Patrick Deneen on the science of politics and the conquest of nature:
For the ancients, man was bound by but not wholly defined as part of nature. The studies of natural phenomena and human affairs had to be distinct disciplines, for all of the reasons that nature and man are distinct in kind. On this view, “political science” was a distinct form of study from that of natural phenomena, requiring very different assumptions and approaches. The inauguration of the modern period was marked, among many other things, by the belief that human beings could be wholly understood through the same methods as natural things; thus, a new “science of politics” based upon the ideals of predictability and even control and manipulation of human beings was seen not only as possible but greatly desirable. The modern period also saw the reason for scientific inquiry shift from merely understanding how nature was governed to understanding how human beings could master it. Nature became not subject but object; and human inquiry was set not only in service of understanding politics, but manipulating nature for political ends.
It ought to come as no surprise, then, that these ideas might be carried further, so that human beings, as merely part of nature, could also be regarded as natural objects for manipulation. Man, too, could become no longer just subject but object. Many of the great horrors of the last century — from economic failures of all sorts to eugenics and worse — arose from this understanding. But a new movement today, calling itself transhumanism, carries these notions to their logical conclusion: human beings are not only manipulable objects, but raw, manipulable material; man himself, his very form, might be tinkered with, enhanced, and “reengineered,” like a species of crop or livestock. What becomes of the political animal when politics seeks not to meet his ends but to unravel them — not to serve him but to remake him?
December 2nd, 2011 | 5:13 pm
Of course, Joe doesn’t realize (or perhaps doesn’t want to realize) that Deneen’s critique of modern science includes a critique of the modern social science called economics. Deneen is quite explicit in indicating that modern economics is one of the most dangerous of the sciences.
But Joe wants Deneen’s critique to be limited to that which Joe doesn’t like – i.e. Joe’s happy to object to modern science’s nihilism in respect to abortion, but strongly supports modern science’s nihilism in economics. That is, for Joe, (economic) prices are entirely relative but (moral) values are absolute. Somehow, he believes that prices and values are entirely different phenomenon!
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:30 pm
But Joe wants Deneen’s critique to be limited to that which Joe doesn’t like
This doesn’t even make sense to me.
Are you saying his argument is invalid because he does not address some other part of the argument, other than that which he has selected as his topic?
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:40 pm
It would appear that Joe Carter in this case confined his blog post completely to quotation of the article. (Unless my web browser [Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 m] is somehow in error?) But isn’t socialism anyway that is more in keeping with “liberalism” as used in the article? Clearly capitalism is the “pre-modern” economic system?
December 4th, 2011 | 8:40 pm
Clearly capitalism is the “pre-modern” economic system?
Not at all, if you were Adam Smith you probably thought of ‘traditional’ economic systems as either mercantilism or the Medieval guild system. Capitalism as it is understood today is very modern. If you take a step beyond Adam Smith and define capitalism as the major players in the economic system are corporations loosely controlled by shareholders (which is what modern economics is, the cute examples of Adam Smith of pin factories and individual bakers are good illustrations of basic economic concepts but not the ‘gears’ of modern economies that we call ‘capitalist’ whether you’re talking about America, Europe, Japan or China) then you’re squarely well inside the boundaries of modernism.
I’m unclear how the passage Joe cites would apply to economics, though. Economics does not usually look at transforming human nature but takes human nature as a given in its models. For example, Adam Smith’s model takes the typical person to be rationally self-interested in his own advantage. He doesn’t ask how to make people that way and doesn’t assume that people must be convinced to act that way, they simply do. Even Marxism seems to assume that people rationally act in their self -interest and everything predicted from exploitation to revolution to communism comes about by ‘the typical person’ acting as what they see in their self interest.
If anything economics can be criticized for not being ‘transhumanistic’ enough. In other words simply assuming humans are what they are and won’t be changed hence the trick is to figure out the best way to achieve the most consumption for the greatest number possible for the least cost. If you think about rats in a maze seeking the cheese, economics is the science of figuring out the fastest way to navigate the maze. Rarely does the question get asked of whether the cheese is worth chasing.
December 4th, 2011 | 9:11 pm
I would also note that most of the transhumanist stuff I’ve read seems less about making humans ‘objects for manipulation’ than humans changing their own nature. I don’t think the transhumanist who would ‘upload his soul’ into a vast computer network is seeking for force unwilling humans into the Matrix. I think he is seeking a transcedental experience meaning to go beyond the bounds of his human nature. This would seem to imply that transhumanism is, in fact, more of a religion than a science. The ‘singularity’ for example is not a point at which humanity becomes predictable, bound by natural laws or engineered laws but unpredictable, unbound. Several thousand years ago you might have called this Enlightenment but instead of sitting under a tree to get it, you now have to sit in front of a computer screen.
