Primal transhumanism

Primal Tanshumanism.

Oxymoron? Maybe.

Burgeoning lifestyle choice for a growing number of futurists? Most definitely.

Look, it’s 2011 and it’s glaringly obvious that we’re still quite a ways off from achieving the much heralded posthuman condition. The sad truth is that all interventions or augmentations currently available are fairly low impact by any measure. There aren’t a whole lot of high tech and sophisticated options available to radically alter human performance, experience, or life expectancy.

So what’s a transhumanist to do? Just sit around and wait for something better to come along?

Hardly. An increasing number of transhumanists are taking matters into their own hands by working with what they got. And by doing so, they're pushing the limits of their genetic potential.

While a significant segment of the transhumanist community is content to let their minds and bodies go to waste in anticipation of future interventions, there is a growing conviction amongst a number of adherents who feel that there is no better time than the present to optimize their bodies using the limited resources available. And strangely, some of these body-hacks involve an apparent technological step back.

Call it Paleo-Transhumanism

Indeed, there are a number of things we can do to extend our capacities and optimize our health in a way that’s consistent with transhumanist ideals—even if it doesn’t appear to be technologically sophisticated. While the effects of these interventions are admittedly low impact from a future-relativistic perspective, the quest for bodily and cognitive enhancement is part of the broader transhumanist aesthetic which places an emphasis on maximal performance, high quality of life, and longevity.

Consequently, anyone who professes to be a transhumanist, but does nothing to improve upon himself, is a poser. These are the people who are waiting for the magic to happen, and by consequence, are neglecting their full potential in the present moment. Transhumanism is something that's applied in the here-and-now; it’s a recognition of the radical present and all that it has to offer.

Sure, part of being a transhumanist involves the bringing about of a radical future, including scientific research and cheerleading. But it’s also a lifestyle choice; transhumanists actively strive to exceed their body’s nascent capacities, or, at the very least, work to bring about its full potential. In addition to building a radical future, a transhumanist is someone who will, at any time in history, use the tools and techniques around them to maximize their biological well-being. And while there are a number of technological interventions at our disposal–things like pharmaceuticals, implants, and hand-held devices—there is an alternative and seemingly old-fashioned approach to bodily enhancement that’s gaining considerable currency in transhumanist sub-cultures.

Much of the fuel that drives this sentiment is the notion that modernity has actually harmed human functioning more than it has helped. Take agriculture for example. While it has (arguably) propelled human civilization forward, it has paradoxically worked to undermine human health. Anthropologists are revealing that, when compared to our Paleolithic-era ancestors, modern humans have less bone density, are smaller, and more disease ridden. Modern foods, most of which are highly processed and infused with salt and sugar, is the primary culprit—as are apparent “natural” foods like whole grains and rice. Compounding this situation is the shift from active to passive existences; modern humans now bask in the glow of their computer monitors instead of the sun. Our bodies were not meant for this kind of sedentary life and we’re now having to cope with a batch of modern diseases.

A solution to all this, it would seem, is adopting a lifestyle that is more suited to our biological needs. While it might sound contradictory to those with a futuristic bent, adopting a lifestyle that more closely approximates that of our Paleolithic ancestors would do more to foster human health than a continuation of modern habits and norms.

Strong and fit is the new geek

Okay, at the risk of sounding like a complete Luddite, I’m not suggesting that you sell your belongings and move into a cave. It’s not like that. I’m still hoping that you cart around your iPad, philosophize about the coming Singularity, and implant magnets into your finger tips. But I also feel that we need to take an evolutionary approach to human health, namely lifestyle choices that place a greater emphasis on primal eating, exercising, sleeping, and other health factors. This is how the modern transhumanist can best unlock her biological potential.

In terms of specifics, these choices include the Paleolithic diet (also called the caveman diet), fully functional interval training executed at high intensity, and 7-8 hours of sleep each night in complete darkness.

Sounds simple, and even too good to be true, but for those of us who live according to these rules the results have been extraordinary.

And when I say us I mean a good number of prominent transhumanists, a list that includes Max More, Natasha Vita-More, James Hughes, Bruce Klein, and Patri Friedman. Max and Natasha in particular have treated their bodies as shrines since the very beginning, setting a positive example for transhumanists for quite some time.

Indeed, being strong and fit is the new geek. Though not a transhumanist by name, author Timothy Ferris’s latest book, The Four Hour Body, highlights a number of techniques and “body hacks” that work to produce what he calls “superhuman” results.

I’m not sure what’s more ironic: that a primitive approach to eating and fitness is the best way to optimize human health and performance, or that computer nerds are catching on and becoming complete bad-asses by engaging in these kinds of body hacks.

Back to basics: Diet and exercise

It's been said that in order to truly comprehend anything in biology it has to be viewed through the lens of natural selection. If we are to improve human health and performance we need to study our evolutionary underpinnings. Our bodies are adapted to a very specific kind of environment, namely the one our ancestors lived in over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. Consequently, because our species has remained largely unchanged since Paleolithic times, we are best suited to live under a very specific set of conditions.

The Paleo-diet is one approach that works to match the specific way our ancestors ate. It's a diet that has gained serious traction in the fitness communities, not because of any commitment to naturalism or Luddism, but because it works. The primal approach to eating is now the go-to diet for many professional and elite athletes. And it's safe to suggest they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't get them results.

Adherents of this diet basically reject any foods that arrived after the onset of the agricultural revolution. To that end, they consume copious amounts of meat (typically free-range, organic, and grass fed) and vegetables, along with some fruit, nuts, and seeds. Primal eaters take a very liberal approach to consuming fats, while remaining wary of gluten, high-density carbohydrates, and sugars of any sort. So, no whole grains, pasta, rice, potatoes, dairy, or processed foods. While it may sound incredibly restrictive, it’s actually not that severe; there’s considerable culinary potential even within those constraints.

But it’s not enough to base an entire diet on a philosophical or aesthetic appreciation of our primal ancestry. There has to be proven efficacy and hard science to back it up. And indeed a growing literature is emerging that both supports and propels this approach to eating. Paleo advocates like Robb Wolf, Loren Cordain, and Mat Lalonde pour through scientific studies revealing the dangers of Neolithic and processed foods while highlighting the benefits of eating whole foods.

