Post 19

In this post I will argue that transhumanism has many benefits, however it can be controversial and cause unrest amongst various communities and religions. By definition, according to the Woodhouse text, it is, “aiming for a future when human capacities are so transformed that as to constitute a new stage of the species’ evolution” (206). Obviously, there are varying opinions on how far this thought should be implemented. For example, there are the radicals who believe that death itself should become obsolete for humans but others are satisfied with the prospect of disease-free humans.

Ray Kurzweil, inventor of speech recognition software, believes that we are not far from a future where artificial intelligence will be superior to a human brain. He also believes that through a combination of nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and computer technology, the mind, body, and machine will become one. In many aspects, this satisfies the radicals’ view of transhumanism. This would mean that there would be fewer deficiencies and more capabilities in every “human”. What these ideas and estimates of when artificial intelligence will surpass humans frightens many religious conservatives and luddites. As Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford, puts it: "This affirmation of human potential is offered as an alternative to customary injunctions against playing God, messing with nature, tampering with our human essence, or displaying punishable hubris" (NPR). Meaning that transhumanism would lead to serious gaps between cultures in terms of radical transhumanists and others who are not se keen.

Recently, I read an article on NPR that spoke about transhumanism and whether or not science should/could end humanity, as we know it. Adam Frank, author of the article writes, “Well, more than human. We become the next step in evolution — and that will mean humanity, as we know it, will come to an end. What comes next will be a new post-human era” (NPR). However, the real question is, even under the most optimistic scenario where a post-human transformation is available to everyone regardless of race, creed or economic status, is it still a good idea? Is actively developing technologies to put us at a lower intellectual level to future post-human beings ethical? What would be the unintended consequences of doing this? Would humans become extinct due to evolution? All these questions raise valid points and before humans set out to develop the transhumanist theory, extensive trial and error testing should be done.

Sources

Frank, Adam. "Should Science End Humankind?" NPR. NPR, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/11/17/364619831/should-science-end-humankind>.

Science, Technology and Society Textbook