Luddism, Transhumanism & Evolution
May 25th, 2009
I spend a majority of my time these days, thinking about the future, and what it could mean for the human civilisation. I don’t think that I necessarily think about technology all the time, but humanity as a whole. As we reach the technological singularity of this century, many aspects of our lives will change rapidly. I think what’s interesting about now, and specifically now, is that lots of technologies are falling into their respective places, assembling themselves into a nearly-solved puzzle, complementing each other, and making the possibility of a singularity even higher.
What many of us have overlooked however, is the fact that lots of people oppose change, and they do this with the utmost dedication, almost similar to the Luddite movement in the early nineteenth century. An interesting argument put forward by many Luddites is that technological advances are against nature itself. I strongly disagree. This could be looked at from many different perspectives, and the way I see it, technological advances define the very fundamentals of evolution. Luddism makes a strong point against this, and by doing so, they leave me confused as to where a Luddite should draw the line.
Let’s assume that a Luddite opposes the idea of transhumanism, or a human with every part of his body replaced by mechanical/bionic parts. The question is, when exactly does the Luddite start opposing the use of such bionic replacements? Are we not already making this transition towards a trans-humanist state by the use of medicine and surgery? If we already have widespread use of devices such as the MHV and bone replacements, how far we from a trans-humanist state? I believe that the shift towards trans-humanism started a long time ago, with the invention of the wheel, with the discovery of fire, to the first shuttle launch. So, does a Luddite stop taking cough medicine? Should a Luddite oppose the use of MHV if that was his only chance of survival? And at the rate that we’re advancing, it’s likely that almost the whole human body should be able to be replaced very soon. What would Luddites do then? Would they draw lines according to what they see fit? Would they use teleportation when it’s available, just becausei it’s fast and fits their needs, while at the same time refusing to replace their body parts just because it goes against a political/religious viewpoint?
When somebody argues that technologies such as cloning, cryogenics or transhumanism are dangerous, I sense a deep hypocrytic and senseless agenda. Evolution isn’t just our bodies evolving naturally over millions of years. When we replace a blind persons eye with a nanotech camera that is able to transmit feeds to the brain, we are not deviating from nature, because the technological advancement is natural itself. We humans as cavemen fought to survive against much larger animals and we conqeured the fields of medicine and made a 100-year life possible. Why should an immortal transhumanist state go against nature?
What Luddites fail to see is, that human change is evolution, evolution is natural, and by virtue, everything humans do for the collective advancement of humanity, must in fact be part of nature.




