When we hear the word “transhumanism,” the imagination usually paints pictures of robots, flying cars, and other fantastic achievements of scientific progress. But what if we dig deeper and say that the roots of transhumanism go much further back than smartphones and drones?
Imagine 17th-century England. It’s rainy, gloomy, tea hasn’t arrived yet, and scientists and philosophers are already trying to figure out how to make life a little better and a little longer. One such dreamer was Francis Bacon. He wondered how to radically extend human life and enhance human capabilities using science. True, the times were such that declaring this loudly was dangerous: the church believed that man was the property of God and any attempts to improve man were blasphemous. What did Bacon do? He wrote “New Atlantis,” a sort of philosophical “novel with a key,” where behind a beautiful allegory, sages secretly work toward the victory over aging and disease. As if to say, “It’s not me; it’s the characters in my book who are so progressive!”
But Bacon was not the only one who decided to outsmart time and the church. Next in line for history was John Locke. He proposed an idea revolutionary for his time: a person belongs only to themselves, and therefore, they have the right to dispose of their own body and life. And it was this principle of self-ownership and personal freedom that became the key to libertarianism and future transhumanism.
This daring idea provided not only a philosophical push but literally changed the world: thanks to it, the first secular state—the USA—appeared, along with revolutionary slogans like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea of complete personal autonomy turned out to be not just a pretty phrase for philosophers, but a truly powerful engine of social progress. Thus, a philosophical tradition gradually formed, where Bacon’s ideas about overcoming human limitations merged with Locke’s belief in total human freedom. And these proto-libertarian thoughts, like beads on a string, were threaded onto the fundamental philosophy of transhumanism.
Today, technology has caught up with and even surpassed the dreams of past philosophers. What Bacon dreamed of and what Locke timidly hinted at is becoming quite real today: biotechnology, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence. It seems we stand on the threshold not just of a new era, but literally a new version of the human being.
But here comes a new wave of critics who are in no hurry to celebrate technical progress. Some fear the deepening of social inequality, claiming that the rich will live forever while the poor will only get the crumbs. Some worry about the loss of human identity. And some fear that we might accidentally create a new class of technological elite that will rule over all others.
Well, any great idea always faces criticism, but it is precisely the discussion that makes it alive and active. Transhumanism is not just about technology and science; it is a challenge to our very notion of humanity, a chance to rethink everything we have accustomed to considering immutable: life, death, consciousness, and even who we actually are.
Ultimately, whether we like it or not, transhumanism is already influencing our society, forcing us to ask uncomfortable but very important questions. And who knows—perhaps we will live to see the time when these questions become reality rather than just pages of philosophical books. And then, perhaps, someone will write a novel about us—but hopefully, without the Aesopian language!
For now, let’s observe, ask questions, and dream about what tomorrow will bring us, participating personally and helping biohacker enthusiasts whenever possible. For who knows, maybe right now we are taking the first steps toward a world that Bacon and Locke saw only in their boldest fantasies.
The mysterious organization Civil Society, about which I am only vaguely aware of the activities of the panarchist faction, does not consist solely of it. It seems to contain anarchy-balls of all sorts and colors; in particular, yesterday I was contacted by a representative of the transhumanist faction. And if you expected me to be offered an article on gene therapy, then no, not in this country. In this country, the agenda includes a ban on enlightenment, which a community oriented toward human upgrading cannot help but be worried about.
The transhumanists suggest that the passed law banning enlightenment activities can still be tweaked at the Federation Council level, and thereafter they will continue to closely monitor the adoption of various government acts, without which the new law is a mere empty shell.
Subscribe to the faction’s channel if you are interested in learning from time to time how you can contribute to scientific and technical progress.
I constantly hear criticism regarding the idea of eliminating aggressive violence from society using biotechnologies (the development of gene therapy). Skeptics argue that the propensity for violence is very complex, determined by many genes, and that identifying them is impossible. In reality, this is true, but only if one looks specifically for “violence propensity” genes, although this is absolutely unnecessary to solve the task at hand. Lorenz’s research describes the evolutionary path through which many animal species developed an “innate morality” of non-aggression toward members of their own species (in fact, this is not morality in the usual philosophical sense, but a behavioral instinct). For some reason, many have overlooked this, but Konrad Lorenz clearly indicates in his works that species with innate morality experience a strong feeling of aversion (i.e., a certain aggression-inhibiting mechanism is triggered) when they intend to cause harm to the body of a conspecific (for simplicity, we will henceforth call this the “Lorenz mechanism” after the discoverer). This contrasts sharply with the layman’s understanding of “propensity for violence.” For example, hedgehogs are quite aggressive in the conventional sense (since they are predators), but are incapable of causing physical harm to their own kind.
