?subscribe ? 
? 
? 
? 
? 
? Wesley Strong
Ethical Technology
Posted: Mar 8, 2013
Transhumanism may be considered a recent philosophical development, but its roots go much deeper. Modern transhumanism focuses largely on technological developments, scientific research, and biological means to improve, extend and perpetuate life. Transhumanism is centered around ?transcending humanity?, what it means to be human, and the biological barriers presented by human bodies that deteriorate by nature.
This goal seems quite virtuous. Transhumanists speak of reversing genetic diseases that inhibit people's daily lives, repairing physical damage to our bodies, linking human consciousness to a greater extent, or outright replacing such consciousness with a robotic or non-biological consciousnesses. It is almost always the case that ?Transhumanists? speak of technological and scientific advancements, often times claiming that such changes could cause a drastic paradigm shift for the better of humanity. This focus is almost always devoid of any real political and social criticism, however, particularly of the core paradigms that determine the daily lives of billions of people.
Race, class, gender, ability, and multiple other social phenomena shape the reality of what it means to be human. A vast majority of humanity lives under oppressive capitalist modes of production. They are forced into wage slavery for a mere pittance of the wealth they create. Racism runs rampant through most societies, especially in colonial and imperial states, particularly in the United States. Social definitions of gender and sexuality that don't match the lived reality of humanity continue to oppress and restrict the lives of millions throughout the world.
Progress is by no means inherent, even though most Transhumanists seem to assume that it is. Progress is better described as a knife half withdrawn from the backs of working and oppressed people. Most progress is menial at best and met with drastic measures of repression. Systems of oppression redesign themselves into a different forms with greater nuance, but the same roots. Power elites adjust to changing society and technology to maintain hegemonic power and sustain systems of oppression.
Some argue that technology has an inherent transformative nature, citing the printing press and the internet, making claims that such developments transformed power relations between classes. These technologies are merely tools, however. The Printing Press was employed by the rising bourgeoisie classes to communicate their ideas, develop a class ideology, and gain support from lower classes for their libertarian capitalist revolutions.
These revolutions were not victimless by any means, and in most cases established systems of oppression from their outright. The Colonial war of Independence from Britain was based on racist systems of colonization, slavery, and genocide. The printing press helped develop those systems as much as it helped ?liberate? colonizers from the ?oppression? of the British Crown.
The internet created a space for oppressor to have an omnipresent existence in the life of the oppressed. Poor communities are asked to do things over the internet without access to computers. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, and Intersex (LGBTQQI) youth are confronted everyday with varying degrees of heterosexism, homophobia, and bigotry, delivered into their bedrooms by the internet through social media. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Wikileaks and uTorrent do not rid the internet of oppressive forces, and have done little to dismantle the power of elites and state entities. Bittorrents are used by oppressive forces to spread intelligence, for instance the Department of Defense. Wikileaks played a role in spurring the Arab Spring, but it was more of an ancillary role. The real power behind the Arab Spring rests in the decades of organizing that took place and acted to build these movements when the rifts were opened by these apparent crises. Claiming that Wikileaks was critical to the rise of these movements is a racist colonial mentality, a white man's burden view of this history that ignores decades of struggle against authoritarian regimes. Wikileaks has certainly had am impact on society, but this impact is not inherent in the technology itself, but rather the political decisions made by those who wield it.
How can we assume that technological and scientific developments will do anything to free us from our human form when our human form is overwhelmingly defined by social factors? We may be able to transform the physical bodies of humans, the storage of consciousness, and progress of diseases and so on, but such transformations will do little to drastically transform a society centered on hegemonic systems of racism, classism, and oppression.
Therefore we must redefine what ?transhuman? means and what it means to be a Transhumanist. We must seek a transhumanism that directly speaks to the social lives of billions of people, instead of relying on some future technology to fix everything for us. We must seek to transcend human boundaries by transforming repressive the very social structures we created while also developing futuristic technologies to improve our lives and our ability to connect with each other.
Transhumanism must encapsulate a libertarian socialistic political view, pursue a drive towards anti-capitalist politics, and seek anti-capitalist modes for producing future technologies. This path would seek to ensure equitable, ethical, and liberating use of developed technologies under socialized modes of production and distribution democratically controlled by working people and communities to serve their best interests and dismantle systems of oppression. Transhumanism without a political view resigns itself to the power hegemony of late-stage capitalist authoritarianism and cedes control of the distribution such technologies to the ruling classes through states, governments, and corporations.
Oppressive structures must be radically transformed if we truly seek to improve the human condition. Such transformations are likely to bring more immediate changes and improvements to the daily lives of people than any well-wishes and intentions meant through the development of future technologies. Capitalism, racism, sexism, imperialism, and other forms of oppression are greater killers than any medical condition and should be at the top of our list of concerns over extending the lives of the privileged few who don't have to think about how they are going to feed themselves each day.
