I’m reading the blog of Wesley Smith, a bioethicist with the Discovery Institute. He mentions transhumanism frequently: at least 212 posts. Unlike Charles Stross, he does seem to believe that the 21st century could bring radical changes with the manipulation of human beings and the creation of new human-like life-forms, including AGIs — he just doesn’t think we should go down that route.
Smith has attended at least one IEET conference, which he recounts here:
“Among the items I learned today are: Feminist bioethics supports genetic engineering so that men can be altered to have babies and women can be freed from the tyranny of menstruation; animals should be enhanced to permit them to become equivalent to humans, including the ability to use the Internet–before, that is, all animal life is transformed into non biological states of existence, which apparently the living planet Gaia requires in order to survive; funding anti-aging research is more important than funding treatment for fighting disease in Africa; we probably should permit people who want to be amputees to achieve their desires; and, freedom requires a maximum morphological license to enhance our biological units.”
Just want to respond to a few of these. I haven’t heard the whole argument, but obviously feminist bioethics is not a monolithic thing so any argument that “it” supports some variety of male reproductive freedom and/or escape from menstruation will not be universal. However, some women I’ve talked to that eliminate their menstrual cycles by taking birth control pills seem to appreciate the ability to remove that necessity as they desire. I completely support the right for men to have babies, and for same sex couples to have babies as well. I think that children from same-sex parents could be one of the earliest major social/reproductive impacts of biotechnology. In another post of Smith’s, a commenter, John Howard, says, “If we can prohibit SSM, we can prohibit non egg and sperm conception, and that would stop postgenderism and transhumanism”. He even has a whole blog devoted to this issue. This is sort of sad because “postgendered” people already exist — and people like Howard seem to regard them as abominations or threats to society. But over time, these choices get more accepted, not less, so Howard and Smith are fighting losing battles. Perhaps more exposure is necessary for familiarity and comfort? Or is religious dogma to blame? Or maybe a combination?
Should animals be enhanced to permit them to be like humans? The one issue with this is: where do you draw the line? If we upload all dogs and cats, does that mean we should upload the rest of mammals? Should animals be enhanced even if they do not have any inherent drive to be enhanced per se? I would argue that there is no particular moral reason to do so (though I would like all animals to be protected from harm), but if some people want to do it, I don’t think it would shatter the fabric of our society as we know it, or decimate universal human rights, as Smith argues. To argue that the creation of non-human agents eliminates universal human rights is like saying that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriage, or that you can’t have free people without slaves. Are human rights eliminated if there are aliens on another planet with rights? What if our cultures collide? I could just say, “I disagree with Smith, I feel it in me bones”, but I’m trying to explore this a tad further here.
Uploading all animals also seems a bit much. (I take it that George was arguing this at the conference?) Like George, I am in favor of vegetarianism, and applaud developments in in vitro meat, which I think will lead civilization to the point where we will become disappointed at how we treat animals today. But I don’t see a major moral distinction between uploading animals and creating de novo uploads from unfolding semi-random seeds of complexity, via thoughtful design guided by procreative beneficence, or conventional reproduction.
Which is better: funding anti-aging research or defeating disease in Africa? I would argue we should do both. The pursuit of anti-aging research will lead to therapies that can lengthen healthy life for everyone on Earth. Does a dollar of research in one or the other do more humanitarian good? The only formal way to go about the comparison would to do a utilitarian calculation based on probabilities, dollars-estimated-per-advance, projected time to payoff, and projected impact. I haven’t done such a calculation, but it seems like a useful open project. At one point a couple colleagues of mine imagined a “charity debate tournament” where advocates of humanitarian projects would argue their relative merits for the prize of a large donation to their non-profit.
Should we let people become amputees? It seems a bit weird, but only a small minority of people would want to do such a thing anyway — would it really be such a huge threat to our way of life if they were allowed to? Smith thinks so, obviously. You can make yourself an amputee right now, anytime you want, it would just be messy. Now that I think about it, I’d be somewhat uncomfortable if that were sanctioned by the state. Maybe I do draw the line somewhere. Guess I don’t believe in unlimited morphological freedom after all!
This comes to our last point, does freedom require a maximum morphological license to enhance our biological units? I think that individual freedom is very important, but there could be some extreme cases where societal consensus is very strong in rejection of a given morphological change being available. Something for transhumanists to consider — what if most of society does really reject the future library of possible upgrades and modifications? Would we all move to a certain country and try to isolate ourselves? I would hope it wouldn’t come to that. I just think that the superficial, “screw what other people think, I always demand the right to do exactly what I want to myself” might not win us any fans, or be very practical in the long run. We might need to go with the flow a bit, pay attention to what the rest of society thinks, and advocate only a subset of possible enhancements, not completely unlimited morphological license. Something to think about.
IEET Blog