December 4th, 2011 | 10:00 pm
I would also note that most of the transhumanist stuff I’ve read seems less about making humans ‘objects for manipulation’ than humans changing their own nature. I don’t think the transhumanist who would ‘upload his soul’ into a vast computer network is seeking for force unwilling humans into the Matrix. I think he is seeking a transcedental experience meaning to go beyond the bounds of his human nature
The problem is, the transhumanist thinks with glee that he is going to have an advantage over humans – but he will do so by forfeiting his humanity.
Scientists speak with great pleasure when they talk about how they or their offspring – however they choose to refer to their “post-human” creations – will replace humanity.
If you believe the universe is nothing, and you’re nothing, then the survival of the race maybe doesn’t matter – maybe it really is better to have your machine be the only thing in the universe; it may or may not be “alive”, but it’s yours, and that’s what counts, right?
But it’s not “rational behavior” for the rest of us as a race to incubate and nourish those who seek to overthrow (that is, destroy) us.
Transhumanism is the opposite of human rights. At one end of the extreme you have a world where every person would have human rights; at the other end of the extreme you have transhumanism. Sounds more like a nightmare than a dream to me.
December 5th, 2011 | 7:33 am
The problem is, the transhumanist thinks with glee that he is going to have an advantage over humans – but he will do so by forfeiting his humanity.
Does he really? Just to use a concrete example, suppose its possible to ‘upload into the Matrix’ and read every book ever published in Amazon.com’s database (or every book with 4+ stars). True that’s something no actual human could do (reading two books a day you could maybe make a tiny dent in it over a 90 year lifetime of good health). Is it an advantage? Well not really. It’s not like the transhumanists goal is then to go back into a human body and snatch a job a prime job as an English teacher from Blake using his ‘advantage’ of being so much more well read. His goal is still to be a better person by being able to asorb so much.
While he is going to ‘leave behind’ humans who don’t want such an experience, I do not think the primary motivation is to gloat over being better than the rest of humanity. His motive would seem to be more along the lines of Buddha’s motives with enlightenment. Achieve a better state which others may enjoy and benefit from as well. In other words, this is still more a religious way of looking at things than a scientific one.
If you believe the universe is nothing, and you’re nothing, then the survival of the race maybe doesn’t matter – maybe it really is better to have your machine be the only thing in the universe; it may or may not be “alive”, but it’s yours, and that’s what counts, right?
Getting kind of paradoxical here aren’t we? If you are ‘nothing’ then how is the machine ‘yours’? In other words, what do you own if you are really nothing? If you really believed in nothing then you’re own survival would be everything…to the degree that you part of a ‘race’ then the race’s survival runs a close second place. In fact transhumanism seems to share some characteristics of early Christianity (when Christians believed the world would soon end) and other religions in that it holds there’s something beyond the mere biological human existence, something more worthy and more noble. You might bash transhumanism for aspiring too much to God-like status, although I think the Tower of Babel is a better analogy, not aspiring to be God so much as to get closer to God…..isn’t the whole ‘Matrix idea’ really, at its core, about transcending finitism and merging with infinity?
Transhumanism is the opposite of human rights. At one end of the extreme you have a world where every person would have human rights; at the other end of the extreme you have transhumanism. Sounds more like a nightmare than a dream to me.
Either way seems possible. As they say, it will depend greatly on its execution.
December 5th, 2011 | 9:59 am
Criterion recently released on DVD a re-mastered edition of The Island of Dr. Moreau. I recommend it not only for Charles Laughton’s superb performance, but because it is more timely than it was in 1932.
December 5th, 2011 | 11:45 am
Blake –
Actually… one of the problems with the ‘transhumanist’ types is the lack of actual science practitioners among them. I rather suspect most scientists see the problems – both practical and philosophical – with the idea.
December 5th, 2011 | 4:18 pm
“Replace humanity” has a nasty sound to it, but I think it is more often posed as a question/prediction about the deep future. Let’s just assume it is possible to ‘upload’ oneself thereby either detaching the mind from the body or being able to alter the body in any manner. Also assume that some portion of humanity is willing to try this, even a small minority and the rest isn’t.
