 | Some of this article'slisted sourcesmay not bereliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed.(January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part of a series on |
| Human enhancement |
|---|
 |
(De facto) germline interventions |
Somatic interventions |
Opposition
|
Transhumanist politics constitutes a group ofpolitical ideologies that generally express the belief in improving human individuals through science and technology.[1] Specific topics include space migration, and cryogenic suspension.[2] It is considered the opposing ideal to the concept ofbioconservatism, as Transhumanist politics argue for the use of all technology to enhance human individuals.[3][4]
The term "transhumanism" with its present meaning was popularised byJulian Huxley's 1957 essay of that name, at a time when his open endorsement of eugenics became socially controversial.[5]
Natasha Vita-More was elected as a Councilperson for the 28th Senatorial District of Los Angeles in 1992. She ran with the Green Party, but on a personal platform of "transhumanism". She quit after a year, saying her party was "too neurotically geared toward environmentalism".[6][7]
James Hughes identifies the "neoliberal"Extropy Institute, founded by philosopherMax More and developed in the 1990s, as the first organized advocates for transhumanism. And he identifies the late-1990s formation of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), a European organization which later was renamed toHumanity+ (H+), as partly a reaction to the free market perspective of the "Extropians". Per Hughes, "[t]he WTA included both social democrats and neoliberals around a liberal democratic definition of transhumanism, codified in the Transhumanist Declaration."[8][9] Hughes has also detailed the political currents in transhumanism, particularly the shift around 2009 from socialist transhumanism tolibertarian andanarcho-capitalist transhumanism.[9] He claims that theleft was pushed out of theWorld Transhumanist Association Board of Directors, and that libertarians andSingularitarians have secured a hegemony in the transhumanism community with help fromPeter Thiel, but Hughes remains optimistic about atechno-progressive future.[9]
In 2012, the Longevity Party, a movement described as "100% transhumanist" by cofounder Maria Konovalenko,[10] began to organize in Russia for building a balloted political party.[11] Another Russian programme, the2045 Initiative was founded in 2012 by billionaireDmitry Itskov with its own proposed "Evolution 2045" political party advocating life extension andandroid avatars.[12][13]
In October 2013, the political party Alianza Futurista ALFA was founded in Spain with transhumanist goals and ideals inscribed in its statutes.[14]
In October 2014,Zoltan Istvan announced that he would be running in the2016 United States presidential election under the banner of the "Transhumanist Party."[15] By November 2019, the Party claimed 880 members, withGennady Stolyarov II as chair.[16]
In 2016,Klaus Schwab, in his bookThe Fourth Industrial Revolution, asserted that transhumanist technologies like gene editing such asCRISPR and others will inevitably merge human physical, digital, and biological domains, presenting this transformation as an unstoppable driver of human progress in a new political and societal era.[17]
In 2016,Yuval Noah Harari's bookHomo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow popularized transhumanist ideas, envisioning a future where biotechnology, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence enable humans to transcend biological limits, potentially creating "superhumans" with enhanced cognitive, physical, and emotional capacities.[18] In 2018, Yuval Noah Harari, in works like21 Lessons for the 21st Century and public talks, called humans “hackable animals,” asserting that AI and biotechnology will inevitably enable entities to manipulate human behavior and cognition, presenting a transhumanist future as both unavoidable and politically transformative[19][20]
Other groups using the name "Transhumanist Party" exist in the United Kingdom[21][22][23] and Germany.[24]
According to a 2006 study by theEuropean Parliament, transhumanism is the political expression of the ideology that technology and science should be used to enhance human abilities and characteristics like physical beauty, or lifespan.[2][25]
According to Amon Twyman of theInstitute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), political philosophies which support transhumanism include social futurism,techno-progressivism,techno-libertarianism, and anarcho-transhumanism. Twyman considers such philosophies to collectively constitute political transhumanism.[26]
