Reviewed
The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us, by Adam Kirsch, Columbia Global Reports, 100 pp., $16.00 (paper)
I very much think the NYRB picked the wrong person for this review. The best reviews in the journal have writers with subject matter expertise who can both contextualize a given book within a larger discourse and who also know enough to spot mistakes or arguments that don’t cash out.
For example, O’Connell writes,
Just as they tend to be secular humanists, transhumanists tend to be libertarians and, if not always outright cheerleaders for capitalism, then certainly on the whole uncritical of it.
Also,
"Despite his justified reputation as a critic of range and depth, Kirsch’s treatment of transhumanism is really more of a journalistic survey than an essayistic engagement. He pays little or no attention to the fact that the movement is a metastasized outgrowth of capitalist individualism, concerned as it is with the perfection of the self and the extension of its reign into perpetuity. It’s an odd omission, because there’s a case to be made that capitalism—embedded though it is, like transhumanism, in liberal humanist principles—has itself become a profoundly antihuman phenomenon."
I don’t know whether it’s true statistically that transhumanism is libertarian dominant. However, it would have helped for him to note that the World Transhumanist Association, subsequently and still Humanity+, was at one point run by a democratic socialist if I’m not mistaken, James Hughes. Acrimony between libertarians and lefties has marked transhumanism possibly from its start.
Noteworthy is an informal poll of members of the transhumanist subreddit, which found an overwhelming preponderance of lefties of one stripe or another.
It’s a case of underdetermination and guilt by association to claim that transhumanism is a metatstatic outgrowth of capitalism individualism. Clearly you can find linkages with Silicon Valley and tech gurus like Ray Kurzweil, but, as already mentioned, democratic transhumanism is alive and well. Also, it’s too glib to explain individualism, in the sense of a self-actualizing and self-differentiating tendency, with capitalism. If you do this with transhumanism, you then must with various health trends, for example, or with new religious movements or virtually any lifestyle. If you’re looking for social explanations for transhumanism modernity seems more apt. But this is still too blunt to account for the specificities of transhumanism. Nor does it seem very convincing to attribute transhumanism to some kind of generic religious tendency - itself an explanatory cliché that thinks it’s saying something sociologically useful about why one might want to overcome one’s limitations of mind or body. You don’t you need make any reference to transcendent religious categories though to understand the transhumanist impulse, only note that decline, debility and death are objectionable to you.
And that leads me to an observation that forms the backdrop of the discussion about transhumanism. It seems to me that transhumanism (which it should be pointed out is not a univocal belief system) will be more likely to be seen as anti-human and extreme depending on how you’ve conceptualized the totality of the determining contingencies of our lives.
In other words, if you never appreciated the following as a whole and recoiled from it - disease, illness, disability, death, ignorance, the limitations of short term memory/memory altogether, the limitations of the body, received prejudice and instinct operating everywhere, the inertia of institutions and society, the forced circumstances of history and previous technological choices - the sum of our limitations, it’s possible you’ve never felt a dialectical and moral pull in the opposite direction in all possible ways. If you don’t have the sense that we’re much closer to hapless object and historical victim than we are possessed of radical agency and capacities for self-transcendence, then transhumanism will somewhat understandably be seen as anti-human. But, what if we’ve never been able to be fully human?
Anyway, I have more to say but I feel like reading a book.
3 notes
·
View notes