Fixing What’s Not Broken
“Debating Transhumanism” is a very interesting topic Infidel has posted. We had been having an e-mail chitchat about it, and the further conversation on the blog has been rich food for thought. I’m starting this post here on related ideas, like why it is that we want to avoid death, if there is an afterlife and what it might be like, whether or not we are spiritual beings, and what non-physical parts of a person might be “uploaded” to a computer for preservation.
You can tell from Infidel’s post that I am not too keen on the idea of artificially adding to bodies or minds that are not “broken.” You might also gather that I’m not excited about ever having the chance to “live forever” through some artificial means to subsist in a man-made environment. I don’t think science should be held back, nor should people who want to experiment with their own bodies. They just shouldn’t expect us all to follow suit, and they should not ruin the natural environment that the rest of us currently enjoy.
What you won’t pick up from that post is that “posthumanism” is a word that sends shivers up my spine. After we are simply humans there will be what? Humans living with cyborgs? Only cyborgs? Some machine that runs the reality these cyborgs know? I would rather find out what nature has in store for us, since that’s what got us to this point, rather than see everyone turned partially into machines and experiencing only a virtual reality. Transhumanism is supposedly about loving life, but how can one truly love life if they don’t want to experience it? Yes, death is a part of life, but even non-religious folk cannot prove that physical death is the end. They often ask for proof of an afterlife, but in the same context can’t be bothered for proof there isn’t one. Whether or not death is the end is important when considering if we should ditch some of our humanity in order to “live” forever. I don’t fear death in the least. Getting there? That’s another story. 
But death isn’t scary. Life isn’t scary- except when considering giving up real life for virtual reality.
On “uploading,” well, ourselves for enhancement and preservation, I can only wonder what will actually be uploaded. Memories as pictures and soundtracks? I think the entire essence of a human being cannot be captured in any sort of microchip. In creating computerized “people,” I guess the missing bits of us wouldn’t matter. Especially when there’s the potential to merge our uploaded snapshots to create one big, worldwide family album. Individuality? No need. Say cheese!
One has to question whether or not the normally functioning human brain should be artificially “enhanced,” and if we, as a brilliant commenter brought up, even fully understand what the human mind and spirit is capable of without any artificial meddling. If we were to start artificially embellishing our brains with whatever gadgets before fully realizing our potential without the gadgetry, who’s to say we won’t actually be hobbling ourselves? Who’s to say we actually need any artificial enhancement in order for us to do amazing things?
Foreseeing the future, out of body and after death experiences, and more, all happen. The naysayers won’t accept examples given, yet they can’t explain them away. It’s fine, of course, that many don’t believe in these things, but there should be no expectation that those of us whose lives have been touched by these things should cast aside our own knowledge. I think we are spiritual beings. Saying “I know” this would prompt someone to demand proof, and my super shiny, highly sophisticated spirit capturing machine is at the repair shop. 
I also think we all have intellectual as well as “psychic” potential that can be developed without machines. In spite of machines, even.
As I said earlier in this post, scientific progress shouldn’t be hampered. But just because we know how to do something doesn’t mean we ought to do it or that everyone ought to do it. It seems to me that transhumanists would like to create a whole new world through computers and biotechnology (how else to sustain a multiplying, undying population?). I see the potential population overgrowth and biotechnology as ways to further rape the earth that sustains us, and transhumanism as a form of trying to own nature rather than living harmoniously within it.
Surely there’s plenty I haven’t considered. Your thoughts on this would be very much appreciated.
*** Edit ***
Hrafnkell has a very interesting related post.
Hi Chell,
I think I addressed most of this in the original posting you linked to, but I did have a few comments on specifics.
I realize I’m a bit unclear on what your actual position is. If you agree that it would be wrong to suppress the development of transhumanist technology, what exactly are you saying shouldn’t be done? The point that people shouldn’t have to use it if they don’t want to is a bit of a red herring since no one has ever suggested otherwise.
