Continuing from the previous post, the next best step is, I believe, discussing the subjects and some of the many questions that, over the years, have lead to my re-examination of "technology". That's what this post is about:     

If we survive another 200,000 years, will future descendants resemble anything like us? If humans have evolved into the genus Homo through a series of characteristically different forms, isn’t natural to assume that these same forces are still at work and will eventually lead to further taxonomically distinct species evolving out of humans? Or have we peaked? 

   

We’ve barely crossed an important barrier, we’re still in the early stages of a consciousness that promises incredible new depths of knowledge with entirely different sets of boundaries and potentials for human expansion. Or, could we really be close to knowing all that we can know? Once we find that Higgs-Boson particle and validate M-theory, is that it? Will it be the end, business as usual, the beginnings of a mutation, or will god appear?

Given all that we’ve been able to accomplish in the last 100 years alone, if anything, the epistemological implications of recent scientific breakthroughs clearly hint at the possibility that there are infinitely more things we don’t even know that we don’t know about than there are things we do know we know nothing about. Therefore, although it is very unlikely that we will reach the dead-end of knowledge any time soon, surely, this explosive, exponential growth in awareness we’re experiencing will reach a plateau, our cerebral limitations preventing further progress. Is this a good thing? Are we meant to see it as a sign of futility and misdirection or are we meant to press on by any means at our disposal? Facing such limitations, is the human spirit without its inquisitive nature still human? Does our race reach a “Peter Principle” level of evolutionary incompetence or are we equipped to adapt, i.e. will evolution take care of us, our brains and mental capacities naturally increasing as they’ve done 195,000 years ago, or should we assume that evolution was kind enough to give us the knowledge necessary to adapt, the rest is up to us?

Posthumanism, considered to be an optimistic world stance, is a futurist philosophy espousing the belief that, eventually, humans will develop into beings whose capabilities will so greatly exceed ours, and exhibiting behaviours so dissimilar as to be incomprehensible to us, that they will deserve a new label.  In this context, posthuman doesn’t refer to a period where humans are extinct, but rather, to a future where humans will have attained a new form.
Will changes occur gradually, imperceptibly or in leaps and bounds?  What if we played an active role in guiding these changes? Certainly, our faith and growing reliance on medicine and science is bringing about a shift from laisser-faire Mendelian genetics and evolution towards increasingly Extropianistic outlooks that encourage certain improvements made to the human condition, so how far off are we from wanting to play a direct role in shaping the future incarnation of our race?  

Transhumanisn, a subset of posthumanism, advocates the deliberate use of technology to allow us—through individual applications and collective, conscious efforts—to overcome our biological limitations and rid us of pain and suffering, believing that it is our responsible duty to re-engineer humans using techniques provided by modern eugenics, including genomics and genetic engineering, as well as chemical or nanotech neuro-restructuring, bionics, etc., plus any means heretofore undiscovered.  It is their belief that our efforts and sacrifices will lead to a happier, disease-free, longer-living, and more efficient, self-sustaining posthumankind.  Transhumanism concerns itself with promoting such technological endeavours and the ethics that should guide “transitional” humans towards this new state.

Under these circumstances, would posthumans be artificial or the natural, expected result of thousands of years of mental progress?  Will we have surpassed nature or simply prevented it from achieving greater wonders than any posthuman we could have cooked up?    

Philosopher Francis Fukuyama claimed, in an article that appeared in the Set./Oct. 2004 issue of Foreign Policy, that philosophies promoting posthumanism as its goal, particularly transhumanism, are “the world's most dangerous ideas.”  But, other than tranhumanists’ destabilizing insistence on wanting to re-engineer the human race faster than what may prove to be humanly possible, do such philosophies genuinely offer new ideas per se, or unabashed opinions on the course we should adopt to reach what appears to be our unconscious goal?  If so, are we heading towards bliss or techno-Nazism?

We’ve reached a point in our evolution where, whether or not we want it, and whether or not we realize it, transhumanistic aspirations and topics are anything but pipe dreams and empty rhetoric. We're seeing their reality slowly take shape in diluted forms, increasingly so as further generations grasp the infitinite depths of our potential universe and certain perceptions become common knowledge, and consequently, so do some concepts of theories like Spontaneous Order, Boundless Expansion, Intelligent Technology, and Self-Transformation. 

