POSTHUMAN DIGNITY: A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

By Stanley

PART I

A Short Reconstruction of Nick Bostrom’s "In Defence of  Posthuman Dignity"

The term “transhumanism” was first used by Julian Huxley, a biologist, in his book Religion Without Revelation (1927), meaning “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature” (Nick Bostrom, A History of Transhumanist Thought (2005), 7).

Nick Bostrom roots posthumanism historically on secular humanism and the Enlightenment, writing, “transhumanism … can be viewed as an outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightentmnt”. There is a relationship between Morandola’s position on human dignity and Bostrom’s, that is, human being is responsible to improve his/her life. Pico della Mirandola, in his book, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486), proclaims that man does not have a ready-made form and is responsible for shaping himself (A History of Transhumanist Thought, 2).

For Bostrom, posthumans are the modified humans who may have indefinite heath-spans, much greater intellectual faculties, new sensibilities or modalities, the ability to control their own emotions than any current human being through the help of developing technologies.

There are two fears of transhumanism by “bioconservatives:” the state of being posthuman might in itself be degrading, so that by becoming posthuman we might be harming ourselves, and posthumans might pose a threat to ordinary humans.

Even if Bostrom does not mention the religious background of Leon Kass, we can see or trace his religious convictions in his idea that all living beings (nature) are being bestowed with equal dignity with different styles, which is not to be modified or changed. … Human beings are higher or given special gift which other living beings do not have, and also should not be modified. If modified, it is dehumanizing. Kass is anxious that the final technical conquest of his own nature would almost certainly leave mankind utterly enfeebled, and anxious about the effects of technical mastery that homogenization, mediocrity, pacification, drug-induced contentment, debasement of taste, souls without loves and longings. In short, Kass is anxious about losing our nature because of technical mastery.

For Bostrom, in Brave New World, published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley, brave new worlders are subhumans not posthumans, and states, their

“capacities are not super-human but in many respects substantially inferior to our own. Their life expectancy and physique are quite normal, but their intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual faculties are stunted. They are barred or discouraged from developing individuality, independent thinking and initiative and are conditioned not to desire these traits in the first place. Brave New World is not a tale of human enhancement but a tragedy of technology and social engineering being used to deliberately cripple moral and intellectual capacities, which are the opposite of transhumanism”.

Bostrom argues the fears of the bioconservatives that

“nature’s gifts are sometimes poisoned and should not always be accepted. … Transhumanists never try to defer to the natural order, but to reform legitimately ourselves and our natures in accordance with humane values and personal aspirations. … Human society is always at risk of some group deciding to view another group of humans as fit for slavery or slaughter”.

He has positive view that transhumanism will not cause enslavement and discrimination among human and posthuman because we have laws and institutions which defend rights and responsibilities. Nowadays, people are becoming more accepting of diversity, which is a sign of will to live together amidst diversities.

Quoting from The Oxford English Dictionary, Bostrom defined dignity as (a) moral status, in particular the inalienable right to be treated with a basic level of respect, and (b) the quality of being worthy or honorable; worthiness, worth, nobleness, excellence. These two definitions are the same with “inherent dignity” we defined during our course. While Bostrom has positive idea that posthuman could have this dignity, Fukuyama is on the opposite side. For Fukuyama, “dignity is unique to human beings which other creation cannot possess”. He fears that unhenhanced humans might lose their moral status that is “a fundamental precondition of liberal democracy, the principle of equality for all,” because of introducing new kinds of enhanced person.

Bostrom argues that human and posthuman dignity is compatible and complementary because dignity consists in what we are and what we have the potential to become, not in our pedigree or our causal origin. Human nature is dynamic and improvable. We are trying to improve or enhance our nature through many means; reading, learning, earning, etc. Therefore, for him, there is no moral difference between technological and other means of enhancing human lives.

Part II

A Theological Evaluation of Bostrom’s Defence of Transhumanism

I would like to give two kinds of arguments for transhumanism (posthumanism): practical, religious or theological or ethical arguments.

Practical Argument

From practical point of view, Bostrom’s view on future technological progress is too optimistic and infeasible because human’s intellectual, knowledge and capabilities have limitation. I agree with Max Dublin’s argument that says, “Many past failed predictions of technological progress and modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate like historical parallels exist to millenarian religions and Marxist doctrines” (http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms accessed in November 21, 2011).

Secondly, Bostrom has over-confidence on future technological progress based upon human intellectual. No one can guarantee that future technologies could not fail. If there is something wrong and coming with different, even opposite, from what they expect, what will be their solution with human life? Over-confidence upon human intellectual is not only wrong with ethical but also very harmful for our society.

Religious, Theological and Ethical Arguments

From religious or theological point of view, it is inappropriate and dangerous of humans substituting themselves for God. The 2002 Vatican statement Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral," (http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms accessed in November 21, 2011).

Bostrom’s positive vision on human freedom and liberal politics that human enhancement technologies will be helpful for “morphological and reproductive freedoms” is very dangerous. As the bioconservative has argued, reproductive freedom “would constitute a kind of parental tyranny that would undermine the child’s dignity and capacity for autonomous choice” (In Defence of Posthuman Dignity).

There are two things that make our lives meaningful; limitation and relationship. Without limitation, there will be no struggling. Life will become a boring thing. Therefore, denial of limitation is morally wrong. I would like to quote Bill McKibben’s argument that says,

“It would be morally wrong for human beings to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span, and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. … human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically” (http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms accessed in November 21, 2011).

Human being is a social being. Human life is meaningful when it is shared with others. Life is enjoyable when there is relationship. As globalization creates individualism, transhumanism will also create more individualistic view of living. What is life without relationship? What is living without sharing and relationship?

From socioeconomic perspective, creating posthumans can create societal problems like inequality, oppression, even slavery as bioconservative has feared. Even though transhuamnists have positive view that posthumans will have better morality, I doubt, as they said, posthumans will also be humans with imperfection. As globalization period, developing and improving like posthumanism, brings benefits to the rich but not the poor, and creates bigger gap between the rich and the poor, the haves and the haves-not, the educated and the uneducated, etc, we cannot guarantee that transhumanism will not do the same thing. McKibben argues that “emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide" (http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Transhumanism_Criticisms accessed in November 21, 2011).

Concerning creation and nature, there are two theories: creationism and evolutionism. For the evolutionists, nature or creation is imperfect, as Bostrom stated. If we believe evolutionism, it is very difficult to differentiate or value human beings from other creation. There is no distinction between human beings and other creatures, which cause murder, massacre, and even genocide, like Hitler, who was regarded as evolutionist. For the evolutionists, there is no room for inferior to survive – “survival of the fittest.” In living, there is always freedom, and responsibility on the other side. In the Vatican document, “responsibility” is always emphasized. Even though we have freedom to modify ourselves, we have responsibility to maintain ourselves – be a better life and world (better life and world does not mean having a very long life-spans, having better intellectual as transhumanists have expected, but better relationship).

There is no room for contentment in human mind, which, I doubt, even posthuman cannot control. “Not all change is progress. Not all progress is perfect.”