Your descriptions of what the post-Singulairty human experience would actually be like seriously misrepresents it, by the way, but that’s probably mostly due to my inability to explain it adequately.
Very rapid technological progress and the increased prosperity that goes with it are the only things that will allow us to save the environment. They’re why the environmental situation in the advanced countries has mostly improved over the last century, while the Third World is still much worse off; the latter lacks the technology, and there are higher priorities making claims on what money is available. Only a rich and advanced humanity will make cleaning up the planet a priority. Our biggest problem right now is global warming. Nagging people about how much they drive and what kind of light bulbs they use can’t, in the real world, solve that problem. Nanotechnology can.
Mind uploading must necessarily preserve the entire person, or it wouldn’t be worth doing. Remember my objection to reincarnation; if I die and another entity is born somewhere which is supposed to be a continuation of me, but it doesn’t remember being me, then it isn’t me. Similarly, if I were to be uploaded into a computer, obviously I have to still be myself in every meaningful way, or else I’m not really still alive and it isn’t worth doing.
This concept is probably unfamiliar to most people; more here.
There’s no evidence at all for an afterlife, out-of-body experiences, or similar phenomena — nothing but anecdotes of the same kind that are offered for bigfoot, ghosts, flying saucers, shadowy Jewish conspiracies, etc. It’s impossible to absolutely prove a negative — I can’t prove that unicorns don’t exist, but that doesn’t mean the idea is worth taking seriously until someone presents some real evidence that they do. The burden of proof is on the party making the extraordinary claim. (Even if the existence of such things could be proven, however, I don’t see why they would argue against transhumanism.)
Thanks for your interest. Let’s discuss it again in 100 years.
Infidel753s last blog post..Claiming our rightful destiny
Comment by Infidel753 — May 13, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Fascinating post, Chell, as well as that posted on Infidel’s blog. I read them with great interest. I added a belated comment to Infidel’s and I thought I’d say something here. I can understand why people would want to extend their lives. I think that’s only natural, though I’m more interested in improving the quality of the life I have now. Speculative fiction offers all sorts of avenues towards longer life; regeneration treatments, drugs that prolong life, etc. But the fact seems to be that the human body wears out and apparently, so does the human mind. Even these speculative cures don’t cure death. It claims us all in the end.
I suppose we could transfer our personalities and memories to computers someday (I mentioned David Weber’s novel Armageddon Reef on Infidel’s blog) but I don’t see the point. It wouldn’t be me. Obviously, some would argue that the sum total of me COULD be transferred but I don’t think my memories or an approximation of my personality outside my body is truly me.
I can’t prove I have a soul, but I believe I have one. My ancestors believed we became us, our soul (sál) entered us when we were given a name, and when I die the essence of me leaves my body. My luck, or hamingja (assuming I have any! lol) will go to one of my children. I might preserve my memories and that approximation of my personality elsewhere but I would still be dead. I can’t see humans as files on a computer that can simply be transferred from place to place.
It would seem to me a sad and inferior place where everybody was just an approximation of the person who used to be. Sounds like an episode of Star Trek and not a reality I’d like to experience. The “thing” next to me with my mother’s personality and memories would never actually BE my mother.
Hrafnkells last blog post..Sex in Religion
Comment by Hrafnkell — May 13, 2008 @ 5:53 am
Infidel, when an artificially “immortal” population can grow, unchecked, what physical space will it inhabit? These people will need to exist somewhere. They will need to eat and drink. Some sort of extended biotechnology and artificial means will probably be used to provide sustenance. That will affect the natural state of this planet.
