BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Transhuman Technologies.

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
alas
11:31 / 11.05.07
That said, ethically speaking, it'd probably be better to wait for a method of downloading that didn't automatically kill the person participating in the process.

As we've noted, it really is important to understand the complexity of the being you're working from, as we work toward this future of human perfection and virtual immortality. Thomas Jefferson discussion Notes on the State of Virginia is possibly illuminating:

So that from this side also, inhabitants may have passed into America: and the resemblance between the Indians of America and the Eastern inhabitants of Asia, would induce us to conjecture, that the former are the descendants of the latter, or the latter of the former . . .. A knowledge of their several languages would be the most certain evidence of their derivation which could be produced. . . . It is to be lamented then, very much to be lamented, that we have suffered so many of the Indian tribes already to extinguish, without our having previously collected and deposited in the records of literature, the general rudiments at least of the languages they spoke. Were vocabularies formed of all the languages spoken in North and South America, preserving their appellations of the most common objects in nature, of those which must be present to every nation barbarous or civilised, with the inflections of their nouns and verbs, their principles of regimen and concord, and these deposited in all the public libraries, it would furnish opportunities to those skilled in the languages of the old world to compare them with these, now, or at any future time, and hence to construct the best evidence of the derivation of this part of the human race.

Too bad we killed 'em before we wrote down their languages. Probably best to avoid that error, then.

Second, it's really not that hard to deal with the inferior people:

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act [ending slavery]. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed.

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. -- To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep . . .


He does have a bit of a qualm about his potential lack of knowledge, near the end, about 6 pages later of this thoughtful analysis of the differences between races:

Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity. -- The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the Anatomical knife, to Optical glasses, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture...

Ok. This is the pre-history of eugenics, and it's not a pretty picture, obviously. I'm not sure we're that far from Thomas Jefferson, who was an incredibly intelligent, literate man, but who held these absolutely abhorrent beliefs and hadn't sufficiently examined the connections between his notions of "progress" and his assumptions about other human beings. He couldn't see how primitive his understandings of human beings really was.

It does bother me that so much money is being poured into these kinds of "designer kids" idea. The dream of adoption, the model minority, and it can be pretty hellish for the people involved. There's a long history in this Western world of disgust with the body, with people who seem to be more "bodily" than others, of faith in progress as inevitably benevolent when it is fundamentally about concentrating the wealth of the world in the hands of a few, and requiring the masses of the world's population to pay the price of their wealth, clean up our messes.

We ARE, for better or worse, already cyborgs to some degree--much of my brain work is committed to paper and I'm using this computer to communicate with people I can't see. I am left wondering if there are any women or non-whites who have contributed to this thread? It doesn't sound like it. But who can tell. That's both a freedom, I suppose, but it's also a big problem because our physical realities still matter on a daily basis and in ways it's impossible to fully grasp.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:59 / 11.05.07
Too bad we killed 'em before we wrote down their languages. Probably best to avoid that error, then.

Umm, exactly what is the point you're making here? My comment was based on the fact that the technologies that will initially be used to record a conciousness into a computer system will most likely involved a destructive scan of the brain. Therefore my personal preferance would be for a downloading process that doesn't destroy the original biological copy of the conciousness in the process.

Woud we, in your view, necessarily be losing cultural identity and diversity through the use of down-loading technology?

I am left wondering if there are any women or non-whites who have contributed to this thread? It doesn't sound like it.

Do you feel that this thread is offensive? It certainly wasn't my intention to project any kind of potentially racist or sexist agenda here. The thread so far has discussed the possible ramifications of certain technologies and has discussed the risks that a culture which embraced genetic modification and capitalism would face. It certainly doesn't appear (as far as I can see) to be promoting a Gattaca-style society.

It certainly wasn't my intention to promote a hostile environment for female or non-white posters. But, to be honest, I don't believe I have (however, me being me I may well be missing something).
 
 
alas
13:13 / 11.05.07
You paraphrased your original sentence, it'd probably be better to wait for a method of downloading that didn't automatically kill the person participating in the process, to Therefore my personal preferance would be for a downloading process that doesn't destroy the original biological copy of the conciousness in the process.

In this sentence, "kill a person" has been euphemized to "destroy the original biological copy of the consciousness." And this ethical situation is consistently a "probably be better" or purely a "preference" on your part.

