Editor's Blog
Transhuman militancy appeals to the wired reptilian brain, and, like anger or fear, it may feel good in the short term to indulge the temptation to go prickly. But the long game has no place for weaponized rich fops, no matter how cyborgian.
Any people who can afford to have a conversation about posthuman realities is generally in an extremely enviable position economically, politically, and in terms of human rights. H+ Magazine (and others) have even offered a platform for those appealing to politicize and militarize transhumanism (see Rachel Haywire‘s, Alex McKeown‘s, and my own previous pieces here). Could Chinese geeks get away with making statements about the obviation or trumping of the PRC through techno-shamanism? Could Uzbekistani geeks spare the time or coin to maintain a place to publish such ideas? You think a diesel mechanic on Cochiti Pueblo’s got time to transhumanize? It is incredibly revealing that we can afford to take for granted such an audacious statement as:
“We want a nation. We want sovereignty… transhuman sovereignty. Time has revealed we cannot co-exist within a society based on conscious submission — we must move on. We must rise above the weeds and take back our breaths, so we suffocate no more. The interests of conscious submission are not our interests. The interests of conscious submission lie in Humanity. We are not Humanity. We are not Human.” (Haywire’s recent.)
Of course transhumanists are generally a cheeky bunch, and this could be a joke. But taking it at face value (and reading the boisterous comments following the story), I reckon now might be a moment to pipe up in favor of transhumanism not spawning separatist cults. Hale-Bopp type suicides should be discouraged, not stoked up with talk of “sovereignty” and nationhood.
I’ll leave the Haywire argument alone for now, except to say that the assumptions therein are pretty specious. Transhumanists in fact are human, and wishful thinking doesn’t chaos-magick us into a whole new species. Freedom? We’ve got it. You can’t get much more free than being free enough to write about secession without fear of your government censoring or “disappearing” you.
But this all brings up a bigger issue in transhumanism, and it’s one that I don’t see talked about nearly enough. If there comes to be a discrete group of posthumans, what will their relationship to “regular old” humans be? What do posthumans owe to humanity, if anything? Will the same rights apply to one group as to another?
On this last, imagine the First Amendment right to free speech in posthuman terms: telepathic spam squelched out to a million minds at once. A sort of Bene Gesserit voice commanding every follower of your Twitter personomy to click on this QR groupon for kitty litter at Target.
No, as transhumanism moves into the realm of the possible, we must take a moment to firm-wire some humility into the movement. After all, we really only like the superhumans who recognize the responsibility built in to the wielding of their powers. Spiderman learned it on his first night out; his hubris cost him his uncle.
People don’t like arrogant, perfect beings. Angels without humility are demons. If transhumanism is preparing us for a world where posthumans will lead and lord over regular folks (which I hope is not the case, incidentally, as it only represents another kind of saltless oligarchy of wannabes riding their daddy’s paychecks into power-fantasy psycho-dramas on a large and dangerous scale… whew…), then transhumanism needs to work on its own humility, and it needs to start right now.
Of humility and awesomeness (or humility/awesomeness, or maybe “humility through awesomeness and awesomeness through humility”) the band Sleighbells says:
Good leaders know how to eat with the troops. Henry V, Jesus, Mata Amritanandamayi Devi… David Brent — all examples of people who knew how to (or were forced to, in Brent’s case [http://funny-videos.co.uk/videodavidbrentdance.html]) “set crowns on the ground” and gain high ground by first taking the low. And in today’s media cycle, we see Julian Assange Christmassing at Ellingham Hall, strolling and fishing in the Waveney Valley, waiting to be rendered to Quanitco by XE; what’ll he do with his crown? His actions today set a precedent for future techno-social activism.
Maybe I was wrong about the coming of “Posthuman Politics” to the USA. Maybe the aim shouldn’t be to gain any worldly power at all. If Wikileaks is any example, the future is in opening up whatever power there is at the moment to shine a light in and let the people see. If that will be in any way aligned with the broader goals of transhumanism (which it must be inasmuch as transhumanism depends on open sharing of scientific advances, at least, for the maximum good of all people), then the posthuman future is very much a future of humility.
