Anyone would think this is a scene from a sci-fi or James Bond film but the scary thing about it is that this gentleman is no actor and he represents a growing fundamentalist movement called trans-humanism set to harness human evolution through technology to ultimately become God. This particular character is very serious about his plan to become God. He says “if you’re going to interfere with me becoming God, we’ll have big trouble. Then we’ll have warfare”.
I think the threat posed by this new religious worship and absolute belief in the almighty power of technology is more serious and far greater than global terrorism, global warming or global financial meltdown. We are dealing with what is after all a religious fanaticism far more dangerous than any militant religious extremist group or ideology. What makes this extreme faction of the so called trans-humanism movement such a concern is the very acceptance of the movement – even its radical elements. Such acceptance is won because modern society sees trans-humanism as mere science and that is enough to make it legitimate and unlikely to be questioned. So much for Homeland Security when we have such a threat well rooted inside our borders brainwashing our very own populations. Their technique is extremely powerful and subtle: to hook the public with luring promises such as human perfection and eternal youth.
Let’s examine where this techno-dogma comes from. The mission of trans-humanism’s is the development of the next stage of human evolution called post-human or neo-human. Writer and globalization expert Carl Teichrib describes the premises of trans-humanism:
“1. DNA: Now that we are unlocking the secrets of DNA, we can alter our genetic makeup to augment desirable traits and block negative characteristics. It’s hoped such a move will bring longevity and eradicate diseases. Other possible outcomes include the production of designer babies in the womb, and even introducing DNA from other species into the human code; thus building a ‘Human Plus’ equipped with advanced physical and cognitive traits. Such a trans-human/hybrid would be ‘transgenic’, in other words a human Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) just like corn or soy.
“2. Computer Interfacing and AI: As the secrets of the brain are discovered, it is anticipated that a time will arrive when the mind is efficiently interfaced with cyber-space. It is believed that in such a scenario the brain, once ‘plugged-in,’ could allow the mind to surf the network, download and upload from the web, receive memory upgrades, and converge with a global mind-to-machine-to mind community—forming a type of cyber-hive. Or, according to some cybernetic purists, to allow one’s consciousness to completely leave the bounds of flesh and enter cyber-space as an electronic entity. After all the brain, it’s argued, is an electrochemical organ. This mind uploading, it’s believed, could culminate in what the Catholic mystic, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called the noosphere: the emergence of a living, global consciousness. The web would thus ‘come alive’.”
The objectives stated above have been used by sci-fi literature and films to warn us about the potential for the future to become a horrible nightmare, but guess what? I am wide awake and by looking at the news I can only realize the plan for this nightmarish future is already under way, and apparently with no one willing or able to stop it. Despite the risks and horrific consequences the misuse of technology can bring such as that posed by Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) destabilizing the fragile balance of natural ecosystems, I take comfort in the fact that the core believes held by transhumanists are false. We humans are not machines and consciousness is not a computer algorythm.
Those two facts alone make the trans-humanist agenda a childish fantasy which nonetheless can cause great irreversible damage to humans and planet. Thus the activities of these people still need to be closely monitored and controlled. Alongside the supervision by those institutions whose role is to enforce bioethics and safety on the use of technology, we need to counter trans-humanism with a new humanism driven by core timeless human values. It is the removal of values from science that has allowed science to run unchecked, unquestioned and ironically become the greatest threat to civilization and the planet, despite all the benefits it has also brought to humanity. Deep ecology illustrates the true nature of human beings and the life honoring values which were upheld by our indigenous ancestors and that we urgently need to restore.
I am not against progress. Man must not give up on his inherent nature to develop science and technology. It is his right and duty. However after four centuries of reckless exploitation of planet and people in the name of science and progress, man needs to retake responsibility for his power by re-infusing science and technology as well as all his activities and his very own perception of reality with the mentioned human values and overall sensibility. We must contain our human progress within the domain the human of human values and ensuring we will not disrupt the fragile order of the natural world who we are not even close to fully understand due to its enormous complexity and the limitations of our scientific knowledge.
Let’s continue honoring our inherently human ambition for growing human knowledge and bringing progress, but let’s ensure we do it in a responsible, safe and ultimate sustainable manner.
I’m glad that this topic is becoming more popular with people, but I wouldn’t call it threatening to that extent. Trans-Humanists for example don’t bomb luddites, or have large scale political organization to oppress group of minorities. The part about ‘GM Humans’… Well, that’s all well and good, but if I had the technology to engineer out life-crippling disorders with a genetic basis, cystic fibrosis and Huntingtons, then surely this would be more beneficial.
You sound like a bit of a luddite, and may I ask, anarcho-primitivist? You might like ‘The Ascent of Humanity’ by Charles Eisenstein. It deals a bit on trans-humanism and technology. My personal take on what’s worse than religious extremism? The unsustainability of our planet and the environment.
