Greg Egan says:

"Though a handful of self-described Transhumanists are thinking rationally about real prospects for the future, the overwhelming majority might as well belong to a religious cargo cult based on the notion that self-modifying AI will have magical powers.

Worse, the word itself implies the replacement or overcoming of humanity, which is a PR disaster. While at some level it's good to insist that every quality of the human phenotype be subject to clear-eyed scrutiny, the word "Transhumanist" appears to suggest the foregone conclusion that everything about the present species is destined for the rubbish bin -- which neither accords with what most people who've considered the matter would wish for, nor does much to encourage anyone else to treat the movement seriously.

Russell, I share your concern that so many prominent Transhumanists are anti-egalitarian, but at this stage, quite frankly, to first order I consider a self-description of "Transhumanist" to be a useful filter to identify crackpots. While this might be unfair on a tiny proportion of people, I'm afraid anyone who doesn't want to sink with the whole drooling sub-Nietzschean mob really ought to think of a better name for their philosophy -- or perhaps even eschew labels altogether."

Also:

"The word "transhumanism" (or, even worse, "posthumanism") sounds like a suicide note for the species, which effectively renders it a political suicide note for any movement by that name. No doubt there are people prepared to spend 90% of their time and energy explaining that they didn't intend any negative connotations, but this is not one of those cases where other people will be to blame if "transhumanists" are reviled as the enemies of humanity on purely linguistic grounds. It's no use people proclaiming "Please, read my 1,000-page manifesto, don't just look at one word!" The name is stupid, and anyone who doesn't drop it deserves the consequences.

And I'm not sure quite how much solidarity I'm compelled to have with someone, just because they've also noticed that we're not going to see out the millennium with physical substrates identical to those we've had for the last 200,000 years. People who think their manifest destiny is to turn Jupiter into computronium so they can play 10^20 characters simultaneously in their favourite RPG are infinitely more odious and dangerous than the average person who thinks this whole subject is science-fictional gibberish and would really just like to have 2.3 children that are members of his/her own species, so long as they don't have cystic fibrosis and live a slightly better life than their parents.

I don't doubt that there are, also, some dangerously intemperate adherents to the notion of humanity retaining its ancestral traits forever ... especially if you throw in all the people who haven't given the issue a moment's thought, but would oppose it if it ever came to their attention (the "buy Jeremy Rifkin, get Osama bin Laden for free" argument). But for actual deranged monomaniacs on this particular subject, the pro side has a far higher proportion of nutjobs than its opponents."

This is a good text. I also don't like to publicly identify myself as a "transhumanist". There should be another word to describe it. Another problem is that the average individual isn't willing to spend the time and energy (for some the brain effort may be too huge) to understand the concept and all it's arguments and will just think "humans becoming machines? no thanks. now enough of this crap; where's my beer? super bowl is about to begin!" and he never thinks about it again.

This post has been edited by sam988: Apr 27 2008, 10:41 PM

Egan is certainly not alone in his negative views (but it really hurts when it comes from Egan!). I remember Ken MacLeod (author of a number of excellent transhumanist SF novels, such as "The Cassini Division") being very derisive regarding Extropians.

I went to an ASU lecture on Transhumanism and the guest speaker was quite harsh regarding us, especially when it was time for the punch and cookies. A later ASU workshop on Transhumanism that I attended was much more of the same and I was shocked by some of the comments I heard.

this is from my recent "repudiation of Transhumanism" posting:
After the lecture he mingled with the crowd over refreshments and then the real venom against Transhumanism came pouring out. Sarewitz very mockingly referred to the Singularity as a crazy essentially religious obsession Transhumanists had. And he spoke about how they envisioned god-like computers running things and saving us from ourselves. Sarewitz ridiculed Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Coming" and said the predictions were pie in the sky overly optimistic and basically just plain wrong. Oh, and the matter of Transhumanist fear of death (especially in middle aged Transhumanists) was also brought up as a reason why the Singularity was predicted to be within the lifespan of many somewhat older Transhumanists. As I listened to all of this I thought to myself, "these people really don't like Transhumanists and want to totally marginalize us!" And to think I always thought the Evangelicals and not the academics would be our sparring partners. lol
>>>

John Grigg

So we should tip toe around Joe Blow and his Super Bowl and come up with a term that will better accommodate his limited view of reality? I'm not interested in his participation if he cannot pull himself away from his beer and Super Bowl in the first place. As Michael stated in his chat this evening, we don't need everyone. We need hard working people capable of seeing beyond the rote jokes and dismissals.

In this discussion and the discussion about the ImmInst name change, the same themes come up: Someone might think we are crazy! What will the neighbors think! Person X said he would not participate because he doesn't like the term.

Then so be it! We don't need them, but they will need us at some point.

I'm not against name and term changes, but until new names and new terms are thought of that are creative and encompassing of the ideas they label, I see nothing better than what we have today.

I am more effective than 10 Joe Blows. Keep ME happy.

It's not the Joe Blows we need, it's influential people. This really goes beyond Joe Blows.

Yeah, I feel somewhat the same way. I guess I'm more in favor of the name change, at least for the institute, not really for transhumanism, but coming up with a good name is pretty hard.

hmm. Are you more effective than 10 scientists sitting on an NIH Study Section, deciding which grants to fund? Those are the kinds of people we'd like to influence.

I must say, when I started reading Egan's statement, I expected another ignorant bashing like Sarewitz'. (I'm not familiar with Egan) Egan at least has a keen grasp of the community, and frankly I agree with some of what he says. (Rifkin/bin Laden.. that's brilliant!) I don't agree with his central point, that "transhumanism" as a term is a big negative. That kind of surprised me. My God, what would he say about the name "Immortality Institute"!?

That's the right spirit if you can do without Joe B, Joe A, their family, their proclaimed religious and voted political representatives.

But you can't.

Transhumanism is a lot more than having to endure the ridicule of the masses for using a sunshade as umbrella.

The societal and demographic consequences, as perceived negatively by the general public and decision makers, rational or not, are real. Real as in having to deal with them and correct them. Exclude this part of society will not help to reach the goals, including them will.

But first we will need something tangible to include them into, so research has to come up with some results that are promising. Until that moment there's time to debate about this issue. On the other hand, if LE science produces results that are not to the liking of family Joe, their religious and voted political representatives and we did not explain it to them, well, just look at the position stem cell research is in today. And, uhm, wouldn't it be stem cell research that is likely one of the foundations for practical life and health extension?

Difficult? Yes. Avoidable? No.

This post has been edited by brainbox: Apr 28 2008, 03:21 AM

You say that we don't need the joe blows?? Where did you get that from? Without the "joe blows", we'll keep at our current state, with minimal support from society. I'm sure you don't want that do you?

We need them much more than they need us. In fact, they don't even know that they need us. We're still crawling as a movement that plans on changing society.

Individuals change the world. I have now been around enough SENS and other researchers to know these remarkable men and women will change the world. They work with a passion that is not diminished by the lack of support from Joe and Jane Blow, and it will be their work that finally convinces Joe and Jane Blow, not rebranding and not new words. If the Blows are not in awe of these researchers yet, they soon will be.

Don't get me wrong; I do believe in the power of marketing. But transhumanism is not just a word. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of doing. I believe much more strongly in the power of hard working people who could give a rat's arse whatever anyone else thinks about "Immortality" and "transhumanism".

I'm sorry, but I can do without them. No one is stopping me; no one is stopping us. I don't mean this as some sort of inspirational speech; I mean it in all reality. When I finally realized that no one every stood in my way, then I became unstoppable. No funding? Get creative. Everyone laughing at you? Ignore them. Make a mistake? Do again.

We spend way too much time worrying about religious people and politicians and authors who scoff at us. We might be wrong. That goes with the territory. We also might be right, and we won't find out any sooner by spending time worrying about criticism.

There are families who are transhumanist, and of course there are disagreements about all sorts of philosophies and ways of life. I disagree with much that he says, I'm sure he'd not want to die tomorrow, and would want to help alleviate problems of innequity in this world--like most of us humans. What is called transhuman, is what we wish to become--better than what we are, it is manifest destiny, our by product of being conscious of our own evolution and having the means to take it into our own hands.

I'm trying to make the world a better place for my children, by being a transhumanist--I know many people who also could care less about the topic, good friends of mine at my church who are focused on their lives and making the world a better place in some small way. I know that many of them also will not read Greg Egan's piece, nor would they care to.

I'd love to talk to him .

Just 10 Joe Blows. I'm not yet up to the 10 NIH Study Section scientists, but working on it. You know, though, they will be a lot more influenced by successful research than a new name for transhumanism.

Everyone might be avoiding the elephant(s) in the room, but technologies of special interest to transhumanists are in fact being well funded, by government, by investors, by the rich, by grassroots efforts. None of these entities may use the word "transhumanism" but it is writ large in their recent activities.

It's a Chicken / Egg problem though, isn't it? To get successful research we need to fund it, and we could do that much faster if we could tap NIH dollars instead of relying on the kindness of wealthy strangers or selling T-shirts. I don't see that much of a need to change the name of transhumanism. I'm more concerned about the I-word, myself.

What is imminst going to accomplish in this area on short term? If imminst likes debating, ok, that can be done without them, everything else, hmmm, is going to be difficult in the real world.

Well, I think that is up to us (the members and the board.) We are working on initiatives related to advocating for unlimited lifespans, and we have contemplated financial support for research. I think there is a lot we can do in the short time that does not require the support of everyone. We are already a dynamic team.

I know that.....

Just wanted to try to be somewhat provocative.

I think imminst could do more, but I also understand that it's much easier to say something like that than to actually act. Wouldn't it be more effective to try to motivate politicians and decision-makers in other area's of society to be more positive towards the imminst goals? To do some lobbying? These people either represent Joe B. and his family or are part of it. The fact that they're decision makers does not mean that they left their realm of average joeishness...

I totally agree with Richard's attitude on this. There is a distinct philosophical package involving numerous topics, not all of them futurist in nature. We have to call it something, and "transhumanism" works just fine. The etymology of the word can be understood by anyone familiar with "trans-" and the philosophy of humanism. If people have such a big problem with the word, it's likely only because they have a problem with the content to begin with. Egan, specifically, is all fussy about how many transhumanists take the notion of a hard takeoff Singularity seriously. Well, that's unfortunate -- but I'll keep presenting my arguments.

Yeah, the idea that it means genuinely transcending being human is a misnomer, albeit an easy mistake to make I think. I wonder if posthumanism is better, but then I guess it was already taken. All the same I don't know whether I'm a transhumanist. I'm not a paid up, card carrying anything, though many ideas from all over are of interest to me. I'm happy just to be a Ben I guess.

Although I'd probably say I'm a life extensionist if someone forced the issue. That being, a Ben who thinks life extension sounds good.

This post has been edited by ben: May 1 2008, 06:33 PM

Go ad free, join ImmInst as a Full Member.