We may still not have accumulated enough trees to see the proverbial forest, but considering all that has led us to the now and our growing obsessions with: Ritalin, anti-depressants, Viagra, and pharmaceuticals; illicit drugs, alcohol and any other anaesthetic; our continual search for new, more complex forms of entertainment; cryonics and anti-aging creams; Lasek, steroids, diet pills, Botox, and cosmetic surgery; vaccines, antibiotics, and eradicating disease; the self-help market; our growing acceptance of bionics and organ farms—from artificial limbs to dentrites, anything that needs replacing; communications and connectivity, etc., as unappealing as it may seem, is it really far-fetched to believe that one day many will be willing to construct their kids à la carte and undergo neuro-augmentation surgery that will slow down aging and double our mental processing capacities, and while we're at it, get a chip-inplant that will intensify orgasms and make them last hours? What's next? 

And it’s easy to say that arms should be arms and not grow back ‘til it’s your own or your kid’s stump you’re looking at. Likewise, it’s easy to believe that kids with Down Syndrome should be left to be born with the disease until the decision rests in your hands. Etc., etc.
Unless humans stop being humane, medicine will continue to serve as a gateway, continually forcing a piece-meal acceptance of transhumanistic ideals through increasingly permissive medical applications. As such, it doesn’t matter if Betty or Bob Now doesn’t want anything to do with genetic manipulation or any other fancy techno-biowizardry; because of it, eventually, they will die, and certain concepts and technologies that were offensive to our period will have permeated the popular culture and gained tolerance, and when the time is right, future generations may one day think of us as primitive beings for having had to live without an iHead brain insert. 
And once the technology is "out there", if it created or fills a profitable need, bans and laws are only truly efficient in terms of defining the crime, not halting its development.

Our attitudes towards flesh, sex, and pornography demonstrate this idea well—a hundred years ago, anyone would have been lynched (or worse, excommunicated (hehe)) simply for suggesting that one day we’d be able to sit at home and, with a few clicks on a screen, watch a stranger have sex with a horse and 3 guys. These days, as long as kids aren’t involved, it’s anything goes! Sites, groups, resorts and a whole lot more now cater to any perversion, meanwhile, blowjob parties and sex on the Internet are the new, trendy-teen-things to do.

Does the parallel limit itself to a gradual breakdown and restructuring of cultural taboos, or is transhumanism an extreme form of the same depravity and a natural extension of the isolation and loss of identity fostered within cultures submersed in increasingly stultifying forms of pornography?

  

And, whether or not we accept it, despite last-ditch creationist efforts and still-bedazzling turnouts on the Pope’s world tours and, regardless of all the “please, lord, just this one time” prayers still simultaneously muttered across the globe each and every second, or the head-spinning number of guns and bombs and molestations that continue under the name of religion, we are quite clearly shifting away from systems of beliefs based on deities and faith, new generations increasingly embracing eupraxophical systems in their stead—systems that reject ideological authoritarianism while relying on rational and scientific methods as the basis for providing meaningful philosophical frameworks of belief. 
Things have certainly changed, so much so that, for all we know, Jesus may have come back three years ago but, since his first encounter with the law, he’s drooling on himself in some institution, doped up on drugs doctors believe will cure him of what can only be some form of schizophrenia.

So, are eupraxophies truly free of all the trappings that plagued our pagan and religious modes of conceptualisation? In a way, aren’t we just shifting “god” towards "science"? Is this an indications of our limitations, a necessary component of a natural transitional phase we are witnessing, or an unwarranted anchor on humankind’s ability to attain ameliorated states of being and awareness?

Science has provided tremendously innovative methods of perceiving the world that have continually challenged religious and mythical/transcendental world views. From a flat world and heliocentric system to molecules, space-time and 7 new dimensions of reality, who knows what we’ll believe just 50,000 years from now.

The more informed Transhumanists claim that this is beneficial to the human condition provided we embrace these new possibilities, thus guaranteeing a more ethical course of developments achieved through a greater understanding of all key factors necessary towards the development of regulatory policies.

It may seem absurd that a philosophy that espouses such sci-fi visions is down-to-earth enough to profess a need for establishing ruling principles, but, like I said, we’ve reached that point. Why wait till it’s too late this time? As such, groups like Humanity+ (previously, World Transhumanist Association) and related publications like H+ Magazine, now represent important viewpoints and voice on the matter, albeit one that is far from neutral. Unfortunately, opposing voices usually offer weak, reactionary arguments that translate into an unwillingness to accept change or that make a reference to some god and faith while offering very little sensible options as cultures nonetheless rush towards this reality. Stubborn, emotionally-based rebellion can be just as dangerous as blind acceptance.

And indeed, Tranhumanist zeal and its gut-triggered opposition are both the reasons why I believe, as mentioned in the previous post, that we need to rethink our perception of technology. By doing so, key concerns with the transhumanist philosophy are brought to surface, unbiased by religious or bioconservative arguments. 

