More
Human Than Human
James
Hughes’ speech in UAlbany’s New Science Library on Wednesday,
April 13, was cogent and thorough, as if he were anticipating
a hard sell. The author of Citizen Cyborg was on hand
to discuss the controversial and wide-ranging topic of transhumanism
in democratic society, and in light of recent events such
as the Terri Schiavo case, it’s understandable that Hughes
would be ready for objections to a philosophy that seeks to
“deconstruct” the notion of what it is to be human. Nevertheless,
giving the lie to his comprehensive PowerPoint presentation,
Hughes claimed with easy assurance that he is confident about
the prospects for a transhumanist future: “I sometimes feel
that I’m arguing for the plow.”
Hughes made the point that the transhumanist agenda to mitigate
or eliminate the effects of aging, and to enhance human intellectual,
physical and psychological capacities through emerging technologies
(“e-tech”), such as psychopharmacology, genetic engineering,
artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, is already being
enacted. Still, extrapolation from such everyday modifications
as the contact lens or specialized medical devices like computer-assisted
prostheses to the downloading of an entire human conciousness
into a non-organic host, such as a computer, pulls on the
very last nerve of the “bioLuddites,” as Hughes characterized
opponents of transhumanism.
Among the opponents are a motley of disparate political and
theological orientations. According to Hughes, the most avid
of the bioconservatives are members of the religious right:
Hughes identified President Bush and Leon Kass, Bush’s selection
for chair of the President’s Council of Bioethics, as chief
among those who oppose and deride transhumanism as a hubristic,
nearly Satanic, desire to “play God.” But he also pointed
to deep ecologists, whose reverence of the natural Earth,
Gaia, has made them suspicious of technology, and to members
of the political left who rile at the notion of “techno eugenics.”
Hughes specifically mentioned Ralph Nader—who with Wesley
Smith, author of Forced Exit: the Slippery Slope From Assisted
Suicide to Legalized Murder and the Consumer’s Guide
to Brave New World, issued a “save Terri” statement—as
one of those who are “building a connection between the political
right and left.”
It is Hughes’ belief that these objections are “irrational,
hysterical”, and though he was quick to point out that tranhumanism
is not a cult and has no theological doctrine he (a “Buddhist-Unitarian”
himself) claimed that the movement shared elements with the
world’s religions. All religions offer the transcendence of
sickness, aging, death and the promise of a bet- ter world,
he noted. Such are the goals of transhumanism—though facilitated
not with a miter and chalice, but with a Power book and a
petri dish, perhaps.
Ultimately, Hughes said, trans- humanism would not be bound
by either religion or politics, but it must take root in what
he typified as the best currently available political structure,
social democracy; and socially democratic transhumanism’s
goals are to “free ourselves through technology from the tyranny
of nature” and to “free ourselves from social conditions”
such as “greed, racism, class inequality, poverty, gender
oppression, authoritarinism, fear and superstition.”
As befits a Utopian, Hughes’ agenda is an ambitious one; and,
as befits a Utopian, there is a charming lack of cyncism—or
a curious streak of naïve optimism, depending on your take—to
his thoughts on implementation. Faced with questions regarding
the access to such capability-enhancing technologies as pre-natal
disease-preventing gene therapy, or cognition-boosting neural
implants, and the prospect that such advancments would be
available only to the wealthy, thereby increasing social inequality,
Hughes maintained his positivism.
“Is
cognitive enhancement or biological enhancement in the same
category of technology as PDAs and computers, or is it like
a feedback loop?” he asked, rhetorically. If the former, he
said, then surely the technology would trickle down, and surely
we wouldn’t prohibit all use of PDAs because not everyone
can afford them at once. If the latter, and the technology
created enclaves of privilege and ability, then lack of universal
access would be a “dealbreaker,” and a responsible democracy
would cautiously regulate.
But, he added confidentally, “I think most technologies will
be available.”
Rounding out his pitch for the plow, Hughes posed another
rhetorical question, “Do we have good democracies?” to the
crowd of laptop- , cell phone- and PDA-toting college students
and faculty snacking on cheese cubes and crackers from the
buffet table.
—John
Rodat
jrodat@metroland.net
|
Columns
& Opinions
