Summary:
The wikipedia article on transhumanism said that its main philosophy was that, by adapting new technology, humans can evolve beyond their current state. It studies the possibility of eternal youth and transcending basic human limitations and looks at the ethics involved in using technology to evolve.
New Things Learned:
I had heard of some of these ideas before, but not in the context of transhumanism. It was very interesting to read about the possibilities for how technology and knowledge could help us move into an entirely new state of being. However, I think that these ideals are largely unattainable. Throughout the course of human history, we have had many technological singularities that have changed the way we function in the world. The automobile, fire, written word, and the internet have all greatly changed human society. Yet, even as society was remolded around the possibilities of new technology, basic human nature stayed the same. We all have a fundamental need for survival, which translates into greed and conflict. Technology hasn't changed this fact, it only gave it new expression. Without a change in human nature, we will never move on to posthumanity. The ideals of transhumanism rely on the ability of technology to change human nature, but history has shown that it can't.
Question:
While reading, it occurred to me that transhumanism is a very hard thing to examine with a sociological mindset. Sociology essentially exists to study the workings of human society, and its assumptions don't translate well into a posthuman setting. The two viewpoints are based on different understandings of what humans are and are capable of. Transhumanism assumes that the basic parts of human nature can be changed through the application of technology. Conflict and personal gain don't fit in well with the transhumanist worldview. A transhumanist would look at my argument above and disagree with it because he wouldn't accept my foundation, and I do the same to him.
No comments:
Post a Comment