So, am I correct that, if others prefer to kill people to create this great marvel of science, and if there's more of them who have access to the decision-making process, well then, that's the way it will be. And we'll call it a "fair" decision.

Why ask: Who will be killed? Who will benefit? If it just happens that the predictable processes of capitalism make it obvious that the people who will be directly harmed will be those who are most vulnerable already, and those who will benefit will be those who already benefit from the system...it's perhaps lamentable, but ...it's science! Whee hoo! It would be wrong to take the toys from the boys just because other humourless people have real problems with killing people in the name of "progress."

The language you're engaging in here, the "happy progressive science" tone, and the views of human perfectibility derive directly from the history of eugenics. Of course this is not intentional. That's not the point, and it never was.

The point is, that you're apparently oblivious to that history in a way that is typical only of those who have never had their body and its functions intimately controlled against their will. The persons who have most suffered from eugenics experiments have been women of all races, who have had and continue have their reproductive processes controlled. Have been men of a variety of non-white ethnicities and all disabled people. Have been poor people. Their social and economic and physical control has been in part managed by discourses and processes created by, and to serve the economic and social interests of, white, tall, heterosexual, able-bodied men. I'm calling out that discourse in this thread.

(Even grant, who I really like, in your goofy example of a husband having himself altered so that his belly tingles when his wife is hungry... ? What? I feel like I must live on a different planet. Can no one else see these problems?)

It is not coincidental that this same group still dominates the scientific establishment. and this thread. And this establishment, from Jefferson's time on down, has always claimed to be acting altruistically, in the interests of "all mankind." Indeed, they are sure they are benefiting those people most. But I remain skeptical.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:27 / 11.05.07
So, am I correct that, if others prefer to kill people to create this great marvel of science, and if there's more of them who have access to the decision-making process, well then, that's the way it will be. And we'll call it a "fair" decision.

Why ask: Who will be killed? Who will benefit? If it just happens that the predictable processes of capitalism make it obvious that the people who will be directly harmed will be those who are most vulnerable already, and those who will benefit will be those who already benefit from the system...it's perhaps lamentable, but ...it's science! Whee hoo! It would be wrong to take the toys from the boys just because other humourless people have real problems with killing people in the name of "progress."


No, you're not correct.

I'd just like to make it abundantly clear here that it was not my intention to give the impression that people should be killed to further scientific process. If I gave that impression from my rather flip initial comment then I whole-heartedly and unreservedly apologise.

The point is, that you're apparently oblivious to that history in a way that is typical only of those who have never had their body and its functions intimately controlled against their will. The persons who have most suffered from eugenics experiments have been women of all races, who have had and continue have their reproductive processes controlled. Have been men of a variety of non-white ethnicities and all disabled people. Have been poor people. Their social and economic and physical control has been in part managed by discourses and processes created by, and to serve the economic and social interests of, white, tall, heterosexual, able-bodied men. I'm calling out that discourse in this thread.

Okay, fair point. I'll move to have the thread deleted or at least locked.

Again my apologies. In future I will try and consider this before starting any thread in Lab.
 
 
grant
13:36 / 11.05.07
So, am I correct that, if others prefer to kill people to create this great marvel of science, and if there's more of them who have access to the decision-making process, well then, that's the way it will be. And we'll call it a "fair" decision.

Why ask: Who will be killed? Who will benefit?


Well, in this specific case, it'd be the people actually making the transition to cybernetic consciousness -- the beneificiaries would be the victims, perhaps, of their own faith in progress.

..the views of human perfectibility derive directly from the history of eugenics. Of course this is not intentional.

Actually, in some cases, it is. A lot of this stuff isn't simply drawn from eugenics -- it's what eugenics turned into.


Even grant, who I really like, in your goofy example of a husband having himself altered so that his belly tingles when his wife is hungry... ? What? I feel like I must live on a different planet.

I was thinking here of Dr. Kevin Warwick, who's actually had something very much like this done already. I was speaking hypothetically, but not as hypothetically as one might assume. This is already happening.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:36 / 11.05.07
Don't move to lock or delete the thread, ffs. It's called "having a discussion".
 
 
grant
13:45 / 11.05.07
I'm calling out that discourse in this thread.

Okay, fair point. I'll move to have the thread deleted or at least locked.


