Korimyr the Rat : Is it Possible to be Transhumanist Without Being Humanist?

Visit our sponsor: Vitamins, Supplements, Nootropics

Home

News

Join the revolution!

Extend life: Join our Mprize 300 group 1 2 Next >

1/3,037 members online

Korimyr the Rat

Is it Possible to be Transhumanist Without Being Humanist?

This is a question I find myself asking, partially because of philosophical arguments I've had on this forum, but largely due to the existence of such groups as the Prometheists and Transtopians, and others which have used transhumanist language and ideals to cover (or justify) old-fashioned racist and fascist ideologies.

Mr. Blackford recently posted a blog about how nearly all of his friends and former transhumanists occupied the same quadrant on the Political Compass test. It doesn't take very long, when talking to members of different transhumanist organizations, to see that the vast majority of members are, indeed, some form of social libertarian, regardless of their views on economic politics. This, in turn, seems to derive from a nigh-universal belief that the individual is more important than the society, and that there is no valid moral component to cultural norms.

Many transhumanist thinkers, as well, endorse as a moral pursuit the maximizing of pleasure and the minimizing of suffering, some going so far as to consider it the highest moral pursuit.

My question is, is it possible for a person to be a Transhumanist without accepting these notions?

Obviously, I am committed to the improvement of the human species, and to the pursuit of more meaningful and interesting lives for the members of that species. I want to see us transcend the limitations of our natural intelligence, our natural longevity, and our natural fragility. I want to see us expand beyond this planet, beyond our species, and even beyond our conventional understanding of what it means to be "alive".

But I do not think it is possible for individuals to reach these heights without a strong and vital society to support them, and I do not think such a society can exist without a common identity, a strong moral consensus, and the willingness to make sacrifices-- to endure pain and suffering and loss-- for the good of the whole. I think the law is a necessary and useful tool for cultivating these qualities in society and in individuals.

My experiences, both in the gym and in mystic practice, have also taught me that growth is not possible without pain and sacrifice. In order to experience greater pleasures, understand deeper mysteries, and wield greater power, it is necessary to push ourselves beyond our limits-- a process that, while deeply fulfilling, is also painful in many different ways. And, since pain is necessary to provide context for pleasure-- and vice versa-- I do not see how any sentient being cannot heighten one without deepening the other. It strikes me that seeking either to minimize pain or to maximize pleasure is a pointless goal, as it is always compensated by the other, and I would argue that heightening pleasure and deepening pain is a natural consequence of any kind of progress in making ourselves stronger, more intelligent, or more sensitive.

This is what I consider the ultimate goal to be; not immortality, not bliss, and not freedom, but vitality and power. Breaking the natural limits of our biology, and the artificial limits of our fears-- and reveling both in the pleasure and the pain that inevitably follow. I want to become something more than I currently am, and use that power to create something that is greater than I could hope to be-- even if that means that some of us, even myself, might be trampled into dust.

I'm not trying to argue for my points here. I have been doing that in our forums for as long as I have been a member. What I am asking is, is there room beneath the Transhumanist tent for these beliefs? Or does the label require us to be peace-loving libertarians?

Published Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:25 PM by Korimyr the Rat

