BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Laboratory >

Transhuman Technologies.

  
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
jentacular dreams
15:38 / 18.05.07
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 order primarily 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.

Seemed like a statement that wouldn't be tolerated were it about any other group. It may be rare, but to categorically dismiss the possibility that husbands might, now or ever, be willing to do the above seemed to me to be a somewhat insensitive and stereotypical view (though I'm sure it wasn't meant to sound as such).
 
 
alas
18:47 / 18.05.07
Ok, I might revise to put a "By far the vast majority of husbands in our current world" in the front of that statement. I would love it if the future would be a place that is more like the one that grant imagined. My point is that it's kind of insulting for him to light heartedly suggest that we are in such a place where that's what people will do with this technology. We're not there.

And we won't get there until people who occupy privileged places in a system show as much interest and energy in exploring their own privileges in order to work towards a place of social justice, as they do in defending against people questioning their privilege.

More than 91% of the elective plastic surgery being performed in the United States is done on women, and it is primarily done on their breasts (augmentation and lifts) and their faces (face lifts, botox injections and chemical peels) in ways that serve the interests/desires of straight males.

Straight men, by and large, simply do not do these things to their bodies for women. Look at the media messages we send to young girls and boys, still. Boys currently are in no way trained to mold themselves and their pleasures to those of their partners', at least not in the world I live in, as I see it. If you have counter evidence it might help me see things differently.

Second, while I agree, and had admitted, that the source of the Warwick comments was not ideal, I stand by the picture that's coming out of it and the article you linked to: disabled people still seem to be just poster children that get him funding for his games and his prestige; he's concerned about his own image and enjoys the benefits of that cliched line at the last, which is basically only ever applied to white men: "You're either a visionary genius, or a publicity-crazed lunatic; I'm not sure which." Oh please.

And he acts as if people will have absolute agency to move into his new world. "Those who want to stay poor and miserable can make that choice, and others who happen to want to evolve into billionaires can make that choice."

So it will take some serious convincing for me to believe that technology that is being developed in this framework will readily evolve into something that is serving any thing close to a social justice vision, exploiting the needs and ignoring the voices of weaker people. It seems more likely that it will follow a path similar to that of other technologies, e.g., the internet:

"The promise of the early internet," says Marwick, "was that it would liberate us from our bodies, and all the oppressions associated with prejudice. We'd communicate soul-to-soul, and get to know each other as people, rather than judging each other based on gender or race." In reality, what ended up happening was that, online, the default identity became male and white - unless told otherwise, you would assume you were talking to a white man. "So people who brought up their ethnicity, or people who complained about sexism in online communications, were seen as 'playing the race/gender card' or trying to stir up trouble," says Marwick."

Second, as to the issue of the US and Canada paying for the sterilization of men: I never claimed otherwise. I was discussing the differing relationship that women have to reproductive health and rights as affected by their class and race. So I don't see how your point affects my argument, but in fact feels like a red herring move. Perhaps you can explain what your motives were in offering it at that point, so that I can better understand. Thanks.
 
 
jentacular dreams
13:37 / 21.05.07
Oh I totally agree. IMO the current power vs effort balance is overly weighted towards the husbands/male partners in way too high a proportion of het relationships, I was just very surprised to see someone who I've regularly seen advocate equality almost write-off the possibility that this imbalance might ever right itself. And it's interesting that following Grant's example such technology might give hasbands and wives the opportunity to exist as almost 'one flesh', fully experiencing each others emotions should they both choose to do so.

I've been thinking a lot about the Warwick/disability thing, and whilst it's a bit of an interruption to the current tone and pace, I think that in many ways it's probably more relevant to the gender/race equality in science thread than it is to transhuman tech, so have dropped it in there - apologies if anyone feels it disrupts the flow of either thread.