But but but if it's locked then the discourse can't be called out any further!
 
 
Red Concrete
13:52 / 11.05.07
At the risk of sounding totally ignorant (alas, I share your concerns about the eugenic background of this area of science/technology), and in reference to this:

The persons who have most suffered from eugenics experiments have been women of all races... [etc., including other groups]

When have women in particular been the specific victims of a eugenic program? Sexism and the subordination of women in society doesn't tally with my concept of eugenics.
 
 
Red Concrete
14:07 / 11.05.07
I'd just like to make it abundantly clear here that it was not my intention to give the impression that people should be killed to further scientific process.

I think that the discussions of the technology and of the morals can inform each other, but they should be kept as two separate discussions. I think both are needed, even if one may seem like ominously "happy progressive science", because the absence of either invalidates the continuation of the other. Or we could just stop, as Evil suggested...

You were invisaging a technology of having one's mind placed into a computer which might involve the destruction of the physical body. Or not, in which case there would be two of you. This merges with some philosophical discussions on the nature of being arising from a hypothetical teleportation tehcnology, from my half-assed memory of reading "Gödel, Escher, Bach". Most of the discussion so far has centered around whether such the technology is even possible.

Of course the destruction of the physical body can be seen as morally wrong - a death occurs. But is it equally wrong when you are effectively transplanting the mind into a more durable shell? At the point where the mind is "copied", the you that was copied diverges from the you that was not - making two separate beings. In this case it would be completely unacceptable to kill one simply so that there is only one copy. Therefore, why should it be acceptable to invent a technology which, as an inherent part of it, involves the destruction of a "you".
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:12 / 11.05.07
While I share alas' concerns about the eugenic heritage of transhumanistic ideology (THI), I think there's equal worry for me re the general trend in THI towards reducing mind and personhood (not to mention stuff like agency, emotion and creativity) to neurology. Inasmuch as THI is in my view a movement carried forward on the crest of the scientific tidal waves of cognitive sciences, biotech and nanotech, there's a strong argument to the effect that the body and humans as social being is being redefined in THI as disorderly, frail, fallible, irrational and, ultimately, female structures that must somehow be improved upon. This worries me. I don't believe in neuroreductionism - I believe that without material culture and embodied social dynamics we are cannot become human, and certainly will not be post-human. This doesn't mean I discount the possibility of say strong AI. I do however discount the possibility of, for want of a better term, "humanoid" AI. This for me is not a problem, and would in fact make my life (a priori, and subject to change based on experience) more interesting.

Don't get me wrong - I want to see these technologies happen, but for me personally this is because I embrace difference and novelty. I don't think the way forward would be for everyone to upload, shed their coil and venture forth into the Hive/space/whateversouttahere.
 
 
Red Concrete
14:24 / 11.05.07
...there's a strong argument to the effect that the body and humans as social being is being redefined in THI as disorderly, frail, fallible, irrational and, ultimately, female structures that must somehow be improved upon.

Tell me you don't equate those traits with females? Where did you get the idea of "female structures"? Can you link to THI materials?

I agree with you on the neuroreductionism, even from the molecular standpoint IMHO it's overly simplistic, as I've posted upthread.
 
 
*
14:24 / 11.05.07
Women have been the victims of eugenics because it was largely the women whose bodies were altered against their will to prevent pregnancy, as the US was doing to Native women into the seventies and the eighties with the specific intention of making sure no more Native children would be born to be a drain on the "health care" system. It's also been argued that Planned Parenthood is following a similar path in focusing on poor women of color to receive their services, who tend to have less free choices about whether to get pregnant and/or keep a child than white women.

alas has several good points. Consider: until this technology is perfected to the point of the eccentric multibillionaires being willing to use it on themselves, it's going to have to be tested, and it will have to be tested on people who are poor and desperate enough to be willing to die or have their brains erased in exchange for a little money for their families.
 
 
grant
14:29 / 11.05.07
One transhumanist defense: "Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?" from the World Transhumanist Association. There seems to be some revealing language about halfway down, but I haven't parsed it closely yet.

One transhumanist critic (speaking loosely), George Annas. Here's one document he co-authored (pdf). Their main concern is a lack of "species consciousness" in making decisions considering heritability. He's specifically interested in genetics rather than cybernetics.
 