Sovereignty? Nationhood? No.
We set our crown on the ground and get busy for the good of the folks on Cochiti, in Tashkent, and in Mize, Mississippi.
Sign up for the Humanity+ newsletter:
20 Comments
There will be no, “transhuman elite”, because “elites” are a social phenomena, and social phenomena move at a far different pace than technological advance. Is there an iPod Elite? A Smartphone Elite? A PDA Elite? No. While these things began at a price range that prevented “non-Elites” from buying the very first models, they dropped in price so fast that they never had time to become established as “Tools of the Elites”. Most of the more dramatic technologies that people fear will create a “Transhuman Elite” are likely to follow the identical path because they are based on the same “information technology exponential curve” that Kurzweil talks about.
Take rejuvenation. If you’ve actually followed the research in stem cells over the last two years since Obama released the Bush restrictions, you can see the exponential curve in action. We are making new breakthroughs around the world every few days, while a year ago, it was closer to one every month, and two years ago, just a few stories a year.(no those numbers are not precise) The same goes with genetic research, with each gene sequence puzzle enabling the next to be unraveled quicker. In just the last two years we’ve learned far more about how the body works on the molecular level than we had in the previous ten. This can only be expected to accelerate from this point on.
This indicates that within six months of the first “Rejuvenation Breakthrough” that actually gets made, it’s going to be surpassed by the next breakthrough, then the next, then the next, and so on. Those first few breakthroughs are definitely going to be expensive, and only the rich will be able to afford them, BUT SO WHAT? They are going to be the least effective, most problematic, prone to problems and side-effects, and will be quickly obsoleted. Inside of five years, based on current trends, there is likely to have been so much improvement in both effectiveness and cost that anyone would likely be able to afford treatments. Why? Because any company that wants profits is going to go down the scale as each market becomes saturated. Once all the rich have effective rejuvenation, and have all bought it, the market ceases to exist. So where does the company have to go to create a new market? Where else but to the next social tier and economic bracket. And they will follow that market down with each advance that makes rejuvenation safer, more effective, and cheaper.
The same holds true for nearly every “enhancement” one can think of that would theoretically create a “Transhumanist Elite”, be it cyberware, BCI, genetic modification, and so-on. By the time an “Elite” could even organize, they will be obsolete, replaced by new technology that is faster, better, cheaper, and easier to use.
It’s hard to be “An Elite” when everyone has access to something.
Best article on hplusmagazine for a long, long time. Years maybe.
Really, many transhumanists need to grow up and stop this immature macho fantasy game already.
I Have an XBox 360 Elite. :>
Because many people on this planet have no access to clean water.
Its hard to think about universal transhumanism when other humans are currently malnourished.
The internet isn’t that useful in rural mozambique.
“Is there an iPod Elite? A Smartphone Elite? A PDA Elite? No.”
I look at my work environment in the ISP/Telecoms environment.
And I have to say…social elite “Apple fanboys” and BBerry users looking down on the rest is definitely out there. Feels like High School with the cool kids club.
Sure it’s not at the level where you get segregation of social classes, but that might just be because this is a 1st world country. It is much more profound in poorer and 3rd/4th world countries.
Now take that a step further into post radical medical/tech revolutions in countries; it might just very well end up being a bigger problem than expected…
Are you really that stupid, ignorant ?
“there is no elite”
Well i think you are cynik and/or hypocrithe
“there is no elite” : YEAH WE LIVE IN LALA LAND !
I don’t think so.
