THE PHILOSOPHY OF

TRANSHUMANISM

This page intentionally left blank

THE PHILOSOPHY OF

TRANSHUMANISM

A Critical Analysis

BENJAMIN ROSS

University of North Texas, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan – IndiaMalaysia – China

Emerald Publishing LimitedHoward House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2020

© 2020 Benjamin RossPublished under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions serviceContact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise withouteither the prior written permission of the publisher or a licencepermitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The CopyrightLicensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright ClearanceCenter. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of theauthors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure thequality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes norepresentation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-83982-625-2 (Print)ISBN: 978-1-83982-622-1 (Online)ISBN: 978-1-83982-624-5 (Epub)

CONTENTS

Introduction 1

1. Redesigning Humans 51.1. Transhumanist Philosophy I: Summoning

the Posthuman 71.2. Transhumanist Philosophy II: Epistemological

Certainty 131.3. Resisting Transhumanism: Bioconservative Views 181.4. The Language of Enhancement through the Lens

of Automation 25

2. Engaging with Transhumanism 372.1. The Three Supers of Transhumanism 382.2. Mythic and Religious Precursors to Transhumanism 432.3. Modern Philosophy and the Emergence of

Transhumanism 492.4. Science Fiction: Transhumanism in the Cultural

Imagination 552.5. Realizing Transhumanism: Contemporary

Institutions 61

3. Living “Forever”: Transhumanism and Mortality 733.1. Human Immortality as Amortality 753.2. The Ontology of Amortality 803.3. Social-Political and Metaphysical Concerns

Raised by Amortality 89

4. “Unlimited” Intelligence and Well-being 994.1. Questioning the Emergence of Superintelligence 101

v

4.2. Faith in Superintelligence: An InevitableSingularity? 106

4.3. Engineering a Perfect World: Infinite Well-being 1154.4. Problematizing Transhuman Hedonism 119

5. The Role of the Philosopher in Transhumanism 1275.1. The Overhuman: Proto-transhumanism or

Critique? 1285.2. Questioning Cyborg Values 1365.3. Nietzsche’s Philosophy: The Revaluation

of Values 142

6. Transhumanism and Buddhist Philosophy: TwoApproaches to Suffering 1476.1. Deconstructing the Self versus Enhancing

the Self 1496.2. Failing to “Empty” Emptiness: Deconstruction

as Reification 1556.3. Buddhist Philosophy as an Alternative to

Transhumanism? 162

Conclusion: Contesting and ConsideringTranshumanism 167

References 177

Index 185

vi Contents

INTRODUCTION

Human beings are already enhanced. We slurp psychostimu-lants called “coffee,” sport carbon-based body modificationscalled “tattoos,” replace worn out joints with ceramic alloyequivalents, and augment our brains with smartphones anddata clouds. There are those who would say these technologiessignal that we are not just enhanced, but transhuman.Transhumanists claim that to be transhuman is to be intransition to the next evolutionary phase of what counts ashuman – a phase defined by radical technological alterationsto the body. Thus, transhumanism is a cultural movementwhich advocates a philosophy predicated on the argumentthat humans ought to transcend the limits imposed by ourbiological heritage.

While this may sound like speculative science fiction,transhumanist philosophy is not a fringe concern. For example,opportunities to invest in radical life extension technologiesalready abound in Silicon Valley. Google was an early investorin the secretive biotech start-up Calico, which aims to deviseinterventions that slow aging. Billionaire venture capitalistPeter Thiel has invested millions in parabiosis: the process of

1

“curing” aging with transfusions of young people’s blood(https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiel-wants-to-inject-himself-with-young-peoples-blood). Another biotechfirm, United Therapeutics, has recently unveiled plans togrow fresh organs from DNA. The firm’s founder has statedthat her company exists to use technology “to make deathoptional” (https://www.technocracy.news/silicon-valley-can-billions-dollars-succeed-making-death-optional/). The desire toengineer human beings into posthuman beings is not limited tovastly extending lifespans, however. There are also areas oftranshumanist philosophy devoted to accessing potentiallyunlimited intelligence and continuously experiencingpsychological well-being. These ambitions raise serious ques-tions about the compatibility of two distinct classes of human.How will enhancement relate to human identity? What if onedoes not seek enhancement? What will happen to the wayshumans experience meaning? Does suffering have value? Whatwill be worth living for in a world where radical technologiesdisplace human finitude? These questions and others will beinvestigated in this critical analysis of the philosophy oftranshumanism.

