Transhumanist politics constitutes a group of political ideologies that generally express the belief in improving human individuals through science and technology. Specific topics include space migration, and cryogenic suspension.[1] It is considered the opposing ideal to the concept of bioconservatism, as Transhumanist politics argue for the use of all technology to enhance human individuals.[2][3]
History
The term "transhumanism" with its present meaning was popularised by Julian Huxley's 1957 essay of that name.[4]
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".[5][6]
James Hughes identifies the "neoliberal" Extropy Institute, founded by philosopher Max 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 to Humanity+ (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."[7][8] Hughes has also detailed the political currents in transhumanism, particularly the shift around 2009 from socialist transhumanism to libertarian and anarcho-capitalist transhumanism.[8] He claims that the left was pushed out of the World Transhumanist Association Board of Directors, and that libertarians and Singularitarians have secured a hegemony in the transhumanism community with help from Peter Thiel, but Hughes remains optimistic about a techno-progressive future.[8]
In 2012, the Longevity Party, a movement described as "100% transhumanist" by cofounder Maria Konovalenko,[9] began to organize in Russia for building a balloted political party.[10] Another Russian programme, the 2045 Initiative was founded in 2012 by billionaire Dmitry Itskov with its own proposed "Evolution 2045" political party advocating life extension and android avatars.[11][12]
In October 2013, the political party Alianza Futurista ALFA was founded in Spain with transhumanist goals and ideals inscribed in its statutes.[13]
Other groups using the name "Transhumanist Party" exist in the United Kingdom[16][17][18] and Germany.[19]
Core values
According to a 2006 study by the European 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.[1][20]
Techno-progressives, also known as Democratic transhumanists,[22][23] support equal access to human enhancement technologies in order to promote social equality and prevent technologies from furthering the divide among socioeconomic classes.[24] However, libertarian transhumanistRonald Bailey is critical of the democratic transhumanism described by James Hughes.[25][26]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.[27]Woody Evans has supported placing posthuman rights in a continuum with animal rights and human rights.[28]
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.[29]
Criticism
Truman Chen of the Stanford Political Journal considers many transhumanist ideals to be anti-political.[30]
Anarcho-transhumanism
Flag of anarcho-transhumanism, represented by a blue and black diagonal flag, where the blue is representative of futuristic symbolism[31]
Anarcho-transhumanism is an ideology synthesizing anarchism with transhumanism that is concerned with both social and physical freedom respectively.[32] Anarcho-transhumanists define freedom as the expansion of one's own ability to experience the world around them.[33] Anarcho-transhumanists may advocate various praxis to advance their ideals, including computer hacking, three-dimensional printing, or biohacking.[34][32]
Anarcho-transhumanists also criticise non-anarchist forms of transhumanism such as democratic transhumanism and libertarian transhumanism as incoherent and unsurvivable due to their preservation of the state. They view such instruments of power as inherently unethical and incompatible with the acceleration of social and material freedom for all individuals.[44] Anarcho-transhumanism is generally anti-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.[45][46]
Anarcho-transhumanist philosopher William Gillis has advocated for a 'social singularity', or a transformation in humanity's morals, to complement the technological singularity. This social singularity will ensure that no coercion will be required to maintain order in a future society where people are likely to have access to lethal forms of technology.[47]
An attempt to expand the middle ground between technorealism and techno-utopianism, democratic transhumanism can be seen as a radical form of techno-progressivism.[55] Appearing several times in Hughes' work, the term "radical" (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. His central thesis is that emerging technologies and radical democracy can help citizens overcome some of the root causes of inequalities of power.[49]
According to Hughes, the terms techno-progressivism and democratic transhumanism both refer to the same set of Enlightenment values and principles; however, the term technoprogressive has replaced the use of the word democratic transhumanism.[56][57]
Trends
Hughes has identified 15 "left futurist" or "left techno-utopian" trends and projects that could be incorporated into democratic transhumanism:
Critical theorist Dale Carrico defended democratic transhumanism from Bailey's criticism.[59] However, he would later criticize democratic transhumanism himself on technoprogressive grounds.[60]
Libertarian transhumanists believe that the principle of self-ownership is the most fundamental idea from which both libertarianism and transhumanism stem. They are rational egoists and ethical egoists who embrace the prospect of using emerging technologies to enhance human capacities, which they believe stems from the self-interested application of reason and will in the context of the individual freedom to achieve a posthuman state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.[63] They extend this rational and ethical egoism to advocate a form of "biolibertarianism".[61]
Critiques of the techno-utopianism of libertarian transhumanists from progressive cultural critics include Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron's 1995 essay The Californian Ideology; Mark Dery's 1996 book Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century; and Paulina Borsook's 2000 book Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech.
