Article: http://www.jetpress.org/v20/baum.htm
For my research paper, I chose to focus on the film District 9 by filmmaker Neill Blomkamp. The film is about human relations with a group of extraterrestrials who come to Earth and live in a refugee camp under horrendous conditions. Meanwhile, the protagonist, Wikus van de Merwe, is undergoing a physical transformation from human to alien which forces insight into what constitutes humanness. In Seth D. Baum’s review of the film, he focuses on this aspect of the film which he calls transhumanism. Baum characterizes Wikus as a “human being in transition to something else with superior abilities” due to his and the aliens’ ability to use advanced alien technology; something which is sought after by the large corporation Multi-National United (MNU) and Nigerian gangsters alike.
Baum says that transhumanism is embodied by not just Wikus but also the gangsters which eat alien flesh to gain their ability. This is because he asserts that the attempt to gain abilities which transcend one’s physical capabilities is transhuman in nature. Also that the gangsters are simultaneously, and thus paradoxically, primitive due to the crudeness of their attempts at ascension. I disagree with the former claim of transhumanism being present in the Nigerians’ attempts at ascension. I find this quality to be innately more human than anything else that has ever been observed. This is evident in that humans have accomplished more technologically than thought possible relative to any other organism. I understand that Baum stated this due to the Nigerians attempting to literally change their own biology but attempting to do so and actually doing it are very different things. I find the Nigerians’ acts to be a mere means to achieve the much larger goal of skill and power.
Justification of means is also brought up when discussing MNU’s methods of torture and vivisection to develop new weapons technologies. Baum argues that if the end result were more noble, then MNU’s tactics would be acceptable. Primarily because we would be able to do something that was previously considered impossible. Essentially, transhuman characteristics should be exploited and utilized to their fullest potential when possible. Baum goes further to say that individuals with desirable transhuman characteristics would be accepted, lauded, and studied in society rather than persecuted as the story portrays. From a classical evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. But upon reflection onto last week’s post about Vonnegut’s claims that natural selection is based on luck due to the randomness of natural phenomenon, I realized that pursuing transhumanism is not as simple as it seems. Artificially augmenting our biology may give us traits that we assume are desirable, but how can we ensure that these traits will remain desirable in the future? In context, what if MNU created extremely advanced weaponry which deprived soldiers of their physical features? Is the sacrifice worth it?
To move onto more transhuman conundrums, we explore applicability of technology when it comes to athletics and other competition. Recently, people in charge of the Olympics considered banning hyperbaric oxygen chambers which improved athletes’ lungs by allowing them to function with less oxygen. This altering of the human anatomy was allowed whereas the use of anabolic steroids to increase muscle growth is still illegal. When do humans stop evolving by means of natural selection and begin doing so by means of artificial selection? I believe that the answer is not quite so simple and that there exists gradations of what constitutes human, transhuman, and posthuman.
Darwin's Legacy 
I find the aspect of shoutoutjfk’s post about humans becoming transhuman because of their technological advancements interesting. I agree with the poster on his point. It is uniquely human to improve life through technological advancements and innovations. Based on the critic’s definition of transhumanism, the technological innovations that have given humans new abilities that transcend their biological abilities have created a new transhuman era in human history. I would also agree with shoutoutjfk when he asks at what point transhumanism becomes posthumanism. As living organisms, humans will always evolve and adapt to environmental conditions or they will go extinct. In this sense, there will never be a posthuman era because we will always change.
I think that this debate about transhumanism can be seen in my exhibit source Jurassic Park as well. In the movie, man transcends his natural ability to create life and uses cloning to revive extinct species. The ability to create non-human organisms is a technological improvement that man has created to enhance his own abilities. However, man lacks humility in using this new technology and creates dinosaurs that are naturally carnivorous. When the safety elements of the park fail, the dinosaurs begin to hunt their human creators, seeing them as nothing more than prey. In this sense, Jurassic Park is a statement against the transhuman model that seems to define current humans.
