I was in my apartment playing, albeit a little too loudly, an electronic dj mix by armin van burren when my neighbor knocked on the door.  After complimenting me on my choice in music, he invited me to a party at his place later that evening.  From that point we started a friendship in which he shared with me topics like military technologies, gaming as entertainment, and the most shocking, transhumanism.

Wikipedia describes transhumanism as…

Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human cognitive and physical abilities and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as disease and aging.

The key point in this quote is about enhacing the human cognative and physical abilities.  Transhumanism’s goal, simply stated, is to transcend human existence with technology.  While this idea may seem a bit outlandish, compelling cases are made based on scientific evidence and historical patterns.

Any computer scientist can tell you about a commonly accepted vision called Moore’s law.  This law describes the exponential speed increase in computer chips seen in the past three decades.  In layman’s terms, Moore’s law explains why 3 year old computers are only worth $50.  This law is expanded on by futurist, Ray Kurzweil.

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The ‘returns,’ such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

Using technology to modify existence rests uneasy with many people.  Counterpoint to transhumanism, Critic Francis Fukuyama cites this movement as one of the world’s most dangerous ideas.

Transhumanism’s advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process—products whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we weren’t violent and aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt (and transhumanists are just about the last group I’d like to see live forever). Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome.

While perhaps future postulations are far fetched, there is little argument to be had with current advances in machine intelligence, nano computing, and bio technologies.  We are moving in the direction of advanced human modification.  Whether labeled as part of the transhumanism movement or not, it’s happening.  The only thing stopping this is whether or not we think it’s ok to alter humans.

[ The topics for Flame On are chosen by the individual poster, not by an Urban Monarch consensus. Consequently, the posts don’t represent Urban Monarch’s opinions as a whole (and not even necessarily the opinions of the individual poster). ]