The future of transhumanism | Anders Sandberg, Slavoj Žižek, Nicky Ashwell, David Pearce and more
Talk · The Institute of Art and Ideas ·
2022-11-25 · 0:23:28 · 3,235 words
technology-ai-cyberspaceideologysubjectivityethicscommunism-socialismphilosophy-general
A panel discussion on transhumanism, human enhancement and post-humanity, bringing together Žižek, Yuval Noah Harari, a bionic-hand user (Nikki) and other transhumanist/cyborg speakers. Žižek recounts Stalin's attempted ape-human hybridization, rejects bioconservative calls to limit science (Habermas, McKibben), and argues that the very possibility of intervening in the mind shows it was always already a mechanism. The talk's central Žižekian question is whether the 'wired brain' (Neuralink) means the end of freedom, or whether freedom was always only the 'user's illusion'.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 12
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The movement holding that changing oneself is core to being human, and that optimism about radical future good is a reason to safeguard against existential risk.
Threats to humanity's survival (bioweapons, nuclear war, asteroid impacts, unaligned AI) that transhumanists worry about precisely because they are optimistic about a radically good future worth saving.
A distinction: the cyborg is a passive theoretical approach to mechanization/augmentation; the transhuman is an active evolutionary merging with machines to enhance and augment.
The right to augment or enhance one's body provided it harms no one else, and the right never to be coerced into augmenting, diversification as an ethical principle.
as “liberal conservatives”
His coined label for bioconservative thinkers like Habermas and McKibben who, faced with brain sciences, want to put a limit on science to defend our ethical self-understanding.
His image for life once post-humanity arrives: life becomes 'just a combination of transparent algorithms, biological', stripped of mystery, reducible to manipulable code.
as “nature”
Under post-humanity nature 'will in some sense no longer be nature', it becomes 'another mechanism', losing its status as a natural given.
as “post-humanity”
The coming stage where biotechnical manipulation of brain and DNA makes life and nature themselves intelligible as mechanisms rather than as nature.
Žižek's phrase for direct brain-machine interfaces (Neuralink) that breach the inner citadel of free thought and put in question the very existence of freedom.
as “the user's illusion”
The philosophical idea (he half-attributes to 'some philosophers') that freedom may be only a phenomenal illusion, the open question he poses about the wired brain.
Once post-human life appears, it retroactively changes (in our view, not in reality) what the first life meant, the successor rewrites the predecessor.
A baseline below which no state should fall; a precondition of a civilized society is the abolition of involuntary suffering (any state below hedonic zero).
Stories he reaches for 1
In the late 1920s Stalin, convinced by a biologist, tried to breed a perfect worker who could read and write but was too stupid to rebel, by crossing humans and apes, apes imported from Congo (female apes, 'typical male chauvinism'), four strong Russian peasants made to copulate with them; it failed, and the scientist was unmasked as a British spy.
“to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes”
Works invoked 3
Homo Deus book
Referenced by Žižek as Harari's book framing the post-human question that he builds his wired-brain argument on.
Our Posthuman Future book
Fukuyama's book, summarized as arguing that human enhancement is risky and would change what it really means to be human in an inappropriate way.
Enough book
Bill McKibben's book, cited by Žižek as the limit-setting bioconservative position ('this should be the limit') that he rejects.
People invoked 9
Nigel Ackland positive
Late pioneering pilot of the Bebionic prosthetic limb; held up as a counter-example to techno-fetishism, he insisted he was 'differently abled', not 'enhanced'.
Neil Harbisson positive
A colorblind artist with a surgically implanted antenna letting him hear color, who treats the antenna as an organ and is presented as a paradigm of the psychological cyborg.
Francis Fukuyama negative
His book 'Our Posthuman Future' is summarized as throwing every argument against human enhancement, including the claim that it would change what it means to be human.
Yuval Noah Harari positive
Žižek's principal interlocutor: addressed as 'Yuval', engaged on his 'Homo Deus' / post-human thesis, and said to have 'said wonderfully' about medical pretexts; Žižek defers to him with 'I have faith in you to provide the answer'.
Kevin Warwick positive
Named (with Steve Mann) as a thought leader in the cyborgization of human biology, a friend of the speaker.
Bill McKibben negative
His book 'Enough' is cited by Žižek as the limit-setting bioconservative position he rejects.
Steve Mann positive
Named (with Kevin Warwick) as a thought leader in the cyborgization of human biology, a friend of the speaker.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Žižek rejects Habermas's bioconservative proposal to limit brain sciences so as to protect our ethical self-understanding; labels him a 'liberal conservative'.
