Essays on Posthumanity
Modern societies have ushered in a redefinition of the human through the development of agriculture, industrialization and technology. The notion of post-humanism was born in the end of the 20th century at the intersection of the fields of anthropology and technology.
For Bostrom, a posthuman describes a being that has at least one general central capacity greatly exceeding the maximum attainable by any current human being without recourse to new technological means. He argues 2 main ideas: some posthuman modes of being would be very good, and secondly that it would be good for us: “For most current human beings, there are possible posthuman modes of being such that it could be good for these humans to become posthuman in one of those ways”. The question if whether or not we would want to be enhanced to the point of threatening our own nature, is crucial. The rules we set in anticipation of the democratization of those enhancements are the base for a sustainable future society. The values we incorporate and legacy leave to next generations on this particular subject will determine the future of human civilizations.
Bostrom focuses on 3 fields of improvements: health span, cognition and emotion. The desire for human beings to improve their abilities in these 3 fields are obvious. Who wouldn’t want to live a healthier life, remember more things or respond with the adequate emotion to a certain situation? This subject questions notions of human nature, personal identity and the purpose of technological advances. Firstly I’m going to present why according to Bostrom, we should be posthuman. In a second place I’m going to present the objections to Bostrom arguments and then qualify my opinion on post humanism.
Advantages of being posthuman: Human is an open notion, there are multiple humans depending on factors of race, origin, gender, class, dis/ability, creed. Over the course of history the factors differentiating humans, were a source of discrimination or dehumanization. Some humans were considered more humans than other. For example during the 19th century, slaves were considered inferior to their masters, even though they were both humans. Other examples include sexism, classism or any type of discrimination.
These behaviors show that whether or not through history we consider different types of people less human, even if their characteristics varies, something remains: they were all born the same animal race, human. It doesn’t matter the changes done later on, the person remains human.
In the movie Limitless (Neil Burger, 2011), the principal character finds a pill that allows him to access 100% of his cerebral capacities. Imagine being able to learn multiple languages very fast, learn how to play any instrument in less than a week or being able to predict the stock market? It would be hypocrite to say this isn’t desirable (without acknowledging the risks and side effects of this drug).
This example would correspond to the cognition field Bostrom talks about. Human wouldn’t lose any more time with the study of “useless” topics such as administrative tasks but could focus on more essential sciences like biology, astronomy, economics or philosophy. The boundaries of human nature would be expanded.
In my opinion the human nature is characterized by being the main actor of its evolution and in the Anthropocene, the main actor of its environment’s evolution (the Anthropocene is the era, in which we live, where humans have learned how to control its environment and has become the superior animal specie on earth). Consequently, it is in his nature to look for the most efficient ways to increase his abilities for a defined goal. During pre-history, homo sapiens naturally covered themselves with fur, responding to the need of heating themselves, few millennials later, we figured out that by putting some sort of modified glass in front of our eyes, we could see even if sun was blinding us. And now it wouldn’t be surprising if the army developed powerful bionic body parts enhancing the force of a soldier for example.
Even after Bostrom has presented his arguments in favor of post-humanism, some critics have emerged from his views. Some might argue that post-humanism is against human nature and personal identity. For example we could think that a person becoming radically smarter or comes to possess much greater emotional capacities are a threat to this person’s identity. However, Bostrom argues that this person doesn’t cease to exist: for him the person remains the same only if the changes are implemented gradually , the transformation is freely chosen by the subject, the person retains his old memories, desires and dispositions, keeps her old personal relationships and social connections and finally the transformation fits into the life narrative and self-conception of the subject.
Another criticism might be that vulnerability, dependence and limitedness, and other human’s flaws can add to the value of a life or help the human grow as a person. Bostrom responds to this hypothetical criticism by clarifying that a posthuman would also be vulnerable, dependent but would still be able to grow as a person in moral and spiritual dimensions.
The advances of posthuman characteristics are inevitable: we cannot stop progress. In my opinion the principle of post-humanism isn’t as bad as it sounds but its consequences might be disastrous in our current society. For example the development of over-powerful super soldiers that could be able to annihilate the enemy very easily would be dangerous if put in wrong hands. In addition the distribution of these devices would be unequal among countries or classes. The richer would benefit from the advances of technology, they could live longer, be smarter and be more efficient in their everyday tasks while the other would remain normal humans. It is the government’s responsibility to place regulations on these potential enhancements to avoid situations in which there’s an unfair competition for the access to these enhancements, potentially creating even more inequalities.
