Empowering individuals and transcending what were long considered human limits: these thoughts may be exciting to you, but are disturbing and frightening to others. Let's put major objections to transhumanism into one or more of four categories: that it's unfeasible, directly dangerous, indirectly dangerous, or immoral.
"It won't work!"
It's easy to be skeptical about technological predictions. After all, it's 2014 and nobody commutes by personal helicopter or nuclear-powered automobile, or has a kitchen robot cooking dinner. Nuclear power never made electricity "too cheap to meter," and controlled fusion has been 20 years away for about 60 years now… and still is.
Some say that mind uploading is impossible, pointing to the assumptions implicit …show more content…
Self-replicating nanobots could get out of control and consume everything on Earth: the "grey goo" scenario. A powerful, post-Singularity artificial intelligence could decide to exterminate humanity: the Skynet scenario from the Terminator movies.
"It's socially destructive!"
The indirect dangers of transhumanism are at least as numerous. Sometimes the fears are about society or the state being damaged by out-of-control technology in the hands of individuals. At other times, the fears are that society or the state will gain too much power over individuals.
The old-fashioned coercive eugenics of the early 20th century progressive and Nazi varieties are long gone, its ghost still haunts any discussion of transhumanism. Critics warn of socially divisive effects, such as a "genetic divide" of classes based on genetic modifications, as portrayed in the dystopian movie Gattaca or the novel Brave New World. Francis Fukuyama has called transhumanism "the world's most dangerous idea," seeing even voluntary genetic improvements as an anti-egalitarian threat to the ideals of liberal …show more content…
Feminists may see extensions of unhealthy cultural obsessions with youth and beauty. Some consider biological enhancements as trivializing human identity, or see an "ableist bias" in even thinking in terms of "improvements" or overcoming mental or physical "limitations."
Points taken, but...
For some, possible dangers will always trump possible technological benefits, and alleviating existing poverty or inequality will always take precedence over an advancement that will benefit only the relatively well-off (at least at first).
Of course, taken to its logical extreme, those views would stop most technological advancements, because they all have some dangers and negative side effects. The rich or the lucky few always benefit first, so inequality will temporarily increase.
Besides, being first isn't always best: think of those cutting-edge LED watches that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the early '70s. That money helped finance the cheaper and more advanced digital technology that came later, and all those rich people got was a couple of years of looking fashionable, and they had to press a button to see the
"It won't work!"
It's easy to be skeptical about technological predictions. After all, it's 2014 and nobody commutes by personal helicopter or nuclear-powered automobile, or has a kitchen robot cooking dinner. Nuclear power never made electricity "too cheap to meter," and controlled fusion has been 20 years away for about 60 years now… and still is.
Some say that mind uploading is impossible, pointing to the assumptions implicit …show more content…
Self-replicating nanobots could get out of control and consume everything on Earth: the "grey goo" scenario. A powerful, post-Singularity artificial intelligence could decide to exterminate humanity: the Skynet scenario from the Terminator movies.
"It's socially destructive!"
The indirect dangers of transhumanism are at least as numerous. Sometimes the fears are about society or the state being damaged by out-of-control technology in the hands of individuals. At other times, the fears are that society or the state will gain too much power over individuals.
The old-fashioned coercive eugenics of the early 20th century progressive and Nazi varieties are long gone, its ghost still haunts any discussion of transhumanism. Critics warn of socially divisive effects, such as a "genetic divide" of classes based on genetic modifications, as portrayed in the dystopian movie Gattaca or the novel Brave New World. Francis Fukuyama has called transhumanism "the world's most dangerous idea," seeing even voluntary genetic improvements as an anti-egalitarian threat to the ideals of liberal …show more content…
Feminists may see extensions of unhealthy cultural obsessions with youth and beauty. Some consider biological enhancements as trivializing human identity, or see an "ableist bias" in even thinking in terms of "improvements" or overcoming mental or physical "limitations."
Points taken, but...
For some, possible dangers will always trump possible technological benefits, and alleviating existing poverty or inequality will always take precedence over an advancement that will benefit only the relatively well-off (at least at first).
Of course, taken to its logical extreme, those views would stop most technological advancements, because they all have some dangers and negative side effects. The rich or the lucky few always benefit first, so inequality will temporarily increase.
Besides, being first isn't always best: think of those cutting-edge LED watches that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the early '70s. That money helped finance the cheaper and more advanced digital technology that came later, and all those rich people got was a couple of years of looking fashionable, and they had to press a button to see the