Techno-progressives, also known as Democratic transhumanists,[27][28] support equal access tohuman enhancement technologies in order to promotesocial equality and prevent technologies from furthering the divide amongsocioeconomic classes.[29] However,libertarian transhumanistRonald Bailey is critical of the democratic transhumanism described byJames Hughes.[30][31]Jeffrey Bishop wrote that the disagreements among transhumanists regarding individual and community rights is "precisely the tension that philosophical liberalism historically tried to negotiate," but that disagreeing entirely with a posthuman future is a disagreement with the right to choose what humanity will become.[32]Woody Evans has supported placing posthuman rights in a continuum withanimal rights andhuman rights.[33]
Riccardo Campa wrote that transhumanism can be coupled with many different political, philosophical, and religious views, and that this diversity can be an asset so long as transhumanists do not give priority to existing affiliations over membership with organized transhumanism.[34] Truman Chen of theStanford Political Journal considers many transhumanist ideals to be anti-political.[35]
Anarcho-transhumanism is ananti-capitalistideology synthesizinganarchism withtranshumanism that is concerned with both social and physical freedom respectively. Indeed, according to the anarcho-transhumanist activist William Gillis : "We should seek to expand our physical freedom just as we seek to expand our social freedom."[37] Also, anarcho-transhumanists define freedom as the expansion of one's own ability to experience the world around them.[38] Anarcho-transhumanists may advocate various praxis to advance their ideals, includingcomputer hacking,three-dimensional printing, orbiohacking.[39][37]
The philosophy draws heavily from theindividualist anarchism ofWilliam Godwin,Max Stirner andVoltairine de Cleyre[40] as well as thecyberfeminism presented byDonna Haraway inA Cyborg Manifesto.[41] Anarcho-transhumanist thought looks at issues surroundingbodily autonomy,[42]disability,[43]gender,[42][37]neurodiversity,[44]queer theory,[45]science,[46]free software,[37] andsexuality[47] whilst presenting critiques through anarchist and transhumanist lens ofableism,[44]cisheteropatriarchy[42] andprimitivism.[48] Much of early anarcho-transhumanist thought was a response toanarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-transhumanism may be interpreted either as criticism of, or an extension ofhumanism, because it challenges what being human means.[37]
Anarcho-transhumanists also criticise non-anarchist forms of transhumanism such asdemocratic transhumanism andlibertarian transhumanism as incoherent and unsurvivable due to their preservation of thestate. They view such instruments of power as inherently unethical and incompatible with the acceleration of social and material freedom for all individuals.[49] Anarcho-transhumanism is generallyanti-capitalist, arguing capitalist accumulation of wealth would lead to dystopia while partnered with transhumanism, instead advocating for equal access to advanced technologies that enable morphological freedom and space travel.[50][51]
Anarcho-transhumanist philosopher William Gillis has advocated for a 'social singularity', or a transformation in humanity'smorals, to complement thetechnological singularity. This social singularity will ensure that nocoercion will be required to maintain order in a future society where people are likely to have access to lethal forms of technology.[52]
Democratic transhumanism, a term coined byJames Hughes in 2002, refers to the stance oftranshumanists (advocates for the development and use ofhuman enhancement technologies) who espouseliberal,social, and/orradical democratic political views.[53][54][55][56]
According to Hughes, the ideology "stems from the assertion that human beings will generally behappier when they takerational control of the natural and social forces that control their lives."[54][57]Theethical foundation of democratic transhumanism rests uponrule utilitarianism andnon-anthropocentricpersonhood theory.[58] Democratic transhumanists support equal access tohuman enhancement technologies in order to promotesocial equality and to prevent technologies from furthering the divide among thesocioeconomic classes.[59]While raising objections both toright-wing andleft-wingbioconservatism, andlibertarian transhumanism, Hughes aims to encourage democratic transhumanists and their potentialprogressive allies to unite as anew social movement and influencebiopoliticalpublic policy.[54][56]
An attempt to expand the middle ground betweentechnorealism andtechno-utopianism, democratic transhumanism can be seen as a radical form oftechno-progressivism.[60] Appearing several times in Hughes' work, the term "radical" (from Latinrādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaningof or pertaining to the root orgoing to the root. His central thesis is thatemerging technologies andradical democracy can helpcitizens overcome some of theroot causes of inequalities ofpower.[54]
According to Hughes, the terms techno-progressivism and democratic transhumanism both refer to the same set ofEnlightenment values and principles; however, the term technoprogressive has replaced the use of the word democratic transhumanism.[61][62]
Hughes has identified 15 "left futurist" or "left techno-utopian" trends and projects that could be incorporated into democratic transhumanism:
These are notable individuals who have identified themselves, or have been identified by Hughes, as advocates of democratic transhumanism:[63]
Science journalistRonald Bailey wrote a review ofCitizen Cyborg in his online column forReason magazine in which he offered a critique of democratic transhumanism and a defense oflibertarian transhumanism.[30][31]
Critical theoristDale Carrico defended democratic transhumanism from Bailey's criticism.[64] However, he would later criticize democratic transhumanism himself ontechnoprogressive grounds.[65]
Libertarian transhumanism is apolitical ideology synthesizinglibertarianism andtranshumanism.[53]
Self-identified libertarian transhumanists, such asRonald Bailey ofReason magazine andGlenn Reynolds ofInstapundit, are advocates of the asserted "right tohuman enhancement" who argue that thefree market is the best guarantor of this right, claiming that it produces greater prosperity and personal freedom than other economic systems.[66][67]
Libertarian transhumanists believe that the principle ofself-ownership is the most fundamental idea from which both libertarianism and transhumanism stem. They arerational egoists andethical egoists who embrace the prospect of usingemerging technologies to enhance human capacities, which they believe stems from the self-interested application ofreason andwill in the context of the individualfreedom to achieve aposthuman state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.[68] They extend this rational and ethical egoism to advocate a form of "biolibertarianism".[66]
As strongcivil libertarians, libertarian transhumanists hold that any attempt to limit or suppress the asserted right to human enhancement is a violation ofcivil rights andcivil liberties. However, as strongeconomic libertarians, they also reject proposedpublic policies ofgovernment-regulated and -insuredhuman enhancement technologies, which are advocated bydemocratic transhumanists, because they fear that anystate intervention will steer or limit their choices.[31][69]
Extropianism, the earliestcurrent of transhumanist thought defined in 1988 by philosopherMax More, initially included ananarcho-capitalist interpretation of the concept of "spontaneous order" in its principles, which states that a free market economy achieves a more efficient allocation of societal resources than anyplanned ormixed economy could achieve. In 2000, while revising the principles of Extropy, More seemed to be abandoning libertarianism in favor ofmodern liberalism andanticipatory democracy. However, many Extropians remained libertarian transhumanists.[53]
Critiques of thetechno-utopianism of libertarian transhumanists from progressivecultural critics includeRichard Barbrook and Andy Cameron's 1995 essayThe Californian Ideology;Mark Dery's 1996 bookEscape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century; andPaulina Borsook's 2000 bookCyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech.
Barbrook argues that libertarian transhumanists are proponents of theCalifornian Ideology who embrace the goal ofreactionary modernism:economic growth withoutsocial mobility.[70] According to Barbrook, libertarian transhumanists are unwittingly appropriating the theoretical legacy ofStalinist communism by substituting, among other concepts, the "vanguard party" with the "digerati", and the "new Soviet man" with the "posthuman".[71] Dery coined the dismissive phrase "body-loathing" to describe the attitude of libertarian transhumanists and those in thecyberculture who want to escape from their "meat puppet" throughmind uploading intocyberspace.[72] Borsook asserts that libertarian transhumanists indulge in asubculture ofselfishness,elitism, andescapism.[73]
SociologistJames Hughes is the most militant critic of libertarian transhumanism. While articulating "democratic transhumanism" as a sociopolitical program in his 2004 bookCitizen Cyborg,[56] Hughes sought to convince libertarian transhumanists to embracesocial democracy by arguing that:
Klaus-Gerd Giesen, a German political scientist specializing in thephilosophy of technology, wrote a critique of the libertarianism he imputes to all transhumanists. While pointing out that the works ofAustrian School economistFriedrich Hayek figure in practically all of the recommended reading lists ofExtropians, he argues that transhumanists, convinced of the sole virtues of the free market, advocate an unabashedinegalitarianism and mercilessmeritocracy which can be reduced in reality to a biologicalfetish. He is especially critical of their promotion of a science-fictionalliberal eugenics, virulently opposed to any political regulation ofhuman genetics, where theconsumerist model presides over their ideology. Giesen concludes that the despair of finding social and political solutions to today's sociopolitical problems incites transhumanists toreduce everything to the hereditary gene, as a fantasy ofomnipotence to be found within the individual, even if it means transforming the subject (human) to a new draft (posthuman).[74]
