The Transhuman Security Dilemma
Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 21 Issue 2 – December 2010 - pgs 32-48
Abstract
Developments in genetics, cyber-technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other areas hold the promise – and the peril – of redefining what it means to be human. In addition to hedonism or a desire for self-improvement, the possibilities of these technologies plus the rational concern of falling behind a potential adversary produce a classic security dilemma. These competitive pressures among states, firms, and emerging “super-empowered individuals” encourage the development and dissemination of these technologies, and already the possibilities are being explored by actors in conflict. This security dilemma, plus the nature of the technologies themselves, makes it virtually certain that attempts at regulation will fail. Instead, we should expect “arms races” of quantity and quality of improvements, complicated by differing conceptions of what improvement means. This paper explores these pressures and outcomes, as well as general consequences of the potential modification of “human nature” for global and human security. It finds that whatever forms or enhancements we possess, in a transhuman or posthuman future politics will not be transcended. Critical problems of security will continue to challenge ourselves and our descendants.
Introduction
Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the
force that made us… Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we
wish to become.1
There is a set of emerging technologies which, singly and synergistically, have the potential to overshadow nuclear power in their effects on the international system. Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) technologies have progressed to the point that they raise the prospect of the evolution-through-design of human beings – as individuals, as societies, and as a species. By challenging our most basic assumptions regarding what it means to be a human in society, NBIC technologies may well render much of contemporary sociology, political theory, and economics obsolete. They raise the immediate possibility of a transhuman era, with transhuman or even posthuman politics. By altering what have been assumed as defining characteristics of humanity – including individuality, empathy, mortality, physicality, and levels of intelligence – they change the context of politics.
It is safe to assume that transition through a transhuman era will not be smooth. It will not affect all persons at once, or to the same degree. It will also be shaped by current structures, conflicts, and notions of what improvement actually means. It will take place from within a system of competitive states, firms, nongovernmental organizations, and “superempowered individuals,” each with an interest in the application of NBIC technologies for relative advantage. Although the designs will not be random, there will still be the interaction of types within a competitive environment that leads to evolution – and evolution by its nature leads to unexpected and contingent outcomes. The security implications are enormous, up to and including the possible extinction of the human species.
1. Technologies of directed evolution
NBIC technologies are in fact a constellation of four converging technologies. Nanotechnology involves structures on the scale of 10-9 meters. It is the construction and manipulation of objects on the scale of a single molecule. Biotechnology refers to the modification and use of organisms, or parts or products thereof, to achieve ends. Information technology refers to the integrated systems of computer hardware, software, and networking. The cognitive sciences and their applications refer to the study of intelligence and intelligent systems, both cybernetic and biological. The convergence of these fields comes from the fact that at the nanometer scale the differences between living and nonliving systems are indistinguishable. The body (including the brain, and whatever we call “mind”) can be restructured.
Human genetic engineering, the most commonly recognized of these technologies, may either modify somatic (body) cells or germ cells (gametes, zygotes, early embryos). Somatic modifications, sometimes known as gene transfer or “gene therapy,” never result in a heritable trait. Germ modification, or germline manipulation, affects future generations (Adams 2004, 16-17). While germline manipulation has taken place on animals for around twenty years, there are as yet no confirmed cases of human experiments. Some experts have suggested for legal and regulatory reasons it will be at least fifteen more years before human tests will be conducted (Adams 2004, 19-20); if these considerations were ignored germline manipulation could be underway today. Already, cultural differences exist in the regulation of stem cell research. As of 2004, a survey of thirty countries found no two shared a common regulatory regime. Instead, “policymakers must accept the reality of international ‘dissensus’” (Pattinson and Caufield, 2004). Moreover, history indicates that even when there is a consensus on the limits of human testing, it may be deficient or ignored in practice
READ MORE http://jetpress.org/v21/mcintosh.htm
Abstract
Developments in genetics, cyber-technology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other areas hold the promise – and the peril – of redefining what it means to be human. In addition to hedonism or a desire for self-improvement, the possibilities of these technologies plus the rational concern of falling behind a potential adversary produce a classic security dilemma. These competitive pressures among states, firms, and emerging “super-empowered individuals” encourage the development and dissemination of these technologies, and already the possibilities are being explored by actors in conflict. This security dilemma, plus the nature of the technologies themselves, makes it virtually certain that attempts at regulation will fail. Instead, we should expect “arms races” of quantity and quality of improvements, complicated by differing conceptions of what improvement means. This paper explores these pressures and outcomes, as well as general consequences of the potential modification of “human nature” for global and human security. It finds that whatever forms or enhancements we possess, in a transhuman or posthuman future politics will not be transcended. Critical problems of security will continue to challenge ourselves and our descendants.