However, a severe limitation of both District 9 and Jurassic Park is that they fail to depict the positive aspects of transhumanism. For example, medical technology has enhanced the natural abilities of humans, but it has also led to longer life spans and better standards of living for people. The internet allows information to be spread quickly and to more people. These technological advances not only improve the human standard of living, but also make it easier for people to pursue their interests. While there are clear negatives to the transhuman era as the critic defines it, there are also positive aspects that neither film nor the critic discuss. These movies depict the concerns of many that the transhuman technological advancements that humans have made can be used unethically to the detriment of society as a whole.
To first comment on your claim that humans are still evolving, I want to distinguish the idea of evolution versus that of natural selection. It is true that humans are evolving. By this I mean that our genetic information is still being spread throughout the world. However, natural selection – the entity in charge of enabling humans to overcome environmental conditions has basically stopped working on us. This is because there are effectively no more isolated populations in the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798). We have conquered survival on Earth. Therefore, any idea I referred to regarding transhumanism in the real world would be about artifical enhancement of the human genome.
I also want to discuss the positive aspects of transhumanism. I never really considered how the use of medicine could be considered transhumanist. It does affect one’s biology in a positive manner. But in that context, the ancients used herbs and fruits as sustenance as well as medicine. What does this say about human evolution? How far ahead are we of our ancestors, both familial and evolutionary? I think that all of these questions lack any clear-cut answers. However, it is still important to try to answer them.
I understand your rationale when you claim “As living organisms, humans will always evolve and adapt to environmental conditions or they will go extinct. In this sense, there will never be a posthuman era because we will always change.” I think that in order to understand posthumanism, you have to think in relative terms. What is considered human now may have been considered posthuman years ago. Moreover, what we consider posthuman now may just be considered human in a couple hundred of years. For example, flying was a thing of magic that humans admired through the flight of birds. No one in the early part of the millennium imagined him or herself soaring at 550 miles per hour 30,000 feet in the air. However, new technology has allowed humans to experience something they haven’t before through flying on an airplane. How will we ever know if we have attained post humanism? Since technology is continuously advancing, we cannot really say we have reached a definite end.
I think that it is important to consider what jps591 says about being human. I think that being human is something that is constantly evolving. Furthermore, it is relative; what is considered human to some people and cultures can seem unusual to others.
This is something that I have seen in my exhibit source, Avatar. In a way that is similar to District 9, the humans create Avatars which allow them to become more like the native population called the Na’Vi. What I think is interesting is the way that the film portrays the Na’Vi versus the humans. The Na’Vi are viewed by the characters in the film as less evolved than humans, but the audience can see that the Na’Vi do have some advantages. For example, they are able to live in harmony with the environment, instead of exploiting it, like the humans try to do. This shows the strange idea that humans might not actually be the most human
I disagree that Avatar’s portrayal of Na’vi is less evolved then humans. Contrastingly, I think they are more evolved. Their braids which give then the ability to physically tap in and connect to the energy in the Earth, as well as the energy of other species, is an ability that humans do not have. I think when talking about the idea of “most evolved” we have to think in terms of best suited. Are humans best suited to their environment on Earth? I would argue no. Increases in illnesses such as cancer are due to both human’s longer life span and the increase in carcinogenic foods and environment. This shows that while our technological improvements may expand life and help to escape environmental pressure, they aren’t improving our adaptations to world around us. In contrast, the Na’vi have created a system of living where there relationship with their environment is symbiotic. They strive to work with their environment while humans try to conquer it. I would argue that the bubble that humans have put themselves in, a bubble which is isolated from environmental pressures because of technological advances, could prove to be detrimental in the future. As the environment changes, we will continue to fight against nature, figure out how to avoid natural disaster, and combat disease, because we are so far removed from naturally evolving with a changing environment.
While this article presents a very interesting point about transhumanism and both shoutoutjfk and sm1414 talk quite a bit about posthumanism, I think it is also a very interesting point to look at what happens when humans degenerate into something that becomes less than human. It seems from what I could tell from shoutoutjfk’s description of the Nigerian gangsters in District 9 that this could be another interpretation of what happens to them when they begin to eat the alien flesh. This consumption seems to be something that is altogether a step backwards from humanity, and shows the degeneration of humans.