I enjoyed your article. Maybe a few more paragraphs than a block of text? 🙂
LikeLike
Joseph,
Your judgement of me as anarcho-primitivist and ludite shows a level of prejudice or fear that prevents you from looking outside your narrow ideological universe. As I mentioned I am not against science or progress. I do want scientists to continue their research and continue desease like stem cell research which is extremely promising, but with the required supervision. Where I do have a problem and my neighbor would is he fringe of trans-humanists that are as sick and out of control as Richard Seed is, willing TO DECLARE WAR ON THOSE WHO WILL GET IN HIS WAY BECOMING GOD! Have you listened to the man? I would be very concerned being next to people like him with so much power and yet so emotionally unstable. His delusions of grandeur is a REAL DISEASE which unchecked can result in regrettable consequences. Tell me someone that would take you seriously if you told them your career objective is to PLAY GOD? Come on, let’s have a little bit of decency instead of arguing for the sake of ideological differences despite the incredible blatant non-sense, and lunacy.
I have been an engineer and a science person all my life but I also know my share about human ambitions, emotions and fallibility. We have reached a level of technology that allows to manipulate life to a degree that calls for extreme caution and supervision. Calling somemone such as me a ludite for wanting responsibility in the most critical matter we can think of which is LIFE, is to say the least, naive. Would you call a ludite to someone who objected to the making of the bombs dropped in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? How about someone raising concerns about the GMOs? I suggest you take a look at the film . It may open your eyes a bit and give you a sense of the threat we all face, which I repeat dwarfs terrorism, simply because of the difference in the number of people (and other life forms) at risk. In regards to what you mocked as my ‘block of text’, I think it was still worth it as it made you and a number of folks reflect on a critical issue facing society and life in this planet. Thanks for the discussion.
LikeLike
Not a big fan of trans-humanism being compared to religious dogma. Then again, you’ll have individuals like Richard Seed who do the comparisons themselves and blatantly state that they want to “become God”.
People like this just want to rustle some jimmies, as far as I’m concerned. The foundation of trans-humanism is the mere acknowledgement of technology integrating into our humanity. The thing is, is that it’s been going on since man invented fire and the wheel.
Technology is an extension of ourselves. So we can reach further, have more impact, and expand our influence on the universe around us. It’s what separates us as a race from every other species out there.
Biological evolution at this point has become a moot point – our technological evolution is the most important driving force behind humanity’s progression now. It’s already underway. Biotech is growing in capacity to influence the world and nanotechnology will follow. Our very biology is merging with technology. It always has been, though, it’s just that we are approaching a peak moment where the rate of acceleration of growth is compounding greatly. Instead of subtle progression, we’re seeing rapid advancement. The world of 2020 will look drastically more different in contrast to 2012 than when comparing 1930 to 1950.
Which is what is scary. It’s the unknown, the fear of losing our humanity before our very eyes. If you choose to see it that way.
What’s really happening is that what it means to be human has been in constant change since we came into existence. It’s a natural process.
From a religious dogma standpoint, we all are “children of God”. Regardless of what religious belief you cling to, we are connected to a higher power. In this context, if we are in fact considered “children of God”, maybe we’re just finally growing up?
My two cents.
– Garrett Luttrell
LikeLike
Garrett,
Thanks for your time and insights. I generally agree with your views. Let me just add that this is a challenging time for humanism. We have all this technology and yet we often feel powerless and very much lost. I invite you to read my previous post. There I explain how we humans lost our critical connection to nature ironically through the exercise of our noble effort to make a better world using reason, truth and justice.
Scientific thinking put in our psyche the notion that the world is a machine, and emotionally we feel that the more we behave like machines, the more perfect we will be. We have lost our identity as human beings in our industrial existence. We thus need to recover our identity and our humanity. Modern science has confirmed the world is not a machine, the brain is not a computer and consciousness is a phenomenon exclusive to living beings – not machines. With all due respect to artificial intelligence, true intelligence can only be generated by to living beings.
I can have a long conversation about this subject but the future of humanity depends upon our ability and timeliness reconnecting with nature, starting with our own human nature. Technology is our expression, not our essence. Consciousness is our essence. I will write more about this topic. Thank you for the inspiration.
LikeLike
Oh, I absolutely agree with retaining our humanity. Or I should say, regaining it back and moving forward in a way that allows us to. Actually, on my About page, I state that:
“I believe in the transparency of business, technology and human evolution. We’re approaching a stage in our progressive expansion where we can externalize the focus on the tech and products themselves, or internalize it and push onward with the full force of biological relationships. Creating a simple world of win-win. ”
The key hey being not externalizing the focus on the actual tech itself. We need to retain our organic humanity, and we can do that by internalizing the focus. It’s all in how we approach our relationships with each other and the world around us.