Our biggest problem right now is global warming. Nagging people about how much they drive and what kind of light bulbs they use can’t, in the real world, solve that problem. Nanotechnology can. Sounds like our biggest problems are greed and laziness (some might find nanotechnology appealing because of this), which contribute to global warming. I can see how making things easier would appeal to many, enough to get them to leave a smaller footprint on the planet. Again, nature shouldn’t be altered in order to do this. It should be done in a completely contained environment. Biotechnology has already produced enough sterile seeds that can pollute the good ones and enough spliced genes to upset ecosystems. The “runoff” from some seemingly harmless ideas can greatly affect unwilling participants, and in this case, it would be unacceptable.
Back to the issue of where an even more overgrown population would physically exist, where would they? People have babies. It is essential for our survival in harsh conditions, and it’s not surprising for a population to increase under favorable conditions. There is no on-off switch for this. Would there be a man-made off switch? What if people were unwilling?
I’m glad you mentioned reincarnation. Many people claim to have “memories” of what could have been previous lives. This is one of those areas that I think ought to be more thoroughly studied before we (obviously not every one of us) decide that the end of this life is the end of our being. The burden of proof is on the party making the extraordinary claim. Or the person making whatever claim, like that there is no spirit. Saying that there is no spirit/afterlife/whatever-you-don’t-believe-in and then saying in the same breath that it doesn’t exist because there is no proof is as impressive as saying there is a spirit and offering no proof. It means so little to those who think the opposite. Obviously, to those who do not believe in spirit, that topic has no bearing on whether or not they will try to preserve their current being forever. To others, it’s an important factor.
The desktop computer in front of my face is fine and dandy, and it does help out a lot each day. I’m not more intelligent with it, but it helps me learn. I wouldn’t want it shrunken, given greater power and then attached to my brain in any way, shape, or form. Not like I’d want an artificial limb if I lost one (only if I lost one!). And I am not convinced that everything about a person could be “uploaded.” Along with memories, there are personalities, moods, emotions, and a part of intuition that seem like they couldn’t be captured on a man-made medium.
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Hrafnkell, this is a good point. Scientific progress already has enabled us to fight and eliminate disease, heal ourselves, and extend our life expectancy. From what I gather (remember, this is pretty new to me), transhumanism is partly about not limiting the use of scientific progress when it comes to “enhancing” people. This sounds good on the surface, but I personally have my limits for reasons mostly given already.
Spirit/soul, as well as the existing forgotten and unexplored capabilities of our unaltered minds/beings raise questions on this topic beyond the basic where’s and how’s. Yes, it seems unlikely that a whole personality can be copy-pasted (that’s as technical a term as you will get from me- lol). It also seems that virtual reality is an unfit place for a soul to linger in forever. We might, however, benefit from trapping any bad luck on a disk and feeding it a virus.
BTW, for more information you might visit the World Transhumanist Association.
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 8:19 am
This is all very interesting, especially since I just got done reading another of John Michael Greer’s posts on the coming end of the high-tech era… Gotta love the Internet!
Assuming that we do eventually develop the tech to do brain-implanty stuff, I fear I’d be one of the ones on the sidelines… the longer I work in IT the less I trust computers to do what they’re supposed to do ALL the time, and with one in your brain it would only take one malfunction to really screw up your day…
I have to admit, thought, that my first thought was of the Flight of the Conchords’ great song, The Humans Are Dead. Enjoy!
Eriks last blog post..And another…
Comment by Erik — May 13, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Infidel, when an artificially “immortal” population can grow, unchecked, what physical space will it inhabit? These people will need to exist somewhere.
I already addressed this in the linked posting:
I think that after the Singularity, most human activity will migrate into virtual reality quite rapidly. Billions of people will be able to live like Louis XIV if they feel like it, without occupying any physical space in the “real world” or using any resources except computer processing power. So I’m not worried about overpopulation.
Computer processing power is one thing we will have in abundance. A couple of pounds of nanocircuitry will have about 10,000 times the processing power of all the human brains on Earth combined. Kurzweil speaks of things like humans soon after the Singularity breaking up Jupiter and Saturn and converting the mass into nanocircuitry. We won’t be dependent on the planet Earth any more. If anything, I imagine it might be simply left to revert to its natural state.