FU
FU : there is power, there is corporatisme there is Really big difference between “supraorganism” (states, and transcontinental firms, and “dark elite” ) …
THERE WILL BE A WILL FOR POWER, EVEN DURING THE SINGULARITY
I don’t say there will be no peace with every being after the singularity : but WE ARE HUMAN, AND MOST PEOPLE ARE HUMAN
HUMAN = STUPID MONKEYS, IN A STRUCTURED OR CLASS SOCIETY AND A COMPLEXE NETWORK OF POWER, ( and maybe you are a human being … )
ANd YOUR ERROR IS : ” oh the will for power never exist, we are in lala land, every body is aware, and doesn’t to make and to get power ”
FU : IN fact there is a war today, against 99% of the human being : There will be NO MORE JOB AT ALL : and no more way to get “money”
THAT’S IT : if you say other things : you are stupid or cynical
ok : FU
FU
*sigh* I am going to assume this is directed at me, since it is A) a frothing at the mouth rant, and B) misquotes me.
So first, let me point out I said “There will be no Transhumanist Elite”, not that Elites don’t exist. Nor did I at any point deny that humans seek power.
Second, I am fully aware of humans being animals and ruled by instincts. The “Elite” vs “Non-Elite” status war is part and parcel of human mating instincts. We are driven by our biology to compete for mating rights. This creates a “Pecking Order” that stratifies the entire human race. High Status individuals within each strata have access to “perks” and better access to mates, while those of low status are denied equal access or any access at all. This status game lies at the heart of most of humanity’s “injustices” against itself, including poverty, which is due to denying “the lowest class” sufficient access to needed resources to survive.
That is not going to change because of any choice we make. It’s hardwired into the human animal.
But we are also hardwired to act in collectives, and to maximize efficiency of resource use over time. This ability continually undermines the “pecking order” which seeks to prevent any change which threatens to alter individuals places on it. Despite “elites” seeking to prevent change, change is inevitable, and resisting it tends to make it happen more quickly.
We are presently making changes far faster than the “elites” can adapt too and monopolize advances that could strengthen the “pecking order”, meaning that by the time they have a grip on most advances, they have already become obsolete and are being replaced by the next advance. Additionally, advances are spreading THROUGH the population too quickly for the “Elites” to monopolize them. This is occurring because the technology advances are not being made in a situation that is completely controlled by the “elite”. Bell Labs could sit on the invention of magnetic recording media for 60 years only because there was a way to control the access to the technology 60 years ago. That access control no longer exists. Advances are able to be shared worldwide in minutes, and are coming from nearly every tier of the social ladder, instead of from a “corralled” group of “researchers” under lock and key.
This means that it is highly unlikely that “enhancement” technology will remain under the exclusive control of the “Elites” long enough to actually enable the “elite” to successfully use it for repression of further advances which would negate any “advantage” such technology would give to them.
It’s basically that technological advances can occur at so much faster a pace than social structures can adapt to them that there won’t be time to create a “transhumanist elite” before most of humanity has access to “transhumanist enhancement”.
Oh, and that thing about jobs being lost? Sorry, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s the inevitable side effect of a collapsing economy of scarcity that is in the process of transitioning to an economy of abundance. I’ve been expecting it for a decade, I had just hoped we’d be further into the development of the EoA before it started, but the disruptions caused by computer tech being able to leverage the stock market happened faster than we developed technologies that would reduce manufacturing costs to absolute market minimums (almost free)
The current “metaorganism” of Corporatism is in a fight for survival against the emerging metaorganism of “global humanity” but is losing, because the “food” that Corporatism needs to “survive” is scarcity. However, it’s already at the limits of being able to maintain “artificial scarcity” because it’s more or less already eliminated actual scarcity by “over feeding” (over production of resources and products, making nothing truly “scarce”). It’s become a fat bloated dinosaur, and for all it’s power, it’s dying because it’s poisoning itself. It will not survive the massive disruptions that will occur due to technological advances and as a new metaorganism, arises from the massive interconnectedness of humanity around the globe once the internet becomes universally available, it will be absorbed and replaced.