 
Ticker
14:34 / 11.05.07
When have women in particular been the specific victims of a eugenic program? Sexism and the subordination of women in society doesn't tally with my concept of eugenics.

There's a shit ton of cases even in the modern era.

Belgian Women being sterilized

Women who were deemed physically or mentally inferior and were sterilized are...speaking out, after revelations in Sweden drew attention to government programs that were common in many parts of Europe.

In Belgium, Ingrid van Butsel spent her life in orphanages and state housing. She married in 1985, but only after the regional government—without giving a reason—pressured her into a sterilization operation.

I could not believe my ears. I wanted children, but they said I was unsuited to raise children. I had a choice: I could marry if I had myself sterilized (or) they would send me to a psychiatric hospital, van Butsel, 40, said in Wednesday's daily De Morgen.


There's also a current issue with Planned Parenthood addressing women of color reproductive choices.

a possibly biased review of minority treatment or possibly accurate you decide
the above link asked for a login but still allowed me to read it when I clicked cancel.

this is another on the same topic but a bit more moderate
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:34 / 11.05.07
RC: Tell me you don't equate those traits with females? Where did you get the idea of "female structures"?

Nonononononono!!!! Bad phrasing on my part, but I mistakenly thought it would be blindingly obvious in the context of my post that historically speaking, the discourses within the bio/neuro/medicine sciences have gender-tagged the body, our emotional lives and the social embeddedness of humans as female/"bad", whereas the mind as rationality, control and agency has historically been seen as male/"good". Hence, that the drive towards neuroreductionism in transhumanist thought is partly built upon these discourses and partake in their utter wrongness. Do you reaaaallly need refs for that?
 
 
grant
14:43 / 11.05.07
it will have to be tested on people who are poor and desperate enough to be willing to die

I'm not convinced this is the case; I think it's far likelier that human test subjects will first be true-believer volunteers (like Warwick). Coercing human test subjects is what got Dr. Hwang in so much trouble to begin with after he cloned those dogs, so there's a precedent. Some scientific establishments may operate outside the bounds of these ethical rules, but I'm not sure how well regarded they'd be even if they got measurable results -- they'd have to be peer reviewed before publication, which would probably mean more "legit" labs using volunteers to replicate results.
 
 
Red Concrete
14:50 / 11.05.07
I'll have a read of those links on sterilisation.. I guess I am ignorant, or have a blind spot at least. I can't belieeeve that still went on in the '80s. Incredible.

Mos Nolte, no I didn't really think that about your post, but I was wondering if there was anything explicit in THI writings. I'm clearly on the naive side on gender sociology, and while I do clearly need links, I'll slink off and get them elsewhere, thanks.
 
 
*
14:58 / 11.05.07
Currently, a great deal of medical testing happens to those poor and desperate enough to take risks. In fact, currently the HIV study I'm in is having difficulty getting people of color to sign up because the days of the Tuskeegee experiment are too much with us; rather than do anything like acknowledge that there was and is a problem with medical testing on people of color that needs to be brought to light and changed before there can be any trust, they're just targeting people of color with better marketing regarding this particular study. Maybe this is the way to go; the person who recruited me into the study is a man of color and has a better grasp of these issues than I do, but it's to point out that this is not unknown, or a part of the distant past.

Thanks for those links, grant. I'm not sure what the point is of pointing out that a critic of transhumanism also sounds like a eugenicist—I am assuming, because I haven't got that far. I will say that the transhumanists' whole proposition rests on the notion that people will have equal access and equally free choices, and that's just not going to be the case until there are first some massive, far-reaching reforms in society economically and socially.
 
 
grant
14:59 / 11.05.07
Past Laboratory thread on eugenics. It's rich in links.
 
 
grant
15:03 / 11.05.07
I'm not sure what the point is of pointing out that a critic of transhumanism also sounds like a eugenicist—I am assuming, because I haven't got that far.

?? I don't follow -- he's relevant because he's pointing out links between modern genetics and eugenics. The only line meant to be drawn between Annas and the transhumanists is that they both disagree.

I will say that the transhumanists' whole proposition rests on the notion that people will have equal access and equally free choices, and that's just not going to be the case until there are first some massive, far-reaching reforms in society economically and socially.

The prose does sound a lot like Libertarian writings in just those areas, doesn't it? That faint whiff of wishful thinking....
 
