The overmind and eternal life: transhumanists blindly believe in the future for the elite

The Rapid development of technology nbic — nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science creates opportunities, which have long been a subject of science fiction. Disease, aging, even death — all of these human realities seek to put an end to the above directions. They can allow us to enjoy the "morphological freedom" — we could take new forms with the help of prosthetics or genetic engineering. Or extend our cognitive abilities. We could use brain-computer interfaces to connect with advanced artificial intelligence (AI).

Nanorobots would roam our bloodstream, watching our health, and affecting our emotional inclinations, joy, and other passions. Advances in one area often opens up new possibilities in others, and this "convergence" may lead to radical changes of our world in the near future.

Transhumanism is the idea that people should surpass its current natural state and limitations of using technology, make a controlled evolution. If we consider the history of technological progress as an attempt of mankind to tame nature, to better meet your needs, transhumanism is a logical extension: to review the nature of humanity to better suit his fantasy.

Says David Pearce, a leading proponent of transhumanism and co-founder of Humanity+:

"If we want to live in Paradise, we have to construct it for themselves. If we want eternal life, we have to rewrite our littered with errors genetic code and become godlike. Only high-tech solutions can save the world from suffering. One desire is not enough."

But there is a dark side have a naive faith that Pearce and his supporters remain in transhumanism. It is unclear when we will become thereby transhuman, superhuman, transhuman. Most likely, technology will intertwine with us and imperceptibly merge with the human body. Technology has long been considered to be a continuation of our "I". Many aspects of our social world, not least our financial systems rely heavily on the work of the machines. There is a lot to learn from the process of evolution of hybrid systems man — and much can be learned.

However, a utopian language and expectations that surround and shape our understanding of this development, raise questions. Profound changes that lie ahead, often understood very abstractly, because the evolutionary "improvements" seem so radical that ignore the realities of the existing social conditions.

Therefore, transhumanism becomes a sort of "techno-anthropocentrism," in which transhumanists often underestimate the complexity of our relationship with technology. They see it as manageable, malleable tool that, with proper logic and scientific tenacity, can be rotated in any direction. But exactly the extent to which technological development depends on and reflects the environment in which it appears, to the same extent it comes back to culture and creates a new dynamic, often imperceptibly.

Therefore, transhumanism should be considered in the General social, cultural, political and economic context in order to understand how all of this ethically.

Competitive environment

Max more and Natasha Vita-Moore say that we need transhumanism "for inclusion, diversity and continuous refinement of our knowledge". However, three of these principles are incompatible with the development of transformational technologies under the prevailing system, which they currently occur: the development of capitalism.

One of the problems is that the highly competitive social environment does not imply different ways of existence. Instead, it calls for more effective behavior. Take, for example, students. If some of them will be tablets, allowing them to achieve better results, whether other students to give them? This is a complex issue. Every year more and more students are turning to performance-enhancing pills. And if the tablets become more powerful or if the improvement will include methods of genetic engineering or nanotechnology Intrusive, which will offer an even more powerful competitive advantage, what then? Rejection of the paradigm of improving technologies can lead to social or economic death (after all, evolution works that way), but universal access to it — will encourage all participants to even greater adoption, force them to keep pace.

Exit the limits of the indicates a release in some form. However, here lies the motivation to act in a certain way. We just need to rise above themselves, to adapt and survive. The more extreme the transcendence, the deeper will be the decision to adapt and the stronger the imperative to do so.

Systemic forces that cause the individual to 'upgrade' to remain competitive, will also play at the geopolitical level. One of the spheres where the methods R&D have the greatest transhumanist potential, is the defense. DARPA (U.S. defense advanced research) that attempts to create a "metabolically dominant soldier" is a clear example of how the interests of specific social systems can determine the development of powerful transformational technologies that will be more destructive than utopian.

The Desire to create a Superintelligent artificial intelligence among the competitive and angry at each other States can also lead to an arms race. The novelist Vernor Vinge was the first to describe a scenario in which a Superintelligent artificial intelligence becomes the "Almighty arms." Ideally, mankind should exercise the utmost caution in approaching the development of so powerful and transformative innovation.

Serious discussion erupted around the creation of Superintelligent artificial intelligence and the coming "singularity" — according to this idea, AI will one day reach a level where will quickly begin to rebuild himself, to improve and will lead to an explosion of intelligence that will exceed human. Futurist ray Kurzweil believes this will happen by 2029. If the world will take the shape you want for the most powerful artificial intelligence, evolution can go in a completely unpredictable way. Can the AI destroy humanity , for example?

It is Also difficult to identify any aspect of humanity that cannot be "improved", making it more effective in meeting the needs of a competitive system. That system, therefore, determines the evolution of humanity, not taking into consideration what people or what they should be. The development of capitalism proves its extraordinary momentum in the ideology of ethical and metaphysical neutrality. Philosopher Michael Sandell says the following: markets are not shaking your fingers (do not prohibit). In a developed capitalism is to maximize the purchasing power of one maximizes the prosperity of another — so, shopping can be called the primary moral imperative of the individual.

Philosopher Bob Daudet rightly suggests that this banal logic of the market will prevail:

"If biotechnology and changed human nature entirely, they have no grain, which will limit or direct our constructs in it. And whose constructs are likely to get the successor of the Posthuman artifacts? I have no doubt that widely in our capitalist, consumer, media-saturated economy, market forces will find their way. Therefore, the commercial imperative will be the true architect of the future man."

Regardless of whether evolutionary progress to determine Superintelligent AI or the development of capitalism, we will attempt to match the eternal transcendence, which will only make us more effective in meeting the needs of a powerful system. The endpoint, of course, will be as far from human — but very effective. It will be the technological essence extracted from humanity, but not necessarily preserving the values of the modern man. The ability to serve the system most effectively will be the driving force. This is true for the natural evolution of technology is not the simplest tool that will allow us to apply engineering techniques to get out of trouble. But transhumanism can also accelerate and the less desirable aspects of this process.

Information authoritarianism

A Bioethicist Julian Savulescu believes the main reason for our improvements in the survival of our species. He says that we are faced with the Bermuda triangle of extinction: radical technological power, liberal democracy and our moral nature. Being a transhumanist, Savulescu praises technological progress, considering it inevitable and irresistible. No, to change a liberal democracy and part of our moral nature.

The Inability of humanity to solve global problems becomes more apparent. But Savulescu does not regard our moral failings in their cultural, political and economic context; instead, he believes that the solution lies in our biological component.

However, as will be distributed, prescribed, and potentially forced to introduce technologies that improve morality, to moral shortcomings, they seek to "cure"? Probably, it will pass with the filing of the power structures, which may themselves bear much of the responsibility for these shortcomings. Savulescu quickly outlined how relative and debatable may be the concept of "morality"

"We have to move away from our commitment to maximum protection of confidentiality. We observed amplification of nazo...