Transhumanism.

[Ziggamafu]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity[/url]

10-20 years from now, the Church's biggest concern will be transhumanism. I'm curious how the Magisterium will rule on the situation...it would seem next to impossible to draw a "line" at any point of of human/robot hybridization. But that is certainly where we are headed. Man is merging with technology. And - an entirely different theological dilemma - technology is, by means of HUGE advances in a.i. and computing powers, merging with man.

Would it be wrong to "upgrade" your body's software? Your body's hardware, even? How would you like the ability to, by means of a subtle focus of your eyes, shift through each spectrum of light? How would you like to have your bones coated in an invisible layer of nanotech that renders them as hard as steel? How do you feel about paralyzed people who use experimental brain implants TODAY to psychically have access to the outside world (e.g., surfing the internet and playing videogames by thought alone)?

These are the questions of this new century - let alone this new millennium; this dawn of the third day since Christ's Ascension (2 Peter 3:8).

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3CT6A"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3CT6A[/url]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
(just thinking aloud here - i have no degree and am not that smart by any means)

wouldn't the Church build upon its documents of [u][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html"]Donum Vitae[/url][/u] and [u][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081212_sintesi-dignitas-personae_en.html"]Dignitias Personae[/url][/u], since both of those documents deal with bioethical questions regarding human life?

in my opinion, this quote (especially the bolded part) would be key in forming any opinion of 'transhumanism'. from Dignitias Personae:
[quote]“The Church, by expressing an ethical judgment on some developments of recent medical research concerning man and his beginnings, [b]does not intervene in the area proper to medical science itself, but rather calls everyone to ethical and social responsibility for their actions.[/b] She reminds them that the ethical value of biomedical science is gauged in reference to both the unconditional respect owed to every human being at every moment of his or her existence, and the defense of the specific character of the personal act which transmits life” (n. 10).[/quote]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
(thinking aloud again)
in my mind the question i think of is:
this technology may make humans smarter/more physically able/etc, but does it truly improve their lot in life? does it help them make more moral people (more willing to follow God's laws)? or does it lead them away from God?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1806175' date='Mar 13 2009, 04:03 PM']+J.M.J.+
(thinking aloud again)
in my mind the question i think of is:
this technology may make humans smarter/more physically able/etc, but does it truly improve their lot in life? does it help them make more moral people (more willing to follow God's laws)? or does it lead them away from God?[/quote]

I would venture to guess that such enhancements would be neutral toward one's walk with God. People in our world today are more or less mentally equipped on an individual basis. People are accountable according to their capabilities. If I had, so to speak, more "RAM" for the biological computer that is my brain, I would likely therefore be more accountable in my walk with God, and not less, for I would have a higher capability and capacity for determining what I should and should not do, as well as for drawing on memorized inspiration from the Church. See my point? Today, we applaud any safe effort to increase intelligence and related abilities precisely for this purpose. Being more capable does not of itself make you more devout; but nor does it make you less devout.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i guess what makes me concerned (reading from the wiki entry you've provided) is the whole 'involuntary death' thing. we are not made for this world! we are made to be in union with God.

btw, through the wiki entry was this document from the Vatican:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html"]COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God[/url]. (which i now am going to have to read!)

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1806189' date='Mar 13 2009, 03:38 PM']+J.M.J.+
i guess what makes me concerned (reading from the wiki entry you've provided) is the whole 'involuntary death' thing. we are not made for this world! we are made to be in union with God.

btw, through the wiki entry was this document from the Vatican:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html"]COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God[/url]. (which i now am going to have to read!)[/quote]

You've highlighted one specific area / application of transhumanism: immortality. Is this, then, where you would draw the line? I would respond by saying that even if this were to occur (if God allowed it) it merely mean that everyone would live to see Christ's return. The life we were meant for would still befall us. God would, of course, not be thwarted.

The CCC - though I forget where - specifically warns against the danger of treating technology as an idol, trusting in science for one's "Heaven", but obviously that does not preclude a hope for science to alleviate suffering or increase prosperity. There is a danger of idolization in any good thing.

[Ziggamafu]