Artificial intelligence progress may one day by synonymous with our own intellect, by what I predict. At that point in time we’ll have to answer some bigger questions, such as:
What is consciousness, really?
Glad to be of further inspiration, this is definitely a topic that should not be ignored as these are some important issues we’ll be imminently be having world-wide discussions about soon enough.
LikeLike
Garrett,
I think those being questions are being addressed as we speak. I’ll check your page soon and we’ll talk more about it.
Cheers,
Ruben
LikeLike
Actually you’re assuming that the word luddite is entirely negative. I would say I have slight luddite opinions on many things, and I would say that opposing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons would fall in Luddite-ism. Same with GMOs. I’m not disagreeing with you on many things. What I am disagreeing with you on is whether or not they’re worse than religious fundamentalists. Which they aren’t. They won’t be flying planes into buildings or whatever. He is only a minority. Compare him with other transhumanists like Nick Bostrom and he’s actually part of a crazy minority. Most transhumanist just want robot wives! Also I suggested you might have strains of those labels in you. I really don’t have that high a level of ignorance, and as an anarco-primitivist sympathizer, I really don’t like the direction of transhumanism, but to say they’re as dangerous as religious fanatics when they don’t even have the technology to do so is just ridiculous. Also don’t insult others and be more polite. ,
LikeLike
Can you prove to me that the same people who can are working on robot wives today may not want to play God tomorrow? Great power requires great responsibility. If anyone is offended for me calling out a huge potential risk behind their ideology and activities, my sincere apologies. But the severity of the risk is with all due respect far more important than the apology. Any transhumanist with a minimum level of common sense and maturity would not be offended by my article. In fact he or she would be grateful that someone has the courage and the foresight to defy the common religious-like unquestionable attitude we have about science and technology and call out a big potential problem inside their department.
Also please check your facts before you speak. Where have I been impolite or insulted anyone? I have just expressed what is to become a great concern and responded to your very personal insults and derogatory remark with exactly that, politeness.
LikeLike
I agree with you about your views in comparison to religious fundamentalists.
Extremists will exist, period. It’s all about how people respond to the world around them. Religious extremists have caused incalculable damage through mankind’s history.
At this stage, extremist trans-humanists pose less substantial threat, in my opinion. Can and will technology be taken advantage of? Of course. But we’ll always have people there to counteract and defend against those who would use it for ill.
LikeLike
That is exactly what I try to communicate with my article. Thanks so much for elaborating on it and support my message! Now a critical question that arises is: How can we control the misuse of this unprecedented technological power? I invite everyone to answer this challenging question.
LikeLike
“Your judgement of me as anarcho-primitivist and ludite shows a level of prejudice or fear that prevents you from looking outside your narrow ideological universe” I would say that is impolite, being as I’m saying that they may or may not be a danger, and this is not something we can know for now. I think there has been a level of misunderstanding between us. I am not trying to insult you by calling you a luddite or an anarcho-primitivist. I don’t think this argument is going to be won by either of us, so I’ll say thank you for your time, and I may comment on some of your stuff at a later point 🙂
LikeLike
Joseph,
I appreciate your reconciliatory remark and explanation. I regret if you have felt insulted. It was difficult not to take your comment as judgement but this is the risk of this means of communication, not being able to see people’s non-verbal language or feel their true intentions. I look forward to respectful dissent starting with myself and to anyone including yourself who may challenge my views and knowledge. This subject is bigger than all of us and we need to spread the conversation before it becomes too late.
LikeLike
Truly the first steps would be to clearly define the line between use and misuse. Is there a tipping point, or is it just like a gradient scale of black to white with an area for shades of gray? This will probably vary wildly from individual to individual based upon opinions.
There is no stopping point for it. We’ll have to continually ask ourselves these questions in the coming decades, as technology advances and we start to see the results.
Developing a one-size fit all solution to prevent misuse in the now seems impossible. We are yet to feel the full effects of what’s truly going on beneath the layers, technologically speaking, as we speak. The biggest questions is; if creating technology to solve biological issues such as cancers is more than justified, where do we stop?
Cellular reproductive failure is only seen as natural because we’ve dealt with it for the entire length of our existence. If the one true purpose for mankind is to reproduce and survive, what if we could eventually solve death?
I’ve got mixed feelings on these issues. Trans-humanist Ray Kurzweil is much more polarized, but he’s got award-winning books and a movie out right now so this is all definitely in the process of being discussed world-wide.
Ray’s an optimist but there are pessimists out there who believe further technological advancement could create significant repercussions. Worse than any we’ve ever seen – which I can sympathize with, but I tend to lean more towards historical evidence. Disasters and whiplashes will occur, but I have firm belief in the power of mankind. In our resiliency and dedication to progression and survival.
