Really enjoyed this event last night. I felt Mary’s presentation was rooted far more in the reality of techno-capitalism and had a more plausible view of the likely futures inherent in the concept of transhumanism. Elise on the other hand was the idealist, and much of her presentation dealt with what amounted to religious faith and science fiction speculations. I also thought equating technological development with biological evolution was a fundamental category error that allowed her to present a transhumanist future as a natural necessity rather than an outgrowth of our present economic/political circumstances. In that sense it was not scientific. The abolition of individual autonomy which would result from such an overcoming of human limits wasn’t considered at all. The hope seemed to be that when AI becomes conscious it will be a better custodian of our world than collective humanity has been up to now. I see no reason why this would be the case. More than ever I am convinced transhumanist speculations are a form of techgnosis; an attempt to overcome death by godless means. 

Thanks UnHerd for an excellent debate by two thoughtful speakers. Mary shined, but either due to time constraints or a strategic priorities, I think she missed a key element of her position. Mary should have noted that Elise’s condemnation of present human inability to address serious problems (due to incapacity, malfeasance, or negligence) should be equally applied to the needed human involvement in transhumanistic advances. Elise spoke glowingly of AI etc., but who actually creates, supports and manages that? what are their motivations? what are their competencies? Mary rightly pointed out the law of unintended consequences of the sexual revolution, but she did so assuming the good faith and best intentions of all involved. Can we really assume that in the context of transhumanism?

This was a fascinating debate and I managed to catch it online. Anything with Mary in it usually tends to be brilliant and thoughtful. Thanks Unherd!

I hope that Ms. Bohan’s opening remarks will get equal space. I watched the debate; her remarks were quite interesting. While I didn’t agree with her I felt that her presentation was very informative in regards to what goes on in the mind of a thoughtful transhumanist, as opposed to a tech-boy type who just wants to “break things”.
And I would rather have the words in front of me, so I can go back and forth at my leisure, without the distractions of voice and the speaker’s emphasis.

The key point here (for me) is that the transhumanists are, as Mary says, sawing off the branch they are sitting on. All their goals (e.g. extreme longevity) are grounded in what Mary calls ‘humanist anthropology’, or current human reality. Our current limitations are the context in which it makes sense to wish for a longer life or whatever. But there is no reason to think that if the context changes radically our wishes will remain the same. On the contrary, in fact. Which renders the transhumanist project not just silly, but pointless. Which won’t, of course, stop it being successful.

Missed it to my regret. I will hunt down as much of it as I can. Simply put, “transhumanism” is just the period of transitioning to “post humanism”. Think about that. Who out here or there want to “live”? in a post human state or world? Or do we merely want to play at it and consign others to that fate after we are gone? Is so-called possible immortality worth no longer being human? Why bother?

Watched this on YouTube, very interesting, but more debate time needed, perhaps via a series of debates, so topics can be explored in more depth. On the back of something MH said about possible futures, high-tech or completely the reverse, for a lightweight but hallucinogenic exploration of the anti-tech view, I recommend an entertaining SF short by Brian Aldiss, called ‘One Blink of the Moon’.

I watched the video of the discussion and found it wonderfully engaging.
Mary Harrington said, “You can’t have transhumanism without throwing out humanism.” On the youtube page someone posted a comment to the effect that the first person to discuss all this was Teilhard. That sent me off to the online page of the Center for Christogenesis, where there are lots of articles about Teilhard, especially by Ilia Delio, who interprets him for the modern times. One article I read yesterday was by Sister Carla Mae Streeter: “Transhumanism: Transformation or Transfiguration? The Perspective of Ilia Delio”.
Ilia Delio puts love at the centre of it all. She says without it you disconnect matter from spirit (instead of seeing spirit as the heart of matter). I wonder if Mary Harrington has encountered the work of Ilia Delio, and, if so, what she makes of it.

https://theamericanscholar.org/the-end-is-only-the-beginning/ May be of general interest.

Groan. Seems obsessed with class politics this one. I have only read the article but new tech arguably pulls people out of poverty.
As far as I’m concerned, the pill is not transhumanist. I don’t know what she’s basing the part
‘ But the story so far suggests that far from delivering utopia, what it mostly delivers is a commodification of the human body that disproportionately benefits those who already have power and privilege’
Firstly, if its the pill we’re talking about, this is not the case. I don’t see how it can be, women having reliable contraception allows us to plan our lives accordingly, this is only an improvement in my mind. ESPECIALLY for women that aren’t the ‘wealthy and privileged’. Contraception is as old as the hills, the pill is just an improvement. It in no way makes a woman less human, transhuman or anything else.
Next, the fact the evil elite are ‘currently sawing away at the branch we’re sitting on’ to smote the lower classes (who must be defended and potentially might have their tissue harvested) with their transhumanist agenda – Is about as Alex jones as you can get. I’m intrigued as to what evidence there is for that. Tech normally starts out expensive, as it becomes more widely available it becomes cheaper. Standard. She makes it sound like rich people are rounding up the poor to take their blood and tissue. Or that the evil elite will go all Huxley and somehow breed an army of ‘docile’ masses. Hyperbolic. Slightly irrational.
Resisting technological advances will put us behind other countries that are doing the research. At this stage, we don’t want to be falling behind countries like China on tech. Two fold resistance probably isn’t helpful or constructive. It needs regulation, obviously limits will have to be debated. People will have a choice, as they always have had with tech, whether they want to use it or not. I’m unconvinced she’s barking up the right tree. I think the pill was a poor example to use. As a member of the masses, please don’t defend me on those grounds.