In terms of ‘deep time’ it’s unknown whether or not humanity as we know it is viable. We know that the earth has maybe a few billion or so years until the sun swallows it. After that outer planets in our solar system can be used to buy some more time but the sun itself will have a finite lifespan. So then you move into interstellar travel.
In that regard, ‘transhumans’ would have a natural edge. Barring the discovery of wormholes or ‘warp drives’, trips would require multiple lifepsans to complete which wouldn’t appeal to many ‘old fashioned humans’. It would be much less expensive in terms of energy if all you had to do was send ‘transhumans’ off to another star as a set of encoded radio signals.
While no genocide would be required, you would have a situation where old fashioned humans would quietly get drowned out as uncountable numbers of ‘transhumans’ zip and multiply throughout the galaxy and universe either in ‘the matrix’ or in bodies modified to endure long term space travel. In the end you end up with something akin to modern Americans and the Amish but much more extreme. You may have the entire galaxy filled with trillions of ‘transhumans’ with a tiny niche of a few planets (perhaps protected by special laws) of several hundred billion ‘old school humans’.
December 5th, 2011 | 7:21 pm
Well not really. It’s not like the transhumanists goal is then to go back into a human body and snatch a job a prime job as an English teacher from Blake using his ‘advantage’ of being so much more well read.
That’s right: it’s just me being paranoid and insecure.
Dismiss the content: attack the character.
December 5th, 2011 | 7:25 pm
Either way seems possible. As they say, it will depend greatly on its execution.
Is it possible to reject humanity without also rejecting the concept of human rights?
I can’t see how.
December 5th, 2011 | 8:50 pm
Dismiss the content: attack the character.
I’ve dismissed the character for lacking content.
Is it possible to reject humanity without also rejecting the concept of human rights?
Define rejecting humanity in this context. Would it be rejecting humanity to embrace a cure for cancer? What about a set of medical treatments that could reasonably provide one with a lifespan of 300 years? 500 years? What about simply stopping the aging process at about 26 or so? I could see all of these things getting embraced by human beigns acting, well very humanly. But I think those things would also impact what it is we would mean by ‘human nature’.
December 6th, 2011 | 11:50 am
I’ve dismissed the character for lacking content.
If you’re just going to attack me personally all the time, I’m going to skip reading your posts.
It’s tiresome, it’s annoying, it’s insulting, and it doesn’t even make for a good argument – it just makes you look impotent. Sometimes it amuses me: I assume you wouldn’t be sputtering with rage if I hadn’t struck a nerve. But other times it is very upsetting to be constantly attacked at a personal level, and honestly I wish you’d stop.
December 6th, 2011 | 12:29 pm
I think the issue with transhumanism is one not so much of intent but consquence. The signularity hypothesis, specifically, comes about because if present patterns continue to hold we will reach a point where computing power will meet and exceed that of the human brain. At that point I think we’ll be confronted with several possible ethical/moral/religious issues:
1. Human created life? We will see computer intelligences that will appear to be sentient, living minds. They will not be humans who ‘uploaded’ but they can be said to be descended from humans or ‘our children’ in a manner of speaking. One argument may be that they aren’t really alive but are only remarkably good simulations of intelligence that can fool a human brain.
2. The question of whether the mind is material? If you’re able to map the brain atom by atom and you have singularity type computing power, you can ‘upload’ a brain into a computer. Quantum physics would probably require that the original brain get destroyed in the process. In principle the reverse can also be done, a mind inside a computer can get ‘downloaded’ into a constructed brain/body built up atom by atom. If someone invents such a machine, I’m certainly not going to volunteer to use it. But someone will. Say it appears to have worked. What or who exactly is in the computer? Is it the person? A copy of the person? A simulation of a person who is really dead? You can call this the dark side of Star Trek’s relatively innocent seeming transporter idea….or if you ever saw the film The Prestige you’ll know the problem.
3. The consquences of pragmatic immortality – Cure cancer, cure diabetes, cure heart disease….make it so that you can grow organs as needed. Ultimately you can probably even stop aging. You’ve now achieved a pragmatic immortality. Yes you’ll probably still die. Every year you run the risk of getting killed in an accident. A new ‘natural lifespan’ of thousands of years plus means you’ll almost certainly run into a fatal accident at some point (or killed by crime, war, or some other violence). If that fails, however, you’ll still confront death either at the end of the solar system or in the ‘big rip’ billions of years in the future when the universe’s expansion gets so rapid even atomic particles start to get ripped apart. But while we may stumble upon immortality without intending to ‘reengineer humanity’, I think it would have some very important consquences for what we would see as human nature.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact