Pants don't grow on trees, and other relevant observations pt. 1

That's right. Pants, not plants. Although, that would be quite redundant in any case because a tree is technically a plant...Fortunately for nudists and small children alike, no such species of blue-jean sequoias or dark denim flora gratuitously populate our Earth, but if they did, one can imagine how our entire conception of what is "natural" would completely change. There is a staggeringly large misconception going around about what is natural vs. unnatural in this world; on one side of the spectrum are ultra-hippy anarchists who eschew all forms of processed, regulated or manufactured goods and instead live in isolated sustainable communities that attempt to grow and build everything they need; on the other side are the techno-junkies who worship Ray Kurzweil and simply can't WAIT to become super-human cyborgs. And in the middle there, is us, just using our common sense to try and wade through all the consumer propaganda that bombard us with useless information. With an ever-growing focus (or return, at least) to what is "natural", organic, and free from human influence; what belongs to nature, what belongs to man: do such distinctions really exist?

There is a nascent convergence (or cataclysm) between the state of mind that seeks to return to the Goddess: what is natural and unaffected by man (seen as a growing obsession with organic foods, traditional medicine or natural remedies) with the exponential rise and research into areas of [bio,nano]technology and the potential for integration, enhancement and alterations to our concept of humanity. Now, I'm not bashing cage-free chickens nor am I saying organic products free of antibiotics are the bane of my existence. In fact, I am a large proponent of this movement, as well as the uses of holistic medical practices, and such things as yoga, meditation and herbal remedies. The problem lies in what is called the naturalistic fallacy and the dangers of those prancing about in the wonderful world of all things "natural", "good", or "wholesome", who really don't understand what the word "natural" could mean, what it encompasses, and the way it is largely manipulated/misrepresented in society today. Try to keep this in mind as you read on; this part is kind of long-winded...

It all started with a pleasant little course entitled: On the Prospects of a Post-human Future, and particularly, a book by James Hughes called, Citizen Cyborg (a fantastic read by the way), which I'm going to discuss in a nutshell. So, let us say I've really been getting into a lot of theoretical, highly-charged arguments with a myriad of sociopoliticultural implications to go around concerning this strange notion of what "post-human" really means. At first it makes you laugh, because you think of all the ridiculous (and often arbitrary) modern artistic movements that slap "post" as a prefix and call it a day; post-structuralism, post-minimalism, post-modern, so on and so forth, world without end, amen. That's quite possibly a very glaring generality, but in your heart of hearts I know you smiled a little. I've fallen down the rabbit hole of this humans vs. persons discussion, and the sub classifications of each I never even knew existed. For example, not all humans are persons and vice versa: dolphins and certain simians are considered persons, but fetuses and the brain dead (or the severely mentally retarded) are not! There will come a time when all of our preconceived notions concerning human and animal rights will seem fuzzy, when people become super-human and animals learn to communicate and think "intelligently". We are closer and closer to becoming our own gods, in our ever-growing capabilities to advance and control our evolution, a thought as ominous as it is hopeful in all it implies.

Now, where were we? Ah, Citizen Cyborg...So, this kat (as in "he's a kool kat", not to be confused with a cool cat, which are two entirely different things) Hughes; sociologist/bioethicist/ex-buddhist, is part of this huge, international/intellectual/cultural transhumanist movement, which supports the advancement of emergent science and technology in trying to augment human intellectual and physical capabilities to its fullest capacity. It's as if you stitched together a world in which, Gattaca, X-Men, Brave New World, Terminator, A.I., Species, and The Matrix all suddenly became very tangible realities in the kind of magnificent blockbuster Steven Spielberg would wet his pants for--THAT would closely resemble what the transhumanists are pinning for. This, perhaps, is a tad exaggerated or limited view at best, but it's a good way to visualize the kind of possibilities and dangers our generation will be dealing with in the not-so-distant-future. If you're interested in finding out more on transhumanism, start here and here.