Žižek recounts Stalin's ape-human hybridization experiment and frames him as the first to consciously attempt to engineer a docile worker race; a 21st-century Stalin could now do for real what the 20th-century one only dreamt of.
What it argues
transhumanism and the meaning of being humanthe Stalinist dream of engineering a new humanthe wired brain and the end of freedombioconservative limits on science (Habermas, McKibben)cyborg identity and morphological freedompost-humanity and the mechanization of natureretroactive redefinition of life
Dialectical moves 5
“Once I can...change your mind, that you become more brutal, more decisive, more intelligent, this means that already before I intervened, your mind was—functioned at this level. It was just different chemistry.”
The possibility of intervening in the mind reveals it was always already a mechanism, intervention does not violate a prior freedom, it exposes that there was none.
“With post-humanity, nature also will in some sense no longer be nature. It will become another mechanism.”
The loss of the natural is not a future violation but the truth of what nature always already was, post-humanity retroactively denatures nature itself.
“Forget about so-called egalitarianism of communism—what egalitarianism? Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest.”
Communist egalitarianism was always already its opposite, a project of biological subjugation and hierarchical race-engineering.
“Once we have Life this retroactively changes also in our view, not in reality, what life—the first life—is.”
Post-human life retroactively redefines what (first) life meant, the successor rewrites the meaning of the predecessor without changing it in reality.
“What is the real horror for me—but maybe there is some other emancipatory potential—is it's so-called wired brain.”
What appears as the ultimate threat to freedom may simultaneously be the site of an emancipatory potential, horror and emancipation coincide in the wired brain.
Claims 11
asserts
Stalin was the first to consciously attempt to engineer a specific race of docile workers who would work on modest food without protest.Stalinism and the real content of communist 'egalitarianism'
reframes
Communist egalitarianism was a sham — Stalin's project was never egalitarian but biopolitically hierarchical.the egalitarian self-image of communism
rejects
The Habermas/McKibben liberal-conservative solution of putting limits on science to protect our ethical self-understanding is mistaken.bioconservative limits on brain sciences and genetic manipulation
asserts
The fact that a chemical or surgical intervention can change your mind proves your mind was already functioning at that mechanistic level before the intervention — it was just different chemistry.the nature of mind and mental intervention
asserts
With post-humanity, nature will in some sense no longer be nature but will become another mechanism.post-humanity and the fate of nature
reframes
The real question raised by the wired brain is whether freedom is only the 'user's illusion'.freedom under direct brain-machine interfaces (Neuralink)
reframes
If brain signals can control movement outward, control can also flow inward — the medical uses of brain-machine interfaces are a pretext that conceals bidirectional manipulation.the medical justification for brain-machine interfaces
asserts
Optimism about a radically good future is precisely what motivates safeguarding humanity from existential threats; if the future is meh, there is no reason to save it.the link between transhumanist optimism and existential-risk concern · Yuval Noah Harari
asserts
A 21st-century Stalin could for the first time genuinely re-engineer the body down to DNA and create new human species or inorganic life — something the 20th-century Stalin could only dream of.the novel danger of 21st-century totalitarian biotechnology · Yuval Noah Harari
asserts
Being human is to be explorative, adventurous, adaptive and varied — enhancement must preserve individual variation rather than produce identikit clones.the meaning of being human and the danger of uniform enhancement · Nikki
asserts
A precondition of any civilized society is the abolition of involuntary suffering — every state below hedonic zero.the abolitionist project and recalibration of the reward circuitry · unknown
Quotes 9
“Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest and so on.”Slavoj Žižek · Stalin as bio-engineer of docility
“with post-humanity, nature also will in some sense no longer be nature. It will become another mechanism.”Slavoj Žižek · the mechanization of nature
“even if I'm in chains, can do nothing, you don't control my thoughts. I can think what I think.”Slavoj Žižek · the inner citadel of freedom
“Once we have Life this retroactively changes also in our view, not in reality, what life—the first life—is.”Slavoj Žižek · retroactive redefinition of life
“Is freedom just what we call—some philosophers—the user's illusion”Slavoj Žižek · freedom as illusion
“what is the real horror for me—but maybe there is some other emancipatory potential—is it's so-called wired brain”Slavoj Žižek · horror and emancipation in the wired brain
“liberal conservatives, I cannot call them in another way, like Jürgen Habermas, whose solution is...we should put a limit on science.”Slavoj Žižek · Žižek's label for the bioconservatives
“I have faith in you to provide the answer.”Slavoj Žižek · deferral to the human interlocutor on freedom
“Maybe we should just go to the pub and drown our sorrows.”Yuval Noah Harari · the deflationary alternative to optimism
Transcript 22 turns
unknown
But I do come at it from a practical perspective, being probably the only person in the room with a bionic enhancement. My
But I do come at it from a practical perspective, being probably the only person in the room with a bionic enhancement. My
unknown
exploration of future humans began about a decade ago when I met a man who had an ear surgically implanted into his arm.
exploration of future humans began about a decade ago when I met a man who had an ear surgically implanted into his arm.
unknown
Even if we technically and clinically can fix some of our shortcomings as humans, we still need to think about which aspects of being human actually are shortcomings, which of these changes might actually promise more than they can uphold, and what should we consider when we change ourselves in order to change us into something better rather than just something different.
