Friday, April 27. 2012
Transhumanists selling their technological "utopia" to Christians
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Hi, thanks for the article.
What would interest me is where you draw the line. Laser eye surgery? Steroid use (btw, thats imho a big problem in sports, that people would like to see super-human achievements)? Or is the line more between what is mandatory and what is not?
What would interest me is where you draw the line. Laser eye surgery? Steroid use (btw, thats imho a big problem in sports, that people would like to see super-human achievements)? Or is the line more between what is mandatory and what is not?
I draw the line where the Church has drawn the line with genetic engineering: therapy to bring about normal functioning for those that need it is good, enhancements to otherwise healthy people to make them "superhuman" bad. So laser eye surgery for someone who has bad or marginal vision is good, but pharmacology for a otherwise healthy person just so they can have abnormal amounts of muscle is bad.
Of course sometimes the line between therapy and enhancement is murky and grey, but such a line prevents outrageous enhancements like replacing perfectly good limbs with artificial ones or genetically engineering people with animal DNA.
Of course sometimes the line between therapy and enhancement is murky and grey, but such a line prevents outrageous enhancements like replacing perfectly good limbs with artificial ones or genetically engineering people with animal DNA.
The only form of genetic "enhancement" that would be moral, I think, would be if one were colonizing other planets and used minor gene-therapy modifications to make it easier to adapt to the new environment (increasing bone growth to make different gravity easier to live in, for instance). But that'd actually be therapy, relative to the new environment, so it doesn't really count.
"Man is a thing that must be surpassed" is a Nietzsche quote (I think it's in Also Sprach Zarathustra); it might be a tenable proposition but it is not compatible with Christianity—if human nature, death and all, was good enough for the Eternal and Unchanging Logos, it damn well better be good enough for us.
Nor, incidentally, is it compatible with Buddhism, another religion transhumanists have tried to make appeals to (to Buddhism's credit, few authentic Buddhist thinkers seem to have fallen for it). In Buddhism, after all, being reborn as a god—which is basically what transhumanists are after—is considered a "calamity", because gods, being immortal and extremely powerful, are likely to be blinded to the Cycle of Suffering that Buddhism is attempting to achieve release from.
"Man is a thing that must be surpassed" is a Nietzsche quote (I think it's in Also Sprach Zarathustra); it might be a tenable proposition but it is not compatible with Christianity—if human nature, death and all, was good enough for the Eternal and Unchanging Logos, it damn well better be good enough for us.
Nor, incidentally, is it compatible with Buddhism, another religion transhumanists have tried to make appeals to (to Buddhism's credit, few authentic Buddhist thinkers seem to have fallen for it). In Buddhism, after all, being reborn as a god—which is basically what transhumanists are after—is considered a "calamity", because gods, being immortal and extremely powerful, are likely to be blinded to the Cycle of Suffering that Buddhism is attempting to achieve release from.
Hi Rebecca. In some cases, it's Christian Transhumanists selling the Gospel of Christ to Transhumanists. That seems to be something you should support.
Nonsense.
If you are so convinced that your faith is true, then what does it matter if we manage to create immortality, rid the world of disease, and increase human consciousness? According to your beliefs, God will come and wash away this world either way- whether we are living a "natural" 30 year lifespan(as God designed us to), living 80-100 years by developing and using vaccinations, cancer treatments and other such technologies(as we do today) or living nano-tech enhanced, brain interfaced "immortal" lives.
Your religion has always stood in the way of progress, yet, by the time it is irreversibly upon us(acknowledging that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the use of drugs to cure illnesses is feasible and good) you brush it off, accept it and get on to the next thing.
Why continue to vainly try to slow progress? You should ENCOURAGE your fellow Christians to take up careers where they may take part in the effort to enhance humanity, to alleviate suffering, to abolish segregation and encourage the acceptance of others- whether or not you are waiting for an invisible God to come destroy it all has no bearing on whether or not we should enhance our lives to begin with.
If you are so convinced that your faith is true, then what does it matter if we manage to create immortality, rid the world of disease, and increase human consciousness? According to your beliefs, God will come and wash away this world either way- whether we are living a "natural" 30 year lifespan(as God designed us to), living 80-100 years by developing and using vaccinations, cancer treatments and other such technologies(as we do today) or living nano-tech enhanced, brain interfaced "immortal" lives.