Sociologist James Hughes is the most militant critic of libertarian transhumanism. While articulating "democratic transhumanism" as a sociopolitical program in his 2004 book Citizen Cyborg,[51] Hughes sought to convince libertarian transhumanists to embrace social democracy by arguing that:
Only believable and effective public policies to prevent adverse consequences from new technologies will reassure skittish publics that they do not have to be banned;
Monopolistic practices and overly restrictive intellectual property law can seriously delay the development of transhumanist technologies, and restrict their access;
Klaus-Gerd Giesen, a German political scientist specializing in the philosophy of technology, wrote a critique of the libertarianism he imputes to all transhumanists. While pointing out that the works of Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek figure in practically all of the recommended reading lists of Extropians, he argues that transhumanists, convinced of the sole virtues of the free market, advocate an unabashed inegalitarianism and merciless meritocracy which can be reduced in reality to a biological fetish. He is especially critical of their promotion of a science-fictional liberal eugenics, virulently opposed to any political regulation of human genetics, where the consumerist model presides over their ideology. Giesen concludes that the despair of finding social and political solutions to today's sociopolitical problems incites transhumanists to reduce everything to the hereditary gene, as a fantasy of omnipotence to be found within the individual, even if it means transforming the subject (human) to a new draft (posthuman).[69]
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 of elitism due to free market mechanisms. Furthermore it is argued that this trend is already occurring in the early stages. Citing Bryan Johnson's costly medical treatments and Jeff Bezos'sAltos Labs as a case in point that the capitalist class is slowly gaining the ability to obtain longevity treatments while the rest of humanity dies at a rate of 100,000 per day.[71]
Basis
Left Transhumanists hold that a new society must come about either through revolution or reforms 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. The social relations which dictate society will not allow that abundance to be distributed in a egalitarian manner under capitalism. 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.[72][73][74] In addition Left Transhumanists assert Transhumanism should return to its roots in regards to economics, holding that a return to a Transhumanism akin to Russian Cosmism or individuals such as Alexander Bogdanov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, or Ivan Yefremov may aid the promotion of Transhumanist ideals. Similarly to the relationship between Russian Cosmism and Socialism.[75]
Criticisms
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.[76]
^Hughes, James. "The Politics of Transhumanism". changesurfer.com. Retrieved 18 August 2016. 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."
^Bromwich, Jonah (19 May 2018). "Death of a Biohacker". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 June 2018. 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.
^Volpicelli, Gian (14 January 2015). "Transhumanists Are Writing Their Own Manifesto for the UK General Election". Motherboard. Vice. 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.
^Volpicelli, Gian (27 March 2015). "A Transhumanist Plans to Run for Office in the UK". Motherboard. Vice. 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.
^Benedikter, Roland (4 April 2015). "The Age of Transhumanist Politics – Part II". The Leftist Review. Archived from the original on 2018-01-01. Retrieved 2015-07-31. 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.
^Twyman, Amon (7 October 2014). "Transhumanism and Politics". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Archived from the original on 8 September 2016. Retrieved 11 January 2015. 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.
^Dvorsky, George (31 March 2012). "J. Hughes on democratic transhumanism, personhood, and AI". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 13 January 2015. 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
^Hughes, James; Roux, Marc (24 June 2009). "On Democratic Transhumanism". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 13 January 2015. When I wrote Citizen 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.'
^Bishop, Jeffrey (2010). "Transhumanism, Metaphysics, and the Posthuman God"(PDF). Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 35 (700–720): 713, 717. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq047. PMID21088098. Retrieved September 22, 2015. 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.
^Evans, Woody (2015). "Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds". Teknokultura. 12 (2). Universidad Complutense Madrid. doi:10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072. Retrieved August 16, 2016. 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.
^Campa, Riccardo, "Toward a transhumanist politics", Re-public, archived from the original on June 14, 2012, 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.
^Chen, Truman (15 December 2014). "The Political Vacuity of Transhumanism". Stanford Political Journal. 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.
^ abcHughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN0-8133-4198-1.
^James Hughes (20 July 2005). "On Democratic Transhumanism". The Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology. Retrieved 13 January 2015.
^Reynolds, Glenn (2006). An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths. Thomas Nelson. ISBN1-59555-054-2.
