→ Special Issues

Justice De Thézier argues that the debate on emerging technologies and human enablement tends to be dominated by two organized groups: on one side, biotech corporations and, on the other, ”bioconservatives” who want us to resist progress in the name of ”God” or the ”natural” or ”human dignity”.

‘We will never fully understand the subliminal effects of technology and be able to use technology to increase our intelligence, creativity, and freedom, if we do not first become aware of the “double-effect of the technological experience” – that all technologies are simultaneously extensions and self-amputations of some human mental or physical faculty.’ – Arno Ruthofer


Future shock therapy


In 2002, while doing research for the script of a postcyberpunk-themed hyperlink film by reading copious amounts of science-fiction novels and popular science books, I stumbled upon the word ”transhumanist” in one of the sourcebooks of the sophisticated role-playing game, Mage: The Ascension.


Having spent a decade in the world of the arts and culture as a creative professional, I decided to go back to university in Science and Technology Studies to develop a more enlightened and critical look at the development of technoscience as well as a sharper understanding of the social and political issues which shape the research, development and use of new technologies, and how in turn these technologies shape society and politics.


Since I was a reasonable hopeful technoscientifically-focused secular progressive, I rejected the two extremes of bioconservatism and ”libertarian transhumanism”, and naturally gravitated towards “democratic transhumanism“, a third way articulated by radical sociologist James Hughes. He asserts that the best possible “posthuman future” is achievable only by ensuring that human enablement technologies are safe, making them available to everyone, and respecting the right of individuals to have control of their own bodies.


Regardless of how sadly our professional and personal relationship ended, I will always be grateful to Hughes for making me aware, understand and care about a wide range of biopolitical issues that may scramble conventional social, political and economic thinking in the 21st century.


I was invited to contribute to Cyborg Democracy, a collaborative blog for democratic transhumanist thinkers and activists. I founded the Quebec Transhumanist Association (QTA), a fledgling network of activists and artists devoted to promoting projects that coalesce the arts, sciences, technologies and politics. Through the QTA, I worked to stimulate awareness of community perspectives on the right to human enablement in the local media, including appearances in print, radio and television. And, in 2006, I had the honor of being elected to the board of directors of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA).


Beyond being the de facto French-speaking spokesperson of the WTA, my goal was to develop an ethical fundraising and financial accountability code (which was adopted in February 2007); and, more importantly, nudge and support Hughes’ efforts to expand the WTA’s programs of activity to include more focused and action-oriented programs, with a global campaign for a publicly financed anti-aging research initiative at the top of our concerns.


My vision for the transhumanist movement was one where membership organizations like the WTA would focus on mobilizing people across their respective countries to initiate important biopolitical campaigns while think tanks like the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies would focus on offering policymakers the best assessments of the social benefits and risks of new developments in technology from a democratic transhumanist perspective.


However, the more months passed, the more my concern was validated that the label “transhumanist” was giving me an identity at the cost of achieving of my goals. It also seemed that I was spending far more time trying to spread the transhumanist memeplex and defend it against hysterical attacks but also fair and accurate criticisms, than actually contributing to the social struggle to democratize the costs, risks and benefits of new technologies.


But, more profoundly, having invested so much time and energy in promoting transhumanism I came to the awkward realization that I had never taken the time to know my fellow transhumanists, to understand what they truly believed despite their reasonable rhetoric, and grasp the flaws of the transhumanist mindset that I never embraced, which I became increasingly aware were inherencies that undermine the diversity of views or ”leftist awakening” among transhumanists:


1. An undercritical support for technology in general and fringe science in particular;

2. A distortive ”us vs. them” tribe-like mentality and identity; and

3. A vulnerability to unrealistic utopian and dystopian ”future hype”.


After spending a year as the self-appointed yet half-hearted ”devil’s advocate” of the WTA, I came to the conclusion that it is quite naive to think I or any lone individual can do anything to change what both prominent transhumanists and ”anti-transhumanists” agree are the minimum constituents without which this ideology would not be what it is, without being falsely accused of trying to ”reduce diversity” or, worse, ”thoughtpolice”. So I decided to quit transhumanism on January 1, 2008.


Despite having become persona non grata in transhumanist circles, I still consider myself a friendly critic who demands that transhumanism lives up to its claims to uphold a respect for reason and science, and a commitment to progress.


Is this new-time religion good enough for you?


I’m often asked the question of whether or not transhumanism is a cult. My honest answer based on my experience within the movement is No.


A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.


Organized transhumanism never had (and hopefully never will have) these characteristics.


But is transhumanism a religion or, at the very least, a pseudo-religion? I would have to say Yes.


As technocritic Dale Carrico has explained exhaustively in the Superlative Summary of his Amor Mundi blog, transhumanism is an extreme form of technophilia and technoutopianism where the vast majority of adherents have not only adopted a religious-like faith in technological progress but have expectations that are troublingly similar to those of traditional religionists such as omniscience and immortality.


People are free to believe what they want but such quixotic beliefs should have no place in rational discourse among intellectuals and activists trying to understand how emerging technologies force us to re-imagine democracy.


If transhumanists were honest with themselves and admitted that what they are looking for is a meaning to life and sense of purpose in a world ”adrift in a sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie”, perhaps they should listen to Albert Einstein who said:

‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.’


Emerging technology and the re-imagining of democracy


The two organized groups that are already active around the issue of emerging technologies and human enablement are, on one side, biotech corporations and, on the other, ”bioconservatives” (right-wing and left-wing intellectuals and activists who want us to resist progress in the name of ”God” or the ”natural” or ”human dignity”).


The tragic consequence of this situation is if those two polarized interest groups and points of view remain the only option for our politicians, they will make decisions that are to the detriment of the rights and well-being of citizens.


It is therefore crucial that a third voice enters the fray. A voice that is not opposed to emerging technologies or human enablement but that is concerned about the social, economic and political issues of these technologies, and that certainly does not want to leave our future in the hands of corporations that value profit over social responsibility or that technological progress is stopped by conservatives who dream of a permanent status quo!


Therefore, there must be new initiatives in existing political organizations and new organizations must be created to contribute to a renewal of ideas and public debate around these futurist issues in a serious but compelling manner. Both in our respective countries and at an international level, we need new levels of awareness and commitment – in short, a new social movement – to ensure that human enablement technologies will support rather than subvert our hard-fought commitments to our essential values – liberty, equality and solidarity. Regardless of what this movement is called, it is my hope that reimaginative democrats like you will be its vanguard.


But, despite everything I’ve said, I suspect that some of you are still tempted to join the transhumanist movement or, at the very least, adopt a transhumanist perspective. Obviously you are free to do so but I hope you won’t simply because I think you are smarter than that.

Special issue: right-front, transhumanism
Tags: bioethics, Justice De Thézier, transhumanism

|  Print This Post

your comment

• Social Web
• E-mail to a friend