Before we get to that point, as I said, molecular manufacturing will enable us to produce whatever the world’s population needs without damaging the environment the way our existing industries do.
Whatever we do, the population will keep growing or at least remain large. Won’t it be better to develop better technology to meet those people’s needs, so we can do so without polluting and exploiting the environment as we do now?
Sounds like our biggest problems are greed and laziness
People will be greedy and lazy whether we have nanotechnology or not. If we have nanotechnology, their greed and laziness will do less damage than it does now.
Again, nature shouldn’t be altered in order to do this.
Nothing I’m talking about would involve altering nature. It would mean becoming independent of nature so that we can leave it alone.
The “runoff” from some seemingly harmless ideas can greatly affect unwilling participants, and in this case, it would be unacceptable.
The status quo is that most of the Earth’s population lives in abject poverty and everybody alive is doomed to die of a ghastly, wasting disease. To me, that’s unacceptable.
Infidel753s last blog post..It ain’t over till it’s over
Comment by Infidel753 — May 13, 2008 @ 8:46 am
ROFLMAO!! “The Humans Are Dead,” and my monitor was nearly soaked in coffee a few times. That’s awesome!
Erik, thank you for sharing the links. I must bookmark John Michael Greer and add to my reader. Sensible words in the post you referenced.
I agree completely about the chance for “glitches.” People will be creating whatever it is that will supposedly (searching for the proper word… still searching…) store us. Whatever technology people create will have glitches. And even when this technology starts creating itself, it will still have been based on a man-made design.
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Infidel, if some of the population wishes to exist in a man-made, controlled environment that’s separate and harmless to the natural environment, and if they wish to live forever in a virtual reality, I think that’s absolutely fine. I consider people to be a part of nature, but those who wish to, in a sense, break free of this, and who think a man-made environment would be best ought to be allowed to live as they wish.
Please explain how a human being doesn’t occupy any physical space. Yes, you did say before that people could just exist in a virtual reality and not consume resources. Would these people simply be “enhanced” by technology, or would they just not exist other than through that technology? That is just the type of thing I would like to avoid. Again, that’s in addition to the spiritual questions and those on what our minds can already do. I’m really not trying to be thick in the head, but if people only exist in a virtual reality, what happens when that virtual reality is unplugged?
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Chell, I’m not sure these comments are welcome. If not then please let me know, here or in e-mail, and no hard feelings. Feel free to delete this if it seems provocative.
I tend to be more aligned with your view, though for different reasons, I suspect. I do not lust for eternal life in corporeal form and I don’t believe in a soul or spirit that survives after death. I think how we live and the effect we have on others is more important than how long we live. Immortality is found in the memory of those we leave behind. George Washington is dead and gone yet he will live on as long as man respects and honors the qualities of virtue, courage, unselfishness, and honor that made him great and lead him to leave us such a wonderful and historic legacy. It seems to me that personalities uploaded into some virtual universe are just a hedonist fantasy. These would just be parasites in a virtual petri dish indulging their sensual desires without physical limitations to restrain them but contributing nothing to mankind. Where is there room for honor in this virtual wet dream, and what is life and intellect without honor? Who are the slaves who are to maintain and expand this virtual universe? If it is all to be automated then physical humans would be far too great a threat to be allowed to exist. What would keep them from regarding the ultimate escapists with the contempt they deserved and acting accordingly?
When man tries to control evolution he will have taken a large step towards extinction. It is inherent in the nature of the universe. Civilization by it’s nature tends to effect evolution but it still works in it’s way. Under man’s control it will lead to a uniformity and specialization that will leave mankind on the brink of extinction. In any case the process of evolution will have no place in the virtual playpen. Like toy soldiers whose clothes and weapons grow obsolete with the passage of time these perpetual children would remain static while life progresses and leaves them behind.
