A H ISTORYOF T RANSHUMANIST T HOUGHT

NickBostrom
FacultyofPhilosophy,OxfordUniversity
www.nickbostrom.com
(2005)
[JournalofEvolutionandTechnologyVol.14Issue1April2005]

1.Culturalandphilosophicalantecedents
Thehumandesiretoacquirenewcapacitiesisasancientasourspeciesitself.Wehave
alwayssoughttoexpandtheboundariesofourexistence,beitsocially,geographically,or
mentally.Thereisatendencyinatleastsomeindividualsalwaystosearchforawayaround
everyobstacleandlimitationtohumanlifeandhappiness.

Ceremonialburialandpreservedfragmentsofreligiouswritingsshowthatprehistoricman
andwomanweredeeplydisturbedbythedeathoflovedones.Althoughthebeliefinan
afterlifewascommon,thisdidnotprecludeeffortstoextendthepresentlife.Inthe
SumerianEpicofGilgamesh(approx.1700B.C.),akingsetsoutonaquestforimmortality.
Gilgameshlearnsthatthereexistsanaturalmeansanherbthatgrowsatthebottomofthe
sea. 1 Hesuccessfullyretrievestheplant,butasnakestealsitfromhimbeforehecaneatit.In
latertimes,explorerssoughttheFountainofYouth,alchemistslaboredtoconcocttheElixir
ofLife,andvariousschoolsofesotericTaoisminChinastroveforphysicalimmortalityby
wayofcontroloverorharmonywiththeforcesofnature.Theboundarybetweenmythos
andscience,betweenmagicandtechnology,wasblurry,andalmostallconceivablemeansto
thepreservationoflifewereattemptedbysomebodyorother.Yetwhileexplorersmade
manyinterestingdiscoveriesandalchemistsinventedsomeusefulthings,suchasnewdyes
andimprovementsinmetallurgy,thegoaloflifeextensionprovedelusive.

Thequesttotranscendournaturalconfines,however,haslongbeenviewedwith
ambivalence.Ontheonehandthereisfascination.Ontheotherthereistheconceptofhubris:
thatsomeambitionsareofflimitsandwillbackfireifpursued.TheancientGreeksexhibited
thisambivalenceintheirmythology.PrometheusstolethefirefromZeusandgaveittothe
humans,therebypermanentlyimprovingthehumancondition.Yetforthisacthewas
severelypunishedbyZeus.InthemythofDaedalus,thegodsarerepeatedlychallenged,
quitesuccessfully,bythecleverengineerandartistwhousesnonmagicalmeanstoextend

(Mitchell2004).

humancapabilities.Intheend,however,disasterensueswhenhissonIcarusignores
paternalwarningsandfliestooclosetothesun,causingthewaxinhiswingstomelt.

MedievalChristianityhadsimilarlyconflictedviewsaboutthepursuitsofthealchemists,
whotriedtotransmutesubstances,createhomunculiintesttubes,andinventapanacea.
Somescholastics,followingtheantiexperimentalistteachingsofAquinas,believedthat
alchemywasanungodlyactivity.Therewereallegationsthatitinvolvedtheinvocationof
daemonicpowers.Butothertheologians,suchasAlbertusMagnusandThomasAquinas,
defendedthepractice. 2

TheotherworldlinessandstalescholasticphilosophythatdominatedEuropeduringthe
MiddleAgesgavewaytoarenewedintellectualvigorintheRenaissance.Thehumanbeing
andthenaturalworldagainbecamelegitimateobjectsofstudy.Renaissancehumanism
encouragedpeopletorelyontheirownobservationsandtheirownjudgmentratherthanto
deferineverymattertoreligiousauthorities.Renaissancehumanismalsocreatedtheidealof
thewellroundedperson,onewhoishighlydevelopedscientifically,morally,culturally,and
spiritually.AlandmarkoftheperiodisGiovanniPicodellaMirandolasOrationonthe
DignityofMan(1486),whichproclaimsthatmandoesnothaveareadymadeformandis
responsibleforshapinghimself:

Wehavemadeyouacreatureneitherofheavennorofearth,neithermortalnor
immortal,inorderthatyoumay,asthefreeandproudshaperofyourownbeing,
fashionyourselfintheformyoumayprefer.Itwillbeinyourpowertodescendto
thelower,brutishformsoflife;youwillbeable,throughyourowndecision,torise
againtothesuperiororderswhoselifeisdivine. 3

TheAgeofEnlightenmentisoftensaidtohavestartedwiththepublicationofFrancis
BaconsNovumOrganum,thenewtool(1620),whichproposesascientificmethodology
basedonempiricalinvestigationratherthanapriorireasoning. 4 Baconadvocatedtheproject
ofeffectingallthingspossible,bywhichhemeantusingsciencetoachievemasteryover
natureinordertoimprovethelivingconditionofhumanbeings.Theheritagefromthe
RenaissancecombineswiththeinfluenceofIsaacNewton,ThomasHobbes,JohnLocke,
ImmanuelKant,theMarquisdeCondorcet,andotherstoformthebasisforrational
humanism,whichemphasizesempiricalscienceandcriticalreasonratherthanrevelation

Seee.g.(Newman2004).
(PicodellaMirandola1956).
4(Bacon1620).
2
3

andreligiousauthorityaswaysoflearningaboutthenaturalworldandourplacewithinit,
andofprovidingagroundingformorality.Transhumanismhasrootsinrationalhumanism.

Inthe18thand19thcenturieswebegintoseeglimpsesoftheideathatevenhumans
themselvescanbedevelopedthroughtheapplianceofscience.Condorcetspeculatedabout
extendinghumanlifespanthroughmedicalscience:

Woulditbeabsurdnowtosupposethattheimprovementofthehumanraceshould
beregardedascapableofunlimitedprogress?Thatatimewillcomewhendeath
wouldresultonlyfromextraordinaryaccidentsorthemoreandmoregradual
wearingoutofvitality,andthat,finally,thedurationoftheaverageintervalbetween
birthandwearingouthasitselfnospecificlimitwhatsoever?Nodoubtmanwillnot
becomeimmortal,butcannotthespanconstantlyincreasebetweenthemomenthe
beginstoliveandthetimewhennaturally,withoutillnessoraccident,hefindslifea
burden? 5

BenjaminFranklinlongedwistfullyforsuspendedanimation,foreshadowingthecryonics
movement:

Iwishitwerepossible...toinventamethodofembalmingdrownedpersons,insuch
amannerthattheymightberecalledtolifeatanyperiod,howeverdistant;for
havingaveryardentdesiretoseeandobservethestateofAmericaahundredyears
hence,Ishouldprefertoanordinarydeath,beingimmersedwithafewfriendsina
caskofMadeira,untilthattime,thentoberecalledtolifebythesolarwarmthofmy
dearcountry!But...inallprobability,weliveinacenturytoolittleadvanced,andtoo
neartheinfancyofscience,toseesuchanartbroughtinourtimetoitsperfection. 6

AfterthepublicationofDarwinsOriginofSpecies(1859),itbecameincreasinglyplausibleto
viewthecurrentversionofhumanitynotastheendpointofevolutionbutratherasa
possiblyquiteearlyphase. 7 Theriseofscientificphysicalismmightalsohavecontributedto
thefoundationsoftheideathattechnologycouldbeusedtoimprovethehumanorganism.
Forexample,asimplekindofmaterialistviewwasboldlyproposedin1750bytheFrench
physicianandmaterialistphilosopher,JulienOffraydeLaMettrieinLHommeMachine,
wherehearguedthatmanisbutananimal,oracollectionofspringswhichwindeach

(Condorcet1979).
(Franklinetal.1956),pp.2729.
7(Darwin2003).
5
6

otherup. 8 Ifhumanbeingsareconstitutedbymatterthatobeysthesamelawsofphysics
thatoperateoutsideus,thenitshouldinprinciplebepossibletolearntomanipulatehuman
natureinthesamewaythatwemanipulateexternalobjects.

IthasbeensaidthattheEnlightenmentexpiredasthevictimofitsownexcesses.Itgaveway
toRomanticism,andtolatterdayreactionsagainsttheruleofinstrumentalreasonandthe
attempttorationallycontrolnature,suchascanbefoundinsomepostmodernistwritings,
theNewAgemovement,deepenvironmentalism,andinsomepartsoftheantiglobalization
movement.However,theEnlightenmentslegacy,includingabeliefinthepowerofhuman
rationalityandscience,isstillanimportantshaperofmodernculture.Inhisfamous1784
essayWhatIsEnlightenment?,Kantsummeditupasfollows:

Enlightenmentismansleavinghisselfcausedimmaturity.Immaturityisthe
incapacitytouseonesownunderstandingwithouttheguidanceofanother.Such
immaturityisselfcausedifitscauseisnotlackofintelligence,butbylackof
determinationandcouragetouseonesintelligencewithoutbeingguidedby
another.Themottoofenlightenmentistherefore:Sapereaude!Havecouragetouse
yourownintelligence! 9

ItmightbethoughtthattheGermanphilosopherFriedrichNietzsche(18441900)would
havebeenamajorinspirationfortranshumanism.Nietzscheisfamousforhisdoctrineofder
bermensch(theoverman):

Iteachyoutheoverman.Manissomethingthatshallbeovercome.Whathaveyou
donetoovercomehim?Allbeingssofarhavecreatedsomethingbeyondthemselves;
anddoyouwanttobetheebbofthisgreatfloodandevengobacktothebeasts
ratherthanovercomeman? 10

WhatNietzschehadinmind,however,wasnottechnologicaltransformationbutrathera
kindofsoaringpersonalgrowthandculturalrefinementinexceptionalindividuals(whohe
thoughtwouldhavetoovercomethelifesappingslavemoralityofChristianity).Despite
somesurfacelevelsimilaritieswiththeNietzscheanvision,transhumanismwithits
Enlightenmentroots,itsemphasisonindividualliberties,anditshumanisticconcernforthe
welfareofallhumans(andothersentientbeings)probablyhasasmuchormorein
commonwithNietzschescontemporaryJ.S.Mill,theEnglishliberalthinkerandutilitarian.