Even if we technically and clinically can fix some of our shortcomings as humans, we still need to think about which aspects of being human actually are shortcomings, which of these changes might actually promise more than they can uphold, and what should we consider when we change ourselves in order to change us into something better rather than just something different.
unknown
And I did pretty much what anybody here would do on meeting a man with an ear in his arm. I asked him the question: why? He looked at me with this big smile on his face and he said: why not?
And I did pretty much what anybody here would do on meeting a man with an ear in his arm. I asked him the question: why? He looked at me with this big smile on his face and he said: why not?
unknown
Francis Fukuyama famously wrote a book, Our Posthuman Future, where he threw every argument he could imagine on the wall to try to argue that human enhancement was really bad. It was risky, it would have a lot of bad effects on society, but deep down there was this argument that it might change what it really means to be a human in such a way that it's not appropriate for humans to want to do that change. Now transhumanism as a movement would respond by saying: No, no, wanting to change oneself is one of the most human things ever. That's close to the core of what it means to be a human, trying to become better, maybe failing at it, but still trying. Now there is still a lot of risk involved in this changing of ourselves. You really want to be very careful before you start modifying bodies on a large scale. We've seen in the past that many technologies over-promise. But there is also another interesting link to existential risk. Many of the earliest people who were concerned about existential threats to humanity were also transhumanists. And that might seem very strange because aren't transhumanists these techno-optimists who think that we can solve everything with some nano-machines in the future? Why would they go on about total extinction or worse things? And the reason is of course if you're really optimistic about the future, you really want to get there and you want to safeguard it and make sure it happens. You might also be open to radical changes. And if you can have a radical change for good, you can also perhaps have radical change for bad, for the worse. So you really want to safeguard against that. And then comes the final little cherry on top: if you're optimistic about the future, you also think that we can do something about the threats facing humanity and get to the lovely futures that might be possible. If you think the future is meh, in that case why save it? And besides, if you think we can't actually do anything useful to improve our chances, well, why are we even talking? Maybe we should just go to the pub and drown our sorrows. While the transhumanist optimistic view that maybe there is something we can do and the future could become radically well, is a good reason to also try to fix things like bioweapons, nuclear weapons, asteroid impacts, and trying to make sure that if we get artificial intelligence, it's safe and beneficial and aligned with our interests.
Francis Fukuyama famously wrote a book, Our Posthuman Future, where he threw every argument he could imagine on the wall to try to argue that human enhancement was really bad. It was risky, it would have a lot of bad effects on society, but deep down there was this argument that it might change what it really means to be a human in such a way that it's not appropriate for humans to want to do that change. Now transhumanism as a movement would respond by saying: No, no, wanting to change oneself is one of the most human things ever. That's close to the core of what it means to be a human, trying to become better, maybe failing at it, but still trying. Now there is still a lot of risk involved in this changing of ourselves. You really want to be very careful before you start modifying bodies on a large scale. We've seen in the past that many technologies over-promise. But there is also another interesting link to existential risk. Many of the earliest people who were concerned about existential threats to humanity were also transhumanists. And that might seem very strange because aren't transhumanists these techno-optimists who think that we can solve everything with some nano-machines in the future? Why would they go on about total extinction or worse things? And the reason is of course if you're really optimistic about the future, you really want to get there and you want to safeguard it and make sure it happens. You might also be open to radical changes. And if you can have a radical change for good, you can also perhaps have radical change for bad, for the worse. So you really want to safeguard against that. And then comes the final little cherry on top: if you're optimistic about the future, you also think that we can do something about the threats facing humanity and get to the lovely futures that might be possible. If you think the future is meh, in that case why save it? And besides, if you think we can't actually do anything useful to improve our chances, well, why are we even talking? Maybe we should just go to the pub and drown our sorrows. While the transhumanist optimistic view that maybe there is something we can do and the future could become radically well, is a good reason to also try to fix things like bioweapons, nuclear weapons, asteroid impacts, and trying to make sure that if we get artificial intelligence, it's safe and beneficial and aligned with our interests.