 
Quantum
17:07 / 11.05.07
When have women in particular been the specific victims of a eugenic program?

Just to jump in with another example (grant please correct me) the deliberate abandoning of female babies in China? Here's a random link on 'baby dumping'. Not the intended effect of the family restrictions, but the net result of the desirability of a son over a daughter, and an indicator of how unpredictable the effects of eugenics and breeding programs are.
 
 
Evil Scientist
17:47 / 11.05.07
Not entirely sure it is a good idea to continue.

I think, personally, that the thread thus far has managed to keep a relatively balanced view of possible applications of the various NBIC technologies. Several people have mentioned the dangers of producing genetically modified humans within a capitalistic society, and the implicit threat that preferential treatment could be given to the modified over the non-modified.

However that is not the only possible model for a transhuman society.

Both the libertarian and democratic branches of transhumanist thought would be automatically against the idea of people being banned or unable to enhance/download themselves simply because they couldn't afford it. They see human enhancement as a basic human right.

The point is, that you're apparently oblivious to that history in a way that is typical only of those who have never had their body and its functions intimately controlled against their will. The persons who have most suffered from eugenics experiments have been women of all races, who have had and continue have their reproductive processes controlled. Have been men of a variety of non-white ethnicities and all disabled people. Have been poor people. Their social and economic and physical control has been in part managed by discourses and processes created by, and to serve the economic and social interests of, white, tall, heterosexual, able-bodied men. I'm calling out that discourse in this thread.

I accept that I have a tendency to see scientific progress through rose-tinted glasses. I disagree that I am ignoring the atrocities that have been committed in the name of progress though. I genuinely believe that development of a transhuman society could improve the quality of life for everyone. However developing the technology is only one part of it, we need to have a society that is capable of dealing with the massive changes that the technology will bring.

Please note that I am not advocating some kind of forced march into the downloading chambers. Societal change must come willingly or it will (or at least should) be fought at every turn.

Anyway. Enough for now.
 
 
*
18:12 / 11.05.07
?? I don't follow -- he's relevant because he's pointing out links between modern genetics and eugenics. The only line meant to be drawn between Annas and the transhumanists is that they both disagree.

Sorry, I misread you.
 
 
*
18:17 / 11.05.07
Evil, I think where you and I disagree is a matter of emphasis--I think that advancing this technology before the necessary societal changes are accomplished would bring about harm. I assume that by, as I understand you, advocating for this technology without similarly advocating for specific social changes first, you feel that this technology would be a good in our societies as they are at present. Is that a helpful framing of the discussion?
 
 
grant
18:19 / 11.05.07
Just to jump in with another example (grant please correct me) the deliberate abandoning of female babies in China?

Well, this isn't exactly eugenics, although it treads similar ground -- the One-Child Policy is about population limitation, rather than "improving the stock" (using language precisely: eu=good, generis=race/stock, related to "kin" and "generation" and "germ"). Both things see the state getting directly involved with reproduction, but the aims are slightly different.

That said, it should be fairly evident, on reflection, how things that intervene with reproduction are also going to be things that involve women's bodies, for the most part. Men can be sterilized, but they still can't get pregnant.

I haven't read this book (Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics), but it seems relevant. Here's a review. You might notice that the author has written another book on grief after abortion, and is admired by those who oppose abortion, although she herself believes in the right to a free choice.
 
 
Evil Scientist
21:16 / 11.05.07
Me:

However developing the technology is only one part of it, we need to have a society that is capable of dealing with the massive changes that the technology will bring.

Id:

. I assume that by, as I understand you, advocating for this technology without similarly advocating for specific social changes first, you feel that this technology would be a good in our societies as they are at present. Is that a helpful framing of the discussion?

No, it sounds like we have the same kind of idea. Society must be ready for the technology. If we're not then I feel it could cause a heck of a lot of damage.
 
 
jentacular dreams
20:42 / 16.05.07
Agreed, though I have to ask, outside of genetics, where do we draw the line in terms of what is and what isn't classed as transhuman tech? Does a piece of technology have to be talking directly to the nervous system in order to fall within the working definition, or do air/gel filled trainer soles, parachutes, auditory headsets and tinternet fall within the boundaries? I mean, is transhuman tech only really considered as such when it's outside our current reach? Were cutting tools, fire and the wheel amongst the first transhuman technologies? And if so, would it be reasonable to expect any new technology to create a bigger and more long-lasting divide between the haves and the have-nots than any previous developments?
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:37 / 17.05.07
Agreed, though I have to ask, outside of genetics, where do we draw the line in terms of what is and what isn't classed as transhuman tech?