To speak of the philosophy of transhumanism can be adaunting task on at least two fronts. First, transhumanistsgenerally recognize that there is no unified voice whichspeaks for all who profess a commitment to transhumanism.As technology transforms human life at an ever-increasingpace, the different perspectives which emerge as to howconverging technical devices ought to be used for the purposeof self-redesign appear (and disappear) just as quickly. Andyet, it is possible to discern a variety of themes whichcontinuously appear across transhumanist discourse. Thesethemes are: an attitude toward humanity as constantlyevolving with no fixed nature, a preoccupation withbiotechnological “upgrades” which are meant to extend

2 The Philosophy of Transhumanism

physical capacities, and a general view that impermanence,entropy, and the related suffering that they cause tohumanity are technical glitches waiting to be edited out ofthe species.

Second, speaking on the philosophy of transhumanism canbe problematic if one approaches the topic with the assump-tion that it is a naı̈ve, philosophically shallow movement. Tothe contrary, this book seeks to show that there is a depth totranshumanist philosophical commitments – especially whenregarded as one perspective on the uncertainty engendered bythe limits of death, ignorance, and psychological pain. Pre-senting transhumanism in this way is meant to be a correctivefor the misperception that it is simply an implicit ideology ofSilicon Valley meant to evoke a tech-bro utopia. In order toanalyze and assess transhumanist philosophy in its own terms,a comparative format is required. As a critical introduction,this book will utilize the philosophical dimensions of exis-tentialist and Buddhist thought primarily as counterpoints tothe transhumanist arguments for approaching uncertaintywithin the human condition. If transhumanism argues for atechnological voiding of limitations, the aforementioned phi-losophies offer an alternative view, namely, that limits areessential to the meaning of being human. In what follows, Iprobe transhumanist philosophical commitments in order toreveal that the core philosophy of transhumanism is the claimthat there is nothing about human beings that cannot beconceived as a technical problem. As a result of this thor-oughly materialist and computational view, transhumanismsees the techno-engineering of a posthuman species to be bothbeneficial and inevitable.

Chapter 1 will introduce the key players, and offer con-cepts through which to consider the philosophy of trans-humanism. In this chapter problems will be raised concerningtranshumanist thinking, and introduce the opposing view of

Introduction 3

bioconservativism. Additionally, since much of trans-humanism is devoted to speculative nonexistent technologies,automation will be offered as a model to think throughtranshumanist concerns in the present. Chapter 2 will offer anarrative of transhumanism beginning with its mythicalantecedents, proceed through the proto-transhumanism of theModern period, and consider contemporary transhumanistinstitutions. Chapter 3 focuses on the challenge that trans-humanists Aubrey de Grey and Ray Kurzweil present tomortality. The chapter will ask whether human immortality isa coherent idea, and consider the consequences of achieving adata-driven amortality.

Chapter 4 continues the analysis of transhumanism as itchallenges limits to knowledge (ignorance) and limits to well-being (suffering). Ray Kurzweil is presented as a key figure oftranshumanist thought, along with David Pearce, who desiresto eradicate suffering through genetic engineering. The hubrisof transhumanism will be viewed through the existential lensof Friedrich Nietzsche in Chapter 5. Nietzsche’s critique of the“last human” will be interpreted in terms of transhumanistthought, and a role for the philosopher in the context oftranshumanism will be presented.

Finally, Chapter 6 offers Buddhism as an alternativeresponse to suffering. This chapter will profile “BuddhistTranshumanists,” and consider what connection trans-humanism’s attitude toward impermanence shares with Bud-dhism’s philosophy of impermanence. Whether one is for oragainst transhumanism, as a cultural construct the movementraises important questions about what will continue to countas human in a future predicated on radical technologicalchange.

4 The Philosophy of Transhumanism

1

REDESIGNING HUMANS

Transhumanism is the collective term for the range of tech-nocentric thought which converges on the desirability ofradical human enhancement. Leading transhumanist philos-opher Nick Bostrom (2011) offers the following definition:

Transhumanism is…an outgrowth of secularhumanism and the Enlightenment. It holds thatcurrent human nature is improvable through the useof applied science and other rational methods, whichmay make it possible to increase human health-span,extend our intellectual and physical capacities, andgive us increased control over our own mental statesand moods.

(Bostrom, 2011)

These enhancements are drawn from the fields of nano-technology, biotechnology, information technology, andcognitive science, via tools such as artificial intelligence (AI),machine automation, genetic engineering, and cryogenicfreezing. The intellectual core of transhumanism is that humanbeings are in transition to the next phase of humanity – radical

5

technological interventions to the body and mind will soonresult in capacities presently unavailable.

