Transhumanism Vs. A Conservative Death Ethos
This piece by Edward Hudgins in the latest Atlas Society newsletter is a pre-review of a book by Zoltan Istvan
In this short piece, Hudgins briefly addresses the central argument in Istvan's book.
He also address the argument of Wesley Smith a conservative detractor of both Istvan's argument and of Transhumanism in general.
It is not clear whether Istvan is making a case that Transhumanism is a beneficial movement.
Smith makes the case that Transhumanism is not beneficial because it is inherently selfish.
Hudgins makes the case that Transhumanism is not only beneficial but compatible with Objectivism precisely because it is selfish.
I find Transhumanism disconcerting.
Aristotle speaks of form and function being integral to each other.
He also speaks of human ethics being integral to this form and function.
Ayn Rand resurrected Aristotle's approach to ethics: "man qua man".
As an Objectivist, I believe that Aristotle and Rand are correct in their approach to the question of human ethics.
Marxists consider men evil and imperfect because men are not and yet should be ants, bees, or some other collective hive-mind insect.
Smith considers the Transhumanist possibility of immortality to be selfish because men are and should be plants which must "go to seed".
Transhumanists consider "man" to be a phase which man is passing through.
None of these lines of thought address the Objectivist ethical tenet of "man qua man".
Transhumanism strikes me as inherently Nietzschean.
If the Transhumanist possibility of immortality succeeds, then we would no longer be longer "men".
It is not only humanism which will have been transformed, but according to Nietzsche and Aristotle our values as well.
What then would be our ethic?
My concern is not of a Luddite nature.
It is more "Popeye" - "I am what I am".
Your comments are welcome.
In this short piece, Hudgins briefly addresses the central argument in Istvan's book.
He also address the argument of Wesley Smith a conservative detractor of both Istvan's argument and of Transhumanism in general.
It is not clear whether Istvan is making a case that Transhumanism is a beneficial movement.
Smith makes the case that Transhumanism is not beneficial because it is inherently selfish.
Hudgins makes the case that Transhumanism is not only beneficial but compatible with Objectivism precisely because it is selfish.
I find Transhumanism disconcerting.
Aristotle speaks of form and function being integral to each other.
He also speaks of human ethics being integral to this form and function.
Ayn Rand resurrected Aristotle's approach to ethics: "man qua man".
As an Objectivist, I believe that Aristotle and Rand are correct in their approach to the question of human ethics.
Marxists consider men evil and imperfect because men are not and yet should be ants, bees, or some other collective hive-mind insect.
Smith considers the Transhumanist possibility of immortality to be selfish because men are and should be plants which must "go to seed".
Transhumanists consider "man" to be a phase which man is passing through.
None of these lines of thought address the Objectivist ethical tenet of "man qua man".
Transhumanism strikes me as inherently Nietzschean.
If the Transhumanist possibility of immortality succeeds, then we would no longer be longer "men".
It is not only humanism which will have been transformed, but according to Nietzsche and Aristotle our values as well.
What then would be our ethic?
My concern is not of a Luddite nature.
It is more "Popeye" - "I am what I am".
Your comments are welcome.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
— Proverbs 6:6
is really: "Does God have the same morals he (might) expect us to have?"
There are several paths this self-evolution might take: genetic engineering, with life extension only one of many options (enhanced sensory or physical capabilities as a possibility); bioengineering, with the ability to replace failed body components with superior organic components; cyborg enhancement, by the merging of human and robotic elements; possibly other paths that are outside the scope of my imagination.
The social implications of any of these futures will be challenging, since some will resist such changes as unnatural. How does a society handle the situation where some are truly superior, yet still cling to the notion of equal rights?
Nietzsche no.
What if power is derived from morality - not independently from it? Then morality in and of itself becomes the pathway to power - not to mention the ultimate guide on how it is used. Food for thought.
Christians do not think humans should be ants, bees or some other collective hive-mind.
Marxists do.
---
Replace "Marxists" with "Christians" and you'd be correct.
Then, think of something obvious and common like speaking foreign languages. Only a few thousand years ago, most people had a hard time speaking one. Every language you learn increases your range and depth of thinking.
Handguns let some people rule over others, but then, everyone could have one and they lost their advantage. Alternately - and more positively - advertising became a special study. People complained about being "manipulated." Now it is all common knowledge, and - more to the point - we all use the same tools, as for instance, this post began with "Like you..."
The point is that every technology spreads to those who want it; and as it is replicated, the costs of production and delivery go down. So, even more can afford whatever is new and better.
Nietzschean... now that notion, if taken to create superior beings likely to rule over others is proffered, I am a apprehensive.
On the other hand it is not dying that scares me... it is living under tyranny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4pO7Ih8...
I make my opinion on what I understand to be the common view of Transhumanism in general: that "man" is a phase which man is passing through.
What might we base "values" upon if we have unlimited life, barring accident. My mind's eye envisions "Gort"....The Day the Earth Stood Still.
I do like the mental masturbation though! lol!
Load more comments...