This theme of degeneration is very very present in my exhibit source, Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula. Count Dracula and the vampires represent everything that humans are not supposed to be: for example, they are out only at night where humans are typically out during the day. Stoker uses Dracula as an example for what happens when people lust for too much power, in that he feeds directly on the power of strong British men. Although this has a very strong racial undertone in the novel, it can, by some stretch be applied to modern day technologies as well.
As shoutoutjfk mentions, modern technology is an evolution all its own, and any selection happening today is in the form of artificial technologically-conducted selection. However, there are many cases in history when this can be considered not a form of transhumanism, but rather a degeneration of what it means to be human. For example, weapons of mass destruction are an example of technology which ultimately harms the human race as a whole, and yet this form of selection applied by humans is yet another technological evolution that we ourselves have. In this way, I find it very difficult to analyze what constitutes transcending humanity, and what constitutes degenerating into nothing more than vampires ourselves.
I agree with sm1414 about Jurassic Park, but I also think that the film says even more than just what sm1414 has said. The film also subtlety raises the question of using genetic control on humans. The first test tube babies were in the 80s and this would have certainly had an influence on the film. The film is saying that if we can clone extinct animals, can we not clone non-extinct ones, such as humans. Obviously the first cloned animal was Dolly the sheep, after Jurassic Park, but sheep are a non-extinct creature. Jurassic Park as a whole brings forward the idea of artificial creation, or just the creation of new species. If you want to get technical the dinosaurs in the film are mutated as they have mutated frog DNA, so they aren’t completely dinosaur, they are a slightly new animal that man created. Should humans in the real world do this?
Freddie1994, I understand your point but in terms of the practical example provided by shoutoutjfk, I think there is a bit of a science fiction driven stretch. The athletes in the olympics described earlier were conditioning themselves to be “superior”, not altering their DNA in any way or that of their offspring. Aside from the undetermined structure of stem cells, human’s have yet to take any part in cloning primarily due to the tremendous ethical issues of the field.
I also used District 9 as my exhibit source and I wanted to respond by commenting on shoutoutjfk’s proposed question: “how can we ensure that these traits will remain desirable in the future?” Firstly, in the fictional world presented within the film, the transhuman technology sought after by MNU would only be used by soldiers, and more specifically, MNU mercenary soldiers. This fact signifies that those who do elect to change their bodies to be able to utilize the alien weaponry know exactly what they are getting into and should, at least, be prepared to live with their decisions. Furthermore, the Nigerians’ rather primitive method of obtaining the aliens’ genetic ability to use the weapons signifies their emotional investments into becoming transhumans. This in turn means that because the Nigerians are so obsessed with being able to use the alien weaponry to have an upper hand in the power struggle, they most certainly would never regret their decisions. Basically, what I am trying to say is that in most situations anyone who elected to genetically modify themselves would typically be prepared to live with the design forever. Moreover, it is most likely that the traits would not be passed down to said person’s children because for the most part no genetic modifications made to a person after birth will change anything about their children. Therefore, the chance of seeing these transhuman modifications in the coming generations would be extremely rare and thus would not prove to be problematic. If these traits cease to be desirable, people would stop modifying themselves and if this occurs before those who already modified themselves are gone they may face some hostility, but in the end it will not prove to be a huge problem.
There seems to be something that everyone in this conversation is forgetting, which I find quite disturbing. If humans selectively alter their own genes and augment themselves with desirable traits, then what happens to undesirable traits that are beneficial? Simply because a physical trait is desirable doesn’t make it beneficial, according to the rules of Koinophilia whenever someone is seeking a mate they instinctively search for mates that do not have any unorthodox features or mannerisms, even if said features are biologically superior. For example, in modern popular culture and global standards of beauty paler skin is considered generally more attractive than darker skin, so if we were to manipulate our genes many people would opt to modify their complexion to a paler hue. Doing so would in turn prove hazardous for people in tropical areas, where lighter skin leads to vulnerability to the sun leading to: cancer, high demand for sunscreen in already impoverished areas, and lord knows what other unforeseeable side effects. And this strikes at what human gene modifications are: Eugenics, which are ultimately detrimental as they do not lead to strong traits or adaptable populations, but an over abundance of what are perceived as strong traits. And no matter how powerful or beneficial a triat is, an overabundance of it keeps a species from being able to adapt, which leads to genetic stagnation. Transhumanism, Posthumanism or any other speculative postmodern non-human man, is genetically stagnant and therefore doomed to extinction.
