I dunno. The default premise of the many transhumanists I've talked to seems to me to be deeply libertarian: that is, the premise that transhuman transformation should be, and could be, a choice.

This is a deeply preposterous, and yes, completely libertarian notion. This is not about enabling people to have more choices; quite the opposite. Technology doesn't always improve choice; I'd venture to say most of the time it increases choice in one area while reducing it in others. For instance, do you own a phone? Of course you can choose not to, right? Sure... of course you can. Just because you have some abstract right to opt out of owning a phone doesn't mean you can really do it. Here in Ontario it's legal for women to go topless in public--but it's never done. Why not? (That's two examples, and "why not?" has two slightly different answers, but both are germaine to the overall issue of choice.)

I keep running up against the belief among transhumanists that human-improvement technologies are democratizing. They will level the playing field, increase each person's potential scope of action. Well sure, the phone does that--but is owning a phone really optional? Not if you want to keep up, and there's the rub. In a world where humans are improving themselves, you will not be able to opt out without harming yourself. In short: you will not be able to opt out. There will be no choice.

Speaking of rights, the best analogy for transhuman technologies is with rights. Adding a new capability to the human body is not like buying a new car; it is like acquiring a new right. This is because such capabilities become innate to the person once acquired; they are not external objects like tools that can be laid down and picked up by someone else. Those who can see a broader EM spectrum than the rest of us have acquired the equivalent to a right of access to experiences that others do not have. Anyone in a wheelchair will tell you that they are effectively second-class citizens, with no "right" to enter most public and private buildings.

With that in mind, translate the transhumanist credo: "If I want to improve myself (acquire a new right), I should be able to, and that doesn't affect you if you choose not to do the same (don't want the right)." You can talk about choice all you want, but at the end of the day we have one person with more rights than others.

There is no way the ability to acquire new rights can be democratizing. Opting out will not be a positive option any more than choosing not to have a phone is advantageous now. So either all enhancements are applied to everyone (even those who don't want them) or some people are allowed to become second-, third-, and fourth-class citizens while the richest acquire the most rights. Both of these scenarios are ugly.

We completely lack the ethical framework to begin to address the technologies we're developing. Those who insist that the framework will develop as we go, and that we should simply push forward on faith, forget that technology is legislation. Introducing a technology is not a neutral act--it is profoundly revolutionary. If you present a new technology to the world you are effectively legislating a change in the way we all live. You are changing society, not some vague democratic process. The individuals who are driven to use that technology by the disparities of wealth and power it creates do not have a real choice in the matter. So the idea that we are giving people more freedom by developing technologies and then simply making them available is a dangerous illusion. Doubly so for any technologies that give people new effective rights, such as physical and neurological enhancing technologies will do.

This is why democratic transhumanism is a contradiction in terms. This is why, although I explore many transhuman and post-human themes in my work and encourage others to do the same, I do not call myself a transhumanist. It's possible that the movement is evolving towards being about the analysis of possible futures in a similar spirit; I remain to be convinced because I have yet to meet anyone who identifies themselves as a transhumanist who doesn't hold the default libertarian position I've described.

<  |  >