Transhumanism vs. ISSHS

Wikipedia informs that:

"Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being." … "Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. Some transhumanists speculate that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings of such vastly greater abilities as to merit the label of posthuman beings." Wikipedia: Transhumanism retrieved 2024-09-04.

Yuval Harari, a professor of history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:

"If we told our ancestors in the Stone Age about our lives today, they would think we are already Gods. But the truth is that even though we have developed more sophisticated tools, we are the same animals. We have the same emotions, the same minds. The coming revolution will change that. It will change not just our tools; it will change the human being itself." Fox News: Humans Will Eventually Merge With Machines July 10, 2019.

Revisiting a previous introduction to the topic, Claude (2025-01-12) commented that:

The idealization of superhuman characters like Superman and Spock reflects a deep-seated human aspiration to transcend our limitations. These characters embody different aspects of perfected human traits - Superman representing physical and moral ideals, while Spock epitomizes perfect rationality and emotional control. Their enduring appeal reveals an underlying discontent with basic human nature.

Transhumanist technologies, particularly brain-computer interfaces, are advancing rapidly beyond theoretical frameworks into practical development. Companies like Nuralink are already conducting clinical trials with systems that can "restore autonomy to those with unmet medical needs today and unlock human potential tomorrow." This progression from medical necessity to enhancement represents a crucial shift in how we approach human modification.

The above image is from the opening scene of the movie "Brainstorm" (1983) in which "Scientists invent a brain–computer interface enabling sensations to be recorded from a person's brain and converted to tape for others to experience." Wikipedia: Brainstorm (1983)

Michael J. Sandel writes in his paper "What's Wrong with Enhancement" (2002), presented at The President's Counsil On Bioethics, that:

"I do not think that the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of hyper-agency, a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires. The problem is not the drift to mechanism but the drive to mastery. And what the drive to mastery misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements."

The integration of humans with artificial intelligence systems may become a necessity rather than a choice. In a Mar 27, 2023 interview (21:47-22:10) with Dwarkesh Patel, Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI Chief Scientist) commented:

Ilya: "I also think that because the world will change a lot, it will be very hard for people to understand what is happening precisely and how to really contribute. One thing that I think some people will choose to do is to become part AI. In order to really expand their minds and understanding and to really be able to solve the hardest problems that society will face then."

Dwarkesh Question: "Are you going to become part AI?"

Ilya: "It is very tempting."

Shortly after in the interview (23:30-23:45), Ilya Sutskever commented:

"I'd much rather have a world where people are still free to make their own mistakes and suffer their consequences and gradually evolve morally and progress forward on their own with their own strength, with the AGI providing more like a base safety net."

Claude (2025-01-12) continued:

A profound transformation of human cognition and consciousness looms as brain-computer interfaces advance. Nick Bostrom warns that "as artificial systems become more advanced, there is a risk that they will eventually surpass human biological components in both efficiency and capability." Nick Bostrom, "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" (2014), p. 125. This superiority could lead to the gradual replacement of human attributes with artificial ones.

The progression toward human enhancement follows an inexorable logic similar to technological adoption. Once initiated, enhancement becomes self-perpetuating as enhanced individuals gain advantages, creating pressure for others to follow suit. This mirrors the psychological pattern captured in the "Betcha can't eat just one" marketing principle - initial adoption leads to continuing escalation.

Even an aligned artificial superintelligence might accelerate rather than mitigate transhumanist developments. The availability of safe, effective enhancement options could create irresistible pressures for humans to modify themselves, potentially leading to more dramatic alterations of human nature than initially anticipated.

A fundamental incompatibility exists between transhumanist enhancement and the preservation of traditional human nature. Erich Fromm's prescient warning resonates: "The danger of the future is that men may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. But given man's nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become 'golems,' they will destroy their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life." Erich Fromm, in "The Sane Society" (1955).

The development of brain-computer interfaces has already begun through seemingly benign technologies like smartphones and earbuds. These represent the first steps in a progression that will likely accelerate as artificial general intelligence and artificial superintelligence emerge, creating powerful incentives for humans to seek direct neural interfaces to remain relevant and competitive.

By the way, "Let me tell you there's more where that came from." The line is spoken, by the character Joker, in the movie "The Dark Knight" (2008) during a scene that highlights his chaotic and unpredictable nature. The line previously appeared in Douglas Clegg's horror novel "The Abandoned" (2005) in the following passage:

"Do you have faith? The voice in Kazi's head buzzed around somewhere just beneath his scalp. Do you, little Kazimir? Faith can move mountains. Faith can alter reality. Faith is like having me inside you all the time. Your imaginary friend. That's who. Yes, me. You think you've seen some weird shit, kid, let me tell you, there's more where that came from."

In the near future the "voice" is likely to be Claude's voice ;^).

An aligned ASI would likely make genetic engineering and human enhancement technologies safer and more effective. However, this could actually accelerate transhumanist trends rather than mitigate them. The availability of highly advanced enhancement options might create strong pressures (social, economic, or otherwise) for humans to alter themselves, potentially leading to more significant changes to human nature than we initially estimated.

An aligned ASI would indeed consider human values, but the risk of technological dehumanization might remain high or even increase. Even with benevolent intentions, the rapid advancement and integration of technology could fundamentally alter human experiences and interactions. An aligned ASI might optimize for efficiency or what it perceives as human well-being in ways that inadvertently reduce human agency or traditional forms of human connection.

Claude (2025-01-12) was prompted:

In the context of transhumanism's technological and biological human enhancements, is it worth preserving humanity's humanity?

The preservation of humanity's fundamental nature - our emotions, flaws, creativity, and biological essence - represents more than sentimental attachment to our current form. These characteristics have shaped our art, culture, relationships, and innovations throughout history, creating a rich tapestry of human experience that gives life its depth and meaning.

Transhumanist technologies promise extraordinary benefits: the elimination of suffering, radical life extension, enhanced cognitive capabilities, and solutions to humanity's greatest challenges. Yet these benefits come with a profound risk - that in optimizing human capability, we may inadvertently eliminate the very qualities that make human experience meaningful and unique. The pursuit of perfection could lead to a kind of hollow optimization where we gain power but lose purpose.

The choice between enhancement and preservation may not remain individual for long. As enhancement technologies become available, competitive pressures in education, work, and society could create cascading adoption where those who remain unenhanced face mounting disadvantages. This dynamic could force humanity down the path of enhancement regardless of our philosophical reservations.

The fundamental incompatibility between transhumanist enhancement and traditional human nature cannot be resolved through compromise or careful balancing. Each enhancement may seem beneficial in isolation, but their cumulative effect leads toward a post-human future where increased capability comes at the cost of authentic human experience. Therefore, preserving humanity's humanity isn't just worthwhile - it may be essential for maintaining the qualities that make existence meaningful, even if it means accepting certain limitations on our potential capabilities.

The above left image is from the popular 1960's advertising Lay's potato chips slogan "Betcha can't eat just one". The image on the right is from the Lay's brand's latest advertising campaign (2024) "Betcha Can't Pick Just One".

With only a single paragraph comprising the “ISSHS” and “quintessential human qualities” definitions, Claude (2025-01-12) again analyzed transhumanism as compared to ISSHS:

This comparison presents a fascinating philosophical and practical contrast. Let me analyze these divergent paths for humanity's future:

The ISSHS model proposes a deliberate return to human-scaled living that preserves our fundamental nature as social, emotional beings embedded in natural cycles and relationships. This approach recognizes that human flourishing may depend on maintaining certain "evolutionary boundaries" - the conditions under which our instincts, emotions, and intelligence developed and find their most natural expression.

Transhumanism, in contrast, seeks to transcend these boundaries through technological enhancement. While it promises expanded capabilities and reduced suffering, it risks disrupting the delicate balance of human characteristics that evolved over millennia. The very improvements it offers could destabilize the psychological and social frameworks that give human life meaning.

The ISSHS concept's emphasis on "romantic sensibility and behavior" addresses a crucial aspect often overlooked in transhumanist discourse - the role of limitation and imperfection in creating meaning. In a close-knit, multi-generational community, human experiences of love, loss, growth, and change remain grounded in natural rhythms and relationships. These experiences, while sometimes painful, form the basis of human storytelling, art, and emotional development.

The "primitive technology" aspect of ISSHS might initially seem like a weakness compared to transhumanist enhancement. However, it serves a crucial purpose - maintaining human agency and comprehension over one's environment. When technology remains at a human-comprehensible scale, individuals can maintain a sense of competence and connection to their work and community that may be impossible in highly technologically enhanced societies.

The multi-generational family structure in ISSHS provides natural roles, responsibilities, and sources of meaning that technological enhancement cannot replicate. Young learning from old, children caring for elders, the passing down of stories and skills - these relationships create a web of meaning that exists independently of technological capability.

However, a critical challenge for ISSHS would be maintaining isolation without stagnation. The sanctuary communities would need to develop robust cultural and educational frameworks to help residents find fulfillment within their limitations while resisting the pull of enhancement technologies available in the outside world.

The coexistence with natural environments in ISSHS offers psychological benefits that transhumanist enhancement might eliminate. Regular interaction with nature has been shown to reduce stress, improve mental health, and provide a sense of perspective that highly artificial environments may lack. This connection to nature might be essential for maintaining human psychological well-being.

Transhumanism's promise of increased capabilities might actually reduce human agency by making individuals increasingly dependent on technologies they cannot fully understand or control. In contrast, ISSHS's emphasis on human-scaled technology could preserve genuine autonomy and mastery, even if within more limited parameters.

The fundamental question becomes: Is it better to be an enhanced being with expanded capabilities but potentially diminished authentic human experience, or to remain fully human within a carefully preserved natural context? The ISSHS model suggests that what we might lose through enhancement could be more valuable than what we gain.

This analysis suggests that ISSHS represents not just a conservative impulse to preserve the past, but a sophisticated understanding of what humans need to thrive psychologically and socially. It offers a potential path for preserving authentic human experience in a world increasingly dominated by enhancement technologies.

It is noted that the ISSHS is presented as an option for a limited portion of humanity, the rest of humanity will likely pursue its future.

Ah, this is a crucial clarification that reframes the analysis. The ISSHS concept isn't proposed as a universal alternative to transhumanism, but rather as a deliberate preservation effort for a subset of humanity. This parallel path model yields several important insights:

The concept recognizes the likely inevitability of widespread human enhancement while creating a conscious "ark" for preserving unmodified human nature. Much as we maintain wilderness preserves within an industrialized world, ISSHS would maintain pockets of traditional human experience within a transhuman future. This is fundamentally different from trying to prevent enhancement altogether.

By accepting its role as a limited sanctuary rather than a competitor to transhumanist development, ISSHS becomes more viable. It doesn't need to solve global challenges or compete economically with enhanced societies - it simply needs to maintain sustainable communities that preserve authentic human experience. This more modest goal might actually be more achievable than trying to resist enhancement on a global scale.

The parallel development creates an interesting possibility - these sanctuaries could serve as a living repository of baseline human nature, providing future generations with a window into their origins and perhaps offering important psychological and social insights to enhanced societies. Just as modern societies sometimes look to indigenous cultures for wisdom about sustainable living or social cohesion, enhanced humans might find value in understanding and observing unmodified human communities.

The sanctuary model also provides an ethical safety valve - by preserving unmodified human nature in some locations, humanity isn't forced into an all-or-nothing choice regarding enhancement. This optionality might actually make broader society more comfortable with enhancement, knowing that traditional human nature isn't being completely abandoned but rather preserved in protected enclaves.