Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
When it comes to political memes, transhumanism
in its purest form doesn't have any fixed niche.
Instead each host or group of hosts link it to their
previous political views. (Sandberg, 1994)
Since the advent of the Enlightenment, the idea that the human condition can
be improved through reason, science and technology has been mated with all
varieties of political ideology. Partisans of scientific human betterment have
generally been opponents of, and opposed by, the forces of religion, and
therefore have generally tilted towards cosmopolitan, cultural liberalism. But
there have been secular cosmopolitans, committed to human progress
through science, who were classical liberals or libertarians, as well as
liberal democrats, social democrats and communists. There have also been
technocratic fascists, attracted to racialism by eugenics, and to nationalism
by the appeal of the unified, modernizing nation-state.
With the emergence of cyberculture, the technoutopian meme-plex has
found a natural medium, and has been furiously mutating and crossbreeding
with political ideologies. One of its recent manifestations has adopted the
label transhumanism, and within this sparsely populated but broad
ideological tent many proto-ideological hybrids are stirring. Much
transhumanist proto-politics is distinctly the product of elitist, male,
American libertarianism, limiting its ability to respond to concerns behind
the growing Luddite movement, such as with the equity and safety of
innovations. Committed only to individual liberty, libertarian transhumanists
have little interest in building solidarity between posthumans and
normals, or in crafting techno-utopian projects which can inspire broad
social movements.
In this paper I will briefly discuss the political flavors of transhumanism
that have developed in the last dozen years, including extropian
libertarianism, the liberal democratic World Transhumanist Association,
website, taking him to task for selfishness, elitism and escapism. She
subsequently published the book Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp through the
Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech (2001). Mark Dery excoriated the
extropians and a dozen related techno-culture trends in his 1997 Escape
Velocity, coining the dismissive phrase body-loathing for those, like the
extropians, who want to escape from their meat puppet (body).
The extropian list often was filled with vituperative attacks on divergent
points of view, and those who had been alienated by the extropians but were
nonetheless sympathetic with transhumanist views began to amount a
sizable group. Although Mores wife, Natasha Vita-More, is given prominent
acknowledgement of her transhumanist arts and culture projects, there are
few women involved in the extropian subculture, and there have been
women who left the list citing the dominant adolescent, hyper-masculine
style of argumentation. In a February/March 2002 poll more than 80% of
extropians were male, and more than 50% were under 30 years old
(ExiCommunity Polls, 2002). In 1999 and 2000 the European fellowtravelers of the extropians began to organize and meet, and the World
Transhumanist Association was organized with founding documents
distinctly less libertarian than the Extropian Principles. In the latter 1990s,
as transhumanism broadened its social base, a growing number of nonlibertarian voices began to make themselves heard on the extro email lists.
Responding to these various trends and presumably his own philosophical
maturation, More revamped his principles in 2000 from Version 2.6 to
Version 3.0, and from five principles into seven: 1. Perpetual Progress, 2.
Self-Transformation, 3. Practical Optimism, 4. Intelligent Technology, 5.
Open Society, 6. Self-Direction, and 7. Rational Thinking. In Version 3.0,
More adapts the previous, anarcho-capitalist Spontaneous Order into the
much more moderately libertarian:
5. Open Society Supporting social orders that
foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and
experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social
control and favoring the rule of law and
decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining
over battling, and exchange over compulsion.
Openness to improvement rather than a static
utopia.
6. Self-Direction Seeking independent thinking,
individual freedom, personal responsibility, selfdirection, self-esteem, and respect for others
In a more extensive commentary on his 3.0 principles More explicitly
departs from the elitist, Randian position of enlightened selfishness, and
argues for both a consistent rule of law and for civic responsibility.
..for individuals and societies to flourish, liberty
must come with personal responsibility. The
demand for freedom without responsibility is an
adolescents demand for license. (More, 2000).
He also argues that extropianism is not libertarian and can be compatible
with a number of different types of liberal open societies, although not in
theocracies or authoritarian or totalitarian systems. (More, 2000).
However, as a casual review of the traffic on the extropian lists confirms, the
majority of extropians remain staunch libertarians. In a survey of extropian
list participants conducted in February and March
of 2002, 56% of the respondents identified as "libertarian" or "anarchist/selfgovernance," with another 15% committed to (generally minarchist)
alternative political visions (ExiCommunity Polls, 2002).[1][1] In the
recommended economics and societyreading list that More attaches to the
3.0 version of the principles, the political economy readings still strongly
suggest an anarcho-capitalist orientation:
Ronald H. Coase The Firm, the Market, and the Law
David Friedman The Machinery of Freedom (2nd Ed.)
