Humanness isn't going anywhere.

The Next Big Future blog recently posted an ongoing debate between James Hughes and Francis Fukuyama about subject of human modification. James' essay is entitled Beyond The Human Race - And "Human-Racism".

There are several problems with James essay starting with the first sentence which relies on circular logic. He starts by stating that "humanness is an "imagined concept" and thereby proceed to claim that any rules that should govern humanity are therefore invalid so bring on the transhumans. The problem with is of course is by saying humanness as effectively nothing then there would essentially nothing to transcend so therefore humanness is cannot be imagined because whatever can be transformed or transcended must first exist.

Hughes is confusing conceptualization with imagination where concepts (humanness) are expressed to communicate our ideas about an existing thing (humanity) are confused with the thing. All concepts are imagined but that doesn’t what is meant by the expression of them doesn’t exist or is invalid. That fact that I imagine something doesn’t say anything about its validity.

Hughes then goes on make historically stupid statements about monarchy and post-monarchy as if humans haven’t democratic and non monarchial institution of government prior to monarchy not that monarchy is any single form of government or that we are entirely free of the ideas behind monarchy.

In fact, one could argue that Transhumanism is an argument for Monarchy where some physical line of technological improvements grant the Transhumans superior powers of rightful rule over the puny humans. Isn’t the entire basis of Monarchy in all its forms that rule is granted mystical power inherited by physical bloodlines rather than republican idea humanity must be governed by natural law discovered through the free exercise of creative reason?

Hughes further goes on to prove he is racist monarchist in the follow statement:

“What exactly is this human genome that needs such a defense? It can't include the 99% of our genetic code we share with other species. Hopefully it isn't reducible to genes for hairlessness or upright posture or hidden estrus, since I doubt we would deny citizenship to anyone born of humans who lacked these traits. If defending this human genome requires throwing would be genetic enhancers before the Hague we can hopefully figure out which genes in particular are key.”

Why is this statement a racist statement against humans? Because it assumes that citizenship which a kind membership in a ruling body politic of a society is reducible to physical parts of the body but how is this any different than the one has a right to membership in the ruling body politic known as “royal” based merely on a physical part of the body know as blood i.e. genetics.

The reason we deny citizenship to great apes is because they don’t participate and do not have the inherent capacity to participate our humanness because of their “apeness.” Apes have no interest in participating in the human community nor humans in the apes community and there must exist something enforces the disassociation and it common necessity of human association that draws us together as separate kind of physical phase space i.e. what Vladimir Vernadsky called the noösphere and organizing characteristics of the noösphere are vastly different than biosphere where we find the great apes.

Scientifically one could argue that a human beings that so transformed by technological “enhancement” that they achieve gametic incompatibility with their ancestors could be defined technically as Posthuman but unless incompatibility develops within groups of contempories and to such a degree that technological advances couldn’t gulf such a gap then perhaps call that group in physical terms a new Posthuman species.

So in order to prove the Transhuman/Posthumanist concept correct, one would have to prove that technology could allow for such disassociation and disharmony between human nations and classes to make desirable or unavoidable the manufacture of a physical incompatibility. However, this would be an odd claim to seeing as economical activity seems to increasing the interconnectedness of people every and indeed economical growth depends such collaborations and combination of action so by what means could technology whose existence must necessarily comes out of greater association beget a desire for biological incompatibility?

It is doubtful that any good reason for such a gulf to develop unless though malicious intent. Only if a group of despots conspired together suppress the sharing of fruits of human invention by a forced technological apartheid. But like all apartheid it would be political unstable because capacity to enforce such an institution acceptance of gross inequality and empirical studies show that it is human nature to reject such inequality even if it harm themselves. People resisting such a system can only be suppressed using two methods. One, the conspirators fool people into believing that they should remain unenhanced which is self defeating because they will then ask why is it good for conspirators but not for them and why should they be compelled to produce technology only for the enhancement of the few and not themselves. The second method used the conspirators would using such technological enhancements to enforce the apartheid and that method is also self defeating because it will only make such enhancement that for desirable in order displace the regime.