unknown
Do not fall victim to clunky first-generation therapies that could have side effects. A majority of anti-aging products are patent pending. That means that they haven't been authorized. They're still waiting for their patents. And that's a very serious thing. So be careful. That's why the
Do not fall victim to clunky first-generation therapies that could have side effects. A majority of anti-aging products are patent pending. That means that they haven't been authorized. They're still waiting for their patents. And that's a very serious thing. So be careful. That's why the
unknown
largest group I put is gather information, sit back and wait. Let other people be the guinea pigs. Don't do anything to your mind or body that you don't need because it could cause an adverse reaction. So now we come to the point of biohackers. What about biohackers? Those who are hacking their body and putting magnets in their fingers or chips in their body? Well, that's very interesting. And Kevin Warwick and Steve Mann, both good friends of mine and who I respect and value very much, are thought leaders in that cyborgization of the human biology. That's very interesting, but it's not about living longer and it's not about taking charge or being the master of your fate and the captain of your ship in the journey of longevity. How we navigate that is very important. The difference between the cyborg and the transhuman is an important topic when we're talking about life and death. The cyborg is not a concept, a theory, it's not a philosophy, it's more a theoretical approach to the mechanization or augmentation of the human. That is a concept, it's not actual process. The transhuman is part of an evolution of human of our biology as we merge with machines. So they're two different concepts. They overlap a bit, but I wanted to clarify that, that the cyborg is not actively participating in enhancement and augmentation. It's more of a passive approach. The transhuman is an active approach in looking at human evolution and merging with machines and enhancing and augmenting. At this point in my talk I'd like to mention a few theories that are practice-based. One is morphological freedom. The concept of morphological freedom is that you have the right to augment, to enhance your body, as long as it doesn't hurt or damage anyone else or the environment. Likewise, a person ought never to be coerced to augment, to enhance their body if they do not choose. So just because some people want to live a longer life and maybe upload or coexist as avatars in cyberspace does not mean that everyone has to. Diversification is extremely important, not only in our investment in our longevity, but also in our attitude about other people.
largest group I put is gather information, sit back and wait. Let other people be the guinea pigs. Don't do anything to your mind or body that you don't need because it could cause an adverse reaction. So now we come to the point of biohackers. What about biohackers? Those who are hacking their body and putting magnets in their fingers or chips in their body? Well, that's very interesting. And Kevin Warwick and Steve Mann, both good friends of mine and who I respect and value very much, are thought leaders in that cyborgization of the human biology. That's very interesting, but it's not about living longer and it's not about taking charge or being the master of your fate and the captain of your ship in the journey of longevity. How we navigate that is very important. The difference between the cyborg and the transhuman is an important topic when we're talking about life and death. The cyborg is not a concept, a theory, it's not a philosophy, it's more a theoretical approach to the mechanization or augmentation of the human. That is a concept, it's not actual process. The transhuman is part of an evolution of human of our biology as we merge with machines. So they're two different concepts. They overlap a bit, but I wanted to clarify that, that the cyborg is not actively participating in enhancement and augmentation. It's more of a passive approach. The transhuman is an active approach in looking at human evolution and merging with machines and enhancing and augmenting. At this point in my talk I'd like to mention a few theories that are practice-based. One is morphological freedom. The concept of morphological freedom is that you have the right to augment, to enhance your body, as long as it doesn't hurt or damage anyone else or the environment. Likewise, a person ought never to be coerced to augment, to enhance their body if they do not choose. So just because some people want to live a longer life and maybe upload or coexist as avatars in cyberspace does not mean that everyone has to. Diversification is extremely important, not only in our investment in our longevity, but also in our attitude about other people.
