Transhumanist Politics
Context
For background, see:
- Transhumanist Politics Wikipedia
- Transhumanist Party Wikipedia
Interview
"Katja Siepmann and Annabella McIntosh conducted the interview."
With Roland Benedikter, on the occasion of the launch of a transhumanist party in 2015:
"So how should the political programme of the Transhumanist Party be judged?
Roland Benedikter: Istvan could be right in asserting, as he does, that "certainly (politicians) are gonna have to consider it. Transhumanism is here to stay. In the next ten years everyone is gonna be forced to deal with how we deal with Artificial Intelligence, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with longevity as people live longer, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with some of the biotics, the chip implants and the mind uploading. These are very difficult bioethial questions… and every government is gonna have their policies for."17 He is also without doubt correct in claiming that "society will be greatly changed by radical science and technology in the next 5-15 years. Most people are unaware how significant these changes could be. For example, we might all be getting brain implants soon, or using driverless cars, or having personal drones follow us around and do our shopping for us. Things like anonymity in the social media age, gender roles, exoskeleton suits for unfit people, ectogenesis, and the promise of immersive virtual reality could significantly change the way society views itself."18 While this is accurate, my skepticism is toward the proposed "transhumanist" answers. Should we simply and unconditionally embrace the trend towards universal technology and its global substitution of the difference of historic cultures, as Istvan and his party followers in essence, propose, or are more cautious and multi-level approaches the safer and better way? Should we as fast as possible get rid of the human being as we know it, or is it necessary to get to know ourselves better before we make irreversible decisions? In the end, humanity has just begun to explore itself. Here is the chance for the more traditional big popular parties like the Democrats and the Republicans to get to more broadly pondered and shared views. If nothing else, it's their strength to forge great compromises involving as much people of different strata of society as possible.
* Does Istvan succeed, as he aspires, to "present transhumanism in the media in noncontroversial ways that emphasize health, wellbeing, democracy, and the upholding of humanitarian values"19 in order to get as many votes as he can and get global attention?
Roland Benedikter: It's too early to judge this, but certainly the goals of the Transhumanist Party are controversial. Again, there are many contradictions in Istvan's discourse. For example, the concept of "transhumanism" according to Istvan himself means "... beyond human. In this way, transhumanism aims to leave behind the problems and bickering the human race has undergone for millennia, especially ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural divisions. The language of transhumanism is science — and that language and cultural framework is universal."20 That means that Istvan's concept of "transhumanism" as such is to go beyond human, and thus it per definitionem excludes the "upholding of humanitarian values" since it actively aims at overcoming their basis which is being "human". Or, as another interpretation, Istvan wants to suggest that "humanitarian" nowadays means "beyond human", which is a quite dangerous combination in times of new martyrs that are springing up in the age of fundamentalist religious politics. So if Istvan claims the Transhumanist Party "to be a bridge to a scientific and tech-dominated future, regardless what the species may eventually become"21, this is a profoundly ambiguous statement. It suggests that transhumanism is going to take care of something that in the end doesn't matter: to be human (in the accepted sense, including the ethics tied to this discourse), since regardless what the species may become, technology is the answer, independent of other considerations. These contradictions cannot just be taken as if they wouldn't matter, since they could point to a deeper, fundamental contradiction in transhumanist reasoning that we have to explore.
"The new 'body inversive' technologies will be crucial for the future"
* This ambiguity is also found in the so-called "three laws" of transhumanism that Istvan outlined in his recent book "The Tranhumanist Wager"23, that allegedly inspire the political agenda of the Transhumanist Party.
Roland Benedikter: Exactly. As you know, these three laws are, according to Istvan:
"1. A transhumanist must safeguard one's own existence above all else.
2. A transhumanist must strive to achieve omnipotence as expediently as possible — so long as one's actions do not conflict with the First Law.
3. A transhumanist must safeguard value in the universe — so long as one's actions do not conflict with the First and Second Laws."
Concepts like "omnipotence" stemming from the USA with a global aspiration and outreach are not so very popular these days in most other countries. Yet the three laws' values are very clear: first comes the individual, then "value in the universe", i.e. first the ego, and only then communitarian and social values. This is clearly an egoistic agenda that is in contradiction with the essence of politics, which is fo forge a social contract and dialogue between many, in the ideal sense all social actors. Politics is by its very nature in essence about community, not about individuals.
* But on the other hand…?
Roland Benedikter: On the other hand, Istvan and the transhumanists are right in asserting that "if energetically adopted, these deceptively simple maxims ultimately compel the individual to pursue a technologically enhanced and extended life. (Transhumanists) have come to see the choice to accept or reject these principles as something far more fundamental than the choice between liberal or conservative principles."25 Istvan is right that the decisions made necessary by the new "body inversive" technologies will be crucial for the future, more that most economic, political or military issues, since they touch the core of being human.