Kevin Kelly Out of Control
Friedrich Hayek The Constitution of Liberty
Karl Popper The Open Society and Its Enemies
Julian Simon The Ultimate Resource (2nd ed.)
Julian Simon & Herman Kahn (eds) The Resourceful Earth
(More, 2000)
As the Julian Simon readings suggest, most extropians also remain explicitly
and adamantly opposed to the environmental movement, advancing the
arguments of Julian Simon and others that the eco-system is not really
threatened, and if it is, the only solution is more and better technology[2][2].
There are occasional discussions on the extropian list about the potential
downsides or catastrophic consequences of emerging technologies, but these
are generally waved off as being either easily remediable or acceptable risks
given the tremendous rewards.
This form of argumentation is more understandable in the context of the
millennial apocalyptic expectations which most transhumanists have
adopted, referred to as the Singularity. The extropians Singularity is a
coming rupture in social life, brought about by some confluence of genetic,
cybernetic and nano technologies. The concept of the Singularity was first
proposed by science fiction author Vernor Vinge in a 1993 essay, referring
specifically to the apocalyptic consequences of the emergence of self-willed
artificial intelligence, projected to occur with the next couple of decades. In
a February-March 2002 poll of extropians, the average year in which
respondents expected the next major breakthrough or shakeup that will
radically reshape the future of humanity was 2017. Only 21% said there
would be no such event, just equal acceleration across all areas. The
majority of extropians who expected a Singularity expected it to emerge
from computing or artificial intelligence, a medical breakthrough or an
advance in nanotechnology (ExiCommunity Polls, 2002).
Among millenarian movements, belief in the Singularity is uniquely
grounded in rational, scientific argument about measurable exponential
trends. For instance, singularitarians such as Ray Kurzweil
(Kurzweilai.net) map the exponential growth of computing power (Moores
Law) and memory against the computing capacity of the human brain to
argue for the immanence of machine minds. However, the popularity of the
idea of the Singularity also stems from the transcultural appeal of visions of
apocalypse and redemption. The Singularity is a vision of techno-Rapture
for secular, alienated, relatively powerless, techno-enthusiasts (Bozeman,
1997).[3][3] The appeal of the Singularity for libertarians such as the
extropians is that, like the Second Coming, it does not require any specific
collective action. The Singularity is literally a deus ex machina. Ayn Rand
envisioned society sinking into chaos once the techno-elite withdrew into
their Valhalla. But the Singularity will elevate the techno-savvy elite while
most likely wiping out everybody else.
For instance, responding to a challenge from Mark Dery about the socioeconomic implications of robotic ascension, Extropian Board member Hans
Moravec responded the socioeconomic implications are largely
irrelevant. It doesnt matter what people do, because theyre going to be left
behind like the second stage of a rocket. Unhappy lives, horrible deaths, and
failed projects have been part of the history of life on Earth ever since there
was life; what really matters in the long run is whats left over (Moravec
quoted by Goertzel, 2000). Working individually to stay on the cutting edge
of technology, transforming oneself into a post-human, is the extropians
best insurance of surviving and prospering through the Singularity.
Future Political Role for Extropians
In the last couple of years the neo-Luddite movement has grown in
coordination and political visibility, from movements against gene-mod
food, cloning and stem cells, to President Bushs appointment of staunch
bio-conservative ethicist Leon Kass as his chief bioethics advisor and chair
of the Presidents Council on Bioethics (PCB). Kass in turn appointed fellow
bio-Luddites to the PCB, such as Francis Fukuyama, author of the recent
anti-genetic engineering manifesto Our Posthuman Future: Consequences
of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002).
Despite faith in the inevitability of the millennium, the neo-Luddites have
sufficiently alarmed the extropians that in 2001 Natasha Vita-More
announced the creation of the Progress Action Coalition ("Pro-Act"), an
extropian political action committee. The groups announced intention is to
build a coalition of groups to defend high technology against the Luddites.
Speaking at the event, artist and "cultural catalyst"
Natasha Vita-More, Pro-Act Director, said the
fledgling organization aims to build a coalition of
groups that will take on a broad range of neoLuddites opposed to new technologies such as
genetic engineering, nanotechnology and artificial
Fascist Transhumanism
In 1909 the Italian writer Filippo Tommaso Marinetti published his
Manifesto of Futurism in the Parisian newspaper Le Figaro. In it he called
for a new aesthetic and approach to life.