(LaMettrie1996).
(Kant1986).
10(Nietzsche1908).
8
9

2.Speculation,sciencefiction,andtwentiethcenturytotalitarianism
In1923,thenotedBritishbiochemistJ.B.S.HaldanepublishedtheessayDaedalus:Science
andtheFuture,inwhichhearguedthatgreatbenefitswouldcomefromcontrollingourown
geneticsandfromscienceingeneral.Heprojectedafuturesocietythatwouldbericher,have
abundantcleanenergy,wheregeneticswouldbeemployedtomakepeopletaller,healthier,
andsmarter,andwheretheuseofectogenesis(gestatingfetusesinartificialwombs)would
becommonplace.Healsocommentedonwhathasinmorerecentyearsbecomeknownas
theyuckfactor:

ThechemicalorphysicalinventorisalwaysaPrometheus.Thereisnogreat
invention,fromfiretoflying,whichhasnotbeenhailedasaninsulttosomegod.But
ifeveryphysicalandchemicalinventionisablasphemy,everybiologicalinventionis
aperversion.Thereishardlyonewhich,onfirstbeingbroughttothenoticeofan
observerfromanynationwhichhasnotpreviouslyheardoftheirexistence,would
notappeartohimasindecentandunnatural. 11

Haldanesessaybecameabestsellerandsetoffachainreactionoffutureoriented
discussions,includingTheWorld,theFleshandtheDevil,byJ.D.Bernal(1929) 12 ,which
speculatedaboutspacecolonizationandbionicimplantsaswellasmentalimprovements
throughadvancedsocialscienceandpsychology;theworksofOlafStapledon,aphilosopher
andsciencefictionauthor;andtheessayIcarus:theFutureofScience(1924)byBertrand
Russell. 13 Russelltookamorepessimisticview,arguingthatwithoutmorekindlinessinthe
world,technologicalpowerwouldmainlyservetoincreasemensabilitytoinflictharmon
oneanother.SciencefictionauthorssuchasH.G.WellsandStapledongotmanypeople
thinkingaboutthefutureevolutionofthehumanrace.

AldousHuxleysBraveNewWorld,publishedin1932,hashadanenduringimpacton
debatesabouthumantechnologicaltransformation 14 matchedbyfewotherworkoffiction(a
possibleexceptionwouldbeMaryShelleysFrankenstein,1818 15 ).Huxleydescribesa
dystopiawherepsychologicalconditioning,promiscuoussexuality,biotechnology,andthe
opiatedrugsomaareusedtokeepthepopulationplacidandcontentedinastatic,totally
conformistcastesocietythatisgovernedbytenworldcontrollers.Childrenare

(Haldane1924).
(Bernal1969).
13(Russell1924)
14(Huxley1932).
15(Shelley1818).
11
12

manufacturedinfertilityclinicsandartificiallygestated.Thelowercastesarechemically
stuntedordeprivedofoxygenduringtheirmaturationprocesstolimittheirphysicaland
intellectualdevelopment.Frombirth,membersofeverycasteareindoctrinatedduringtheir
sleep,byrecordedvoicesrepeatingtheslogansoftheofficialFordistreligion,andare
conditionedtobelievethattheirowncasteisthebestonetobelongto.Thesocietydepicted
inBraveNewWorldisoftencomparedandcontrastedwiththatofanotherinfluential20th
centurydystopia,GeorgeOrwellsNineteenEightyFour. 16 1984featuresamoreovertformof
oppression,includingubiquitoussurveillancebyBigBrotherandbrutalpolicecoercion.
Huxleysworldcontrollers,bycontrast,relyonmorehumanemeans,includingbio
engineeredpredestination,soma,andpsychologicalconditioningtopreventpeoplefrom
wantingtothinkforthemselves.Herdmentalityandpromiscuityarepromoted,whilehigh
art,individuality,knowledgeofhistory,andromanticlovearediscouraged.Itshouldbe
notedthatinneither1984norBraveNewWorldhastechnologybeenusedtoincrease
humancapacities.Rather,societyissetuptorepressthefulldevelopmentofhumanity.Both
dystopiascurtailscientificandtechnologicalexplorationforfearofupsettingthesocial
equilibrium.Nevertheless,BraveNewWorldinparticularhasbecomeanemblemofthe
dehumanizingpotentialoftheuseoftechnologytopromotesocialconformismandshallow
contentment.

Intheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury,notonlyracistsandrightwingideologuesbut
alsoanumberofleftleaningsocialprogressivesbecameconcernedabouttheimpactof
medicineandsocialsafetynetsonthequalityofthehumangenepool.Theybelievedthat
modernsocietyenabledmanyunfitindividualstosurvive,individualswhowouldin
earlierageshaveperished,andtheyworriedthatthiswouldleadtoadeteriorationofthe
humanstock.Asaresult,manycountries(includingtheUSA,Canada,Australia,Sweden,
DenmarkFinland,andSwitzerland)implementedstatesponsoredeugenicsprograms,
whichinvolvedvariousdegreesofinfringementofindividualrights.IntheUnitedStates,
over64,000individualswereforciblysterilizedundereugeniclegislationbetween1907and
1963.TheprincipalvictimsoftheAmericanprogramwerethementallydisabled,butthe
deaf,theblind,theepileptic,thephysicallydeformed,orphans,andthehomelesswerealso
sometimestargeted.

Theseprogramsarenowalmostuniversallycondemned.Butevenwidespreadcompulsory
sterilizationpalesincomparisonwiththeGermaneugenicsprogram,whichresultedinthe
systematicmurderofmillionsofpeoplewhowereregardedasinferiorbytheNazis.

(Orwell1949).

16

Theholocaustleftascarinthehumanpsyche.Determinednottolethistoryrepeatitself,
mostpeopledevelopedaninstinctiverevulsiontoallideasthatcouldappeartohaveany
kindofassociationwithNaziideology.(Andyet,itmustberemembered,historydidrepeat
itselfe.g.intheRwandangenocideof1994,inwhichtheworlddidnothingbutwringits
handsas800,000Africanswereslaughtered.)Inparticular,theeugenicsmovementasa
whole,inallitsforms,becamediscreditedbecauseoftheterriblecrimesthathadbeen
committedinitsname,althoughsomeofthemildereugenicsprogramscontinuedformany
yearsbeforetheywerefinallyscrapped.Thegoalofcreatinganewandbetterworldthrough
acentrallyimposedvisionbecamepass.TheStalinisttyrannyagainunderscoredthe
dangersoftotalitarianutopianism.

Inthepostwarera,manyoptimisticfuturistswhohadbecomesuspiciousofcollectively
orchestratedsocialchangefoundanewhomefortheirhopesinscientificandtechnological
progress.Spacetravel,medicine,andcomputersseemedtoofferapathtoabetterworld.
Theshiftofattentionalsoreflectedthebreathtakingpaceofdevelopmenttakingplacein
thesefields.Sciencehadbeguntocatchupwithspeculation.Yesterdayssciencefictionwas
turningintotodayssciencefactoratleastintoasomewhatrealisticmidtermprospect.

Transhumanistthemesduringthisperiodwerediscussedandanalyzedchieflyinthescience
fictionliterature.AuthorssuchasArthurC.Clarke,IsaacAsimov,RobertHeinlein,and
StanislawLemexploredhowtechnologicaldevelopmentcouldcometoprofoundlyalterthe
humancondition.

ThewordtranshumanismappearstohavebeenfirstusedbyAldousHuxleysbrother,
JulianHuxley,adistinguishedbiologist(whowasalsothefirstdirectorgeneralofUNESCO
andfounderoftheWorldWildlifeFund).InReligionWithoutRevelation(1927),hewrote:

Thehumanspeciescan,ifitwishes,transcenditselfnotjustsporadically,an
individualhereinoneway,anindividualthereinanotherwaybutinitsentirety,
ashumanity.Weneedanameforthisnewbelief.Perhapstranshumanismwillserve:
manremainingman,buttranscendinghimself,byrealizingnewpossibilitiesofand
forhishumannature. 17

(Huxley1927),quotedfrom(Hughes2004).

17

3.Technologicalgenies:AI,thesingularity,nanotech,anduploading
Humanlikeautomatahavealwaysfascinatedthehumanimagination.Mechanicalengineers
sincetheearlyGreekshaveconstructedcleverselfmovingdevices.

InJudaicmysticism,agolemreferstoananimatedbeingcraftedfrominanimatematerial.
Intheearlygolemstories,agolemcouldbecreatedbyaholypersonwhowasabletoshare
someofGodswisdomandpower(althoughthegolem,notbeingabletospeak,wasnever
morethanashadowofGodscreations).Havingagolemservantwastheultimatesymbolof
wisdomandholiness.Inthelaterstories,whichhadbeeninfluencedbythemoreIslamic
concernabouthumanitygettingtooclosetoGod,thegolembecameacreationof
overreachingmystics,whowouldinevitablybepunishedfortheirblasphemy.Thestoryof
theSorcerersApprenticeisavariationofthistheme:theapprenticeanimatesabroomstick
tofetchwaterbutisunabletomakethebroomstoplikeFrankenstein,astoryof
technologyoutofcontrol.ThewordrobotwascoinedbytheCzechwriterKarelapeks
inhisdarkplayR.U.R.(1921),inwhicharobotlaborforcedestroysitshumancreators. 18
Withtheinventionoftheelectroniccomputer,theideaofhumanlikeautomatagraduated
fromthekindergartenofmythologytotheschoolofsciencefiction(e.g.IsaacAsimov,
StanislavLem,ArthurC.Clark)andeventuallytothecollegeoftechnologicalprediction.