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

	Korimyr the Rat wrote on January 17, 2008 11:43 PM "Mr. Blackford recently posted a blog about how nearly all of his friends and fellow transhumanists occupied the same quadrant on the Political Compass test." Beg pardon.
	EmbraceUnity wrote on January 21, 2008 3:43 PM What you are really talking about is utilitarianism. There is nothing about humanism that mandates a belief in utilitarianism. Secular humanism is simply a rejection of metaphysically-based ethics and an embrace of human-centered ethics. Those ethics do typically revolved around, at bare minimum, limiting needless suffering. I am sure you would agree that there is plenty of pain and suffering that has no purpose, and it would be better to eliminate it by all reasonable measures. I know plenty of transhumanists that are critical of utilitarianism, and I really haven't met a utilitarian who is in any way dogmatic about it. As long as you have respect and empathy for the wellbeing of other humans, then I think it would be safe to label yourself a humanist. By harboring the will to transcend our biology, you seem to think that in doing so, we will attain some glory or honor, whatever you wish to call it. A utilitarian may call his ideal state "happiness" or "pleasure" instead. Surely one would achieve some type of satisfaction from achieving glory and/or honor? Thus, I think all of these fit safely under the category of "interest," and you are still some sort of consequentialist. Any consequentialist perspective, be it altruism, egoism, or utilitarianism, would ideally function the same way. Even egoists must admit how intricately one's self-interest is bound up with the wellbeing of others and society in general. Personally, I don't think it is productive to look through an egoist lens, since it tends to overemphasize the individual, which is harmful to one's own self-interest. To avoid the overly self-less bias of altruists and the overly selfish bias of egoists, I consider myself some ambiguous form of utilitarian. Now, since we seem to be playing in this same consequentialist ballpark, I think it might be interesting to examine our assumptions about pleasure and pain. It is clearly possible that physical pain can be eliminated. There are actually people who are incapable of feeling physical pain. It is true that these people have many practical problems in life, but I don't see any reason why it is impossible to eliminate physical pain, especially considering the radical futures discussed here. Emotional pain is a different animal, but from all evidence, it seems to derive from specific patterns in our brains. I am sure it is possible to modify ourselves in ways that allow us to keep the best aspects of human subjective experience, and moderate the negative ones so that they do not overpower us. Depression, and other such mental illnesses, are horrible states of being. Overpowering grief is also very burdensome. I think at the very least it should be possible to eventually overcome these sorts of things, and that is indeed what psychologists work on even in the present day.
	Korimyr the Rat wrote on January 22, 2008 1:22 PM "Thus, I think all of these fit safely under the category of "interest," and you are still some sort of consequentialist." Certainly so. But my concern is that my interests would by necessity require preserving some level of human misery, and my interest in the well-being of other humans is not so strictly tied up in the well-being of individual humans, as it is in the welfare of either groups of humans or in the sum well-being of all humanoid species. And, it would appear that my definition of "well-being" is dramatically different from the bulk of the readership of this site-- as I would consider violence and even warfare to be essential portions of the well-being of our societies and our species. "... but I don't see any reason why it is impossible to eliminate physical pain, especially considering the radical futures discussed here." I don't disagree that it's possible. Indeed, I think it is certainly possible, even within the bounds of our limited technology. What I question is the idea that it is desirable to do so. Physical pain serves a purpose, even beyond its roots as a primitive biological warning system. Physical pain, when it is not chronic, is life-affirming. It is part of what makes us feel alive, and part of what forms our character. Certainly, some of our more radical proposals-- such as forsaking biology altogether-- would allow pain to be entirely removed from our experience. But I have to question if such proposals really resemble "living" at all, and whether or not such existence is meaningful. "I am sure it is possible to modify ourselves in ways that allow us to keep the best aspects of human subjective experience, and moderate the negative ones so that they do not overpower us. ... I think at the very least it should be possible to eventually overcome these sorts of things, and that is indeed what psychologists work on even in the present day." With the exception of mental illness, which I agree should be cured, I would argue that overcoming them is indeed the goal-- but that it is the process of overcoming them that is important, that is part of our transcendence. We have to suffer from our negative emotions-- feel the weight of them crashing down upon us-- in order to reap the rewards of enduring and overcoming them, and becoming stronger in the process. That's why I am forced to wonder if I legitimately belong in your camp-- or if I am simply a welcome outsider, a dissenting voice. So much of transhumanist thought revolves around avoiding conflict and strife, which I think are necessary for our development. Is it possible to embrace these things, to revel in them, and still legitimately call oneself a transhumanist?
	EmbraceUnity wrote on January 25, 2008 11:56 PM Transhumanists have and will continue to welcome you into discussions regardless of whether you fit the definition. The definition of transhumanism isn't very rigid. As long as you don't go advocating genocide or something, I see no reason why a pragmatic acceptance of violence would exclude you from labelling yourself as a transhumanist. Take the Transhumanist Declaration for instance: WTA transhumanist declaration You seem to only take issue with article 7: (7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform. Since "well-being" is so vaguely defined, and we are in a post-modern age, you seem to not even be at much odds with article 7. It does mention humanism, and I think it is useful to take a look back in history. Take Machiavelli, for instance, who is by no means a standard humanist but is often seen as in that sphere of thought. I have great respect for Machiavelli, so that isn't an insult. Article 7 explicitly says that transhumanist is not in support of any political ideology, so someone with a Machiavellian approach to politics certainly acceptable. Granted, Machiavelli understood violence is a sober, borderline cynical way. He didn't "embrace" or "revel" in it. Now, Nietzsche on the otherhand wrote "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger," and repeated such statements multiple times. This seems more your speed. Most transhumanists have respect for Nietzsche, especially myself, but he is almost completely unrelated to transhumanism. Yet, he isn't incompatible, and can provide interesting alternate perspectives. Bostrom link the-ubermensch-the-superman-and-the-posthuman Those two links show that Nietzsche has little to do with transhumanism, but they have nothing negative to say about his positions. Now for my critique. Personally, I think you are being irrational to dwell on a perceived necessity of suffering for living a meaningful life. Meaning is subjective, and if we truly feel our lives to be meaningful, then they are. In a radical future, it is almost impossible to predict what the range of subjective experience could be. You must admit that since it is so incomprehensible, that there is a significant possibility that one could attain an existence with great meaning and sense of vitality, and yet, no suffering. Thus, it makes more sense to strive for that goal than to limit oneself to existences with suffering. That said, you can and should still bring up these ideas so that we proceed thoughtfully with suffering in its proper context, but it should be done keeping in mind that the future is wide open.
	EmbraceUnity wrote on January 25, 2008 11:57 PM Sorry about posting that long link, it screwed up the CSS.... though the CSS shouldn't screw up like that anyways. Moderators: Can you change my link to a tinyurl link?
	Korimyr the Rat wrote on January 29, 2008 3:10 PM "Now, Nietzsche on the otherhand wrote "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger," and repeated such statements multiple times. This seems more your speed. Most transhumanists have respect for Nietzsche, especially myself, but he is almost completely unrelated to transhumanism. Yet, he isn't incompatible, and can provide interesting alternate perspectives." Certainly. I do not make the error of mistaking Nietzsche's philosophical-- and dare I say, spiritual-- ideas as the goal of transhumanism's technological and social progress. While I believe that I have generally more in common with the former, I align myself with the transhumanist movement because I share many of its goals and ideals-- particularly in regards to using technology to enhance human (and humanoid) function. It just seems at times that we differ on the purpose of such enhancement. Which is, I suppose, a perfectly acceptable difference of opinion-- and quite possibly an interesting topic for conversation.