FM-2030s Upwingers
Ironically, one of the first contemporary left futurists or radical democratic
transhumanists was FM-2030, the creator of the term transhuman. FM2030 spelled out his political philosophy in a series of books written in the
1970s and 1980s. Like the Greens, he argued that his politics were neither
left nor right-wing, but rather upwing: The UpWing philosophy is a
visionary new thrust beyond Right and Left-wing, beyond conservative and
conventional radical. (FM-2030, 1975).
However, he argued for transcending both capitalism and socialism by
automating work and expanding leisure. In place of authoritarianism and
representative democracy FM-2030 argued for direct electronic
democracy. In place of fractious nation-states FM-2030 argued for world
government and citizenship.
We want to help accelerate the thrust beyond
nations, ethnic groups, races to create a global
consciousness, global institutions, a global
language, global citizenship, global free flow of
people, global commitments. (FM-2030, 1975).
FM-2030 wrote only a couple of pages about upwing political philosophy
before his death in 2000 and those opinions seem to have been mostly
ignored by the extropians. However, radical democratic or left futurists can
certainly claim FM-2030 as one of their forebears.
and Cooperation (2001), is an argument with the Left over the relevance of
sociobiological constraints on human nature and politics. Singer contends
that there is a biologically rooted tendency towards selfishness and hierarchy
which has defeated attempts at egalitarian social reform. If the Left program
of social reform is to succeed, Singer argues, we must employ the new
genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of
human nature that cause conflict and competition. Singer also embraces a
program of socially subsidized, but voluntary, genetic improvement, while
rejecting coercive reproductive policies and eugenic pseudo-science.
Disabled Cyborgs
The most technologically dependent humans today are disabled people in the
wealthier industrialized countries. They have pioneered the use of
wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, novel computing interfaces and portable
computing. Many people with disabilities are embracing the transgressive
image of the cyborgs, some with an explicit influence from Harawayan
cyborgology (Gosling, 2002). Paraplegic journalist John Hockenberry
recently summed up the disabled transhumanist perspective in Wired:
Humanity's specs are back on the drawing board,
thanks to some unlikely designers, and the disabled
have a serious advantage in this conversation.
They've been using technology in collaborative,
intimate ways for years - to move, to
communicate, to interact with the world. People
with disabilities - who for much of human history
died or were left to die - are now, due to medical
technology, living full lives. As they do, the
definition of humanness has begun to widen.
(Hockenberry, 2001)
Probably the most prominent symbol of disabled transhumanist activism
these days is Christopher Reeves, the former Superman actor who became a
tireless campaigner for biomedical research after an horse-riding accident
left him quadriplegic. Reeves has been especially important as a leading
symbol of the fight to defend the use of clonal embryos in stem cell
research.
There is now also an explicitly transhumanist organization for people with
disabilities, the Ascender Alliance. Founded by Alan Pottinger, the founding
manifesto of the Ascenders advocate removing political, cultural,
biological, and psychological limits to self-realization and augmentation.
However, their core documents also articulate several positions that are
distinctive within transhumanist circles. The Ascenders are opposed to
eugenics and permanent germline modification of the human genome, and
concerned that future projects for human betterment and transcendence may
leave behind the disabled. Further, and uniquely among transhumanists, they
articulate a right to ascension for all:
Biopunk
Another genre that intersects with transhumanist concerns, and which has an
generally radical and anti-corporate orientation, is biopunk
(Quinon, 1997). Biopunk is a spin-off of cyberpunk (Person,
2000). Instead of exploring the human interface with technology,
biopunks focus more on biotechnology and genetic enhancement of
humans and animals. The central writer in this genre is Paul
DiFilippo, author of the tongue-in-cheek 1994 Ribofunk
Manifesto. DiFilippo argued for writers to embrace the coming
biotechnological revolution as the central feature of future society.
One ribofunk slogan proposed by DiFilippo is Anatomy is
destiny--but anatomy is malleable.
Annalee Newitz (2002) detects an emergent biopunk ethos in the work of
artists and anti-corporate genetics researchers.
Biopunk shares with cyberpunk a spirit of social
critique in the sciences, and a commitment to
limiting corporate control of data Biopunks can
therefore call on a venerable tradition of
philosophical thought when they raise objections
to how scientists are gathering and using genomic
data. Moreover, biopunks often protest misuses of
the human body and its reproductive functions,
which makes biopunk a considerably more
feminist and queer movement than straight-guy
cyberpunk ever was (Biopunk is) all about
protesting both "bio-Luddites and apologists for
the biotech industry."
Newitz writes about the biopunk Coalition of Artists and Life Forms
(CALF), a loose network of artists who are excited about, even celebratory
about biotechnology, but critical of its capitalist exploitation and limitations.