The other NBIC technologies that I mentioned in my introduction are really the ones which are generally considered to be the technologies which will be responsible for the development of transhumans. But yes, from a stone-age perspective, our use of technology does make us transhuman. Current moves towards transhumanity use human/technology interactions today as the baseline to move forward from.

Going back to what was being discussed earlier.

I think it's accurate to say that most transhuman technologies will be developed by wealthy Western countries (or, at least, First World countries). Which means that, like a lot of new medical treatments and new pharmaceuticals, the wealthy Western countries are going to be the ones who benefit first from such technologies with the Third World only benefiting after years or even decades.

Bearing in mind the concerns mentioned above about these technologies being used in a way which violates specific groups of the population and strips them of control over their own bodies (a use which goes against my personal beliefs and that of most transhumanists as well) then, given the current world situation, is there an argument that tests and trials of these technologies be carried out in countries which enforce a strong ethical and legal framework to protect people from being abused in the name of science?

By this I mean that both the EEC and the US (for example) have laws in place in order to try and prevent scientists and/or corporations from abusing or taking advantage of people in the development of new technologies. It certainly doesn't stop every abuse but there is certainly more protection in place there than in some other countries. So surely technologies which can potetially alter our concept of the human condition are better developed there, even if it means that it will take a long time for these technologies to seep out to less well-off countries?

Thoughts? Am I being too idealistic here?
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:30 / 17.05.07
Too idealistic? I don't think so, and given the economic weight the US and EU countries have compared to other nations (excluding a few obvious ones which have similar legal frameworks), I think it's almost guaranteed that the technology will be developed within the rich 'north'/'west' hemisphere.

That said, once a technology is developed, assuming it is documented in publications etc, then there is every reason that it could be copied/modified elsewhere, assuming enough resources are at hand. So whilst the most risky experiments might take place within a stronger ethical framework, it's no great hurdle for another company to copy and fine-tune their own version of technology elsewhere, should they both wish to, and have the resources (and depending on applicability of patent laws etc.).

So, as many above have said, an improvement in certain aspects of global society/economics would probably be the better option (it would certainly reduce both the risk of experimental exploitation and of any widening in the gap between richer and poorer).
 
 
grant
15:41 / 17.05.07
most transhuman technologies will be developed by wealthy Western countries (or, at least, First World countries)

Are you including China in your "First World"? It's developing so explosively now, it probably fits most of the criteria for a "developed" nation, but it's what used to be called "Second World" - that is, a (nominally) Communist/totalitarian state (with a few little differences).

It's also operating under different bioethical guidelines, which is why you've got stem cell therapy tourists and stuff.
 
 
jentacular dreams
17:04 / 17.05.07
Very good point, there is a tendency to forget about China as a communist-country, despite it's growing economy (GDP increased by 10% last year) and healthy private sector.

The stem cell tourists are an interesting case from the p.o.v. of the transhuman thread, in that they constitute 'wealthy' individuals from the west, volunteering for what is essentially very loosely regulated experimental therapy. In these cases, it is usually the middle-class white individuals shouldering a lot of the risk*. Obviously they are almost always desperate, as the available therapies within their own nations have failed to alleviate their conditions, but I have to wonder to what extent governments resist putting pressure on countries such as china** to stop these treatments simply because it allows the technology to be road-tested without domestic political risks? Is this a trend which we may see repeated for other transhuman-treatments?

* not to say that any of these institutes didn't optimise their procedures on volunteers from local populations.
 
 
alas
20:35 / 17.05.07
So much to respond to here, and my last few responses were made in something of a hurry so they became a little incoherent at times, for which I apologize. I may need to take a couple of entries to respond to everything here.

First, I feel strongly compelled to specify the nature of the links that XK/Bold In Her Breeches offered; I.e., BIHB said There's also a current issue with Planned Parenthood addressing women of color reproductive choices....a possibly biased review of minority treatment or possibly accurate you decide ...this is another on the same topic but a bit more moderate

I agree, wholeheartedly, that BIHB's raising a legitimate concern, but I do not necessarily see those sites as offering an accurate or "current" view of Planned Parenthood today, of its exact history, or of the precise issues involved.

