The World Transhumanist Association (WTA) announced yesterday the launch of a fundraising campaign to raise $25,000 by January 31, 2008.  All funds donated will be matched dollar-for-dollar by sponsors Bill Faloon, co-founder of the Life Extension Foundation and editor of the Life Extension magazine, and Brian Cartmell, serial internet entrepreneur and founder of Cartmell Holdings, LLC.  The WTA hopes to raise up to US$50,000 to support their identity and website redesign, an upcoming digital magazine entitled “H+”, student outreach programs, and their next Transvision Conference.

Transhumanism is the global social movement and philosophy that embraces the ethical use of current and expected technology advances to enhance human capabilities and mitigate human suffering.  Rapid technological progress suggests individuals will soon enjoy “longer, healthier, smarter, and happier lives” as described in the WTA’s press release for the campaign.

As of this evening the campaign has raised over $2000.

“[M]y only respect and support is for life, sentient or not, physically immortal or not, technologically enhanced or not. I have rarely been patriotic and if this means I need to move from the United States to another country that supports basic human rights – including the right to choose technology as I see fit to modify or enhance my body – then I will do so happily.

“The right to choose technology also includes the right not to choose technology. Therefore, the responsibility of transhumanists is far greater than critics of transhumanists can every claim: in seeking modification and enhancement, transhumanists must fully support and protect those who do not seek modification and enhancement. ”

The debate over transhumanism already rages, despite the lack of awareness in the general public. As advanced technologies of human modification and enhancement become available in the next few years and the topic begins to show up in popular discussion, the debate over their use and accessiblity will inevitably turn violent. I hope that transhumanists understand their responsibility now, and can somehow prepare for the day when so many turn against them. Any response must remain true to the tenants of transhumanism, or all transhumanist efforts will have been in vain.

The hosts of the “Ethically Speaking” radio show recently discussed transhumanism. They feel there are “yuck” and “affordability” factors to emerging technologies but neither are good arguments against transhumanism. They end the segment with the following scenario:

“Let’s say that you go to the eye doctor. Instead of 20/20 vision, the doctor offers you glasses that make your eyes 20/10—much better than normal. Would you say, “Don’t enhance my vision please. I want no better than normal vision?”

The most common arguments against transhumanism might as well be from the school yard:

• “You are NOT better than me!”
• “If I can’t afford it, you can’t buy it either!”
• “Yuck! You want computers in your body?”

Many transhumanists are as passionate about making advanced technologies available to all humans regardless of cost as they are for using that technology to enhance themselves. Every new technology that changed our way of life has had its critics, including the first airplanes. Critics argued that man was not meant to fly and would be punished for his impudence. Humans have not and will not be punished. Instead, humans will deal with the consequences, both good and bad, of all of our inventions, including those that begin to redefine what it means to be human.

Thank you, doctor. I choose the glasses that will give me 20/10 vision.

Wikipedia defines transhumanism as “[…] an emergent school of speculative philosophy analysing or favouring the use of technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to improve the human condition.”

Why is this philosophy dangerous? Fukuyama and other critics of transhumanism fear the Pandora’s Box of consequences to be unleashed on the world should technology be used to augment, enhance, and modify humans. It is also a threat to many of today’s prevailing philosophies that have been used to keep certain people and organizations in power. The prevalent philosophy about the self is dualism, the belief that humans consist of two separate but interacting media (brain and mind, body and soul.) These dualists also often belief in a dual universe, one that is physical and one that is supernatural, both ruled by an intelligent designer. They often believe that something survives the death of our bodies. The technologies favored by transhumanists challenge all of these beliefs, not because it was anyone’s plan to do so, but because reality is proving just how wrong these beliefs are.

I am a transhumanist, and like all transhumanists I have enemies who believe that I should not be allowed to use technologies that might extend my life or enhance my abilities or provide answers that directly conflict with their own. This is not their choice and I will not give it to them. I no longer have the need or desire for the supernatural, gods, or spirituality because our knowledge has shown that none of these likely exist. The universe is best approximated by emergent phenomena from simple materialistic building blocks, patterns out of complexity and chaos.

Reality demands transhumanism. It is not dangerous. It is transcendent and necessary.

Bibliography

Fukuyama, Francis. “Transhumanism.” Foreign Policy. September/October 2004: 42-43.

Here is another example. I have often mentioned ProtandimT as one of the first potential life-extension compounds, set to be released sometime this fall. Lifeline Nutraceuticals, the company to which the original scientists licensed the technology, is suggesting in their latest press release that the release will now be delayed by about a year. Instead, they plan to release their own “supplements” to tide people over until the primary drug is available.

This does not necessarily smack of a hoax, but it is a reality check in the face of rapid change. After a new drug is created and after it has made its way through human trials and FDA approval, there is still the lengthy process of commercializing the technology and marketing it to the appropriate audience. Then the drug may not work as originally hoped, it may not find commercial success, it may be superseded by something better, supplies may be limited, governments may ban it, and controversy may surround it, all because nothing in the process guarantees success.

Eventually, however, humans will live past 120 years olds, whether through this particular drug or other technologies. The trend is clear, if not the specific path to this particular future.

It is easy for us to make sweeping statements about things we instantly recognize as extremely different from the norm. What my classmate failed to understand is the fine-grained nature of change. Change does not always come all at once, but instead often sneaks up on you until it becomes just another part of your life. Case in point, Dutch eye surgeons have developed jewelry for the eyeball.

Humans are getting over their initial queasiness toward having technology embedded in their biological substrate. Cochlear implants are routine procedures, artificial retinas are moving through human trials, students and faculty members at various universities are turning themselves into cyborgs, and artificial limbs can now tap into the signals coming from the brain. Certainly each of us has a threshold of tolerance for such technology, but this threshold is constantly being pushed back, and will continue to do so until most of us have absolutely no qualms about allowing someone to put a microchip in our brains.