Afrofuturism, Feminist and Queer Speculative Fiction
In the 1990s a number of cultural critics, notably the white progressive critic
of extropianism Mark Dery in his 1995 essay Black to the Future, began to
write about the features they saw as common in African-American science
fiction, music and art. Dery dubbed this phenomenon Afrofuturism,
launching a small movement (Thomas, 2000). The
website www.afrofuturism.net explains that the movement is composed of
African diaspora musicians, science fictions writers, film makers and artists
who work explores their common experience of abduction, displacement
and alien-nation. The afro-futurists posit that futurism an science fiction are
the best ways to explore the black experience.
By contrast the engagement of feminism with technoutopian thinking and
speculative fiction is quite venerable. Feminists have been writing
speculative futurism and fiction for a hundred years, and now have their own
journals, anthologies and awards. They have also been exploring the ways in
which reproductive technologies may be liberatory for women. Shulamith
Firestone proposed in her 1970 feminist classic The Dialectic of Sex The
Case for Feminist Revolution that women would only be finally freed from
patriarchy when artificial wombs were common place, freeing women from
their necessary role as incubators. Joanna Russs 1975 The Female
Man proposed lesbian separatist communities sustained by parthenogenesis
(Russs, 1975; Pountney, 2001), and more recent feminist authors, such as
biology professor Joan Slonczewski (1986), have envisioned all-female,
genetically modified post-human species more egalitarian and in touch with
nature. Although feminists today are generally Luddite and suspicious of
the new reproductive technologies, there are contemporary technoutopian
feminists, such as Dion Farquhar (1995, 1996), who see the liberatory
potentials in reproductive technology, and who could be recruited to
transhumanism.
As for queer futurism, there is also a thriving GLBT science fiction
subculture. The most active pro-cloning activist in the United States, Randy
Wicker, founder of the Clone Rights United Front [www.humancloning.org],
is also a veteran of the gay rights struggle. Wicker has written about why gay
activists should be interested in defending the broadest possible definition of
reproductive rights, including access to reproductive technologies (Sherer,
2001; Datalounge, 1997; Wicker, 2000). As for the transgender community,
what could be more transhuman than deciding to change ones gender, or
even more radically, to choose a new biological gender altogether? FM2030 included androgyny as an aspect of transhumanity, and in a poll of
extropians conducted in February/March 2002 8% of respondents listed their
gender as Other (neither, both, combination, changing, indeterminate,
variable, complicated, etc.). But the transcending of biological sex-gender
is a little explored part of the transhumanist agenda.
The Political Future of Transhumanism
In April 2000 Wired magazine published an essay by Bill Joy, the chief
technologist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems, and inventor of the
computer language Java. Joys essay, titled Why the Future Doesnt Need
Us, contemplated the potentially apocalyptic consequences of three
emerging technologies, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robots
imbued with artificial intelligence. The key and qualitatively different, threat
that Joy said arises from these technologies is that they all can potentially
self-replicate. While guns dont breed other guns and go on killing sprees,
gene-tailored plagues, future robots and nanophages can theoretically do just
that. Because of this qualitatively different threat Joy insists that these
technologies and research on them be relinquished, or banned worldwide.
The essay was especially arresting to transhumanists for having been written
by a man with impeccable technologist credentials, adding to a growing
sense of urgency about the growing strength and visibility of the NeoLuddite movement (Bailey, 2001b). Also in 2000, a coalition of dozens of
organizations joined with the Turning Point foundation to sponsor a series of
full-page ads in national newspapers decrying species extinction, genetic
engineering, industrial agriculture, economic globalization, and
technomania. National and international efforts were launched to outlaw
cloning and to stop federal funding of stem cell research. Anarchist Luddites
involved in the anti-globalization movement were thrust into international
prominence with the anti-WTO riots in Seattle in 1999, while anti-biotech
activists lobbied the European Parliament and destroyed research facilities.
Speaking to the Extro 5 conference in 2001, extropian leader Greg Burch
argued:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb062001.html
_____. 2001. Rage Against the Machines: Witnessing the birth of the neoLuddite movement, Reason, July.
http://www.reason.com/0107/fe.rb.rage.html
_____. 2000. The Pursuit of Happiness: Controversial philosopher Peter
Singer argues for animal rights, utilitarian ethics, and A Darwinian
Left. Interviewed by Ronald Bailey, Reason, December.
http://www.reason.com/0012/rb.the.html
Balsamo, Anne. 1996. Technologies of the Gendered Body : Reading Cyborg
Women. Duke University Press.
Berube, David. 1996. Nanosocialism, Part2 1-5. NanoTechnology
Magazine.