Of course we should all "decide for ourselves" about all linked websites, as she mentions, but it bears specific note that both of the sites she has linked to are from strongly anti-feminist christian perspectives. Both sites are, in fact, designed specifically as "pro-life" sites, whose discussion of Planned Parenthood's admittedly problematic history is designed to undercut their work today and that of all providers of women's reproductive health services who include any abortion services.

The first one is sponsored by an organization called LEARN, which is an African American organization that strives to be a national network of Christian pro-life/pro-family advocates who are dedicated to protecting the pre-born and promoting traditional family values.

The second site (of the "more moderate" argument) is a Roman Catholic group; more specifically they see themselves as "the Church Militant" defined in starkly patriarchal terms: We are not an organization but rather a community of faithful Roman Catholics. Faithful and obedient to Christ and to His Bride, the Church. We are a community of Christians committed to proclaiming the Good News revealed to us in Sacred Scripture through the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We profess and believe ALL the truths echoed through the centuries by the Church . We follow the teachings of the Church Magisterium and the Holy Father, Christ's Vicar on earth, and in so doing, pledge our faithfulness to Jesus Christ, Our Lord. We are committed to upholding 2000 years of unchanged Christian Tradition given to us by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, passed on through Peter and the Apostles, and through the succession of authority established by Our Lord Jesus in His Church, as witnessed by the Early Fathers of the Faith.

Is Planned Parenthood, a US-based institution, a product of our racist and classist and xenophobic and sexist history? Yes. Does it have historical sins to answer to? Yes. Is it trying to address that history? Yes. Their bio of Margaret Sanger makes that quite clear, it seems to me, and also does try to speak directly to and address the problems with her views.

Full disclosure: I am a financial supporter of Planned Parenthood in my region, so I receive regular mailings from their national and local offices. So I have attended several local, midwestern meetings of our region's PP org--two of the four top officers here are African American women. That work closely with the local rape/sexual assualt/domestic violence house that serves women of all ethnicities and is led by both black and white women, the dominant ethnicities in my city. Planned Parenthood Federation of the US had a black president in the last 10 years (Faye Wattleton, now director of the Center for the Advancement of Women), and they have a very transparent diversity policy you can read here.

The African American pro-life site that BIHB cited, above, is dismissive of her work (mentions her but then goes on simply to note that it's "ironic" she would work for such an organization, before returning to blast Sanger.)

The Planned Parenthood organization I have known is very concerned, in fact, about the fact that for poor women in the U.S., sterilization is government-funded through Medicare, but abortion and contraception are not! This issue comes up at every meeting and fundraiser I've been a part of. There's still an eagerness on the part of the US government to sterilize poor women and that's deeply rooted in the same culture that still pressurizes white women to have babies and stay home with them. The same culture that right now pays a whole lot of money for the "right" women to donate their ova for infertile, white straight couples to buy a baby. (This video interview with Debora Spar of the Harvard Business School, and author of the book, The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception, is worth watching.)

This speech "RACE, REPRODUCTION, AND THE MEANING OF LIBERTY: BUILDING A SOCIAL JUSTICE VISION OF REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM" by Dorothy Roberts is a much more accurate and more balanced view of the same controversial history and offers a much more womanist response to it than that offered by either the sites BIHB cited.

Next I want to respond to the link grant provided to the work of Kevin Warwick, which, having read it, I am not soothed: short answer: based on that short interview alone, it seems fairly clear that he did NOT do this in order to have a better sense of "his wife's" needs and to be more open to her as grant's initial formulaiton might suggest. (How sweet! A man who wants to know when his wife is hungry!).

On the contrary, in fact, he suggests that he, in fact, had to convince her to over come some initial reluctance to participate in this experiment in order to satisfy his own research interests. He in fact speaks only of his need to have a partner in the experiment that he could trust "to reveal my feelings to." He never mentions her needs or interests, except insofar as she shares his "excite[ment]." Not definitive, and "I'm sure he's a nice guy!" but it's troubling because it speaks to a worldview that seems so unconscious.