Your religion has always stood in the way of progress, yet, by the time it is irreversibly upon us(acknowledging that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that the use of drugs to cure illnesses is feasible and good) you brush it off, accept it and get on to the next thing.
Why continue to vainly try to slow progress? You should ENCOURAGE your fellow Christians to take up careers where they may take part in the effort to enhance humanity, to alleviate suffering, to abolish segregation and encourage the acceptance of others- whether or not you are waiting for an invisible God to come destroy it all has no bearing on whether or not we should enhance our lives to begin with.
Oh please leave your tired misconceptions about Christianity on other blog. They won't fly here. Catholicism has not ALWAYS stood in the way of progress as you so claim. Some of the best and most influential scientists of all time were Catholic monks, priests or bishops including the western pioneers of the scientific method (Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon), the father of modern genetics (Gregor Mendel) and the author of the Big Bang Theory (George Lemaitre) just to name a few.
We Christians are committed to alleviating suffering and the common good. We just shouldn't be buying the false utopia the transhumanists are selling. Transhumanism goes far beyond therapy to remaking mankind into something completely different. In the transhumanist world you will have to be enhanced just to be able to keep up. I call that a dystopia not a utopia.
We Christians are committed to alleviating suffering and the common good. We just shouldn't be buying the false utopia the transhumanists are selling. Transhumanism goes far beyond therapy to remaking mankind into something completely different. In the transhumanist world you will have to be enhanced just to be able to keep up. I call that a dystopia not a utopia.
Transhuman society will bring:
1. Not just free access to healthcare, but no NEED for healthcare.
Global acceptance and diversity- equal rights to gays, minorities, humans, transhumans, artificial intelligences, athiests and theists alike. All will be valued in a world where we are free to make our own choices regarding death and intelligence. Transhumanist doctrine explicitly requires and encourages this.
Each major social revolution- the industrial, scientific, iron, etc. - have led to an exponential and unpredictable increase in the world economy. The below-average citizen today leads a lifestyle far more luxurious and enjoyable than the wealthiest king of yesteryear. The "singularity," or whatever you want to call the transhuman revolution, will accomplish the same thing. The poorest, non-augmented human will lead a lifestyle far more comfortable than Bill Gates does today. How is this not desireable?
You don't want to accept my assertion that Christianity(and theism in general) stands in the way of progress? Fine.
The point is debatable- The benefits of a social revolution and an enhanced humanity are not, and your current disposition towards avoiding/stopping it is just evidence that the point I made which "won't fly" on this site is true.
1. Not just free access to healthcare, but no NEED for healthcare.
Global acceptance and diversity- equal rights to gays, minorities, humans, transhumans, artificial intelligences, athiests and theists alike. All will be valued in a world where we are free to make our own choices regarding death and intelligence. Transhumanist doctrine explicitly requires and encourages this.
Each major social revolution- the industrial, scientific, iron, etc. - have led to an exponential and unpredictable increase in the world economy. The below-average citizen today leads a lifestyle far more luxurious and enjoyable than the wealthiest king of yesteryear. The "singularity," or whatever you want to call the transhuman revolution, will accomplish the same thing. The poorest, non-augmented human will lead a lifestyle far more comfortable than Bill Gates does today. How is this not desireable?
You don't want to accept my assertion that Christianity(and theism in general) stands in the way of progress? Fine.
The point is debatable- The benefits of a social revolution and an enhanced humanity are not, and your current disposition towards avoiding/stopping it is just evidence that the point I made which "won't fly" on this site is true.
You may see a world where we are coerced into enhancing ourselves and our children just so that we can keep up with the elites liberating, but I call it a tyranny of technology. Make better tools, yes! Develop therapies to help the sick and injured, yes! Start enhancing the bodies of otherwise healthy people to be more than human and that is something else entirely and will have devastating unintended consequences. Bill McKibbens is right when he warns us about starting down the road of enhancements:
"...if germline manipulation actually does begin, it seems likely to set off a kind of biological arms race.... Of course, the problem with arms races is that you never really get anywhere. If everyone's adding 30 IQ points, then having an IQ of 150 won't get you any closer to Stanford than you were at the outset. The very first athlete engineered to use twice as much oxygen as the next guy will be unbeatable in the Tour de France - but in no time he'll merely be the new standard. You'll have to do what he did to be in the race, but your upgrades won't put you ahead, merely back on a level playing field.
