Transhumanism
30299
225818171
2008-07-15T15:27:01Z
Yobmod
6764365
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 225817367 by [[Special:Contributions/Time for action|Time for action]] ([[User talk:Time for action|talk]])
{{featured article}}
'''Transhumanism''' (sometimes symbolized by '''>H''' or '''H+'''),<ref>{{cite website|title=Anders Transhuman Page: Acronyms|url=http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Words/acronyms.html}}</ref> a term often used as a synonym for "[[human enhancement]]", is an international, intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of [[science and technology]] to enhance human [[human brain|mental]] and [[human anatomy|physical]] [[ability|abilities]] and [[aptitude]]s, and overcome what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the [[human condition]], such as [[disability]], [[suffering]], [[disease]], [[aging]], and involuntary [[death]]. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other [[emerging technologies]] for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.<ref name="Bostrom 2005">{{cite paper| last=Bostrom | first=Nick | authorlink = Nick Bostrom | title = A history of transhumanist thought| date = 2005 | url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s when [[futurist]]s in the [[United States]] began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers predict that [[human]] beings may eventually be able to [[transhuman|transform]] themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "[[posthuman]]".<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/> Transhumanism is therefore sometimes referred to as "[[Transhumanism#Theory|posthumanism]]" or a form of [[Activism#Transformational_activism|transformational activism]] influenced by posthumanist ideals.<ref name="Miah 2007">{{cite paper| last=Miah | first=Andy | authorlink = Andy Miah | title = Posthumanism: A Critical History| date = 2007 | url = http://ieet.org/archive/2007.04.12-MiahChapter2.pdf| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
Transhumanist [[foresight (futures studies)|foresight]] of a transformed [[future]] humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by one outspoken opponent as the [[world's most dangerous idea]],<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">{{cite paper| last=Fukuyama | first=Francis | authorlink = Francis Fukuyama | title = The world's most dangerous ideas: transhumanism| date = 2004 | url = http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2004/09/01/564801?page=4| accessdate=2006-05-01}}</ref> while a proponent counters that it is the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity".<ref name="Bailey 2004">{{cite paper| last = Bailey | first= Ronald| title = Transhumanism: the most dangerous idea?| date = 2004| url=http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml}} URL accessed on [[February 20]] [[2006]]</ref>
==History==
According to philosophers who have studied and written about the history of transhumanist thought,<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/> [[Transcendence (philosophy)#Colloquial usage|transcendentalist]] impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for [[immortality]] in the [[Epic of Gilgamesh]], as well as historical quests for the [[Fountain of Youth]], [[Elixir of Life]], and other efforts to stave off aging and death. Transhumanist philosophy, however, is rooted in [[Renaissance humanism|Renaissance rational humanism]] and the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]. For example, [[Giovanni Pico della Mirandola]] called on people to "sculpt their own statue", and the [[Marquis de Condorcet]] speculated about the use of medical science to indefinitely extend the human life span, while [[Benjamin Franklin]] dreamed of [[suspended animation]], and after [[Darwin]] "it became increasingly plausible to view the current version of humanity not as the endpoint of evolution but rather as a possibly quite early phase."<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/> However, [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] is considered by some to be less of an influence, despite his exaltation of the "[[Übermensch|overman]]", due to his emphasis on [[self-actualization]] rather than technological transformation.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>
[[Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov|Nikolai Fyodorov]], a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical [[life extension]], physical [[immortality]] and even [[resurrection of the dead]] using scientific methods.<ref name="Berdayev 1915">{{cite paper| author = [[Nikolai Berdyaev|Berdayev, Nikolai]]| title = The Religion of Resusciative Resurrection. "The Philosophy of the Common Task of N. F. Fedorov| date = 1915| url = http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1915_186.html| accessdate= 2008-01-04}}</ref> In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist [[J.B.S. Haldane]]'s 1923 essay ''Daedalus: Science and the Future'', which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of [[genetics]] and other advanced sciences to human biology -- and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and unnatural". [[John Desmond Bernal|J. D. Bernal]] speculated about [[space colonization]], [[bionics|bionic implants]], and [[cognitive enhancement]], which have been common transhumanist themes since then.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/> Biologist [[Julian Huxley]], brother of author [[Aldous Huxley]] (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his [[human nature]]".<ref name="Huxley 1957">{{cite paper| author = [[Julian Huxley|Huxley, Julian]]| title = Transhumanism| date = 1957| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/huxley/| accessdate= 2006-02-24}}</ref> This definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.
[[Computer science|Computer scientist]] [[Marvin Minsky]] wrote on relationships between human and [[artificial intelligence]] beginning in the 1960s.<ref name="Minsky 1960">{{cite paper| author = [[Marvin Minsky|Minsky, Marvin]]| title = Steps toward artificial intelligence| date = 1960 | url = http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/steps.html| accessdate=2006-12-13}}</ref> Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as [[Hans Moravec]] and [[Raymond Kurzweil]], who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.<ref name= "Moravec 1998">{{cite journal| url=http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=1998| volume=1| title=When will computer hardware match the human brain?| author = [[Hans Moravec|Moravec, Hans]] | accessdate=2006-06-23}}</ref><ref name="Kurzweil 1999">{{cite book| author = [[Raymond Kurzweil|Kurzweil, Raymond]]| title = [[The Age of Spiritual Machines]] | publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1999 | id = ISBN 0-670-88217-8}}</ref> The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, [[FM-2030]] (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a [[futurist]] who taught "new concepts of the Human" at the [[The New School]] in [[New York City]], began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "[[posthumanity]]" as "[[transhuman]]" (short for "transitory human").<ref name="FM-2030 1989">{{cite book| author = [[FM-2030]] | title = Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World| publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1989 | id = ISBN 0-446-38806-8}}</ref> In 1972, [[Robert Ettinger]] contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" in his book ''Man into Superman''.<ref name="Ettinger 1972">{{cite book| last=Ettinger | first=Robert | title=Man into Superman | year=1974 | url= http://www.cryonics.org/book2.html| format= HTML | publisher=Avon | id=ISBN 0-380-00047-4}}</ref> FM-2030 published the ''Upwingers Manifesto'' in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.<ref name="FM-2030 1973">{{cite book|author = [[FM-2030]]|title = UpWingers: A Futurist Manifesto|year = 1973|id = ISBN 0-381-98243-2; available as an eBook: FW00007527}}</ref>
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the [[University of California, Los Angeles]], which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "[[third way]]" futurist ideology. At the [[EZTV]] Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, [[Natasha Vita-More]] presented ''Breaking Away'', her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the earth's gravity as they head into space.<ref>{{cite web | title=EZTV Media | url=http://www.eztvmedia.com/his.html | accessdate=2006-05-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | title=Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge | author = [[Ed Regis (author)|Ed Regis]] | publisher = Perseus Books | year=1990}}</ref> FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]], which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the ''Transhumanist Arts Statement'',<ref name="Vita-More 1982">{{cite paper | author = [[Natasha Vita-More|Vita-More, Natasha]]| title = Tranhumanist arts statement | date = 1982; revised 2003 | url = http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm| accessdate=2006-02-16}}</ref> and, six years later, produced the cable TV show ''TransCentury Update'' on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1986, [[K. Eric Drexler|Eric Drexler]] published ''[[Engines of Creation]]: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,''<ref name="Drexler 1986">Drexler 1986</ref> which discussed the prospects for [[nanotechnology]] and [[molecular assembler]]s, and founded the [[Foresight Institute]]. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform [[cryonics]], the Southern California offices of the [[Alcor Life Extension Foundation]] became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of ''Extropy Magazine'' was published by [[Max More]] and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the ''Principles of Extropy'',<ref name="More 1990-2003">{{cite paper| author = [[Max More|More, Max]]| title = Principles of extropy| date = 1990–2003 | url = http://extropy.org/principles.htm| accessdate=2006-02-16}}</ref> and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:<ref name="More 1990">{{cite paper| author = [[Max More|More, Max]]| | title = Transhumanism: a futurist philosophy| date = 1990 | url = http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm| accessdate=2005-11-14}}</ref>
