Transhumanism is an intellectual movement that heralds a radical transformation of the human condition as humanity and technology eventually meld together and create a post-human world of nanobots, immortality, and godlike artificial intelligence. It’s a delightfully weird blend of science fiction and fact, where technological forecasting slips into eschatology.
Which is what I'd pretty much conclude it was from reading various loony statements from its various spokesmen.
The idea that humanity and technology would "eventually meld together" begins by seeming to forget that technology is an invention of human beings, tools and devices which we devise to do things according to our purpose. There is no possibility of us "melding" with technology because a. technology has no independent existence from human design and human intention, b. there is no "them" in technological devises to meld with us. As one frequently encountered atheist blog troll challenged me over artificial limbs and embedded computer chips working "off of the electrical impulses in the brain" they apparently don't understand that when people operate a typewriter to record their thoughts or a spoon to feed themselves, those, as well, work though the energy generated in the brain and nervous system. It's just a matter of scale and the nature of the tool. While I've read of semi-famous authors who identify rather neurotically with and are attached to their typewriters, especially if they've got a Selectric or an old Underwood, I don't think they believe they've melded with them.
The techies who inhabit that imaginary blend of science fiction and fact can't even navigate the definition of what technology is. They are, literally, like children who mistake the personalities they impart to dolls and stuffed animals as being independent of them, which is quite shocking considering their ages, educations and professional responsibilities in so many cases. Andrew Aghapour might find that delightful, I find it disturbing. Usually when adults impart personalities and independence to objects by their imagination, if they don't believe it, we call that "art", if they do believe it, we generally call that psychosis. That is unless the person doing it is very rich and/or confuses people by dressing it up with lots of sci-talk. There is no more potent means of gulling the gullible in these sciency times than dressing up nonsense as science.
Related to that is this statement by Istvan.
We want to make it law that you’re not able to go against science just because it violates a cultural or a religious perspective.
Well, among other things, that's a law that demands that science be a static entity because there is no greater violation of science than a scientist overturning an accepted holding of science. "Science" can have no definition apart from the common agreement of living scientists as to what constitutes scientific knowledge of their time. The history of science is replete with example after example of a new idea being rejected because it violated the commonly held ideas of science. Not to mention that there are times when more than one, conflicting holding of science is held by various scientists at the same time. When that is the case at least one of those has to be wrong, those holding it must be "going against science" perhaps all of them are because two schools of thought in science can have ideas that are wrong.
More seriously, it fails to understand that science is a cultural perspective and, cluelessly, for folks like Istvan, it's obviously a religious perspective. Scientisim is one of the most widely held of religious faiths among those who deny they have any religious faith. It's especially popular among people who know next to nothing about science, though they do know that they are afraid that people will think they don't. Journalists are especially prone to being fervent and faithful worshipers of science which they probably know no more about than what they learned when their prerequisites were fulfilled in college. One of the faith holdings embedded in that religion is the belief that science is the sole source of knowledge and that its abilities to discern truth are supreme. I would ask where Zoltan Istvan locates the rightness of his proposed law granting it supremacy with science.
The article is a small catalog of loony, half baked and, frankly, uncooked ideas, slogans and bromides and it's nothing compared to the website. I couldn't help but feel nervous about those things that seemed we agreed on or which seemed to make at least some sense. Though even crazy people can believe the truth they can also make you nervous about agreeing with them.
This exchange was of interest to me:
What do you think of religious subsidies—the approximately $80 billion a year that the American government spends on religious institutions through reduced income, property, and investment taxes?
We would remove every single one of those deductions. Of course, I say that knowing that that would be an impossibility. But that would be the goal, to remove those types of incentives [and create] a much more fair playing field for the secular-minded folks out there who also have projects that may not be getting the same types of benefits. I actually don’t want to give benefits to anyone doing these projects. I just think it should be a fair playing field. So the idea is we would try to take away those subsidies and put it back into the system.
Apparently both the the questioner and Istvan are under the impression that "secular-minded folk" don't get tax exemptions for their "secular" by which you should usually understand "atheist" organizations. Well, I've done the exercise of making a list and looking them up for tax exempt status and just about every one of more than two dozen or so atheist organizations not only had tax exempt status but told their donors that donations to them were tax deductible. Atheist groups would seem to take full advantage of tax exemptions and what the author terms "subsidies"
I looked at Istvan's Transhumanist Party website and found out, while they admit that as a political party donations to them can't be deducted from taxes, they will take donations in bitcoin. I'd like to know a. the legality of that for a political party and b. who keeps track of the accounting and taxing of such donations.
I would also like to know what Istvan's sources of income are and I'm really curious to know how much of his self-listed CV have been fact checked because, frankly, it looks a bit over ample for one his age.
I would only add that if you want to read real science fiction on the topic, Clifford Simak's last novel, Highway to Eternity talks about the dangers of something like "transhumanism" and how the fanatics who made it mandatory would know no bounds in their determination to enforce conformity. And if you want more about the fantasy of agency in man made tools and how it might not be such a great idea, you can read his much earlier short story "Skirmish" also entitled "Bathe Your Bolts In Blood". Simak knew he was writing fiction, and therein lies the difference.
On the question of taxes: are charities "atheist" groups? Many are secular. The Komen Foundation, for example; it's a charitable organization, donations to which are tax-exempt, as is all its income. St Judes Children's Hospital, despite having a Christian name, is, so far as I know, not affiliated with any religious organization. Donations to St. Judes, which regularly uses celebrities and children for fund-raising, are tax exempt.
ReplyDeleteChurches are tax exempt because they are charities, like United Way or the American Cancer Society. If you eliminate the taxes on churches, you eliminate them for charities. And despite the fact the Catholic church and mega-churches dominate American news, there are thousands and thousands of small churches across America.
In recent reporting on church fires near Ferguson, an argument was made (per Snopes, I understand) that church fires aren't more likely than they were before, and most are due, not to arson, but to lightning or accident. But there are a lot of church fires because there are a lot of churches, and there are so many fires they aren't news, unless the police report them as "arson" and one can construct a narrative of "black churches," for example, being "targeted." Now, it may be black churches are being targeted, or that church fires aren't that common, except for arson fires. But the grain of truth in the argument is that there are a lot of churches in America.
And a tiny percentage, I'd guess well under 5%, are "mega-churches." Most are small, relatively unknown except to their members, and poor. Tax them and they evaporate. It's a voluntary organization, money given to do charitable work in the world (for the majority of them); tax those contributions, and they stop.
Which is why we don't tax Komen (although it was/is apparently quite rich), United Way (ditto), or any other charity.
Like the stories of burning churches, which may be a product of a selective narrative rather than a true picture of the world, the story of "rich churches" getting away with something is equally a badly distorted mistake. Most people don't even realize pastors pay income taxes even when churches don't; as do all church employees.
Ignorance leads to all sorts of stupid conclusions.
"Transhumanism" is one of those ridiculous wastes of time dilettantes engage in. I don't know of a carpenter or plumber who wants to "meld together" with his tools, a lawyer who wants to become one with Lexus/Nexus, a surgeon who wants to surgically join with his scalpel.
ReplyDeleteExamine the idea for even a nanosecond, and it evaporates into the foolishness it is.
I don't know about becoming one with but I'd like to get closer to Jstor without having to pay for it.
DeleteI think way too many people who are among the young and sciency are one with their idiot box, whether TV or computer based. Which is more obvious every time I go online, especially reading posts like that one at RD. Some like a common foe are one with themselves.