Couldcontinuedprogressinartificialintelligenceleadtothecreationofmachinesthatcan
thinkinthesamegeneralwayashumanbeings?AlanTuringgaveanoperationaldefinition
tothisquestioninhisclassicComputingMachineryandIntelligence(1950),andpredicted
thatcomputerswouldeventuallypasswhatcametobeknownastheTuringTest.(Inthe
TuringTest,ahumanexperimenterinterviewsacomputerandanotherhumanviaatext
interface,andthecomputersucceedsiftheinterviewercannotreliablydistinguishthe
computerfromthehuman.) 19 Muchinkhasbeenspiltindebatesonwhetherthistest
furnishesanecessaryandsufficientconditionforacomputerbeingabletothink,butwhat
mattersmorefromapracticalperspectiveiswhetherand,andifsowhen,computerswillbe
abletomatchhumanperformanceontasksinvolvinggeneralreasoningability.Withthe
benefitofhindsight,wecansaythatmanyoftheearlyAIresearchersturnedouttobe
overoptimisticaboutthetimescaleforthishypotheticaldevelopment.Ofcourse,thefactthat
wehavenotyetreachedhumanlevelartificialintelligencedoesnotmeanthatweneverwill,
andanumberofpeople,e.g.MarvinMinsky,HansMoravec,RayKurzweil,andNick
Bostromhaveputforwardreasonsforthinkingthatthiscouldhappenwithinthefirsthalfof
thiscentury. 20

(Capek2004).
(Turing1950).
20(Minsky1994;Moravec1999;Bostrom1998,2002;Kurzweil1999).
18
19


In1958,StanislawUlam,referringtoameetingwithJohnvonNeumann,wrote:

Oneconversationcenteredontheeveracceleratingprogressoftechnologyand
changesinthemodeofhumanlife,whichgivestheappearanceofapproachingsome
essentialsingularityinthehistoryoftheracebeyondwhichhumanaffairs,aswe
knowthem,couldnotcontinue. 21

Therapidityoftechnologicalchangeinrecenttimesleadsnaturallytotheideathat
continuedtechnologicalinnovationwillhavealargeimpactonhumanityinthedecades
ahead.Thispredictionisstrengthenedifonebelievesthatsomeofthosevariablesthat
currentlyexhibitexponentialgrowthwillcontinuetodosoandthattheywillbeamongthe
maindriversofchange.GordonE.Moore,cofounderofIntel,noticedin1965thatthe
numberoftransistorsonachipexhibitedexponentialgrowth.Thisledtotheformulationof
Mooreslaw,whichstates(roughly)thatcomputingpowerdoublesevery18monthsto
twoyears. 22 Morerecently,Kurzweilhasdocumentedsimilarexponentialgrowthratesina
numberofothertechnologies.(Theworldeconomy,whichisakindofgeneralindexof
humanitysproductivecapacity,hasdoubledaboutevery15yearsinmoderntimes.)

Thesingularityhypothesis,whichvonNeumannseemstohavealludedtointhequoted
passageabove,isthatthesechangeswillleadtosomekindofdiscontinuity.Butnowadays,
itoftenreferstoamorespecificprediction,namelythatthecreationofselfimproving
artificialintelligencewillatsomepointresultinradicalchangeswithinaveryshorttime
span.Thishypothesiswasfirstclearlystatedin1965bythestatisticianI.J.Good:

Letanultraintelligentmachinebedefinedasamachinethatcanfarsurpassallthe
intellectualactivitiesofanymanhoweverclever.Sincethedesignofmachinesisone
oftheseintellectualactivities,anultraintelligentmachinecoulddesignevenbetter
machines;therewouldthenunquestionablybeanintelligenceexplosion,andthe
intelligenceofmanwouldbeleftfarbehind.Thusthefirstultraintelligentmachineis
thelastinventionthatmanneedevermake. 23

VernorVingediscussedthisideainalittlemoredetailinhisinfluential1993paper
TechnologicalSingularity,inwhichhepredicted:

(Ulam1958).
(Moore1965).
23(Good1965).
21
22

Withinthirtyyears,wewillhavethetechnologicalmeanstocreatesuperhuman
intelligence.Shortlyafter,thehumanerawillbeended. 24

Transhumaniststodayholddivergingviewsaboutthesingularity:someseeitasalikely
scenario,othersbelievethatitismoreprobablethattherewillneverbeanyverysuddenand
dramaticchangesastheresultofprogressinartificialintelligence.

Thesingularityideaalsocomesinasomewhatdifferenteschatologicalversion,whichtraces
itslineagetothewritingsofPierreTeilharddeChardin,apaleontologistandJesuit
theologianwhosawanevolutionarytelosinthedevelopmentofanencompassing
noosphere(aglobalconsciousness)viaphysicistFrankTipler,whoarguedthatadvanced
civilizationsmightcometohaveadefininginfluenceonthefutureevolutionofthecosmos,
and,inthefinalmomentsoftheBigCrunch,mightmanagetoextractaninfinitenumberof
computationsbyharnessingthesheerenergyofthecollapsingmatter. 25,26 However,while
theseideasmightappealtothosewhofancyamarriagebetweenmysticismandscience,they
havenotcaughtoneitheramongtranshumanistsorthelargerscientificcommunity.Current
cosmologicaltheoriesindicatethattheuniversewillcontinuetoexpandforever(falsifying
Tiplersprediction).Butthemoregeneralpointthatthetranshumanistmightmakeinthis
contextisthatweneedtolearntothinkaboutbigpicturequestionswithoutresortingto
wishfulthinkingormysticism.Bigpicturequestions,includingonesaboutourplaceinthe
worldandthelongtermfateofintelligentlifearepartoftranshumanism;however,these
questionsshouldbeaddressedinasober,disinterestedway,usingcriticalreasonandour
bestavailablescientificevidence.Onereasonwhysuchquestionsareoftranshumanist
interestisthattheiranswersmightaffectwhatoutcomesweshouldexpectfromourown
technologicaldevelopment,andthereforeindirectlywhatpoliciesitmakessensefor
humanitytopursue.

In1986,EricDrexlerpublishedEnginesofCreation,thefirstbooklengthexpositionof
molecularmanufacturing. 27 (Thepossibilityofnanotechnologyhadbeenanticipatedby
NobellaureatephysicistRichardFeynmaninhisfamousafterdinneraddressin1959
entitledThereisPlentyofRoomattheBottom. 28 )Inthisseminalwork,Drexlernotonly
arguedforthefeasibilityofassemblerbasednanotechnologybutalsoexploredits
consequencesandbeganchartingthestrategicchallengesposedbyitsdevelopment.

(Vinge1993).
(TeilharddeChardin1964).
26(Tipler1994).
27(Drexler1985).
28(Feynman1960).
24
25

10

DrexlerslaterbookNanosystems(1992)suppliedamoretechnicalanalysisthatseemedto
confirmhisoriginalconclusions. 29 Topreparetheworldfornanotechnologyandwork
towardsitssafeimplementation,hefoundedtheForesightInstitutetogetherwithhisthen
wife,ChristinePeterson,in1986.

Inthelastseveralyears,nanotechnologyhasbecomebigbusiness,withworldwideresearch
fundingamountingtobillionsofdollars.YetlittleofthisworkfitsDrexlersambitiousvision
ofnanotechnologyasanassemblerbased,nearuniversal,constructiontechnology.The
mainstreamnanotechnologycommunityhassoughttodistanceitselffromDrexlersclaims.
ThechemistRichardSmalley(anotherNobellaureate)hasdebatedDrexler,assertingthat
nonbiologicalmolecularassemblersareimpossible. 30 Todate,however,notechnical
critiqueofDrexlersworkinthepublishedliteraturehasfoundanysignificantflawsinhis
reasoning.Ifmolecularnanotechnologyisindeedphysicallypossible,asDrexlermaintains,
thequestionbecomesjusthowdifficultitwillbetodevelopit,andhowlongitwilltake.
Theseissuesareverydifficulttosettleinadvance.

IfmolecularnanotechnologycouldbedevelopedasDrexlerenvisionsit,itwouldhave
momentousramifications:

Coalanddiamonds,sandandcomputerchips,cancerandhealthytissue:throughout
history,variationsinthearrangementofatomshavedistinguishedthecheapfrom
thecherished,thediseasedfromthehealthy.Arrangedoneway,atomsmakeupsoil,
air,andwaterarrangedanother,theymakeupripestrawberries.Arrangedoneway,
theymakeuphomesandfreshair;arrangedanother,theymakeupashandsmoke. 31

Molecularnanotechnologywouldenableustotransformcoalintodiamonds,sandinto
supercomputers,andtoremovepollutionfromtheairandtumorsfromhealthytissue.Inits
matureform,itcouldhelpusabolishmostdiseaseandaging,makepossiblethereanimation
ofcryonicspatients,enableaffordablespacecolonization,andmoreominouslyleadto
therapidcreationofvastarsenalsoflethalornonlethalweapons.

Anotherhypotheticaltechnologythatwouldhavearevolutionaryimpactisuploading,the
transferofahumanmindtoacomputer.Thiswouldinvolvethefollowingsteps:First,create
asufficientlydetailedscanofaparticularhumanbrain,perhapsbydeconstructingitwith
nanobotsorbyfeedingthinslicesofbraintissuesintopowerfulmicroscopesforautomatic

(Drexler1992).
(DrexlerandSmalley1993).
31(Drexler1985),p.3.
29
30

11

imageanalysis.Second,fromthisscan,reconstructtheneuronalnetworkthatthebrain
implemented,andcombinethiswithcomputationalmodelsofthedifferenttypesof
neurons.Third,emulatethewholecomputationalstructureonapowerfulsupercomputer.If
successful,theprocedurewouldresultintheoriginalmind,withmemoryandpersonality
intact,beingtransferredtothecomputerwhereitwouldthenexistassoftware;anditcould
eitherinhabitarobotbodyorliveinavirtualreality. 32 Whileitisoftenthoughtthat,under
suitablecircumstances,theuploadwouldbeconsciousandthattheoriginalpersonwould
havesurvivedthetransfertothenewmedium,individualtranshumaniststakedifferent
viewsonthesephilosophicalmatters.