By the way: the OP provides only one of many, many online videos / presentations on the subjects of transhumanism and technological singularity.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1806188' date='Mar 13 2009, 01:31 PM']I would venture to guess that such enhancements would be neutral toward one's walk with God. People in our world today are more or less mentally equipped on an individual basis. People are accountable according to their capabilities. If I had, so to speak, more "RAM" for the biological computer that is my brain, I would likely therefore be more accountable in my walk with God, and not less, for I would have a higher capability and capacity for determining what I should and should not do, as well as for drawing on memorized inspiration from the Church. See my point? Today, we applaud any safe effort to increase intelligence and related abilities precisely for this purpose. Being more capable does not of itself make you more devout; but nor does it make you less devout.[/quote]
is it truly neutral, do you think? in reading the "Communion and Stewardship" document (mind you, i'm skimming and not reading fully), these two paragraphs stand out:
[quote]60. Above himself and yet in the intimacy of his own conscience, man discovers the existence of a law which the tradition calls the "natural law." This law is of divine origin, and man's awareness of it is itself a participation in the divine law. It refers man to the true origins of the universe as well as to his own (Veritatis Splendor, 20). This natural law drives the rational creature to search for the truth and the good in his sovereignty of the universe. Created in the image of God, man exercises this sovereignty over visible creation only in virtue of the privilege conferred upon him by God. [b]He imitates the divine rule, but he cannot displace it[/b]. The Bible warns against the sin of this usurpation of the divine role. [b]It is a grave moral failure for human beings to act as rulers of visible creation who separate themselves from the higher, divine law.[/b] They act in place of the master as stewards (cf. Mt 25:14 ff) who have the freedom they need to develop the gifts which have been confided to them and to do so with a certain bold inventiveness.[/quote] are we (in doing this transhumanism thing) acting as rulers while separating ourselves from a higher law?

[quote]61. The steward must render an account of his stewardship, and the divine Master will judge his actions. The moral legitimacy and efficacy of the means employed by the steward provide the criteria for this judgment. Neither science nor technology are ends in themselves; what is technically possible is not necessarily also reasonable or ethical. [b]Science and technology must be put in the service of the divine design for the whole of creation and for all creatures.[/b] This design gives meaning to the universe and to human enterprise as well. Human stewardship of the created world is precisely a stewardship exercised by way of participation in the divine rule and is always subject to it. Human beings exercise this stewardship by gaining scientific understanding of the universe, by caring responsibly for the natural world (including animals and the environment), and [b]by guarding their own biological integrity.[/b][/quote]part three (starting at #81) of that document talks about the moral challenges of biological integrity. including:
-how far is man allowed to remake himself?
-a person could determine the finality or teleological value of the body

the document states:
-Given that man was also created in God’s image in his bodiliness, he has no right of full disposal of his own biological nature.
-A man can only truly improve by realizing more fully the image of God in him by uniting himself to Christ and in imitation of him.
-94. Our ontological status as creatures made in the image of God imposes certain limits on our ability to dispose of ourselves. The sovereignty we enjoy is not an unlimited one: we exercise a certain participated sovereignty over the created world and, in the end, we must render an account of our stewardship to the Lord of the Universe. Man is created in the image of God, but he is not God himself.

i'm going to have to read this document (without skimming, lol)!

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1806198' date='Mar 13 2009, 01:52 PM']You've highlighted one specific area / application of transhumanism: immortality. Is this, then, where you would draw the line?[/quote]
i honestly don't know. i would have to be more learned on this subject. i guess another bad thing to come from this is Catholics would really get hammered on the whole birth control aspect because of over-population (since not as many people would be dying).

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1806198' date='Mar 13 2009, 01:52 PM']but obviously that does not preclude a hope for science to alleviate suffering or increase prosperity.[/quote]
but where does it say anywhere (in the Bible) that we should increase our prosperity or avoid suffering completely? what i see as a breakdown is this:

despite all our technological, healthcare, and other developments, we still will not avoid suffering completely. we still will not avoid death completely. it will still happen. why? because of sin.

(in all things, please take my posts with a huge grain of salt, as i'm a 7 1/2 month pregnant lady with no brain and i really am not smart, just curious about a multitude of things.)

[Galloglasses' Alt]

In my own opinion, optional cybernetics is almost fetishhistic in nature, if not done out of either vanity or a vain pursuit, but by no means do I know of the Church's stance on this. But I fear that augmenting one's body in such a manner [b]when it is not neccesary[/b], (I have nothing against synthetic augmentations such as a pace maker thats done to prolong one's life span/quality of life), and I also veiw it as slightly arrogent if one takes the veiw that such 'transhuman' augments are an 'improvement' of humanity. How can we, perfect what God has made us in such a way?

On a flip side, my dislike of it may also be cultural. Statistically the majority of Irish persons when asked were either skeptical or downright scared of the idea of bio idents. (Whereby a chip-like object is placed in say, the palm of your hand.) For no other reason then it was considered 'invasive', apparently this contrasted with other europeans, so maybe I suffer from a cultural suspicion of such things.

However, technological replacements for say, a missing limb? I have no qualms about. I draw the line when such things become a 'choice' leisure for any other purpose.

[philothea]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1806188' date='Mar 13 2009, 04:31 PM']I would venture to guess that such enhancements would be neutral toward one's walk with God. People in our world today are more or less mentally equipped on an individual basis. People are accountable according to their capabilities. If I had, so to speak, more "RAM" for the biological computer that is my brain, I would likely therefore be more accountable in my walk with God, and not less, for I would have a higher capability and capacity for determining what I should and should not do, as well as for drawing on memorized inspiration from the Church. See my point? Today, we applaud any safe effort to increase intelligence and related abilities precisely for this purpose. Being more capable does not of itself make you more devout; but nor does it make you less devout.[/quote]
I agree.

