Over the past thirty years, mankind is rapidly trying to reach heights in all spheres of life through continuous scientific work, which has given us such opportunities as, for example, communication with any point of the planet thanks to the Internet, digital storage of any information we need, as well as achievements in bioengineering: the ability to transplant any organ or even replace the whole circulatory system. But what will happen if we combine digital and nanobiological areas of science and direct them in one direction, namely to improve the welfare of mankind as a whole?
The answer on this question is covered in new social phenomenon – transhumanism, which shocked all scientific world about twenty years ago, the purposes of which are to modify and adjust the physiological and cognitive capabilities and limitations of the human species. If the movement had initially been doomed to failure because of the de facto lack of necessary scientific discoveries, there would not have been such a heated debate on the topic at present. However, with the passage of time the growth of technological development is striking in its extensiveness, and scientists by their natural desire to acquire more and more knowledge, as the past shows us, cannot always correctly calculate and control the consequences of what they invent.
Nevertheless, according to current scientific expectations about possible transhumanistic technologies, which have already proved itself by experiments on mice, such utopic ideology about our future meets many contradictions. One of the main issues, which can outcome from transhumanism, in my opinion, is the emergence of a new social inequality against the background of having and not having these technologies in countries in an era of rapid development of globalization. To understand clearly what effect it would have for humanity, it is necessary first to point out what exact perspectives can be expected for now and what are the reasons for such arguments of scientists. Accordignly, In my essay I would like to consider the casual?? “CAUSAL” MAYBE?? problems of this social movement, based on opinions of scientific articles, which reveal the essence of transhumanistic future's main difficulties from different points of view. Especially, my focus will be on conditions, which formulate contradictions in the field of economic and social development of all transhumanistic world.
The tempting concept of transhumanism offers us a number of unprecedented services and technologies, the purpose of which is to facilitate our lives and overcome the limits of the possibilities of the biology of the human body. Thus, humanity will no longer be subject to natural evolution, since it will be perfect and will control its own artificial evolution based on artificial intelligence. Since all the necessary tools to improve and remove ailments will be in the hands of mankind, problems such as illness, disability and death will no longer stand in our way. Everyone will be perfect and maximally modified. The history already knows the successful interaction of machines and people at work: with the example of the industrial revolution, we can see how labor relations have changed in favor of people in terms of the manufacturability and efficiency of the goods produced that have become available to any working era of industrialization. If a machine is capable of performing mechanical work for a person, then what prevents us, in the information age, from maximally modifying the capabilities of machines not only for the sake of greater productivity, but also multifunctionality? Why is there a lot of discussion in the scientific space if we already see the success of nanotechnology and robotics?
In addition to the problem of human biological self-consciousness, there is an equally important problem that has its roots in the economic imbalance of the development of the countries of our world. Despite the flourishing ideas of democracy and the free market, we see the situation of developing countries and third world countries, where poverty and an underdeveloped socio-economic infrastructure still prevail. Globalization partially provides an opportunity for greater international trade and financial investments, however, fixed capital is still concentrated in the hands of developed countries, where we are witnessing the continued growth in the development of technology in the name of improving the well-being of “all” humanity. Based on these problems, we have the negative consequences that humanity faces due to cultural and social inequality.
The rather convincing title of the article by journalist Ronald Bailey from the Washington Post speaks of the inability of people to objectively assess the possibilities of future technologies. Well, here are some objective conclusions that may follow after reading this article.
In the words of Bailey, – “Transhumanists advocate the advancement and application of modern biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology to empower human beings to evolve and flourish beyond their current physical, cognitive, psychological and even moral limitations. “
A very noble goal, setting each person equal to each other. He also claims that in the future, every American will be able to afford any use of these technologies for quite a small price if his calculations regarding extensive US GDP growth are correct. Great, but what about less economically developed countries? How will American technologies be integrated to other countries? Let us return to the picture of the real world: now we are much less developed countries, and much more economically unstable states, whose salary per person is no more than five dollars a day. If we make calculations based on data from such countries, then what equal use of innovative technologies in developed countries can we talk about? Will charity also be at its peak, or will an illegal market emerge to replace it, which at a lower cost will supply people with untested technologies?