Often accompanying the Paleo diet is a fully functional approach to fitness. The old model of going to the global gym, hitting the treadmill, and working on isolation movements in the weight room is increasingly coming to be seen as old fashioned and ineffectual. Instead, there’s a new emphasis on constantly varied compound movements performed at high intensity for short intervals. A functional movement is anything our bodies are meant to do: lift, push, pull, drag, climb, run, and jump. These exercise sessions, which depending on the workout can range anywhere from five to 25 minutes, tend to be both physically and psychologically demanding. But the gains are tremendous.

A fitness model that best exemplifies this approach is CrossFit. It's a strength and conditioning program that combines weightlifting, sprinting, gymnastics, powerlifting, kettlebell training, plyometrics, rowing, and medicine ball training. Founded by Greg Glassman over a decade ago, CrossFit gyms are starting to pop-up around the world. CrossFit's impact has been nothing short of revolutionary; it has turned fitness into an actual sport. Its major claim is that, through its system of tackling all ten fitness domains (cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, and accuracy) it produces the best results and the worlds fittest athletes.

As a CrossFitter myself, I can certainly vouch for these claims. When I first started nearly three years ago I could barely do a push-up. Back then a 125 pound deadlift nearly made me pass out. These days, a workout involving a hundred push-ups isn't out of the question. I have a 265 pound backsquat and I’m only five pounds away from a 400 pound deadlift. And this from a guy who spent most of his adult life completely inactive. There's no question in my mind that the CrossFit approach is the best one. At least for me.

Being physically strong is no joke or a petty indulgence. And it is of utmost importance to those interested in extending longevity. I would make the case that physical strength does more to prolong healthy lifespan than any other lifestyle factor available today—including caloric restriction. Studies have shown that strength can add as much as a decade to your life.

In addition to proper eating and exercise, the primal lifestyle also advocates a natural approach to sleeping, which means 7-8 hours per night in the complete pitch dark. Indeed, studies have shown that this length of time is optimal and that any kind of light interrupts sleep in non-trivial ways.

Primal transhumanism...for now

I'm going to conclude with a quick reality check.

As stated earlier, the primal approach is a stop-gap measure for transhumanists until something better comes along. Those looking to optimize their health and performance in the here-and-now should seriously consider adopting this lifestyle.

This approach is certainly a "soft" form of transhumanism and it's definitely no match for what's still to come. Our transition away from Homo sapiens will be accompanied by more impactful technologies—interventions like genomics, cybernetics, neuropharma, and molecular nanotechnology. Once we have access to these technologies we will truly be able invoke the "trans" in "transhumanism" as our species migrates into a posthuman and potentially post-biological condition.

And in the meantime, love your body. It's all you got.

Not so superficial: Rethinking cosmetic enhancements

Are you superficial for wanting to look
like this? (Alessandra Ambrosio)

A few weeks ago at the Center for Inquiry's Transforming Humanity Conference, bioethicist Patrick Hopkins warned about the potential for cosmetic enhancements to take precedence over more meaningful morphological and cognitive modifications. Referring to this kind of human form as the "barbie body," Hopkins dismissed cosmetic enhancements as being merely surface level and superficial. These sorts of enhancements, argued Hopkins, were more about attaining a sexual ideal than escaping limitations of the human body. For those individuals overly concerned with aesthetic enhancements, said Hopkins, they have interpreted their bodies as objects that can be whipped into shape to conform to the mind's ideal so that they can feel a certain way about themselves. Hopkins called this a "shallow" human approach.

I took Hopkins to task on this position during the Q&A portion of his session. Specifically, I argued that cosmetic and aesthetic enhancements are no more or less legitimate than another sorts of modifications, including cognitive enhancements.

First, superficiality is in the eye of the beholder. As an example, our society fetishizes intelligence, which in turn legitimizes the collective desire for smarter people. While I realize that this sentiment is not universally shared, particularly the part about actually going about cognitive enhancements, we tend to celebrate those among us who have higher than average intelligence—and not necessarily for all the right reasons. The one-upmanship of intelligence and academic success can be just as superficial or pernicious as any beauty contest; the vanity of "I'm smarter than you" is no different than "I'm prettier than you."

Or this? (Ryan Reynolds)

Moreover, our society has, particularly over the past century, de-legitimized the concept of human beauty. We are told that looks don't matter–that what counts is on the inside. While we still celebrate beauty in the form of celebrity-worship, we are constantly reminded that at our own level beauty is only skin deep and that the overt quest to be more beautiful is misguided and shallow—hence the stigma against everything from fitness competitors through to plastic surgery.

There was once a time when beauty was celebrated for beauty's sake. Dostoyevsky noted that "Beauty will save the world." While he was likely referring to works of art and other achievements of humanity, this sentiment can be applied to any effort in which a person seeks to create aesthetic or functional beauty—including the desire to improve, if not perfect, one's outward physical appearance. In the same way that we appreciate a pretty melody, we also appreciate a pretty face; these are, at the root, psychological experiences that we value—subjective experiences that we actively work to refine and bring about.

Today, only a very few of us openly advocate for more physical beauty in the world—and often at considerable risk. Back in 2003, James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, caused an academic stir when he suggested that genetic engineering should be used to make all women beautiful. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty," he said, "I think it would be great." Watson is not alone, of course, as other thinkers, including futurist Natasha Vita-More, have suggested that we use our biotechnologies to reshape our bodies, including for the purposes of cosmetic enhancement.

Secondly, in addition to the more philosophical or aesthetic arguments in favour of legitimizing cosmetic enhancement, a strong case can be made that it also serves as a functional enhancement as well. Drawing from posthuman theory—the idea that the line separating the body from its environment is becoming increasingly blurred—it is clear that our outward appearance has a profound impact on our daily lives, including our ability to succeed and thrive in certain contexts.

Beauty, like intelligence, confers certain advantages in competitive spaces. Quite obviously, attractive people will be more successful in attracting other beautiful people. That's just the way it is. And if this is the extent to why a person desires to be more attractive, than so be it.

