Will transhumanism be the ultimate expression of libertarianism?

[Edward777]

Interview with noted transhumanist author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEpDjzvve7g

So transhumanism will allow people to design their offspring as they please, as well as choose what parts of their bodies to replace with synthetic versions. Maybe some will choose to remain natural while some may opt to have their brains removed and placed in synthetic bodies which look as they would like. People might also use nano-technology to re-write the DNA in their bodies and transform into whatever race or gender they prefer.

So is this "Brave New World" or a libertarian's version of Utopia?

 

[Petar]

"Dehumanization" would be a more accurate term...

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

No.

 

[Edward777]

Yet isn't it all about choice as long as we don't have a dystopian government?

 

[Quark]

One is an ethical and political philosophy, the other is a cultural movement. While libertarians should not oppose transhumanist as a movement, I don't see how they connect any-more than not regulating people from the freedom to do these things.

But if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism

 

[VIDEODROME]

I don't see how this connects to Libertarianism either, but it's kinda cool.

 

[LibertyEagle]

DISGUSTING. And NO, this has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism.

 

[RPfan1992]

I don't think we should ban it or regulate it, but I am worried that if the technology used becomes so efficient "natural" people would have to use it or they would have a hard time finding work since they won't be as efficient as someone who uses it. Also what if the government gets their hands on this technology and starts to control people with it?

And not all libertarians support transhumanism like this popular Youtube libertarian

 

[VIDEODROME]

If we ever get that far, it would suggest we've achieved an extremely advanced level of technology. One would hope that 'work' as we know it would be obsolete. Except maybe for those who chose to leave the planet and terraform.

For some reason, it's very easy for us to imagine just an Elite few becoming suped-up cyborgs while regular old humanity continues to toil away for them even while competing with robots for jobs. If this did happen, then IMO these kind of stupid rulers would have failed to transcend their humanity if they continued to have such backward thinking.

 

[Quark]

I guess I'm not much of a paleo-libertarian. I don't see how this is disgusting. These are just more complex ways for one to express one's individuality. To me, this is no more disgusting than people who like to get tattoos or piercings; people who wear odd clothing or color contacts, etc, etc. As for the economic consequences, I am not a socialist, and I see no reason why we shouldn't pursue the market equilibrium, especially when the consequences are a reduction of scarcity and prosperity. If I can put a chip in my brain to expand my memory capabilities, I would certainly do so. If I could protect my body from pathogenic(and even non-pathogenic) diseases by nanites running through my blood, I'd do that as well. I don't see anything disgusting about that.

 

[Petar]

Libertarianism means that you have the option to be stupid and destroy yourself, not that you should.

 

[Quark]

My dispute wasn't with whether or not it implies libertarianism, which you can look at my first post for my thoughts on that, my dispute was with the concept that technological enhancement of the human body is a bad thing. Like I said, I don't see how: memory enhancement, cognitive enhancement, physical enhancement, benevolent nanites, selection against harmful mutations, etc are any worse than pacemakers and hip replacements. They're just more advanced technologies, and overall the potential for good is just as, if not more prevalent than, the potential for harm, as with anything else.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Most self professed libertarians have it wrong on intellectual property. Specifically in fields of science relative to the human body. Many support it. IP is a huge aspect of this. Transhumanism is a billions of dollars a year industry but one that is hardly ever discussed.

 

[PierzStyx]

The video game Deus Ex: uman Revolution really faces this argument really well.

 

[James Madison]

Transhumanism has tremendous potential to revolutionize our lives, equivalent to several Industrial Revolutions happening at once. But it will make us face the reality that not every person is special and that some traits are more desired than others. I wonder how the 'self-esteem' movement will handle this.

 

[DamianTV]

Tech in your brain and the NSA is in ALL tech? I think I'll pass.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Would seem to be a logical extension option from self ownership.

 

[ProIndividual]

DISGUSTING. And NO, this has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism.

Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism

Libertarian transhumanists believe that the principle of self-ownership is the most fundamental idea from which both libertarianism and transhumanism stem. They are rational egoists and ethical egoists who embrace the prospect of using emerging technologies to enhance human capacities, which they believe stems from the self-interested application of reason and will in the context of the individual freedom to achieve a posthuman state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. They extend this rational and ethical egoism to advocate a form of "biolibertarianism".[2]

As strong civil libertarians, libertarian transhumanists hold that any attempt to limit or suppress the asserted right to human enhancement is a violation of civil rights and civil liberties. However, as strong economic libertarians, they also reject proposed public policies of government-regulated and -insured human enhancement technologies, which are advocated by democratic transhumanists, because they fear that any state intervention will steer or limit their choices.[2][4][5]

Extropianism, the earliest current of transhumanist thought defined in 1988 by philosopher Max More, initially included an anarcho-capitalist interpretation of the concept of "spontaneous order" in its principles, which states that a free market economy achieves a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any planned or mixed economy could achieve. In 2000, while revising the principles of Extropy, More seemed to be abandoning libertarianism in favor of modern liberalism and anticipatory democracy. However, many Extropians remained libertarian transhumanists.[1]

It has everything to do with libertarianism...because you require threats of violence, via a state or otherwise, to prevent other people from enhancing themselves or extending their lives through technology. You can choose to stay the way you are...and that's another important part of libertarian transhumanism.

And transhumanism is just a small part of posthumanism.

But please, do tell how your mythology or your inconsistent ideas lead to the conclusion this has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy. Long live the state, eh?

To OP:

You're brave to post on transhumanism. I've tried to discuss it here (and elsewhere) previously, only to be soundly attacked (despite linking to information that proved most of the adversarial "facts" about the "impossibility" of transhumanist technology incorrect). Some folks have a religious-based rejection of the idea, and others don't mind state coercion or social coercion of non-victimizers under any circumstances insofar as it fits in with their subjective ideas on ethics. They view the human race as some collective thing, not a species of individuals. While libertarian transhumanists respect the rights of these folks to not upgrade themselves via tech, they do not often reciprocate such respect for our individual autonomy.