Introduction
Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the
force that made us… Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we
wish to become.1
There is a set of emerging technologies which, singly and synergistically, have the potential to overshadow nuclear power in their effects on the international system. Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno (NBIC) technologies have progressed to the point that they raise the prospect of the evolution-through-design of human beings – as individuals, as societies, and as a species. By challenging our most basic assumptions regarding what it means to be a human in society, NBIC technologies may well render much of contemporary sociology, political theory, and economics obsolete. They raise the immediate possibility of a transhuman era, with transhuman or even posthuman politics. By altering what have been assumed as defining characteristics of humanity – including individuality, empathy, mortality, physicality, and levels of intelligence – they change the context of politics.
It is safe to assume that transition through a transhuman era will not be smooth. It will not affect all persons at once, or to the same degree. It will also be shaped by current structures, conflicts, and notions of what improvement actually means. It will take place from within a system of competitive states, firms, nongovernmental organizations, and “superempowered individuals,” each with an interest in the application of NBIC technologies for relative advantage. Although the designs will not be random, there will still be the interaction of types within a competitive environment that leads to evolution – and evolution by its nature leads to unexpected and contingent outcomes. The security implications are enormous, up to and including the possible extinction of the human species.
1. Technologies of directed evolution
NBIC technologies are in fact a constellation of four converging technologies. Nanotechnology involves structures on the scale of 10-9 meters. It is the construction and manipulation of objects on the scale of a single molecule. Biotechnology refers to the modification and use of organisms, or parts or products thereof, to achieve ends. Information technology refers to the integrated systems of computer hardware, software, and networking. The cognitive sciences and their applications refer to the study of intelligence and intelligent systems, both cybernetic and biological. The convergence of these fields comes from the fact that at the nanometer scale the differences between living and nonliving systems are indistinguishable. The body (including the brain, and whatever we call “mind”) can be restructured.
Human genetic engineering, the most commonly recognized of these technologies, may either modify somatic (body) cells or germ cells (gametes, zygotes, early embryos). Somatic modifications, sometimes known as gene transfer or “gene therapy,” never result in a heritable trait. Germ modification, or germline manipulation, affects future generations (Adams 2004, 16-17). While germline manipulation has taken place on animals for around twenty years, there are as yet no confirmed cases of human experiments. Some experts have suggested for legal and regulatory reasons it will be at least fifteen more years before human tests will be conducted (Adams 2004, 19-20); if these considerations were ignored germline manipulation could be underway today. Already, cultural differences exist in the regulation of stem cell research. As of 2004, a survey of thirty countries found no two shared a common regulatory regime. Instead, “policymakers must accept the reality of international ‘dissensus’” (Pattinson and Caufield, 2004). Moreover, history indicates that even when there is a consensus on the limits of human testing, it may be deficient or ignored in practice
READ MORE http://jetpress.org/v21/mcintosh.htm
Comment
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
What is Reality? Ask Dr. Steven Greer Pt. 2
What would happen if mankind’s direction were suddenly transformed toward what was ultimately for…See More
How Man-Made Clouds Can Help Save Coral Reefs
Scientists have come up with a unique strategy for protecting corals in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. @nikolajcw meets an oceanographer to see how man-made...
Can it get any Sicker !
"Sick, sad, gut wrenching and true. It is understandable why so many families are fleeing Britain…"
© 2025 Created by truth.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!
Join 12160 Social Network