Yes, that new metaorganism will eventually create “elites” and “non-elites” because that is human nature, but the methods by which that new “pecking order” is determined will not be based on access to abundant resources or technological enhancements, or even such age old criteria as appearance, because all of those things will have become universally available to everyone of every social tier.
and I recently read about the use of carbon nanotubes to create a water filter that can separate pure H2O from seawater faster than you can push water through the pipes. What value will “owning water rights” have when water can be manufactured from the sea, rainwater, or eventually pulled right out of the air?
I am all too aware of the inequities we currently have. I am also far too aware of the research being done to eliminate them.
And what about when that internet connection in rural Mozambique can give them the plans to make a water distillation shed that can be created out of native materials that allows them to make clean water? How useful would it be then?
Ignoring technological advances because you can’t see their use RIGHT THIS SECOND is a pretty poor use of available information.
Hear Hear ! +1
makes me yearn to bitch slap your flapping jowls…
This is one of the greatest articles I have so far read in this otherwise great magazine.
Thank you.
But are IPhones or Blackberries being used to suppress further innovation, or are they merely “chic status symbols”? Are people actively going around making sure that only “certain people” can buy a particular model of smartphone”? Are people with iPhones getting CEO jobs while those with Androids are relegated to the stock rooms?
There’s a difference between “peacocking” which is what you are describing, and “repression” which is what is feared will happen with a “Transhumanist Elite”.
Yeah, it’s a social clique. It’s a form of “jewelry”, it’s a “fashion statement”, but it’s not a “we will kill people to prevent this from falling into the hands of the masses” kind of separation between haves and have nots.
Please can you explain to me how someone in rural mozambique will ever be able to make a water distiller from carbon nanotubes, using only local materials, when we are currently unable to make such a device in an industrialized and technological society?
There’s this dumb idea that in the future, people will have everything they want, for free. Its all part of a fantasy. Sure, if we eventually evolve into something like the Culture from Iain M Bank’s novels, that might happen, but in the near term, things like water ownership are going to be very important.
Ooops. I partially misread your last comment – sorry about that.
Yes I do agree that having access to plans to make a water distiller (not out of nanotubes) but out of local materials would be useful, but I contend that the water distiller would be much more useful than the internet connection – so really it would make sense to make that first!
The point is though, why don’t people have the net connection and water purifier/whatever already? Its because there’s no money to be made out of supplying that village in mozambique with those things. So sadly, we currently have an economic elite, of which most of the western world is part of. I don’t really see why advances in technology are *certain* to end such an elite, although I do understand that it is a possibility.
Let me direct you to the replies above and to this article: http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/economy/first-steps-towards-post-scarcity-or-why-current-financial-crisis-end-world-we-know
I describe more fully exactly what processes are underway that will shatter the economy of scarcity, in which a few elites control nearly all resources, and create a Economy of Abundance, in which resources are so available that there is no longer any “value” in their control.
“Elites” are a natural outcome of our competitive reproductive instincts. “Wealth” is just one of a number of proxies for reproductive fitness that we’ve come to use over the course of man’s existence. The current system exists because there is a constant struggle between our instinct to form collectives for mutual benefit, and our drive to compete to prove who’s “the best” though acquiring various “markers” that indicate social status. High status actors demand a greater share of the total collectives production. Because the “collective pie” is a “zero sum game” at any given moment, (despite the fact that it is constantly growing in size) the demands for greater shares means that low status actors are denied access to the “collective pie”, getting smaller and smaller shares until those at the bottom get so little “pie” that they are in danger of “not surviving”
The ENTIRE POINT of the collective instinct to form societies for mutual benefit is so that it makes it easier for all individuals to survive. By pooling resources, no individual has to contribute as much to the “pool” to survive as they would have to to survive alone. It works quite well in small societies in which individual contributions can be tracked, and in which every member of the collective is held accountable.
But in a large society, accountability is lost, and the demands for “privilege” by the highest status actors is unchecked by a collective demand that they “produce” in measure with their demands. This has allowed the creation of “elites” who “produce” very little compared to the “non-elites” but who control far more of the “collective pie” through various means.