unknown
And you can imagine a 21st-century totalitarian regime, a 21st-century Stalin, that you know, Stalin worked mainly with social engineering. He maybe wanted to re-engineer human biology, but he couldn't. He dreamt about creating a new man, a new human, the new Soviet, but he only had social engineering. So in the end when the Soviet Union collapsed, you still have human beings like they were in and we start again. In the 21st century, a new Stalin might have the ability first to really re-engineer the body down to the level of DNA and create new human species, and perhaps even to create completely inorganic life forms. So we can imagine millions of years of a new evolutionary track beginning with some 21st-century Stalin. And this is extremely frightening, especially because these kinds of people, they think in extremes. You know, I talk a lot with scientists who are developing these technologies, whether it's CRISPR and genetic engineering, whether it's AI, and most of these people, they think not only in beneficial terms but also in very narrow terms. Like I'm doing my research in order to help cure Parkinson's disease. It's a leap of the imagination to think what would the worst politician on earth do with the technology that I'm developing. But as a historian rather than as a biologist or as a computer scientist, this is the way my mind thinks. When somebody tells me how they are
And you can imagine a 21st-century totalitarian regime, a 21st-century Stalin, that you know, Stalin worked mainly with social engineering. He maybe wanted to re-engineer human biology, but he couldn't. He dreamt about creating a new man, a new human, the new Soviet, but he only had social engineering. So in the end when the Soviet Union collapsed, you still have human beings like they were in and we start again. In the 21st century, a new Stalin might have the ability first to really re-engineer the body down to the level of DNA and create new human species, and perhaps even to create completely inorganic life forms. So we can imagine millions of years of a new evolutionary track beginning with some 21st-century Stalin. And this is extremely frightening, especially because these kinds of people, they think in extremes. You know, I talk a lot with scientists who are developing these technologies, whether it's CRISPR and genetic engineering, whether it's AI, and most of these people, they think not only in beneficial terms but also in very narrow terms. Like I'm doing my research in order to help cure Parkinson's disease. It's a leap of the imagination to think what would the worst politician on earth do with the technology that I'm developing. But as a historian rather than as a biologist or as a computer scientist, this is the way my mind thinks. When somebody tells me how they are
unknown
now using CRISPR to try and overcome Parkinson's, I think, hmm, what would Stalin have done with it? Yeah, well from your perspective, what
now using CRISPR to try and overcome Parkinson's, I think, hmm, what would Stalin have done with it? Yeah, well from your perspective, what
unknown
is it to be human? Has that changed? Has your view of that perhaps changed since you got your prosthetic?
is it to be human? Has that changed? Has your view of that perhaps changed since you got your prosthetic?
unknown
Hmm. So, as these guys say, I think to be human is to be explorative and adventurous and to adapt, but also it's to be varied. So, one thing I can say is that there is somebody else in the world with a hand exactly like mine, and I don't think anyone else can say that. So, just thinking about the different types of technology and what we can implement, if we start to all wear bionic hands, then we all have the same hand and we take away something that is very crucial to us being humans, which is that we are all different. So how do we— we need to make sure that we maintain that identity and that being able to be our own unique people and we don't become some sort of identikit clones, which is definitely a very extreme ideal, but not something, you know, as a concept, I think we can all agree that we don't want that. So how do we let technology adapt our bodies and how do we become enhanced by technology, but without becoming identikit?
Hmm. So, as these guys say, I think to be human is to be explorative and adventurous and to adapt, but also it's to be varied. So, one thing I can say is that there is somebody else in the world with a hand exactly like mine, and I don't think anyone else can say that. So, just thinking about the different types of technology and what we can implement, if we start to all wear bionic hands, then we all have the same hand and we take away something that is very crucial to us being humans, which is that we are all different. So how do we— we need to make sure that we maintain that identity and that being able to be our own unique people and we don't become some sort of identikit clones, which is definitely a very extreme ideal, but not something, you know, as a concept, I think we can all agree that we don't want that. So how do we let technology adapt our bodies and how do we become enhanced by technology, but without becoming identikit?
unknown
So the definition of a human has to include room for variation? Yes. And do you consider your hand to be human
So the definition of a human has to include room for variation? Yes. And do you consider your hand to be human
unknown
or? No. It's become part of me in the sense that it's a possession that I care a lot about, and at times I've had, you know, negative reactions if somebody's touched it when I didn't want them to, in a possibly in a similar way to if somebody picked up my phone that I didn't know. So in a way it's become part of me, but it's not— it's not human. Okay, so going
or? No. It's become part of me in the sense that it's a possession that I care a lot about, and at times I've had, you know, negative reactions if somebody's touched it when I didn't want them to, in a possibly in a similar way to if somebody picked up my phone that I didn't know. So in a way it's become part of me, but it's not— it's not human. Okay, so going
unknown
from this starting point of what we understand a human being to be, should we enhance ourselves? Nikki, if I can go back to you first actually because, obviously you're on the panel and a lot of people would think that your hand is an enhancement. First of all, do
from this starting point of what we understand a human being to be, should we enhance ourselves? Nikki, if I can go back to you first actually because, obviously you're on the panel and a lot of people would think that your hand is an enhancement. First of all, do
unknown
you consider it that way? Um, I think it's an adaptation for me. You could say it was an enhancement because it's enabled me to do a few things that I couldn't do before I had it. So, just to give you some background, I was born without my right hand and then I got this one a year ago when I was so I'd already learned how to do everything in life without it and then I learned how to do everything in life with it so that I had that choice. Um, so in that sense it does enhance me slightly. But I would, as well as this being an enhancement that I've obviously embraced, I could never argue that we shouldn't enhance ourselves because I imagine everybody in this room already has. You know, if anybody's taken the contraceptive pill, they have made a choice and they have chosen to enhance themselves by not getting pregnant, or they've been vaccinated and they've chosen to enhance themselves by not getting rabies, I don't know. Um, so we already do things that prolong our lives and make us last longer in this world. I don't think anybody would
you consider it that way? Um, I think it's an adaptation for me. You could say it was an enhancement because it's enabled me to do a few things that I couldn't do before I had it. So, just to give you some background, I was born without my right hand and then I got this one a year ago when I was so I'd already learned how to do everything in life without it and then I learned how to do everything in life with it so that I had that choice. Um, so in that sense it does enhance me slightly. But I would, as well as this being an enhancement that I've obviously embraced, I could never argue that we shouldn't enhance ourselves because I imagine everybody in this room already has. You know, if anybody's taken the contraceptive pill, they have made a choice and they have chosen to enhance themselves by not getting pregnant, or they've been vaccinated and they've chosen to enhance themselves by not getting rabies, I don't know. Um, so we already do things that prolong our lives and make us last longer in this world. I don't think anybody would
unknown
turn around and say, actually I don't want my great uncle with cancer to have chemotherapy, I'd rather he just died and was, you know, part of natural selection. So there's no way I would argue that we shouldn't enhance ourselves.