Ifeithersuperintelligence,ormolecularnanotechnology,oruploading,orsomeother
technologyofasimilarlyrevolutionarykindisdeveloped,thehumanconditioncould
clearlyberadicallytransformed.Evenifonebelievedthattheprobabilityofthishappening
anytimesoonisquitesmall,theseprospectswouldneverthelessmeritseriousattentionin
viewoftheirextremeimpact.However,transhumanismdoesnotdependonthefeasibility
ofsuchradicaltechnologies.Virtualreality;preimplantationgeneticdiagnosis;genetic
engineering;pharmaceuticalsthatimprovememory,concentration,wakefulness,andmood;
performanceenhancingdrugs;cosmeticsurgery;sexchangeoperations;prosthetics;anti
agingmedicine;closerhumancomputerinterfaces:thesetechnologiesarealreadyhereor
canbeexpectedwithinthenextfewdecades.Thecombinationofthesetechnological
capabilities,astheymature,couldprofoundlytransformthehumancondition.The
transhumanistagenda,whichistomakesuchenhancementoptionssafelyavailabletoall
persons,willbecomeincreasinglyrelevantandpracticalinthecomingyearsastheseand
otheranticipatedtechnologiescomeonline.

4.Thegrowthofgrassroots
BenjaminFranklinwishedtobepreservedinacaskofMadeiraandlaterrecalledtolife,and
regrettedthathewaslivingtooneartheinfancyofscienceforthistobepossible.Sincethen,
sciencehasgrownupabit.In1962,RobertEttingerpublishedthebook,TheProspectof
Immortality,whichlaunchedtheideaofcryonicsuspension. 33 Ettingerarguedthatas
medicaltechnologyseemstobeconstantlyprogressing,andsincesciencehasdiscovered
thatchemicalactivitycomestoacompletehaltatlowenoughtemperatures,itshouldbe
possibletofreezeapersontoday(inliquidnitrogen)andpreservethebodyuntilatime
whentechnologyisadvancedenoughtorepairthefreezingdamageandreversetheoriginal
causeofdeanimation.Cryonics,Ettingerbelieved,offeredatickettothefuture.

(Bostrom2003).
(Ettinger1964).

32
33

12


Alas,themassesdidnotlineupfortheride.Cryonicshasremainedafringealternativeto
moretraditionalmethodsoftreatingthediseased,suchascremationandburial.Thepractice
ofcryonicswasnotintegratedintothemainstreamclinicalsettingandwasinstead
conductedonthecheapbyasmallnumberofenthusiasts.Twoearlycryonicsorganizations
wentbankrupt,allowingtheirpatientstothawout.Atthatpoint,theproblemofmassive
cellulardamagethatoccurswhenicecrystalsforminthebodyalsobecamemorewidely
known.Asaresult,cryonicsacquiredareputationasamacabrescam.Themedia
controversyoverthesuspensionofbaseballstarTedWilliamsin2002showedthatpublic
perceptionofcryonicshasnotchangedmuchoverthepastdecades.

Despiteitsimageproblemanditsearlyfailuresofimplementation,thecryonicscommunity
continuestobeactiveanditcountsamongitsmembersseveraleminentscientistsand
intellectuals.Suspensionprotocolshavebeenimproved,andtheinfusionofcryoprotectants
priortofreezingtosuppresstheformationoficecrystalshasbecomestandardpractice.The
prospectofnanotechnologyhasgivenamoreconcreteshapetothehypothesizedfuture
technologythatcouldenablereanimation.Therearecurrentlytwoorganizationsthatoffer
fullservicesuspension,theAlcorLifeExtensionFoundation(foundedin1972)andthe
CryonicsInstitute(foundedin1976).Alcorhasrecentlyintroducedanewsuspension
method,whichreliesonaprocessknownasvitrification,whichfurtherreducesmicro
structuraldamageduringsuspension.

Inalaterwork,ManintoSuperman(1972),Ettingerdiscussedanumberofconceivable
technologicalimprovementsofthehumanorganism,continuingthetraditionstartedby
HaldaneandBernal. 34

AnotherearlytranshumanistwasF.M.Esfandiary,wholaterchangedhisnametoFM2030.
Oneofthefirstprofessorsoffuturestudies,FMtaughtattheNewSchoolforSocialResearch
inNewYorkinthe1960sandformedagroupofoptimisticfuturistsknownasthe
UpWingers.

Whoarethenewrevolutionariesofourtime?Theyarethegeneticists,biologists,
physicists,cryonologists,biotechnologists,nuclearscientists,cosmologists,radio
astronomers,cosmonauts,socialscientists,youthcorpsvolunteers,internationalists,
humanists,sciencefictionwriters,normativethinkers,inventorsTheyandothers

(Ettinger1972).

34

13

arerevolutionizingthehumanconditioninafundamentalway.Theirachievements
andgoalsgofarbeyondthemostradicalideologiesoftheOldOrder. 35

InhisbookAreyouatranshuman?(1989),FMdescribedwhatheregardedasthesignsofthe
emergenceofthetranshuman. 36 InFMsterminology,atranshumanisatransitional
human,someonewhobyvirtueoftheirtechnologyusage,culturalvalues,andlifestyle
constitutesanevolutionarylinktothecomingeraofposthumanity.ThesignsthatFMsaw
asindicativeoftranshumanstatusincludedprostheses,plasticsurgery,intensiveuseof
telecommunications,acosmopolitanoutlookandaglobetrottinglifestyle,androgyny,
mediatedreproduction(suchasinvitrofertilization),absenceofreligiousbelief,anda
rejectionoftraditionalfamilyvalues.However,itwasneversatisfactorilyexplainedwhy
somebodywho,say,rejectsfamilyvalues,hasanosejob,andspendsalotoftimeonjet
planesisincloserproximitytoposthumanitythantherestofus.

Inthe1970sand1980s,manyorganizationssprangupthatfocusedonaparticulartopicsuch
aslifeextension,cryonics,spacecolonization,sciencefiction,andfuturism.Thesegroups
wereoftenisolatedfromoneanother,andwhateversharedviewsandvaluestheyhaddid
notyetamounttoanyunifiedworldview.EdRegissGreatMamboChickenandthe
TranshumanCondition(1990)tookahumorouslookattheseprototranshumanistfringes,
whichincludedeccentricandotherwiseintelligentindividualstryingtobuildspacerockets
intheirbackyardsorexperimentingwithbiofeedbackmachinesandpsychedelicdrugs,as
wellasscientistspursuingmoreseriouslinesofworkbutwhohadimbibedtoodeeplyofthe
Californianspirit. 37

In1988,thefirstissueoftheExtropyMagazinewaspublishedbyMaxMoreandTom
Morrow,andin1992theyfoundedtheExtropyInstitute(thetermextropybeingcoinedas
ametaphoricaloppositeofentropy).TheInstituteservedasacatalystthatbroughttogether
disparategroupsofpeoplewithfuturisticideasandfacilitatedtheformationofnovel
memeticcompounds.TheInstituteranaseriesofconferences,butperhapsmostimportant
wastheextropiansmailinglist,anonlinediscussionforumwherenewideaswereshared
anddebated.Inthemidnineties,manygotfirstexposuretotranshumanistviewsfromthe
ExtropyInstituteslistserve.

MorehadimmigratedtoCaliforniafromBritainafterchanginghisnamefromMax
OConnor.Ofhisnewname,hesaid:

(Esfandiary1970).
(FM20301989).
37(Regis1990).
35
36

14


Itseemedtoreallyencapsulatetheessenceofwhatmygoalis:alwaystoimprove,
nevertobestatic.Iwasgoingtogetbetterateverything,becomesmarter,fitter,and
healthier.Itwouldbeaconstantremindertokeepmovingforward. 38

MaxMorewrotethefirstdefinitionoftranshumanisminitsmodernsense,andcreatedhis
owndistinctivebrandoftranshumanism,extropianism,whichemphasizedtheprinciples
ofboundlessexpansion,selftransformation,dynamicoptimism,intelligent
technology,andspontaneousorder.Originally,extropianismhadaclearlibertarian
flavor,butinlateryearsMorehasdistancedhimselffromthisingredient,replacing
spontaneousorderwithopensociety,aprinciplethatopposesauthoritariansocial
controlandpromotesdecentralizationofpowerandresponsibility. 39

NatashaVitaMoreistheExtropyInstitutescurrentpresident.Sheisanartistanddesigner,
andhasovertheyearsissuedanumberofmanifestosontranshumanistandextropicart. 40

TheExtropyInstitutesconferencesandmailinglistalsoservedasahangoutplaceforsome
peoplewholikedtodiscussfuturisticideasbutwhowerenotnecessarilyjoiners.Thosewho
werearoundinthemidninetieswillrememberindividualssuchasAndersSandberg,
AlexanderSashaChislenko,HalFinney,andRobinHansonfromamongthemore
thoughtfulregularsinthetranshumanistmilieuatthetime.Anenormousamountof
discussionabouttranshumanismhastakenplaceonvariousemaillistsinthepastdecade.
Thequalityofpostingshasbeenvaried(puttingitmildly).Yetattheirbest,theseonline
conversationsexploredideasabouttheimplicationsoffuturetechnologiesthatwere,in
somerespects,faradvancedoverwhatcouldbefoundinprintedbooksorjournals.The
Internetplayedanimportantroleinincubatingmoderntranshumanismbyfacilitatingthese
meetingsofmindsandperhapsmoreindirectly,too,viatheirrationalexuberancethat
pervadedthedotcomera?