Left Transhumanism is apolitical ideology synthesizingleft wing ideas andtranshumanism.[75]
Left Transhumanists believe a egalitarian approach to society and economics must be put within a Transhumanist context. Arguing that without egalitarianism, Transhumanism will amount to a form ofelitism due tofree market mechanisms. Furthermore it is argued that this trend is already occurring in the early stages. CitingBryan Johnson's costly medical treatments andJeff Bezos'sAltos Labs as a case in point that thecapitalist class is slowly gaining the ability to obtain longevity treatments while the rest of humanity dies at a rate of 100,000 per day.[76]
Left Transhumanists hold that a new society must come about either throughrevolution orreforms for the masses of people to truly experience the opportunities of a Transhumanist society. Despite the abundance that may occur if a society has vastly automated labor. Thesocial relations which dictate society will not allow that abundance to be distributed in a egalitarian manner undercapitalism. Left Transhumanist often point to food production and hunger as well as the producible results of fast fashion and the 1 billion people without shoes as foreshadowing of the conditions which will encompass longevity treatments or an abundance of resources.[77][78][79] In addition Left Transhumanists assert Transhumanism should return to its roots in regards to economics, holding that a return to a Transhumanism akin toRussian Cosmism or individuals such asAlexander Bogdanov,Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, orIvan Yefremov may aid the promotion of Transhumanist ideals. Similarly to the relationship betweenRussian Cosmism andSocialism.[80]
Jeffrey Noonan argues that a Marxist transhumanism is politically and ethically incoherent. While it is true that Transhumanists and Marxists believe that human beings are self-determining and self-transforming. Transhumanists are committed to transcending the material conditions of organic life with their ultimate aim being to encourage the emergence of an artificial superintelligence whose self-creative capacities are not limited by the needs of organic life forms. Socialism, by contrast, is a political and ethical movement committed to ending the suffering caused by capitalism, by changing social institutions and the values according to which resources are distributed and utilized.[81]
Critics argue that libertarian transhumanism’s push for universal human enhancement reflects aphilosophical hubris, akin to Enlightenmentabsolutism ordespotism, presuming individualrational egoism can override shared human values and dictate a posthuman future for all. By asserting that technologies like genetic engineering or cognitive augmentation should universally reshape humanity, it is seen to violate humanism’s reverence for collective dignity and moral limits honoring humanity’s intrinsic sanctity. This imposition, framed as reason’s inevitable triumph, is critiqued as an ethical overreach that risks eroding the shared essence of human existence.[82]
Bioconservatism (aportmanteau word combining "biology" and "conservatism") is a stance of opposition to modifying human nature, especially when perceived to threaten a givensocial order. Strong bioconservative positions include opposition togenetic modification offood crops, thecloning and genetic engineering oflivestock andpets, and, most prominently, rejection of the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human beings to overcome what are broadly perceived as current human biological and cultural limitations.[83][84][self-published source?]
Bioconservatives range in political perspective fromright-leaning religious and culturalconservatives toleft-leaningenvironmentalists andtechnology critics. What unifies bioconservatives is skepticism aboutmedical and otherbiotechnological transformations of theliving world.[85][86][87][88] Typically less sweeping as a critique of technological society thanbioluddism, the bioconservative perspective is characterized by its defense of thenatural, deployed as amoral category.[83][84]
Despite being opposed, both transhumanism and bioconservatism, in their more moderate expressions, share an opposition to unsafe, unfair, undemocratic forms of technological development, and both recognize that such developmental modes can facilitate unacceptablerecklessness andexploitation, exacerbate injustice and incubate dangerous social discontent.[83][84][self-published source?]