I genuinely appreciate thomgc’s comment bringing a staunch pragmatic basis to this discussion. Any change in mankind or mankind’s environment caused by man is likely to cause major developmental issues. However, humanity is likely buffered from the smaller changes such as climate change or sea level differentials. Our reactions to these mostly natural occurrences have inherently been artificial such as carbon emissions legislation or sea level ice analysis expeditions. What I find in this is that our ideas of a postmodern human are being forecast inappropriately. Our exponential increase in qualitative knowledge over the past few centuries has granted us the ability to postulate on what future humans will be like which in itself is causing us to alter our environment. Indeed if we look at Wikus’ transformation in District 9, his dehumanization is just another form of transhumanism–he leaves a humanoid state for that of another. The fact that he changes to a prawn is essentially irrelevant; the key point is that human intervention (moving the aliens to district 9) eventually leads to a shift in a human.
In response to one of Shoutoutjfk’s questions, I can assure that we will not find the same traits desirable in the future as we do today. Human desires are constantly changing, but that’s what’s beautiful about technology in the eyes of Baum. Technology can easily adapt what we are and what we want to be in the future, meaning our reality can keep up with our desires. I understand his concerns and agree with the belief that technology can lead to devastating disasters. Advanced and chemical weaponry has already proved to be so powerful that decades later, people and infants who had no connection to the disaster are still facing the aftermath and tragedies brought by the technology. Many people today are beginning to weigh the costs of technology with the benefits much more than they used to. Even those determined to technologically change the world are beginning to wonder at what point will the sacrifices of our humanity be too great.
For example, Bill Joy, a renowned American computer scientist, wrote in a cover story for the magazine Wired that, “while I was aware of the moral dilemmas surrounding technology’s consequences in fields like weapons research, I did not expect that I would confront such issues in my own field, or at least not so soon” (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html). Joy’s concerns about future weaponry are consistent with concerns people have about future technological discovery and research in general. People have the same concerns with future weaponry that they have with eugenic research: morality and humanity. As Shoutoutjfk questioned, at what point in our technological future does human natural selection become completely artificial?
Additionally, I found Shoutoutjfk’s point about the justification of means regarding technology extremely interesting. Is one of the means to a “better future” giving up the age-old natural selection process? Are we relinquishing any of our humanity and societal values by doing so? Or are we simply bettering our race and helping our future children to be more able and healthy? These are all difficult questions that will never have one concrete answer. But we know for sure that our race will do whatever possible to avoid extinction, as seen in my exhibit source Children of Men. In this film, the main character sacrifices him self for the one fertile woman in the entire world. Much like this character, our race will go to the ends of the earth to make sure that our future children and generations can live on. If this means technologically prolonging our society and livelihood through artificial selection, there is no doubt in my mind that humans will deem the costs very little in comparison.
Going through the comment on this blog, I noticed something that no one else noticed and that only thomgc seemed to point out towards the end. While it seems like a good idea that altering the human genome for positive changes can be a good thing, it can quickly become an incredibly bad thing just as quickly. One thing that thomgc points out that I agree with is that changing one’s genome would “prove hazardous for people in tropical areas, where lighter skin leads to vulnerability to the sun leading to cancer”. I agree with the statements but I believe that the implications are far worse than that. Take for example hemophilia, which according to the MayoClinic (link below) is a disease caused by the changing of a single nucleotide base to a wrong one; it is this small change that cause a disease that can cause terrible problems for the people who have it. It is simply far too dangerous to assume that human error can be completely irrelevant or is something that can be easily overlooked. In addition, scientists today still debate the roles of the large portions of the human genome known as introns, the parts of the genome that are not coded for. It is simply too dangerous and unethical for humans to play the role of God and what they see fit at the current time for humanity. As we can see just by a simple look through a history textbook, humans always tend to do what they feel is “best” at the current time, often disregarding the future for present gains. Allowing actions such as DNA altercations, even done by things in the context of movies of Jurassic Park, will none the less have disastrous issues for the future.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hemophilia/DS00218
I agree with Mykkros that humans attempting to play God at this point in time is very dangerous, especially with all we don’t yet know about the human body and its functions, but I think the entirety of the movement of transhumanism which including eugenics, artificial selection, and more scientific innovations, is set for the future. They are not set for now. Avatar, which has been used as an exhibit source already by some previous commentators features the creation of biologically similar avatars for humans to control, yet is set probably decades to centuries in the future. The exhibit source I personally am using, GATTACA, is also set in “the not-too-distant-future”, which for all intents and purposes might as well be thought of as a few decades in the future at the least. Though I admit there are limitations on just how much we can extrapolate on the future of technology from science fiction, I think it is safe to say that by the time we actually reach the use of this technology, it will be at a time where we do know enough to control what we are doing and expect the outcomes of humans playing around with humanity’s future.