turn around and say, actually I don't want my great uncle with cancer to have chemotherapy, I'd rather he just died and was, you know, part of natural selection. So there's no way I would argue that we shouldn't enhance ourselves.
Slavoj Žižek
Do you know Yuval, just to tell you this, I learned from some collection of texts, ideological debates and practical experiments, you know that Stalin tried already to do this? In the late 20s, Stalin was convinced by some stupid biologist that with some machinations—I don't know how—to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes. And they tried to do it. He sent a delegation to Congo, they import about gorillas, I think, apes—and typical male chauvinism, women apes. Of course. What can you do, that's it. Yeah, yeah. And then, and then they selected four very strong Russian strong farmer men, they made them copulate—okay, it didn't work. And then— Well, I was gonna
Do you know Yuval, just to tell you this, I learned from some collection of texts, ideological debates and practical experiments, you know that Stalin tried already to do this? In the late 20s, Stalin was convinced by some stupid biologist that with some machinations—I don't know how—to create a perfect worker which can read, write elementarily, but is too stupid to organize socially, to rebel, by coupling humans and apes. And they tried to do it. He sent a delegation to Congo, they import about gorillas, I think, apes—and typical male chauvinism, women apes. Of course. What can you do, that's it. Yeah, yeah. And then, and then they selected four very strong Russian strong farmer men, they made them copulate—okay, it didn't work. And then— Well, I was gonna
unknown
say, and that's how I came to be a biologist!
say, and that's how I came to be a biologist!
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, yeah. And then Stalin had to discover that this scientist was really a British spy, you know the story. But what I'm saying is that Stalin was already—forget about so-called egalitarianism of communism—what egalitarianism? Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest and so on. Once we have Life this retroactively changes also in our view, not in reality, what life—the first life—is. Because life becomes just a combination of transparent algorithms, biological, and so on and so on. And that's my problem with—would you agree, Yuval?—with liberal conservatives, I cannot call them in another way, like Jürgen Habermas, whose solution is, since brain sciences today, by penetrating our brain and manipulating our DNA, are threatening our ethical self-understanding, we should put a limit on science. We should simply say, Bill McKibben, who wrote a book Enough, like this should be the limit. But what I'm saying is that once, for example—sorry, you again, I cannot—once I can, I can through some through some surgery or whatever technical means, chemical, change your mind, that you become more brutal, more decisive, more intelligent, this means that already before I intervened, your mind was—functioned at this level. It was just different chemistry and so on. So I think that with post-humanity, nature also will in some sense no longer be nature. It will become another mechanism. Second point, uh, what is, Yuval, your final solution, namely with this—that's the big focus on your work—post-human whatever they are. Namely, uh, like what maybe you wrote after your book on Homo Deus, but what intrigues me, what is the real horror for me—but maybe there is some other emancipatory potential—is it's so-called wired brain, Neuralink and so on. Right. The idea, because our basic idea of human freedom, at its most basic, is even if I'm in chains, can do nothing, you don't control my thoughts. I can think what I think. But even the moment you get direct interaction between my flow of thoughts and a machine, of course, as Yuval said wonderfully, immediately the scientific manipulators will bring a good medical example to justify it. Like I already said, a guy who couldn't—it's real—move his penis, ah, they manipulate it now thinking about it, ah, ah, he could do it. But what other things can you do? Because if you can control movements outside just with your brain, it goes also the other way around. And what I don't have a good answer is, is this really the end of freedom? What is freedom? Is freedom just what we call—some philosophers—the user's illusion, or—now I expect the answer—now I have—what you said, trust in humans and faith, no, faith in humans. Yeah. Okay, I have faith in you to provide the answer. And the best way to describe this is with a—with an example of a guy called Neil Harbisson. Does anybody know who Neil Harbisson is? Couple of folks. So Neil Harbisson is a colorblind artist and he has an antenna surgically implanted into his head that allows him to hear color. Now the wild thing about Neil Harbisson is that antenna, he's had it for over a decade. It's now surgically implanted into his skull, before that it was a wearable device. And for Neil, that—that antenna is no longer a tool or technology, he sees it quite literally as an organ. Going up to Neil and touching his antenna is like if I went up to you, sir, and I tried to touch your nose, you'd find it kind of odd. And he's so integrated it into his body schema that he now dreams in sonochromatic dreams. So he'll have these dream states where all of the colors in his dream will match the—the agency of the—the device that—that sends these light waves to sound waves through his skull. And again, Neil is an outlier, but he talks about being psychological cyborgs. You know, you guys are going, ah,