An interface that would permit the mind to access the data storage and computational power of computers would certainly enhance man’s capability but the idea of technology matching or supplanting the brain in our lifetimes is a fantasy. We are so very far from even understanding how our minds and bodies work. At this point AI is to intelligence what cave drawings are to a person’s body. It will become an ever closer approximation of what it copies but we are such a long way from approaching the sophistication of even a cockroach brain that to think we will reach human levels in our lifetime is unrealistic, I think.
In any case too much of this is heading in the wrong direction to my mind. Humanity should strive for something nobler than a giant Sims game.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Please explain how a human being doesn’t occupy any physical space. Yes, you did say before that people could just exist in a virtual reality and not consume resources.
Since my previous attempts to summarize this evidently didn’t clarify it successfully, all I can suggest is that you read the whole previous posting I wrote about it, which does actually cover a lot of the points raised here.
I’m really not trying to be thick in the head, but if people only exist in a virtual reality, what happens when that virtual reality is unplugged?
People will exist in networks of nanocircuitry in exactly the same way that they now exist in organic brains (the posting I cited above should clarify this). Virtual-reality environments, including bodies of whatever type people wish to have, will be created or turned off as people choose. Turning off a vitrual-reality environment will no more endanger a person’s existence than leaving a chess game does.
I agree completely about the chance for “glitches.” People will be creating whatever it is that will supposedly (searching for the proper word… still searching…) store us. Whatever technology people create will have glitches.
I don’t expect that this technology will be absolutely reliable. Nothing can be. I do expect that it will eventually be, say, a billion times more reliable than the biological substrate (organic bodies and brains) on which we depend right now, with the additional advantage of not being subject to deterioration over time or to disease, injury, etc.
Infidel753s last blog post..It ain’t over till it’s over
Comment by Infidel753 — May 13, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Most of the electrons in existence to today have existed since the Big Bang. MOST! Anything much more complex is subject to damage and or decay. Organic organisms have evolved to be self repairing and renewing to a large degree and machines can perhaps copy some of this. No technology is above deterioration, decay, and damage. The planet itself is vulnerable. Security for the species lays in expansion beyond this planet and star and and in the wide physical diversity this will allow.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Mac, the more provocative the better. If it gives others something to think more about or to stew about, that’s good, and thank you for doing just that. I have deleted very few comments from this blog. Only spam, and a couple of filthy remarks.
You really did bring up some great points. I do agree with you on these points, and for mostly the same reasons. “When man tries to control evolution he will have taken a large step towards extinction.” That should be framed. Yes, someone who isn’t living in the virtual world, someone still human, would have to tend to the others, because this natural world and all the realities of it would still exist. That’s a very interesting probability, that those in the virtual world would be left behind in the big picture. How true- they certainly wouldn’t be evolving or learning anything new in the real world. “Where is there room for honor in this virtual wet dream, and what is life and intellect without honor?” Again, agreed. Probably different even than many who wouldn’t like to be “enhanced,” but I do highly value honor. The last part of your comment I’m getting whiplash from nodding to. After all, it is humans who will create this artificial intelligence, and not the other way around. Probably I’d get a little excited if I saw a computer create a living, breathing human being. “We are so very far from even understanding how our minds and bodies work.” We probably differ a lot in opinion on this. I think that is an accurate statement, but I also think that it applies to the things we might now be able to do with our minds, and not even realize yet that we are capable of them.
Heehee… Sims is fun, but imagine if we had “real live” Sims to play with…
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
“Turning off a vitrual-reality environment will no more endanger a person’s existence than leaving a chess game does.”
But not turning it back on would.
