Transhumanism

Perhaps you have already wondered what the world will look like in, say, 50 or 100 years. Spectacularly different than now, probably. In the philosophical (or also futurological) movement ‘transhumanism’ people think about what humans could soon look like. Soon may be within 50 years, but it could also be within 200 years. When is correct is less important: it is more of an interesting thought exercise. (Image: SparkCBC, flickr)

Table of contents

  • Evolution theory
  • Technological singularity
  • Posthumanism: from human to machine?
  • Class war?

 

Evolution theory

According to Darwinism, all species are constantly evolving. However, this evolution occurs quite slowly, via the genes: many generations must pass, and often also a changing environment, to achieve substantial changes. It is clear that the environment (our living environment) is changing: just think of climate changes, the rise of the deserts, the increasingly faster and greater flow of information that a human brain has to process. And the problem is with the latter: the information flows that people create and process are becoming exponentially larger. Someone living in a city 30 years ago had to deal with about 2,000 advertisements per day. Nowadays this is already around 5,000 advertising images per day. [1] Only advertising, but of course there is much more information that reaches us. Facebook and other newsfeed sites certainly contribute to accelerating the flow of information. Our brains do not evolve exponentially: not fast enough to quickly absorb changes like these. The flow of information is not only faster than we can handle, it is accelerating much faster than we can evolve with that changing environment. The result: we receive a lot more information than we can process. It becomes difficult to see the forest through the trees. Nowadays there is even talk of a new condition: infobesity: people are addicted to Facebook, etc. because they want to process more information than they can handle. People have to sleep, computers don’t.
Has humanity created a world in which it can no longer keep up?

Technological singularity

However, what is growing exponentially and is even the cause of the growing flood of information is the technology that people create. Technology has been essential in the evolution of humanity since the first tools were made from skins, wood, stone, etc. That is no different now. According to transhumanists, humanity will soon reach a technological singularity. That singularity is the moment (or short period) when exponential technological progress goes completely crazy: progress is almost infinitely fast. A revolutionary state is possible, but it is mainly a matter of ‘natural selection’: those who are best adapted to the changing environment have the greatest chance of survival and offspring.

According to Moore’s law, technological progress doubles every two years. That law still applies today. According to some, the law will soon no longer be true, because technological progress (often measured by the progress of the processing power of computers) encounters physical barriers. The miniaturization of computer components is reaching limits: it is currently not possible to work more accurately than arranging the atoms in a processor atom by atom. The same goes for nanorobots.

But this does not necessarily undermine transhumanist theories. Humanity will mainly begin to merge with self-made technologies such as computers, robotics, nanotechnology, genetically modified-I-know-what-all ,… Another reason why the theory can stand: it is assumed that soon machines (androids, robots, …) will be able to replicate themselves. For example, robots that are able to collect the ‘waste’ (we only call it that because WE cannot deal with it, it remains a kind of raw material as confirmed by the cradle-to-cradle idea that is increasingly being applied) at a waste dump. use as a raw material to make useful things, or therefore also to replicate themselves. This also applies to nanorobots. It could well be that something like nanomedicine is created: a pill full of mini robots that search for malignant tumor cells in your body and destroy them.

Posthumanism: from human to machine?

Man will therefore, as it were, evolve further into a transhuman being: a biologically based human being who is fully equipped with ‘extensions’ such as a strong mechanical arm or extra memory. Although it is difficult to determine what the exact criteria are for being called transhuman. Someone with a pacemaker and a plastic hip? Or just as soon as minicomputers are really implanted in the brain?

But the story does not have to end there in this line of thought: the transhuman can further evolve into a posthuman being. It becomes posthuman as more and more ‘machines’ are used, and the biological basis becomes less important. For example, evolution could happen out of necessity: Earth’s resources are finite. But we can travel into space to obtain raw materials elsewhere. However, going into space as a human being is not that easy: there must be sufficient pressure, oxygen, food, … and especially living space: a human traveling to space still needs a few cubic meters of living space, making a spaceship very large. must be. Another problem is that the journeys can last for years or decades. As humans evolve into posthumans, these limitations largely disappear: the technology becomes smaller and smaller. The need for oxygen and the correct atmospheric pressure also largely disappear. In short: there are many reasons why a machine is more ‘fit to survive’ than an upgraded human. I find it unimportant
whether a machine can ever contain a ‘soul’: everything that a person is is in his body, and all of that can be mapped and understood, although these sciences are still in their infancy. We consider the human brain as something unique – I think it is – and cannot be compared to computers. But is that correct? Perhaps self-replicating robots can also be unique. A replica robot that has undergone some changes based on the mother robot’s ‘experience’ of shortcomings is also unique. This can also make changes in the offspring: an evolutionary ladder is created.

Class war?

Some transhumanists think that this evolution will create a new and unprecedented class war: the rich can afford the new technologies, the poor cannot. This gives them a huge information advantage, which means that the poor are no longer able to keep up. Information and knowledge are already the highest asset in our economy: those who are not up to par are left out. Learning a trade and practicing that trade until you retire is no longer an option: you have to learn for life, always be available, think innovatively, … Fortunately, we have the safety net of the welfare state for those who cannot keep up, social employment, … but whether this will always remain the case is highly questionable. The gap between upgraded people and others would increase rapidly, resulting in alienation. Therefore, it could even take on the character of a ‘race war’.

Doc

This article has made you curious? Then you should definitely watch the three-part documentary Technocalyps by Frank Theys.

Hollywood

The idea of transhumanism plays an important role in many science fiction films. Neil Blomkamp’s film Elysium (2013) starring Matt Damon is all about transhumanism and the possible class war that results from it. The film is set in the near future, in the year 2154. The richest people on earth live in a space station that floats around the earth and provides them with all kinds of privileges, such as virtually infallible healthcare. Meanwhile, the poor population lives on earth and is forced to work in inhumane conditions. Police were replaced by robots, against which any resistance is futile. In the film, poor left-behind Earthlings try to keep up with the superior transhumans living on the space station Elysium.

read more

  • To be happy according to Epicurus
  • Geothermal energy in East Africa
  • Nihilism: the truth does not exist
  • Solipsism: what is real and what is illusion?
  • Theo Jansen and the Strandbeests: art or science?

Leave a Comment