Yeah, yeah. And then Stalin had to discover that this scientist was really a British spy, you know the story. But what I'm saying is that Stalin was already—forget about so-called egalitarianism of communism—what egalitarianism? Stalin was the first who consciously tried to create a specific race of workers who just work with modest shitty food without protest and so on. Once we have Life this retroactively changes also in our view, not in reality, what life—the first life—is. Because life becomes just a combination of transparent algorithms, biological, and so on and so on. And that's my problem with—would you agree, Yuval?—with liberal conservatives, I cannot call them in another way, like Jürgen Habermas, whose solution is, since brain sciences today, by penetrating our brain and manipulating our DNA, are threatening our ethical self-understanding, we should put a limit on science. We should simply say, Bill McKibben, who wrote a book Enough, like this should be the limit. But what I'm saying is that once, for example—sorry, you again, I cannot—once I can, I can through some through some surgery or whatever technical means, chemical, change your mind, that you become more brutal, more decisive, more intelligent, this means that already before I intervened, your mind was—functioned at this level. It was just different chemistry and so on. So I think that with post-humanity, nature also will in some sense no longer be nature. It will become another mechanism. Second point, uh, what is, Yuval, your final solution, namely with this—that's the big focus on your work—post-human whatever they are. Namely, uh, like what maybe you wrote after your book on Homo Deus, but what intrigues me, what is the real horror for me—but maybe there is some other emancipatory potential—is it's so-called wired brain, Neuralink and so on. Right. The idea, because our basic idea of human freedom, at its most basic, is even if I'm in chains, can do nothing, you don't control my thoughts. I can think what I think. But even the moment you get direct interaction between my flow of thoughts and a machine, of course, as Yuval said wonderfully, immediately the scientific manipulators will bring a good medical example to justify it. Like I already said, a guy who couldn't—it's real—move his penis, ah, they manipulate it now thinking about it, ah, ah, he could do it. But what other things can you do? Because if you can control movements outside just with your brain, it goes also the other way around. And what I don't have a good answer is, is this really the end of freedom? What is freedom? Is freedom just what we call—some philosophers—the user's illusion, or—now I expect the answer—now I have—what you said, trust in humans and faith, no, faith in humans. Yeah. Okay, I have faith in you to provide the answer. And the best way to describe this is with a—with an example of a guy called Neil Harbisson. Does anybody know who Neil Harbisson is? Couple of folks. So Neil Harbisson is a colorblind artist and he has an antenna surgically implanted into his head that allows him to hear color. Now the wild thing about Neil Harbisson is that antenna, he's had it for over a decade. It's now surgically implanted into his skull, before that it was a wearable device. And for Neil, that—that antenna is no longer a tool or technology, he sees it quite literally as an organ. Going up to Neil and touching his antenna is like if I went up to you, sir, and I tried to touch your nose, you'd find it kind of odd. And he's so integrated it into his body schema that he now dreams in sonochromatic dreams. So he'll have these dream states where all of the colors in his dream will match the—the agency of the—the device that—that sends these light waves to sound waves through his skull. And again, Neil is an outlier, but he talks about being psychological cyborgs. You know, you guys are going, ah,
unknown
this cyborg thing is kind of stupid, it's kind of weird, it's kind of fringe, but you know, we love to say, I bet you all have iPhones in your pockets, you know, nestled next to your genitals or next to your heart. So to a degree that all makes us cyborgs, question mark? And we'll—we'll get to that shortly because the stuff that I really am interested in is when it does affect neurophysiology, neuroplasticity, when—when these sorts of devices change the relationship in the brain, where we start to accept that this is no longer an external tool, technology, device, it's—is actually part of ourselves. And the place I saw that most beautifully demonstrated was—was after an event very much like this. There was a guy, the late, great Nigel Ackland. Does anybody know who Nigel Ackland is? Couple of guys at the back, they are my friends, so of course you know. Nigel Ackland for those who don't know was the—pioneering pilot of the Bebionic prosthetic limb. So he had this beautiful fiberglass prosthetic limb. And I used to witness he would stand on stages like this and show everybody his—his bionic prosthetic limb and he was a working-class man, he lost his arm in a—in a factory accident. And people would look with desire at this fiberglass object that he was holding up in the sky and I would see people come up to him afterwards