Transhumanists do not speak with a unified voice, yet thereis a clear overlap in goals. For example, Ray Kurzweil,Director of Engineering at Google, and Aubrey de Grey, ChiefScience Officer of the SENS Research Foundation, both pre-dict vastly extended lifespans. Kurzweil’s vision is predicatedon eschewing the body for a digital immortality, while DeGrey’s vision requires continuous rejuvenation of the physicalform. Their projects reflect a central claim of transhumanism:human nature is not fixed. On the contrary, it is open to avariety of cognitive and physical upgrades. Not everyoneagrees that such modifications would be “upgrades,”however.

Those in opposition to transhumanist ideas have beenlabeled “bioconservatives.” Critics include bioethicist LeonKass, activist Bill McKibben, and political scientist FrancisFukuyama. Fukuyama (2004) has gone so far to label trans-humanism “the most dangerous idea in the world.” Thedangers can be generally divided into social-political andmetaphysical categories. In terms of the social-political, forexample, it is uncertain whether the radical technologiesdeveloped within a capitalist framework could ever be equallydistributed among the population. Examples of metaphysicaldangers concern the effect of transhumanist technologies onquestions of human identity and meaning. However, bothcategories point to a singular worry: transhumanists areseeking to accelerate an end to the era of human beings as weknow them.

This chapter outlines the basic philosophical assumptionsunderlying transhumanism with a focus on the thoughtof Nick Bostrom and Max More. Bostrom and More arekey figures in the presentation of transhumanist ideas inan academic setting. The concepts of posthumanism and

6 The Philosophy of Transhumanism

epistemological certainty will be investigated as the primaryphilosophical commitments of the transhumanist, and bio-conservativism will be introduced as the position opposedto transhumanism. Lastly, automation technology will beused to problematize the idea of human enhancement, andraise questions about the future trajectory of radicaltechnologies.

1.1 TRANSHUMANIST PHILOSOPHY I:SUMMONING THE POSTHUMAN

According to Bostrom, described in The New Yorker as“arguably the leading transhumanist philosopher” (Khatch-adourian, 2015), transhumanism is a way of thinking aboutthe future premised on the idea that the human species in itscurrent form is an early phase. Prophetic statements specu-lating on the bodies of future humans have a long historydrawn from myth, religion, and scientific speculation. Whathas changed over the last century is the proliferation of actualtechnologies capable of radically re-engineering humans.CRISPR Cas9 is a prime example of this class of technology.In November 2018, Chinese researcher He Jiankui geneticallyaltered human germ cells using CRISPR, which were artifi-cially inseminated and carried to term resulting in the birth oftwins. It was later discovered that though the experimentconcerned altering the twins’ genes to protect them from HIV,the procedure inadvertently enhanced their brains as well.Jiankui’s research signals that CRISPR represents oneexample of the reality of transhumanism – a radical technol-ogy which has been reliably utilized to re-engineer humantraits.

Transhumanist Steve Fuller characterizes the movementfrom the humans of today to the re-engineered beings of

Redesigning Humans 7

tomorrow as the transition from Humanity 1.0 to Humanity2.0. Humanity 1.0 is defined by our biological limits:

Basically, it is the conception of the human conditionthat you might say is enshrined in the UN UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights…it’s an understandingof Homo sapiens as a kind of living, flourishingcreature, but one who has certain kinds oflimitations. For example, the human being willeventually die…And even though the human being isvery much part of the world of science andtechnology, it is also part of a kind of natural worldin a pre-scientific, pre-technological world. That’sHumanity 1.0. And it’s what we normally call ahuman being.

(http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/virtual-futures-transhumanism-risk-steve-fuller/)

The distinction between Humanity 1.0 and 2.0 reflects avision of the human body and the human condition as onlycontingently related to our humanity. While Humanity 1.0 isdefined by biological limits such as mortal bodies, Humanity2.0 is defined by better-than-human technological enhance-ments. Thus, gene-edited babies, augmented cyborgs, orartificially intelligent robots may be the next “carriers” ofhuman nature as Humanity 2.0, transmitting what isdistinctive about humans while avoiding the limits of ourcurrent biology. By making this distinction, Fuller isconceptualizing transhumanism as the commitment to beingin transition to Humanity 2.0 – a commitment to post-humanism. It is the desire to transition from human (1.0) toposthuman (2.0) that marks transhumanism as a distinctivecultural movement.

There is confusion regarding the terminology of post-humanism as it is used by transhumanism and contemporary

8 The Philosophy of Transhumanism