Regarding the idea if people will come to accept movements towards transhumanism, I think it is extremely likely that humans will attempt to advance themselves by any means possible. Humans are driven by greed any way you look at it, and everyone wants a competitive edge. Some people will go against their own principles in order to get what is best for them and future generations. Looking at GATTACA, the main character Vincent’s parents were determined to have Vincent himself completely natural, as a “God-child” as he would later be described. Though when they saw what dire consequences he was faced with, they changed the minds for having their second child, Anton, and had him conceived entirely through genetic determination. They completely sacrificed their principles that had instilled when they were having their first child, Vincent, so that they could guarantee something better for their second child, Vincent. I think that once we reach the point where we can evolve by artificial selection, that is all we will really evolve by.
I enjoyed the last paragraph of your post. I thought it was interesting how you related transhumanism to Olympians and athletes in general. Athletes are constantly attempting to modify their bodies in order to improve their ability to perform.
In terms of District 9, the Nigerian gangsters were attempting to make themselves more powerful by attaining the ability to use alien weaponry in order to alter their evolution. It becomes apparent in the film that the gangster’s technique of eating the flesh of the aliens is not effective. This is consistent with Darwin’s theory that species do not acquire traits via the process of “inheritance of acquired characteristics”, but rather through the process natural selection.
Only one character transforms in the film – the protagonist. His transformation is one that no one would ever want to experience. Instead of climbing up the social ladder, he does the opposite. He effectively goes from the highest social class to the lowest. Perhaps this is one way that the director critiques artificial augmentation.
I personally believe that his transformation is meant to show the mistreatment of the aliens by the humans, as well as to possibly symbolize the socioeconomic divide in South Africa and the conditions that lower class citizens are subjected too. Shoutoutjfk, I assume that you have done extensive research on the film and I am curious if you have an answer to whether or not the author critiques artificial augmentation.
I agree with secondcitytocapitalcity when he/she says that people view humanity in different lights and that the definition is always changing both over time and in different locations. Another thing to note is what we consider inhumane. The torture in the movie is shown to be horrible and the author of this article agrees that it is not worth it considering the end result. Torture itself is considered inhuman by many cultures, but we are the only species that intentionally torture with the sole intent being torture. Thus we are labeling something inhumane that is only being performed by humans. This means that the definition of humanity is not always what is, but could also be what people wish it to be. Also the objective of this torture is to gain new technology, which is what most humans do constantly through ingenuity. The reality is that humans believe themselves to be superior to every other species and if confronted with anything contradicting that will cause mass panic because we know how we treat other species below our own status. This need to be the best at everything is a combination of survival and paranoia. It is why back in medieval times monarchs used to war and why countries continue to contribute such a large portion of their budget to the military. This is not to say that it is unnecessary to invest in the military, but to take note that even now humans are not beyond both violence and an extreme fear of said violence.
I was on the fence about a lot of this thread until I read thommgc’s comment regarding the benefits of unpopular genes. On the more personal side to his argument, altering surface features, such as his example of skin tone, would be detrimental to the inherent uniqueness enjoyed by each individual person. Especially if this was all done while the subject is in the womb–societal pressures and parental ideals would literally shape the unborn baby before it has even taken its first breath. Regarding the original post, I tend to think opposite of shoutoutjfk on the topic of the Nigerians eating alien flesh. Reading this, all I could think of was that classic ancient warrior belief to ‘eat the heart of your enemy to gain his courage;’ it’s utterly barbaric and primitive, as Baum suggested.