this cyborg thing is kind of stupid, it's kind of weird, it's kind of fringe, but you know, we love to say, I bet you all have iPhones in your pockets, you know, nestled next to your genitals or next to your heart. So to a degree that all makes us cyborgs, question mark? And we'll—we'll get to that shortly because the stuff that I really am interested in is when it does affect neurophysiology, neuroplasticity, when—when these sorts of devices change the relationship in the brain, where we start to accept that this is no longer an external tool, technology, device, it's—is actually part of ourselves. And the place I saw that most beautifully demonstrated was—was after an event very much like this. There was a guy, the late, great Nigel Ackland. Does anybody know who Nigel Ackland is? Couple of guys at the back, they are my friends, so of course you know. Nigel Ackland for those who don't know was the—pioneering pilot of the Bebionic prosthetic limb. So he had this beautiful fiberglass prosthetic limb. And I used to witness he would stand on stages like this and show everybody his—his bionic prosthetic limb and he was a working-class man, he lost his arm in a—in a factory accident. And people would look with desire at this fiberglass object that he was holding up in the sky and I would see people come up to him afterwards
unknown
and—and grab him outside of the—the speaker's tent and go, oh my god, how do I get one of those? They had this kind of weird techno-fetishism for what they perceived to be a vision for the future of humanity. And Nigel, Nigel would look at them with a wry smile and he would go, well, mate, it's the most exclusive club in the world and it's going to cost you an arm or a leg to get in, so you've got to pick. You know, a lot of people would ask Nigel, do you feel enhanced? Are you enhanced by having the prosthetic limb? You lost your arm, yes, but now you have this beautifully designed prosthetic from Bebionic, do you feel enhanced? And in answer to that question, he would rotate his wrist degrees and say, well, I'm not enhanced, but I'm certainly differently abled. And anybody who does think I'm enhanced should realize that being able to turn your wrist degrees becomes a real challenge when it comes to wiping your own arse.
and—and grab him outside of the—the speaker's tent and go, oh my god, how do I get one of those? They had this kind of weird techno-fetishism for what they perceived to be a vision for the future of humanity. And Nigel, Nigel would look at them with a wry smile and he would go, well, mate, it's the most exclusive club in the world and it's going to cost you an arm or a leg to get in, so you've got to pick. You know, a lot of people would ask Nigel, do you feel enhanced? Are you enhanced by having the prosthetic limb? You lost your arm, yes, but now you have this beautifully designed prosthetic from Bebionic, do you feel enhanced? And in answer to that question, he would rotate his wrist degrees and say, well, I'm not enhanced, but I'm certainly differently abled. And anybody who does think I'm enhanced should realize that being able to turn your wrist degrees becomes a real challenge when it comes to wiping your own arse.
unknown
What will transhuman and posthuman life be like? And the only sensible answer I can give you is I don't know. But one of the many reasons for stressing recalibration is that by raising hedonic set points, it's not necessary for you or almost anyone else to sacrifice their existing values and preferences. Crudely, it just means that you could wake up in the morning feeling a fantastically good mood and pursue whatever you consider most valuable or worthwhile as now. Now that's a rather bio-conservative answer. In practice, I think mastery of our reward circuitry, intelligence amplification, radical life extension is going to transform the nature of life in ways that far beyond the pleasure-pain axis. But yes, I regard a precondition of any civilized society as that we get rid of involuntary suffering, any state below hedonic zero.
What will transhuman and posthuman life be like? And the only sensible answer I can give you is I don't know. But one of the many reasons for stressing recalibration is that by raising hedonic set points, it's not necessary for you or almost anyone else to sacrifice their existing values and preferences. Crudely, it just means that you could wake up in the morning feeling a fantastically good mood and pursue whatever you consider most valuable or worthwhile as now. Now that's a rather bio-conservative answer. In practice, I think mastery of our reward circuitry, intelligence amplification, radical life extension is going to transform the nature of life in ways that far beyond the pleasure-pain axis. But yes, I regard a precondition of any civilized society as that we get rid of involuntary suffering, any state below hedonic zero.