[ExI] my first response to Ted Peter's piece

[Tom Nowell]

Sorry it's taken me a week to reply to this, but this raises enough interesting points someone ought to talk about it. I may get round to breaking down the original piece and replying to each individual subsection, but for now here's my initial responses.

Peters states "In the process I would like to correct one mistake made by transhumanist theorists. They presume that religion will attempt to place roadblocks in their way on the grounds that the religious mind is old fashioned, out of date, Luddite, and dedicated to resisting change. When this image is applied to Christian theology or even Jewish theology, it is mistaken." He goes on to make the point that there's no theological reason why Judaism or Christianity would oppose biological research. He also states "No Christian opposition to biology, either regular unleaded
or the Super type, exists, especially when biology is pressed into medical
service."
 Well, Peters is missing the point slightly. Christian leaders and churches have been opposing biological research. The finer points of theology seem to be lost on those who come forward to lead campaigns against stem cell research. The people who become the Catholic bishops who are fighting against the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill didn't get their position purely for their theological knowledge, but for their ability to work the politics of the Catholic church's hierarchy. Likewise, many of the Christian leaders in America fighting for their right to teach Intelligent Design/Creation Science as an equal to evolution in schools got their position from their ability to move a crowd, rather than for coming top of the class in biblical exegesis. The actual Christian leadership and churches we see around us are movements full of resistance to change, and not responsive to fine theological argument. After all, somehow the "Religious Right"
 of the American Republican party manage to be pro-rich and pro-war in Iraq while maintaining that they are in touch with the teachings of Jesus, that well-known preacher of "love your enemies" and "love your neighbour as yourself".

When it comes to transhumanism and religion, one of the important points to remember is that transhumanism concerns itself with the material, and (mostly) makes no claim to the spiritual. I suppose there's a similarity to the ancient Hedonists: we only know what we can gain in this life, and have no way of knowing what comes beyond. Therefore, the Hedonists argued, we should take what pleasures we can in this life, as they are the only ones we can be sure of. For transhumanists, if there is a way of extending your life (whether bio-immortality or cybernetic immortality), should we not take it? Should we not want to extend our time alive, the one existence we can be sure of? Transhumanism is therefore associated with agnostics and atheists, who will feel increased hope from the promise of life-extension. There is no philosophical reason for any tension with religion, but the preponderance of atheists and agnostics in the transhumanist communities can make
 for a movement not inclined to discuss spirituality or faith in positive terms.

Transhumanism is a wide movement, with several differing visions of the future outlined by different writers. Peters mostly quotes Kurzweil and Moravec, but also some De Grey. The difference between the visions of a future for biological humanity and for a future of life as machine intelligences, or some combination, does make discussing "transhumanism" as a solid entitity difficult.

Likewise, the difference between the free market believers, the socialist transhumanists and all that lies between makes for a wide variety of visions of the future. Peters attacks the free market emphasis of some transhumanists, and treats it as the majority view of transhumanism. Peters gives no references in this piece as to why he thinks transhumanists don't oppose free market capitalism - thereby dismissing the entire work of the Institute of Emerging Ethics and Technology, the people on the Technoprogressive list, and the like. He has completely glossed over this divide in transhumanism.

Peters does make a useful distinction between futuristic thinking - the difference between extrapolating from the past (what he calls "futurum") versus waiting for a massive change ("adventus"). He's correct in that some visions of the Singularity involve a sudden, massive change that can't be easily foreseen with today's technology - or to use a metaphor widely used on this list, waiting for a Black Swan event and relying on it happening. However, the reasoning behind transhumanism isn't dismissable out of hand - based on the acceleration of technological change we have seen in the past, and the expansion of human capabilities, we can say that IF this continues following the trend, THEN we can predict massive change in our lifetimes. Of course, those of us who have read books like "The Black Swan" know that many minds greater than ours have come unstuck making extrapolations from past history. We could be heading for a new dark age. We could be heading
 for an age in which all our progress is carefully guided by censorship, or limited by lack of resources and environmental damage. Then again, maybe in a few year's time when the new, sirtuin-derived anti-aging medications reach market, there could be a gigantic push for life extension and bio-immortality, changing our vision of the future. However, the predictions made so far by transhumanists are probably less silly than the economic predictions made for 2009 which government advisers and financial institutions have spent many millions devising.

Damn, those last few paragraphs have been gigantic (and this is my restrained, carefully edited argument). I could talk about "anti-deathism" as mentioned on this list, versus Christianity as a religion focussed on death and the afterlife, but I think someone covered that a few months back. Two last points:

Peters says "it would appear to me that any
improvement in human health or even longevity would be greeted by Christian moralists as a blessing from science, a gift to be thankful for. No theological recalcitrance would block progress toward human betterment through medical technology." I've asked before, does anybody know if a term exists for taking such doctrines as co-creation (mankind creating things within God's creation is itself a holy act), and preventing human misery through medical technology, to an extreme? Has anyone named the concept that remaking humanity through biology, and creating artificial intelligences, could be seen as glorifying God?

My other point - Peters says in endnote 1, "Transhumanism is an expansion on *extropianism*". I've always viewed extropianism as one particular thread of transhuman thought, but then again I'm sure people could argue many viewpoints on this one. I now see why Max More states that compiling a more accurate history of transhumanism and making it widely available is a good thing.

Tom



      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html