistant to disease, then they’d quite possibly not lose emotional connect with the human species, consider themselves part of the human species, and retain ‘humanity’. Even changing identity would not necessarily cause one to lose emotional connections with the human species. I don’t identify as anything that lives in the ocean, or rainforest, but I have strong emotional connections with those biomes.