Wesley Strong studied sociology at Central Connecticut State University, where he graduated from in 2008 with honors. Wes was awarded the C. Wright Mills Award for Excellence in Public Discourse.
Print ? Email ? permalink ? (17) Comments ? (940) Hits ?
?subscribe ? ? ? ? ? ? COMMENTS
One of the most turgid, humorless political rants I have ever seen. The transhumanist agenda will have to wait until comrade bolshevik drillmaster is satisfied that all forms of oppression are ended? And LGBTQQI? You?ll be running out of letters of the alphabet soon> LOL, I say.
Well, yes, rmk, but the glass is half full. Wesley is correct yet it goes without writing we have not nearly reached the stage(s) in our evolution where? you get the picture.
One huge flaw in Marxism?something rmk948 undoubtedly knows?is workers are ?conservative?: merely alcohol, tobacco, etc., alone, are more important to the majority of workers than any social change (Marxism itself they don?t comprehend, it has to be spoon-fed to them by their politruks). And why not??working dirty, brutish jobs are not what we fondly remember; escape through drunkenness & tobacco are only to be expected (and, please, don?t become indignant.. such is merely an example).
Marx?s philosophy was what made him and still makes him worthwhile, not his sociology, economics. Marx wrote how change occurs when all other possibilities have been exhausted. Marx wrote of how capitalism destroyed profound spiritual reveries all for the sake of ?naked? financial gain.
Wesley might better read PR Sarkar, who is to Marx as Marx is to a Medieval philosopher. Plus, Sarkar lived in Asia: i.e. we do not want to be excessively Western-centric, do we?
Not sure what the article had to do with transhumanism; it merely read like an aimless laundry list of what?s wrong with the world. Opression is bad? Yes, yes it is. I also missed how he got from railing about oppression in one paragraph to advocating for libertarian socialism in the next. Why libertarian socialism? Why not state capitalism? Or something else entirely?
I think the author is trying to make us think about how technology does not always destroy oppression, and the very technology in the future that could aid in the destruction of oppression should be available to *everyone* under a system that is fair: not just a select few.
rmk948, Intomorrow, and SHaGGz, I am glad you read my piece. This is the second of a series of pieces I am planning to write to explore the politics on transhumanism (as a movement and philosophy) in an attempt to remediate how the movement presents in real life in comparison with it?s goals and how to approach the issues of future technologies and societies in a way that can bring greater liberation, democracy, and power to marginalized classes and populations. To write about all of this in one short readable piece on the internet is quite impossible. So I am going to work out thee thoughts across several pieces.
Transhumanists, in my experience, are all to eager to put off dealing with social oppressions in favor of focusing on the promotion and growth of future technologies, sometimes with the ideal that those future technologies could reshape society to address these issues. Some transhumanists completely disregard these struggles entirely, which is quite reactionary and problematic, leading many to assume that transhumanism in general is the modern form of eugenics. This apolitical nature of many transhumanist circles is important to recognize, especially if transhumanists have the desire to really ?transcend? ?humanity? and what it means to be human, something that is almost entirely defined in a social context. Many people refuse to recognize these struggles (as evidenced in some comments above), and that likely rises out of the largely intellectual, white, privileged roots of a movement based in advanced sciences. This is not an attack on anyone, but a realization based on my experiences.
To address Marx and Marxism in general - There has been a mountain of writing and thought since Marx that has progressed notions of democratic control and distribution of collective needs. Whenever I mention socialistic ideas among crowds of people who are not familiar or not keen on socialistic economic principles, they always draw back to Marx or try to connect the failures of former and current socialist/communist states (some of which are defacto state capitalist)with a root failure in socialistic principles in general. This is a straw man argument and is more indicative of ignorance on behalf of the person making it than any holes in the root arguments. Yes, marx is not 100% applicable to today. In fact, there is a lot of his writing that is not directly applicable to the modern condition. That?s because he wrote in a period that had drastically different conditions than the ones we currently face, even if there are some similarities and comparisons. Reducing an argument for a socialization of production and wealth to Marx?s writings and thoughts ignores over one hundred years of advancements and thought that developed out of some pretty serious struggles.
Also, PR Sarkar looks to me like a standard run of the mill religious oriented philosopher of sorts that links religious principles to anti-capitalism. Of course this is an easy and often made connection. Socialism draws its roots from the left wing of religious faiths, particularly the french and Christians, and in fact many of the root inspirations for socialistic thought come from devoutly religious folk. However, we don?t need religious principles or reject the materialist nature of our existence in order to stop being consumerist individualists and start caring about people.
The socialist argument I would make is that we live in a material world and we should provide for each other so that we can spend less time worrying about our immediate material needs (like housing, food, healthcare, etc.) and more time building community and developing greater meaning for our lives. Of course, these needs are often met among the crowd of people who are likely to read this piece (even though over 3/4 of the world struggles to provide these basic need everyday). Addressing these issues in a socialistic manner is about transcending the need for constant struggle for basic requirements of human life, not out of a desire to develop state bureaucracies and other systems of oppression that wear different colors.
Intomorrow and SHaGGGz, thanks for raising those points, I will look to address them in greater depth in the future. rmk948, your comment is bigoted, heterosexist, totally f-ed up, and QUITE ignorant. I presume that you don?t face any of these struggles (and are likely a white man) so you have no concept of what I am discussing (and really can?t ever fully understand them). You have to experience these forms of oppression in order to truly understand them, and most white males are never exposed to these or choose to ignore them.
There is one point that you raise, seemingly by mistake or happenstance. Fighting against capitalism and oppression is an ongoing struggle. It is a process. It does not rely on ?comrade bolshevik? to do anything, but get out of the way. In every socialist state, nation whatever, there have always been struggles, often against authoritarian party regimes or ideologies. Stalin killed millions of left opposition-ists who fought to prevent authoritarian power plays by the Bolsheviks in the leadership of Stalin. Kronstadt sailors fought against the soviet red army and dies in large numbers to defend the revolution they fought for. There is never a perfect example of one moment when the revolution ?happens? it is an ongoing struggle. Look at Egypt. They forced the Army leaders to kick out Mubarak, only to reveal that the Army leaders were really in control from the start. They created a revolutionary situation and now have to continue the struggle beyond and into the future. But what would the world be like today if they just sat on their hands two years ago? What would that have achieved?
My main point in the piece is that transhumanism/ists seem to ignore politics writ large or assume social ills will be solved by cyborgs, AI, or some sort of advanced technology. My argument is that technology has never by itself changed class relations in the past so making such assumptions about such a future is completely baseless. I also present my argument that transhumanism/ists would benefit from integrating libertarian socialist (anarchist power structures and socialist economic principles) into transhumanist thought and ideology as they could blend quite well and could inform on what type of technologies should be prioritized and how they could be distributed to benefit the greatest number of people. I?ll try to explain this to a greater extent in future pieces.
I appreciate the challenges (intomorrow and shagggz), rmk948 can continue swimming in ignorance.
ALSO RE: worker?s conservatism- Yeah this is an issue. But it has roots in capitalism itself. People change through struggle (I?ve seen this first hand). Through these struggles we can dismantle racism, sexism, oppression, etc. and begin to reverse these cultures of conservatism used by powered elites to maintain their hegemonic political control.They are not an inherent given, they come from decades and centuries of socialization. They can be socialized out of existence in a similar manner. If you were ever involved in any workers/community struggle against oppression, you would have some experience in the trans-formative nature of political struggle and be able to recognize this point to a greater extent. It?s not an on-off switch. If you refuse to engage because of how messed up things are, then everything will just stay the same, and perpetuate the same conservative culture you rail against.
@wcstrong: To play devil?s advocate and give a charitable interpretation, rmk was only pointing out the folly of the ever-lengthening acronym used to denote gender nonconformity (?gender nonconformity? would be a far clearer and more concise way to communicate what is being denoted, as opposed to the seeming output of a deranged keyboard-mashing). I?m as progressive as they come, particularly on matters gender, but even I recognize the poor PR at play here.
And it?s definitely a stretch to react with such melodrama as to asert he?s ?bigoted, heterosexist, totally f-ed up, and QUITE ignorant?. You don?t want to become the sort of perpetual outrage machine those on the other side of the culture war paint this side as.
As for your article, plenty has already been written on these very generalized issues of inequality and oppression. Try to tie these to particularly transhumanist technologies and issues, as the title would suggest.
We need all the allies we can get- and more. Actually Wes? piece is readable, interesting; it didn?t put us to sleep even if such is damning with faint praise. His next article is bound to be pretty good.
Wes, you are correct on Sarkar yet IMO he is a 20th century improvement over 19th century Marx. It?s mostly about popularising, appealing to wide swaths. No one save for Beria would say either of them had The Truth.
Now we aims for the 21st century?we aims to please.
?
Well I think it is pretty bigoted to reduce a whole community to ?You?ll be running out of letters of the alphabet soon?. Most of the Queer community identifies with these terms, a lot more than ?gender non-conformist? which is a negative identifier and includes a negative connotation. Not looking to split hairs or start a flame war here, but trying to clarify why people I work with would be highly offended by such a comment. And, in my community, someone saying such a thing would be considered highly ignorant and oppressive.
My previous article talks a bit about specific technologies and how they can be just as oppressive as liberating, but I plan to look more at how to integrate transhumanism as a movement and transhumanist thought as a philosophy with liberating political forms and social structures, as there is some space for remediation and further definition.
Rmk948, what ?forms of oppression? are OK with you in the future? One of the missions of the IEET is to challenge people to think of how we can be technoprogressive. That means we should be very critical in our thoughts about the future of society and technology?. We should also be positive ? meaning that a comment like ?You?ll be running out of letters of the alphabet soon? when it comes to sexuality and gender is indeed up for grabs to be criticized on the IEET. I by no means want to alienate you, we need to have good conversation about the future and where society and technology is going ? and it may be leading very well to more diversity instead of less?
... only articles unacceptable are ones too boring to read or technically over my head; Wes? do not fall under the 2 categories
(of course if a piece is irrelevant, if it is about pink doilies being gender-liberating, it goes without saying it doesn?t belong at IEET).
????????????-
??gender non-conformist? which is a negative identifier and includes a negative connotation?:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_22691781/school-wrong-transgender-girl
Even six yr. old trannys are getting militant. Good for them.
@wcstrong: I don?t think you?re in danger of starting a flame war if things keep to their present level of discourse. I?m interested in hearing those hairs be split. I can see how the comment about letters of the alphabet can be seen as belittling, but reiterate the folly of appending ever more letters (which will be in plentiful supply as humanity?s horizons broaden ever farther) to name particulars when the overarching theme would get the point across far better. I?m not married to the term ?gender non-conformist? (though it saddens me how the hint of non-conformity can so easily be viewed negatively, especially by a putatively freedom loving society) and can see how it can be interpreted negatively, though I?m sure the sort of iconoclasts who embrace terms such as ?genderfuck? would be fine with it 
I don?t see any concerns with the sentiment of this article, and the additional comments are even more clear, and well said.
However, there are many, many, voicing concerns today, and words alone will not shake the tree, we need to focus also and more on ideas of ?how? incremental change can be realised, then perhaps politicians can be influenced to revisit their integrity and ideals, and do what we pay them to do, and help to point economic policy in the direction that serves to benefit social welfare and not erode it?
Unfortunately the comments here at IEET are frequented by the few, and the same, with tired old bigoted white-middle class(?) views set in stone, (and I do not exclude myself). So I would not pay too much attention to the negative feedback from resident ?haunts?, there are no doubt many out there that agree with your article, and many of us are disseminating articles like these to wider audiences.
Personally, I have voiced many times here at IEET that there are ?too few? commentators, and would like to see a much more wider audience with diverse viewpoints. It seems now that there are even fewer adding comments, (although be thankful at least these have not given up as yet?)
With regards to the context of your article and argument, I would say it is difficult to steer political opinion in one direction as there are so many flavours from right to left across the trans-human spectrum. I agree with you, that left-libertarian seems perhaps to be the fashionable choice presently because it extends beyond polarised militant socialism and embraces the middle ground, polarising does not help anyone, ever?
Where some comments have confused the purpose of your article is prime example of readers only ?reading what they want to read? and filling in the gaps with their own political views/agenda.
Look forward to reading and disseminating more of your articles!
@Cygnus: I think a large part of why there are so few comments here is the antiquated system that requires registering with the website. Most these days can?t be bothered to do that. I know it kept me from commenting for years. Fixing this would be pretty straightforward, by converting to something like Disqus.
@ SHaGGGz
Good point, perhaps Kris would like to take note of this?
The problems concerning commenting last year, (encouraged by controversial ?flame? articles and opinions), has done little to encourage commenting but rather stifle even more. Previous to this there was much hard effort applied by Mike Treder to moderate abusive comments, although I still think he did a grand job and encouraged respectful disagreement.
I guess it all depends on how much value IEET places on comments. I have also voiced that comments help disseminate to wider audiences - which should be the prime directive for IEET philosophy?
@Cygnus: I agree that the recent rule change is another factor in the worse level of discourse and stand by the vocal protestations I made then that the rule change, though well-intentioned, will end up doing more harm than good to the community, and ultimately its goals. If our goal is to truly reach out to the broader public and engage with what they?re actually thinking and feeling, we do it a disservice by shying away from the more emotionally heated subject matter, of which there will definitely be an increasing number.
CygnusX1, Ive taken note of your comment and will adress it, for anyone who wants to sign up to comment, simply fill out this form: http://ieet.org/index.php/member/register
YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)
Login or Register to post a comment.
Next entry: Mind Controlled Robots lecture at IIT Kharagpur
Previous entry: Questions I?m often asked. Part II: About Science Fiction!
Source: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/strong20130308
cmas tcu dr. oz heart attack grill las vegas the heart attack grill joe kennedy iii joseph kennedy iii
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.