I’ve been aware and vaguely familiar with the terms posthumanism and transhumanism, but have not yet had an opportunity to explore either in any depth. From what I gather so far (and I admit to being a newbie to both concepts),![[Photo by cyberfringe]](http://static.flickr.com/47/140657035_e820174929.jpg)
becoming transhuman seems to be a necessary first step to becoming posthuman. The prefixes certainly suggest that order — “trans” describing the evolution of the transition of human into a being that is either augmented by or totally transitioned into a technologically-based being, thus describing the process; whereas,”post” describes the result or the “possible future” condition of beings to “radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards” (Bostrom - The Transhumanist FAQ).
Of course, all that is somewhat fluid, open to interpretation, and certainly fodder for much more discussion. The World Transhumanist Organization, for example, writes that transhumanism:
“advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities. We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, we want people to be better than well.“
But of course, who is to say what “better” means? Do our current or future “standards” of “better” include any specific (conscious or unconscious) alterations or augmentations to race, ethnicity, sex, or other physical differences? Bostrom suggests that transhumanism is “compatible with a variety of ethical systems,” but whose ethics? He offers the following paragraph as descriptive of the common beliefs of most transhumanists:
“According to transhumanists, the human condition has been improved if the conditions of individual humans have been improved. In practice, competent adults are usually the best judges of what is good for themselves. Therefore, transhumanists advocate individual freedom, especially the right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical capacities and to improve their control over their own lives.”
But again, all of that is ambiguous enough to be open to multiple interpretations. In any case, transhumanism seems to be a fairly powerful movement, while posthumanism provides the ultimate (and quite Utopic) vision for the future.
Ah, if Aldous Huxley were here to see us now . . .
Lots more to learn, though — I’m just starting to scratch the surface. If anyone has any great reading recommendations, I’d be happy to hear them!
2 responses so far ↓
1 Matt Brown // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:19 am
There are several books that might interest you. Citizen Cyborg by James Hughes and Enhancing Evolution by John Harris are two off the top of my head. Since transhumanism is an offshoot of humanism, I think you’ll find most transhumanist subscribe to that moral code: belief in the inherent dignity and worth of all humankind. Where transhumanists differ is in the belief that emerging technologies will drastically alter the human condition and that we should embrace these technologies to improve ouselves, to make us more intelligent, longer lived, stronger, faster, etc.
2 Natasha Vita-More // Mar 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm
It is a year later, but I just came across this site. A transhuman is in a “transformative” state in becoming posthuman.
There are several Transhumanist FAQs and the one we wrote for WTA is well-written, to be sure, but it there are others which reflect a slightly different spin on transhumanism. http://www.transhumanist.biz/ http://www.transhumanist.biz/whatistranshumanism.htm
The original FAQ on transhumanism is here: http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm
We used parts of this in working on the WTA Transhumanist FAQ. But FAQs are a “work in progress” and it requires more than a handful of people to build an accurate and inclusive FAQ, which information might be forgotten or needs a team of well-versed people to create.
By the way, I agree that “better” leaves a wide-open question: better to whom, for what and what? What is better for me may not be better for someone else, etc. It ought to be “enhanced” and “enabled” meaning that one can enhance his biology and enable diverse abilities.
There really is not a definitive posthumanism philosophy, like transhumanism. Much of what has been written about posthumanism is based in postmodernist views in suggesting the posthuman as a disembodied cybernetic being. But this is only one viewpoint but not the definitive or accepted viewpoint by many in the field of human evolution and human futures.
My list of suggested reading is too long to post here, but I will gladly send you links if you are still interested.
You must log in to post a comment.