{{quotation|Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. […] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies […].}}
In 1992, More and Morrow founded the [[Extropy Institute]], a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new [[memeplex]]es by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of [[cyberculture]]. In 1998, philosophers [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[David Pearce (philosopher)|David Pearce]] founded the [[World Transhumanist Association]] (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of [[scientific inquiry]] and [[public policy]].<ref name="Hughes 2005">{{cite paper| author = Hughes, James| title = Report on the 2005 interests and beliefs survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association| date = 2005 | url = http://transhumanism.org/resources/survey2005.pdf| accessdate=2006-02-26}}</ref> In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted ''The Transhumanist Declaration''.<ref name="World Transhumanist Association 2002">{{cite paper| author = [[World Transhumanist Association]]| title = The transhumanist declaration| date = 2002 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/| accessdate=2006-04-03}}</ref> ''The Transhumanist FAQ'', prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:<ref name="World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005">{{cite paper| author = [[World Transhumanist Association]]| title = The transhumanist FAQ| date = 2002–2005 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/FAQv21.pdf| accessdate=2006-08-27}}</ref>
{{quotation|
# The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
# The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.}}
A number of similar definitions have been collected by [[Anders Sandberg]], an academic and prominent transhumanist.<ref name="Sandberg">{{cite paper| author = [[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]| title = Definitions of Transhumanism| date = undated | url = http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Intro/definitions.html| accessdate=2006-05-05}}</ref>
In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their [[futurist]] visions and needed to be addressed.<ref name="Hughes 2004">{{cite book| author = Hughes, James| title = [[Citizen Cyborg]]: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future| publisher = Westview Press| year = 2004| id = ISBN 0-8133-4198-1}}</ref> A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.<ref Name="Utne">{{cite web | last = Ford | first = Alyssa | authorlink = | title = Humanity: The Remix | work = [[Utne Magazine]] | publisher = | date = May / June 2005 | url = http://www.twliterary.com/jhughes_utne.html | accessdate = 2007-03-03}}</ref>
In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the [[Right-libertarianism|libertarian right]] and the [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal left]] resulted in a more [[centre-left]]ward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director [[James Hughes]].<ref>{{cite web | last = Saletan | first = William | authorlink = William Saletan | title = Among the Transhumanists | publisher = Slate.com | date = 2006-06-04 | url = http://www.slate.com/id/2142987/fr/rss/ | accessdate = 2007-03-03 }}</ref><ref name="Utne"/> In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was "essentially completed".<ref name="Extropy Institute 2006">{{cite paper| author = [[Extropy Institute]]| title = Next Steps| date = 2006 | url = http://www.extropy.org/future.htm| accessdate=2006-05-05}}</ref> This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization.
==Theory==
{{details|list of basic transhumanism topics}}
It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of "posthumanism" and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its [[conservative]],<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">{{cite paper| author = [[Francis Fukuyama|Fukuyama, Francis]]| title = The world's most dangerous ideas: transhumanism| date = 2004 | url = http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2004/09/01/564801?page=4| accessdate=2006-05-01}}</ref> [[Christian]]<ref name="Hook 2004">{{cite book | last = Hook | first = Christopher | editor = Stephen G. Post | title = Encyclopedia of Bioethics | edition = 3rd| publisher = Macmillan | location = New York | isbn = 0028657748 | pages = 2517-2520 | chapter = Transhumanism and Posthumanism | chapterurl = http://gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp657748.pdf | accessdate=2007-12-10}}</ref> and [[progressivism|progressive]]<ref Name="The Hedgehog Review 2002">{{cite web | author = [[Langdon Winner|Winner, Langdon]]| | title = Are Humans Obsolete? | work = [[The Hedgehog Review]] | publisher = | date = Fall 2002 | url = http://www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR_Archives/Technology/4.3DWinner.pdf | accessdate = 2007-12-10}}</ref> critics, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism".<ref name="Miah 2007">{{cite paper| author = [[Andy Miah|Miah, Andy]]| title = Posthumanism: A Critical History| date = 2007 | url = http://ieet.org/archive/2007.04.12-MiahChapter2.pdf| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref> A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. [[biological uplift]]),<ref name="Hughes 2004">{{cite book| author = Hughes, James| title = [[Citizen Cyborg]]: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future| publisher = Westview Press| year = 2004| id = ISBN 0-8133-4198-1}}</ref> but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of [[participant evolution]].<ref name="Bostrom 2006">{{cite web | last = Bostrom | first = Nick | authorlink = | title = Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up | url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/posthuman.pdf | accessdate = 2007-12-10}}</ref>
Nevertheless, the idea to create [[artificial intelligence|intelligent artificial beings]], proposed, for example, by roboticist [[Hans Moravec]], has influenced transhumanism.<ref name= "Moravec 1998"/> Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "[[apocalyptic]]" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "[[critical posthumanism]]" in [[humanities]] and [[the arts]].<ref Name="Cultural Critique 2003">{{cite web | last = Badmington | first = Neil | title = Theorizing Posthumanism | work = Cultural Critique | publisher = | date = Winter 2003 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/cultural_critique/v053/53.1badmington.html | accessdate = 2007-12-10}}</ref> While such a "critical posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "[[Agency (philosophy)|autonomous liberal subject]]" but are expanding its "[[prerogative]]s" into the realm of the [[posthuman]].<ref name="Hayles 1999">{{cite book| author = [[N. Katherine Hayles|Hayles, N. Katherine]]| title = How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics| publisher = University Of Chicago Press| year = 1999| id = ISBN 0226321460}}</ref> Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of [[humanism]] and [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] thinking correspond with this view.
Some [[secular humanist]]s conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist [[freethought]] movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns and on the issue of [[mortality]].<ref name="Inniss 1998">{{cite web | last = Inniss | first = Patrick | authorlink = | title = Transhumanism: The Next Step? | url = http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_8_4.htm | accessdate = 2007-12-10}}</ref> However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about [[social justice]], from the [[social change|reform of human institutions]] and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward [[narcissistic]] longings for a [[Transcendence (philosophy)#Colloquial usage|transcendence]] of the human body in quest of more [[Perfectibilism|exquisite]] ways of being.<ref name="Winner 2005">{{cite book | author = [[Langdon Winner|Winner, Langdon]] | editor = Harold Bailie, Timothy Casey| title = The Future of Human Nature| publisher =M.I.T. Press | location = Massachusetts Institute of Technology| isbn = 0-262-524287-7 | pages = 385-411 | chapter = Resistance is Futile: The Posthuman Condition and Its Advocates}}</ref> In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.
===Aims===
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply [[reason]], [[science and technology]] for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of [[biocentrism|all life]], while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating [[Congenital disorder|congenital mental and physical barriers]].
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a [[perfectionism (philosophy)|perfectionist ethical imperative]] for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a [[transhuman]] phase of existence, in which humans are in [[participant evolution|control of their own evolution]]. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.