TheWorldTranshumanistAssociationwasfoundedinearly1998byNickBostromand
DavidPearce,toprovideageneralorganizationalbasisforalltranshumanistgroupsand
interests,acrossthepoliticalspectrum.Theaimwasalsotodevelopamorematureand
academicallyrespectableformoftranshumanism,freedfromthecultishnesswhich,at
leastintheeyesofsomecritics,hadafflictedsomeofitsearlierconvocations.Thetwo
foundingdocumentsoftheWTAweretheTranshumanistDeclaration(seeappendix),andthe

(Regis1994).
(More2003).
40(VitaMore2002).
38
39

15

TranshumanistFAQ(v.1.0). 41 TheDeclarationwasintendedasaconciseconsensusstatement
ofthebasicprincipleoftranshumanism.TheFAQwasalsoaconsensusornearconsensus
document,butitwasmoreambitiousinitsphilosophicalscopeinthatitdevelopeda
numberofthemesthathadpreviouslybeen,atmost,implicitinthemovement.Morethan
fiftypeoplecontributedcommentsondraftsoftheFAQ.Thedocumentwasproducedby
Bostrombutmajorpartsandideaswerealsocontributedbyseveralothers,includingthe
BritishutilitarianthinkerDavidPearce,MaxMore,theAmericanfeministanddisability
rightsactivistKathrynAegis,andthewalkingencyclopediaAndersSandberg,whowasat
thetimeaneurosciencestudentinSweden.

DavidPearcehasalsodevelopedhisowndistinctiveflavoroftranshumanismbasedonan
ethicofhedonisticutilitarianism.Pearceargues,inTheHedonisticImperative,foranambitious
programtoeliminatesufferinginbothhumanandnonhumananimalsbymeansof
advancedneurotechnology(intheshorttermpharmaceuticals,inthelongertermperhaps
geneticengineering). 42 Inparallelwiththisnegativeefforttoabolishsuffering,heproposesa
positiveprogramofparadiseengineeringinwhichsentientbeingswouldberedesignedto
enableeverybodytoexperienceofunprecedentedlevelsofwellbeing.InPearcesutopia,
ourmotivationsystemwouldrunongradientsofblissinsteadofthecurrentpleasurepain
axis.

TheWTAsmembershipgrewrapidly,andlocalchaptersmushroomedaroundtheworld.
ActivitiesfocusedmainlyonInternetdiscussion,developmentofdocuments,representation
inthemedia,organizingofanannualTransVisionconference,andpublicationofthe
scholarlyonlineJournalofTranshumanism(laterrenamedtoJournalofEvolutionand
Technology).

Inthefirstfewyearsofitsexistence,theWTAwasaverylooselyandinformallyorganized
structure.Itentereditsnextphaseafterameetingin2001betweenJamesHughes(a
sociologistatTrinityCollegeinHartfordConnecticut),MarkWalker(aphilosopheratthe
UniversityofToronto,thentheeditoroftheJournalofTranshumanism),andBostrom(who
wasatthetimeteachingatYale).HugheswaselectedSecretaryandturnedhisorganizing
skillsandenergytothetask.Withinshortorder,theWTAadoptedaconstitution,
incorporatedasanonprofit,andbeganbuildingupavigorousinternationalnetworkof
localgroupsandvolunteers.Currently,theWTAhasapproximately3,000membersfrom
morethan100countries,anditpursuesawiderangeofactivities,allvolunteerdriven.

(WTA2002).
(Pearce2004).

41
42

16

Anumberofrelatedorganizationshavealsocroppedupinrecentyears,focusingmore
narrowlyonparticulartranshumanistissues,suchaslifeextension,artificialintelligence,or
thelegalimplicationsofconvergingtechnologies(nanobioinfoneurotechnologies).The
InstituteforEthicsandEmergingTechnologies,anonprofitthinktank,wasestablishedin
2004,topromotetheethicaluseoftechnologytoexpandhumancapacities.

5.Theacademicfrontier
Overthepastcoupleofdecades,academiahaspickeduptheballandstartedtoanalyze
varioustranshumanistmatters,bothnormativeandpositive.Thecontributionsarefartoo
manytocomprehensivelydescribehere,sowewillpickoutjustafewthreads,beginning
withethics.

Formostofitshistory,moralphilosophydidnotshyawayfromaddressingpractical
problems.Intheearlyandmidpartsofthetwentiethcentury,duringheydaysoflogical
positivism,appliedethicsbecameabackwaterasmoralphilosophersconcentratedon
linguisticormetaethicalproblems.Sincethen,however,practicalethicshasreemergedasa
fieldofacademicinquiry.Thecomebackstartedinmedicalethics.Revelationsofthehorrific
experimentsthattheNazishadconductedonhumansubjectsinthenameofscienceledto
theadoptionoftheNurembergcode(1947)andtheDeclarationofHelsinki(1964),which
laiddownstrictsafeguardsformedicalexperimentation,emphasizingtheneedforpatient
consent. 43,44 Buttheriseofthemodernhealthcaresystemspawnednewethicaldilemmas
turningofflifesupport,organdonation,resourceallocation,abortion,advancedirectives,
doctorpatientrelationships,protocolsforobtaininginformedconsentandfordealingwith
incompetentpatients.Inthe1970s,abroaderkindofenquirybegantoemerge,stimulated
particularlybydevelopmentsinassistedreproductionandgenetics.Thisfieldbecame
knownasbioethics.Manyoftheethicalissuesmostdirectlylinkedtotranshumanismwould
nowfallunderthisrubric,althoughothernormativediscoursesarealsoinvolved,e.g.
populationethics,metaethics,politicalphilosophy,andbioethicsyoungersisters
computerethics,engineeringethics,environmentalethics.

Bioethicswasfromthebeginninganinterdisciplinaryendeavor,dominatedbytheologians,
legalscholars,physicians,and,increasingly,philosophers,withoccasionalparticipationby
representativesofpatientsrightsgroups,disabilityadvocates,andotherinterestedparties.
45

Lackingaclearmethodology,andoperatingonaplainoftensweptbythewindsof

politicalorreligiouscontroversy,thestandardofscholarshiphasfrequentlybeen

(Office1949).
(World_Medical_Organization1996).
45See(Jonsen1998).
43
44

17

underwhelming.Despitethesedifficulties,bioethicsburgeoned.Acynicmightascribethis
accomplishmenttotheamplefertilizationthatthefieldreceivedfromanumberofpractical
imperatives:absolvingdoctorsofmoraldilemmas,trainingmedicalstudentstobehave,
enablinghospitalboardstotrumpettheircommitmenttothehighestethicalstandardsof
care,providingsoundbitesforthemassmedia,andallowingpoliticianstocovertheir
behindsbydelegatingcontroversialissuestoethicscommittees.Butakinderglossis
possible:decentpeoplerecognizedthatdifficultmoralproblemsaroseinmodern
biomedicine,thattheseproblemsneededtobeaddressed,andthathavingsomeprofessional
scholarstryingtoclarifytheseproblemsinsomesortofsystematicwaymightbehelpful.
Whilehighercaliberscholarshipandamorerobustmethodologywouldbenice,inthe
meantimewemakethemostofwhatwehave.

Moralphilosophershaveinthelastcoupleofdecadesmademanycontributionsthatbearon
theethicsofhumantransformation,andwemustlimitourselvestoafewmentions.Derek
ParfitsclassicReasonsandPersons(1984)discussedmanyrelevantnormativeissues. 46 In
additiontopersonalidentityandfoundationalethicaltheory,thisbooktreatspopulation
ethics,personaffectingmoralprinciples,anddutiestofuturegenerations.AlthoughParfits
analysistakesplaceonanidealizedlevel,hisargumentselucidatemanymoral
considerationsthatemergewithinthetranshumanistprogram.

JonathanGloversWhatSortofPeopleShouldthereBe?(1984)addressedtechnologyenabled
humantransformationatasomewhatmoreconcretelevel,focusingespeciallyongenetics
andvarioustechnologiesthatcouldincreasesocialtransparency.Glovergaveaclearand
balancedanalytictreatmentoftheseissuesthatwaswellaheadofitstime.Hisgeneral
conclusionisthat

notjustanyaspectofpresenthumannatureisworthpreserving.Ratheritis
especiallythosefeatureswhichcontributetoselfdevelopmentandselfexpression,
tocertainkindsofrelationships,andtothedevelopmentofourconsciousnessand
understanding.Andsomeofthesefeaturesmaybeextendedratherthanthreatened
bytechnology. 47

Severalpeoplehavearguedforprinciplesthatassertsomekindofethicalequivalence
betweenenvironmentalandgeneticinterventions.Forexample,PeterSingerhasproposed
thepreventiveprinciple:

(Parfit1984).
(Glover1984).

46
47

18

ForanyconditionX,ifitwouldbeaformofchildabuseforparentstoinflictXon
theirchildsoonafterbirth,thenitmust,otherthingsbeingequal,atleastbe
permissibletotakestepstopreventoneschildhavingthatcondition. 48

JulianSavulescuhasarguedforaprincipleofProcreativeBeneficence,accordingtowhich
prospectiveparentsshouldselectthechild,ofthepossiblechildrentheycouldhave,who
wouldhavethebestlife,basedontherelevant,availableinformation(wheretheshouldis
meanttoindicatethatpersuasionisjustified,butnotcoercion). 49 Thisprincipledoesnot
presupposethatalllivescanbeplacedinadefiniterankingwithrespecttotheirwellbeing,
onlythatpairwisecomparisonsarepossibleinatleastsomecases.Forinstance,ifacouple
ishavingIVFandmustselectoneoftwoembryoswhicharegeneticallyidenticalexceptthat
oneofthemhasonedefectivegenethatpredisposestoasthma,thenProcreativeBeneficence
suggeststheyoughttochoosethehealthyembryoforimplantation.

InFromChancetoChoice(2000),AllenBuchanan,DanW.Brock,NormanDaniels,andDaniel
Wikler,examinedhowadvancesingeneticengineeringshouldaffectourunderstandingof
distributivejustice,equalopportunity,ourrightsandobligationsasparents,themeaningof
disability,andtheconceptofhumannatureinethicaltheoryandpractice. 50 Theydeveloped
aframeworkinspiredbyJohnRawlssworkinanattempttoanswersomeofthese
questions.

