John Bruce via his “In the Shadow of Mt. Hollywood” blog often critiques transhumanism, cryonics, and the Technological Singularity, among other topics. He suggests that these are quackery and pseudoscience. He is often critical of the writing of Glenn Reynolds, law professor, author, Instapundit blogger, and occasional columnist in newspapers like the New York Times. Reynolds has written positively about the Technological Singularity and related topics.

In his entry from Monday, April 10, 2006 entitled “A Little Perspective On This Transhumanism Stuff”, Bruce wrote that “I’m going to be talking more about this, but I want to be clear that the only reason I’m doing it is because Glenn Reynolds has become a major public figure, he’s advocating these very wacky views, and everyone is giving him a bye. This shouldn’t be happening.”

Bruce states that “I got started on this whole subject simply because Glenn Reynolds describes himself as a transhumanist, and in trying to find out what that belief system involves, I’ve gotten a bunch of transhumanists on my case.” A few transhumanists, cryonicists, and life-extensionists, including me, have responded to Bruce’s criticism with our own comments, in varying degrees of professionalism. In a more recent post, Bruce explained that he had found Technological Singularity listed as a pseudoscience on the Wikipedia “pseudoscience” entry. Sometime after his post, an anonymous public editor removed Technological Singularity from the pseudoscience list.

If Richard Hoagland wrote a column for the New York Times, I might myself be upset. How, then, does the public, many members of which have trouble distinguishing between pseudoscience and science, decide what is what in a world where science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact, where hoaxes and fraud continue to be a problem, and the number of ideas that can be misused in other contexts continues to multiply?

One approach is to listen to those who decry the idea in question with name-calling. Bruce describes transhumanists and other proponents of life extension, the Technological Singularity, and cryonics with phrases like “he’s nuts”, “wacko”, “raving moonbat” and “quacks.” Some of these proponents have responded by calling Bruce names in return. In comparison, Carl Sagan was respectful of those who believed in ancient civilizations on Mars and alien abductions in his book “The Demon-Haunted World.” Instead of calling these believers names, he examined their ideas and suggested alternative explanations grounded in science. He also suggested that these believers were demonstrating the curiosity and willingness to learn valued by science, but had simply been failed by an educational system that had drifted away from critical thought and a strong foundation in science, mathematics, grammar, and other subjects.

Another approach is to listen to negativity. Bruce sees danger. He warns that “This is part of the problem: people think of Glenn Reynolds as a cute little nerd who leans in the direction of head-freezing.” Other critics of transhumanism have labeled the philosophy the world’s most dangerous idea (registration required.) In comparison, transhumanism is a celebration of difference, of freedom, of critical thinking and reason, of logic, of science and technology, and of possibility. Transhumanists demand not that everyone be forced to use science and technology for personal enhancement but that everyone have the choice. Transhumanists include, respect, and protect the rights of those who do not wish to modify their bodies or minds.

Perhaps a better approach is to not listen to anyone in particular in the first place and to take the time to study the issues and come to your own conclusions. It is true that I believe the Technological Singularity is possible, that I am a transhumanist, that I am considering signing up for a cryonics plan, and that I have a great deal of hope for scientific and technological progress. It is also true that I am more critical of myself than anyone else could every claim to be. I will never allow myself to accept those ideas I listed above on faith. Instead, I will keep reading both sides of the debate, keep asking questions, encourage scientific attempts to falsify the related theories, keep insisting on a reality check, and generally keep my mind open yet critical.

There is much more to be said about the need to distinguish between pseudoscience and real science. Bruce has provided a fantastic opportunity for debate and a much needed view into criticism of transhumanism and related ideas, ideas that I will continue to explore here.

The scientific progress and technological advances of today are collapsing our anthropomorphic conceits and forcing us to ask deeply personal questions about what it means to be human. We will soon share the Earth with clones, chimeras, cyborgs, genetically-enhanced humans, artificial intelligences, and other beings right out of science fiction. To some people these beings will be demons. The conflicts that could arise from this sort of thinking are as chilling as their historical precedents. To discern true scientific breakthroughs from the fantasies of pseudoscientific wishful thinking and to avoid rampant xenophobia when faced with our intelligent creations, we will need “skeptical thinking and an aptitude for wonder,” two skills Carl Sagan repeatedly highlights in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Skeptical thinking is absolutely necessary in a world where science fiction is rapidly becoming science fact. The advent of mammalian cloning in the 1990s took the world by surprise. The science then took an unfortunate turn in 2002 when Clonaid alleged the birth of the first human clone. Raelians, the religious sect behind Clonaid, immediately promised to provide evidence of their breakthrough, but two years later the group has still not provided evidence to the scientific community.

Carl Sagan has said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In Demon he tackles topics of the paranormal ranging from alien UFOs to magic. Respectfully, he dismisses many claims of paranormal phenomena for lack of any evidence. There often exists a more prosaic and simpler explanation. Applying this reasoning to Clonaid’s claims, it is not entirely unlikely that a religious sect (or any organization outside the scientific community) could make use of advanced biotechnology and produce a clone, but science on the fringe requires the same adherence to documentation, independent reproduction of data, and peer review required of any scientific pursuit. Requiring less would threaten the fidelity of science. Few people doubt that human clones will eventually be brought to term, but it is doubtful that Clonaid has succeeded to do so given their reluctance to present their work for review.

In marked contrast, the efficacy of a controversial cloning procedure developed by a South Korean team was recently confirmed by a team at the University of Pittsburg who originally had their doubts about the procedure. They successfully used the procedure to produce the first primate clone embryos to progress to the blastocyst stage of development.

Recognizing this strict adherence to scientific procedures will help individuals separate reality from fiction. Dealing with this reality will require use of Sagan’s second recommended skill, an aptitude for wonder. In Demon, Sagan details the superstitious practices, beliefs and fears in Europe during the Dark Ages that lead to the death of thousands if not millions of alleged “witches.” Unfortunately, some of us will likely react the same way to the new creations of science. Already some have labeled clones as soulless monsters. That innocent human children conceived through means other than sexual reproduction could be met with this unwarranted discrimination is inexcusable. What we need instead of fear is a sense of wonder for the accomplishments of humankind, including our creations, no matter how strange and unique.

Xenophobia must be nipped in the bud prior to the emergence of human clones and other new types of beings. These beings are not demons. They warrant the same respect and humane treatment that we humans, at our very best, grant other humans. By using the skills articulated by Carl Sagan in his book, we can avoid turning the coming disruptive future into hell on Earth.

Bibliography

• Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
• University of Pittsburg Medical Center News Bureau. “Efforts to Clone Primates Move Forward.” UMPC New Bureau. 6 Dec 2004.

The July 12, 2004 edition of “Coast To Coast AM with George Noory” focused on Atlantis. Like many other speakers before him, guest Michael Tsarion suggested an alternative history kept secret from the majority of humanity by powerful secret societies, governments, and the religious and scientific mainstream. His ideas are based on a literal interpretation of Celtic texts, legends, and mythologies, as well as alleged similarities to other historical documents.

The occult perspective draws a line of destiny from every individual to a much larger picture. It tries to explain the mysteries of good and evil and the unexplained. In one sense, the power of the occult is meant to inspire awe and provide a sense of place in the universe, but in another sense the occult compartmentalizes and categorizes all the vagaries of human existence. “Yes, of course!” one thinks when hearing about the occult. “That explains everything!”

Unfortunately, reality is much too vast to fit into such small spaces. The occult explains nothing. Like religion it is better at providing a sense of comfort than actually explaining reality.

The “evidence” sited in occult studies generally consists of two types: anecdotal and interpretive. Anecdotal stories provide little or no physical evidence of an occult incident, and are fraught with the subjective errors of the witness. Interpretations of sacred texts, images, and other apparent mysteries in various media can often be explained away with apophenia (the human propensity to see patterns where there are none).

Good science demands verifiable physical evidence and the reproducibility of results. Such strict demands ensure the fairness and objectivity of the process, traits that are unforgivable to pseudoscientists, occultists and the faithful. The occultist I would truly respect and hear would be the one who admits that he has no physical evidence and only a theory but is in the process of trying to gather such evidence. He would emphasize the subjectivity of his ideas, articulate his passion for his ideas but also his strict adherence to the scientific method, and make no promises regarding the outcome of his work.

In the movie “Contact”, Jody Foster’s atheist scientist demands empirical and reproducible data before supporting a particular theory or idea. Reluctantly, her character admits in public hearings that she does not believe in God as there is little or no scientific data to support the existence of such a being. At the end of the movie, after her experience with wormholes and aliens, when questioned as to whether or not the events actually transpired, she falls back on faith, stating that everything that makes her human convinces her that she actually met with aliens. This is the one fatal flaw in a movie I otherwise highly recommend. While she knows the events to be true, she provides no evidence other than her gut reaction. The movie tries to placate this betrayal by revealing a government cover-up of real evidence that she did in fact make a trip through the universe and met aliens.

Perhaps, as Mr. Tsarion proposes, aliens fleeing persecution on their home planet did settle on the Earth, create the city of Atlantis, and started a hybridization program with the locals to ensure their survival. However, such a theory demands real proof, not the interpretation of the world’s sacred text as clever metaphors created to hide the truth, not the gut reaction that tells the theorist he is right, and not the manipulation of human emotions and expectations in which all good occultists excel. Science intentionally embraces reason and logic and holds human emotions at a distance. While some may describe such a tool as cold and unfeeling, science includes checks and balances the likes of which no other human tool can claim. Those who relegate science to bolter their own submission to faith and fantasy admit their extreme disinterest in reality. For them the comfort of fantasy supplants the human desire to know the truth.