Some theorists, such as [[Raymond Kurzweil]], think that the pace of technological [[innovation]] is [[Accelerating change|accelerating]] and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a [[technological singularity]], which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005"/> Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on [[existential risk]]s to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.<ref name="Bostrom 2002">{{cite paper| author = [[Nick Bostrom|Bostrom, Nick]]| title = Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios| date = 2002 | url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
===Ethics===
Transhumanists engage in [[interdisciplinary]] approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on [[futurology]] and various fields of ethics such as [[bioethics]], [[infoethics]], [[nanoethics]], [[neuroethics]], [[roboethics]], and [[technoethics]] mainly but not exclusively from a philosophically [[utilitarian]], [[social progressivism|socially progressive]], politically and economically [[liberalism|liberal]] perspective. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of [[nature|natural]] systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically [[Appeal to nature|"natural"]] as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.<ref name="Bostrom, Sandberg 2002">{{cite paper| author = [[Nick Bostrom|Bostrom, Nick]] & [[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]| title = The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement| date = 2007| url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/evolution.pdf| accessdate=2007-09-18}}</ref> In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism's critics on the political right and left jointly as "[[Techno-progressivism#Contrasting stance|bioconservatives]]" or "[[neo-luddism|bioluddites]]", the latter term alluding to the 19th century [[luddite|anti-industrialisation]] social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.<ref name="Hughes 2002">{{cite paper| author = [[James Hughes|Hughes, James]]| title = The politics of transhumanism| date = 2002| url = http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm| accessdate=2006-02-26}}</ref>
===Currents===
There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development.<ref name="WTA FAQ 5.2">{{cite paper| author = [[World Transhumanist Association]]| title = What currents are there within transhumanism?| date = 2002–2005 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/81/| accessdate=2007-11-03}}</ref> Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:
*[[Abolitionism (bioethics)|Abolitionism]], an ethical philosophy based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary [[suffering]] in all sentient life.<ref>{{cite web | title = Abolitionism | url = http://www.abolitionist-society.com/abolitionism.htm | author = The Abolitionist Society | accessdate = 2007-01-03 }}</ref>
*[[Democratic transhumanism]], a political philosophy synthesizing [[liberal democracy]], [[social democracy]], [[radical democracy]] and transhumanism.<ref name="Hughes A2002">{{cite paper| author = Hughes, James| title = Democratic Transhumanism 2.0| date = 2002 | url = http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm| accessdate=2007-01-26}}</ref>
*[[Extropianism]], an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a [[Proactionary Principle|proactive approach]] to human evolution.<ref name="More 1990-2003"/>
*[[Immortalism]], a moral philosophy based upon the belief that [[Immortality#Technological immortality|technological immortality]] is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.<ref name=imminst>{{cite website|title=Immortality Institute|url=http://www.imminst.org/}}</ref>
*[[Libertarian transhumanism]], a political philosophy synthesizing [[libertarianism]] and transhumanism.<ref name="Hughes 2002"/>
*[[Transgenderism#Postgenderism|Postgenderism]], a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of [[gender]] in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and [[reproductive technology|assisted reproductive technologies]].<ref name="Dvorsky 2008">{{cite paper| author = [[George Dvorsky|George Dvorksy]]| title = Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary| date = 2008 | url = http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2008/03/postgenderism-beyond-gender-binary.html| accessdate=2008-04-13}}</ref>
*[[Singularitarianism]], a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a [[technological singularity]] is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005"/>
*[[Technogaianism]], an ecological philosophy based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, [[clean technology|clean]], [[alternative technology]] should therefore be an important goal of [[environmentalist]]s.<ref name="Hughes A2002"/>
===Spirituality===
Although some transhumanists report a strong sense of [[secular spirituality]], they are for the most part [[atheism|atheists]].<ref name="Hughes 2005"/> A minority of transhumanists, however, follow liberal forms of [[eastern philosophy|Eastern philosophical]] traditions such as [[Buddhist philosophy|Buddhism]] and [[Yoga]]<ref name="Hughes">{{cite paper| author = Hughes, James| title = Technologies of Self-perfection: What would the Buddha do with nanotechnology and psychopharmaceuticals? | date = 2004| url = http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/222/Default.aspx| accessdate=2007-02-21}}</ref> or have merged their transhumanist ideas with established Western religions such as [[liberal Christianity]]<ref name="Ledford 2005">{{cite paper| author = Ledford, James MacLean| title = Prepare for HyperEvolution with Christian Transhumanism| date = 2005 | url = http://www.hyper-evolution.com/Christian%20Transhumanism.pdf| accessdate=2007-02-05}}</ref> or [[Mormonism]]<ref>{{cite website|title=Mormon Transhumanist Association|url=http://transfigurism.org/community/}}</ref>. Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as "[[immortality]]",<ref name =imminst/> while several controversial [[new religious movement]]s, originating in the late 20th century, have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals of transforming the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the mind and body, such as [[Raëlism]].<ref name="Rael 2002">{{cite book| author = [[Raël]]| title=Oui au clonage humain: La vie éternelle grâce à la science| publisher=Quebecor| year=2002| id=ISBN 1903571057}}</ref> However, most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives; while speculating that future understanding of [[neurotheology]] and the application of [[neurotechnology]] will enable humans to gain greater control of [[altered states of consciousness]], which were commonly interpreted as "[[spiritual experience]]s", and thus achieve more profound [[self-knowledge]].<ref name="Hughes"/>
The majority of transhumanists are [[materialism|materialists]] who do not believe in a transcendent human [[soul]]. Transhumanist [[personhood theory]] also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as [[speciesism|speciesist]] the exclusion of non-human and [[parahuman|part-human animals]], and [[artificial intelligence|sophisticated machines]], from ethical consideration.<ref name="Glenn 2003">{{cite paper| author = Glenn, Linda MacDonald| title = Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm| date = 2003 | url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/articles/glennjet2003/| accessdate=2006-03-03}}</ref> Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human [[consciousness]] may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as "[[mind uploading]]".<ref name="Sandberg 2000">{{cite paper|author = [[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]] | title= Uploading|date = 2000| url=http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Uploading/| accessdate=2006-03-04}}</ref> One extreme formulation of this idea may be found in [[Frank J. Tipler|Frank Tipler]]'s proposal of the [[Omega point]]. Drawing upon ideas in [[digitalism]], Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the [[Universe]] billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a [[simulated reality]] within a [[megacomputer]], and thus achieve a form of "[[posthuman God|posthuman godhood]]". Although not a transhumanist, Tipler's thought was inspired by the writings of [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]], a [[paleontologist]] and Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary [[telos (philosophy)|telos]] in the development of an encompassing [[noosphere]], a global consciousness.<ref name="tipler1994">{{cite book| author = [[Frank J. Tipler|Tipler, Frank J.]]| title = The Physics of Immortality| publisher = Doubleday| year = 1994| id = ISBN 0-19-282147-4}}</ref>
The idea of uploading personality to a non-biological substrate and the underlying assumptions are criticised by a wide range of scholars, scientists and activists, sometimes with regard to transhumanism itself, sometimes with regard to thinkers such as [[Marvin Minsky]] or [[Hans Moravec]] who are often seen as its originators. Relating the underlying assumptions, for example, to the legacy of [[cybernetics]], some have argued that this materialist hope engenders a spiritual [[monism]], a variant of philosophical [[idealism]].<ref name="Dupuy 2005">{{cite paper| author = Dupuy, Jean-Pierre| title = The Philosophical Foundations of Nanoethics| date = 2005| url = http://ens-web3.ens-lsh.fr/amrieu/IMG/pdf/Dupuy_NanoEthics_05.pdf| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref> Viewed from a [[conservative Christian]] perspective, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a [[Transhumanism#Contempt for the flesh .28Fountain of Youth argument.29|denigration of the human body]] characteristic of [[gnostic]] belief.<ref name="Pauls 2005">{{cite paper| author = Pauls, David| title = Transhumanism: 2000 Years in the Making| date = 2005 | url = http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=189| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref> Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as [[Gnosticism in modern times|neo-gnostic]] by non-Christian and secular commentators.<ref name="Giesen 2004">{{cite paper| author = Giesen, Klaus-Gerd| title = Transhumanisme et génétique humaine| date = 2004 | url = http://www.ircm.qc.ca/bioethique/obsgenetique/cadrages/cadr2004/c_no16_04/c_no16_04_01.html| accessdate=2006-04-26}}</ref><ref name="Davis 1999">{{cite book| author = [[Erik Davis|Davis, Erik]]| title = TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information| publisher = Three Rivers Press| year = 1999| id = ISBN 0-609-80474-X}}</ref>
The first dialogue between transhumanism and [[faith]] was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.<ref name="Campbell & Walker 2005">{{cite paper| author = Campbell, Heidi; [[Mark Alan Walker|Walker, Mark Alan]]| title = Religion and transhumanism: introducing a conversation| date = 2005 | url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/specialissueintro.html| accessdate=2006-03-21}}</ref> Because it might serve a few of the same functions that people have traditionally sought in [[religion]], religious and secular critics maintained that transhumanism is itself a religion or, at the very least, a [[pseudoreligion]]. Religious critics alone faulted the philosophy of transhumanism as offering no eternal truths nor a relationship with the [[divinity|divine]]. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of [[postmodern]] [[cynicism]] and [[anomie]]. Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of the transhumanist philosophy, which far from being cynical, is rooted in [[optimistic]], idealistic attitudes that trace back to the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]].<ref>{{cite website|title=TransVision 2004: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium|url=http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/program.shtml#Faith}}</ref> Following this dialogue, [[William Sims Bainbridge]] conducted a pilot study, published in the [[Journal of Evolution and Technology]], suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with acceptance of transhumanist ideas, and indicating that individuals with highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as being a direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their spiritual beliefs.<ref name="Bainbridge">{{cite paper| author = Bainbridge, William Sims| title = The Transhuman Heresy | date = 2005| url = http://jetpress.org/volume14/bainbridge.html| accessdate=2008-01-02}}</ref>
==Practice==
While some transhumanists take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including heritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human [[nervous system]]. Though some propose modification of the [[peripheral nervous system]], the [[human brain|brain]] is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.<ref name="Walker 2002">{{cite paper| author = [[Mark Alan Walker|Walker, Mark Alan]]| title = Prolegomena to any future philosophy| date = 2002 | url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume10/prolegomena.html| accessdate=2006-03-02}}</ref>
As proponents of [[self-improvement]] and [[body modification]], transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.<ref name="Kurzweil 1993">{{cite book| author = [[Raymond Kurzweil|Kurzweil, Raymond]]| title = [[The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life]]| publisher = Three Rivers Press| year = 1993}}</ref> Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in [[Life extension#Strategies of life extension|life extension strategies]], and in funding research in [[cryonics]] in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method.<ref name="Kurzweil 2004">{{cite book| author = Kurzweil, Raymond| title = [[Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever]]|publisher = Viking Adult| year = 2004| id = ISBN 1-57954-954-3}}</ref> Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and collaborative projects.