Let us return to the picture of the real world: now we are much less developed countries, and much more economically unstable states, whose salary per person is no more than five dollars a day. If we make calculations based on data from such countries, then what equal use of innovative technologies in developed countries can we talk about? Will charity also be at its peak, or will an illegal market emerge to replace it, which at a lower cost will supply people with untested technologies? Obviously, the fact that in America any citizen can improve their physiological and cognitive abilities due to a strong economy will greatly aggravate the social stratification of the whole world and lead to even more cultural inequality, the reaction of which can be seen to the actions of today's Middle East and East Africa. Moreover, if Bailey asserts that “there is no a priori reason to think that the same liberal political and moral principles that apply to diverse human beings today would not apply to relations among future humans and transhumans” , so, in this way he confirms that in the future the political order of the world will be the same, what means at least the existence of limitations of such political regulatory system. If the author was concentrated on economical readiness of America to make such future, so, how he guarantees development of all over the world? It seems to be clear that our world is historically not ready for transhumanistic future.
In confirmation of the above, I would like to draw attention to the reactionary article of the American philosopher Francis Fukuyama, who radically accepted transhumanist ideas. The focus of his article is on the legal aspect of the problem of transhumanism, where he argues that in any case there will be those who have been modified and those who have decided to leave their biological origin. Two problems arise from this: how will the more “perfect” and ordinary interact with each other and will the new legal system be created for modified people and, if so, how will it differ from our basic ethical legal and moral norms. Fukuyama addresses a rhetorical question to transhumanists, pointing out to the inevitability of the division of all humanity into two camps: “If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? “ p. 42 Thus, he expresses confidence in the negative changes in the future with the introduction of technology directly into the biological component of man.
The skepticism of the Fukuyama legal issue is also confirmed by the article “Science, Technology, and Morality”, in which the vagueness of the legal relations between people and transhumans is shown by the prevalence of their biological origin in ordinary people, and in transhumans their incredible abilities compared to people: “If a group of humans were genetically engineered with various enhancements, such that they become superior in ability to ordinary humans, and also diverge from ordinary humans to the point that they cannot reproduce with humans, it would be reasonable to say that these individuals are not humans, and yet it would also seem unreasonable to deny them the same rights as humans, particularly since they have superior abilities” This dilemma challenges the modern moral theory if, based on the success of the Turing test, we are forced to admit that trans people or cyborgs will claim human rights, despite their fundamental differences.
On the other hand, if we turn to the prologue of the book of the American scientist N. Katherine Hayles Prologue, How We Became Posthuman, then we can again seriously think about the historical process of the intellectual development of mankind, which most confidently manifested itself in the Enlightenment, where, like in the ideas of transhumanism, the direction towards absolute cognition. By correlating the existing machines that we already have, once again imposing test results similar to the Turing test, we can also agree that humanity can move from the material form of consciousness to the “distribution cognitive system”.
From the point of view of integrating the flows of our consciousness into other bodies, Ray Kurzwell in his article points only to the convenience of using these transhumanist creatures that will be necessary for every “new” person who has passed into the “sixth era” of intellectual development: “From the perspective of biological humanity, these superhuman intelligences will appear to be our devoted servants, satisfying our needs and desires” At the same time, he is firmly convinced of the position that all people, one way or another, will become intellectually perfect, so there is no need to talk about the social and legal aspects of such development, which means that this idea is utopian.
And, finally, if we still accept the whole utopian and potential impossibility of such a world of perfect minds, then our life as a result will seem to be nothing more than complete insecurity and dependence on these technologies. According to Joy Bill in his article, in which he examines in detail any possible transhumanist societies, – “Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.“ Thus, even if the socioeconomic problem of humanity is solved by arranging everyone, then for a man, as for a creature that once had the ability to think creatively and critically, its main distinguishing feature from all animal species will be lost.
So what is the transhumanistic future for us, given the active introduction of technology into our lives, despite the fact that the majority of the population of our planet is not yet able to apply this on themselves? One thing is clear: the more we pay attention to the possible consequences, the harmless will be the result of our achievements in the real improvement of our world: free access to any information, the ability to move from one point of the world to another for a short time and, of course, develop imagine the spiritual and intellectual development that could be really useful to society.