What religious zealots will have to say about future technological involvement is hard to say. The worst response we can expect is that a technological revolution becomes labelled an anti-christ happening. A huge clash would occur in this instance, and it’d be ugly.
LikeLike
This is a very complex subject where a one size fits all approach could be very risky both on the acceptance and rejection of trans-humanism. This is anything but black and white. As you mentioned it is morally wrong, in contradiction with human nature and against human realization/self-development to repress our human capacity to create and to develop technology. Subsequently I do oppose the religious zealots that demonize trans-humanism and progress in general based on their assumption that all technology and its use is evil.
I am probably less optimistic or idealistic about the capacity of humans to manage these issues effectively and timely. In my experience we do not learn until we have caused or come to the brink of some major crisis and damage. A prime example was the realization of a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario that lead governments to the reduction of their nuclear arsenals.
I am still looking for a way to manage the side effects that saving lives and allowing people live longer would cause in our natural ecosystem. We would need to compensate for the extra people that would live by reducing the ecological-footprint they would add.
And that is where my main argument arises. Let’s take the ego-centrism from technology and from the rest of human perception and interaction with the planet. That will allow us to approach reality with true consciousness that would ensure the most moral and rational use of technology, which in my opinion is saving the planet before saving the wrinkles of a 90 year old woman.
It comes down to priorities. Resolving the greatest global threats should come before the fascinating but nonnetheless much less critical human issues and desires. If there are technical spin-offs from currently trans-humanist research that can have a direct impact in saving the environment
LikeLike
Hi Ruben and luttrelg,
Nice intelligent conversation . My experience of currently doing a science degree, is that ethics are an integral part of the training. There are also committees that take the ethics of new technologies very seriously, and limit some by law . So far ,though , mostly in the biological sphere, leaving computer and robot development apparently unchallenged. Human -machine interfaces are here, and being improved as well, so it may just be a case of plugging in one day, having bypassed the cell biology route altogether.
Myself, I feel that there are just too many humans both for nature and for a decent life for humans themselves ( which for me includes intimacy with the wilderness we evolved in and are never really separated from). So I find most of the massive resources put into making humans even more immune from natural processes obscene to be honest. Of course ,none of us want to suffer or die- but we will, sooner or later, either way.
As a long time explorer of the mind, I find this idea of an actual unchanging self-core delusory . It may be that once this psychotic trans-humanist guy thinks he’s achieved his wish to become immortal, ( clearly omnipotence is another delusion, although one which can cause a lot of damage to others), his attitude might change- imagine another hundred years of , eating breakfast, going to the toilet, seeing and hearing roughly the same things. Only by transcending that addiction to thought , can one really escape the nightmare of being a self in time, seeing everything as familiar, into a sense of intimacy and beauty (which is incompatible with concern for power, longevity, etc).
Although I’m against increased longevity for humans, a sense of immortality might have positive effects on the average philosophy and responsibility to
our surroundings. Since we’ve got ourselves into this, inextricable condition ( can’t uninvent city ways and automobiles , but we’ll have to let them go one way or another) , I do favour research that clarifies what is healthy for us and our world, as I’m confident that this can actually bring us in a circle ,back to our wild nature, and a way to integrate our physically weakened but technologically empowered selves with the wilderness we were never separate from.
I hope it happens soon enough.
LikeLike
Simon,
I appreciate your insight and participation. It has been a while since I wrote this post, and I have had time to reflect a bit more on this topic. I must say that we cannot take these trans-humanists too seriously as they are essentially ignorant of the nature of reality. In others words they are smoking something probably more powerful than marijuana, mushrooms or crack. These characters are so lost into their materialist techno-fantasy that they cannot even suspect that life, consciousness and humanity cannot be reduced to mere artifacts.
These folks still live in a reductionist mechanistic paradigm where the universe is just a big analog mechanism. Our mind is anything but a computer and our soul is not software! They will never be! But unfortunately the manipulative power we have in modern society is so powerful and blinding that such irrational fairy tales are considered logical and possible just because they are based on science and technology, the current unofficial cult in modern society.
Now in regards to immortality, I can see the obsession behind this concept and the inherent risk of its pursue. I agree that we are too many people in this planet, so many that we are risking our own existence and future as a species. I then recommend we create a sustainable world with stable population before we even allow ourselves to even toy with idea of immortality. To search immortality is as ironic as dysfunctional. We are on the verge of our own extinction primarily due to overpopulation but we want to develop ways to continue keep humans alive. If that is not insane and illogical, I do not know what is?
I look forward to further comments from you and whoever you want to share this conversation with.
Ruben
LikeLike