===Technologies of interest===
{{Main|Human enhancement technologies}}
[[Image:Converging technologies.png|thumb|right|[http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/''Converging Technologies''], a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, info- and cogno-technologies, has become a landmark in near-future technological speculation.]]
Transhumanists support the [[emerging technologies|emergence]] and [[converging technologies|convergence]] of technologies such as [[nanotechnology]], [[biotechnology]], [[information technology]] and [[cognitive science]] ([[NBIC]]), and hypothetical future technologies such as [[simulated reality]], [[artificial intelligence]], [[superintelligence]], [[mind uploading]], and [[cryonics]]. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become [[superhuman|more than human]].<ref name="Naam 2005">{{cite book| author = [[Ramez Naam|Naam, Ramez]]| title = More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement| date = 2005| publisher = Broadway Books| id = ISBN 0-7679-1843-6| url = http://www.morethanhuman.org/}}</ref> They therefore support the recognition and/or protection of [[cognitive liberty]], [[morphological freedom]], and [[procreative liberty]] as [[civil liberties]], so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using [[human enhancement technologies]] on themselves and their children.<ref name="Sandberg 2001">{{cite paper| author = [[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]| title= Morphological freedom -- why we not just want it, but ''need'' it| date = 2001 | url=http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Texts/MorphologicalFreedom.htm| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref> Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement by the midpoint of the 21st century.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005">{{cite book| author = [[Raymond Kurzweil|Kurzweil, Raymond]]| title = [[The Singularity Is Near|The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology]] | publisher = Viking Adult| year = 2005 | id = ISBN 0-670-03384-7}}</ref>
A 2002 report, ''[[Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance]]'', commissioned by the [[National Science Foundation]] and [[United States Department of Commerce|US Department of Commerce]], contains descriptions and commentaries on the state of NBIC science and technology by major contributors to these fields. The report discusses potential uses of these technologies in implementing transhumanist goals of [[performance improvement|enhanced performance]] and health, and ongoing work on planned applications of human enhancement technologies in the [[military]] and in the rationalization of the [[human-machine interface]] in [[industry]].<ref name="Roco and Bainbridge 2004">{{cite book| author = Roco, Mihail C. and [[William Sims Bainbridge|Bainbridge, William Sims]], eds.| title = [[Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance]]| publisher = Springer| year = 2004| id = ISBN 1402012543}}</ref>
While international discussion of the converging technologies and NBIC concepts includes strong criticism of their transhumanist orientation and alleged [[science fiction]]al character,<ref name="The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering 2004">{{cite paper| author = [[The Royal Society]] & The [[Royal Academy of Engineering]]| title = Nanoscience and nanotechnologies (Ch. 6)| date = 2004 | url = http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/chapter6.pdf| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref><ref name="European Parliament 2006">{{cite paper| author = [[European Parliament]]| title = Technology Assessment on Converging Technologies| date = 2006| url = http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa183_en.pdf| accessdate=2006-12-06}}</ref><ref name="Dorothée Benoit Browaeys 2005">{{cite paper| author = Browaeys, Dorothée Benoit| title = Les transhumains s'emparent des nanotechs| date = 2005| url = http://www.vivantinfo.com/uploads/media/Nanotechnologies_transhumanisme.pdf| accessdate=2006-12-06}}</ref> research on brain and body alteration technologies has accelerated under the sponsorship of the [[United States Department of Defense|US Department of Defense]], which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the "[[supersoldier]]s" of the United States and its allies.<ref name="Moreno 2006">{{cite book| author = Moreno, Jonathan D.| title = Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense |publisher = Dana Press|year = 2006|id = ISBN 10-1932594167}}</ref>
==Arts and culture==
[[Image:Trans-post-human2.jpg|thumb|400px|right|[[Natasha Vita-More]]'s ''Primo'' is an artistic depiction of a hypothetical [[Posthuman]] of transhumanist speculation.]]
{{main|Transhumanism in fiction|Transhumanist art}}
Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary [[science fiction]] often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in [[utopia]]n (especially [[techno-utopia]]n) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many [[horror fiction|horrific]] or [[dystopia]]n tales of human [[bioengineering]] gone wrong. In the decades immediately before transhumanism emerged as an explicit movement, many transhumanist concepts and themes began appearing in the speculative fiction of authors such as [[Robert A. Heinlein]] ([[Lazarus Long]] series, 1941–87), [[A. E. van Vogt]] (''[[Slan]]'', 1946), [[Isaac Asimov]] (''[[I, Robot]]'', 1950), [[Arthur C. Clarke]] (''[[Childhood's End]]'', 1953) and [[Stanislaw Lem]] (''[[Cyberiad]]'', 1967).<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>
The [[cyberpunk]] genre, exemplified by [[William Gibson]]'s ''[[Neuromancer]]'' (1984) and [[Bruce Sterling]]'s ''[[Schismatrix]]'' (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include ''[[Blood Music]]'' (1985) by [[Greg Bear]], ''[[Xenogenesis|The Xenogenesis Trilogy]]'' (1987–1989) by [[Octavia Butler]]; ''[[Beggars in Spain|The Beggar's Trilogy]]'' (1990–94) by [[Nancy Kress]]; much of [[Greg Egan]]'s work since the early 1990s, such as ''[[Permutation City]]'' (1994) and ''[[Diaspora (novel)|Diaspora]]'' (1997); ''The Bohr Maker'' (1995) by [[Linda Nagata]]; ''[[Oryx and Crake]]'' (2003) by [[Margaret Atwood]]; ''[[The Possibility of an Island]]'' (Eng. trans. 2006) by [[Michel Houellebecq]]; and ''[[Glasshouse (novel)|Glasshouse]]'' (2005) by [[Charles Stross]]. Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its [[postcyberpunk]] offshoot.
Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. Such treatments are found in [[comic book]]s ([[Captain America]], 1941; [[Adam Warlock|Him]], 1967; [[Transmetropolitan]], 1997), [[film]]s (''[[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001: A Space Odyssey]],'' 1968; ''[[Blade Runner]],'' 1982; ''[[Gattaca]],'' 1997), [[television series]] (the [[Cybermen]] of ''[[Doctor Who]]'', 1966; ''[[The Six Million Dollar Man]]'', 1973; the [[Borg (fictional aliens)|Borg]] of ''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]'', 1989; [[manga]] and [[anime]] (''[[Galaxy Express 999]]'', 1978; ''[[Appleseed (manga)|Appleseed]]'', 1985; ''[[Ghost in the Shell]]'', 1989 and ''[[Gundam Seed]]'', 2002), [[computer game]]s (''[[Metal Gear Solid]]'', 1998; ''[[Deus Ex]]'', 2000; ''[[Half-Life 2]]'', 2004), and [[role-playing game]]s (''[[Shadowrun]]'', 1989). ''[[Transhuman Space]]'' is a 2002 RPG, set in the year 2100 when humanity has begun to colonize the Solar System, where the pursuit of transhumanism is now in full swing, as more and more people struggle to reach a fully [[posthuman]] state.
In addition to the work of [[Natasha Vita-More]], curator of the [[Transhumanist Arts & Culture]] center, transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts.<ref name="Wilson 2007">{{cite paper| author = Wilson, Cintra| title = Droid Rage| date = 2007 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/style/tmagazine/21droid.html?_r=1&ref=tmagazine&oref=slogin| accessdate=2008-01-11}}</ref> Carnal Art, a form of [[sculpture]] originated by the French artist [[Orlan]], uses the body as its medium and [[plastic surgery]] as its method.<ref name="O’Bryan 2005">{{cite book| author = O’Bryan, C. Jill| title = Carnal Art:Orlan’s Refacing| publisher = University of Minnesota Press| year = 2005| id = ISBN 0-8166-4322-9}}</ref> Commentators have pointed to American performer [[Michael Jackson]] as having used technologies such as plastic surgery, [[racial transformation|skin-lightening]] drugs and [[hyperbaric oxygen therapy]] over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]] and age.<ref name="Smith 2003">{{cite paper| author = Smith, Simon| title = Looking at the Man in the Mirror| date = 2003 | url = http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/332/Default.aspx| accessdate=2007-01-31}}</ref> The work of the Australian artist [[Stelarc]] centers on the alteration of his body by [[robot]]ic [[prosthetics|prostheses]] and [[tissue engineering]].<ref name="Stelarc 2005">{{cite paper| author = [[Stelarc]]| title = NeMe: From Zombie To Cyborg Bodies — Extra Ear, Exoskeleton and Avatars| date = 2005 | url = http://neme.org/main/250/from-zombie-to-cyborg| accessdate=2007-02-01}}</ref> Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the [[Yugoslavia]]n performance artist [[Marina Abramovic]] and the American [[New media art|media artist]] [[Matthew Barney]]. A 2005 show, ''Becoming Animal'', at the [[Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art]], presented exhibits by twelve artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human.
==Controversy==
Although many transhumanist proposals rely on [[fringe science]], the very notion and prospect of [[human enhancement]] has sparked public [[controversy]].<ref name="Garreau 2006">{{cite book| author = Garreau, Joel| title = Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human| publisher = Broadway| year = 2006| id = ISBN 0767915038}}</ref> Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles or world view sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). However, these two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when considering the [[bioethics|ethics of changing human biology]] in the face of incomplete knowledge.
Critics or opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to [[humanism|human values]]. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition might divert attention and resources from [[social change|social solutions]]. As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of [[civil rights]] and [[civil liberties]], and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and health care, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, [[human nature]], and the morality of transhumanist aspirations. At least one [[public interest]] organization, the U.S.-based [[Center for Genetics and Society]], was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term [[human cloning]] and [[germinal choice technology]]. The [[Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future]] of the [[Chicago-Kent College of Law]] critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program refer to novels and fictional films. These works of art, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.
===Infeasibility (''Futurehype'' argument)===
In his 1992 book ''Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy'', sociologist Max Dublin points out many past failed predictions of technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as [[scientism]], fanaticism, and [[nihilism]] by a few in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to [[millenarianism|millenarian]] religions and [[Historical materialism|Communist doctrine]]s.<ref name="Dublin 1992">{{cite book| last=Dublin| first= Max| title=Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy| publisher=Plume| year=1992| id=ISBN 0-452-26800-1}}</ref> Several notable transhumanists have predicted that death-defeating technologies will arrive (usually late) within their own conventionally-expected lifetimes. ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine founding executive editor [[Kevin Kelly (editor)|Kevin Kelly]] has argued these transhumanists have overly optimistic expectations of when dramatic technological breakthroughs will occur because they hope to be saved from their own deaths by those developments.<ref name="Kelly 2007">{{cite paper| last = Kelly | first = Kevin | authorlink = Kevin Kelly (editor) | title = The Maes-Garreau Point | date = 2007 | url = http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/03/the_maesgarreau.php| accessdate=2008-05-15}}</ref>
[[Image:PPTCountdowntoSingularityLinear.jpg|right|thumb|Some transhumanist thinkers assert the pace of technological [[innovation]] is [[Accelerating change|accelerating]] and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a [[technological singularity]]]]Despite his sympathies for transhumanism, in his 2002 book ''Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future'', public health professor [[Gregory Stock]] is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the [[cyborgization]] of humanity predicted by [[Raymond Kurzweil]], [[Hans Moravec]] and [[Kevin Warwick]]. He believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from [[cyberware]] but from the direct manipulation of their [[genetics]], [[metabolism]], and [[biochemistry]].<ref name="Stock 2002">{{cite book| author = [[Gregory Stock|Stock, Gregory]]| title = Redesigning Humans: Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future| publisher = Mariner Books| year = 2002| id = ISBN 0-618-34083-1}}</ref>
In his 2006 book ''Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change'', computer scientist and engineer Bob Seidensticker argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented. Exposing major myths of technology and examining the history of [[high tech]] [[hype cycle|hype]], he aims to uncover inaccuracies and misunderstandings that may characterise the popular and transhumanist views of technology, to explain how and why these views have been created, and to illustrate how [[technological change]] in fact proceeds.<ref name="Seidensticker 2006">{{cite book| last=Seidensticker| first= Bob| title=Futurehype: The Myths of Technology Change| publisher=Berrett-Koehler| year=2006| id=ISBN 1576753700}}</ref>
Those thinkers who defend the likelihood of massive technological change within a relatively short timeframe emphasize what they describe as a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. This emphasis appears in the work of [[popular science]] writer [[Damien Broderick]], notably his 1997 book, ''[[The Spike (1997)|The Spike]]'', which contains his speculations about a radically changed future. Kurzweil develops this position in much detail in his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity Is Near]]''. Broderick points out that many of the seemingly implausible predictions of early science fiction writers have, indeed, come to pass, among them [[nuclear power]] and [[moon landing|space travel to the moon]]. He also claims that there is a core [[rationalism]] to current predictions of very rapid change, asserting that such observers as Kurzweil have a good track record in predicting the pace of innovation.<ref name="Broderick 1997">{{cite book| author=[[Damien Broderick|Broderick, Damien]]| title=The Spike| publisher=Tom Doherty Associates| year=1997| id=ISBN 0-312-87781-1}}</ref>
===Hubris (''Playing God'' argument)===
There are two distinct categories of criticism, theological and secular, that have been referred to as "[[playing god]]" arguments:
The first category is based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual [[god]]. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 [[Holy See|Vatican]] statement ''Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,''<ref name="International Theological Commission 2002">{{cite paper| author = International Theological Commission| title = Communion and stewardship: human persons created in the image of God | date = 2002 | url = http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html| accessdate=2006-04-01}}</ref> in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an [[subhuman|infrahuman]] being is radically immoral", implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". At the same time, this statement argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "[[theosis|realizing more fully the image of God]]". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians already enjoy, however post mortem, what radical transhumanism promises such as indefinite [[life extension]] or the [[abolitionism (bioethics)|abolition of suffering]]. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of [[utopian]] movements which seek to [[immanentize the eschaton]] i.e. try to create "heaven on earth".<ref name="Mitchell & Kilner 2002">{{cite paper| author = Mitchell, Ben C. & Kilner, John F.| title = Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future| date = 2003 | url = http://www.cbhd.org/resources/biotech/mitchell_kilner_2003-08-29.htm| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref><ref name="Barratt 2006">{{cite paper| author = Barratt, Helen| title = Transhumanism| date = 2006 | url = http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1717.#| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref>
[[Image:Biocomplexity spiral.jpg|thumb|left|The [[biocomplexity]] spiral is a depiction of the multileveled complexity of organisms in their environments, which is seen by many critics as the ultimate obstacle to transhumanist ambition.]]
