[ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism and Politics

[Stefano Vaj]

On Jan 21, 2008 4:19 PM, Hughes, James J. <James.Hughes at trincoll.edu> wrote:
> Thanks very much for this very clear statement. I've rephrased them
> below.

Thank you for your interest and attention. Why, I am fully aware that
my English here (and perhaps in general) is a little, how can I say?,
flowery, or rather convoluted, but at least some of that has to do
with an effort to reflect accurately what I actually think. I would
accordingly qualify a little your re-phrasing, if I may.

> 1) The struggle for access to technologies cannot be ignored on the
> assumption that universal abundance or the Singularity will make such
> concerns irrelevant.

This is pretty OK. The stress is however on the fact that differences
in the access to technologies already exist and are likely to continue
existing, and the more crucial they are, the more people will be
willing to struggle for their access thereto.

> 2) Access to enabling technologies should be defined as a right of the
> person, as opposed to simply a market commodity.

Nothing could be furthest from my mind. I never use the word "right"
unless in the sense of an actionable demand in the framework of a
specific, positive legal system. My point here is simply that *no
universal consensus is ever going to be reached on the recognition of
wealth as the standard to decide who should have access (or have
access first)*. In other terms, the Market is not an impersonal,
objective solution capable to negate point 1).

Starting from that, opinions may vary, and for sure will. Some may
prefer a strictly egualitarian (or random) approach, others may favour
taking into account different parameters, others again may believe
that some kind or other of individual or collective pseudo-darwinism
can legimately come into play.

> 3) We must advocate for and defend financial support for the basic
> technological and educational infrastructure essential for our future.

Yes. And/or public (as opposed to merely publicly-funded) projects.
And/or community, non-profit efforts.

> 4) The rights to freedom of research, and to control our bodies and
> reproduction, are absolute and cannot be constrained by other rights and
> regulatory concerns.

I may sound too "libertarian" here (actually, more in your rephrasing
than in my own words: I do not oppose self-regulation of anything in
principle, even though I may oppose many actual regulatory decisions),
but what I am mostly concerned with this respect are collective
choices, and attempts at international enforcements of rules against,
say, human cloning. In any event, you must be aware that there is a
debate right now in Italy where some fully-secular, influential
intellectuals have proposed a general moratorium on abortion "as long
as it will take to clarify better when an embryo become vital or
develop feelings or something". Contrary to the opinions of some, I do
not really think that transhumanists should even start to take into
consideration a "dialogue" on such ideas.

> 5) Technological progress cannot, and above all should not, be taken for
> granted.

Correct. In the rest of my point I just expanded on the concept, which
I personally consider of the essence. See also my reply to Samantha.

Stefano Vaj