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Chell, I’m an atheist and don’t believe in a spiritual existence but I do not close my mind to possibilities. I simply don’t know enough to make sweeping statements on someone else’s beliefs. I find much more persuasive support for religion or spirituality than for the cult belief in man made global warming, for example, and that is one of the most oppressive and PC religions out there. It is considered utter heresy to doubt or question it, with some proponents suggesting doubters should be cast out of there fields and even denied basic services and rights. My own lack of faith is not conclusive evidence in my view. I watch and look, and plan to explore Infidel’s linked articles.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Look at the cybor abuse and vandalism that takes place now. Imagine a hacker having a portal into your mind and personality.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
My son wonders what would happen if terrorists decided not to enter that virtual reality and were left “on the outside” to do as they pleased with all of the dependents on such technology.
Mac, that’s good. An open mind means personal growth and fairness to others.
I’ve never seen the belief of man-made global warming as a cult, but then, I’ve never had to butt heads with anyone who believes we contribute to global warming. I think we contribute greatly, and must cut our pollution. Of course there are other factors to global warming as well, ones we have no control over. But the pollution- there’s no reason to keep that up. Maybe this stance makes me a member of the cult?
Infidel did mention the fact that those people living in a virtual reality will not be polluting the environment.
Comment by Chell — May 13, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Technology of that kind will consume energy and produce heat. These will unavoidable effect the environment.
I call the man made global warming movement a cult because they seek control and power based on mythology that not only is not supported by science and observation but requires ignoring and distorting the real and historical data to support. This is why they must demonize and attack anyone who challenges or questions their point of view. Proper scientific theories do not require an Inquisition to suppress opposition.
What is pollution? If carbon dioxide is pollution then what isn’t. Our planet’s natural atmosphere was high in CO2 but O2 was very scarce. The 20% of our atmosphere that is O2 is pollution by the dominant life form on the planet. What mixture from what period of time is the “right” or “natural” atmosphere? The air today in many places is cleaner than it was decades ago. Should we set that back to be closer to the past?
The climate on earth has never been static. We have had several significant cooling periods just in the last two thousand years. The factors that effect these are so far beyond our ability to influence that it is almost criminal to inflict the kind of suffering on mankind that is being called for in the name of stopping this. When it becomes impossible to ignore the fact we are headed for a major cooling period as history and the data indicate will these people advocate increased industrialization, coal burning power plants, less government control, and more cars, since they have said these things all cause warming which would offset the global cooling? The earth’s climate has NEVER been static. What is the target temperature we are to shoot for. Warmer temps will mean more food and better quality of life. One of the factors causing food shortages today is the global cooling of the last decade which has reduced food production in formerly fertile areas. It has undone all the warming that took place in the last century. This is directly against the climate models being used to push global warming. This is really like a which doctor pointing at an eclipse and demanding the sacrifice of a virgin to bring the sun back. The shrill calls increase as it becomes apparent that the scam will be exposed.
Machinists last blog post..Peace.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
As with most cults the perfidy is on the part of the leaders. Most of the followers are lead astray by the misinformation being peddled by the leaders. The leaders rarely fail to know better, they are using their control of the followers to push their own agenda. This is what sets a cult apart from a religion to me. Reverend Moon did not buy into his own BS for a second. Neither does Al Gore or George Soros.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
The answers to mankind’s problems lie in advanced technology, but that technology must be to serve man, not replace him, and not for it’s own sake.
Comment by Machinist — May 13, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
On transhumanism, the personal conclusion I come to at this time is that a computer of any sort will not store or “house” a person any more than a photo album does now. Even if it will, a virtual reality, is not a suitable place (again, personal conclusion) for a person to spend every moment of all of time. Any person uploaded to that existence would be nothing more than a computer program, and dependent upon machines. Reality would still exist, and I think our bodies and our spirits are a part of this natural world and a natural life.
Mac, global warming is a pretty big topic, and I would like to at least post a small blurb about it after I’ve tamed the messy house and caught up on some other stuff.
Comment by Chell — May 14, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I’ll look forward to it, Ma’am.
Machinists last blog post..Peace.
Comment by Machinist — May 14, 2008 @ 10:13 am