Then, at the end he says, blithely that: "All of the work here in the Cybernetics Department, the research, had been able to help people less fortunate than ourselves, those with disabilities." I.e., his "us" does not seem to include people with disablities. This is disturbing, too, particularly coming from someone so gleeful about leaving human speech--it's as outdated and outmoded as Old Europe, for him, apparently!-- and his very humanity--"Those who want to stay human can and those who want to evolve into something much more powerful with greater capabilities can. There is no way I want to stay a mere human"--behind. Again, no sense that economic realities and status will play any role in this brave new world. Lucky him to be above all that!

Ok, you can say that's all just him speaking off the cuff. Everything I've read here convinces me otherwise--it's pretty revealing of the largely unexamined patriarchal, able-ist, and racist assumptions and values that are underwriting this very expensive endeavor.

And, note, I keep agreeing that the lines are not bright here, and acknowledging that I am a cyborg in my everyday life; the way my fingers know how to manipulate a pen and a keyboard, the way my teeth have been filled, the way may feet have been affected by my shoes...etc. I just don't think we can ever so readily judge whether our own culture is "ready" for the more radical human-adjusting steps being suggested here, so we should be putting the brakes on this research.

We are NOT a society focused on social justice; those in power like Mr. Warwick regularly use the language of charity--e.g., "pity the poor disabled people!"--to convince ourselves of "our own" essential goodness and to continue work that is ultimately primarily going to serve "our own" needs.

Husbands WON'T, in any world I've been a part of, pay large fees and change, perhaps with pain, their own bodies in intimate ways in orderprimarily to be better attuned to the needs of the women in their lives. It just doesn't ever work that way. Maybe it works that way on some other planet.
 
 
grant
22:01 / 17.05.07
Next I want to respond to the link grant provided to the work of Kevin Warwick, which, having read it, I am not soothed:

Oh, I want to make clear I wasn't really trying to be soothing. Warwick is nuts and very fond of some scary technology; his first implant was (more or less) a prototype for the RFID chips used to track children and Alzheimer's patients. And, probably, prisoners. And soon, who knows? His just opened electric doors and stuff around his university.

I wanted to be clear that I wasn't blue-skying, that's all. This technology is just about here. He's trying to build an interpersonal electronic network - something like getting the first computers to talk to each other, I think. How that network will be installed and implemented - and what its initial functionality will be - I imagine falls outside his bailiwick, in his version of things.

As Tom Lehrer sings: "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down!
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
 
 
jentacular dreams
13:59 / 18.05.07
I think it's important to realise that, whilst Warwick is obviously batty, getting funding and ethical approval for research like his probably isn't easy, and maintaining that it may one day be invaluable to disabled individuals is probably one of the easier ways of getting that funding. Of course that doesn't say that he doesn't have unconscious issues in the mix, but it might explain how he couched some of his statements. With regard to his wife, he doesn't seem to discuss any of his own interests either (aside from grafting pieces of electronics into his CNS), and it's also a FAQ, which doesn't favour long meandering discussions.

Though he says in an old BBC article

....before the century is out, intelligent machines will effectively take over from humans: "Just as we treat creatures less intelligent than ourselves now, so we'll see machines treating us, perhaps having humans in farms, humans in zoos and if we're lucky, human pets."

...And Kevin Warwick contends that a possible way for humans to escape this grim future is to evolve as cyborgs.


So it looks like there's a bigger dose of "whee sci-fi" in with his "whee science" than might be advisable (and whether someone who gleefully welcomes the rise of the terminators should be given £250,000 for research is another matter). But his technology may well allow sensory/emotional communication between individuals, so the hungry-wife/tingly tummy example isn't out of the question, the technology just isn't that advanced yet. It also strikes me that such emotional communication equipment (potentially equipped with amplifiers or feedback loops) might actually do more to reduce othering and discrimination than any other technology I can think of.

Alas - whilst I agree that the healthy-white male centred society we live in still has huge problems to overcome with regard to othering of all kinds, I don't think blanket statements such as your last are all that helpful. And though I don't mean to undemine any of your concerns with regards to the unfair treatment of poor women by western society, I should also point out that both male and female sterilisation are both covered by medicare in the US and Canada.
 
 
alas
14:51 / 18.05.07
I don't think blanket statements such as your last are all that helpful.

Could you explain this further? Thanks.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply