![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two New Sections
Sep. 23rd, 2012 06:59 pmIt’s rather understandable that there is not a great volume of transhumanist literature about responsibility, or regulations. One of the strongest strains of transhumanism is libertarianism, and in part Randian libertarianism, which is hardly known for advocating responsibility (her hero crashed the economy, and bears an uncanny resemblence to a noteworthy murderer whom Rand praised) or regulations.
But transhumanists do have responsibilities. We are advocating the overturning of the social order, are we not? Advocating altering society, yes? We want a future where the diversity of species and identity is respected, and one can change their body morphology and make themselves not quite human, do we not? And, therefore, is it not our responsibility to make sure it goes smoothly?
Those fearful of transhumanism fear that it would change society in a negative way. And they are right to be afraid. As with any new technology that radically changes society, transhumanism has risks. It could go bad, very very very bad—but it could also go well. Very, very, very well. Which leaves us with a question.
Transhumanism may well be inevitable. Social and technological progress often is. And it is, at its core, not innately a bad thing. It is also a thing that, if implemented in today’s world, would probably not end well. If transhumanist technologies became available in the day I am writing this, it would be chaos. Religious fundamentalists would scream in fury, we’d see people railing against ‘abominations’. This is the sort of situation that could easily spark riots.
So. Are we to do nothing to prepare society for this point, or are we going to carefully guide society towards a state where it is capable of dealing with this technology, and maximizing the benefits while minimizing the downsides? Some transhumanists would, actually, argue for the former; some simply don’t care.
I do. And I’ll do it alone if I have to.
I care because I did not get transhumanist philosophy from libertarianism, or a belief in making humans ‘better’. I got it from already being transhuman, in the sense that I was not entirely human, and probably never was. My psychology is part cheetah, I don’t display ‘normal’ human emotional reactions—my brain doesn’t function like that of a ‘normal human’. So from being transhuman in mind, it was simple enough to leap to being, or at least supporting being, transhuman in body. I know many therians and otherkin who would benefit greatly from transhumanist technologies, and my encounters with many so-called ‘alternative’ religions and spirituality movements has left me with the conclusion that they might find benefits in it as well. And transhumanist technology, as I stated, can also be used for purposes that don’t actually go beyond being human—curing cancer, for instance, or Alzheimer’s, or hemophilia.
And as for responsibility, regulation. The state is, in a democracy, our tool, or is supposed to be. It is nothing more than an entity that we use to perform our social responsibilities on a mass scale and in an organized fashion. If it is our responsibility to make sure that transhumanist technologies are safe, that requires regulation. If it is our responsibility to make sure that people don’t make transhumanist technologies that allow you to secrete nerve gas from your pores, then that requires regulation.
I have yet to see a prominent transhumanist argue against ‘designer babies’. James Hughes argues for it, and he is rather exceptional in that he is not a libertarian (most transhumanists apparently are). Mostly this lies upon the elimination of chance from genetics. Of course, a child is not a toy; xe is not intended for their parent’s amusement or to be trotted out as an ornament of the latest fashion. Childen are not ornaments. Plants are ornaments. Of course, I do not speak of making modifications to avoid, say, proneness to cancer, or spinal defects. Rather, I speak of making a child have blue skin, or brilliant red hair, or webbed digits, or digitigrade legs, or cat ears.
In my opinion, the kinds of people who would do that are exactly the kinds of people who do not deserve children—chance forces parents to choose between adoption or not procreating for ornamental purposes. But to look at it from the perspective of a therian or otherkin—or, in this case, from the perspective of anyone who is trans*…
There are already enough problems with body dysphoria. Therians, otherkin, trans* people—they go through living hell as they gradually realize what they are and identify one of the sources of suffering in their life, then begin transition if the technology for it is available and it is affordable for them (and often, as I understand it, it isn’t). Imagine, for a moment, if people started making substantial changes to their offspring—and the brain’s image of what it ‘should’ be remains the same.
We do not understand identity. Every single time we think we understand identity, we end up finding something that further confuses us. I personally feel it unlikely that we will ever understand identity. And until we do, we run gigantic risks of having a huge surge in the number of people experiencing acute dysphoria. Gene therapy to correct this is extremely unlikely to ever be quick and easy.
If we did understand identity, and understood the brain fully, then parents would essentially force their children into having specific identities that were consistant with their worldview. Such technology would be so incredibly prone to abuse that I frankly would advise banning it. How many would be forced into identities that were considered ‘appropriate’, or—quite possibly as bad—how many would be paraded around for the purposes of exoticism?
But transhumanists do have responsibilities. We are advocating the overturning of the social order, are we not? Advocating altering society, yes? We want a future where the diversity of species and identity is respected, and one can change their body morphology and make themselves not quite human, do we not? And, therefore, is it not our responsibility to make sure it goes smoothly?
Those fearful of transhumanism fear that it would change society in a negative way. And they are right to be afraid. As with any new technology that radically changes society, transhumanism has risks. It could go bad, very very very bad—but it could also go well. Very, very, very well. Which leaves us with a question.
Transhumanism may well be inevitable. Social and technological progress often is. And it is, at its core, not innately a bad thing. It is also a thing that, if implemented in today’s world, would probably not end well. If transhumanist technologies became available in the day I am writing this, it would be chaos. Religious fundamentalists would scream in fury, we’d see people railing against ‘abominations’. This is the sort of situation that could easily spark riots.
So. Are we to do nothing to prepare society for this point, or are we going to carefully guide society towards a state where it is capable of dealing with this technology, and maximizing the benefits while minimizing the downsides? Some transhumanists would, actually, argue for the former; some simply don’t care.
I do. And I’ll do it alone if I have to.
I care because I did not get transhumanist philosophy from libertarianism, or a belief in making humans ‘better’. I got it from already being transhuman, in the sense that I was not entirely human, and probably never was. My psychology is part cheetah, I don’t display ‘normal’ human emotional reactions—my brain doesn’t function like that of a ‘normal human’. So from being transhuman in mind, it was simple enough to leap to being, or at least supporting being, transhuman in body. I know many therians and otherkin who would benefit greatly from transhumanist technologies, and my encounters with many so-called ‘alternative’ religions and spirituality movements has left me with the conclusion that they might find benefits in it as well. And transhumanist technology, as I stated, can also be used for purposes that don’t actually go beyond being human—curing cancer, for instance, or Alzheimer’s, or hemophilia.
And as for responsibility, regulation. The state is, in a democracy, our tool, or is supposed to be. It is nothing more than an entity that we use to perform our social responsibilities on a mass scale and in an organized fashion. If it is our responsibility to make sure that transhumanist technologies are safe, that requires regulation. If it is our responsibility to make sure that people don’t make transhumanist technologies that allow you to secrete nerve gas from your pores, then that requires regulation.
I have yet to see a prominent transhumanist argue against ‘designer babies’. James Hughes argues for it, and he is rather exceptional in that he is not a libertarian (most transhumanists apparently are). Mostly this lies upon the elimination of chance from genetics. Of course, a child is not a toy; xe is not intended for their parent’s amusement or to be trotted out as an ornament of the latest fashion. Childen are not ornaments. Plants are ornaments. Of course, I do not speak of making modifications to avoid, say, proneness to cancer, or spinal defects. Rather, I speak of making a child have blue skin, or brilliant red hair, or webbed digits, or digitigrade legs, or cat ears.
In my opinion, the kinds of people who would do that are exactly the kinds of people who do not deserve children—chance forces parents to choose between adoption or not procreating for ornamental purposes. But to look at it from the perspective of a therian or otherkin—or, in this case, from the perspective of anyone who is trans*…
There are already enough problems with body dysphoria. Therians, otherkin, trans* people—they go through living hell as they gradually realize what they are and identify one of the sources of suffering in their life, then begin transition if the technology for it is available and it is affordable for them (and often, as I understand it, it isn’t). Imagine, for a moment, if people started making substantial changes to their offspring—and the brain’s image of what it ‘should’ be remains the same.
We do not understand identity. Every single time we think we understand identity, we end up finding something that further confuses us. I personally feel it unlikely that we will ever understand identity. And until we do, we run gigantic risks of having a huge surge in the number of people experiencing acute dysphoria. Gene therapy to correct this is extremely unlikely to ever be quick and easy.
If we did understand identity, and understood the brain fully, then parents would essentially force their children into having specific identities that were consistant with their worldview. Such technology would be so incredibly prone to abuse that I frankly would advise banning it. How many would be forced into identities that were considered ‘appropriate’, or—quite possibly as bad—how many would be paraded around for the purposes of exoticism?
