Post-Humanism

We are at a unique precipice at the great divide which separates human past and human future. Great leading line there for a piece of copy, but hold on my dear hearts. We have been given the opportunity at this great height to look backward and to look forward upon history and future, at choices made and choices which can be made for improvement and refinement. Some of these choices, indeed, have to be made for the sake of existence. Some might not affect existence but will merely the future of all of our peoples –merely, being too weak a word, but somewhat appropriate. Our present time is unique in that we have been given the awareness to view situations confronting us with intelligence, hindsight and a fair bit of intellectual clarity. We also have comfort, comfort to look upon history and our situation without great expense to ourselves or our neighbors –although as a side note, and pardon my digression, but it is often our neighbor (never seen) which takes the blunt of our mindlessness.

For most of the peoples in the G8 who reside above the poverty line, this is the life that we lead. These aforementioned peoples are given an abundance of choice which can have detrimental and or positive affects on other peoples, places, or things. Human morality and responsibility is an important subject here. Although these subjects have always been a central divide for debate throughout the ages, we have different morals now, bred by an advanced and for the most part, consumerist populous. These issues must be addressed.

We know the affect of our normal, everyday consumption which –let me not forget to mention- is at an all time high. Further, we know that even our little decisions affect others, and that even our smallest decisions can be sources of pain somewhere far away. In fact, for the first time, some of our smallest decisions -the butter we use, the detergents we clean our clothes with, the vehicles we drive- can affect not only ourselves, but others on a global basis as well. What great pressure for us all!

These concepts must be dealt with for us to build a future worth living. It is possible it could get on top of us if we do not harness it. The danger lies in the great global guilt, and the great global pain, but these are subjects for another time.

So, morality is important. ‘Yes, we know’ you say. You hear enough about it, yes, our responsibilities, yes, our duties to the planet you say, on televisions, billboards, posters, radio, word of mouth, books and magazines, possibly even website articles (read on!). Yet, it is more important now as humans have begun the great trek towards unification; i.e. worrying about morality on a global scale, outside of the village and the household. It is the first step (and possibly one of the few) to the nigh impossible Utopian ideal. This is an exciting prospect indeed. You may argue that global recognition has been around since 1945 -yes, with the bomb, and war, and the effects of these- but many small decisions with big reactions are now in the hands of the normal man and not a government, nor a despot, nor even (gasp!) nature (the defeat of nature and the nature guilt, will be another subject we will delve into soon dear brothers and sisters).

So now, possibly, the weight of morality can be counterbalanced by this:

Change is possible with a single human act.

You can agree to disagree.

The purpose of this series of articles is to stoke debate on human morality and the choices we are given the privilege to make –that is as beings with the ability to make choice as well as the spirit (one guesses) to free ourselves from animal urges. We’ll explore, together, the troubles and pleasure (oh especially the pleasures) of living in this modern age. We are unique –this present day is ours, given to us by evolution and heredity. We can choose what to eat, what to drink, whether or not to hunt, to eat meat or only vegetable, to drink diet or regular (to use an American aphorism) etcetera. We are unique, and being such, we have a great deal of philosophy to dive through to get to the crux of that meaning of life (is the meaning of life tied to morality? See, the questions keep coming!).

Who is this writer you will ask -and if you do not ask, why would you trust? So you ask and I give the answers in the tradition of many a past philosopher –as I will be calling myself while writing these articles; not great mind you, just a philosopher. I should indeed introduce some of my personal effects, my mind artillery if you will. It is important so that you may explore my own moral weighting. Being a male is indeed the first thing you should know about your dear narrator. As such, I will be giving a male’s perspective –albeit the post post-modern male’s perspective, with all the baggage that entails. Second, I am American and refuse to hide it, not even with all the immense paranoia, prejudice, and ignorance that this may bring to the discussions henceforth –on both my part and my readers. In this I am not afraid. I hope my arguments will be intelligent as will my audience be equally so. Third, I come from a social class which teeters between the poverty line and complete ruin, but the social class which often has the spurts of great windfall which keep one happy in such a position. This is important because I will be touching on subjects that hinder all classes, and will profess my ignorance to those people who have more than a few dimes to spare. This may appear in subsequent articles as over eager generalization, or overzealous ignorance, I do not know. Fourth, I have never been too strong with my beliefs, nor too weak, and as such a person I have a handful of creeds of which I always return to, and these, I hope, will opinionate me and not indoctrinate me. If I receive an e-mail, or, preferably, by the Gods, a letter, I will take any arguments into account and if thoroughly swayed, will profess this change in writing. This is my binding contract to you. We must have trust.

So with an introduction of such length, where do we begin? It is my belief to rarely pull punches so we should start with something quite heavy yes?

Let us deal with a question of greatest debate and deliberation; that of our evolution and development, specifically focusing on the concept of the Post-Human.