The PRIMARY means by which this has occurred is through “Scarcity”. A commonplace item has very little value, but a very uncommon item has more. The same goes for resources. To illustrate, think about a new settlement in an area. In the beginning it’s all flat land, with a single river through it. The land along the river is “scarcer” than the land away from the river. This automatically gives that land a “higher value” despite the fact that it is in all other aspects identical to all the other lands. If the land is used for farming, “owning” that land along the river will grant a “higher status” to anyone settling the area than those away from the river will have, because those other “NEED” that resource that they control. This is basic supply and demand.
Now, imagine that instead of a river, every plot of land had it’s own spring of fresh water. What value does the river now have? What if every plot of land has identical fertility? What if every plot of land has every resource a settler could possibly need to thrive? What “value” can then be derived from “control” of the river?
As I point out in the replies to the article I linked, we are at a point where resources have become more abundant than scarce. We have not yet reached a point where they are SO abundant as to no longer have value, but we have passed the tipping point of scarcity. The Industrial revolution has been so effective at producing everything that we’ve even developed the concept of “planned obsolescence” to artificially maintain scarcity.
But we’ve reached the limits of the ability to maintain artificial scarcity. With the technologies I discussed in the other articles, we are rapidly eroding the value of what “scarce” items remain, and are even replacing some of the them with abundant items. How much value will remain in owning an iron mine when all the iron in all the junkyards in all the world is suddenly available? How much value will even that retain if cars are no longer built out of iron, buildings no longer need iron rebar, and virtually nothing is still made from metal?
How much value will Oil retain if we can manufacture it on demand from raw carbon and other elements mined right out of the atmosphere? If any number of developing alternative power devices from high efficiency solar, to dense plasma focus fusion, to LENR, to casimir wells (listed in order of likelihood by my estimates) replace oil as a primary energy source?
How much value will farmland have if 3D printers can take raw stemcells and print out a steak? Or a baked potato, or a steak tomato?
And that doesn’t even begin to cover what will happen with the ability to construct items from the atoms up.
The entire “elite” structure is based on control of scarce resources. It cannot be maintained when scarcity does not exist.
Current reality is sadly everything you say. But that reality is dying. What exactly we will create in the coming reality I can’t truthfully say. What will replace “money” as the new medium of exchange, I can’t tell you. But Material Resources to meet human NEED will have ceased to have either economic or status symbol value, making it effectively “free”.
***********************************************
Now as to the use of the internet in Mozambique, I agree, the shed would be more useful.
But sadly, if they don’t have any knowledge of how to build the shed, how would they learn?
This is a case of give a man a fish, he eats for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
The knowledge has far greater value and far greater POTENTIAL value than the shed has IMMEDIATE value.
iPads are just a beginning. Inside of five years we’re likely to see flexible versions that can recharge with ambient light, wirelessly connect to each other over a distance of miles, and are effectively indestructible under environmental conditions while still being “disposable” because they are so cheap to make. A few billion of them across Africa would create a “internet” without the need for a single wire to be laid, or a single satellite to be launched, and could even potentially be made on-site using a 3D printer.
With access to the internet, not only does that village have access to knowledge, THE WORLD HAS ACCESS TO THAT VILLAGE, which means that instead of needing some billionaire philanthropist, a few hundred people around the world willing to help to the tune just a couple of dollars could radically improve conditions for that village. It would also give them access to who knows how many experts that could enable them to vastly improve their abilities to use their own natural resources.
All of which is STILL not as IMMEDIATELY USEFUL as that shed, but which could make a far greater difference over the course of a few years.
As for why we don’t have the CNT water filter already? because it is still under development, researching a method to make uniform CNTs that can be mass produced and aligned like parallel pipes. Being able to make the prototype for research isn’t the only thing needed to make it widely available. Give it five years and it will probably be possible to mass produce.
Thank you for sharing thins incredibly comprehensive article. It is very well-written and understandable. I love how you get your point across without offending anyone or losing them halfway through.