It’s impossible to determine what traits will remain desirable in our future, that’s why so many species are extinct and why evolution is a constant continuous work in progress today and will be for the foreseeable future. As for the Olympic athletes’ use of hyperbaric oxygen chambers, I also disagreed with shoutoutjfk because this really isn’t an example of evolution, natural selection, or artificial selection because these aren’t traits that can be unconsciously passed down from generation to generation. However, I agree that there are no more isolated human populations anymore, modern communication–especially since the invention of the internet–makes isolation near impossible. Due to this and our technological advancement, humans have conquered natural selection and–once we have the not-yet available knowledge–we will be able to guide it. I believe we can, not only reach transhumanism, but sustainable (meaning able to be passed down genetically) transhumanism, and I believe we will be able to do this without the secrets of alien technologies, although that certainly would speed up the process.
I agree with the author’s disagreement of the statement “the attempt to gain abilities which transcend one’s physical capabilities is transhuman in nature”. I think that this quality is something that makes us humans. Our innovative nature, which inspires us to create things is something and go above and beyond our current innovations, is a characteristic that is exceptionally human. While this is not always a beneficial thing, to change our surroundings to suit our lifestyles, it is not something that any other creature does (or at least not to the same level as humans). No other creature comes close to matching our technology. However, I also think that some of these innovations are making us less human in that we are relying, as the author said, on artificial selection over natural selection. Ultimately, I think that natural selection has the greatest power over all creatures (even though it may not affect us that much currently). As a result I think there will come a point when, as the movie Wall-e predicted, technology and our other innovations will lead to our downfall.
An issue I came across before, while researching Gattaca, was how gene therapy would influence diversity. A few scholars noted that the type of artificial selection would greatly reduce genetic diversity among the human population, which would inevitably have a bad impact on our aptitude for survival. Genotypes that seem undesirable may actually carry traits which have evolutionary value. For example, certain traits which would likely be eradicated, like proneness to alcoholism, cannot be pinpointed to just one gene. Preventing such traits would entail the removal of a whole set of genotypes which are known to have some influence in their causation. However, those same genes could be responsible for causing certain traits which are very desirable. Personality traits are complex and any given trait could have positive effects on human behavior if applied in one context and negative effects if applied in another. Once efforts begin to eradicate unfavorable genes, it is impossible to tell which important survival traits could suffer as a side effect. For this reason I would be extremely skeptical of any type of “trait eradication” through gene manipulation, even if it seems to be for the improvement of the human race. There is a history of success demonstrated by natural selection which I just don’t believe can be reproduced or improved upon by means of artificial selection.
What I’ve found most interesting here that the author has touched on is the ideas that one cannot possibly artificially engineer traits that will be irrevocably desirable forever.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/health/permanent-artificial-heart/index.html
The CNN article above is about how scientists have artificially engineered a new heart which may not need a pulse. The benefits of this could be numerous, but what about the costs? Without a pulse we will not be able to understand our own body’s reaction to things like stress, danger, and love. We won’t know when we’re pushing ourselves too hard athletically. We won’t know when we’ve becomes at risk for high blood pressure or high cholesterol.
The point is, we can’t possibly engineer traits that will be universally beneficial forever. And thus the problem with artificial engineering is will we be able to continue naturally evolving once we’ve leapt the barrier into artificial genetic design?
We could be transhuman- or attempt to be. We could seek to become something more than a human to better deal with whatever circumstance we face that drives us to seek betterment. But what about when the need wears off and suddenly we’re posthuman and strange and unable to adapt to the changing environment because we’re inadvertently ended our own evolutionary processes.
It would be ironic, at the very least, devastating at the worst.
I believe that this definition of being human might actually not be about evolving. Being human is the basic needs and feelings that distinguish us from other animals. Being human is also being flawed which is where becoming transhuman interferes with that. We should take advantage of our huge technological advances and use these to better the human race but with out tampering with the emotional and defining “human” traits. Like sm1414 noted that the post humanism is what should be of concern.
Pingback: Futurama and Transhumanism | Cameron D