The discussion is, how the related questions should be properly addressed by not simply dismissing humanism and the democratic culture and society created by it since the founding of the USA in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789 for the sake of radical technological individualism (or, as Istvan calls it, "Teleological Egocentric Functionalism". In contrast, James Giordano and John Shook have proposed a set of principles to guide the use of emerging biotechnologies that I believe to be more realistically oriented toward humanist values, and more soundly focused upon how such technologies should be ethically leveraged to sustain the relationships of individuals-in-community.26 Giordano and I have also produced considerations about this issue (together with John Shook and others)27, and our upcoming new book will also be dedicated to the related challenge which is not a merely theoretical one, but one with strong practical anthropological implications.
* The Transhumanist Party's two other goals are…
Roland Benedikter: … as Istvan states, to "challenge other major political candidates, like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush: How shall America handle coming 'designer baby' technology? If robotic hearts can wipe out heart disease, should governments allocate many billions of dollars to it (since heart disease is the #1 killer in many countries, including America)? Will there be a global arms race for militaries around the world to develop a superintelligent Artificial Intelligence?"
Second, and this is of particular importance, the goal of the politization of transhumanism is "to unite the transhumanists, singularitarians, cyborgists, biohackers (grinders), cryonicists, roboticists, longevity advocates, futurists, and all tech and science-minded groups and people out there under one banner. Currently, many pro-technology and science people don't get along with one another… The transhumanism movement is becoming so popular, that it must try to find common ground and a single optimistic vision of the future, irrespective of differences in politics, age, and ideologies."30 That means that there is the practical ambition to indeed build a transnational, global political movement beyond cultural and civilizational borders.
* You and James Giordano stated years ago that there would be a trend of transhumanism towards politics, and that this trend could prove to be more important on the medium and long term than many still think, independent of the destiny of the Transhumanist Party of the USA in the immediate future.
Roland Benedikter: Yes. Independent of persons and fashions, the trend toward an increase in crucial questions at the interface between technology and the human body seems to be inherent to the present stage of evolution of our civilization: of the present phase of human development. With or without the "Transhumanist Party", and independent of its further path, questions at the interface of humanism and transhumanism are going to be at the center of the political, social and cultural debate of the coming years. The healthcare sector has been a forerunner to a certain extent, including its recent politization in the Obama era, but the spectrum of influence and effects is rapidly broadening. We believe that if there was no "Transhumanist Party", the issues would nevertheless come up through the ethical deliberations and decisions that will unavoidably have to be made in face of the new options fostered by the interactions of technology, the human body, individual and collective consciousness, artificial intelligence and the self-image of the human being.31
* This trend seems to be the more radical, the more the combined size and outreach of the politicization of "transhumanism" on a global level is considered.
Roland Benedikter: Right. To think that the politization of transhumanist thinking and ideals will be confined to the world's most important technology-driven nation, the U.S., would be a miscalculation. The Transhumanist Party is gaining traction also in other parts of the Western world - mainly in Europe so far. Among them are the "Tranhumanist Party of the UK", the "Transhumanist Party of Germany (Transhumanistische Partei Deutschland) and others, all currently in the process of foundation. In all these nations, the Transhumanist Party websites are online, and their members are preparing for the next elections - in the UK for example for the general elections of 7 May 2015.32 Apparently, these parties are being founded in an internationally at least partially concerted action.33 Interestingly, there is a response through the founding of new "Humanist" political parties in some places, like for example in Germany the "Humanist Party of Germany" (Partei der Humanisten Deutschlands). This is a development that hasn't yet received enough attention by political analysis.
* Some worry that the Transhumanist political movement could become a new "Internationale" - like the Communist was. Do these parties want to overcome national sovereignties (as the "Internationale" did) in order to establish a global technological order?
Roland Benedikter: I don't think this is the appropriate approach. This isn't in principle about class struggle, even if it could be involved in some way or another, for example by creating different "classes" of who gets access to certain options and who doesn't. It would be a misunderstanding to interpret the current transformation of the "transhumanist" movement into a (probable) international alliance of national political parties through the viewpoints of the 20th century. This is something different, and it has to be approached with new concepts and instruments.
* Some fear that there could lure a new war of worldviews - in this case about the further self-concept of the human being embattled between humanists and transhumanists.
Roland Benedikter: As at now, I am not really worried about this. It might rather be a dialogue between different concepts of what the human body, and with it human consciousness, human nature, the human being and its self-concept(s) in general can and should become in the coming decades. If this will be the case, it will certainly be a very important discussion at the core of our further notions of progress and of the public imaginary in technologically advanced societies in more general terms, given that the technological means to alter the human body undoubtedly are increasing with every year. In any case, there are signals that some of the "Humanist Parties", for example the German one, want to go in the direction of dialogue, not confrontation.34 I see similar signs from the side of moderate transhumanists. The larger these movements grow by organizing themselves politically, the more they will necessarily shift to a position of inner compromise, and thus to the center: to more centrist and moderate positions. At least this would be the "natural" process as we know it."
(https://www.telepolis.de/features/The-Age-of-Transhumanist-Politics-Has-Begun-3371228.html?seite=all)