Si vous avez la possibilité de parier sur n’importe quel site, alors je suggère ce casino en ligne car il offre tous les meilleurs versements de casino et le seul problème qui vous sera posé est que vous ne souhaiterez pas arrêter de parier.
It has always struck me as very strange that we should employ this concept of “humility” to our ideas, since humility is one of the cornerstones of religious submission.
Humility serves a purpose when an individual or organisation is unfamiliar with a particular topic of discussion, but through scientific advancement, we KNOW things like we’ve never known them before – we are EXTREMELY familiar with a vast array of scientific and technological knowledge that our ancestors or even the modern-day layman has no idea about. A friend of mine recently turned to me and asked:
“You know our Sun?”
“Yeah.”
“…Is it the only one? Or are there more out there?”
*stunned silence – this friend was a university undergraduate*
In reference to our posthuman future, we should OFFER and ENCOURAGE enhancement to our fellow humans who are perhaps a bit slow on the uptake and ABSOLUTELY must bring our advances to our fellow transhumanists in countries where they would otherwise be oppressed… But why should we pander to those who actively oppose us? Why should we show “humility” in our ideas when religious adherents and neo-luddites take anything but a humble stance in theirs?
Why should we show any tolerance for those who not only choose to wallow in their ignorance, but seek to drag everyone else down into it as well – those who go to any lengths to hinder our advancement because they deem it “unnatural” or “against the will of god”?
Please tell me, because I’m having a damn hard time coming up with reasons…
Why should we show tolerance? Because we are the smart ones? Because we don’t want to fight them in religious war? Because we might be wrong? Because any opposition should be taken into consideration, and conflict should be solve by peaceful and respectful manners?
We are indeed one species, and thou it’s nice to think “we” are better then “them” it very often is illusion, and the more one is convinced about their superiority the bigger chances he/she is wrong. We are not posthuman being yet and all of this ego trips are just bringing us further from that goal. And just FYI there’s huge difference between opposition and oppression, first is necessary element of any reasonable progress, second is a thing to fight with.
[...]On this last, imagine the First Amendment right to free speech in posthuman terms: telepathic spam squelched out to a million minds at once. A sort of Bene Gesserit voice commanding every follower of your Twitter personomy to click on this QR groupon for kitty litter at Target.[...]
oh my good i think i don’t read right.
OK – I’ll yield to the logic behind most of that, however I do have to point out that there is a very low probability of solving our (very likely) conflicts with religious fundamentalists later on down the road by peaceful means.
When was the last time we heard of sunis and shiites in the middle-east laying down their arms and going “Hang on folks, let’s just talk about this for a bit ok?” Or in reference to the treatment of atheists in America by religious individuals (or indeed in other predominantly religious countries – e.g. egypt, where a couple of people were recently arrested for “Atheism” as stated by the law), do we really think this bodes well for the future as more and more power is available for those who choose to shrug off their religious doctrines?
The religious hegemony will fight tooth and claw to retain their control over people’s lives – as evidenced by recent obstructions to stem cell treatments on religious grounds – federal funding for which was only legalised in 2009 and is STILL facing occasional obstacles (think august 2010 with Chief Judge Royce Lamberth). Or what about the ongoing stigma against abortions? Or the vatican’s stance on in vitro fertilisation?
Do we really think that when the technology becomes available for humans to enhance themselves beyond the norm that the religious authorities will not spit blood at these developments, pressuring governments and societies to frown upon or even criminalise the usage of these technologies – fostering violence against the unnaturals whose hubris is so great that they dare to tamper with the design which God gave them?
And when that fails, it is not unreasonable to assume they will take to the streets themselves in protest. And then people will protest against the protests. And then they will run into each other. And then there will be riots. And then things will turn really nasty as civil unrest spreads all over the place.
Or something like that anyway.
I’m sorry but the idea of a peaceful transition from human to posthuman just seems so woefully unlikely in comparison with the alternatives that I just don’t see it happening…
sorry man.