Along with a definition for technology, I’ll be examining these aspects in greater detail in the next few posts, and looking at answers to all those questions above.  

Technology.  From the first wheel and wedge to decoding the human genome to today’s super-powerful nanochips, it’s an unavoidable part of our sentience and, unless our species is entirely wiped out, it will always continue to be as such.

So what’s humanity without technology? 

With all our knowledge, it’s now impossible to go back to living in caves and gnawing our meat off of a fresh carcass. Even those that purport a hate of all things technological are always willing to embrace what amounts to thousands of years of shared knowledge all linked through countless technological creations. So, unless we’re willing to live as we did in the days pre-dating that first wooden club, where does one draw the line? Are Amish and Mennonite community members anymore “human” for having decided to draw that line at what they deemed to be sinful, artificial modes of technology, namely, electricity, telephones, and combustible engines (those that haven’t abandoned this practise)? What about an isolated tribe who’s never heard of Nintendo? 

And popular notions, it turns out, are wrong. All statistics covering hundreds of trends and problems have shown that technology has given us major improvements in the quality of living; things have never been better! Global warming is always the elephant in the room, but, anyway... 

Technology is so ingrained in our lives that the word has become an umbrella for anything electronic and scientific, the term now commonly used to refer to an entire class of retail products. Newspapers and magazines reinforce this sense of the word with their “Science and Technology” sections that place a great deal of emphasis on the latest electronic gadgets, particularly, communications devices.    

The sense of the word and our usage of it has changed greatly over the centuries, however. A portmanteau word from the Greek, téchnē, meaning an "art" or “craft” and its related set of "skills", concatenated with the suffix –logía, which means the study of something, technología was originally used to refer to all aspects of any of the commercial arts, i.e. the study of or a collection of techniques.

These days, as mentioned above, we certainly do not refer to carpenters as technological people, however, with the proper perspective, it becomes clear that the sense of technology hasn’t actually changed all that much since the word’s inception into language; the word has followed the times, reflecting those areas which have had the greatest impact on social living. This sense is intuitive, its scope limited to and defined by a generation’s current times.  Case in point: is anyone still amazed that we can now light fires at will?

We all know what technology is, yet it is one of those things we all have a hard time explaining. As more advancements are made in increasingly specialized fields, the more detached we seem to become from the core concepts with which it is important to identify it, ever more limiting its reference to mere surface forms that appear to be increasingly in opposition to all that we consider to be Natural.

But, if we are given the ability to progress, how can progress be unnatural?

And technology, it seems, isn’t just limited to humans and can’t be viewed as a defining characteristic of Homo Sapiens. What are we to make of beavers and dams? More to the point: dolphins, crows and chimpanzees, amongst others, have all demonstrated the ability to build tools—given the time, could any of those evolve an intelligence level comparable to ours? Are we just the lucky winners in a "natural" race or an abhorrent anomaly?                

Human kind is at an evolutionary crux. Technology affects what it is the outcome of, evolution, and though it has done so indirectly since its first manifestation, it now gives us the option to apply direct, conscious control over evolutionary processes. In its simplest form, technology is a natural force, and it has reached a point where it is now able to surpass the very force that created it. Is this ethically right? But in the Big Bang-scheme of things, what are ethics, really?    

Technology, properly viewed, is the embodiment of that force that both drives and is driven by all that is naturally sentient, the lines between all the components that form and shape the natural world unclear, the relationship between each so interrelated and necessary.  

Modern physics has demonstrated that observation affects reality, but what are we to make of the fact that that observation itself is mediated by technology? Technology shapes our perceptions of the world and feeds the human experience while also being fed by it; it is a necessary component for what, rationally, it cannot be a part of, any concept of human nature, however defined and whether fixed or variable. Paradoxically, any notion of human nature could not have developed without technology just as the birth of human nature couldn’t possibly have been sparked without technological innovations if we are to believe that humans are the result of natural processes, our intelligence the outcome of evolutionary forces. On the other hand, we seem to have created a collectively-understood but indefinable division between nature and technology, but given that all things technological arise out of natural processes, what justifies such a division?

In the next series of posts, I’ll be providing my own views on the many points I raise here as I propose a new definition for technology, one which, I hope, will break common conceptions and, as such, help shed a light on "humanity" while awakening a greater sense of responsibility in all of us.  

Is a new term necessary? Time, with technology, will tell...