But, I digress, the main point of Hughes's book is to examine all the benefits and critiques of such a pandora's box, and to suggest as well how such advancements can help society overcome many of it's ills and inequalities through progress vs. limitations of development and research, and the universal, democratic access and distribution to all, the latter of which seems highly Utopian/unlikely. One example is the ability to pre-screen fetuses for genetic disorders and risk factors, already very common procedures; amniocentesis, CVS (1 hour photo not included), and PUBS (I'll leave that one for you). Within the near future it will be possible not only to correct any genetic anomalies found, but also to engineer one's offspring to have a higher IQ, a faster metabolism, or even the ability to fly (or maybe just jump real high). Another possibility is the integration of hardware into our neural networks for boosting cognitive computations, telepathic communications, or to remotely turn your tv on and off--ingenuity or an indolent's paradise, I wonder...These modifications have such far-reaching implications it's hard to know where to even begin. We have barely scratched the surface, so let us just begin with the easiest one--well, relatively.

There is the argument of treatment vs. enhancement. Shouldn't we be focusing on eradicating disease and suffering in the world before worrying about creating super-humans and what-not? Yes, but who's to say we can't do both, or that by advancing one we can't ameliorate the other? One of the major problems Hughes discusses is the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and technology and the possibility for such biological enhancements to further that gap. In effect, rich people will always have better access to the best that money can buy as long as social classes exist, and maybe in the future the average boy or girl will be 100x smarter than the most advanced student today; fluent in 6 languages and able to run down a cheetah, while wealthy children are so smart they can communicate with all animals as well as breathe under water...Very hypothetical indeed. One can begin to see all sorts of ethical issues spiraling outward out of thin air. Human enhancement leading to extremist eugenics movements, super-human vs. sub-human rights, animal enhancements gone wrong, or even the unethical uses of such enhancements for crime and other sinister deeds (see Super-Villain Syndrome and world domination disease). Hughes suggests a "radical" democracy, meaning equal access to everyone, which will supposedly ensure this won't happen, but I suspect the larger problem lies in our immature/naïve social value systems and lack of consensus (as well as intelligence) on very basic issues like universal health care or abortion rights. On the plus side, if we (who is we, I wonder?) can manage the ability to increase intelligence and make it universally affordable, then theoretically, smarter, more informed citizens would cooperate to help each other advance as a society instead of a privileged few advancing their own greedy agendas upon the uneducated masses.

You would be surprised to learn that critics have already jumped on this whole idea of transhumanism before it's even fully developed (see Leo Kass and Francis Fukuyama). Kass is quite precious in this respect, a conservative philosopher appointed by the current Bush admin. as the head of the President's Council on Bioethics (ha!), who opposes in-vitro fertilization, cloning, and any/all human enhancement technologies on the grounds that they rob us of "human dignity." (!!) I won't even get into the kind of rage these people inspire within me, but he argues that technological integration and genetic modification of the body are "unnatural" processes, wholly unsubstantiated and undefined, but which brings us nicely full circle. If you recall 500 pages ago, I mentioned something about the convergence of natural ideologies with the rise of biotechnology and human enhancement. Because of the similarity in thinking, conservatives like Kass will end up aligning themselves with "naturalistic" liberals on issues of biotechnological integration and the like, both arguing against self-modification because we don't know what may happen; because it should be left up to evolution; because when they said "be all you can be", they were really just joking. Oh, the irony, it kills me! Bang, bang.

What this sort of mentality fails to realize is that "natural" is whatever coexists as a result of our existence! Technology is not natural like pants aren't natural. We have been modifying our own evolution since we invented clothing! At some point we were covered in hair (unfortunately for some that never went away) so the minute "evolution" made hairless people, it was up to them to improvise. Thus began the long lineage of invention, innovation, and self-modification. Musical instruments to footballs, all of this technology has effectively modified our behavior and subsequent evolution as a species and as a society: with each new invention came the nuances of our adaptations to it, some of which were inherited, most of which were learned--idiosyncrasies that throughout the ages have come to define the very nature of our behavior and interactions. To draw an imaginary line between cold hard steel as less natural than cotton t-shirts or pacemakers is as illogical as saying the great creator(s) made everything, because in essence, who made the creator, and the creator's creator ad infinitum, where do you draw the line? "It's turtles all the way down!" (see Plato and a platypus walk into a bar). I won't get into religion right now, because everyone has a right to believe what they want, even teapot atheists like me, but you see the problem of drawing arbitrary lines? Hmm, more to follow. Indeed.