"Nanosocialism, Part 1: An Introduction," NanoTechnology Magazine,
2:4, April, 1996, pp. 2-3; "Nanosocialism, Part 2: Case Against
Capitalism," NanoTechnology Magazine, 2:5, May, 1996, pp. 4-6;
"Nanosocialism, Part 3: Transition Economics," NanoTechnology
Magazine, 2:6, June, 1996, pp. 7-10; "Nanosocialism, Part 4:
Transition Geopolitics," NanoTechnology Magazine, 2:7, July, 1996,
pp. 6-9; and "Nanosocialism, Part 5: Capitalist Structures,"
NanoTechnology Magazine, 2:8, August, 1996, pp. 3-5.
http://www.cla.sc.edu/THSP/faculty/berube/nanosoc.htm
Borsook, Paulina. 2000. CyberSelfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly
Libertarian Culture of High-Tech. Public Affairs.
Bostrom, Nick, et al. 1998. The Transhumanist Declaration.
http://www.transhumanism.com/declaration.htm.
____ et al. 1999. The Transhumanist FAQ.
http://www.transhumanist.org.
____. 2001. Transhumanist Values. Department of Philosophy, Yale
University.
http://www.nickbostrom.com/tra/values.html
____. 1997. Escape Velocity : Cyberculture at the End of the Century. Grove
Press.
____. 2001. The Horrors of Bio-Tech RadioNation, April 18 - 24, 2001.
http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?
file=webactive/radionation/rn20010418.rm&start="23:05.0"
DiFilippo, Paul. 1994. Ribofunk: The Manifesto.
http://www.streettech.com/bcp/BCPgraf/Manifestos/Ribofunk.html
Ettinger, Robert. 1972. Man into Superman. St. Martins Press.
Eugenicus, Marcus. 2001. (Prometheism) Principles and Goals.
http://www.prometheism.net/
Exi-Community Poll, March 10, 2002.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExI-Community/
Farquhar, Dion. 1995. Reproductive technologies are here to
stay, Sojourner 20(5, Jan): 6-7.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/rt21/procreative/Farquhar.htm
____. 1996. The Other Machine : Discourse and Reproductive
Technologies. Routledge.
Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex The Case for Feminist
Revolution. William Morrow.
FM-2030. 1989. Are You a Transhuman? Warner Books
____. 1977a. Telespheres. Popular Library, CBS Publications
____. 1977b. Up-Wingers. Popular Library, CBS Publications.
____. 1970. Optimism One: The Emerging Radicalism. W.W.Norton &
Company, Inc.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the
http://members.tripod.com/karljahn/trans.html
Kirkup, Gill et al. eds. 1999. The Gendered Cyborg : A Reader. Routledge.
Kuhse, Helga and Peter Singer. 1985. Should the Baby Live - The Problem
of Handicapped Infants. Oxford University Press.
Lerner, Sally. 1994. Future of Work: The Future of Work in North America:
Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, Beyond Jobs, Futures (26) 2 185-917.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/safe/r-world/wofw/future.html
Lovink, Geert. 1996. Building a Progressive, Pragmatic Futurism
http://www.telefonica.es/fat/dery.html
MacLeod, Ken. 1995. The Star Fraction. Legend: UK.
____. 1997. The Stone Canal. Legend: UK.
____. 1998. The Cassini Division. Orbit: UK.
____. 1999. The Sky Road. Orbit: UK.
____. 2000. Cosmonaut Keep. Orbit: UK.
____. 2001. Dark Light. Orbit: UK.
Marinetti, F.T. 1909. The Manifesto of Futurism (Paris) Le
Figaro, February 20.
http://www.unknown.nu/futurism/manifesto.html
Maslow, Abraham. 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being (2nd ed.).
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Moller, Karl. 1996. The Transhuman Principles - An Analysis.
http://www.humanist.de/erik/Transhuman_Principles/princip.htm
More, Max. 1990. Transhumanism: Towards a Futurist Philosophy.
Extropy, 6, Summer 1990, 6-12.
http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/tech/032000te.htm
[4] After the presentation of the first draft of this essay at a conference in
October 2002, at which I met WTA chair Nick Bostrom and journal editor
Mark Walker, I became deeply involved in re-organizing the WTA. That
early version of this essay became a matter of contention when extropians
perceived my involvement to be an effort to make the WTA a vehicle for
left politics. Those concerns appear to have been more or less put to rest,
and I currently serve as Executive Director of the WTA.
[5] http://www.anzwers.org/free/chimaera/te.html
[6] http://www.econ.ucl.ac.be/etes/bien/bien.html
[7] http://www.progress.org/dividend/index.shtml
[8] http://www.pacificnews.org/contributors/anderson/
[9] http://biotech.about.com/cs/bioremediation1/