The Academy Awards. Last night, a hundred-some-odd million viewers in over 106 countries watched the glitz-and-glam show. Personally, I don’t see the interest in watching rich, beautiful folks pat each other on the back. I’ve tried, but not once have I been able to sit through an entire Oscar show. These people already get way too much undeserved attention and money thrown at them for a what amounts to an easy job, too much freedom, and a "living the dream"-fueled superficial existence. There’s something very perverse about wanting to watch them gather in a room and getting singled out for this? True, there are more starving actors than there are wealthy ones, but, let’s be honest, the Oscars really isn't about hard facts and reality; Oscar Night is all about celebrating Hollywood excess and keeping those artificial wheels well greased.    

Selection biases; complaints of cronyism; popular and pathetic pandering; all the usual criticisms aside, what baffles me is the dollar amount associated with this one evening. What other industry spends an estimated $35 to 40 million just to hand out statuettes?  

The current ”world’s most expensive party” title is attributed to the luxury resort, Atlantis, The Palm, with a lavish grand opening beach party (Nov. 20, 2008) for over 2000 guests that cost $35 million. This included a $6.8M fireworks display and a $ 4M Kylie Minogue concert, as well as several other events. And yes, this was Dubai, where over-the-top extravagance rhymes with incredibly stupid spending.  

So, how the hell does Hollywood manage to spend $40M for a 3-hour-21-minute awards ceremony? Proof that watching people receiving awards then thanking countless others, especially god, isn’t an exciting activity per se if it warrants spending that much to make it magical? And what are we to make of the fact that, according to ABC spokesperson Andrea Canning, more than a year’s worth of preparation goes into each Oscar Night? Before 2011’s show aired, ABC was already in the planning for 2012’s.  

Only one thing can justify such expenditures: substantially larger revenues.

So one thing should be clear: it’s not really about the awards and recognition. Yet, the Academy Awards isn’t  "big business" as much as it is the whole of Hollywood giving themselves a Holy Day in the grand sense of holiday. Oscar Night has become an inescapable tradition that, like Christmas or Easter, relies on and propagates a myth that is able to create a major and lucrative pre, during and post event buzz for such an otherwise mundane, subjective affair. I’ll leave it up to readers to draw parallels between The Academy and Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Christ, et al., but it should be noted that The Academy, like them, is able to generate massive and unjustified spending and revenue streams. This is why The Academy isn’t big business by itself, it sits above it, belongs to all those that can profit from this yearly celebration; it’s a make-or-break event for certain companies and the reason-to-be-for others. For celebrants, it’s an unreasoned reason to spend unjustified amounts and to spread the ol’ joy. How much joy? 

According to CNN, had the 2008 Oscars been cancelled due to the writer’s strike, this “no-show” would have cost $400M to Los Angeles and the industry. That’s more than the GDP of at least 15 countries and Republics that’s generated out of one TV extravaganza.      

The salary of show producers, organizers, engineers, and technicians notwithstanding, vast sums are pumped into pure frivolity. From hotels to caterers, airlines and limo drivers, hairdressers and jewellers to fashion consultants and designers, personal trainers and all ancillary trades taking advantage of people with too much money and the warped sense of values that one inherits in a la la land where image is as all, convinced that this evening is their fairy tale moment; this validates a need for thousand-dollar hair styles, and tens of thousands on a one-time-only wardrobe as well as for car and jewellery rentals, all this for just a few hours.
But does that include all the drugs and escorts and other big-bash necessities?  

And there are the Paparazzi and tabloid magazines and gossip shows; Oscar-specialized publications and even “serious” news; betting pools and predictions of all sorts, all these and more generating billions of printed or broadcast words in the month that precedes and follows the event (which I’m partaking in, I know).

And then there’s all the advertising opportunities. Tremendous amounts of them. ABC was able to sell its 30-sec slots for an average of $1.4M, and that’s only one outlet—broadcast rights aren't cheap and offer plenty more 30-sec slots.    

Next, there’s all the indirect product-placement type opportunities. It’s estimated that one good red-carpet picture can translate into $1M worth of sales for jewellers or fashions houses.       

And why else would all sorts of companies—even those not selected or affiliated with the official Oscar Bag—be willing to give merchandise to be included in “swag bags” (gift bag) to be given to all nominees, people who already have all? Anything from spa certificates to diamonds worth more than $100,000? In fact, this year’s losers in the Top Actor categories were, on top of the official goody bags, all offered swag bags worth $75,000 by Distinctive Assets, an independent swag bag broker (speaking of event-specific job creation...).   

Let’s not forget the boost in DVD and ticket sales; nominated and winning movies automatically see their sales increase by 25% to 75%, and winning actors and directors invariably see a renewed interest in their filmography.

And I’m certain I’m forgetting to mention other areas... Feel free to point them out, below. 

Oscars. A-world-of-illusions celebration that's more important than an all-too-real third-world economy.