Whether you believe in evolution or not should not come into the debate. We have scientific evidence that the human species evolved in a certain way, yes, but at one time we did believe the Earth was flat, say, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt –that is if you believe in all that creationism rubbish. We are all here with our own ideas. But if evolution in history is false, the possibilities of evolution in our present are a harsh reality. With technology, gene splicing, DNA manipulation, and the all too unsettling prospects of human cloning, we have begun a new phase of human evolution –one engendered by our own intelligence.

Post-human theory is amongst one of the more interesting of these evolutionary prospects. The Post-human is described as -in evolutionary terms- a being whose qualities exceed that of present man and that said being can no longer be classified as such (human) for he/she/it has transcended the homo sapien. This all sounds like normal, proper evolution yes, but this Post-human being -by definition- must have at one time existed as a human but has since transcended this classification by application of mechanical and genetic components which have greatly advanced its abilities. Any human whom has been improved by nano-technology, genetic manipulation, life extension therapies, etc. but has not advanced beyond the universal definition of humanity (what ever that is) is dubbed a transhuman: that is someone in the transitional phase between the two classifications, owning elements of each.

There is an important distinction here –that the being that is post-human was once human but made the decision to evolve and to throw away what made them human by our definitions. Evolution has never been a choice, but rather, something nature (or God, whatever your beliefs) has thrown at us like so much sticky goo. Whatever stuck was there to stay. It was not man’s choice. Now the choice is with us as to how grand we want to be, how much we see God in ourselves, how much we believe we can transcend nature and improve upon ourselves. The implications of these improvements are endless; super human speed, strength, cognition (by way of nano-chips implanted in the brain). We could be living Frankenstein’s, but perhaps without the monster moniker.

So what are the moral implications here? One questions whether humans at this stage have had enough time, and that the human should indeed transcend. Some may worry about the implication this may have on the environment, as these new techno beings would have little need for the planet’s atmosphere.

There is so much debate to be had! Would we loose our emotional abilities? Do we want to? Have we already begun to with the advent of so many technological diversions? Perhaps we have! But did not Nietzsche say ‘I teach you the overman. Man is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?’

Should man be overcome? Here is where I lay my gauntlet. No. Man has not taught himself enough to be overcome. What is man but a floating body of molecules and ideas, yes, grasping onto straws? Great emotional immaturity and, dare I say, indifference creeps wild throughout contemporary culture. We are a people increasingly depended on large scale diversions i.e. television, movies, etc. to bring emotional calm and clarity to emotions. There are too many theories abound on the idea that many a person lives emotions discovered in film, or express emotion through a song lyric because they can not engender it themselves. Should we be moving on the human race right once we’ve lost the idea of what it is to be human (if in fact we’ve ever known; cue next debate)?

Some of these things are happening now. We already have external devices which make us smarter (PDA’s with internet access), bionic parts which make the handicapped whole (such as arms with electronic leads) and yes, indeed they are helpful. I am not doubting or debating this. But evolution at the scale many leading Post-human thinkers are debating would require a great leap in human empathy and maturity, which doesn’t look likely to happen on the morrow.

Why do I go on about emotions when we talk about physical improvement and possible mental expansion? How would we handle such new powers without the emotional clarity to use them with respect and good intentions? Would we automatically gain the maturity to use them wisely with a mere 10 point boost in IQ? Would we really be able to trust ourselves with possible Godlike power when we have a fraction of that now and we can’t seem to hold it together? These are not rhetorical questions, but rather questions with one answer. No. No again and again.

This is where the experiment begins. The web is a marvelous tool and could potentially be a great forum for debate and critical argument. I believe the manifesto of Head Press is to challenge the reader to rethink and question their world and environment. This is what I’d like to do here in this space. I have included an e-mail address where you, dear brothers and sisters, may write to your dearest of narrators with questions, answers, critiques, etc. The desirable outcome of this being that you can present your thoughts on the issues, which I will critique, agree upon, and/or present out of interest as I see fit, in the style of an Oxford debate. We are looking to the Greek Dialogues as inspiration here; a greater understanding through criticism and the flagrant over use of English vernacular.

Sample questions you may want to ask yourselves:

What are the main arguments for or against the application of science to transcend the human definition? What are the social implications of such practices? Would the spirit of our current race continue in the upgraded human? Or would these qualities burn away? Would we gain autonomy as Post-Humans or would we become increasingly subjugated and watered down as a people, and if so, is that a particularly bad thing?

Feel free to answer these, or pose your own question which I will endeavor to answer as lucidly as possible. We will return to the subject of the Post-Human next issue.

I also hope that all of you will go out and do a bit of research yourself as this article is merely a beginning, and not an academic treatise. I will cover more information, and give names of some of the more prominent thinkers next issue.

Bring on the intellectual heat.

horatiotigre@googlemail.com

- by Horatio Tigre

This entry was posted by Neil Keating, on Wednesday, 14 November 2007. You can leave your response.