I write science fiction, and I see at least some level of transhumanism as a natural progression of our current civilization. (However, I do not believe in a Singularity.) I have written several stories with the initial intent of showing how bodily dependence upon technology goes wrong, or how it's immoral, but the stories never work out that way.

It always turns out to be interesting and manifest surprising amplifications of existing human flaws, but no huge disaster. So, obviously that's what I really think, even if it'd be more dramatic otherwise...!

[T-Bone _]

There's a fine line that must not be crossed.

Having a pace maker is one thing, but becoming like the ten billion dollar man (adjusted due to inflation) might cross it.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1806259' date='Mar 13 2009, 05:51 PM']In my own opinion, optional cybernetics is almost fetishhistic in nature, if not done out of either vanity or a vain pursuit, but by no means do I know of the Church's stance on this. But I fear that augmenting one's body in such a manner [b]when it is not neccesary[/b], (I have nothing against synthetic augmentations such as a pace maker thats done to prolong one's life span/quality of life), and I also veiw it as slightly arrogent if one takes the veiw that such 'transhuman' augments are an 'improvement' of humanity. How can we, perfect what God has made us in such a way?

On a flip side, my dislike of it may also be cultural. Statistically the majority of Irish persons when asked were either skeptical or downright scared of the idea of bio idents. (Whereby a chip-like object is placed in say, the palm of your hand.) For no other reason then it was considered 'invasive', apparently this contrasted with other europeans, so maybe I suffer from a cultural suspicion of such things.

However, technological replacements for say, a missing limb? I have no qualms about. I draw the line when such things become a 'choice' leisure for any other purpose.[/quote]
I think I agree with you here, and I commend you for trying to be objective despite your culture's sensitivity to the subject. We gotta watch that add-ons don't become a source of vanity... even pride (cause of potential power being bestowed upon).

[Lounge Daddy]

There are a few people at the coffee shop I go to that have been reading on transhumanism. This is interesting stuff to me. They worry about it -- but I think it's human nature to worry about the future, and the unknown. Thus the wisdom of "living in the moment" instead of obsessing over tomorrow.

I'm optimistic about the future -- and transhumanism stuff sounds intriguing. I'd be the one watching and saying "that's interesting" rather than doing.

[Ziggamafu]

It seems that those objections raised thus far deal with subjective motivations rather than the objective actions. All of these objections could have (and still can) be said of any and all technological advancements in human civilization throughout history.

About suffering: the capacity for spiritual suffering would always remain. Moreover, the same objection could be raised (once again) for every new alleviation of human suffering that has occurred through the ages. Does God want us to wait on miraculous healings, frowning upon science that increasingly eliminates physical and mental suffering? Is preventative medication sinful?

Every new century brings man powers that the previous century would dub "God-like". We have gone to the moon. Man flew higher than any bird, traveled into outer space, and walked on the moon. Just because we could. Those who built the Tower of Babel couldn't have dreamed of such a feat.

Also: if anyone finds an interesting video or article on the topics of this thread, share it here!

[Galloglasses' Alt]

The allegory of the tower of Babel is not such a good pick to justify this transhumanism.

My objection relates to human nature, if man has power sooner or later he will abuse it, what is to prevent transhumans from either being discriminated against in the future by 'Pure' humans or, indeed, vice versa? I like the fable presented in gattaca, whereby people have their features, skills and such forth chosen at birth. This was done to eliminate genetic disease. 'Alleviating human suffering' (I am of course taking out the obvious moral objections to eugenics here and using the fable for an objective standpoint of how this croutons can go very badly), but by trying to change, control WHAT humans are to make them better, they had created a caste-system society with fascistic undertones.

By trying to augment the human body with things that most definately were not meant to be there in the first place, (artificial stuff), you are, in effect, playing God. You are trying to 'perfect' humanity in your own terms. Medical science? I have nothing against, Augments when neccesary? Again I have nothing against. Augments as a public choice? The line I draw starts here. The research can continue and develope for all I care, but I don't want unlimited access to such technology to the public. We WILL abuse it. Sides, it would only be a matter of time before such technology is also militarised, cyborg armies anyone?

Call me reactionary, or close minded all you like, but I adhere to the reality of human nature. Give us power, sooner or later, we will abuse it unless it has constraints. And augments definately mean power, albeit, in a much more physical sense.

The key difference between this 'God-like' technological advancement and that of the last century is primarily that this advancement is screwing around with human beings themselves. Because when you think about it, Space is just another sea, and spacecraft just a different kind of boat. Comparing this to that is like comparing apples and oranges, its a completely different kettle of fish.