Ironically, Natasha Vita-More was actually elected to Los Angeles public office on the Green Party ticket in 1992. However her platform was "transhumanism" and she quit after one year of her two year term because the Greens were "too far left and too neurotically geared toward environmentalism."
On July 19, we made the first step towards the creation of the Longevity Party. [...] Longevity Party is 100% transhumanist party.
The recently-formed Longevity Party was co-founded by Ilia Stambler of Israel and Maria Konovalenko of Russia.
Zoltan decided to form the Transhumanist Party, and run for president in the 2016 US presidential election.
Gennady Stolyarov II, the chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party, a political organization with close to 880 members that supports life extension through science and technology, had been corresponding with Mr. Traywick since November 2015.
As the UK's 2015 general election approaches, you've probably already made up your mind on who knows best about the economy, who you agree with on foreign policy, and who cuts a more leader-like figure. But did you ever wonder who will deliver immortality sooner? If so, there's good news for you, since that's exactly what the UK Transhumanist Party was created for.
Twyman intends to stand as an independent MP for the constituency of Kingston, on the radically pro-technology platform of the Transhumanist Party UK (TPUK), of which he's cofounder and leader.
The newly-launched Transhumanist Party, which supports people who want to become cyborgs, has appointed its first political candidate in the UK.
The Transhumanist Party is gaining traction also in other parts of the Western world – mainly in Europe so far. Among them are the Tranhumanist Party of the UK, the Transhumanist Party of Germany (Transhumanistische Partei Deutschland) and others, all currently in the process of foundation.
On the one side are the true believers in the potential of technology to make individuals ever more perfect. Transhumanism is a political expression of that.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)I would suggest that the way forward is to view transhumanism as a kind of political vector, axis, or hub rather than a single party or philosophy. In other words, the different political philosophies supportive of transhumanism (e.g. Social Futurism, Techno-Progressivism, Anarcho-Transhumanism, Techno-Libertarianism etc) should be considered to collectively constitute Political Transhumanism.
The term 'democratic transhumanism' distinguishes a biopolitical stance that combines socially liberal or libertarian views (advocating internationalist, secular, free speech, and individual freedom values), with economically egalitarian views (pro-regulation, pro-redistribution, pro-social welfare values), with an openness to the transhuman benefits that science and technology can provide, such as longer lives and expanded abilities. [...] In the last six or seven years the phrase has been supplanted by the descriptor 'technoprogressive' which is used to describe the same basic set of Enlightenment values and policy proposals: Human enhancement technologies, especially anti-aging therapies, should be a priority of publicly financed basic research, be well regulated for safety, and be included in programs of universal health care
When I wroteCitizen Cyborg in 2004 we had just begun defining the ideological position that embraced both traditional social democratic values as well as future transhuman possibilities, and we called it 'democratic transhumanism.' Since then, the people in that space have adopted the much more elegant term 'technoprogressive.'
Democratic transhumanism calls for an equal access to technological enhancements, which could otherwise be limited to certain socio-political classes and related to economic power, consequently encoding racial and sexual politics.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)The tension between the individual and the political that we see within trans-humanist philosophies is precisely the tension that philosophical liberalism historically tried to negotiate." and "[T]o question the posthuman future is to question our liberty to become what we will.
Consider the state of posthumanism as a domain (*PR*). The careful definition of this domain will be vital in articulating the nature of the relationship between humanity and posthumanity. It will be an asymmetrical relationship, at first heavily favoring humans. It will become, if the posthuman population (and/or their power or influence) grows, a domain in which posthumans may favor themselves at the expense of humans, as humans favor themselves at the expense of animals and machinery within their own domains and networks.
The central transhumanist idea of self-directed evolution can be coupled with different political, philosophical and religious opinions. Accordingly, we have observed individuals and groups joining the movement from very different persuasions. On one hand such diversity may be an asset in terms of ideas and stimuli, but on the other hand it may involve a practical paralysis, especially when members give priority to their existing affiliations over their belonging to organized transhumanism.
Even some transhumanists have criticized the emergence of the Transhumanist Party, questioning the utility of politicizing transhumanist goals. In reality, the ideals the Transhumanist Party embodies are anti-political.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