The second category is aimed mainly at "[[algeny]]", which [[Jeremy Rifkin]] defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance",<ref name="Rifkin 1983">{{cite book| author = [[Jeremy Rifkin|Rifkin, Jeremy]] | title = Algeny: A New Word--A New World| publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1983 | id = ISBN-10 0670108855}}</ref> and, more specifically, attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human [[embryo]]s in order to create "[[designer babies]]". It emphasizes the issue of [[biocomplexity]] and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological [[evolution]]. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist [[Stuart Newman]], is based on the recognition that the [[somatic cell nuclear transfer|cloning]] and [[germline]] [[genetic engineering]] of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic [[morphogenesis|development]]. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 [[Declaration of Helsinki]]). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref name="Newman 2003">{{cite journal| author = [[Stuart Newman|Newman, Stuart A.]] | title= Averting the clone age: prospects and perils of human developmental manipulation| year = 2003| url=http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commentaries/newman_averting.pdf| journal = J. Contemp. Health Law & Policy| volume= 19| pages= 431| accessdate=2006-02-23 | format= {{Dead link|date=June 2008}} – <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=intitle%3AAverting+the+clone+age%3A+prospects+and+perils+of+human+developmental+manipulation&as_publication=J.+Contemp.+Health+Law+%26+Policy&as_ylo=2003&as_yhi=2003&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup>}}</ref>
As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.<ref name="Smolensky 2006">{{cite paper| author = Smolensky, Kirsten Rabe| title = Parental liability for germline genetic enhancement: to be or not to be? (Public address, Stanford University) | date = 2006| url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/HETHR_bios/smolensky/ | accessdate=2006-06-18}}</ref>
Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals, such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and [[Ted Peters]], reject the first argument, holding that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.<ref name="Cole-Turner 1993">{{cite book|author=Cole-Turner, Ronald|title=The New Genesis: Theology and the Genetic Revolution |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=1993|id=ISBN 0-664-25406-3 }}</ref><ref name="Peters 1997">{{cite book|author=Peters, Ted|title=Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom|publisher=Routledge|year=1997|id=ISBN 0-415-91522-8}}</ref>
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, [[bioethicist]] [[James Hughes]] suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of [[computer model]]s of the [[human genome]], the proteins it specifies, and the [[tissue engineering]] he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in [[bioinformatics]], Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/> [[Public health]] professor [[Gregory Stock]] points to [[Human artificial chromosome|artificial chromosomes]] as an alleged safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.<ref name="Stock 2002">Stock 2002</ref> Transhumanists therefore argue that parents have a moral responsibility called [[procreative beneficence]] to make use of these methods, if and when they are shown to be reasonably safe and effective, to have the healthiest children possible. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual [[conscience]] rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on [[freedom of choice]] is called [[procreative liberty]].<ref name="Hughes 2004">Hughes 2004</ref>
===Contempt for the flesh (''Fountain of Youth'' argument)===
Philosopher [[Mary Midgley]], in her 1992 book ''Science as Salvation'', traces the notion of achieving [[immortality]] by [[Transcendence (philosophy)#Colloquial usage|transcendence]] of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of [[mind uploading]]) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including [[J.B.S. Haldane]] and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving [[Escapism|visions of escape]] from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the [[pseudoscientific]] speculations and irrational, [[fear of death|fear-of-death]]-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for [[layman|laymen]], and the remoteness of their [[eschatological]] visions.<ref name="Midgley 1992">{{cite book|author=[[Mary Midgley|Midgley, Mary]]|title=Science as Salvation|publisher=Routledge|year=1992|id=ISBN 0-415-06271-3}}</ref> Many transhumanists see the 2006 film ''[[The Fountain (film)|The Fountain]]'''s theme of [[necrophobia]] and critique of the [[Quixotism|quixotic]] [[Fountain of Youth|quest for eternal youth]] as depicting some of these criticisms.<ref name="Dvorsky 2006">{{cite paper| author = [[George Dvorsky|Dvorsky, George]]| title = Aronofsky's pro-death ''Fountain''| date = 2006 | url = http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/12/aronofskys-pro-death-fountain.html| accessdate=2007-01-23}}</ref>
What is perceived as contempt for the flesh in the writings of [[Marvin Minsky]], [[Hans Moravec]], and some transhumanists, has also been the target of other critics for what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body.<ref name="Hayles 1999">{{cite book|author=[[N. Katherine Hayles|Hayles, N. Katherine]]|title=[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/321460.html How We Became Posthuman]|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=1999|id=ISBN 0-226-32146-0}}</ref> Reflecting a strain of [[feminism|feminist]] criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher [[Susan Bordo]] points to "contemporary [[Body image|obsessions with slenderness, youth, and physical perfection]]", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture.”<ref name="Bordo 1993">{{cite book|author=[[Susan Bordo|Bordo, Susan]]|title=Unbearable Weight: Femininism, Western Culture and the Body|publisher=University of California Press|year=1993|id=ISBN 0-520-08883-2}}</ref> Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on [[body modification]]. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of [[atomized individualism]] and body [[commodification]] within a [[consumer culture]].<ref name="Giesen 2004">{{cite paper| author = Giesen, Klaus-Gerd| title = Transhumanisme et génétique humaine| date = 2004 | url = http://www.ircm.qc.ca/bioethique/obsgenetique/cadrages/cadr2004/c_no16_04/c_no16_04_01.html| accessdate=2006-04-26}}</ref>
Nick Bostrom asserts that the desire to [[rejuvenation (aging)|regain youth]], specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, and is therefore not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the [[Human Genome Project]] and achieve humanity's oldest [[hope]], rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>
===Trivialization of human identity (''Enough'' argument)===
[[Image:Amish vs modern transportation.jpg|thumb|right|In the US, the [[Amish]] are a religious group probably most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "Humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting [[human enhancement]] technologies, whose choice they believe must be respected and protected.<ref name="Alexander 2000">{{cite paper| author = Alexander, Brian| title = Don't die, stay pretty: introducing the ultrahuman makeover| date = 2000 | url = http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/forever.html| accessdate=2007-01-08}}</ref>]]
In his 2003 book ''Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age'', [[environmental ethics|environmental ethicist]] [[Bill McKibben]] argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including [[germinal choice technology]], [[nanomedicine]] and [[Life extension#Strategies of Life Extension|life extension strategies]]. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to [[aging]], [[maximum life span]], and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem [[Meaning of life|meaningful]] in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly ''therapeutic'' purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples [[Ming Dynasty|Ming China]], [[Tokugawa shogunate|Tokugawa Japan]] and the contemporary [[Amish]].<ref name="McKibben 2003">{{cite book|author=[[Bill McKibben|McKibben, Bill]]|title=Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age|publisher=Times Books|year=2003|id=ISBN 0-8050-7096-6}}</ref>
Transhumanists and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology, such as [[science journalist]] [[Ronald Bailey]], reject as extremely [[subjectivity|subjective]] the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with [[enhancement technologies]]. They argue that these technologies will not remove the bulk of the individual and social challenges humanity faces. They suggest that a person with greater abilities would tackle more advanced and difficult projects and continue to find meaning in the struggle to achieve [[excellence]]. Bailey also claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed, and support different conclusions when studied more closely.<ref name="Bailey 2003">{{cite paper| author = [[Ronald Bailey|Bailey, Ronald]] | title = Enough Already| date = 2003| url=http://www.reason.com/0310/cr.rb.enough.shtml| accessdate=2006-05-31}}</ref> For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of [[gene therapy]] since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.<ref name="Stock 2002">Stock 2002</ref>
===Genetic divide (''Gattaca'' argument)===
Some critics of [[libertarian transhumanism]] have focused on its likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which [[economic inequality|divisions between rich and poor are on the rise]]. [[Bill McKibben]], for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".<ref name="McKibben 2003">McKibben 2003</ref> [[Lee Silver]], a biologist and [[science writer]] who coined the term "[[reprogenetics]]" and supports its applications, has nonetheless expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically-engineered "haves" and "have nots" if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.<ref name="Silver 1998">{{cite book| author=[[Lee M. Silver|Silver, Lee M.]]| title=Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World| publisher=Harper Perennial| year=1998| id=ISBN 0-380-79243-5}}</ref> Critics who make these arguments do not thereby necessarily accept the transhumanist assumption that human enhancement is a positive value; in their view, it should be discouraged, or even banned, because it could confer additional power upon the already powerful. The 1997 film ''[[Gattaca]]'''s depiction of a [[dystopia]]n society in which one's [[social class]] depends entirely on genetic modifications is often cited by critics in support of these views.<ref name="Hughes 2004">Hughes 2004</ref>
These criticisms are also voiced by [[criticism of libertarianism|non-libertarian]] transhumanist advocates, especially self-described [[democratic transhumanist]]s, who believe that the majority of current or future [[social issues|social]] and [[environmental issues]] (such as [[unemployment]] and [[resource depletion]]) need to be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (such as a [[guaranteed minimum income]] and [[alternative technology]]). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist [[James Hughes]], in his 2004 book ''[[Citizen Cyborg]]: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future,'' argues that [[progressivism|progressives]] or, more precisely, [[techno-progressive]]s must articulate and implement public policies (such as a [[universal health care]] [[voucher]] system that covers human enhancement technologies) in order to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local [[black market]] or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.<ref name="Hughes 2004">Hughes 2004</ref>
===Threats to morality and democracy (''Brave New World'' argument)===
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the [[dystopia]] depicted in the 1932 novel ''[[Brave New World]]'' by [[Aldous Huxley]]. Sometimes, as in the writings of [[Leon Kass]], the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.<ref name="Kass 2001">{{cite news| author = [[Leon Kass|Kass, Leon]] | title = Preventing a Brave New World: why we must ban human cloning now| date = [[May 21]] [[2001]]| publisher = The New Republic}}</ref> In his 2002 book ''[[Our Posthuman Future]]'' and in a 2004 ''[[Foreign Policy]]'' magazine article, political economist and philosopher [[Francis Fukuyama]] designates transhumanism the [[world's most dangerous idea]] because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of [[liberal democracy]], through a fundamental alteration of "[[human nature]]".<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">Fukuyama 2004</ref> Social philosopher [[Jürgen Habermas]] makes a similar argument in his 2003 book ''The Future of Human Nature'', in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.<ref name="Habermas 2004">{{cite book| author=[[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas, Jürgen]]| title=The Future of Human Nature| publisher=Polity Press| year=2004| id=ISBN 0-7456-2987-3 }}</ref> Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threats to the [[social order]]. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of [[social hierarchy|social hierarchies]] or place new means of [[social control|control]] in the hands of [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] regimes. The [[AI]] pioneer [[Joseph Weizenbaum]] criticizes what he sees as [[misanthropic]] tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular [[Marvin Minsky]] and [[Hans Moravec]], which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.<ref name="Platt 1995">{{cite paper| author = [[Charles Platt (science-fiction author)|Platt, Charles]]| title = Superhumanism| date = 1995 | url = http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/moravec.html| accessdate=2006-12-05}}</ref>
In a 2004 article in ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]],'' science journalist [[Ronald Bailey]] has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that [[liberalism]] was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or ''de facto'' equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or ''de jure'' equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] is the principle of [[tolerance]]". In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and [[posthuman]] rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.<ref name="Bailey 2004"/> Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher [[Russell Blackford]], have also objected to the appeal to [[traditional values|tradition]], and what they see as [[alarmism]], involved in ''Brave New World''-type arguments.<ref name="Blackford 2003">{{cite paper| author = [[Russell Blackford|Blackford, Russell]]| title = Who's afraid of the Brave New World?| date = 2003 | url = http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/brave_new_world.htm| accessdate=2006-02-08}}</ref>
===Dehumanization (''Frankenstein'' argument)===
[[Image:The Young Family.jpg|thumb|left|Australian artist [[Patricia Piccinini]]'s concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled "'''The Young Family,'''" produced to address the reality of such possible [[parahuman]]s in a compassionate way. Transhumanists would call for the recognition of [[self-aware]] parahumans as [[person]]s.]]
[[Biopolitical]] activist [[Jeremy Rifkin]] and biologist [[Stuart Newman]] accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in [[organism]]al identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and [[Cultural artifact|artifact]].<ref name="Otchet 1998">{{cite paper | author = Otchet, Amy | title = Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world | date = 1998 | url = http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_09/uk/dires/txt1.htm| accessdate=2006-02-20 }}</ref><ref name="Newman 2003">Newman 2003</ref> Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in [[modernization]] in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".<ref name="Lee 1999">{{cite book | author = Lee, Keekok | title = The Natural and the Artefactual | year = 1999 | publisher = Lexington Books | id = ISBN 0-7391-0061-0 }}</ref> In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "[[monster]]s" such as [[human clone]]s, [[parahuman|human-animal chimera]]s or [[bioroid]]s, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from [[social structure|social]] and [[ecosystem|ecological]] systems are seen as problematic. The film ''[[Blade Runner]]'' (1982), the novels ''[[The Boys From Brazil]]'' (1978) and ''[[The Island of Dr. Moreau]]'' (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel ''[[Frankenstein]]'' is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create [[objectification|objectified]] and [[anomie|socially-unmoored]] people and [[subhuman]]s. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as [[dehumanization|dehumanizing]] possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international [[ban (law)|ban]] on human genetic engineering.<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads">{{cite paper | author = Darnovsky, Marcy | title = Health and human rights leaders call for an international ban on species-altering procedures | date = 2001 | url = http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter/archive/20.html | accessdate=2006-02-21 }}</ref>
Writing in ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine, [[Ronald Bailey]] has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in [[alarmism]] when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of [[Homo sapiens]]. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human [[health care]] benefits.<ref name="Bailey 2001">{{cite paper | author = Bailey, Ronald | title = Right-Wing Biological Dread: The Subhumans are coming! The Subhumans are coming! | date = 2001 | url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/34926.html }} URL accessed on [[January 18]] [[2007]]</ref>
A different response comes from transhumanist [[personhood theory|personhood theorists]] who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer [[Isaac Asimov]] termed the "[[Frankenstein complex]]". They argue that, provided they are [[self-aware]], human clones, human-animal chimeras and [[biological uplift|uplifted animals]] would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and [[citizenship]]. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the "[[wisdom of repugnance|yuck factor]]" and "[[Human exceptionalism|human-racism]]" that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/><ref name="Glenn 2003"/>
===Specter of coercive eugenicism (''Eugenics Wars'' argument)===
Some critics of transhumanism allege an [[ableist]] bias in the use of such concepts as "limitations", "enhancement" and "improvement". Some even see the [[old eugenics]], [[social Darwinist]] and [[master race]] ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what the promotion of eugenic enhancement technologies might unintentionally encourage. Some fear future "[[eugenics wars]]" as the worst-case scenario: the return of coercive state-sponsored [[genetic discrimination]] and [[Human rights violations#Violations of human rights|human rights violations]] such as [[compulsory sterilization]] of persons with genetic defects, the [[euthanasia|killing of the institutionalized]] and, specifically, [[racial segregation|segregation]] from, and [[genocide]] of, "[[Social interpretations of race|races]]" perceived as inferior.<ref name="Black 2003">{{cite book| author = [[Edwin Black|Black, Edwin]]| title = War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race| publisher = Four Walls Eight Windows| year = 2003| id = ISBN-10: 1568582587}}</ref> Health law professor [[George Annas]] and technology law professor [[Lori Andrews]] are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-[[posthuman]] [[caste]] warfare.<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads"/><ref name="Annas 2002">{{cite journal| author = [[George Annas|Annas, George]], [[Lori Andrews|Andrews, Lori]] and [[Rosario Isasi|Isasi, Rosario]]| title = Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations | journal = Am. J. Law & Med.| volume=28| pages= 151| year = 2002}}</ref>
For most of its history, eugenics has manifested itself as a movement to sterilize against their will the "genetically unfit" and encourage the [[selective breeding]] of the [[Fitness (biology)|genetically fit]]. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the [[coercion]] involved in such policies and reject the [[scientific racism|racist]] and [[classist]] assumptions on which they were based, along with the [[pseudoscientific]] notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Most transhumanist thinkers instead advocate a "new eugenics", a form of [[egalitarian]] [[liberal eugenics]].<ref name="WTA FAQ 3.2">{{cite paper| author = [[World Transhumanist Association]]| title = Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?| date = 2002–2005 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/| accessdate=2006-04-03}}</ref> In their 2000 book ''From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice'', (non-transhumanist) bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to ''encourage'' as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' [[reproductive rights]] or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize [[public health]] and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.<ref name="Buchanan 2000">{{cite book| author = Buchanan, Allen; Brock, Dan W.; Daniels, Norman; Wikler, Daniel| title = From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice| publisher = Cambridge University Press| year = 2000| id = ISBN 0-521-66977-4}}</ref> Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "[[germinal choice]]" or "[[reprogenetics]]")<ref name="Silver 1998"/> to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.<ref name="Humphrey 2004">{{cite paper| author = Humphrey, Stephen| title = No death, please, I'm bionic| date = 2004 | url = http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-08-12/news_story.php| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref>
===Existential risks (''Terminator'' argument)===
Struck by a passage from Unabomber [[Theodore Kaczynski]]'s [[anarcho-primitivist]] manifesto (quoted in Ray Kurzweil's 1999 book, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]''<ref name="Kurzweil 1999"/>), [[computer scientist]] [[Bill Joy]] became a notable critic of [[emerging technologies]].<ref name="Kaczynski 1995">{{cite paper| last=Kaczynski | first=Theodore | authorlink=Theodore Kaczynski | title = Industrial society and its future| date = 1995 | url = http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future| accessdate=2006-02-21}}</ref> Joy's 2000 essay "[[Why the future doesn't need us]]" argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the "[[grey goo]] scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating [[nanorobot]]s could consume entire [[ecosystems]], resulting in global [[ecophagy]].<ref name="Joy 2000">{{cite paper| last = Joy | first = Bill | authorlink = Bill Joy | title = Why the future doesn't need us| date = 2000 | url = http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html| accessdate=2005-11-14}}</ref> Joy's warning was seized upon by [[:Category:Appropriate technology organizations|appropriate technology organizations]] such as the [[ETC Group]]. Related notions were also voiced by self-described [[neo-luddite]] [[Kalle Lasn]], a [[culture jamming|culture jammer]] who co-authored a 2001 spoof of [[Donna Haraway]]'s 1985 ''[[Donna Haraway#A Manifesto for Cyborgs|Cyborg Manifesto]]'' as a critique of the [[techno-utopianism]] he misinterpreted it as promoting.<ref name="Ian 2001">{{cite paper| first=Walker | last=Ian | title = ''Cyborg Dreams: Beyond Human''| date = 2001 | url = http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s409607.htm| accessdate=2007-02-02}}</ref> Lasn argues that [[high tech|high]] [[technology development]] should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves [[profiteering (business)|corporate interests]] with devastating consequences on society and the environment.<ref name="Lasn 2005">{{cite news| last=Lasn | first=Kalle | authorlink = Kalle Lasn | title = ''Changesurfer Radio: Tech for People, not for Corporate Control''| date = 2005 | url = http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=11260| accessdate=2006-06-12}}</ref>
In his 2003 book ''[[Our Final Hour]]'', British [[Astronomer Royal]] [[Martin Rees]] argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.<ref name="Rees 2003">{{cite book| last=Rees | first=Martin | authorlink=Martin Rees | title=[[Our Final Hour|Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century—On Earth and Beyond]]| publisher=Basic Books| year=2003| id=ISBN 0-465-06862-6}}</ref> Advocates of the [[precautionary principle]], such as the [[Green movement]], also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that [[artificial intelligence]] and [[robotics]] present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.<ref name="Arnall 2003">{{cite paper| last = Arnall | first=Alexander Huw| title = Future technologies, today's choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics. | publisher = Greenpeace U.K| date = 2003| url = http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf| accessdate=2006-04-29}}</ref> The [[Terminator (series)|''Terminator'' series]]' [[end of civilization|doomsday]] depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a [[superintelligence]] - [[Skynet (fictional)|Skynet]], a malignant computer network which initiates a [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]] in order to exterminate the human species, has been cited by some involved in this debate.<ref name="Layman 2003">{{cite paper| last = Layman | first=Dale | title = Robowatch 2002: Mankind At The Brink| publisher = London Diplomatic Academy| date = 2002| url = http://www.robowatch.org/main2.html| accessdate=2007-01-23}}</ref>
Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of [[existential risk]]. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often [[technorealism|unrealistic]] and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the [[technogaian]] current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series ''[[Connections (TV series)|Connections]]'', [[science historian]] [[James Burke (science historian)|James Burke]] dissects several views on [[technological change]], including precautionism and the restriction of [[inquiry|open inquiry]]. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the ''[[status quo]]'' of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, [[clean technology|clean]], [[alternative technology]] rather than fostering what it considers to be [[anti-science|anti-scientific views]] and [[technophobia]].<ref name="Dvorsky 2003">{{cite paper| last= Dvorsky | first= George| title = Technophiles and Greens of the World, Unite!| date = 2003 | url = http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/305/Default.aspx| accessdate=2007-03-19}}</ref>
One transhumanist solution proposed by [[Nick Bostrom]] is [[differential technological development]], in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.<ref name="Bostrom 2002"/>
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
<!--<nowiki>Please do not type footnotes here. Instead insert the footnote in its proper spot in the body of this article using the <ref name=> </ref> tags. See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the tags.</nowiki>-->
[[Category:Fringe science]]
[[Category:Futurology]]
[[Category:Ideologies]]
[[Category:Subcultures]]
[[Category:Transhumanism]]
{{Link FA|es}}
[[ar:بعد إنسانية]]
[[be:Трансгуманізм]]
[[cs:Transhumanismus]]
[[da:Transhumanisme]]
[[de:Transhumanismus]]
[[es:Transhumanismo]]
[[fa:ترابشریت]]
[[fr:Transhumanisme]]
[[hr:Transhumanizam]]
[[it:Transumanesimo]]
[[he:טרנס הומניזם]]
[[hu:Transzhumanizmus]]
[[nl:Transhumanisme]]
[[ja:トランスヒューマニズム]]
[[no:Transhumanisme]]
[[pl:Transhumanizm]]
[[pt:Transumanismo]]
[[ro:Transumanism]]
[[ru:Трансгуманизм]]
[[sk:Transhumanizmus]]
[[fi:Transhumanismi]]
[[sv:Transhumanism]]
[[tr:Transhümanizm]]
[[zh:超人文主义]]