But beauty extends much further than mate selection. Certain jobs, for example, require specific physical attributes. Some employers are looking for smart people, others attractive people. For those who desire jobs in which their physical appearance is of the utmost importance, they should be allowed access to those tools that will help them achieve their goals—whether they be seeking a job as a model or as a salesperson.

Further, beauty has a deeper impact than just helping a person feel better about themselves or in getting a job. Attractive people have a profound impact on the psychologies of those around them. Recent studies have shown, for example, that the presence of pretty women cause men to make riskier decisions. If this isn't an advantage, I don't know what is; this 'power over people' is in no way qualitatively different than any other kind of cognitive or morphological attribute, and should thus be considered en par with any other kind of human capacity in terms of its ability to be augmented.

Lastly, a world in which everyone is "beautiful" could be a potentially wonderful thing (I use scare quotes because there could never really be such a thing given the subjective and cultural nature of physical beauty). I still believe there would be considerable variation in human appearance, but it would give everyone the opportunity to operate on a more level playing field. Ubiquitous access to safe and effective cosmetic enhancements would essentially eliminate the beauty gap—a gap that is currently created by the arbitrariness of the genetic lottery.  People who are "naturally" beautiful are in no way entitled to a monopoly.

And no matter how hard we try at convincing unattractive people that their looks don't matter, the brutal truth is that most of these people feel inadequate or unfulfilled in certain ways. This is potentially yet another way for us to eliminate individual suffering—the elimination of the unactualized physical self.

Consequently, in a world where everyone is beautiful, we will simultaneously be able to enjoy it and move past it so that we can get on with some of the more important and meaningful aspects of life and existence.

Maxwell Mehlman: "Extinction by Design: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution" [transforming humanity conference]

Maxwell Mehlman presenting "Extinction by Design: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution."

Can genetic engineering make things worse? Possibly. Think of unintended consequences visavis global warming. We have no idea if guided evolution would be any worse or better than unchecked evolution. Misguided evolutionary engineering could cause irrevocable harm. What would be worse would be the extinction of the human strain altogether.

The destruction of the human lineage would make it impossible for us to achieve our goals.

Some guidelines:

1. Do not harm children - Parents should not be allowed to genetically engineering their children so that they are exposed to serious risk, serious bodily or mental harm or impairment that is not outweighed by the potential benefit to the child
2. Do not permit state-sponsored, unethical genetic engineering (i.e. eugenics)
3. Do not terminate the human lineage (habitat loss, genetic drift, environmental catastrophe, inbreeding, extremely large body sizes, inability to reproduce, loss of genetic diversity, introduction of rival species)
4. Do not stifle progress toward understanding the universe

Katherine Drabiak-Syed: "Reining in the Psychopharmacological Enhancement Train" [transforming humanity conference]

Katherine Drabiak-Syed presenting "Reining in the Psychopharmacological Enhancement Train."

Off-label use of drugs like Modafinil is an increasing problem. The misappropriate of use for these drugs endangers the user. But the pressure for enhancement is ingrained. Our future population may be stuck in overdrive.

As the military  has shown, use of these sorts of stimulants is starting to become a job requirement. [What about truck drivers?] Modafinil has not been FDA approved for these sorts of stimulant off-label use purposes. It is not indicated for use for healthy individuals. The drug will produce side-effects, including some psychiatric problems. And then there's the whole issue of acquired dependancy.

Physicians are thus putting their patients at risk when prescribing these sorts of drugs for off-label use purposes. They should be working to alleviate recognized conditions, and not acquiescing to the lifestyle desires of their patient.

People have fallen prey to the rat-race mentality of society in their quest to be super productive.

Ronald Lindsay: "The Ethics of Enhancements: Spurious Concerns and Genuine Uncertainties" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Ronald Lindsay now presenting: "The Ethics of Enhancements: Spurious Concerns and Genuine Uncertainties."

Enhancements augments an existing capacity, or introduces a new capacity altogether. Improvement responds to the statistically normal range for humans with that existing capacity.

Arguments against

Michael Sandel has argued that enhancements manifest a misguided quest for mastery and threaten to destroy an appreciated of the "gifted" character of life. "Giftedness" is the sense that we are limited, that who we are exceeds our control. Sandel is mistaken that enhancements would deprive us of that sense. Whether or not giftedness is a fundamental human good, enhancements will not eliminate contingencies. We will not be able to control events that affect us. We will not be able to control our initial conditions - no control over the circumstances of our birth. We are and always will be thrown into this world. Our existence will remain gifted by our existence.

Leon Kass has argued that enhancements will cause a loss of authenticity, a sense of achievement. "Accomplishments" will be meaningless. Short-cuts provided by enhancement will trivialize our accomplishments. This claim ignores the long history of (external) enhancements. They have not destroyed our sense of accomplishment. No matter what one's capabilities, one still has to apply one's knowledge. Changing the means to accomplish the goal does not diminish the goal. There will always be goals that will motivate us and prove challenging.

Fukuyama, McKibben: Enhancements are "unnatural" and threaten to destroy human nature. It is the "nature" of individuals, not the human race as a whole, which is most subject to change. Most enhancements will not implicate any change to the nature of an individual because improved capacities still will be recognizably human. What is wrong with changing our nature? Is our current mix of capacities the optimal mix? It is not immediately clear that the increase of a human capacity will alter what it means to be human or a person's nature. Why is chance so much better than choice such that the latter can be considered immoral? We don't like spinning the roulette wheel.

Can we survive the uncertain changes to society that enhancements may cause? What little experience we have with enhancements suggests we can. Take birth control for example. Moreover, the beneficial social consequences may be enormous.

These arguments fail to eliminate enhancements as a viable option.

Should internal/intrinsic enhancements be developed and regulated in the same was external enhancements are (external enhancements being things like iPads and other technological tools).

Arguments against

Case-by-case evaluation of enhancements is required. One problem: we have no substnative experience in evaluating enhancements qua enhancements. We are not even at first base in determining how they might be regulated.

Enhancements now available were developed and tested as therapies, but the therapy model may not work. Risk-benefit analysis for therapies assumes the therapy will help restore "normal" functioning. Enhancements are not needed for normal functioning, so arguably any risk is too great.

Private sector will not invest substantial resources in the development of enhancements until it is assured an appropriate regulatory framework is in place. Presumably this implies a regulatory framework that is not disease-centered.

Besides the possible toxicity of an enhancements, many other factors need to be considered in evaluating and enhancement has on other capacities, the consequences of using the enhancement....

In addition, various long-term effects need to be considered, such as effects on productivity, allocation of resources, social and political relations, individual rights, aggregate welfare, and future generations.

Does enhancement improve well-being? Not always the case.

Fears and concerns about social divisions and nightmare scenarios

Emergence of a class of super-enhanced individuals who dominate the unenhanced.

Two presumptions about the distribution of enhancements: first, enhancements should be made widely available; second, the fact that enhancements may not be available for all by itself does not provide a reason for denying enhancements to some. Beyond this, we can't say much with confidence.

It's been said the enhanced class poses a risk to liberal democracy.

Would domination of the unenhanced by posthumans be unjust? The relationship may lie outside the bounds of justice. To begin, a world with a stark division between unenhanced and posthuman beings is highly unlikely. However such a scenario arguably lies outside the bounds of justice. Consider: We are not required to form bonds of cooperation with nonhuman animals and treat them as equals. There may be no reason for posthumans to form relations with humans; doing so may be seen as a hindrance. Humans and posthumans are unlikely to have a shared perspective on justice and compel them to be members of the same community.

At the end of the day, sci-fi scenarios are of little use in the assessment of enhancements.

Ethicists have a constructive role to play provided they stick to real situations and overheated discussions.

Peter Caws: "What is Humanity, that We should be Worried about Transforming It?" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Peter Caws is presenting, "What is Humanity, that We should be Worried about Transforming It?"

Humans is what humans think it is. No one is human by right of nature, it's defined by us alone, our club alone. Humanity becomes an intentional object in the ontological sense.

Freud noted that, in our quest for omnipotence and omniscience, and as we work to become more god-like, we still find that we are unhappy, troubled and unfilfled. That said, argues Caws, we need to keep the deliberative process going. Reject the transhumanist and bioconservative extravagance and seek the middle path.

Dennis Weiss: "Transforming the Symbolic Animal" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Dennis Weiss reading from his paper, "Transforming the Symbolic Animal."

Modern man has become a problem to himself. What is the meaning of human existence? A growing suspicion that over the past few centuries man has misjudged his own nature and purpose.

The debate about transforming humanity is nothing new, but has been ramped up in the past twenty years. Central concepts in this debate: technology and human nature.

Addressing the issue of whether transforming humanity suggests a fantasy, dream, or nightmare presupposes a clear philosophical grasp of two terms central to the debate: human nature and technology. And yet this is lacking in the debate over the posthuman. Transhumanists and bioconservatives lack a sufficiently thick and rich framework in which to address these issues. This essay seeks to address this lack, suggesting that Ernst Cassirer's account of the human being as a symbolic animal provides a philosophy of culture, philosophical anthropology, and philosophy of technology that might serve as the building blocks of such a framework.

Key elements of Cassirer's philosophical anthropology and philosophy of technology

(1) Cassirer very explicitly situates the human being and culture in the organic realm.
(2) The distinguishing feature of the human being is not some new feature or property, not some metaphysical essence. The human being's distinctiveness is his work.
(3) Cassirer insists on the diversity of the symbolic forms.
(4) This multiplicity of forms does not denote discord or disharmony and it is precisely the task of philosophy to understand the sytem of culture as an organic whole
(5) Cassirer situates his analysis of technology in the context of his philosophy of symbolic forms and in such a way that it would be inappropriate to conclude that technology represents the alienation of either culture or our nature as symbolic animals
(6) Cassirer was concerned with developments in modern technology that he found antithetical to his analysis of symbolic forms (a) Cassirer worries about the power of technology to usurp other symbolic forms, (b) Cassirer worries about the emergence in the 20th century of new technique of rationalized myth

Cassirer, the symbolic animal and transforming humanity

In turning to Cassirer we gain an understanding of the broader historical framework of the debate over transforming humanity.

The lack of historical awareness in debates over transforming humanity results in completely inadequate accounts of human nature presupposed by bioconservatives and transhumanists alike

In both the bioconservative and transhumanist frameworks the characteristics of human nature are completely unmoored from any other discussion of human capacities or characteristics, any structure of needs and wants

In treating technology as a symbolic form, Cassirer implicitly rejects instrumental and substantive view of technology and points the way toward a critical theory of technology more nuanced than the views often presupposed in transhumanist and bioconservative frameworks.

Cassirer recognizes that the human being is a tool using animal but he doesn't privilege technology nor would he accept a culture that took as its dominant symbolic form technology.

Cassirer's framework provides a perspective from which to understand more precisely the dangers of a culture predicated on the dominance of technosciences such as genetics, cybernetics, and biotechnology; the danger of rationalized myth.

Cassirer's framework helps us to understand and appreciate the complex relationship between human nature, our ethical task, and the normative questions surrounding transforming humanity.

Martha Farah: "Cyborgs, Superminds, and Silliness: What are Real Ethical Challenges for Neural Prosthetics?" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Martha Farah is now presenting her paper, "Cyborgs, Superminds, and Silliness: What are Real Ethical Challenges for Neural Prosthetics?"

It's time for industries to look at non-pharmacological solutions to neural enhancement. "Gadgetry" as opposed to molecules.

Neural prostheses

Neural prostheses for various purposes.

Brain stimulation via deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, etc. -- gets certain desired results that can be used for enhancement. Many of these procedures are therapeutic, for things like weight loss and mood control, but they can also be used for enhancements. For example, desired levels of concentration and stimulation.

Brain chips via cochlear implants, retinal prosthesis, motor system interfaces for robotic control, and (eventually) cognitive prostheses ('chippocampus' - the artificial hippocampus).

Ethical challenges

Long term: Transhumanism -- World Transhumanist Association / h+ crowd vs. Fukuyama "most dangerous idea" crowd; hard to anticipate the benefits or problems of these technologies before they're here. It's hard to predict the ways in which people will use them. Some predicted applications may look silly by today's standards, but may not seem so in the future.

Medium term: i.e. when the technologies are routinely used - access to therapeutic BCI and DBS; yuck factor and acceptance of BCI and DBS for less-than-dire conditions; control of inputs and outputs (patient autonomy, involuntary treatment, hackers), choice of applications to develop (e.g. games vs. orphan diseases); enhancement; risk:benefit, fairness, freedom/coercion, etc.

Short term: highly interconnected issues of funding, conflict of interest, IP law, regulation (of clinical trials and practice)

How can we proceed?

We are going to by necessity deal with these short to long term ethical issues in chronological order. We will establish platforms of greater perspective as we move from challenge to challenge. We will see what works and doesn't work.

Adrienne Asch and James Edward Block: "The Mechanization of Politics: Rethinking Human Transformation" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Adrienne Asch and James Edward Block are presenting: "The Mechanization of Politics: Rethinking Human Transformation."

{Adrienne presents first}

Enhancements are not value neutral; they will not improve society and will likely lead us in a negative direction. We may end up at a place that no one could have predicted.

Hyperparenting can happen outside the context of human enhancement -- but it will make the situation considerably worse.

The parent-child relationship will be altered when enhancement enters the picture because they will expect to see their child fulfill 'genetic' and other expectations. They will do what they can to get the result they aimed at. Asch and Block worry that parents won't love their children as unconditionally when enhancement is part of the equation.

Children need to feel that their achievements were the result of their efforts and individuality. This is jeopardized when kids know they've been enhanced. Children may feel that they've let down their parents if they haven't lived up to the expectations they set up through particular enhancements.

Choice and authenticity are weakened in a world with enhanced children. Genetics will predispose children to seek certain goals, bred for a certain role.

Enhancements endanger reasonable parent-child relationships.

Other values lost in the shuffle: cooperation, sharing, working well in groups. Exclusion and conformity, on the other hand, are the results of an enhanced future.

When it comes to enhanced traits, one thing we value one moment we may dis-value the next (e.g. perfect memory). And do we want a society of extroverts and speed demons? Shyness and constrain can also be seen as worthy traits. Could we fully get the message of a novel or poem if our personalities are constrained to a certain type? Society needs people with a list of many traits.

What is the problem the enhancers are trying to solve? They seem to want more of what we already have (life, physicality, etc.). But this will only work to increase disparities. Enhancement proponents do not see their agenda as part of a broader global social imperative to improve conditions for all people. It's too individualistic. How do we get from 'humans who don't need to sleep' to solving world problems?

Humans and posthumans will never be able to control all the variables of their lives. We will continue to find meaning without enhancement, and continue to help those truly in need without it.

In regards to moral enhancement, we are having difficultly coming to a consensus about what is moral behavior and how we could ever engineer that into human psychology. Moreover, empathy alone without the will to act on it is useless and potentially detrimental to the person. Social reform extends beyond mere empathy.

Don't see how James Hughes's democratic leftist transhumanism can be part of a progressive agenda when there are so many libertarian transhumanists. He hasn't made the case that a coherent and consistent transhumanism (or enhancement politics) is even possible.

{James Edward Block takes over the talk}

Asch and Block are concerned about the over-emphasis on meritocracy. In our quest for inner and outer mastery, we are losing out on relational experience. For example, our baby Einstein grows up to be an adult Einstein; where was the development and growth.

One loves others and the world by first learning to love and respect oneself. When we avoid the early stages we avoid the growth process. We become more vulnerable to falling into the traps of social compliance.

Culture of more is getting out of control, and now extending into the enhancement camp.

We are told that contemporary experience is the enemy of change. And is enhancement seen as a substitute for politics? It's a kind of magical thinking. Enhancement is a fall-back for 19th and 20th century social utopianism.

Our pursuit to control nature has stunted our ability to manage and refine social/political relations.

We are becoming excellent information processors, in tune with our technological environment; As a result we are dead emotionally and morally inside.

How are we so talented in our world, yet feel so inadequate? We need to find new skills and capacities within our existing social and physical bodies. Purpose, not functionality.

Patrick Hopkins: "On the Variety of Future Bodies" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Patrick Hopkins is now discussing the variety of future bodies.

There are as of yet no posthumans. But these ideas are not new, nor are they exclusive to the realm of fantasy and sci-fi. We have long imagined ourselves transformed. Our visions and variations of a transformed humanity are voluminous and often informed by the environmental, social and physical conditions we find ourselves in. Thus, there will be differing and conflicting visions of what the human future can and should look like.

Hopkins presents four different visions of humanity's future: Transformations of the body:

• Barbie bodies: Cosmetic and aesthetic enhancements; attaining a sexual idea; often risky procedures; not to escape limitations of the body, but to create an ideal of the body; a superficial ideal of the transformed body; surface level, "about looks"; body seen as an object that one uses and whipped into shape to conform to the mind's ideal so that the person can feel a certain way about themselves; a shallow human approach; but they may also feel that they may succeed more given a certain type of physicality.
• (Francis) Bacon bodies: These transformations are about functionality; to do more human things more often and for a longer time; extends functionality of the body; mimicking what time and nature already do; function cleanly, clearly and effectively -- but not about appearance; a healthy and long-lived body. 
• Nietzsche bodies: A "super body" endowed with characteristics that "normal" humans do not have; man is something that needs to be surpassed; the body is transformed but not the mind; power to impose one's will on the world? Motivated by human emotions. The "super" human approach. 
• Plato bodies: Separation of 'soul' from the body; body seen as the source of all the trouble, something that chains our minds to the body; we want the mind to be free; we would live in a more noble condition if freed from the constraints and influence of the body; transhuman application is uploading or virtual reality; total disembodiment may not be possible, but something very close may be obtained; maybe a "transhuman" approach. 

Idea of transformation is not a unitary thing. 

James Giordano: "Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Strivings to Flourish" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

James Giordano now talking about Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Strivings to Flourish.

One of his primary messages is that we need to be wary of anything with the prefix "neuro".

Neurotechnologic imperative: "...if you can build it, do so..."

Human flourishing prompts the questions:

1. What is it to flourish?
2. What is the "good"?
3. How is/should it be achieved? Means, ends, limits...

Contextualized to bio-psychosocial nature of our species. 

Flourishing:

• Maximizing function
• Does this mean maintaining or optimizing?
• Treatment or enhancement?
• Objectivity and/or subjectively?
• Consideration of gain vs. loss?
• Given bio-psychsocial nature, on what level(s)?

Janusian face of neuroscience: Utopian aspirations vs. dystopian anxieties

Pros and cons: A natural need to know and intervene inherent to human flourishing; inquiry and action is both right and good; partial knowledge in areas of profound impact effect broad and unforeseen consequences; there are intellectual and moral limits on inquiry. 

We should not retard progress, need to mitigate non-contemplative advancement. 

John Shook: "Philosophical Challenges for a Neuroscience of Moral Enhancements" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

John Shook of the Center for Inquiry is speaking about Philosophical Challenges for a Neuroscience of Moral Enhancements.

What would a moral enhancer do? May mean making a person more 'moral.' Or like a mood enhancer, changing one's inner sense of moral qualities. Or sensitivity to situations. Or wanting to do the right thing more often. But this doesn't necessarily imply a change to conduct. Other fears and desires can have similar effects on behavior.

Issue: Matching internal and external moral standards. Two different things: What I believe is moral, what someone else believes is moral.

Fine tuning of moral enhancers may be required, creating a "boutique" style of moral enhancers. May not represent genuine cases of moral enhancement. These are internal objective standards. We have to go outside to get better moral standards.

Objectivism is one path. Still people will pass their own judgement.

Should we adhere to the majority opinion? Where does culture agree on such things? Can we agree that certain conduct is impermissible? Cultural conventionalism as a way to inform morality.

But what about something like generosity? Do we really mean it?

So objectivism and cultural conventionalism are unsatisfactory.

Perhaps we need a combination of subjectivism and conventionalism.

But what items/subjects are worthy of moral consideration? Sports? Religion? Boutique modifications may not adhere to conventional opinions on what is morally acceptable.

Moral enhancement: How might it actually be done? Could be done in several ways.

1. get the right moral answer
2. enhance judgement of situations morally
3. enhance deliberation of doing the morally right thing
4. enhance the motivation choice to do what moral deliberation indicates
5. enhance volitional power to do the morally right thing
6. enhance the capacity of the act [external]

Problem, there may be no objective, definable moral judgments to begin with. Objective morality exists nowhere. And what are conscious intentions? Are they epiphenomenal? What mechanism in the brain executes the decision? Will and free will?

Brain science discovered will better inform and answer the objections. Outdated notions of decision and volition need to be discarded from the discussion.

Intentionality types; factors for free will:

1. Intentional causality (executive)
2. Deliberate intentionality
3. Thoughtful control (rational)

Do philosophers exaggerate the role that reason plays in decision making? Neuroscientific advances will improve our idea of this and what we mean to be moral agents.

Jonathan Moreno: "Enhancement and National Security" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancement]

Johathan Moreno, author of Mind Wars, 2006, presenting on Enhancement and National Security. I blogged about his book here. He's also co-author of "Slouching Toward Policy: Lazy Bioethics and the Perils of Science Fiction" which I blogged about here.

National Security, the Brain and Behavior: Post WW II-era:

• Hallucinogens
• Neuropsychiatry of stress
• Personality theory
• Parapsychology
• Performance enhancement

"Brainwashing" was an immediate concern after WWII. Work on hallucinogens took off soon thereafter, including extensive work by the CIA on LCD. Even ESP studies (by J. B. Rhine), coined the term "Psiops."

Quote from that time:

“The claimed phenomena and applications”…presented by several military officers, “range from the incredible to the outrageously incredible. The ‘anti-missile time warp,’ for example, is somehow supposed to deflect attack from nuclear warheads so that they will transcend time and explode among the ancient dinosaurs….One suggested application is a conception of the ‘First Earth Battalion,’ made up of ‘warrior monks’…including the use of ESP, leaving their bodies at will, levitating, psychic healing and walking through walls.”

"The Men Who Stare At Goats" [trailer]:



Today, some remarkable work is being done with fMRI's. Mapping and baseline readings currently being collected, can be used to understand and predict human behavior. Can show your thoughts 'on screen.' Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induces changes in brain activation. Could be used to alter a person's social behavior or attitudes. Influences brain functions including physical movement, visual perception, memory, reaction time, speech and mood.

Optogenetics: Seems to provide more specific information and control over neurons and their transmission.

Check out Giving the Grunts an Upgrade graphic from Wired (2007). Much of these solider technologies are available now. Not to mentioning the networking capabilities now at hand.

Potential for augmented reality. Soldiers will have their realities augmented -- e.g. a building painted in red signifies dangerous activity. Network effects: Objects tagged based on intel.

The "Anti-Conscience" pill. Beta blockers can be used to treat stress, prevent PTSD. Suppress release of hormones like norepinephrine that help encode memory. Might also reduce guilt feelings.

The trust drug? Natural oxytocin production is associated with trust behavior. May be artificially administered in a spray to encourage cooperation. Use in interrogations?

National Research Council May 12, 2009 predictions:

Near term (within 5 years)

• Immersive virtual reality
• Heartbeat variability
• Galvanic skin response

Medium term (5-10 years)

• In-helmet EEG for brain-machine interface
• Head and torso impact protection
• Biomarkers for predicting soldier response to environmental stress

Far term (10-20 years)

• In-vehicle deployment of transcranial magnetic stimulation
• Brain scanning to assess physiology
• Ongoing (within 5 years with continued updating)
• Field-deployable biomarkers of neural state
• Biomarkers for sleep levels

In addition, advanced "lie detector" tests. Including portable lie-detector tests.

Q&A:

• 90% of what DARPA does is bunk
• There is no gene that is going to tell you who a terrorist is
• There is no scanning technology that is going to tell you the intention of a would-be terrorist
• No evidence that oxytocin was used in Guantanamo
• Oxytocin makes you more trusting, but not more gullible
• "Enablers" for soldiers, aka enhancements, may be detrimental to soldiers post-deployment: this is a potential problem. It is also a current problem ie PTSD; "it's a problem, but not necessary our problem" - DoD
• "Everybody who goes to war feels they've been experimented upon"

Allen Buchanan: "Breaking Evolution's Chains" [CFI conference on biomedical enhancements]

Bioethicist Allen Buchanan is today's first presenter. His talk is entitled, "Breaking Evolution's Chains." Buchanan is a co-author of the book, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, which is a must-read in enhancement bioethics.

Buchanan is talking specifically about genetic modifications. His concern is the "ubiquity of suboptimal design in Unintentional Genetic Modifications (UGM)." Buchanan makes the distinction between UGM and IGM (Intended Genetic Modifications).

Darwin showed that we can explain evolution and diversity without design. Buchanan shows the audience a lengthy list of examples of poor human "design," including human inability to biosynthesize Vitamin C, our poor sinus, human birth canal, lower back, pharynx (dual function, ingestion/respiration--risk of death by choking), urinary tract in male mammals (passes through, not around prostate), etc.

Why is suboptimal design ubiquitous? Answers include insensitivity of natural selection to post-reproduction quality of life, hence cardiovascular degeneration, cancer, degeneration of muscles and joints, neural degenerations, and other aging related disorders.

In UGM, selection does not imply optimality -- it says nothing about the current relation to reproductive fitness. Purely backward looking. Optimality depends on fit between organism and environment (where the environment is constantly changing). So, optimality is fleeting, always changing.

What was optimal may now be fatal. Not a progressive kind of thing at all. What's optimal in evolution may not be aligned with human values. Also, under UGM, spread of desirable mutations may be too slow and too great a cost in human terms; little lateral gene transfer. Another problem of "evolution as usual" are "Pleistocene Hangovers" -- what was adaptive in the EEA may now be maladaptive (e.g. propensity to xenophobia, step-child abuse, attention deficit 'disorder'.

Master engineer? Fickle, morally blind, tightly-shakled tinkerer. Doesn't finish projects, discards much of value. Doesn't aim at human good, achieves it only by coincidence; methods have high moral costs.

Problems with the Master Engineer analogy: (a) making risky changes in the name of improvement and (b)
resting content with the status quo. But in UGM the status quo is constantly changing, precarious.

The existing human organism is not finely balanced, stable, completed product that will continue as is, absent deliberate intervention.

"We may have to enhance, in order to conserve the goods we have."

Possible examples:

• Enhanced reproduction to counteract drastic decline in fertility due to environmental toxins
• Enhancement of resistance to skin cancer if ozone layer depletes
• Cognitive and/or affective enhancements to deal with global scale problems

Bioconservatives: the individual organism is like a seamless web. Traditional social conservatives: Society is like a seamless web. Both imply fragility: Cut one thread and the whole thing may unravel. 

Evidence against seamlessness: modularity of design, redundancy of systems, canalization ("you can make the same dish using different recipes"), natural selection requires incrementalism--being able to change one trait without changing the others. 

The worry about unintended consequences: How can we take the worry seriously? And get beyond vague platitudes like "use caution", "take it slow", etc. We need something more substantive, heuristic based. Otherwise it's too vague. 

Strategy: Take the hardest case: Unintended bad consequences of IGM (germline enhancements). Think about scientifically informed responses. 

Think ontogeny. Has to be sensitive to the ontogenic process. That's the key.

Evolutionary precautionary heuristics for IGM (as opposed to the precautionary principle). 

• The IGM targets genes that lie "downstream" rather than "upstream" in the organism's developmental process
• If successful, would not produce an enhancement that exceeds the upper bound of the current normal range (e.g. boost in cognitive performance beyond anything any human has ever had)
• Effects are containable within the organism 
• Involves a highly modularized system of or subsystem of the organism (mistakes can be contained within that modular)
• Effects are reversible
• Intervention does not require major morphological changes
• If goal is to eliminate a trait, then the causal roles of the trait and of the genes targeted for elimination should be well understood

There is good reason to worry about unintended bad effects of BE in general and of IGM in particular. Reasonable precautions should be based on accurate understanding of evolution, not faulty metaphor of Master Engineer. 

A plurality of precautionary heuristics should change over time. 

The threat of loss of normal human capacities. Pseudogenization of genes needed for normal human capacities (e.g. loss of bitter taste receptors as a result of cooking food, loss of visual acuity, loss of ability to biosynthesize Vitamin C). If selective pressures are eased, mutations increase to the point of making a gene nonfunctional and the associated capacity is lost.

Q&A

Buchanan is essentially "paving the way" for more substantive enhancements; we have to start where we are and in a responsible way.

What's possible and what's sci-fi fantasy? Risky to make predictions. Not confident that we'll be able to conduct meaningful IGM for various reasons.

How can we ever test IGM and go about the ethics of experimentation? More animal testing; need to know more about genetics and implications of modifications; but we shouldn't be complacent about the status quo -- it may be more reasonable or ethical to tolerate a little bit of risk. 

Center for Inquiry conference on biomedical enhancements

We are now less than two weeks away from the Center for Inquiry's conference on biomedical enhancements. With the title, "Transforming Humanity: Fantasy? Dream? Nightmare?", the event will bring together leading scholars to address technological, moral, and legal questions relating to biomedical enhancements:

Enhancements of human capacities, such as an increased lifespan or improved cognitive abilities, are a source of significant controversy. Some see them as a welcome development; others are much more skeptical. What is the realistic potential of enhancements? What are the ethical limits, if any, on enhancements? How should they be regulated?

Speakers include Art Caplan, Allen Buchanan and many others. The event, which will be held at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia from December 3-4, is also sponsored by the Penn Center for Bioethics and the Penn Center for Neuroscience & Society.

I will be there along with my colleagues from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. We'll be sure to represent.

Is low sex drive a disorder? It is if you think it is.

Lots of fuss these days over Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), particularly as it pertains to women's health. The disorder, which used to be called Inhibited Sexual Desire Disorder, is in the DSM-III-R and is characterized as a lack or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity for some period of time. It's important to note that, for this to be regarded as a disorder, it must cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulties and not be better accounted for by another mental disorder (i.e. depression), a drug (legal or illegal), or some other medical condition.

But not everyone agrees that it's a genuine disorder. Part of the problem is that it's open to a wide interpretation, and no one really knows what's causing it. That said, a recent study suggests that women with persistently low sex drives have significant differences in brain activity, indicating that the problem is indeed neurologically based.

Regardless, some critics say that HSDD is yet another example of the medicalization of sexuality by the medical profession to define normal sexuality, including the pathologization of asexuality. Others point out that there are significant differences between male and female sexuality; level of desire is highly variable among women and there are some who are considered sexually functional who have no active desire for sex, but they can erotically respond well in contexts they find acceptable (what has been termed "responsive desire" as opposed to spontaneous desire). There are also relationships to consider; the focus on physiological factors may ignore the relationship context of sexuality despite the fact that these are often the cause of sexual problems. Lastly, there are yet others who contend that HSDD is an invention of Big Pharma who are now ready to cash in with the (potential) release of a female Viagra-like pill.

Undeniably, these criticisms address some valid concerns—but they're largely missing the point. If a woman feels that her libido is low, and she has the means with which to achieve a desired level of sexual responsiveness (i.e. she wants to 'function' in a particular way), then it can be genuinely classified as a disorder.

Admittedly, "disorder" may be too strong a term, but it's a good example of how an enhancement eventually becomes a therapy. Let's suppose for a moment that HSDD is pure fiction and that female sexuality is largely operating within normal bounds. Now, thanks to the marvels of modern medical science, we can tweak libido such that a more desirable state is achieved. Once such an intervention hits the market and becomes normalized across groups, then its absence can be characterized, for all intents and purposes, as the cause of a dysfunction. It has become a pathology.

That's how enhancement works, and that's why the whole therapy versus enhancement debate is mostly useless. What we consider normal human functioning today is not necessarily what we'll consider normal in the future.

One last point, and one that speaks to the title of this post: If your body is not functioning in the way you believe it should, or in the way you want, you are experiencing a "disorder" of sorts. This becomes all the more cogent when there's a way to overcome the limitation, namely through some sort of medical intervention. The argument can be made that a condition becomes a condition once we have the means to overcome it.

So ladies, don't believe the negative hype. You know your own mind and body best, and if you believe that taking a pill can and will enhance your sex life, go for it.

Phillippe Verdoux on the enhancement paradox

IEET contributor Phillippe Verdoux wonders if enhancing is necessary in order to decide whether or not enhancing is a good idea:

Many transhumanists are enthusiastic about the possibilities of cognitive enhancement. Such enthusiasts might say something like: “I want to use advanced technologies – from genetic engineering and psychoactive pharmaceuticals to neural implants and even mind-uploading – to increase my intelligence, to make me ‘smarter, wiser, or more creative’ [PDF], to produce a ‘smarter and more virtuous’ person, to mentally and emotionally augment myself.”

But...talk of enhancement presupposes some conception of the self. Specifically, it assumes that the self is capable of enduring such modifications, e.g., as a pattern, or as an immaterial soul, or whatever. The resulting enhanced being would thus still be me, it would just be a different and “better” (according to some set of criteria) version of me.
...
Now, an interesting paradox arises when one combines the above claims with a specific (and controversial) stance on what the self is...
...
More importantly, though, it must be pointed out that cognitive enhancement is only one route to the destination of greater-than-human-intelligence: the other is artificial intelligence (AI). Another option would thus be to create a superintelligent AI system that could help us deliberate about whether or not we should use cognitive enhancements. This would offer a way out of the paradox, since it doesn’t involve modifying ourselves.

The trouble is, however, that AI may turn out to be more difficult than enhancing the neurobiological core of Homo sapiens, which means that the paradox would remain intact: in this case, the most feasible way to engender a new species of ultra-smart posthumans would be through human enhancement and not AI.

Finally, one could generalize the basic idea to AI as well. That is, we might pose a general moral question about whether or not it would be good to create a species of posthumans through either method of enhancement or AI. Our ability to answer this question, though, is no doubt far more limited than the ability of a superintelligent biotechnological hybrid or completely synthetic posthuman to answer it.

More.

Economist: Humanity is about to confront its true nature

Noting the tenth anniversary of the reading of the human genome, The Economist issues a call to action, but not without warning:

Humanity’s foibles will be laid bare. The species’s history, from its tentative beginning in north-east Africa to its current imperial dominion, has already been revealed, just through being able to read the genome. It is now possible, too, to compare Homo sapiens with his closest relative—not the living chimpanzee, with whom he parted company perhaps 5m years ago, but the extinct Neanderthal, a true human. That will do what philosophers have dreamed of, but none has yet accomplished: show just what it is that makes Homo sapiens unique. The genome will answer, too, the age-old question of original sin. By showing what is nature, it will reveal what is nurture—and thus just how flexible and perfectible the human animal really is.
...
Genomics may reveal that humans really are brothers and sisters under the skin. The species is young, so there has been little time for differences to evolve. Politically, that would be good news. It may turn out, however, that some differences both between and within groups are quite marked. If those differences are in sensitive traits like personality or intelligence, real trouble could ensue.

People must be prepared for this possibility, and ready to resist the excesses of racialism, nationalism and eugenics that some are bound to propose in response. That will not be easy. The liberal answer is to respect people as individuals, regardless of the genetic hand that they have been dealt. Genetic knowledge, however awkward, does not change that.

IEET's Susan Schneider on transhumanism: Will enhancement destroy the "real you"?

Dr. Susan Schneider, IEET fellow, assistant professor of philosophy and an affiliated faculty member with Penns Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, speaks at a UPenn Media Seminar on Neuroscience and Society on philosophical controversies surrounding cognitive enhancement.

In this video, Schneider wonders if radical enhancement, particularly cognitive enhancement that gives rise to superintelligence, will result in the destruction of the original person in favor of something categorically different. Schneider also discusses uploading and the continuity of experience -- including the apparent problem of destructive cloning/copying.

Via Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

Gregory Stock's 2003 TED talk: To ugprade is human

Gregory Stock, the author of Redesigning Humans: Choosing our genes, changing our future, speaks at TED about the current revolution in biology and the impetus behind human enhancement. "Humanity is going to go down this path… because we are human," says Stock, "the lines are going to blur, between therapy and enhancement. Between treatment and prevention and between need and desire."