Although Lorenz himself wrote that in humans “innate morality” is very weak, nevertheless, its presence can be noticed in a significant part of society, perhaps even in the majority. You have probably noticed scenes in movies where someone wanted to take revenge for some offense, picked up a weapon, approached the unarmed offender, pointed the gun at them, but suddenly the attacker’s hands began to shake, they felt ill, and they could not fire. This is the behavioral pattern of species with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism, but in humans, it is quite variable (unlike, for example, hedgehogs and snakes, where all individuals in the population have a strong version of this mechanism due to the pressure of natural selection). Accordingly, this trait is determined by alleles of one or several genes (different forms of the same gene located in the same sections of chromosomes). Given the high degree of variability of the strong/weak version of the Lorenz mechanism in different people, identifying the specific genes and the correct (desired) alleles is quite simple, even at the current technological level.
A rough research plan can be outlined. Activists openly demonstrate provocative behavior, for example, by showing their commitment to LGBT in places where homophobes are usually present, insulting them, but, importantly, not using any physical violence against them. If it is evident that a person is deeply offended by the insult, but nevertheless simply walks away (the ideal version is that they intended to strike but ultimately could not), we inform them that it was a scientific experiment, tell them they did well to restrain themselves, and take a DNA sample from them, marking it as “peaceful.” If, however, they attempt to hit the activist, we immediately stop the attack using pepper spray and take a DNA sample, marking it as “aggressor.” We repeat this numerous times to create samples of sufficient size.
Next, we send the collected materials to a laboratory for DNA decoding (sequencing). It could be to Silicon Valley — some of the numerous biotech startups there will surely be happy to receive the samples we have collected, as they cannot collect DNA samples in such an “aggressive” manner within California itself. Based on the comparison of the two samples, the specific genes responsible for the strength of the Lorenz mechanism and the required alleles (encoding the strong version) are identified. Once identified, it would be possible, for example, to create gene therapy for adults and a genetic test for pregnant women (which would make the woman seriously consider whether it is worth continuing the pregnancy).
Can Transhumanism Help Eliminate Aggressive Violence?
Ancap-chan, based on the ideas of Bitarch
The Problem
There is an opinion that the means of fighting aggressive violence offered today are treatments of symptoms rather than the problem itself. What is the point of punishing the manifestation of genetically inherited tendencies; wouldn’t it be more reliable to fix the genes?
Aggression is determined by the hormonal background. Several different hormones are involved in the regulation of aggression.
Hormones are released as a response to changes in the body occurring under the influence of both the external environment and internal processes. For example, aggression can be caused by violence, or simply by hunger.
The predisposition to aggression is partially inherited. The predisposition to hormonal pathologies, which can lead to a sharp change in aggressiveness, is also partially inherited.
Inherited factors can manifest to varying degrees under the influence of the environment, meaning that the predisposition to aggression can be reduced or developed through upbringing.
Aggression is a complex behavioral construct linked to other character traits, such as exploratory activity, independence, and the willingness to protect loved ones.
Specific genes responsible for the predisposition to aggression have not been identified. Even less so have genes responsible for the predisposition to specific types of aggression, particularly the predisposition to initiate aggressive violence. It is clear that there are several genes, located on different chromosomes, not only sex chromosomes.
Throughout human history, there is a clear trend toward the reduction of intra-species aggression. This can be fully explained by Konrad Lorenz’s classical model: the higher the ability of members of a species to destroy their conspecifics, the faster the genes responsible for the predisposition to intra-species aggression are washed out of the population during lethal conflicts. With the mastery of tools, human armament increased sharply, and natural selection went to work, weeding out the most aggressive. However, this happened very recently by evolutionary standards, which is why humans still have disproportionately high levels of aggression compared to their ability to kill people. This, essentially, is what is interpreted as the problem.
What approaches can be taken to solve it at the current level of technological development?
Today’s Approaches
Medical. If aggressiveness is treated as a disease, it is effectively cured by barbaric methods such as lobotomy or haloperidol. Along with aggression, everything human in the patient is “cured,” which is hardly different from murder; therefore, an individual approach to each patient using more delicate means must be developed. Complex treatment with an unguaranteed result cannot be practiced on a mass scale, so let us leave this approach only for the most pronounced pathologies.
Educational. Since the genetic predisposition to aggression can be weakened by good upbringing, it makes sense to focus on raising children without the use of aggressive violence. As a result, a child without pathologies will channel their natural aggressiveness into wonderful things, such as research activity or social activism. And for a child with a pathology, it will at least be manifested in a weakened form.
Sexual Selection. This means of reducing aggression in the population is already working quite well. If, for a potential partner, feats performed to win them over are not as important as benevolence and care, then carriers of genes with low aggression have a better chance of having offspring — after which aggressive individuals go off to burn through their lives and get along perfectly well without reproducing.
Acceleration of Natural Selection. When the direct shooting of aggressors in self-defense becomes common legal practice in society, the genes of aggressors are washed out of the population more radically than through sexual selection. The problem here is that the application of lethal self-defense also requires a certain predisposition to aggression; therefore, this approach works well in societies with brutal traditions, contributing to their rapid civilization — after which its effectiveness begins to decline.
Now let’s fantasize a bit to understand what transhumanists might offer us.
Tomorrow’s Approaches
Embryo Selection. A DNA sample is taken from the fetus and analyzed for a predisposition to pathological aggression; if the result is positive, the pregnancy is terminated. This is already how more obvious hereditary diseases, such as Down syndrome, are fought. Convincing the mother to make another attempt at conception is a solvable task, provided there are not too many cultural constraints in society prohibiting the termination of pregnancy.
Gene Modification in Adults. A virus is created that integrates into human DNA and either switches off the genes responsible for the predisposition to aggression or reduces their expression. The technology of gene modification itself has already been created and is actively developing, but which specific genes should be corrected and how is still poorly understood. Direct switching off of genes most obviously linked to aggression currently leads to many undesirable side pathologies in experiments. Moreover, we are talking about a whole complex of genes in different chromosomes, and modern tools are unable to provide such precise and large-scale correction. Thus, I evaluate the prospects of this specific branch of development as modest. But if the methodology can be refined even to the level of modern pharmacological methods of aggression regulation, it could replace them in psychiatry and also be used as a means of rehabilitating criminals instead of the idiotic practice of imprisonment.
Gene Modification at the Embryonic Stage. The method is the same as in the previous point, but it introduces changes to the genome that will subsequently be inherited. The task is much easier since changes need to be made to literally one cell, rather than processing the entire brain of an adult. However, while the forced application of correction to adults can somehow be justified by the fact that they committed offenses, ethical problems arise with children. I assume that the implementation of these methods will occur with a significant delay compared to the previous point, despite the relative simplicity.
Cyborgization. Since aggression is regulated by the hormonal background, it is not absolutely necessary to mess with the genome if the hormonal background itself can be regulated. Currently, this is done with medication, but in the future, implanted hormonal regulators could be used. It is hard to say which branch of development humanity will ultimately follow, but subjectively, the prospect of solving the problem by simply installing an app on a specialized gadget seems very attractive; furthermore, this methodology has minimum ethical barriers — I would gladly acquire such a device for myself.
Conclusion
First of all, I state that the complete eradication of aggression from humanity, similar to the betrization described by Stanisław Lem, is not only technically unrealizable at the current level of capabilities but also undesirable, since aggression is linked to many qualities useful to humans.
Essentially, aggression is a reaction to a stimulus, in which an attempt is made to eliminate the stimulus. Aggression can be opposed, firstly, by patience, that is, a reaction to a stimulus in which an attempt is made to adapt to its effect without eliminating the stimulus itself, and secondly, by flight, that is, a reaction to a stimulus in which an attempt is made to avoid the action of the stimulus. If the entire richness of human reactions to stimuli were reduced to patience and flight, it would close off not only the possibility of self-defense but the general ability to remove obstacles, especially if this involves any small amount of risk.
There is uncontrolled pathological aggression. It is usually associated with brain injuries and diseases or serious hormonal imbalances. The forced treatment of such diseases, in my view, is a special case of self-defense, especially since such aggression is usually identified when a person is already violating the NAP. The more the result of the treatment resembles a natural level of aggression, the better; but if medical intervention produces side effects that make a person’s life difficult (for example, if they are completely deprived of manifestations of aggression), this would be an undesirable but justified result. I am also prepared to consider the presence of a predisposition to pathological aggression in a fetus as sufficient grounds for abortion or genetic correction at the embryonic development stage — provided there are reliable, proven methods of diagnosis and correction.
As for the natural level of aggression, it is already gradually decreasing in humanity, and in recent years, this has been accompanied by a significant decrease in violent crimes. Therefore, measures to force this decrease seem completely unnecessary to me. Non-violent upbringing of children is already becoming an ethical norm. Sexual selection is already working fully in favor of caring partners rather than dominant ones. Civilian weapons, for all their utility, already look somewhat archaic. Not yet at the level of crinolines and frock coats, but somewhere at the level of evening gowns and three-piece suits. Cute, sophisticated, but unusual.
And finally, I will note once more that the optimal solution seems to me to be the ability to arbitrarily regulate one’s own hormonal background. For example, through the use of an implant. It would certainly be useful for suppressing outbursts of aggression, but I suspect that I personally would use it for the opposite: in situations where my level of aggression is insufficient. For example, before using a weapon for self-defense. Or in order to stop procrastinating and sit down to write a long-postponed post.
1. Transhumanism is closely linked to scientific and technological progress, and that requires huge financial injections; even states have problems with this, as sufficient funds for science are often not found, and under ancap, where everything will be decentralized, it could become even worse (I may be wrong, I am not as familiar with ancap ideas as the ancaps themselves), even corporations might lack funds, especially considering their drive to maximize profit. Building things like the LHC could be impossible under ancap, given the required funds and, essentially, the lack of profitability. And there wouldn’t be enough philanthropists for such scales. However, considering that under ancap, capitalists will gain access to the resources previously owned by states, this should give them more opportunities, although it’s still not a fact that it will be enough.
Here I want, firstly, to refer to my old post about funding fundamental science under ancap, and secondly, to point out that transhumanism does not need things like the LHC: research in biotechnology, bioinformatics, and other transhumanist agendas does not require a super-concentration of resources on a single mega-project, which means that funding can be decentralized, gradual, and quickly transition from the fundamental science stage to the applied stage, with rapid implementation of results in business. As far as I know, the most expensive research in this field was the sequencing of the human genome; it was carried out worldwide for many years by numerous laboratories without disrupting current scientific activities, and this is still much simpler than building some unimaginably complex installation in one place.
2. Regarding cyberpunk, that is incorrect. Cyberpunk is not tied to the fact of the existence of states; moreover, cyberpunk often depicts states as having either disappeared or lost all power, with corporations taking their place. And it is under ancap that a cyberpunk scenario of the world being governed by corporations is more than likely. One could even say that cyberpunk often captures precisely the world of anarcho-capitalism.
I am proceeding from Oppenheimer’s definition of the state, that is, an organization that uses systematic, regular, legalized, and continuously applied “political methods” to extract wealth from the producing society. Cyberpunk corporations differ from corporations in current reality in that they are states in the Oppenheimer sense, they are simply extraterritorial. This system differs from anarcho-capitalism precisely by the legality of political methods, whereas under ancap they are marginal.
And with transhumanism, everything will be fucking great. It will happen soon, we just have to wait!!! Everything will be possible there, everything will be a blast, There, we probably won’t have to die at all.
…And justice for all
Under a state, you’ll be fucking exhausted waiting for transhumanism, but under ancap, it really will happen soon. There is a market demand for transhumanism, but state regulations slow its arrival. Judge for yourself: even harmless genetically modified plants are banned in a whole number of countries, let alone the modification of the human genome?
Again, transhumanism will open up cosmic expansion for humans, and it’s not so easy to draw state borders in space. This is also a strong argument for the state in favor of banning research into adapting humans to extraterrestrial conditions.
In short, it’s possible to imagine ancap without transhumanism, but transhumanism without ancap—only in cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is exactly that kind of fiction where the main fantastic assumption is the preservation of the state upon the arrival of transhumanism. Granted, in most examples of the genre, these are no longer territorial states, but a cockroach-like system of extraterritorial protection rackets, but their essence doesn’t change much.
As for a society where there is no need to die, I have no particular fears. In essence, the only institution that would wither away in such a society is inheritance. And we didn’t really want it anyway. On the other hand, the individual planning horizon could grow significantly, and that is always a sign of a healthy and prosperous society.