...So let's say baby Sophie has a state-of-the-art gene job; her parents paid for the proteins discovered by say, 2005 that, on average, yielded 10 extra IQ points. By the time Sophie is five, though, scientists will doubtless have discovered ten more genes linked to intelligence. Now anyone with a platinum card can get 20 IQ points, not to mention a memory boost and a permanent wrinkle-free brow. So by the time Sophie is twenty-five and in the job market, she's already more or less obsolete - the kids coming out of college just plain have better hardware.
...The vision of one's child as a nearly useless copy of Windows 95 should make parents fight like hell to make sure we never get started down this path. But the vision gets lost easily in the gushing excitement about "improving" the opportunities for our kids."
"...if germline manipulation actually does begin, it seems likely to set off a kind of biological arms race.... Of course, the problem with arms races is that you never really get anywhere. If everyone's adding 30 IQ points, then having an IQ of 150 won't get you any closer to Stanford than you were at the outset. The very first athlete engineered to use twice as much oxygen as the next guy will be unbeatable in the Tour de France - but in no time he'll merely be the new standard. You'll have to do what he did to be in the race, but your upgrades won't put you ahead, merely back on a level playing field.
...So let's say baby Sophie has a state-of-the-art gene job; her parents paid for the proteins discovered by say, 2005 that, on average, yielded 10 extra IQ points. By the time Sophie is five, though, scientists will doubtless have discovered ten more genes linked to intelligence. Now anyone with a platinum card can get 20 IQ points, not to mention a memory boost and a permanent wrinkle-free brow. So by the time Sophie is twenty-five and in the job market, she's already more or less obsolete - the kids coming out of college just plain have better hardware.
...The vision of one's child as a nearly useless copy of Windows 95 should make parents fight like hell to make sure we never get started down this path. But the vision gets lost easily in the gushing excitement about "improving" the opportunities for our kids."
It is easy to make that argument, and I understand the concern, but the history of social revolution refutes that.
Whether or not one is a participant in a revolution, historically such occurences have increased EVERYONE's quality of life.
Lets say little Sophie ISN'T in the cutting edge, she's outdated. The social and scientific progress brought forward by those that ARE will drastically improve quality of life on Earth.
Sophie doesn't have to be born hyper-intelligent because the advances made by those that ARE will enable her to augment herself throughout her life if she chooses. If not, she will still benefit from post-scarcity, advanced medicine, widespread access to knowledge and new ideas.
I just can't understand why you would promoted Christians to unite against such a thing.
Whether or not one is a participant in a revolution, historically such occurences have increased EVERYONE's quality of life.
Lets say little Sophie ISN'T in the cutting edge, she's outdated. The social and scientific progress brought forward by those that ARE will drastically improve quality of life on Earth.
Sophie doesn't have to be born hyper-intelligent because the advances made by those that ARE will enable her to augment herself throughout her life if she chooses. If not, she will still benefit from post-scarcity, advanced medicine, widespread access to knowledge and new ideas.
I just can't understand why you would promoted Christians to unite against such a thing.
No revolution before has sought to change the nature of man. Previous changes have been in our tools not invasive changes to our bodies or our genetics. They do not speak to what transhumanism will bring.
Transhumanism, by its very nature, will negate the very foundation of our system of rights: that all men are created equal. In a transhumanist world, not all men will be created equal. The unenhanced or under-enhanced will be second class citizens to the ruling elite that can afford and has access to the latest body upgrades. Francis Fukuyama rightly points out that the first victim of transhumanism will be equality:
"Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the world's poorest countries -- for whom biotechnology's marvels likely will be out of reach -- and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing."
You keep suggesting that I am anti-progress, which is not the case. I am anti-philosophies that will inherently make the poor and weak by their very NATURE inferior to elites who can afford to "upgrade" their bodies and rule over the lower classes. Transhumanism is a philosophy that fundamentally rejects the equality of all men because it rejects the nature of men.
There are ways to advance technology other than to assume humans need to be transformed into something other than human. Ways that will benefit all without relegating the unenhanced to second class status.
Transhumanism, by its very nature, will negate the very foundation of our system of rights: that all men are created equal. In a transhumanist world, not all men will be created equal. The unenhanced or under-enhanced will be second class citizens to the ruling elite that can afford and has access to the latest body upgrades. Francis Fukuyama rightly points out that the first victim of transhumanism will be equality:
"Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the world's poorest countries -- for whom biotechnology's marvels likely will be out of reach -- and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing."
You keep suggesting that I am anti-progress, which is not the case. I am anti-philosophies that will inherently make the poor and weak by their very NATURE inferior to elites who can afford to "upgrade" their bodies and rule over the lower classes. Transhumanism is a philosophy that fundamentally rejects the equality of all men because it rejects the nature of men.
There are ways to advance technology other than to assume humans need to be transformed into something other than human. Ways that will benefit all without relegating the unenhanced to second class status.
There is nothing that will benefit "all" at the same time. Whether we are inventing a cure for aids, a polio vaccine, daily vitamins or brain-computer interfaces, the poor will always be last on scene.
The Bible story of "The Tower of Babble" is a rich example(for those who believe it) of what God knows mankind can accomplish. He says that, if man continues to collaberate together as a united world with one language, "Nothing will be impossible for them." (He then goes on to interfere by dividing mankind into a people of many languages, effectively delaying progress for thousands of years)
There it is, from the lips of your own Lord: Nothing is beyond mankind.
Global prosperity, happiness, wealth, advanced knowledge, and longetivity are all achievable.
I personally don't believe that changing our "nature" is bad. Not everything that is natural is good. Disease is natural, 30-50 year life spans are natural, and hatred is a natural human emotion.
By what means do you aim to prevent or resist the development of technology anyway? And you can't say you don't want to resist it- at this point the only possible advancements over the next 20 years in most scientific fields will be to move from "care" to "prevention."
Once brain computer interfaces are developed to the point where they enable the blind to see and the paralyzed to walk again, what would stop us from using them and other technologies to augment and extend our already un-naturally long and healthy lifespans?
The Bible story of "The Tower of Babble" is a rich example(for those who believe it) of what God knows mankind can accomplish. He says that, if man continues to collaberate together as a united world with one language, "Nothing will be impossible for them." (He then goes on to interfere by dividing mankind into a people of many languages, effectively delaying progress for thousands of years)
There it is, from the lips of your own Lord: Nothing is beyond mankind.
Global prosperity, happiness, wealth, advanced knowledge, and longetivity are all achievable.
I personally don't believe that changing our "nature" is bad. Not everything that is natural is good. Disease is natural, 30-50 year life spans are natural, and hatred is a natural human emotion.
By what means do you aim to prevent or resist the development of technology anyway? And you can't say you don't want to resist it- at this point the only possible advancements over the next 20 years in most scientific fields will be to move from "care" to "prevention."
Once brain computer interfaces are developed to the point where they enable the blind to see and the paralyzed to walk again, what would stop us from using them and other technologies to augment and extend our already un-naturally long and healthy lifespans?
Christians unite against the evil and devil of transhumanism. Stand united to fight the final war against this evil that will destroy us all. No human and no Christian should support transhumanism, technical immortality andc genetic manipulation. Transhumanists are no humans so it is only right to eliminate them. I wonder that you guys are not doing more about this!!!
Follow or Contact me
marymeetsdolly [dot] com
Quicksearch
Recent Entries
- Uterus Transplant Baby Lost
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Human Embryos Created by Cloning in Oregon
- Wednesday, May 15 2013
- California Bill Would Lift Ban on Paying Women for Eggs
- Tuesday, May 14 2013
- Is Sex-Selective IVF Harmless?
- Wednesday, May 8 2013
- BioTalk, Episode 4: Biotechnology and the Church
- Monday, May 6 2013
Archives
Blogs of Interest
Warning many of the following blogs are not Catholic or pro-life!
My ears are burning...
"great title, very informative site/blog" -- Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex
"Cool blog! ...I like your honest and smart style..." -- Glenn McGee"
"A must for every pro-lifer's bookmarks." -- Fr. Tim Finigan
"really worth talking about" -- GOP Soccer Mom
"She knows her stuff..." -- Spinal Confusion
"a valuable resource" -- Amy Welborn
"a must read for any Catholic or Medical Ethicist" -- Tomfoolery of a Seminarian
"She's charitable AND loyal to the team. What a gal!" -- Amateur Catholics
"For the love of little green apples!" -- Sailorette
Categories
Blog Rings etc.
