[extropy-chat] Transhumanism and Ayn Rand

[Technotranscendence]

On Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:39 PM Joseph Bloch
jbloch at humanenhancement.com wrote:
> While manning a Transhumanism exhibitor
> table at a science fiction convention
> (LunaCon) today, someone made an
> interesting point during one of many very
> interesting discussions I've had this weekend.

How was LunaCon, btw?  Never been to an SF convention, but always wanted
to attend one.

> This person pretty much agrees with the goals
> of Transhumanism. He's signed up for cryonic
> suspension, is on a LE regimine, and has a
> PhD in artificial intelligence, contemplating a
> move into biomechanical interfacing. He buys
> into the idea that we should use technology to
> improve ourselves. He just doesn't like the
> term "Transhumanism" (and he's very familiar
> with it).

I've always preferred posthumanism myself.:)

> What struck me was his reason. He, being an
> afficianado of Ayn Rand, is very much taken
> by what he called "man-worship", and he claims
> that that is contrary to the idea that we should
> and can surpass humanity, aspiring to being
> Post-Human.

I've actually run into this before with a "philosopher" who claims to be
post-Objectivist.

> Not being all that familiar with Objectivism, I
> thought I'd toss that out here for comment. I
> honestly didn't know how to respond to that
> argument, not being an Objectivist myself,
> but I figured there might be more than a few
> here, and I put it to y'all to hash out (assuming
> it means anything at all...).

Well, some context.  Objectivism bases [human] morality on human nature.
That's kind of its point of reference.  So, changing human nature -- or,
more precisely, changing a human being into something non-human might be
construed as destroying that moral reference frame.  That might sound
abstract, but the idea is that morality should aim at humans acting with
the standard of being human (Rand would say, "man qua man," viz., man
acting in accord with the things that make him man).  That was the
context the person I mentioned above had in mind.

BTW, he did not mean things like "Lasik or LE diets" (as Jeff Medina*
pointed out).  He meant things like immortalism, changing sexualities,
personality sculpting, and uploading.  He thought these more radical
steps would wipe out the humanity in anyone.  He wasn't able to really
draw me a line where alterations went too far.  (I should point out,
too, that Objectivism holds life is the conceptual basis of value -- in
particular that living things can cease to be living things makes for
values.  So, I think some will take the logic that removing the option
of dying removes values.  Rand even used the example of an
indestructable robot in one of her essays to illustrate the point.
Since the robot is indestructable, it doesn't matter what it does and it
needs no code of values to guide its actions.)

Anyhow, I'm basically heavily Objectivist-influenced and have no problem
at all with such radical changes.  Nor do I think the fix moral
reference point has to be contained in current human nature.  Posthumans
and non-humans would, likewise, have a nature and one could, if one is
so inclined, plug Objectivist precepts into that context and churn out a
value system of sorts.  As to the issue of whether certain changes will
be expanding our definition of human nature or changing humans into
something non-human, a lot of it is hairsplitting and I don't think it
much matters.

Regards,

Dan
    See "Free Marker Anarchism: A Justification" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/~neptune/AnarchismJustified.html

*  BTW, Jeff, if you're interested in discussing these points with
Objectivists, you might consider Atlantis_II:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/

That venue is full of more thoughtful -- read: tolerant, non-anal -- 
Objectivists and post-Objectivists who'd probably be open to a sober
discussion -- as opposed to a shouting match.