GregStock,JohnHarris,GregoryPence,andEricJuengst,amongothers,havealsodiscussed
theethicsofgeneticengineeringfromabroadlytranshumanistperspective. 51 MarkWalker
hasarguedfromaperfectioniststandpointthatwehaveadutytousetechnologytoimprove
ourselves.Walkerhasalsoarguedthatonereasontopursuecognitiveenhancementsisthat
itcouldhelpussolvephilosophicalproblems. 52 NickBostromandseveralothershave
drawnattentiontothedistinctionbetweenenhancementsthatofferonlypositional
advantages(e.g.anincreaseinheight),whichareonlyadvantagesinsofarasotherslack
them,andenhancementsthatprovideeitherintrinsicbenefitsornetpositiveexternalities
(suchasabetterimmunesystemorimprovementofcognitivefunctioning).Weoughtto
promoteenhancementsofthesecondkind,butnotenhancementsthataremerely
positional. 53

(Singer2003).
(Savulescu2001).
50(Buchananetal.2002).
51E.g.(Stock2002;Harris1992;Pence1998;Parens1998).
52(Walker2002).
53(Bostrom2003).
48
49

19

Bostromhassuggestedthatwehaveareasontodevelopmeanstoexplorethelargerspace
ofpossiblemodesofbeingthatiscurrentlyinaccessibletousbecauseofourbiological
limitations,onthegroundthatwemightfindthatitcontainsextremelyworthwhilemodes
ofbeingwaysofliving,thinking,feeling,andrelating. 54 Alongwithmanyother
transhumanistwriters,Bostromhasarguedforthemoralurgencyofdevelopingmeansto
sloworreversetheagingprocess. 55 Hehasalsoproposedabroaderconceptionofhuman
dignitywhichcanaccommodateposthumandignity. 56 ArecentjointpaperbyBostrom
andTobyOrdproposesaheuristicforeliminatingstatusquobiasinbioethics,abias
which,theyclaim,afflictsmanyofourmoralintuitions. 57

EliezerYudkowsky(anindependentscholar)hasprobedtheethicsofsuperintelligenceand
hastriedtodevelopatheoryofhowtoprogramahumanfriendlyAI,achallengethatcould
takeonlifeanddeathsignificanceoncewebecomecapableofcreatingsuchamachine.
Yudkowskyarguesthatsimplerulebasedinjunctions(suchasIsaacAsimovsthreelawsof
robotics)wouldproducedeadlyunintendedconsequences.Heconceivesofa
superintelligenceasanenormouslypowerfuloptimizationprocess,andthecentraltaskisto
specifythementalarchitectureandgoalstructureoftheAIinsuchawaythatitrealizes
desirableoutcomes.Ratherthancreatingalistofspecificgoals,Yudkowskyarguesthatwe
needtotakeamoreindirectapproachandchoosetheAIsinitialconditionssothatitwould
useitssuperiorintellectualpowerstoderivethespecificgoalsandextrapolateourdecisions
ifwewerebettercalibrated,betterinformed,andbetterabletoreflectontheforces
influencingourdecisions.YudkowskyalsowishestospecifyanAIthatwoulduseitsinitial
rulesforextrapolationtoextrapolatesmarterhumandecisionsaboutextrapolationrules;in
effect,asetofinitialrulesforextrapolationwouldrenormalizethemselves. 58

Asidefromnormativequestions,therearealsopositivequestionstobeasked,aboutthe
natureandtimingoftransformingtechnologiesandtheirconsequences.HansMoravecs
1989bookMindChildrenexploredtheramificationsofpossiblefutureadvancesinrobotics
anduploading. 59 AlaterMoravecbook,Robot(1999),andRayKurzweilsbestsellingAgeof
SpiritualMachines(1999)introducedtheseideastoawideraudience. 60,61 Aswehaveseen,
EricDrexlerwastryingtoanticipatetheconsequencesofmolecularnanotechnologybackin

(Bostrom2004).
(Bostrom2005).
56(Bostrom2005).
57(BostromandOrd2005).
58(Yudkowsky2004).
59(Moravec1989).
60(Moravec1999).
61(Kurzweil1999).
54
55

20

the80s,anendeavorinwhichhehassincebeenjoinedbyseveralotherresearcherssuchas
RobertFreitas,whohasstudiedpotentialmedicalapplicationofnanotechnologyingreat
detail,andRalphMerklewhohascollaboratedwithFreitastostudythekinematicsofself
replicatingsystemsandthetechnicalstepstowardscrudemolecularassemblers. 62 Allthese
authorsrecognizethattechnologiesaspotentassuperintelligenceormolecular
nanotechnologyarenotwithoutseriousrisksofaccidentsordeliberatemisuse.

Bostrom(2002)introducedtheconceptofanexistentialrisk,definedasonewherean
adverseoutcomewouldeitherannihilateEarthoriginatingintelligentlifeorpermanently
anddrasticallycurtailitspotential,andcreatedacatalogueofwhathesawasthemost
probableexistentialrisks. 63 Bothnanotechnologyandsuperintelligencerelatedrisksattain
highranksonthatlist.Inamuchdiscussedpopulararticle,WhytheFutureDoesntNeed
Us(2000),BillJoyarguedthatweoughttorelinquishdevelopmentsinAI,nanotechnology,
andgeneticsbecauseoftherisksthatwilleventuallyemergefromthesedisciplines. 64 Several
people,reactingtoJoy,arguedagainstsuchbansongroundsthattheyareunrealistic,would
depriveusofgreatbenefits,andmightincreaseratherthandecreaseriskifdevelopment
weredrivenundergroundortolesshesitantregionsoftheworld.JohnLeslie,MartinRees,
andRichardPosnerhavealsoinvestigatedthreatstohumansurvivalinthe21stcenturyall
ofthemhaveratedtheriskashighlysignificant. 65

RobinHansonhasanalyzedseveraltopicsofrelevancetohumantransformation,including
theconsequencesofuploadinginanunregulatedeconomy,thesocialsignalingfunctionof
beliefs,thesourcesandepistemologicalstatusofdisagreementsofopinion,thedynamicsof
aspacecolonizationrace,andinformationmarketsasasystemforaggregatinginformation
andguidingpolicy. 66 RelatedtoHansonsworkonuploadcompetitionandcolonization
races,Bostromhasexploredhowdystopianoutcomescouldresultinsomefuture
evolutionaryscenarios. 67 Drawingonhisearlierworkonobservationselectioneffects,he
alsoformulatedtheSimulationargument,whichpurportstoshowthatitfollowsfromsome
fairlyweakassumptionsthat

atleastoneofthefollowingpropositionsistrue:(1)thehumanspeciesisverylikely
togoextinctbeforereachingaposthumanstage;(2)anyposthumancivilizationis
extremelyunlikelytorunasignificantnumberofsimulationsoftheirevolutionary

(FreitasandMerkle2005).
(Bostrom2002).
64(Joy2000).
65(Leslie1996;Rees2003;Posner2004).
66E.g.(Hanson1994,1995,1998).
67(Bostrom2005).
62
63

21

history(orvariationsthereof);(3)wearealmostcertainlylivinginacomputer
simulation.Itfollowsthatthebeliefthatthereisasignificantchancethatwewillone
daybecomeposthumanswhorunancestorsimulationsisfalse,unlessweare
currentlylivinginasimulation. 68

Wedonotknowwhatwillhappen,butseveralsubtleconstraintsenableustonarrowdown
therangeoftenableviewsabouthumanitysfutureandourplaceintheuniverse.These
constraintsderivefromavarietyofsources,includinganalysisofthecapacitiesofpossible
technologiesbasedonphysicalorchemicalsimulations;economicanalysis;evolutiontheory;
probabilitytheory;gametheoryandstrategicanalysis;andcosmology.Partlybecauseofthe
interdisciplinaryandsometimestechnicalnatureoftheseconsiderations,theyarenotwidely
understood.Yetanyseriousattempttograpplewiththelongtermimplicationsof
technologicaldevelopmentshouldtakethemintoaccount.

6.21stcenturybiopolitics:thetranshumanistbioconservativedimension
JamesHugheshasarguedthatbiopoliticsisemergingasafundamentalnewdimensionof
politicalopinion.InHughesmodel,biopoliticsjoinswiththemorefamiliardimensionsof
culturalandeconomicpolitics,toformathreedimensionalopinionspace.Wehavealready
seenthatintheearly90s,theextropianscombinedliberalculturalpoliticsandlaissezfair
economicpoliticswithtranshumanistbiopolitics.InCitizenCyborg(2004),Hughessets
forwardwhathetermsdemocratictranshumanism,whichmatestranshumanist
biopoliticswithsocialdemocraticeconomicpoliticsandliberalculturalpolitics. 69 Heargues
thatwewillachievethebestposthumanfuturewhenweensurethattechnologiesaresafe,
makethemavailabletoeveryone,andrespecttherightofindividualstocontroltheirown
bodies.Thekeydifferencebetweenextropiantranshumanismanddemocratic
transhumanismisthatthelatteraccordsamuchbiggerroleforgovernmentinregulating
newtechnologiesforsafetyandensuringthatthebenefitswillbeavailabletoall,notjusta
wealthyortechsavvyelite.

Inprinciple,transhumanismcanbecombinedwithawiderangeofpoliticalandcultural
views,andmanysuchcombinationsareindeedrepresented,e.g.withinthemembershipof
theWorldTranshumanistAssociation.Onecombinationthatisnotoftenfoundisthe
couplingoftranshumanismtoacultureconservativeoutlook.Whetherthisisbecauseofan
irresolvabletensionbetweenthetransformativeagendaoftranshumanismandthecultural

(Bostrom2003).
(Hughes2004).

68
69

22

conservativespreferencefortraditionalarrangementsisnotclear.Itcouldinsteadbe
becausenobodyhasyetseriouslyattemptedtodevelopsuchaposition.Itispossibleto
imaginehownewtechnologiescouldbeusedtoreinforcesomecultureconservativevalues.
Forinstance,apharmaceuticalthatfacilitatedlongtermpairbondingcouldhelpprotectthe
traditionalfamily.Developingwaysofusingourgrowingtechnologicalpowerstohelp
peoplerealizewidelyheldculturalorspiritualvaluesintheirliveswouldseema
worthwhileundertaking.

Thisisnot,however,therouteforwhichculturalconservativeshavesofaropted.Instead,
theyhavegravitatedtowardstranshumanismsopposite,bioconservatism,whichopposes
theuseoftechnologytoexpandhumancapacitiesortomodifyaspectsofourbiological
nature.Peopledrawntobioconservatismcomefromgroupsthattraditionallyhavehadlittle
incommon.Rightwingreligiousconservativesandleftwingenvironmentalistsandanti
globalistshavefoundcommoncauses,forexampleintheiroppositiontothegenetic
modificationofhumans.

Thedifferentstrandsofcontemporarybioconservatismcanbetracedtoamultifarioussetof
origins:ancientnotionsoftaboo;theGreekconceptofhubris;theRomanticistviewof
nature;certainreligious(antihumanistic)interpretationsoftheconceptofhumandignity
andofaGodgivennaturalorder;theLudditeworkersrevoltagainstindustrialization;Karl
Marxsanalysisoftechnologyundercapitalism;variousContinentalphilosopherscritiques
oftechnology,technocracy,andtherationalisticmindsetthataccompaniesmodern
technoscience;foesofthemilitaryindustrialcomplexandmultinationalcorporations;and
objectorstotheconsumeristratrace.Theproposedremedieshaverangedfrommachine
smashing(theoriginalLuddites),tocommunistrevolution(Marx),tobuyingorganic,to
yoga(JosOrtegayGasset),butnowadaysitcommonlyemanatesincallsfornationalor
internationalbansonvarioushumanenhancementtechnologies(Fukuyama,Annas,etc.).

Feministwritershavecomedownonbothsidesofthedebate.Ecofeministshavesuspected
biotechnology,especiallyitsusetoreshapebodiesorcontrolreproduction,ofbeingan
extensionoftraditionalpatriarchalexploitationofwomen,or,alternatively,haveseenitasa
symptomofacontrolobsessed,unemphatic,gadgetfixated,bodyloathingmindset.Some
haveofferedakindofpsychoanalysisoftranshumanism,concludingthatitrepresentsan
embarrassingrationalizationofselfcenteredimmaturityandsocialfailure.Butothershave
welcomedthelibratorypotentialofbiotechnology.ShulamithFirestonearguedinthe
feministclassicTheDialecticofSex(1971)thatwomenwillbefullyliberatedonlywhen
technologyhasfreedthemfromhavingtoincubatechildren. 70 CyberfeministDonna

(Firestone1970).

70

23

Harawayproclaimsthatshewouldratherbeacyborgthanagoddessandarguesagainst
thedualisticviewthatassociatesmenwithcultureandtechnologyandwomenwith
nature. 71

PerhapsthemostprominentbioconservativevoicetodayisthatofLeonKass,chairmanof
PresidentBushsCouncilonBioethics.Kassacknowledgesanintellectualdebttothreeother
distinguishedbioconservatives:ProtestanttheologianPaulRamsey,ChristianapologeticC.
S.Lewis,andGermanbornphilosophertheologianHansJonas(whostudiedunderMartin
Heidegger). 72 Kasssconcernscenteronhumandignityandthesubtlewaysinwhichour
attemptstoasserttechnologicalmasteryoverhumannaturecouldendupdehumanizingus
byunderminingvarioustraditionalmeaningssuchasthemeaningofthelifecycle,the
meaningofsex,themeaningofeating,andthemeaningofwork.Kassiswellknownforhis
advocacyofthewisdomofrepugnance(whichechoesHansJonassheuristicsoffear).
WhileKassstressesthatagutfeelingofrevulsionisnotamoralargument,henevertheless
insiststhattheyuckfactormeritsourrespectfulattention:

Incrucialcasesrepugnanceistheemotionalexpressionofdeepwisdom,beyond
reasonspowertofullyarticulateweintuitandfeel,immediatelyandwithout
argument,theviolationofthingswerightfullyholddearTopollutionand
perversion,thefittingresponsecanonlybehorrorandrevulsion;andconversely,
generalizedhorrorandrevulsionareprimafacieevidenceoffoulnessand
violation. 73

FrancisFukuyama,anotherprominentbioconservativeandmemberofthePresidents
Council,hasrecentlyidentifiedtranshumanismastheworldsmostdangerousidea. 74 For
Fukuyama,however,thechiefconcernisnotaboutthesubtleunderminingofmeanings
buttheprospectofviolenceandoppression.Hearguesthatliberaldemocracydependson
thefactthatallhumansshareanundefinedFactorX,whichgroundstheirequaldignity
andrights.Theuseofenhancingtechnologies,hefears,coulddestroyFactorX. 75

BioethicistsGeorgeAnnas,LoriAndrews,andRosarioIsasihaveproposedlegislationto
makeinheritablegeneticmodificationinhumansacrimeagainsthumanity,liketorture
andgenocide.TheirrationaleissimilartoFukuyamas:

(Haraway1991).
(Kass2002).
73(Kass1997).
74(Fukuyama2004).Foraresponse,see(Bostrom2004).
75(Fukuyama2002).
71
72

24


Thenewspecies,orposthuman,willlikelyviewtheoldnormalhumansas
inferior,evensavages,andfitforslaveryorslaughter.Thenormals,ontheother
hand,mayseetheposthumansasathreatandiftheycan,mayengageina
preemptivestrikebykillingtheposthumansbeforetheythemselvesarekilledor
enslavedbythem.Itisultimatelythispredictablepotentialforgenocidethatmakes
speciesalteringexperimentspotentialweaponsofmassdestruction,andmakesthe
unaccountablegeneticengineerapotentialbioterrorist. 76

ThereissomecommongroundbetweenAnnasetal.andthetranshumanists:theyagreethat
murderandenslavement,whetherofhumansbyposthumansortheotherwayaround,
wouldbeamoralatrocityandacrime.Transhumanistsdeny,however,thatthisisalikely
consequenceofgermlinetherapytoenhancehealth,memory,longevity,orothersimilar
traitsinhumans.Ifandwhenwedevelopthecapabilitytocreatesomesingularentitythat
couldpotentiallydestroythehumanrace,suchasasuperintelligentmachine,thenwecould
indeedregarditasacrimeagainsthumanitytoproceedwithoutathoroughriskanalysis
andtheinstallationofadequatesafetyfeatures.Aswesawintheprevioussection,theeffort
tounderstandandfindwaystoreduceexistentialriskshasbeenacentralpreoccupationfor
sometranshumanists,suchasEricDrexler,NickBostrom,andEliezerYudkowsky.

Thereareothercommonalitiesbetweenbioconservativesandtranshumanists.Bothagree
thatwefacearealisticprospectthattechnologycouldbeusedtosubstantiallytransformthe
humanconditioninthiscentury.Bothagreethatthisimposesanobligationonthecurrent
generationtothinkhardaboutthepracticalandethicalimplications.Bothareconcerned
withmedicalrisksofsideeffects,ofcourse,althoughbioconservativesaremoreworriedthat
thetechnologymightsucceedthanthatitmightfail.Bothcampsagreethattechnologyin
generalandmedicineinparticularhavealegitimateroletoplay,althoughbioconservatives
tendtoopposemanyusesofmedicinethatgobeyondtherapytoenhancement.Bothsides
condemntheracistandcoercivestatesponsoredeugenicsprogramsofthetwentieth
century.Bioconservativesdrawattentiontothepossibilitythatsubtlehumanvaluescould
geterodedbytechnologicaladvances,andtranshumanistsshouldperhapslearntobemore
sensitivetotheseconcerns.Ontheotherhand,transhumanistsemphasizetheenormous
potentialforgenuineimprovementsinhumanwellbeingandhumanflourishingthatare
attainableonlyviatechnologicaltransformation,andbioconservativescouldtrytobemore
appreciativeofthepossibilitythatwecouldrealizegreatvaluesbyventuringbeyondour
currentbiologicallimitations.

(Annas,Andrews,andIsasi2002).

76

25

Appendix

TheTranshumanistDeclaration

(1)Humanitywillberadicallychangedbytechnologyinthefuture.Weforeseethe
feasibilityofredesigningthehumancondition,includingsuchparametersasthe
inevitabilityofaging,limitationsonhumanandartificialintellects,unchosenpsychology,
suffering,andourconfinementtotheplanetearth.

(2)Systematicresearchshouldbeputintounderstandingthesecomingdevelopmentsand
theirlongtermconsequences.

(3)Transhumaniststhinkthatbybeinggenerallyopenandembracingofnewtechnologywe
haveabetterchanceofturningittoouradvantagethanifwetrytobanorprohibitit.

(4)Transhumanistsadvocatethemoralrightforthosewhosowishtousetechnologyto
extendtheirmentalandphysical(includingreproductive)capacitiesandtoimprovetheir
controlovertheirownlives.Weseekpersonalgrowthbeyondourcurrentbiological
limitations.

(5)Inplanningforthefuture,itismandatorytotakeintoaccounttheprospectofdramatic
progressintechnologicalcapabilities.Itwouldbetragicifthepotentialbenefitsfailedto
materializebecauseoftechnophobiaandunnecessaryprohibitions.Ontheotherhand,it
wouldalsobetragicifintelligentlifewentextinctbecauseofsomedisasterorwarinvolving
advancedtechnologies.

(6)Weneedtocreateforumswherepeoplecanrationallydebatewhatneedstobedone,and
asocialorderwhereresponsibledecisionscanbeimplemented.

(7)Transhumanismadvocatesthewellbeingofallsentience(whetherinartificialintellects,
humans,posthumans,ornonhumananimals)andencompassesmanyprinciplesofmodern
humanism.Transhumanismdoesnotsupportanyparticularparty,politicianorpolitical
platform.

26

References
Annas,G.,L.Andrews,andR.Isasi(2002),ProtectingtheEndangeredHuman:Towardan
InternationalTreatyProhibitingCloningandInheritableAlterations,American
JournalofLawandMedicine28(2&3):151178.
Bacon,F.(1620),NovumOrganum.TranslatedbyR.L.EllisandJ.Spedding.Robertson,J.ed,
ThePhilosophicalWoeksofFrancisBacon,1905.London:Routledge.
Bernal,J.D.(1969),Theworld,theflesh&thedevil;anenquiryintothefutureofthethreeenemies
oftherationalsoul.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Bostrom,N.(1998),HowLongBeforeSuperintelligence?InternationalJournalofFutures
Studies2.
(2002),ExistentialRisks:AnalyzingHumanExtinctionScenariosandRelated
Hazards,JournalofEvolutionandTechnology9.
(2002),WhenMachinesOutsmartHumans,Futures35(7):759764.
(2003),AreYouLivinginaComputerSimulation?PhilosophicalQuarterly53
(211):243255.
(2003),HumanGeneticEnhancements:ATranshumanistPerspective,Journalof
ValueInquiry37(4):493506.
TheTranshumanistFAQ:v2.1.WorldTranshumanistAssociation2003.
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/.
(2004),TranshumanismTheWorldsMostDangerousIdea?Betterhumans
10/19/2004.
(2004),TranshumanistValues,inFredrickAdams(ed.),EthicalIssuesforthe21st
Century:PhilosophicalDocumentationCenterPress.
(2005),TheFableoftheDragonTyrant,JournalofMedicalEthics31(5):273277.
(2005),TheFutureofHumanEvolution,inCharlesTandy(ed.),DeathandAnti
Death:RiaUniversityPress.
(2005),InDefenceofPosthumanDignity,Bioethicsforthcoming.
Bostrom,N.,andT.Ord(2005),StatusQuoBiasinBioethics:TheCaseforCognitive
Enhancement,inNickBostromandJulianSavulescu(eds.),ImprovingHumans,
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Buchanan,A.,D.W.Brock,N.Daniels,andD.Wikler(2002),FromChancetoChoice:Genetics
andJustice:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Capek,K.(2004),R.U.R.(Rossumsuniversalrobots),Penguinclassics.London:PenguinBooks.
Condorcet,J.A.N.d.C.(1979),Sketchforahistoricalpictureoftheprogressofthehumanmind.
Westport,Conn.:GreenwoodPress.
Darwin,C.(2003),Theoriginofthespecies,Barnes&nobleclassics.NewYork,NY:Fine
CreativeMedia.

27

Drexler,E.,andR.Smalley(1993),Nanotechnology:DrexlerandSmalleymakethecasefor
andagainstmolecularassemblers,Chemical&EngineeringNews81(48):3742.
Drexler,K.E.(1985),EnginesofCreation:TheComingEraofNanotechnology.London:Forth
Estate.
(1992),Nanosystems:MolecularMachinery,Manufacturing,andComputation.NewYork:
JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Esfandiary,F.M.(1970),Optimismone;theemergingradicalism.NewYork:Norton.
Ettinger,R.(1964),Theprospectofimmortality.NewYork:Doubleday.
Ettinger,R.C.W.(1972),Manintosuperman;thestartlingpotentialofhumanevolutionandhow
tobepartofit.NewYork:St.MartinsPress.
Feynman,R.(1960),ThereisPlentyofRoomattheBottom,EngineeringandScienceFeb.
Firestone,S.(1970),Thedialecticofsex;thecaseforfeministrevolution.NewYork,:Morrow.
FM2030(1989),Areyouatranshuman?:monitoringandstimulatingyourpersonalrateofgrowth
inarapidlychangingworld.NewYork,NY:WarnerBooks.
Franklin,B.,etal.(1956),Mr.Franklin:aselectionfromhispersonalletters.NewHaven:Yale
UniversityPress.
Freitas,R.,andR.Merkle(2005),DiamondSurfacesandDiamondMechanosynthesis.
Georgetown,TX:LandesBioscience.
Fukuyama,F.(2002),OurPosthumanFuture:ConsequencesoftheBiotechnologyRevolution:
Farrar,StrausandGiroux.
(2004),Transhumanism,ForeignAffairsSeptember/October.
Glover,J.(1984),WhatSortofPeopleShouldThereBe?:Pelican.
Good,I.J.(1965),SpeculationsConcerningtheFirstUltraintelligentMachine,Advancesin
Computers6:3188.
Haldane,J.B.S.(1924),Daedalus;or,Scienceandthefuture.London,:K.Paul,Trench,Trubner
&co.,ltd.
Hanson,R.(1994),WhatIfUploadsComeFirst:TheCrackofaFutureDawn,Extropy6(2).
(1995),CouldGamblingSaveScience?EncouraginganHonestConsensus,Social
Epistemology9:1:333.
BurningtheCosmicCommons:EvolutionaryStrategiesforInterstellarColonization1998.
http://hanson.gmu.edu/filluniv.pdf.
Haraway,D.(1991),ACyborgManifesto:Science,Technology,andSocialistFeminismin
theLateTwentiethCentury,in,Simians,CyborgsandWomen:TheReinventionof
Nature,NewYork:Routledge,149181.
Harris,J.(1992),WonderwomanandSuperman:theethicsofhumanbiotechnology,Studiesin
bioethics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hughes,J.(2004),CitizenCyborg:whydemocraticsocietiesmustrespondtotheredesignedhuman
ofthefuture.Cambridge,MA:WestviewPress.
Huxley,A.(1932),BraveNewWorld.London:Chatto&Windus.

28

Huxley,J.(1927),Religionwithoutrevelation.London:E.Benn.
Jonsen,A.R.(1998),Thebirthofbioethics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Joy,B.(2000),Whythefuturedoesntneedus,Wired8.04.
Kant,I.(1986),Philosophicalwritings,TheGermanlibrary;v.13.NewYork:Continuum.
Kass,L.(1997),TheWisdomofRepugnance,TheNewRepublic2June1997:22.
(2002),Life,liberty,andthedefenseofdignity:thechallengeforbioethics.1sted.San
Francisco:EncounterBooks.
Kurzweil,R.(1999),TheAgeofSpiritualMachines:Whencomputersexceedhumanintelligence.
NewYork:Viking.
LaMettrie,J.O.d.(1996),Machinemanandotherwritings,Cambridgetextsinthehistoryof
philosophy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Leslie,J.(1996),TheEndoftheWorld:TheScienceandEthicsofHumanExtinction.London:
Routledge.
Minsky,M.(1994),WillRobotsInherittheEarth?ScientificAmerican.
Mitchell,S.(2004),Gilgamesh:anewEnglishversion.NewYork:FreePress.
Moore,G.E.(1965),Crammingmorecomponentsontointegratedcircuits,Electronics38(8).
Moravec,H.(1989),MindChildren.Harvard:HarvardUniversityPress.
(1999),Robot:MereMachinetoTranscendentMind.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
More,M.PrinciplesofExtropy,Version3.112003.http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm.
Newman,W.R.(2004),Prometheanambitions:alchemyandthequesttoperfectnature.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress.
Nietzsche,F.W.(1908),AlsosprachZarathustra:einBuchfuralleundkeinen.Leipzig:Insel
Verlag.
Office,U.S.G.P.(1949),TrialsofWarCriminalsbeforetheNurembergMilitaryTribunals
underControlCouncilLawNo.10,2:181182.
Orwell,G.(1949),Nineteeneightyfour,anovel.NewYork:Harcourt.
Parens,E.(1998),Enhancinghumantraits:ethicalandsocialimplications,HastingsCenterstudies
inethics.Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Parfit,D.(1984),ReasonsandPersons.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Pearce,D.TheHedonisticImperative2004.http://www.hedweb.com/hedab.htm.
Pence,G.E.(1998),Whosafraidofhumancloning?Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield.
PicodellaMirandola,G.(1956),Orationonthedignityofman.Chicago:GatewayEditions.
Posner,R.(2004),Catastrophe.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rees,M.(2003),OurFinalHour:AScientistsWarning:HowTerror,Error,andEnvironmental
DisasterThreatenHumankindsFutureinThisCenturyOnEarthandBeyond:Basic
Books.
Regis,E.(1990),Greatmambochickenandthetranshumancondition:scienceslightlyovertheedge.
Reading,Mass.:AddisonWesley.
(1994),MeettheExtropians,Wired2(10).

29

Russell,B.(1924),Icarus;orThefutureofscience.London:K.Paul,Trench,Trubner&Co.,ltd.
Savulescu,J.(2001),ProcreativeBeneficence:WhyWeShouldSelecttheBestChildren,
Bioethics15(56):413426.
Shelley,M.W.(1818),Frankenstein;or,ThemodernPrometheus.London,:Printedfor
Lackington,Hughes,Harding,Mavor,&Jones.
Singer,P.(2003),ShoppingattheGeneticSupermarket,inSYSong,YMKooandDRJ.
Macer(eds.),BioethicsinAsiainthe21stCentury:EubiosEthicsInstitute,143156.
Stock,G.(2002),RedesigningHumans:OurInevitableGeneticFuture:HoughtonMifflin
Company.
TeilharddeChardin,P.(1964),Thefutureofman.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Tipler,F.(1994),ThePhysicsofImmortality.NewYork:Doubleday.
Turing,A.(1950),Computingmachineryandintelligence,Mind59:433460.
Ulam,S.(1958),JohnvonNeumann19031957,BulletinoftheAmericanMathematicalSociety
(May).
Vinge,V.(1993),TheComingTechnologicalSingularity,WholeEarthReviewWinterissue.
VitaMore,N.TranshumanistArtsStatement2002.
http://www.transhumanist.biz/transart.htm.
Walker,M.(2002),ProlegomenatoAnyFuturePhilosophy,JournalofEvolutionand
Technology10.
World_Medical_Organization(1996),DeclarationofHelsinki,BritishMedicalJournal313
(7070):14481449.
WTATheTranshumanistDeclaration2002.
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/.
Yudkowsky,E.CollectiveVolition2004.http://www.singinst.org/friendly/collective
volition.html.

30