There is much discussion around the topic of transhumanism. It is believed by its proponents that for humanity to evolve to the next stage, we need to become part-human part-machine.
This could extend our lives, potentially to immortality. We could be able to achieve things our ancestors never dreamed of.
It would open the doors to space travel, as trans-humans could cope more easily with the far harsher environments of the Moon, Mars and deep space.
Some even talk about uploading a mind into a machine and living forever within the confines of a metal shell, rather than in a fleshy bag. These very issues have been the topic of several science fiction novels and films.
All this is dependent upon whether we have a correct understanding of the human. As we augment the human body with technological replacements; digital eyes and ears, robotic arms and legs, when does someone become ‘transhuman’?
At what point is the line drawn. Is it our senses? Once we move to only experiencing reality through a digital interface, are we abstracted to point of being no longer human, and reach the state of transhumanity?
What if the line is the mind? Once our minds move beyond our physical bodies and existing inside a machine, is this the point where we become fully transhuman?
These questions are based upon the idea that our minds are who we truly are and the body is just a suit made from flesh. This is a commonly held belief in the Modern Western cultures. So much so, that we never question it.
Another way to describe the human is an embodied person and a social creature. A person who is made up of a soul, a mind and a body, and who lives in a network of relationships; familiar, local community, wider society and living in the moment between the Past and the Future.
This conception of the person is rooted in the Christian framework. While, the Modern secular understanding of the human is more rooted in a gnostic worldview and the philosophies of Plato.
So from a historic Anglo view, a human is a nexus of space and time. We exist in a physical place, at a particular time and are an interwoven soul, mind and body.
Once we lose any one of these, we become less human. A human is all of those elements combined. I would say this is a more coherent definition than the one transhumanists are basing their ideas upon. And is rooted in our actual human experience.
Are we sure the transhumanists have the concept of a human correct? Where is the evidence that a human mind can exist without a human body?
Does a mind, which isn’t embodied in human flesh, still mean we are human? At the point of becoming ‘bodiless’, does this person lose their humanity?
Another issues the transhumanists may need to consider are the implications of a society which relies heavily on augmented technologies?
A high-tech society requires technicians who are highly competent. If competency drops, then when the technology goes wrong, who will repair it?
We might have fanciful ideas that robots will fix us, but who will fix these highly complex robots when they go wrong? Even more complex robots?
On a philosophical level, as we allow the role of technology in our society to grow exponentially, then this will lead to greater and greater abstraction from objective reality. The more we become unaligned with the natural world, then it leaves us open to unforeseen threats.
Technology is a good tool at increasing the efficiency of interacting within a stable environment, but it is less adaptive to extreme or rapid changes. Unlike the human person who has evolved and adapted over the millennia, technology is more difficult to change. And the more technological a society, the less adaptive it is.
Anglo-Futurism wants humanity to use technology, without losing their humanity. A society heavily relying on technology will be one which is abstracted from the real world and over time will lose its grasp on what it means to be human.
Even in our Modern culture, we experience so much through a screen, rather than directly. We are beginning to live in a hyper-technological culture, and it is slowly numbing us. Losing our gripe on reality, will make us less human, not more.
We need to learn how to integrate digital technology into our lives, in such a way, it doesn’t denigrate what it means to be fully human.
Anglo-Futurism looks to try to square this circle. It seeks an answer to this intractable problem, and it is aware it will never completely solve it, as new technologies will always arrive on the scene. But the answer is to have a framework which protects humanity from the worst impacts of technology.
I am not against body augmentation technology, but we need to prefer the human body to a machine body. Ripley at the end of Aliens, where she is in a mechanical machine fighting the alien queen, is preferable to a future where we become like a Robocop. Who lost his memories, his identity and almost his humanity.
Interesting discussion. Difficult. Is consciousness our individuality, our being human? Is the physical being and world necessary? When does a consciousness stop being a human? If I would prefer to be a free consciousness existing as an id inside a computer program or online on internet, would that make me unhuman? Interesting and difficult.