To continue, when it comes to public use, yes such a technology would likely be hideously expensive, but the trickle-down effect (slow as it may be), need not be any different than mobile phones or digital cameras. First only used by the very well off, but spreading down the demographic ladder. I also think it unlikely that the first few generations of such technologies will create true post-humans. Whilst uploading a consciousness might one day be an option available to the ultra-rich, I would think that by this time a much larger proportion of society will have long been indulging in the precursors to this technology, namely the recording of non-interactive aspects of the personality (memories and sensations). Long before the first uploaded personality occurs, there may well be the facility for readers to experience the emotions or sensations attached to bloggers entries, or even to relive the events of the blog in real or abridged time. Maybe even to download the memories directly (what this will do to the concept of the individual within society is anyone's guess). And whilst at first these abilities will be directly available only to the very well off, they may not provide much (if any) advantage to them in terms of 'fitness' (or the bionic equivalent), and might do little to directly spread the economic gap between rich and poor.

Sorry Alas, I just felt that focusing on how sterilisation is free for poor women on medicare, when it is in fact free for poor individuals of both genders made for a bad example of general sexual discrimination (though a good one of class-specific social/health discrimination). It also seemed from your post as if you might not be aware of the male sterilisation option, or that readers might assume the option did not exist, and I merely wished to clarify the situation. I agree that the differential views of sexual health between classes are, well 'a matter of concern' would be putting it midly. It has made me wonder: despite my limited knowledge of the germ-cell donation process (outside of the image presented by popular media), I get the impression that the class/social role of a sperm donor is far more important than that of an egg donor. Do you know if there are any discriminatory aspects at work here ("the father as a determining factor of the quality of a child") or is this merely a function of supply vs. demand?
 
 
alas
16:40 / 21.05.07
And whilst at first these abilities will be directly available only to the very well off, they may not provide much (if any) advantage to them in terms of 'fitness' (or the bionic equivalent), and might do little to directly spread the economic gap between rich and poor.

Might. Might. Might. I can't help but ask, with a little grin, but half seriously: Does might make right?

Seriously, of course causation is more complex than this. But it's disturbing that the scientists working on these issues have, as you have admitted, little inducement to actually try to see a bigger picture, warts and all, and how they might be making the warts bigger (advertently or no), as they are writing grant proposals.

But they apparently have much incentive to look at their work through rose-colored glasses--"we're going to make the world a better place!!!!" "we're doing this for the good of humanity!!!!" "we're going to help poor less fortunate disabled people!!!!" & "look, husbands will use this technology to become more empathetic to their wives!!!!!" (even when the husband involved have admitted that they essentially had to convince? coerce? his reluctant wife into changing her body in order to further his research interests...).

& then, if anything bad happens--especially anything that may actually be quite predictable at some level if people other than white, able-bodied males trained exclusively in scientific academies where white, able-bodied males hold virtually all the positions of power-- looked at it, oops, it's grant's werner van braun....

That's why grant's example got under my skin--because, obviously inadvertently, his example was replicating exactly that process, and, unless I missed something, he hasn't really acknowledged that. I have admitted and do still acknowledge that I could have stated my concerns differently so as to not be interpretable as blanket statements about the definite future of masculinity and het relations in general, as I was trying to make it clear that this is how by far the vast majority of het relations seem to work at present, including possibly even the specific het relation in question in Dr. Warwick and his partner.

I just felt that focusing on how sterilisation is free for poor women on medicare, when it is in fact free for poor individuals of both genders made for a bad example of general sexual discrimination (though a good one of class-specific social/health discrimination).

If you look at my post and BIHB's, I was specifically responding to the latter issue and the claim being laid against PPFA regarding class/race discrimination and women's reproductive health needs, and not the former issue. So, I still maintain that your response can be legitimately read as an attempt to raise a red-herring designed to undercut my argument, & even to attack my integrity as someone who is consistently demonstrating concern about equality. That is unethical and, in fact, sexist in this context. I would appreciate some acknowledgment of this point.

It has made me wonder: despite my limited knowledge of the germ-cell donation process (outside of the image presented by popular media), I get the impression that the class/social role of a sperm donor is far more important than that of an egg donor. Do you know if there are any discriminatory aspects at work here ("the father as a determining factor of the quality of a child") or is this merely a function of supply vs. demand?

If you watch the film I linked to above or read this interview with Debora Spar, you'll get a sense of the market, again, this is in the US, as being skewed in exactly the opposite direction: people pay much more for eggs (partly but not entirely because it's a much more complex and dangerous procedure for women donors, to get a few precious eggs, than, well, wanking into a cup to get more sperm than one can count), AND the buyers of these cells are MUCH more critical of women's backgrounds: they want Ivy League credentials, perfect skin, great grades, they insist on seeing photos of the donors, etc. They don't do this for sperm donors.

As to the men donating sperm, US buyers typically just want them to be tall, minimum 5'10", and they're simply not willing to pay much more for "designer" sperm as they are for designer eggs. IIRC, well-qualified women have been paid up to $100,000 for "donated" eggs, although the average is around $5,000; men get paid around $300 for a cup of "donated" sperm, and it's hard to move that around much, despite even attempts at sperm banks handling exclusively the sperm of nobel prize winners, etc. So Spar's research suggests that the price differential is not fully explained by supply/demand issues, but is almost certainly related to myths about gender.
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:54 / 21.05.07
I just felt that focusing on how sterilisation is free for poor women on medicare, when it is in fact free for poor individuals of both genders made for a bad example of general sexual discrimination (though a good one of class-specific social/health discrimination).

If you look at my post and BIHB's, I was specifically responding to the latter issue and the claim being laid against PPFA regarding class/race discrimination and women's reproductive health needs, and not the former issue. So, I still maintain that your response can be legitimately read as an attempt to raise a red-herring designed to undercut my argument, & even to attack my integrity as someone who is consistently demonstrating concern about equality. That is unethical and, in fact, sexist in this context. I would appreciate some acknowledgment of this point.

I acknowledge your point. I apologise if that is how it came across, it certainly wasn't meant that way, and in future I shall try to keep the larger context in mind when something strikes me as inconsonant ("why say 'women' instead of 'people'?"). I obviously misread your intended emphasis, and having a hunch (but no more than that) that sterilisation was available to both genders, I checked and found it was. Had I not had that hunch, I felt that I would have read your statement as suggesting that medicare-funded sterilisation was only available to women. Given that this was not the case, I thought that the additional information was relevant, especially considering that it may be publicised a lot less than the male sterilisation option*, and even that you yourself might not have been aware of it.

The statement was not one of character assasination, which I would have thought was self evident given my later post: I was just very surprised to see someone who I've regularly seen advocate equality almost write-off the possibility that this imbalance might ever right itself, nor was it meant to undercut your arguments: And though I don't mean to undermine any of your concerns.... So, to repeat, I am sorry if appeared to be trying to disrupt your arguments, attack your character or behave in an unethical or sexist manner. Such was not my intention.

That said, I am concerned that our dialogue is disrupting this thread. I also have trouble accepting the viewpoint you seem to be putting across - that the fallability of humankind should discourage us from seeking technical progress. I am also skeptical as to whether a truly equal opportunities society would be at any less risk of abusing or accidentally misapplying scientific developments (transhuman or otherwise), though I would agree that there would likely be far less political resistance to fixing such a misapplication than there might be under today's circumstances.

* given that annual gynecological check-ups are recommended, it struck me that women within the US may be far more exposed to this option than men, given that it is probably raised every time a patient is seeking internal contraception, termination, or possibly even during routine examination.
 
 
*
19:53 / 21.05.07
So, to repeat, I am sorry if appeared to be trying to disrupt your arguments, attack your character or behave in an unethical or sexist manner. Such was not my intention.

"I'm sorry if I appeared to be trying" is a crap sort of apology or acknowledgment, Headmice. Whether it was your intention or not, that was exactly the effect of your actions. I'm going to continue to explain how this appeared to me, so folks can recognize this pattern when it occurs again. (Next time it may even be me doing it.)

This is a very common pattern in the world, one endemic to the internet, and one that even shows up with some regularity on Barbelith:

Xusan Jackson raises a point that demonstrates real oppression currently going on in the world today against a group that includes hirself. In the process ze makes a generality about a privileged group, of the sort that passes unremarked when made about members of the oppressed group.
Bob Jones, a member of the privileged group, challenges Xusan on the generality while minimizing, dismissing, or ignoring hir larger point. Bob may even say things like "You'd never let a stereotype like that pass about (your group)" ignoring the fact that Xusan has probably heard that exact stereotype fifty times that week and in most cases let it go unremarked because of risky power dynamics or social pressures or sheer exhaustion.
Suddenly thirty people who weren't previously involved in the argument show up to support Bob Jones and share stories of times they felt oppressed as members of a privileged group.
The key: The original point about privilege and oppression is lost in the shuffle, and no one ever has to consider it or treat it seriously because Bob Jones has deflected attention away from it.

I want to call attention to this because there is frequently a call for specific examples of sexism on Barbelith and this is a good one to point out.

Now you've gone and said "I still think you're wrong. We shouldn't be arguing anymore; it's disruptive." This is a continuation of your inability to actually engage with alas' point and grapple with—either DISPROVE or ACCEPT—the notion that "technical progress" of this sort is likely to aggravate existing problems of inequality. You've said you have trouble with this notion—could you address whether that "trouble" is an intellectual one or an emotional one? Because the effect of this is to say "I think we're being disruptive. We should stop. I think you're wrong." At this point alas can either give you the last word and look like she's accepted that you think (based on no evidence) that she's wrong, or she can keep arguing with you and appear to be a "disruptive" aggressor. If it's an unconscious move, it happens to have a pretty malignant effect on alas and on the discussion while also benefiting you.

My intention here is not to make you look bad but to expose the power dynamics that are obvious to me in this thread. I am sure that you are a wonderful person and you don't intend any of this; it's just the way you learned to make your points. It does have the effect of making me very frustrated and not wanting to engage with the discussion at all... which isn't fair to alas, because I think it's more likely to have that effect on people who support her position than on people who support yours.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
20:34 / 21.05.07
An interesting feminist critique of transhumanism.
I believe it is open access, but anyone who find that it is not so, please PM for access.
 
 
*
21:09 / 21.05.07
I got to it, and it seems pretty valuable. Thanks for linking.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:30 / 22.05.07
Alas has actually already made a lot of the points that are raised in that essay but it's all helping me to understand this point of view much better.

At this point alas can either give you the last word and look like she's accepted that you think (based on no evidence) that she's wrong, or she can keep arguing with you and appear to be a "disruptive" aggressor.

I would personally prefer that the discussion continue, I don't know about anyone else but I'm finding Alas's contributions to be extremely constructive.

I guess it says something (not good) about me that I have found it easier to accept the suggestion that the transhumanist ethic, however well-meaning, is promoting discrimination against differently-abled people than that it also discriminates against females. Hopefully I'm starting to wander towards the direction of the light but I would much rather the conversation continue in order to aid that process.

How can transhumanism progress towards fully embracing the ideals that it likes to believe it espouses? As I said earlier there are transhumanist schools of thought that believe that their ethic of control over one's own body means that they should be strong supporters of women's rights. But if the very tools that transhumanists want to use to control their biological futures are part of the machine of whitehetmale domination then how can we (by we I mean those who profess to be transhumanists) ever be part of the solution?

I have to say here that I do think that the Citizen Cyborg future is not the most likely one. The extopian ideal of downloading conciousness is, however, one that I am very interested in and feel no shame being an advocate. I find the concept of involuntary death of any kind to be utterly objectionable, and I don't believe that it should just be accepted or considered "natural" just because it's the default result of life. My personal preference is that I die when I am ready to die and not before.
 
 
illmatic
13:31 / 25.05.07
Scientist: An observation in part caused by re-reading this thread. I find the advocacy and praise of transhumanist ideals, in particular the notion of downloading consciousness, very disquieting – not solely for the reasons Alas has brought up, though I welcome her very valid critique.

I find it almost impossible to conceive of a downloaded consciousness. What might this be like? My consciousness is completely interlinked and intertwined with my body and my environment. It exists in a state of continuous feedback between these two influences and others besides (memory, the unconscious mind, bodily processes of which I am unaware). I don’t see how I could be “recorded” or “downloaded” in any real sense without taking on a very reductive view of consciousness. It appears to me that the metaphor – “downloading” – is causing us to view the subject of metaphor in a way not in keeping with it’s actual nature and inherent complexity. How are going to stimulate consciousness without stimulating a body? How are you going to simulate consciousness without simulating a complete environment?

What makes me uncomfortable about humanist ideas is that a lot of this hypothetical technology seems only posited, not because it might one day exist , but simply to get us away from the pains of being human. Change, ageing and death. Isn’t this simply the urge for escape that you would rightly critique in religion? Isn’t this simply the religious urge for transcendence of the impure and mortal flesh coming back in a new form? It just seems to me such a crazy idea, so far removed from what we are capable of technologically, that to advocate it without a really thorough interrogation the desires that underlie it seems very unwise.
 
 
grant
14:16 / 25.05.07
It just seems to me such a crazy idea, so far removed from what we are capable of technologically

Well, that's really the problem -- we are capable of doing some things technologically. We have, for instance, the technological knowhow to keep a brain alive without a body. I think we've been at that level since the 1950s. What we're just starting to do now is create electronic brain interfaces - the electrodes that allow tetraplegics to move computer cursors, for example. Or these game controllers (which really smell like a DARPA spin-off to me).

The problem is, as you point out, that the brain isn't the sole seat of consciousness, and that removing it from the body alters the consciousness is tremendous, subtle ways.
 
 
alas
17:18 / 25.05.07
Apophenia's questions struck me as very apt-- a lot of this hypothetical technology seems only posited, not because it might one day exist , but simply to get us away from the pains of being human. Change, ageing and death. Isn’t this simply the urge for escape that you would rightly critique in religion? Isn’t this simply the religious urge for transcendence of the impure and mortal flesh coming back in a new form?

And it's interesting how these ideas are precisely echoed in the compelling feminist critique of transhumanisim that A Franker Nolte linked to, and which I'm just reading. Check this out:

Moreover, while the Extropian Principle of ‘Open Society’ asserts Extropians are not utopian and avoid perfection through “openness to improvement” and “appreciating the diversity in values, lifestyle preferences, and approaches to solving problems” (More, 2003: http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm, accessed 08/07/04), their desire for rational progress and enhancement (re)creates a philosophical regression to hierarchical Cartesian divisionism. By (re)creating this split between reason/emotion and the “body-species” of us/them (Stelarc, 1998: 116, 118), an inferior “subspecies” emerges (Warwick, 2002: 157). Hence, individuals who do not choose to mutate their bodies and sexuality are viewed as “plain ole’ sexuals who remain nostalgic for the 20th Century” (Extropy Institute, 2003b: http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm, accessed 08/07/04). As a result, Extropians paradoxically maintain nostalgia for the phallogocentric legacy of patriarchal control and power by creating a hierarchical dualistic system based on difference; separating the “technological elites” (the ‘haves’; those who mutate) from the “technopeasants” (the ‘have-nots’; those who remain immutable) (Gandy, 1989: 62):

... I put forward a case that in the future, becoming a cyborg, with the help of implants, would give individuals much greater powers than those who remained human ... [Those who remain human] would become part of the subspecies human race. (Warwick, 2002: 157)

Technology thus becomes the contemporary saviour that overcomes human biological constraints and limitations imposed on us by an external superior being and/or transcendental g/God at birth. Essentially, this treats the body as a material, unnecessary, and objectified structure of accidental and manipulative nature, which can be abandoned and changed (Nayar, 2002). For Australian cybernetic performance artist and trans/posthuman Stelarc, this bodily objectification is supported by “Cartesian convention, personal convenience and neurophysiological design”, as “people operate merely as minds” (Stelarc, 1998: 117).

In this sense, Extropians are technological determinists in believing “evolutionary progress” occurs through technology (More, 2003: http://www.extropy.org/ principles.htm, accessed 08/07/04), rather than the Harawayian-cyborg co-evolution and equality of human/machine convergence (Gray, et al., 1995). Furthermore, by using technology to overcome the imperfections created by g/God, the Extropians replicate the position of evolutionary creator (God) and human saviour (Jesus), who lead the masses to a higher and better form of immortal life (heaven), by healing their fragility and sins (notably, located in the mortal body). As a result, Extropians are joined to Christian philosophy and Cartesian bodily objectification. Furthermore, Extropian desires for ‘Perpetual Progress’ suggest technologies will continue to positively improve the cyborg body (More, 2003), (re)producing, yet again, modernity’s stories of linear progress and improvement. . . .

So the question is again, I suppose, just because there are arguably similar narratives in the background of transhumanism and Christianity, is it inevitable, then, that transhumanism is inevitably Christianity in a "science-approved" form, and, if so, what does that mean? Cook's arguing essentially that it is a fairly strong and simple equation, and she offers the rules followed by many virtual reality games and military interest in these programs, as evidence that the body, and our understandings of it, still matters deeply in virtual structures, and these virtual strucutres will inevitably used to unequally police various kinds of bodies in various kinds of ways. I would offer many women's and others' experiences of the internet as evidence that the bodies typing our words here still matter deeply, even when they are unseen.

I need to think this through more. Like Cook, I am very suspicious of anything that strikes me as primarily rooted in loathing of the body (which is inevitably feminized in our culture) and a basic fear of death, as this seems to be.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
18:27 / 25.05.07
I feel we've pretty much dismantled a lot of the political and cultural "fallacies" (unsure about that word) inherent in libertarian transhumanism (of which extropianism is probably the most striking variant). James Hughes, a bioethicist, has made the case for what he calls democratic transhumanism that attempts to address the so-called Gattaca argument against technoptimist, libertarian, Kurzweil-type transhumanism. I haven't had time to read his stuff, but I urge you all to check it out, at least for the fact that it shows one can be a transhumanist without going to hell in Kevin Warwick's handbasket.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:58 / 29.05.07
What makes me uncomfortable about humanist ideas is that a lot of this hypothetical technology seems only posited, not because it might one day exist , but simply to get us away from the pains of being human. Change, ageing and death. Isn’t this simply the urge for escape that you would rightly critique in religion? Isn’t this simply the religious urge for transcendence of the impure and mortal flesh coming back in a new form? It just seems to me such a crazy idea, so far removed from what we are capable of technologically, that to advocate it without a really thorough interrogation the desires that underlie it seems very unwise.

Firstly I'd argue that downloading conciousness wouldn't halt our ability to change. The physical human body hasn't changed all that much in recorded history, what has changed is our conciousness. By the very nature of conciousness we would change and age. Anything else would simply be a static data recording.

As to the subject of death. As I said earlier I am against the idea of involuntary death, not the concept of death in it's totality. I personally find the idea that people should die before they're ready to be unacceptable. Sure there is certainly the possibility that massively reducing (remember, being downloaded does not equal invulnerability, there is no reason believe a downloaded consiousness would be utterly immortal) the chance of "random death" would somehow take away some of the zest of life. I would prefer to find that out for myself though.

The comparison of extopianism and religion-based afterlives made in the essay is interesting. But I would argue that, whilst there are certainly similarities, there are factors in favour of extopianism from my perspective.

1) The question of faith: Yes, both a belief in an afterlife and belief that there will someday be a way to become an infomorphic entity require faith in unproven concepts. However, for the former, it requires faith in something which, apparently, already exists and does so in a way which is undetectable by living humans. For the latter it is faith that the technology will someday arise, and the hope that it will do so in time to be utilised by the person with that faith.

I think that's a big difference between the two.

2) Urge for escape: In a sense of course it is an urge to escape from death and the random pains of biological existence. I don't personally see this as a bad thing. I think that, in some ways, the "life without pain has no meaning" school of thought is just as much part of a privileged Western mind-set as some of the criticisms made in this thread about transhumanism. The assumption being that there is "good pain" and "bad pain" and that the former is, somehow, different and better than the latter.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply