Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion

Considering the theme of this month, I thought it might be interesting to talk a bit on our views of Transhumanism. Would you welcome it? Or does it seem like a nightmare to you?

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of developing and using such technologies. They speculate that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman". (x)

For more information, here is the Transhumanist Declaration and more information on the concept.

Examples are people such as Neil Harbisson. (Credit: Glaiza posted the link on the discussion page of He, She, and It.)

Hi! I don't know much about Transhumanism (this being my first introduction of the word) but I thought of something that may be relevant.

In the main discussion for He, She and It someone said this:

Lindsay wrote: "I am in love with fact that Piercy parallels the myth of the Golem to cyborgs. I cannot believe I never connected the idea that Golems were essentially archaic artificial intelligences. It is great..."

I agree with this comparison as well. Another thing I thought of while considering this comparison is that in the bible, god creates Adam out of dust/clay (and the breath of life) which is also how Golems are made.

If we are descended from Adam (and Eve), doesn't that make us Golems as well? And what does that mean for the issues of morality in creating sentient beings but keeping them enslaved via programming?

If, like Lindsay says, we are just archaic AI, then what does that mean for the Transhumanism discussion? Does that make it ok to create/enhance humans toward a posthumn state? Or is it still morally wrong?

Ok, now that I'm rambling I'll stop and see if anyone smarter would like to add to that! :)

Oh, somebody answered! Thanks!

I've also heard about the concept quite recently, and I find it rather fascinating. I rather like how this rather positive view on technology contrasts with the books of this month. For example, in He, She and It and The Silver Metal Lover (view spoiler)[both androids die at the end. I've heard such a thing explained once as that androids are not even allowed to survive in literary space, so all in all, it's a bit of a negative view on technology. However, in He, She and It we did have Malkah who became a cyborg at the end, so there we do see a bit of Transhumanism. (hide spoiler)] Also in Cinder there is a big bias against cyborgs in that literary world.

I also agree with the comparison Lindsay mentioned. Interesting viewpoint that we are Golems too!

I meant to drop by here earlier but I've been reading another book with a chapter called 'Sticks and Stones and Cyberbones or The End of the Body as we Know It?' There's an interesting theory about human development along the lines of our bodies, minds and cultures evolving due to the integration of tools:

'Cyborgs of the Stone Age -

In this view, the backbone of the story of human evolution has been the story of perfecting our knack for incorporating an increasingly sophisticated assortment of physical tools into our flexible body schemas. We evolved from apehood to personhood by developing a deeply seated cybernetic nature. Tool use went from a supplementary survival skill to an innate drive - what we call the cybernetic instinct. We are able to fluidly and creatively reconfigure our body schema with ease; for us, it's as simple as picking up a stick, or a pair of scissors, or a key chain. The impulse to augment our bodies with artifacts was bred into us over ten thousands of generations on the African savanna...Not only can the human mandala learn to incorporate tools - it needs exposure to tools for normal human development to occur.'

The chapter goes onto talk about developing various virtual reality technologies that speak to the human senses.

I guess this ties into the idea mentioned above that we are just archaic AI in a way. The above talks about humans developing a cybernetic instinct, do people agree? I found this interesting article about defining cybernetics:

'“Cybernetics” comes from a Greek word meaning “the art of steering”. Cybernetics is about having a goal and taking action to achieve that goal. Knowing whether you have reached your goal (or at least are getting closer to it) requires “feedback”, a concept that comes from cybernetics.

In modern times, the term became widespread because Norbert Wiener wrote a book called “Cybernetics” in 1948. His sub-title was “control and communication in the animal and machine”...Wiener’s sub-title also states that both animals (biological systems) and machines (non-biological or “artificial” systems) can operate according to cybernetic principles. This was an explicit recognition that both living and non-living systems can have purpose. A scary idea in 1948.'

I think the negative portrayals of AI stems from that idea of creatures that question/challenge/depart from their original purpose as golems/tools. If we are also self-aware golems, our purposes are just as ambiguous/diverse and subject to change as shaped by many different aspects like culture, science and religion. Although I agree with the above, that challenging/questioning this state can be a positive experience as it was for Malkah in the story.

I've been wondering what the cross section is between people who embrace Transhumanism and those who actively bio-hack. This is one of those head scratchers that slip from the sacred (Timothy Leery) straight to the profane (Timothy Ferris).

@ Melissa do you know who said, "we are moving from a works of continuous partial attention to continuous augmented awareness" ? I can't remember where I heard that. It sounds too blurry to be Ray Kurzweil.

Are you interested in H+ ? Or repelled/terrified by it?

It might've been in this article: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...
I learned a lot :)

Lisa wrote: "It might've been in this article: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...
I learned a lot :)"

Great article ... I remember reading this when it came out -- I was happy for a week because of a new word I learned: the noösphere!

The quote's in there ... but no attribution :(

Yes, i liked that word too :) And 'the Nöocene awaits.'