http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Motion Scan
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
The Most Impressive Thing I Saw At E3
One of the most impressive demonstrations at E3 2010 wasn't a game, and wasn't the 3DS (though that was pretty neat.) It was actually a little tech demo tucked away in the back of one of the halls that could completely change the way we see characters in games.
by John Davison
June 25, 2010 15:00 PM PT
John Davison is the EVP, content of GamePro Media
Towards the end of E3 this year, I enthusiastically Tweeted that I “just saw the most amazing thing I think I've ever seen at an E3, and it wasn't a game. It's a tech that will be in a game.” Lots of you were interested to hear about it, so why has it taken me eight days to get around to actually telling you? Well, it’s because I wanted to be able to show you at least a small glimpse of what it does. I can breathlessly tell you how impressed I was until I’m blue in the face, but I wanted some kind of illustration to go along with it.
The technology is called MotionScan, and it’s from an Australian company called Depth Analysis. Their meeting room at E3 was tucked away in a darkened corner in the west hall of the LA Convention Center with just a little sign tacked to the door. When I was beckoned in, I ran into a gobsmacked-looking Jade Raymond on her way out, who was effusing about what she’d just seen as she said goodbye to the folks inside. Earlier that day I’d heard that representatives from studios across the games industry had seen the demo, and left looking similarly flabbergasted.
So what is it? Well, the bottom line is that it’s a groundbreaking 3D motion-capture system. No...wait...stay awake, come back. It’s not as dull as it sounds. Seriously. Unlike every other motion capture thing you’ve ever seen, this is a full performance capture system. It doesn’t just track movement, or grab animation data from actor’s faces as they speak their lines, it captures everything about an actor’s performance, and generates a fully-textured 3D model based on what it sees and hears.
Depth Analysis' Oliver Bao (left) and Team Bondi's Brendan McNamara (right)
Unlike the systems that we’ve all seen in countless boring magazine stories for the past 10 years with the little white balls glued to spandex body suits, MotionScan is much more sophisticated. It uses 32 high definition cameras (divided into 16 stereoscopic pairs) to capture every angle of an actor’s performance at 30 frames per second. From this data it generates a fully-textured 3D model (at the moment it’s just their heads, but later it will be full body) that incorporates every nuance, mannerism, and emotional detail from the performance.
MotionScan allows me to immerse audiences in the most minute details of L.A. Noire’s interactive experience, where the emotional performances of the actors allow the story to unfold in a brand new way.” - Brendan McNamara, Team Bondi
To demonstrate this, Depth Analysis head of research Oliver Bao was joined by Team Bondi founder and director Brendan McNamara, who is overseeing the first game that will make use of the technology; Rockstar's L.A. Noire. To illustrate the system, they showed a series of performances from actors being used in the game, with video of the actor’s actual performance alongside the data captured with MotionScan. The first demo was simple. An actor spoke some lines and smiled, and it was eerily realistic. As Bao and McNamara advanced through subsequent demos, the performances became more and more emotionally engaging until they eventually showed me a scene in which a character was shown distraught about the murder of his wife. As he sobbed through his lines, every line in his face broadcast the angst his character was feeling. His eyes welled-up, and tears streamed down his face. As the scene played out, Bao demonstrated that it was a realtime 3D model by moving the actor’s disembodied head around the screen, and applying different lighting effects.
The effect was startling, and the performance genuinely moving. This is far beyond the “eye contact” we were promised in Mass Effect, or the clumsiness of some of the scenes in Heavy Rain, this was a real actor pouring his heart and soul into an emotional performance that was then fully captured in a 3D model. It’s not just this kind of emoting that it’s good for though. McNamara noted in our time together that it opens up a whole new way of approaching the way characters are presented in games, and subsequently how narratives are written and conveyed. “Traditional motion capture could never bring to life the subtle nuances of the chaotic criminal underworld of L.A. Noire in the same way as MotionScan,” he said. “MotionScan allows me to immerse audiences in the most minute details of L.A. Noire’s interactive experience, where the emotional performances of the actors allow the story to unfold in a brand new way.”
To elaborate, he discussed the way that a detective story is affected by this technology. Because much of L.A. Noire is a criminal investigation, a big part of what the player must do is judge whether characters are telling the truth or not. Previously, the devices available to game designers for conveying this have been quite clumsy. We’d need obvious dialog cues or less than subtle visual hints, but in L.A. Noire, it’ll all be in the performance. “You need to be able to tell when someone is lying,” he explained. “And if you look at these performances, they’re so realistic you’re going to be able to tell if the guy is trying to avoid you, or not look you in the eye.” With this he cued up a brief scene from an interrogation in the game, and it was possible to tell purely from the lines around the character’s eyes, and the way he was moving his eyebrows that something might be amiss.
The impact that this technology is going to have on game development (and the movie business too, as it is being pitched to studios and effects houses as well. Plus, actors are going to be pretty happy about another potential outlet for their craft) is potentially huge. It doesn’t require markers or phosphorescent paint on the actors faces, and there’s no need for animators or artists to clean up details after scenes have been shot. The fact that the system captures a full performance means that hair, makeup, and even prosthetics can be captured. During my time with Bao and McNamara, they showed me one character that was covered in cuts bruises that had been applied by a professional makeup artist, and it was far more striking than anything that could have been added in post-production because they moved realistically with the character’s skin.
Actor John Noble (you may know him as Walter Bishop in Fringe) during his capture session at Depth Analysis
Here he is as as 3D model generated by MotionScan. Every line, crease and muscle movement is captured in his performance
For games with large casts of characters, like L.A. Noire which features more than 200, the potential for streamlining the production process is tremendous. Actors will be able to provide animation and graphical data as they’re delivering their lines, and will help eliminate the huge amount of effort that currently goes into lip-syncing 3D models that have been created by a studio’s art team. McNamara also noted that soon the system will be able to capture up to three actors at the same time, so full conversations can be filmed and the appropriate physical and emotional reactions recorded.
While I only got to spend 10 or 15 minutes with the technology, it was very clear that it marks the beginning of a new chapter in the way that realistic game characters will be presented. If used properly, it will push the boundaries of what we expect from game performances, and hopefully elevate the demand for good writing, good dialog, and real emotional content. While it has obvious applications for cut-scenes, narrative elements, and in-game conversation, the real benefit will come in the seamless transition between action and static scenes, and the fact that there'll potentially be no break in realism.
Hopefully this description, and the images I've posted here manage to go some way to conveying just how significant and impressive this system is. I think the real proof will come when we finally get to see L.A. Noire in motion.
The Most Impressive Thing I Saw At E3
One of the most impressive demonstrations at E3 2010 wasn't a game, and wasn't the 3DS (though that was pretty neat.) It was actually a little tech demo tucked away in the back of one of the halls that could completely change the way we see characters in games.
by John Davison
June 25, 2010 15:00 PM PT
John Davison is the EVP, content of GamePro Media
Towards the end of E3 this year, I enthusiastically Tweeted that I “just saw the most amazing thing I think I've ever seen at an E3, and it wasn't a game. It's a tech that will be in a game.” Lots of you were interested to hear about it, so why has it taken me eight days to get around to actually telling you? Well, it’s because I wanted to be able to show you at least a small glimpse of what it does. I can breathlessly tell you how impressed I was until I’m blue in the face, but I wanted some kind of illustration to go along with it.
The technology is called MotionScan, and it’s from an Australian company called Depth Analysis. Their meeting room at E3 was tucked away in a darkened corner in the west hall of the LA Convention Center with just a little sign tacked to the door. When I was beckoned in, I ran into a gobsmacked-looking Jade Raymond on her way out, who was effusing about what she’d just seen as she said goodbye to the folks inside. Earlier that day I’d heard that representatives from studios across the games industry had seen the demo, and left looking similarly flabbergasted.
So what is it? Well, the bottom line is that it’s a groundbreaking 3D motion-capture system. No...wait...stay awake, come back. It’s not as dull as it sounds. Seriously. Unlike every other motion capture thing you’ve ever seen, this is a full performance capture system. It doesn’t just track movement, or grab animation data from actor’s faces as they speak their lines, it captures everything about an actor’s performance, and generates a fully-textured 3D model based on what it sees and hears.
Depth Analysis' Oliver Bao (left) and Team Bondi's Brendan McNamara (right)
Unlike the systems that we’ve all seen in countless boring magazine stories for the past 10 years with the little white balls glued to spandex body suits, MotionScan is much more sophisticated. It uses 32 high definition cameras (divided into 16 stereoscopic pairs) to capture every angle of an actor’s performance at 30 frames per second. From this data it generates a fully-textured 3D model (at the moment it’s just their heads, but later it will be full body) that incorporates every nuance, mannerism, and emotional detail from the performance.
MotionScan allows me to immerse audiences in the most minute details of L.A. Noire’s interactive experience, where the emotional performances of the actors allow the story to unfold in a brand new way.” - Brendan McNamara, Team Bondi
To demonstrate this, Depth Analysis head of research Oliver Bao was joined by Team Bondi founder and director Brendan McNamara, who is overseeing the first game that will make use of the technology; Rockstar's L.A. Noire. To illustrate the system, they showed a series of performances from actors being used in the game, with video of the actor’s actual performance alongside the data captured with MotionScan. The first demo was simple. An actor spoke some lines and smiled, and it was eerily realistic. As Bao and McNamara advanced through subsequent demos, the performances became more and more emotionally engaging until they eventually showed me a scene in which a character was shown distraught about the murder of his wife. As he sobbed through his lines, every line in his face broadcast the angst his character was feeling. His eyes welled-up, and tears streamed down his face. As the scene played out, Bao demonstrated that it was a realtime 3D model by moving the actor’s disembodied head around the screen, and applying different lighting effects.
The effect was startling, and the performance genuinely moving. This is far beyond the “eye contact” we were promised in Mass Effect, or the clumsiness of some of the scenes in Heavy Rain, this was a real actor pouring his heart and soul into an emotional performance that was then fully captured in a 3D model. It’s not just this kind of emoting that it’s good for though. McNamara noted in our time together that it opens up a whole new way of approaching the way characters are presented in games, and subsequently how narratives are written and conveyed. “Traditional motion capture could never bring to life the subtle nuances of the chaotic criminal underworld of L.A. Noire in the same way as MotionScan,” he said. “MotionScan allows me to immerse audiences in the most minute details of L.A. Noire’s interactive experience, where the emotional performances of the actors allow the story to unfold in a brand new way.”
To elaborate, he discussed the way that a detective story is affected by this technology. Because much of L.A. Noire is a criminal investigation, a big part of what the player must do is judge whether characters are telling the truth or not. Previously, the devices available to game designers for conveying this have been quite clumsy. We’d need obvious dialog cues or less than subtle visual hints, but in L.A. Noire, it’ll all be in the performance. “You need to be able to tell when someone is lying,” he explained. “And if you look at these performances, they’re so realistic you’re going to be able to tell if the guy is trying to avoid you, or not look you in the eye.” With this he cued up a brief scene from an interrogation in the game, and it was possible to tell purely from the lines around the character’s eyes, and the way he was moving his eyebrows that something might be amiss.
The impact that this technology is going to have on game development (and the movie business too, as it is being pitched to studios and effects houses as well. Plus, actors are going to be pretty happy about another potential outlet for their craft) is potentially huge. It doesn’t require markers or phosphorescent paint on the actors faces, and there’s no need for animators or artists to clean up details after scenes have been shot. The fact that the system captures a full performance means that hair, makeup, and even prosthetics can be captured. During my time with Bao and McNamara, they showed me one character that was covered in cuts bruises that had been applied by a professional makeup artist, and it was far more striking than anything that could have been added in post-production because they moved realistically with the character’s skin.
Actor John Noble (you may know him as Walter Bishop in Fringe) during his capture session at Depth Analysis
Here he is as as 3D model generated by MotionScan. Every line, crease and muscle movement is captured in his performance
For games with large casts of characters, like L.A. Noire which features more than 200, the potential for streamlining the production process is tremendous. Actors will be able to provide animation and graphical data as they’re delivering their lines, and will help eliminate the huge amount of effort that currently goes into lip-syncing 3D models that have been created by a studio’s art team. McNamara also noted that soon the system will be able to capture up to three actors at the same time, so full conversations can be filmed and the appropriate physical and emotional reactions recorded.
While I only got to spend 10 or 15 minutes with the technology, it was very clear that it marks the beginning of a new chapter in the way that realistic game characters will be presented. If used properly, it will push the boundaries of what we expect from game performances, and hopefully elevate the demand for good writing, good dialog, and real emotional content. While it has obvious applications for cut-scenes, narrative elements, and in-game conversation, the real benefit will come in the seamless transition between action and static scenes, and the fact that there'll potentially be no break in realism.
Hopefully this description, and the images I've posted here manage to go some way to conveying just how significant and impressive this system is. I think the real proof will come when we finally get to see L.A. Noire in motion.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
χαοτικό τηλεσκόπιο (chaotic telelscope)
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
a work by Stathis Crisidis, we are having a performance on Wendesday 30/11/11. the following are the things i am keeping in mind for this subject:
these are all wikipedia links @ the moment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_identity
i must confess that the area is really appealing to artistic and scientific investigation, i am planning on keeping with the subject.
a work by Stathis Crisidis, we are having a performance on Wendesday 30/11/11. the following are the things i am keeping in mind for this subject:
these are all wikipedia links @ the moment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonymity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_identity
i must confess that the area is really appealing to artistic and scientific investigation, i am planning on keeping with the subject.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Architecture of the Future
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
Architecture of Future: eVolo Skyscraper Competition
eVolo Skyscraper Competition is a contest organized by eVolo magazine that focuses on technological progress and innovative design. eVolo Skyscraper Competition has been established in 2006. The contest was organized to recognize the brightest ideas in architecture and design. The eVolo Skyscraper competition of 2011 had 715 projects sent from 95 different countries (from 5 world continents). Here we will tell you about the three winners that have gotten 5,000, 2,000 and 1,000 dollars as prizes for first, second, and third places respectively. And you’ll also see the brightest finalists’ projects.
To be honest the third place project by the name Re-imagining the Hoover Dam has impressed me the most. First its shape is absolutely fantastic and of course location adds the charm to it. Designed by Yheu-Shen Chua from United Kingdom this project was meant to re-imagine the known Hoover Dam in the United States. The original dam consists of a platform, a bridge, and a gallery while the project sees all those things merged together and allow the visitors interact with the river via containers. The project also provides a vertical aquarium built-in 700-meter foot tower that hangs into Black Canyon.
Flat Tower is the project by Yoann Mescam, Paul-Eric Schirr-Bonnans, and Xavier Schirr-Bonnans from France that took the second place in eVolo Skyscraper Competition. In order to preserve the sky-line in a middle-size city but at the same time present the solution for high-density cities French architects went for an unconventional skyscraper that they called “Flat Tower” mainly because of it round flattened form. Beside the ability to accommodate large number of residents Flat Tower’s surface is perfect for collecting solar energy and rainwater.
The project that took the first place probably should be even more valued for its purpose. A project for New Delhi called LO2P Delhi Recycling Center is meant for recycling cars the number of which grows by a thousand every day in the city thus polluting the environment. The recycled cars would be used as a building material for new structures. The air would be cleaned with the help of the skyscraper itself, which is designed as a huge lung.
Now for the eVolo Skyscraper Competition finalists. This amazing Tree Skyscraper was designed by Eric Gangaye, Frédéric Velaye Andy, Alvin Pakeeroo, Yann Terrer, and Thomas Liaigre for the French city Montpellier. Apparently inspired by tree which connects the city through its five “roots” and the system of trains and walking paths. The skyscraper is also eco-friendly as most designs and features solar panels, water collectors, and wind turbines.
Hydro-thermal Skyscraper by Wendy Teo Boon Ting & Linda Hagberg designed for Taipei is another amazing project. The skyscraper was designed as a replacement for river buffer wall that stands on River Danshui, Taiwan. The skyscraper is to function as a filtering system that would clean the river water and increase the amount of hot water for landscape and habitual use.
Porifera Skyscraper was designed to be located at the base of Siene River, Paris. The skyscraper’s designers Nicolas Jomain and Boriana Tchonkova were inspired by marine sponges for their project and divided it in three connected towers for various functions like hotel, offices, and housing. The exterior is rather interesting as it has large openings in the structure while using solar, wind, and kinetic energy. This great band of towers can even generate the bio-fuel through algae and sunlight.
Laminated Wood Skyscraper was designed by Tomas Kozelsky, Patrick Bedarf, and Dimitrie Andrei Stefanescu for an unusual location – the Amazon forest. Its purpose is clear though, research, recreation and education. Laminated Wood Skyscraper is meant to raise awareness about fast deforestation in Brazil. The building looks quiet unusual with its laminated titan-wood blocks connected by intertwining “veins”.
eVolo Skyscraper Competition is a contest organized by eVolo magazine that focuses on technological progress and innovative design. eVolo Skyscraper Competition has been established in 2006. The contest was organized to recognize the brightest ideas in architecture and design. The eVolo Skyscraper competition of 2011 had 715 projects sent from 95 different countries (from 5 world continents). Here we will tell you about the three winners that have gotten 5,000, 2,000 and 1,000 dollars as prizes for first, second, and third places respectively. And you’ll also see the brightest finalists’ projects.
To be honest the third place project by the name Re-imagining the Hoover Dam has impressed me the most. First its shape is absolutely fantastic and of course location adds the charm to it. Designed by Yheu-Shen Chua from United Kingdom this project was meant to re-imagine the known Hoover Dam in the United States. The original dam consists of a platform, a bridge, and a gallery while the project sees all those things merged together and allow the visitors interact with the river via containers. The project also provides a vertical aquarium built-in 700-meter foot tower that hangs into Black Canyon.
Flat Tower is the project by Yoann Mescam, Paul-Eric Schirr-Bonnans, and Xavier Schirr-Bonnans from France that took the second place in eVolo Skyscraper Competition. In order to preserve the sky-line in a middle-size city but at the same time present the solution for high-density cities French architects went for an unconventional skyscraper that they called “Flat Tower” mainly because of it round flattened form. Beside the ability to accommodate large number of residents Flat Tower’s surface is perfect for collecting solar energy and rainwater.
The project that took the first place probably should be even more valued for its purpose. A project for New Delhi called LO2P Delhi Recycling Center is meant for recycling cars the number of which grows by a thousand every day in the city thus polluting the environment. The recycled cars would be used as a building material for new structures. The air would be cleaned with the help of the skyscraper itself, which is designed as a huge lung.
Now for the eVolo Skyscraper Competition finalists. This amazing Tree Skyscraper was designed by Eric Gangaye, Frédéric Velaye Andy, Alvin Pakeeroo, Yann Terrer, and Thomas Liaigre for the French city Montpellier. Apparently inspired by tree which connects the city through its five “roots” and the system of trains and walking paths. The skyscraper is also eco-friendly as most designs and features solar panels, water collectors, and wind turbines.
Hydro-thermal Skyscraper by Wendy Teo Boon Ting & Linda Hagberg designed for Taipei is another amazing project. The skyscraper was designed as a replacement for river buffer wall that stands on River Danshui, Taiwan. The skyscraper is to function as a filtering system that would clean the river water and increase the amount of hot water for landscape and habitual use.
Porifera Skyscraper was designed to be located at the base of Siene River, Paris. The skyscraper’s designers Nicolas Jomain and Boriana Tchonkova were inspired by marine sponges for their project and divided it in three connected towers for various functions like hotel, offices, and housing. The exterior is rather interesting as it has large openings in the structure while using solar, wind, and kinetic energy. This great band of towers can even generate the bio-fuel through algae and sunlight.
Laminated Wood Skyscraper was designed by Tomas Kozelsky, Patrick Bedarf, and Dimitrie Andrei Stefanescu for an unusual location – the Amazon forest. Its purpose is clear though, research, recreation and education. Laminated Wood Skyscraper is meant to raise awareness about fast deforestation in Brazil. The building looks quiet unusual with its laminated titan-wood blocks connected by intertwining “veins”.
Transhumanism
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (November 2011)
This article is about the futurist ideology and movement. For the critique of humanism, see posthumanism.
Part of Ideology series on
Transhumanism
Currents
Abolitionism · Democratic transhumanism
Extropianism · Immortalism
Libertarian transhumanism
Postgenderism · Singularitarianism
Technogaianism
Related articles
Transhuman
Transhumanist art
Transhumanism in fiction
Outline of transhumanism
Organizations
Applied Foresight Network
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
American Cryonics Society
Cryonics Institute · Foresight Institute
Humanity+ · Immortality Institute
Singularity Institute
Transhumanism Portal
v · d · e
Transhumanism, often abbreviated as H+ or h+, is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.[1] They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1] Transhumanism is therefore viewed as a subset of philosophical "posthumanism".[2]
The contemporary meaning of the term "transhumanism" was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman".[3] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[3][4]
Influenced by many seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.[3] Transhumanism has been condemned by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as the world's most dangerous idea,[5] while one proponent, Ronald Bailey, counters that it is the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity".[6]Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Theory
2.1 Aims
2.2 Ethics
2.3 Currents
2.4 Spirituality
3 Practice
3.1 Technologies of interest
4 Arts and culture
5 Controversy
5.1 Infeasibility (Futurehype argument)
5.2 Hubris (Playing God argument)
5.3 Contempt for the flesh (Fountain of Youth argument)
5.4 Trivialization of human identity (Enough argument)
5.5 Genetic divide (Gattaca argument)
5.6 Threats to morality and democracy (Brave New World argument)
5.7 Dehumanization (Frankenstein argument)
5.8 Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument)
5.9 Existential risks (Terminator argument)
6 References
6.1 Audio
[edit]
History
Cover of the first issue of h+ Magazine, a web-based quarterly publication that focuses on transhumanism, covering the scientific, technological, and cultural developments that are challenging and overcoming human limitations.
According to philosophers who have studied and written about the history of transhumanist thought,[1] transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death. Transhumanist philosophy, however, is rooted in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. For example, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola called on people to "sculpt their own statue", and the Marquis de Condorcet speculated about the use of medical science to indefinitely extend the human life span, while Benjamin Franklin dreamed of suspended animation, and after Charles Darwin "it became increasingly plausible to view the current version of humanity not as the endpoint of evolution but rather as a possibly quite early phase."[1] However, there is ongoing debate within the transhumanist community about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence, despite its exaltation of the "overman", due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation.[1][7][8]
Nikolai Fyodorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical life extension, physical immortality and even resurrection of the dead using scientific methods.[9] In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and unnatural". J. D. Bernal speculated about space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement, which have been common transhumanist themes since then.[1] Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".[10] This definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.
Computer scientist Marvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.[11] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.[12][13] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman".[14] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman.[15][16] FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.[17]
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "Third Way" futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth's gravity as they head into space.[18][19] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement,[20] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[21] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy,[22] and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:[23]
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. [...] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies [...].
In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy.[24] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[25] The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[26]The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.
A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist.[27]
In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.[3] A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.[28] In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes.[28][29] In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was "essentially completed".[30] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to "Humanity+" in order to project a more humane image.[31] Humanity Plus and Betterhumans publish h+ Magazine, a periodical edited by R. U. Sirius which disseminates transhumanist news and ideas.[32][33]
[edit]
Theory
See also: Outline of transhumanism
It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of "posthumanism" and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative,[5] Christian[34] and progressive[35][36] critics, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism".[2] A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift),[3] but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of participant evolution.[37]
Nevertheless, the idea to create intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism.[12] Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "cultural posthumanism" in humanities and the arts.[38] While such a "cultural posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "autonomous liberal subject" but are expanding its "prerogatives" into the realm of the posthuman.[39] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.
Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[40] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[41] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.
[edit]
Aims
"Countdown to Singularity" (Raymond Kurzweil)
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,[26] transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.
Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[42] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[43]
[edit]
Ethics
Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futurology and various fields of ethics such as bioethics, infoethics, nanoethics, neuroethics, roboethics, and technoethics mainly but not exclusively from a philosophically utilitarian, socially progressive, politically and economically liberal perspective. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically "natural" as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[44] In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism's critics on the political right and left jointly as "bioconservatives" or "bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the 19th century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.[45]
[edit]
Currents
There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development.[46] Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:
Abolitionism, an ethical ideology based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary suffering in all sentient life.[47]
Democratic transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.[48]
Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a proactive approach to human evolution.[23]
Immortalism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.[49]
Libertarian transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing right-libertarianism and transhumanism.[45]
Postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.[50]
Singularitarianism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.[42]
Technogaianism, an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.[48]
[edit]
Spirituality
Although some transhumanists report having religious or spiritual views, they are for the most part atheists, agnostics or secular humanists.[24] A vocal minority of transhumanists, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Yoga[51] or have merged their transhumanist ideas with established Western religions such as liberal Christianity[52] or Mormonism.[53] Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as "immortality",[49] while several controversial new religious movements, originating in the late 20th century, have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals of transforming the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the mind and body, such as Raëlism.[54] However, most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives; while speculating that future understanding of neurotheology and the application of neurotechnology will enable humans to gain greater control of altered states of consciousness, which were commonly interpreted as "spiritual experiences", and thus achieve more profound self-knowledge.[51]
Secular transhumanists are strong physicalists and naturalists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul.[55] Transhumanist personhood theory (i.e. personism) also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of non-human and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration.[56] Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as "mind uploading".[57] One extreme formulation of this idea may be found in Frank Tipler's proposal of the Omega Point. Drawing upon ideas in digitalism, Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a simulated reality within a megacomputer, and thus achieve a form of "posthuman godhood". Tipler's thought was inspired by the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary telos in the development of an encompassing noosphere, a global consciousness.[58]
The idea of uploading personality to a non-biological substrate and the underlying assumptions are criticised by a wide range of scholars, scientists and activists, sometimes with regard to transhumanism itself, sometimes with regard to thinkers such as Marvin Minsky or Hans Moravec, who are often seen as its originators. Relating the underlying assumptions, for example, to the legacy of cybernetics, some have argued that this materialist hope engenders a spiritual monism, a variant of philosophical idealism.[59] Viewed from the perspective of some conservative Christians, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a denigration of the human body characteristic of gnostic belief.[60] Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as neo-gnostic by non-Christian and secular commentators.[61][62]
The first dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.[55] Because it might serve a few of the same functions that people have traditionally sought in religion, religious and secular critics maintained that transhumanism is itself a religion or, at the very least, a pseudoreligion. Some even dismissed transhumanism as technological utopianism turned into a new religious movement.[63] Religious critics alone faulted the philosophy of transhumanism as offering no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie. Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of the transhumanist philosophy, which far from being cynical, is rooted in optimistic, idealistic attitudes that trace back to the Enlightenment.[64] Following this dialogue, William Sims Bainbridge, a sociologist of religion, conducted a pilot study, published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with acceptance of transhumanist ideas, and indicating that individuals with highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as being a direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their spiritual beliefs.[65]
Since 2009, the American Academy of Religion holds a “Transhumanism and Religion” consultation during its annual meeting where scholars in the field of religious studies seek to identify and critically evaluate any implicit religious beliefs that might underlie key transhumanist claims and assumptions; consider how transhumanism challenges religious traditions to develop their own ideas of the human future, in particular the prospect of human transformation, whether by technological or other means; and provide critical and constructive assessments of an envisioned future that place greater confidence in nanotechnology, robotics, and information technology to achieve virtual immortality and create a superior posthuman species.[66]
[edit]
Practice
While some transhumanists take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including heritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.[67]
As proponents of self-improvement and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.[68] Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in life extension strategies, and in funding research in cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method.[69] Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and collaborative projects.
[edit]
Technologies of interest
Main article: Human enhancement technologies
Converging Technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, info- and cogno-technologies, has become a landmark in near-future technological speculation.
Transhumanists support the emergence and convergence of technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, superintelligence, mind uploading, chemical brain preservation, and cryonics. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human.[70] They therefore support the recognition and/or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom, and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.[71] Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than the midpoint of the 21st century.[42]
A 2002 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, commissioned by the National Science Foundation and US Department of Commerce, contains descriptions and commentaries on the state of NBIC science and technology by major contributors to these fields. The report discusses potential uses of these technologies in implementing transhumanist goals of enhanced performance and health, and ongoing work on planned applications of human enhancement technologies in the military and in the rationalization of the human-machine interface in industry.[72]
While international discussion of the converging technologies and NBIC concepts includes strong criticism of their transhumanist orientation and alleged science fictional character,[73][74][75] research on brain and body alteration technologies has accelerated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the "supersoldiers" of the United States and its allies.[76] There has already been a brain research program to "extend the ability to manage information" while military scientists are now looking at stretching the human capacity for combat to a maximum 168 hours without sleep.[77]
[edit]
Arts and culture
Main articles: Transhumanism in fiction and Transhumanist art
Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary science fiction often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many horrific or dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong. In the decades immediately before transhumanism emerged as an explicit movement, many transhumanist concepts and themes began appearing in the speculative fiction of authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction such as Robert A. Heinlein (Lazarus Long series, 1941–87), A. E. van Vogt (Slan, 1946), Isaac Asimov (I, Robot, 1950), Arthur C. Clarke (Childhood's End, 1953) and Stanisław Lem (Cyberiad, 1967).[3]
The cyberpunk genre, exemplified by William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) and Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include Blood Music (1985) by Greg Bear, The Xenogenesis Trilogy (1987–1989) by Octavia Butler; The Beggar's Trilogy (1990–94) by Nancy Kress; much of Greg Egan's work since the early 1990s, such as Permutation City (1994) and Diaspora (1997); The Culture novels of Iain M. Banks; The Bohr Maker (1995) by Linda Nagata; Altered Carbon (2002) by Richard K Morgan; Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; The Elementary Particles (Eng. trans. 2001) and The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006) by Michel Houellebecq; Mindscan (2005) by Robert J. Sawyer; and Glasshouse (2005) by Charles Stross. Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot.“ Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
Extinction is approaching. Fight it. ”
—Eclipse Phase
Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. Such treatments are found in comic books (Captain America, 1941; Transmetropolitan, 1997; The Surrogates, 2006), films (2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968; Blade Runner, 1982; Gattaca, 1997; Repo! The Genetic Opera, 2008), television series (the Cybermen of Doctor Who, 1966; The Six Million Dollar Man, 1973; the Borg of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 1989; manga and anime (Galaxy Express 999, 1978; Appleseed, 1985; Ghost in the Shell, 1989; Neon Genesis Evangelion, 1995; and the Gundam metaseries, 1979), computer games (System Shock, 1994; Metal Gear Solid, 1998; Deus Ex, 2000; Half-Life 2, 2004; BioShock, 2007; Deus Ex: Human Revolution, 2011[78]), and role-playing games (Shadowrun, 1989, Transhuman Space, 2002, Eclipse Phase, 2009[79]). The word "Transhumanism" flashes in the introduction sequence to the television program Fringe.
In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, curator of the Transhumanist Arts & Culture center, transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts.[80] Carnal Art, a form of sculpture originated by the French artist Orlan, uses the body as its medium and plastic surgery as its method.[81] Commentators have pointed to American performer Michael Jackson as having used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen therapy over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age.[82] The work of the Australian artist Stelarc centers on the alteration of his body by robotic prostheses and tissue engineering.[83] Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic and the American media artist Matthew Barney. A 2005 show, Becoming Animal, at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, presented exhibits by twelve artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human. Steampunk musician and Internet personality Dr. Steel often deals with the subject of transhumanism in his music and videos; he has been interviewed on his views by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies[84] and has even published a paper on the subject.[85][86]
[edit]
Controversy
The scientific community classifies many elements of transhumanist thought and research to be within the realm of fringe science because it departs significantly from the mainstream and often directly challenges orthodox theories.[74] The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues also arouse public controversy.[87] Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles or world view sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). However, these two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when considering the ethics of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge.
Critics or opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition might divert attention and resources from social solutions.[3] As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of civil rights and civil liberties, and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and health care, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, human nature, and the morality of transhumanist aspirations.[3] At least one public interest organization, the U.S.-based Center for Genetics and Society, was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term human cloning and germinal choice technology. The Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program refer to novels and fictional films. These works of art, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.[3]
[edit]
Infeasibility (Futurehype argument)
In his 1992 book Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy, sociologist Max Dublin points out many past failed predictions of technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as scientism, fanaticism, and nihilism by a few in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to millenarian religions and Communist doctrines.[88] Several notable transhumanists have predicted that death-defeating technologies will arrive (usually late) within their own conventionally expected lifetimes. Wired magazine founding executive editor Kevin Kelly has argued these transhumanists have overly optimistic expectations of when dramatic technological breakthroughs will occur because they hope to be saved from their own deaths by those developments.[89] Despite his sympathies for transhumanism, in his 2002 book Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, public health professor Gregory Stock is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the cyborgization of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and Kevin Warwick. He believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from cyberware but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism, and biochemistry.[90]
In his 2006 book Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change, computer scientist and engineer Bob Seidensticker argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented. Exposing major myths of technology and examining the history of high tech hype, he aims to uncover inaccuracies and misunderstandings that may characterise the popular and transhumanist views of technology, to explain how and why these views have been created, and to illustrate how technological change in fact proceeds.[91]
Those thinkers who defend the likelihood of massive technological change within a relatively short timeframe emphasize what they describe as a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. This emphasis appears in the work of popular science writer Damien Broderick, notably his 1997 book, The Spike, which contains his speculations about a radically changed future. Kurzweil develops this position in much detail in his 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near. Broderick points out that many of the seemingly implausible predictions of early science fiction writers have, indeed, come to pass, among them nuclear power and space travel to the moon. He also claims that there is a core rationalism to current predictions of very rapid change, asserting that such observers as Kurzweil have a good track record in predicting the pace of innovation.[92]
[edit]
Hubris (Playing God argument)
There are two distinct categories of criticism, theological and secular, that have been referred to as "playing god" arguments:
The first category is based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual god. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,[93] in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral", implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". At the same time, this statement argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "realizing more fully the image of God". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians already enjoy, however post mortem, what radical transhumanism promises such as indefinite life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of utopian movements which seek to immanentize the eschaton i.e. try to create "heaven on earth".[94][95]
The biocomplexity spiral is a depiction of the multileveled complexity of organisms in their environments, which is seen by many critics as the ultimate obstacle to transhumanist ambition.
The second category is aimed mainly at "algeny", which Jeremy Rifkin defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance",[96] and, more specifically, attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human embryos in order to create "designer babies". It emphasizes the issue of biocomplexity and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological evolution. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist Stuart Newman, is based on the recognition that the cloning and germline genetic engineering of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic development. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.[97]
As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.[98]
Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals, such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and Ted Peters, reject the first argument, holding that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.[99][100]
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, bioethicist James Hughes suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies, and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in bioinformatics, Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans.[3] Public health professor Gregory Stock points to artificial chromosomes as an alleged safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.[90] Transhumanists therefore argue that parents have a moral responsibility called procreative beneficence to make use of these methods, if and when they are shown to be reasonably safe and effective, to have the healthiest children possible. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called procreative liberty.[3]
[edit]
Contempt for the flesh (Fountain of Youth argument)
Philosopher Mary Midgley, in her 1992 book Science as Salvation, traces the notion of achieving immortality by transcendence of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of mind uploading) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including J.B.S. Haldane and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving visions of escape from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the pseudoscientific speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for laymen, and the remoteness of their eschatological visions.[101] Some transhumanists see the 2006 film The Fountain's theme of thanatophobia and critique of the quixotic quest for eternal youth as depicting some of these criticisms.[102]
What is perceived as contempt for the flesh in the writings of Marvin Minsky, Hans Moravec, and some transhumanists, has also been the target of other critics for what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body.[39] Reflecting a strain of feminist criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher Susan Bordo points to "contemporary obsessions with slenderness, youth, and physical perfection", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture.”[103] Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on body modification. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of atomized individualism and body commodification within a consumer culture.[61]
Nick Bostrom asserts that the desire to regain youth, specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, and is therefore not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the Human Genome Project and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.[1]
[edit]
Trivialization of human identity (Enough argument)
In the US, the Amish are a religious group probably most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "Humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies, whose choice they believe must be respected and protected.[104]
In his 2003 book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germinal choice technology, nanomedicine and life extension strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span, and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish.[105]
Transhumanists and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology, such as science journalist Ronald Bailey, reject as extremely subjective the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with enhancement technologies. They argue that these technologies will not remove the bulk of the individual and social challenges humanity faces. They suggest that a person with greater abilities would tackle more advanced and difficult projects and continue to find meaning in the struggle to achieve excellence. Bailey also claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed, and support different conclusions when studied more closely.[106] For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of gene therapy since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.[90]
[edit]
Genetic divide (Gattaca argument)
Some critics of libertarian transhumanism have focused on its likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which divisions between rich and poor are on the rise. Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".[105] Lee M. Silver, a biologist and science writer who coined the term "reprogenetics" and supports its applications, has nonetheless expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and "have nots" if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.[107] Critics who make these arguments do not thereby necessarily accept the transhumanist assumption that human enhancement is a positive value; in their view, it should be discouraged, or even banned, because it could confer additional power upon the already powerful. The 1997 film Gattaca's depiction of a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic modifications is often cited by critics in support of these views.[3]
These criticisms are also voiced by non-libertarian transhumanist advocates, especially self-described democratic transhumanists, who believe that the majority of current or future social and environmental issues (such as unemployment and resource depletion) need to be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (such as a guaranteed minimum income and alternative technology). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James Hughes, in his 2004 book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, argues that progressives or, more precisely, techno-progressives must articulate and implement public policies (such as a universal health care voucher system that covers human enhancement technologies) in order to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local black market or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.[3]
[edit]
Threats to morality and democracy (Brave New World argument)
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.[108] In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the world's most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular, through a fundamental alteration of "human nature".[5] Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.[109] Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. The AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.[110]
In a 2004 article in Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance". In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.[6] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[111]
[edit]
Dehumanization (Frankenstein argument)
Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled The Young Family, produced to address the reality of such possible parahumans in a compassionate way. Transhumanists would call for the recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons.
Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[97][112] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".[113] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982), the novels The Boys From Brazil (1978) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[114]
Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.[115]
A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer Isaac Asimov termed the "Frankenstein complex". They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism" that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.[24][56]
[edit]
Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument)
Some critics of transhumanism allege an ableist bias in the use of such concepts as "limitations", "enhancement" and "improvement". Some even see the old eugenics, social Darwinist and master race ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what the promotion of eugenic enhancement technologies might unintentionally encourage. Some fear future "eugenics wars" as the worst-case scenario: the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation from, and genocide of, "races" perceived as inferior.[116] Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-posthuman caste warfare.[114][117]
For most of its history, eugenics has manifested itself as a movement to sterilize against their will the "genetically unfit" and encourage the selective breeding of the genetically fit. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Most transhumanist thinkers instead advocate a "new eugenics", a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics.[118] In their 2000 book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, (non-transhumanist) bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.[119] Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics")[107] to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.[120]
[edit]
Existential risks (Terminator argument)
Struck by a passage from Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski's anarcho-primitivist manifesto (quoted in Ray Kurzweil's 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines[13]), computer scientist Bill Joy became a notable critic of emerging technologies.[121] Joy's 2000 essay "Why the future doesn't need us" argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the "grey goo scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[122] Joy's warning was seized upon by appropriate technology organizations such as the ETC Group. Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[123] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.[124]
In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[125] Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[126] The Terminator franchise's doomsday depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a superintelligence - Skynet, a malignant computer network which initiates a nuclear war in order to exterminate the human species, has often been cited by some involved in this debate.[127]
Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historian James Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.[128]
One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.[43] An argument for an "anti-progressionist and pessimistic version of transhumanism" has also been presented by Philippe Verdoux.[129]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (November 2011)
This article is about the futurist ideology and movement. For the critique of humanism, see posthumanism.
Part of Ideology series on
Transhumanism
Currents
Abolitionism · Democratic transhumanism
Extropianism · Immortalism
Libertarian transhumanism
Postgenderism · Singularitarianism
Technogaianism
Related articles
Transhuman
Transhumanist art
Transhumanism in fiction
Outline of transhumanism
Organizations
Applied Foresight Network
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
American Cryonics Society
Cryonics Institute · Foresight Institute
Humanity+ · Immortality Institute
Singularity Institute
Transhumanism Portal
v · d · e
Transhumanism, often abbreviated as H+ or h+, is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.[1] They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1] Transhumanism is therefore viewed as a subset of philosophical "posthumanism".[2]
The contemporary meaning of the term "transhumanism" was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School of New York City in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman".[3] This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.[3][4]
Influenced by many seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives.[3] Transhumanism has been condemned by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as the world's most dangerous idea,[5] while one proponent, Ronald Bailey, counters that it is the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity".[6]Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Theory
2.1 Aims
2.2 Ethics
2.3 Currents
2.4 Spirituality
3 Practice
3.1 Technologies of interest
4 Arts and culture
5 Controversy
5.1 Infeasibility (Futurehype argument)
5.2 Hubris (Playing God argument)
5.3 Contempt for the flesh (Fountain of Youth argument)
5.4 Trivialization of human identity (Enough argument)
5.5 Genetic divide (Gattaca argument)
5.6 Threats to morality and democracy (Brave New World argument)
5.7 Dehumanization (Frankenstein argument)
5.8 Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument)
5.9 Existential risks (Terminator argument)
6 References
6.1 Audio
[edit]
History
Cover of the first issue of h+ Magazine, a web-based quarterly publication that focuses on transhumanism, covering the scientific, technological, and cultural developments that are challenging and overcoming human limitations.
According to philosophers who have studied and written about the history of transhumanist thought,[1] transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as in the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death. Transhumanist philosophy, however, is rooted in Renaissance humanism and the Enlightenment. For example, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola called on people to "sculpt their own statue", and the Marquis de Condorcet speculated about the use of medical science to indefinitely extend the human life span, while Benjamin Franklin dreamed of suspended animation, and after Charles Darwin "it became increasingly plausible to view the current version of humanity not as the endpoint of evolution but rather as a possibly quite early phase."[1] However, there is ongoing debate within the transhumanist community about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence, despite its exaltation of the "overman", due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation.[1][7][8]
Nikolai Fyodorov, a 19th-century Russian philosopher, advocated radical life extension, physical immortality and even resurrection of the dead using scientific methods.[9] In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's 1923 essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and unnatural". J. D. Bernal speculated about space colonization, bionic implants, and cognitive enhancement, which have been common transhumanist themes since then.[1] Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".[10] This definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.
Computer scientist Marvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s.[11] Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.[12][13] The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at The New School in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman".[14] In 1972, Robert Ettinger contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" in his book Man into Superman.[15][16] FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973 to stimulate transhumanly conscious activism.[17]
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "Third Way" futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth's gravity as they head into space.[18][19] FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement,[20] and, six years later, produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program which reached over 100,000 viewers.
In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,[21] which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first non-profit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy,[22] and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:[23]
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. [...] Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies [...].
In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy.[24] In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration.[25] The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:[26]The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.
A number of similar definitions have been collected by Anders Sandberg, an academic and prominent transhumanist.[27]
In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.[3] A particular concern is the equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders.[28] In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes.[28][29] In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, stating that its mission was "essentially completed".[30] This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to "Humanity+" in order to project a more humane image.[31] Humanity Plus and Betterhumans publish h+ Magazine, a periodical edited by R. U. Sirius which disseminates transhumanist news and ideas.[32][33]
[edit]
Theory
See also: Outline of transhumanism
It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of "posthumanism" and how posthumanism should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative,[5] Christian[34] and progressive[35][36] critics, but also by pro-transhumanist scholars who, for example, characterise it as a subset of "philosophical posthumanism".[2] A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve, which will supplement humanity or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift),[3] but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of participant evolution.[37]
Nevertheless, the idea to create intelligent artificial beings, proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec, has influenced transhumanism.[12] Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "cultural posthumanism" in humanities and the arts.[38] While such a "cultural posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relations of humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "autonomous liberal subject" but are expanding its "prerogatives" into the realm of the posthuman.[39] Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.
Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality.[40] However, other progressives have argued that posthumanism, whether it be its philosophical or activist forms, amount to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings for a transcendence of the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.[41] In this view, transhumanism is abandoning the goals of humanism, the Enlightenment, and progressive politics.
[edit]
Aims
"Countdown to Singularity" (Raymond Kurzweil)
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology for the purposes of reducing poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,[26] transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence, in which humans are in control of their own evolution. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change.
Some theorists, such as Raymond Kurzweil, think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.[42] Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, some are also concerned with the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.[43]
[edit]
Ethics
Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futurology and various fields of ethics such as bioethics, infoethics, nanoethics, neuroethics, roboethics, and technoethics mainly but not exclusively from a philosophically utilitarian, socially progressive, politically and economically liberal perspective. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who place a moral value on preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the very concept of the specifically "natural" as problematically nebulous at best, and an obstacle to progress at worst.[44] In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates refer to transhumanism's critics on the political right and left jointly as "bioconservatives" or "bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the 19th century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.[45]
[edit]
Currents
There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development.[46] Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:
Abolitionism, an ethical ideology based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary suffering in all sentient life.[47]
Democratic transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.[48]
Extropianism, an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a proactive approach to human evolution.[23]
Immortalism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.[49]
Libertarian transhumanism, a political ideology synthesizing right-libertarianism and transhumanism.[45]
Postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.[50]
Singularitarianism, a moral ideology based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.[42]
Technogaianism, an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.[48]
[edit]
Spirituality
Although some transhumanists report having religious or spiritual views, they are for the most part atheists, agnostics or secular humanists.[24] A vocal minority of transhumanists, however, follow liberal forms of Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Yoga[51] or have merged their transhumanist ideas with established Western religions such as liberal Christianity[52] or Mormonism.[53] Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as "immortality",[49] while several controversial new religious movements, originating in the late 20th century, have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals of transforming the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the mind and body, such as Raëlism.[54] However, most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives; while speculating that future understanding of neurotheology and the application of neurotechnology will enable humans to gain greater control of altered states of consciousness, which were commonly interpreted as "spiritual experiences", and thus achieve more profound self-knowledge.[51]
Secular transhumanists are strong physicalists and naturalists who do not believe in a transcendent human soul.[55] Transhumanist personhood theory (i.e. personism) also argues against the unique identification of moral actors and subjects with biological humans, judging as speciesist the exclusion of non-human and part-human animals, and sophisticated machines, from ethical consideration.[56] Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media, a speculative technique commonly known as "mind uploading".[57] One extreme formulation of this idea may be found in Frank Tipler's proposal of the Omega Point. Drawing upon ideas in digitalism, Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a simulated reality within a megacomputer, and thus achieve a form of "posthuman godhood". Tipler's thought was inspired by the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary telos in the development of an encompassing noosphere, a global consciousness.[58]
The idea of uploading personality to a non-biological substrate and the underlying assumptions are criticised by a wide range of scholars, scientists and activists, sometimes with regard to transhumanism itself, sometimes with regard to thinkers such as Marvin Minsky or Hans Moravec, who are often seen as its originators. Relating the underlying assumptions, for example, to the legacy of cybernetics, some have argued that this materialist hope engenders a spiritual monism, a variant of philosophical idealism.[59] Viewed from the perspective of some conservative Christians, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a denigration of the human body characteristic of gnostic belief.[60] Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as neo-gnostic by non-Christian and secular commentators.[61][62]
The first dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.[55] Because it might serve a few of the same functions that people have traditionally sought in religion, religious and secular critics maintained that transhumanism is itself a religion or, at the very least, a pseudoreligion. Some even dismissed transhumanism as technological utopianism turned into a new religious movement.[63] Religious critics alone faulted the philosophy of transhumanism as offering no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie. Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of the transhumanist philosophy, which far from being cynical, is rooted in optimistic, idealistic attitudes that trace back to the Enlightenment.[64] Following this dialogue, William Sims Bainbridge, a sociologist of religion, conducted a pilot study, published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with acceptance of transhumanist ideas, and indicating that individuals with highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as being a direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their spiritual beliefs.[65]
Since 2009, the American Academy of Religion holds a “Transhumanism and Religion” consultation during its annual meeting where scholars in the field of religious studies seek to identify and critically evaluate any implicit religious beliefs that might underlie key transhumanist claims and assumptions; consider how transhumanism challenges religious traditions to develop their own ideas of the human future, in particular the prospect of human transformation, whether by technological or other means; and provide critical and constructive assessments of an envisioned future that place greater confidence in nanotechnology, robotics, and information technology to achieve virtual immortality and create a superior posthuman species.[66]
[edit]
Practice
While some transhumanists take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including heritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.[67]
As proponents of self-improvement and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.[68] Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in life extension strategies, and in funding research in cryonics in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method.[69] Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities with a range of objectives exist to provide support and forums for discussion and collaborative projects.
[edit]
Technologies of interest
Main article: Human enhancement technologies
Converging Technologies, a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, info- and cogno-technologies, has become a landmark in near-future technological speculation.
Transhumanists support the emergence and convergence of technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as simulated reality, artificial intelligence, superintelligence, mind uploading, chemical brain preservation, and cryonics. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human.[70] They therefore support the recognition and/or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom, and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children.[71] Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than the midpoint of the 21st century.[42]
A 2002 report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, commissioned by the National Science Foundation and US Department of Commerce, contains descriptions and commentaries on the state of NBIC science and technology by major contributors to these fields. The report discusses potential uses of these technologies in implementing transhumanist goals of enhanced performance and health, and ongoing work on planned applications of human enhancement technologies in the military and in the rationalization of the human-machine interface in industry.[72]
While international discussion of the converging technologies and NBIC concepts includes strong criticism of their transhumanist orientation and alleged science fictional character,[73][74][75] research on brain and body alteration technologies has accelerated under the sponsorship of the US Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the "supersoldiers" of the United States and its allies.[76] There has already been a brain research program to "extend the ability to manage information" while military scientists are now looking at stretching the human capacity for combat to a maximum 168 hours without sleep.[77]
[edit]
Arts and culture
Main articles: Transhumanism in fiction and Transhumanist art
Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary science fiction often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many horrific or dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong. In the decades immediately before transhumanism emerged as an explicit movement, many transhumanist concepts and themes began appearing in the speculative fiction of authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction such as Robert A. Heinlein (Lazarus Long series, 1941–87), A. E. van Vogt (Slan, 1946), Isaac Asimov (I, Robot, 1950), Arthur C. Clarke (Childhood's End, 1953) and Stanisław Lem (Cyberiad, 1967).[3]
The cyberpunk genre, exemplified by William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984) and Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include Blood Music (1985) by Greg Bear, The Xenogenesis Trilogy (1987–1989) by Octavia Butler; The Beggar's Trilogy (1990–94) by Nancy Kress; much of Greg Egan's work since the early 1990s, such as Permutation City (1994) and Diaspora (1997); The Culture novels of Iain M. Banks; The Bohr Maker (1995) by Linda Nagata; Altered Carbon (2002) by Richard K Morgan; Oryx and Crake (2003) by Margaret Atwood; The Elementary Particles (Eng. trans. 2001) and The Possibility of an Island (Eng. trans. 2006) by Michel Houellebecq; Mindscan (2005) by Robert J. Sawyer; and Glasshouse (2005) by Charles Stross. Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its postcyberpunk offshoot.“ Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
Extinction is approaching. Fight it. ”
—Eclipse Phase
Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. Such treatments are found in comic books (Captain America, 1941; Transmetropolitan, 1997; The Surrogates, 2006), films (2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968; Blade Runner, 1982; Gattaca, 1997; Repo! The Genetic Opera, 2008), television series (the Cybermen of Doctor Who, 1966; The Six Million Dollar Man, 1973; the Borg of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 1989; manga and anime (Galaxy Express 999, 1978; Appleseed, 1985; Ghost in the Shell, 1989; Neon Genesis Evangelion, 1995; and the Gundam metaseries, 1979), computer games (System Shock, 1994; Metal Gear Solid, 1998; Deus Ex, 2000; Half-Life 2, 2004; BioShock, 2007; Deus Ex: Human Revolution, 2011[78]), and role-playing games (Shadowrun, 1989, Transhuman Space, 2002, Eclipse Phase, 2009[79]). The word "Transhumanism" flashes in the introduction sequence to the television program Fringe.
In addition to the work of Natasha Vita-More, curator of the Transhumanist Arts & Culture center, transhumanist themes appear in the visual and performing arts.[80] Carnal Art, a form of sculpture originated by the French artist Orlan, uses the body as its medium and plastic surgery as its method.[81] Commentators have pointed to American performer Michael Jackson as having used technologies such as plastic surgery, skin-lightening drugs and hyperbaric oxygen therapy over the course of his career, with the effect of transforming his artistic persona so as to blur identifiers of gender, race and age.[82] The work of the Australian artist Stelarc centers on the alteration of his body by robotic prostheses and tissue engineering.[83] Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist Marina Abramovic and the American media artist Matthew Barney. A 2005 show, Becoming Animal, at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, presented exhibits by twelve artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human. Steampunk musician and Internet personality Dr. Steel often deals with the subject of transhumanism in his music and videos; he has been interviewed on his views by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies[84] and has even published a paper on the subject.[85][86]
[edit]
Controversy
The scientific community classifies many elements of transhumanist thought and research to be within the realm of fringe science because it departs significantly from the mainstream and often directly challenges orthodox theories.[74] The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues also arouse public controversy.[87] Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles or world view sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). However, these two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when considering the ethics of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge.
Critics or opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition might divert attention and resources from social solutions.[3] As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of civil rights and civil liberties, and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and health care, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, human nature, and the morality of transhumanist aspirations.[3] At least one public interest organization, the U.S.-based Center for Genetics and Society, was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term human cloning and germinal choice technology. The Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program refer to novels and fictional films. These works of art, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.[3]
[edit]
Infeasibility (Futurehype argument)
In his 1992 book Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy, sociologist Max Dublin points out many past failed predictions of technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as scientism, fanaticism, and nihilism by a few in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to millenarian religions and Communist doctrines.[88] Several notable transhumanists have predicted that death-defeating technologies will arrive (usually late) within their own conventionally expected lifetimes. Wired magazine founding executive editor Kevin Kelly has argued these transhumanists have overly optimistic expectations of when dramatic technological breakthroughs will occur because they hope to be saved from their own deaths by those developments.[89] Despite his sympathies for transhumanism, in his 2002 book Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, public health professor Gregory Stock is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the cyborgization of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and Kevin Warwick. He believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from cyberware but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism, and biochemistry.[90]
In his 2006 book Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change, computer scientist and engineer Bob Seidensticker argues that today's technological achievements are not unprecedented. Exposing major myths of technology and examining the history of high tech hype, he aims to uncover inaccuracies and misunderstandings that may characterise the popular and transhumanist views of technology, to explain how and why these views have been created, and to illustrate how technological change in fact proceeds.[91]
Those thinkers who defend the likelihood of massive technological change within a relatively short timeframe emphasize what they describe as a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. This emphasis appears in the work of popular science writer Damien Broderick, notably his 1997 book, The Spike, which contains his speculations about a radically changed future. Kurzweil develops this position in much detail in his 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near. Broderick points out that many of the seemingly implausible predictions of early science fiction writers have, indeed, come to pass, among them nuclear power and space travel to the moon. He also claims that there is a core rationalism to current predictions of very rapid change, asserting that such observers as Kurzweil have a good track record in predicting the pace of innovation.[92]
[edit]
Hubris (Playing God argument)
There are two distinct categories of criticism, theological and secular, that have been referred to as "playing god" arguments:
The first category is based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual god. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,[93] in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral", implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". At the same time, this statement argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "realizing more fully the image of God". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians already enjoy, however post mortem, what radical transhumanism promises such as indefinite life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of utopian movements which seek to immanentize the eschaton i.e. try to create "heaven on earth".[94][95]
The biocomplexity spiral is a depiction of the multileveled complexity of organisms in their environments, which is seen by many critics as the ultimate obstacle to transhumanist ambition.
The second category is aimed mainly at "algeny", which Jeremy Rifkin defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance",[96] and, more specifically, attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human embryos in order to create "designer babies". It emphasizes the issue of biocomplexity and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological evolution. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist Stuart Newman, is based on the recognition that the cloning and germline genetic engineering of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic development. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.[97]
As a practical matter, however, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws would protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.[98]
Religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals, such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and Ted Peters, reject the first argument, holding that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.[99][100]
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, bioethicist James Hughes suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies, and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in bioinformatics, Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans.[3] Public health professor Gregory Stock points to artificial chromosomes as an alleged safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.[90] Transhumanists therefore argue that parents have a moral responsibility called procreative beneficence to make use of these methods, if and when they are shown to be reasonably safe and effective, to have the healthiest children possible. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called procreative liberty.[3]
[edit]
Contempt for the flesh (Fountain of Youth argument)
Philosopher Mary Midgley, in her 1992 book Science as Salvation, traces the notion of achieving immortality by transcendence of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of mind uploading) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including J.B.S. Haldane and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving visions of escape from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the pseudoscientific speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for laymen, and the remoteness of their eschatological visions.[101] Some transhumanists see the 2006 film The Fountain's theme of thanatophobia and critique of the quixotic quest for eternal youth as depicting some of these criticisms.[102]
What is perceived as contempt for the flesh in the writings of Marvin Minsky, Hans Moravec, and some transhumanists, has also been the target of other critics for what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body.[39] Reflecting a strain of feminist criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher Susan Bordo points to "contemporary obsessions with slenderness, youth, and physical perfection", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture.”[103] Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on body modification. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of atomized individualism and body commodification within a consumer culture.[61]
Nick Bostrom asserts that the desire to regain youth, specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, and is therefore not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the Human Genome Project and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.[1]
[edit]
Trivialization of human identity (Enough argument)
In the US, the Amish are a religious group probably most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "Humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies, whose choice they believe must be respected and protected.[104]
In his 2003 book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germinal choice technology, nanomedicine and life extension strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span, and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish.[105]
Transhumanists and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology, such as science journalist Ronald Bailey, reject as extremely subjective the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with enhancement technologies. They argue that these technologies will not remove the bulk of the individual and social challenges humanity faces. They suggest that a person with greater abilities would tackle more advanced and difficult projects and continue to find meaning in the struggle to achieve excellence. Bailey also claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed, and support different conclusions when studied more closely.[106] For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of gene therapy since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.[90]
[edit]
Genetic divide (Gattaca argument)
Some critics of libertarian transhumanism have focused on its likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which divisions between rich and poor are on the rise. Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".[105] Lee M. Silver, a biologist and science writer who coined the term "reprogenetics" and supports its applications, has nonetheless expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and "have nots" if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.[107] Critics who make these arguments do not thereby necessarily accept the transhumanist assumption that human enhancement is a positive value; in their view, it should be discouraged, or even banned, because it could confer additional power upon the already powerful. The 1997 film Gattaca's depiction of a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic modifications is often cited by critics in support of these views.[3]
These criticisms are also voiced by non-libertarian transhumanist advocates, especially self-described democratic transhumanists, who believe that the majority of current or future social and environmental issues (such as unemployment and resource depletion) need to be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (such as a guaranteed minimum income and alternative technology). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James Hughes, in his 2004 book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, argues that progressives or, more precisely, techno-progressives must articulate and implement public policies (such as a universal health care voucher system that covers human enhancement technologies) in order to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local black market or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.[3]
[edit]
Threats to morality and democracy (Brave New World argument)
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.[108] In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism the world's most dangerous idea because he believes that it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy in general and liberal democracy in particular, through a fundamental alteration of "human nature".[5] Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.[109] Critics such as Kass, Fukuyama, and a variety of Christian authors hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. The AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.[110]
In a 2004 article in Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey has contested the assertions of Fukuyama by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance". In fact, he argues, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.[6] Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as philosopher Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition, and what they see as alarmism, involved in Brave New World-type arguments.[111]
[edit]
Dehumanization (Frankenstein argument)
Australian artist Patricia Piccinini's concept of what human-animal hybrids might look like are provocative creatures which are part of a sculpture entitled The Young Family, produced to address the reality of such possible parahumans in a compassionate way. Transhumanists would call for the recognition of self-aware parahumans as persons.
Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings, because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact.[97][112] Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artifactual".[113] In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982), the novels The Boys From Brazil (1978) and The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people and subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.[114]
Writing in Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.[115]
A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science writer Isaac Asimov termed the "Frankenstein complex". They argue that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters but what they characterize as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism" that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.[24][56]
[edit]
Specter of coercive eugenicism (Eugenics Wars argument)
Some critics of transhumanism allege an ableist bias in the use of such concepts as "limitations", "enhancement" and "improvement". Some even see the old eugenics, social Darwinist and master race ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what the promotion of eugenic enhancement technologies might unintentionally encourage. Some fear future "eugenics wars" as the worst-case scenario: the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation from, and genocide of, "races" perceived as inferior.[116] Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to such human-posthuman caste warfare.[114][117]
For most of its history, eugenics has manifested itself as a movement to sterilize against their will the "genetically unfit" and encourage the selective breeding of the genetically fit. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Most transhumanist thinkers instead advocate a "new eugenics", a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics.[118] In their 2000 book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, (non-transhumanist) bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.[119] Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics")[107] to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.[120]
[edit]
Existential risks (Terminator argument)
Struck by a passage from Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski's anarcho-primitivist manifesto (quoted in Ray Kurzweil's 1999 book, The Age of Spiritual Machines[13]), computer scientist Bill Joy became a notable critic of emerging technologies.[121] Joy's 2000 essay "Why the future doesn't need us" argues that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. It invokes, for example, the "grey goo scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating nanorobots could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ecophagy.[122] Joy's warning was seized upon by appropriate technology organizations such as the ETC Group. Related notions were also voiced by self-described neo-luddite Kalle Lasn, a culture jammer who co-authored a 2001 spoof of Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto as a critique of the techno-utopianism he interpreted it as promoting.[123] Lasn argues that high technology development should be completely relinquished since it inevitably serves corporate interests with devastating consequences on society and the environment.[124]
In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.[125] Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.[126] The Terminator franchise's doomsday depiction of the emergence of an A.I. that becomes a superintelligence - Skynet, a malignant computer network which initiates a nuclear war in order to exterminate the human species, has often been cited by some involved in this debate.[127]
Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive, as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historian James Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.[128]
One transhumanist solution proposed by Nick Bostrom is differential technological development, in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.[43] An argument for an "anti-progressionist and pessimistic version of transhumanism" has also been presented by Philippe Verdoux.[129]
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
‘The Eighth Wonder of the World’
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
The great construction many have called
‘The Eighth Wonder of the World’
Every year thousands of people visit Damanhur to try out the social model, study the philosophy and to meditate in the Temples, that great underground construction excavated by hand into the rock by the citizens of Damanhur and which many have called the ‘Eighth wonder of the world’.
The Water Hall, the Earth Hall, the Hall of Spheres, the Hall of Mirrors, the Metal Hall, the Blue Temple and the Labyrinth: The Temples of Humankind are an underground work of art, created entirely by hand and dedicated to the divine nature of humanity. It is a great three dimensional book which recounts the history of Humankind through all the art forms, a path of re-awakening to the Divine inside and outside of ourselves.
In the Temples, every aspect has a meaning: the colours, the measurements and every detail follow a precise code of forms and proportions; every Hall has its specific resonance and its own sound.
The Temples of Humankind symbolically represent the inner rooms inside every human being. Walking through its halls and corridors corresponds to a profound journey inside oneself. The Temples wind for over 8,500 cubic metres on five different levels, connected to one another by hundreds of metres of corridors. They arise in the place where the Eurasian continental plate meets the African plate, pushing up a mineral 300 million years old: it is mylonite, a rock that carries the physical energy of the earth. The Temples of Humankind have been built right inside a vein of this particular mineral, whose presence follows perfectly the flowing of the ‘Synchronic Lines’ of the planet. The synchronic lines are like great rivers of energy which cross the Earth and connect it to the Universe, carrying ideas, thoughts and dreams. The Temples arise within a ‘shining knot’ a point where four synchronic lines meet.
The Temples are a great laboratory where art and science, technology and spirituality are united in the research of new roads for the evolution of humanity. As during the Renaissance, the construction of the Temples of Humankind has been the influence behind the creation of artistic and craft workshops, thanks to which Damanhur is valued all over the world.
Keeping pace with the growth of the Temples of Humankind – which represent the highest collective, artistic expression – Damanhurian society has refined itself and has created the basis for its own culture and tradition.
“The Temples of Humankind are a surprising achievement, and what does that say about the community that built them? The social structure developed by the Damanhurians has turned out to be as extraordinary in every aspect as the Temples are. The first thing to clarify is that this is a place of spiritual and philosophical research; Damanhur is not trying to create a new religion. Here they are researching in the field of spirituality, of social philosophy, here they are researching life. (…)
If all this sounds a bit too good to be true, just let me say that after being with many of these people, living with them, experiencing people’s daily, there is no doubt in my mind that the reality comes close to the vision.”
JEFF MERRIFIELD
Extract from:“The story of the Extraordinary Italian Artistic and Spiritual Community”
Hanford Mead, 2006
The great construction many have called
‘The Eighth Wonder of the World’
Every year thousands of people visit Damanhur to try out the social model, study the philosophy and to meditate in the Temples, that great underground construction excavated by hand into the rock by the citizens of Damanhur and which many have called the ‘Eighth wonder of the world’.
The Water Hall, the Earth Hall, the Hall of Spheres, the Hall of Mirrors, the Metal Hall, the Blue Temple and the Labyrinth: The Temples of Humankind are an underground work of art, created entirely by hand and dedicated to the divine nature of humanity. It is a great three dimensional book which recounts the history of Humankind through all the art forms, a path of re-awakening to the Divine inside and outside of ourselves.
In the Temples, every aspect has a meaning: the colours, the measurements and every detail follow a precise code of forms and proportions; every Hall has its specific resonance and its own sound.
The Temples of Humankind symbolically represent the inner rooms inside every human being. Walking through its halls and corridors corresponds to a profound journey inside oneself. The Temples wind for over 8,500 cubic metres on five different levels, connected to one another by hundreds of metres of corridors. They arise in the place where the Eurasian continental plate meets the African plate, pushing up a mineral 300 million years old: it is mylonite, a rock that carries the physical energy of the earth. The Temples of Humankind have been built right inside a vein of this particular mineral, whose presence follows perfectly the flowing of the ‘Synchronic Lines’ of the planet. The synchronic lines are like great rivers of energy which cross the Earth and connect it to the Universe, carrying ideas, thoughts and dreams. The Temples arise within a ‘shining knot’ a point where four synchronic lines meet.
The Temples are a great laboratory where art and science, technology and spirituality are united in the research of new roads for the evolution of humanity. As during the Renaissance, the construction of the Temples of Humankind has been the influence behind the creation of artistic and craft workshops, thanks to which Damanhur is valued all over the world.
Keeping pace with the growth of the Temples of Humankind – which represent the highest collective, artistic expression – Damanhurian society has refined itself and has created the basis for its own culture and tradition.
“The Temples of Humankind are a surprising achievement, and what does that say about the community that built them? The social structure developed by the Damanhurians has turned out to be as extraordinary in every aspect as the Temples are. The first thing to clarify is that this is a place of spiritual and philosophical research; Damanhur is not trying to create a new religion. Here they are researching in the field of spirituality, of social philosophy, here they are researching life. (…)
If all this sounds a bit too good to be true, just let me say that after being with many of these people, living with them, experiencing people’s daily, there is no doubt in my mind that the reality comes close to the vision.”
JEFF MERRIFIELD
Extract from:“The story of the Extraordinary Italian Artistic and Spiritual Community”
Hanford Mead, 2006
demon
http://www.myspace.com/dhlxstudios
Demon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
St. Anthony plagued by demons, as imagined by Martin Schongauer, in the 1480s.
A demon (or daemon, from Ancient Greek, δαίμων), is a supernatural being from various religions, occultisms, literatures, and folklores that is described as something that is not human and, in ordinary (almost universal) usage, malevolent. The original neutral Greek word "daimon" does not carry the negative connotation initially understood by implementation of the Koine (Hellenistic and New Testament Greek) δαιμόνιον (daimonion),[1] and later ascribed to any cognate words sharing the root, originally intended to denote a spirit or spiritual being.
In Ancient Near Eastern religions as well as in the Abrahamic traditions, including ancient and medieval Christian demonology, a demon is considered an "unclean spirit" which may cause demonic possession, to be addressed with an act of exorcism. In Western occultism and Renaissance magic, which grew out of an amalgamation of Greco-Roman magic, Jewish demonology and Christian tradition,[2] a demon is a spiritual entity that may be conjured and controlled. Many of the demons in literature were once fallen angels.[citation needed]Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Psychological archetype
3 By tradition
3.1 Ancient Near East
3.1.1 Mesopotamia
3.1.2 Ancient Arabia
3.1.3 Hebrew Bible
3.2 Judaism
3.3 Christian demonology
3.3.1 Renaissance demonology
3.4 Islam
3.5 Buddhism
3.6 Hinduism
3.6.1 Asuras
3.6.2 Evil spirits
3.7 Bahá'í Faith
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
[edit]
Terminology
Further information: Agathodaemon, Cacodemon, Daimonic, and Eudaimonia
Buer, the 10th spirit, who teaches "Moral and Natural Philosophy" (from a 1995 Mathers edition. Illustration by Louis Breton from Dictionnaire Infernal).
Ancient Greek δαίμων daimōn is a word for "spirit" or "divine power", much like the Latin genius or numen. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the etymology of the Greek word as from the verb daiesthai "to divide, distribute." The Greek conception of a δαίμων notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates. To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation, it is usually anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon.
The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία, literally "good-spiritedness", is a term for "happiness". The term first acquired its now-current evil connotations in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, informed by the mythology of the ancient Semitic religions. This connotation was inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament. The medieval and neo-medieval conception of a "demon" in Western civilization (see the Medieval grimoire called the Ars Goetia) derives seamlessly from the ambient popular culture of Late (Roman) Antiquity. Greco-Roman concepts of daemons that passed into Christian culture are discussed in the entry daemon, though it should be duly noted that the term referred only to a spiritual force, not a malevolent supernatural being. The Hellenistic "daemon" eventually came to include many Semitic and Near Eastern gods as evaluated by Christianity.
The supposed existence of demons is an important concept in many modern religions[who?] and occultist traditions. In some present-day cultures, demons are still feared in popular superstition, largely due to their alleged power to possess living creatures. In the contemporary Western occultist tradition (perhaps epitomized by the work of Aleister Crowley), a demon, such as Choronzon, the "Demon of the Abyss", is a useful metaphor for certain inner psychological processes ("inner demons"), though some may also regard it as an objectively real phenomenon. Some scholars[3] believe that large portions of the demonology (see Asmodai) of Judaism, a key influence on Christianity and Islam, originated from a later form of Zoroastrianism, and were transferred to Judaism during the Persian era.
[edit]
Psychological archetype
Psychologist Wilhelm Wundt remarks that "among the activities attributed by myths all over the world to demons, the harmful predominate, so that in popular belief bad demons are clearly older than good ones."[4] Sigmund Freud develops on this idea and claims that the concept of demons was derived from the important relation of the living to the dead: "The fact that demons are always regarded as the spirits of those who have died recently shows better than anything the influence of mourning on the origin of the belief in demons."
M. Scott Peck, an American psychiatrist, wrote two books on the subject, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil[5] and Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption.[6]
Peck describes in some detail several cases involving his patients. In People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil he gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons whom he classifies as having a character disorder. In Glimpses of the Devil, A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption Peck goes into significant detail describing how he became interested in exorcism in order to debunk the "myth" of possession by evil spirits–only to be convinced otherwise after encountering two cases which did not fit into any category known to psychology or psychiatry. Peck came to the conclusion that possession was a rare phenomenon related to evil. Possessed people are not actually evil; they are doing battle with the forces of evil.[7] His observations on these cases are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association.[8]
Although Peck's earlier work was met with widespread popular acceptance, his work on the topics of evil and possession has generated significant debate and derision. Much was made of his association with (and admiration for) the controversial Malachi Martin, a Roman Catholic priest and a former Jesuit, despite the fact that Peck consistently called Martin a liar and manipulator.[8][9] Other criticisms leveled against Peck include misdiagnoses based upon a lack of knowledge regarding dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder), and a claim that he had transgressed the boundaries of professional ethics by attempting to persuade his patients into accepting Christianity.[8]
[edit]
By tradition
[edit]
Ancient Near East
[edit]
Mesopotamia
Human-headed winged bull, otherwise known as a Šedu
In Chaldean mythology the seven evil deities were known as shedu, meaning storm-demons. They were represented in winged bull form, derived from the colossal bulls used as protective genii of royal palaces, the name "shed" assumed also the meaning of a propitious genius in Babylonian magic literature.[10]
It was from Chaldea that the name "shedu" came to the Israelites, and so the writers of the Tanach applied the word as a dylogism to the Canaanite deities in the two passages quoted. They also spoke of "the destroyer" (Exodus xii. 23) as a Lord who will "strike down the Egyptians." In II Samuel xxiv; 16 and II Chronicles xxi. 15 the pestilence-dealing angel, that is spirit, called "the destroying angel" (compare "the angel of the Lord" in II Kings xix. 35; Isaiah xxxvii. 36), because, although they are angels, these "messengers" (Psalms lxxviii. 49; A. V. "angels") do only the bidding of God; they are the agents of His divine wrath.
There are indications that popular Hebrew mythology ascribed to the demons a certain independence, a malevolent character of their own, because they are believed to come forth, not from the heavenly abode of God, but from the nether world.[11]
In the Hebrew tradition demons were workers of harm. To them were ascribed the various diseases, particularly such as affect the brain and the inner parts. Hence there was a fear of "Shabriri" (lit. "dazzling glare"), the demon of blindness, who rests on uncovered water at night and strikes those with blindness who drink of it;[12] also mentioned were the spirit of catalepsy and the spirit of headache, the demon of epilepsy, and the spirit of nightmare.
These demons were supposed to enter the body and cause the disease while overwhelming or "seizing" the victim (hence "seizure"). To cure such diseases it was necessary to draw out the evil demons by certain incantations and talismanic performances, in which the Essenes excelled. Josephus, who speaks of demons as "spirits of the wicked which enter into men that are alive and kill them", but which can be driven out by a certain root,[13] witnessed such a performance in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian,[14] and ascribed its origin to King Solomon.
[edit]
Ancient Arabia
Pre-Islamic mythology does not discriminate between gods and demons. The jinn are considered as divinities of inferior rank, having many human attributes: they eat, drink, and procreate their kind, sometimes in conjunction with human beings. The jinn smell and lick things, and have a liking for remnants of food. In eating they use the left hand. Usually they haunt waste and deserted places, especially the thickets where wild beasts gather. Cemeteries and dirty places are also favorite abodes. When appearing to man, jinn sometimes assume the forms of beasts and sometimes those of men.
Generally, jinn are peaceable and well disposed toward men. Many a pre-Islamic poet was believed to have been inspired by good jinn, but there are also evil jinn, who contrive to injure men.
[edit]
Hebrew Bible
Lilith, by John Collier, 1892
Those in the Hebrew Bible are of two classes, the se'irim and the shedim.[citation needed] The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which some Israelites offered sacrifices in the open fields, are satyr-like creatures, described as dancing in the wilderness,[15] and which are identical with the jinn, such as Dantalion, the 71st spirit of Solomon. Some benevolent shedim were used in kabbalistic ceremonies (as with the golem of Rabbi Yehuda Loevy), and malevolent shedim (mazikin, from the root meaning "to damage") were often credited with possession. Similarly, a shed might inhabit an otherwise inanimate statue.
[edit]
Judaism
Main article: Aggadah
In some rabbinic sources, the demons were believed to be under the dominion of a king or chief, either Asmodai[16] or, in the older Haggadah, Samael ("the angel of death"), who kills by his deadly poison, and is called "chief of the devils". Occasionally a demon is called "satan": "Stand not in the way of an ox when coming from the pasture, for Satan dances between his horns".[17]
Demonology never became an essential feature of Jewish theology.[citation needed] The reality of demons was never questioned by the Talmudists and late rabbis; most accepted their existence as a fact. Nor did most of the medieval thinkers question their reality. Only rationalists like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra, clearly denied their existence. Their point of view eventually became the mainstream Jewish understanding.
Rabbinical demonology has three classes of demons, though they are scarcely separable one from another. There were the shedim, the mazziḳim ("harmers"), and the ruḥin ("spirits"). Besides these there were lilin ("night spirits"), ṭelane ("shade", or "evening spirits"), ṭiharire ("midday spirits"), and ẓafrire ("morning spirits"), as well as the "demons that bring famine" and "such as cause storm and earthquake" (Targ. Yer. to Deuteronomy xxxii. 24 and Numbers vi. 24; Targ. to Cant. iii. 8, iv. 6; Eccl. ii. 5; Ps. xci. 5, 6.)[18]
[edit]
Christian demonology
Main article: Christian demonology
Death and the Miser (detail), a Hieronymus Bosch painting, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC
"Demon" has a number of meanings, all related to the idea of a spirit that inhabited a place, or that accompanied a person. Whether such a daemon was benevolent or malevolent, the Greek word meant something different from the later medieval notions of 'demon', and scholars debate the time in which first century usage by Jews and Christians in its original Greek sense became transformed to the later medieval sense. Some denominations asserting Christian faith also include, exclusively or otherwise, fallen angels as de facto demons; this definition also covers the "sons of God" described in Genesis who abandoned their posts in heaven to mate with human women on Earth before the Deluge.[19]
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus casts out many demons, or evil spirits, from those who are afflicted with various ailments. Jesus is far superior to the power of demons over the beings that they inhabit, and he is able to free these victims by commanding and casting out the demons, by binding them, and forbidding them to return. Jesus also lends this power to some of his disciples, who rejoice at their new found ability to cast out all demons.[20] The demons are cast out by the pronunciation of a name according to Matthew 7:22, some groups insisting the original pronunciation of the name Jesus and pure form of worship be used i.e. Yahshua / Joshua meaning "Yahweh is salvation".
By way of contrast, in the book of Acts a group of Judaistic exorcists known as the sons of Sceva try to cast out a very powerful spirit without believing in or knowing Jesus, but fail with disastrous consequences. However Jesus himself never fails to vanquish a demon, no matter how powerful (see the account of the demon-possessed man at Gerasim), and even defeats Satan in the wilderness (see Gospel of Matthew).
There is a description in the Book of Revelation 12:7-17 of a battle between God's army and Satan's followers, and their subsequent expulsion from Heaven to Earth to persecute humans — although this event is related as being foretold and taking place in the future. In Luke 10:18 it is mentioned that a power granted by Jesus to cast out demons made Satan "fall like lightning from heaven."
Augustine of Hippo's reading of Apuleius, in City of God (Bk. IX, ch.11) is ambiguous as to whether daemons had become 'demonized' by the early 5th century:
"He [Apulieus] also states that the blessed are called in Greek eudaimones, because they are good souls, that is to say, good demons, confirming his opinion that the souls of men are demons.[21]
The contemporary Roman Catholic Church unequivocally teaches that angels and demons are real personal beings, not just symbolic devices. The Catholic Church has a cadre of officially sanctioned exorcists which perform many exorcisms each year. The exorcists of the Catholic Church teach that demons attack humans continually but that afflicted persons can be effectively healed and protected either by the formal rite of exorcism, authorized to be performed only by bishops and those they designate, or by prayers of deliverance which any Christian can offer for themselves or others.[22]
Building upon the few references to daemons in the New Testament, especially the visionary poetry of the Apocalypse of John, Christian writers of apocrypha from the 2nd century onwards created a more complicated tapestry of beliefs about "demons" that was largely independent of Christian scripture.
At various times in Christian history, attempts have been made to classify these beings according to various proposed demonic hierarchies.
According to most Christian demonology demons will be eternally punished and never reconcile with God. Other theories postulate a Universal reconciliation, in which Satan, the fallen angels, and the souls of the dead that were condemned to Hell are reconciled with God. This doctrine is today often associated with the Unification Church. Origen, Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa also mentioned this possibility.
In contemporary Christianity, demons are generally considered to be angels who fell from grace by rebelling against God. However, other schools of thought[who?] in Christianity or Judaism teach that demons, or evil spirits, are a result of the sexual relationships between fallen angels and human women.[19] When these hybrids (Nephilim) died they left behind disembodied spirits that "roam the earth in search of rest" (Luke 11:24).[citation needed] Many non-canonical historical texts describe in detail these unions and the consequences thereof. This belief is repeated in other major ancient religions and mythologies. Christians who reject this view do so by ascribing the description of "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 to be the sons of Seth (one of Adam's sons). There are some who say that the sin of the angels was pride and disobedience, these being the sins that caused Satan's downfall (Ezek. 28). If this be the true view, then we are to understand the words, "estate" or "principality" in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Jude 6 ("And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.") as indicating that instead of being satisfied with the dignity once for all assigned to them under the Son of God, they aspired higher.
[edit]
Renaissance demonology
Although no canon of Renaissance demonology exist, the interest in classic Greco-Roman culture, philosophy, science and Greek and Roman mythology also created a playground for experience with, what was supposed to be a Pre-Christian religious practice. Most notably found in popular culture like the legend of Faust.
[edit]
Islam
The Majlis al Jinn cave in Oman, literally "Meeting place of the Jinn".
See also: Islamic teaching about the Devil and Islamic creationism
Islam recognizes the existence of the jinn, which are sentient beings with free will that can co-exist with humans and are not all evil as demons are described in Christianity. The creation of Jinnkind preceded that of mankind. They exist in what is known as the Al-Ghaib (unseen or unknown) realm or world, they have the ability to see us but we can not see them. Angels also exist in this realm, as well as the human soul (hence why it can not be seen leaving the human body in death). The Jinns are made from the smokeless flame of fire and both angels and the human soul are made from light, whilst the human body is made from clay. Though this "fire" and "light" is beyond matter, whatever exists in this realm is made from matter. In Islam, the evil Jinns are referred to as the shayātīn, or devils, and Iblis (Satan) is their chief. Iblis was one of the first Jinn (he is not considered an Angel in Islamic Cultures) who disobeyed Allah (God) and did not bow down before Adam.
Angels are servants of Allah (God) who do not possess any freewill, whilst Jinnkind and mankind do. It was because Adam possessed freewill and the ability to choose (to do either good or bad) but instead chose to submit his will to the will of Allah (God), Allah (God) loved him so; so much so that mankind's status was elevated higher than that of Angelkind because the Angels have no choice but to serve Allah (God). According to the Qur'an, when Allah (God) created Adam from clay, all the angels and Iblis himself were ordered to bow before Adam. Iblis became very jealous and disobeyed Allah (God), holding that jinns were the superior creation, as they were made of fire, while humans were made of clay.
Adam was the first prophet and deputy of the human race, and as such was the greatest creation of Allah (God). Iblis could not stand this, and refused to acknowledge a creature made of "clay" (matter). Allah (God), thus, condemned Iblis to be punished in the hellfire. But Iblis asked for respite until the last day (judgement day) and this is when the devil and God made a pact and the devil claimed that if he was given the chance, he could make mankind fall and vowed that one day he would even have Allah's (God's) beloved creation (mankind) denying the very existence of their creator, to which Allah's (God) agreed, but warned that he and all who would follow him in evil would be punished in hell. Allah (God) also stated that Iblis would only be able to mislead those who have forsaken Allah (God) and not the righteous believers.
Adam and Eve (Hawwa in Arabic) were both together misled by Iblis into eating the forbidden fruit, and consequently fell from the garden of Eden (allegorical) into a state of degeneration.
Jinns are not the "genies" of modern lore. Like man, there are good and bad, believers and non-believers amongst them. The evil Jinns have been known to possess human beings or enter a humans life in order to hinder it. Their actions are similar to that of a poltergeist in Western understanding. Contrary to the evil Jinns, the good Jinns (servants of good) and can enter a human life in order to help them in numerous ways. The entry to our realm is forbidden without Allah (God's) permission. Both the Angels and Jinns can enter in the form of a human being or an animal. As Angels do not posses free will and the good Jinn are obedient, they never enter without Allah's (God's) permission. However, the same cannot be said for the evil Jinn who enter as they will and have been known to take the form of many animals (especially black Dogs and Snakes) and human beings.
[edit]
Buddhism
[edit]
Hinduism
Hindu mythology includes numerous varieties of spirits that might be classified as demons, including Vetalas, Bhutas and Pishachas. Often Rakshasas and Asuras are taken to mean demons
[edit]
Asuras
Asura in Kōfuku-ji, Nara, 734, Japanese
The Army of Super Creatures - from The Sougandhika Parinaya Manuscript (1821 CE)
Originally, Asura, in the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda, meant any supernatural spirit, both good and bad. Since the /s/ of the Indic linguistic branch is cognate with the /h/ of the Early Iranian languages, the word Asura, representing a category of celestial beings, became the word Ahura (Mazda), the Supreme God of the monotheistic Zoroastrians. Ancient Hinduism tells that Devas and Asuras are half-brothers, sons of the same father Kasyapa; but some of the devas, like Varuna, are also named Asuras. But much later at puranic age Asura (also Rakshasa) came to exclusively mean any of a race of anthropomorphic, powerful, possibly evil beings. All words such as Asura, Daitya (lit., sons of the mother "Diti"), Rakshasa (lit. from "harm to be guarded against") are incorrectly translated into English as demon.
Asuras do accept and worship the Gods, particularly the Hindu triumvirate; some of the rakshasas like Ravana and Mahabali are exemplary devotees. Often the strife between the asuras and the devas is simply a political one: devas are the ordained maintainers of the realms with power (and immortality) accorded to them by the gods and asuras ever strive to attain both. Asuras usually attain or enhance their supernatural powers through penance to gods and waging war on devas using powers thus attained. Unlike Christian notion of demons, asuras are not the cause of the evil and unhappiness in mankind (unhappiness in humans, according to Hinduism is by one's own actions (Karma) and/or due to the continued ignorance of Brahman, the unchanging reality. Asuras, if any, are cogs in the wheel of Karma); they are not fundamentally against the Gods, nor do they tempt humans to fall. In fact, asuras, much like devas, do worship the Gods of Hinduism: many Asuras are said to have been granted boons from one of the members of the Hindu trinity, viz., Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva when the latter had been appeased from their penances. This is markedly different from the traditional Western notions of demons as a rival army of God. In Hindu mythology, pious, highly enlightened asuras, like Prahlada and Vibheeshana, are not at all uncommon. Prahlada even said to have secured enlightenment to his entire lineage (of asuras). All Asuras, unlike the devas, are said to have born mortals (though they ever strive to become immortal). Many people metaphorically interpret asuras as manifestations of the ignoble passions in human mind and as a symbolic device. There were also cases of power-hungry asuras challenging various aspects of Gods, but only to be defeated eventually and seek forgiveness—see Surapadman, Narakasura.
[edit]
Evil spirits
Hinduism advocates the theory of reincarnation and transmigration of souls according to one's Karma. Souls (Atman) of the dead are adjudged by the Yama and are accorded various purging punishments before being reborn. Humans that have committed extraordinary wrongs are condemned to roam as lonely, often evil, spirits for a length of time before being reborn. Many kinds of such spirits (Vetalas, Pishachas, Bhūta) are recognized in the later Hindu texts. These beings, in a limited sense, can be called demons.
[edit]
Bahá'í Faith
In the Bahá'í Faith, demons are not regarded as independent evil spirits as they are in some faiths. All evil spirits described in various faith traditions such as Satan, fallen angels, demons and jinns are metaphors for the base character traits a human being may acquire and manifest when he turns away from God and follows his lower nature. Belief in the existence of ghosts and earthbound spirits is rejected and considered to be the product of superstition.[23]
Demon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
St. Anthony plagued by demons, as imagined by Martin Schongauer, in the 1480s.
A demon (or daemon, from Ancient Greek, δαίμων), is a supernatural being from various religions, occultisms, literatures, and folklores that is described as something that is not human and, in ordinary (almost universal) usage, malevolent. The original neutral Greek word "daimon" does not carry the negative connotation initially understood by implementation of the Koine (Hellenistic and New Testament Greek) δαιμόνιον (daimonion),[1] and later ascribed to any cognate words sharing the root, originally intended to denote a spirit or spiritual being.
In Ancient Near Eastern religions as well as in the Abrahamic traditions, including ancient and medieval Christian demonology, a demon is considered an "unclean spirit" which may cause demonic possession, to be addressed with an act of exorcism. In Western occultism and Renaissance magic, which grew out of an amalgamation of Greco-Roman magic, Jewish demonology and Christian tradition,[2] a demon is a spiritual entity that may be conjured and controlled. Many of the demons in literature were once fallen angels.[citation needed]Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Psychological archetype
3 By tradition
3.1 Ancient Near East
3.1.1 Mesopotamia
3.1.2 Ancient Arabia
3.1.3 Hebrew Bible
3.2 Judaism
3.3 Christian demonology
3.3.1 Renaissance demonology
3.4 Islam
3.5 Buddhism
3.6 Hinduism
3.6.1 Asuras
3.6.2 Evil spirits
3.7 Bahá'í Faith
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
[edit]
Terminology
Further information: Agathodaemon, Cacodemon, Daimonic, and Eudaimonia
Buer, the 10th spirit, who teaches "Moral and Natural Philosophy" (from a 1995 Mathers edition. Illustration by Louis Breton from Dictionnaire Infernal).
Ancient Greek δαίμων daimōn is a word for "spirit" or "divine power", much like the Latin genius or numen. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the etymology of the Greek word as from the verb daiesthai "to divide, distribute." The Greek conception of a δαίμων notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates. To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation, it is usually anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon.
The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία, literally "good-spiritedness", is a term for "happiness". The term first acquired its now-current evil connotations in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, informed by the mythology of the ancient Semitic religions. This connotation was inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament. The medieval and neo-medieval conception of a "demon" in Western civilization (see the Medieval grimoire called the Ars Goetia) derives seamlessly from the ambient popular culture of Late (Roman) Antiquity. Greco-Roman concepts of daemons that passed into Christian culture are discussed in the entry daemon, though it should be duly noted that the term referred only to a spiritual force, not a malevolent supernatural being. The Hellenistic "daemon" eventually came to include many Semitic and Near Eastern gods as evaluated by Christianity.
The supposed existence of demons is an important concept in many modern religions[who?] and occultist traditions. In some present-day cultures, demons are still feared in popular superstition, largely due to their alleged power to possess living creatures. In the contemporary Western occultist tradition (perhaps epitomized by the work of Aleister Crowley), a demon, such as Choronzon, the "Demon of the Abyss", is a useful metaphor for certain inner psychological processes ("inner demons"), though some may also regard it as an objectively real phenomenon. Some scholars[3] believe that large portions of the demonology (see Asmodai) of Judaism, a key influence on Christianity and Islam, originated from a later form of Zoroastrianism, and were transferred to Judaism during the Persian era.
[edit]
Psychological archetype
Psychologist Wilhelm Wundt remarks that "among the activities attributed by myths all over the world to demons, the harmful predominate, so that in popular belief bad demons are clearly older than good ones."[4] Sigmund Freud develops on this idea and claims that the concept of demons was derived from the important relation of the living to the dead: "The fact that demons are always regarded as the spirits of those who have died recently shows better than anything the influence of mourning on the origin of the belief in demons."
M. Scott Peck, an American psychiatrist, wrote two books on the subject, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil[5] and Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption.[6]
Peck describes in some detail several cases involving his patients. In People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil he gives some identifying characteristics for evil persons whom he classifies as having a character disorder. In Glimpses of the Devil, A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption Peck goes into significant detail describing how he became interested in exorcism in order to debunk the "myth" of possession by evil spirits–only to be convinced otherwise after encountering two cases which did not fit into any category known to psychology or psychiatry. Peck came to the conclusion that possession was a rare phenomenon related to evil. Possessed people are not actually evil; they are doing battle with the forces of evil.[7] His observations on these cases are listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association.[8]
Although Peck's earlier work was met with widespread popular acceptance, his work on the topics of evil and possession has generated significant debate and derision. Much was made of his association with (and admiration for) the controversial Malachi Martin, a Roman Catholic priest and a former Jesuit, despite the fact that Peck consistently called Martin a liar and manipulator.[8][9] Other criticisms leveled against Peck include misdiagnoses based upon a lack of knowledge regarding dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder), and a claim that he had transgressed the boundaries of professional ethics by attempting to persuade his patients into accepting Christianity.[8]
[edit]
By tradition
[edit]
Ancient Near East
[edit]
Mesopotamia
Human-headed winged bull, otherwise known as a Šedu
In Chaldean mythology the seven evil deities were known as shedu, meaning storm-demons. They were represented in winged bull form, derived from the colossal bulls used as protective genii of royal palaces, the name "shed" assumed also the meaning of a propitious genius in Babylonian magic literature.[10]
It was from Chaldea that the name "shedu" came to the Israelites, and so the writers of the Tanach applied the word as a dylogism to the Canaanite deities in the two passages quoted. They also spoke of "the destroyer" (Exodus xii. 23) as a Lord who will "strike down the Egyptians." In II Samuel xxiv; 16 and II Chronicles xxi. 15 the pestilence-dealing angel, that is spirit, called "the destroying angel" (compare "the angel of the Lord" in II Kings xix. 35; Isaiah xxxvii. 36), because, although they are angels, these "messengers" (Psalms lxxviii. 49; A. V. "angels") do only the bidding of God; they are the agents of His divine wrath.
There are indications that popular Hebrew mythology ascribed to the demons a certain independence, a malevolent character of their own, because they are believed to come forth, not from the heavenly abode of God, but from the nether world.[11]
In the Hebrew tradition demons were workers of harm. To them were ascribed the various diseases, particularly such as affect the brain and the inner parts. Hence there was a fear of "Shabriri" (lit. "dazzling glare"), the demon of blindness, who rests on uncovered water at night and strikes those with blindness who drink of it;[12] also mentioned were the spirit of catalepsy and the spirit of headache, the demon of epilepsy, and the spirit of nightmare.
These demons were supposed to enter the body and cause the disease while overwhelming or "seizing" the victim (hence "seizure"). To cure such diseases it was necessary to draw out the evil demons by certain incantations and talismanic performances, in which the Essenes excelled. Josephus, who speaks of demons as "spirits of the wicked which enter into men that are alive and kill them", but which can be driven out by a certain root,[13] witnessed such a performance in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian,[14] and ascribed its origin to King Solomon.
[edit]
Ancient Arabia
Pre-Islamic mythology does not discriminate between gods and demons. The jinn are considered as divinities of inferior rank, having many human attributes: they eat, drink, and procreate their kind, sometimes in conjunction with human beings. The jinn smell and lick things, and have a liking for remnants of food. In eating they use the left hand. Usually they haunt waste and deserted places, especially the thickets where wild beasts gather. Cemeteries and dirty places are also favorite abodes. When appearing to man, jinn sometimes assume the forms of beasts and sometimes those of men.
Generally, jinn are peaceable and well disposed toward men. Many a pre-Islamic poet was believed to have been inspired by good jinn, but there are also evil jinn, who contrive to injure men.
[edit]
Hebrew Bible
Lilith, by John Collier, 1892
Those in the Hebrew Bible are of two classes, the se'irim and the shedim.[citation needed] The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which some Israelites offered sacrifices in the open fields, are satyr-like creatures, described as dancing in the wilderness,[15] and which are identical with the jinn, such as Dantalion, the 71st spirit of Solomon. Some benevolent shedim were used in kabbalistic ceremonies (as with the golem of Rabbi Yehuda Loevy), and malevolent shedim (mazikin, from the root meaning "to damage") were often credited with possession. Similarly, a shed might inhabit an otherwise inanimate statue.
[edit]
Judaism
Main article: Aggadah
In some rabbinic sources, the demons were believed to be under the dominion of a king or chief, either Asmodai[16] or, in the older Haggadah, Samael ("the angel of death"), who kills by his deadly poison, and is called "chief of the devils". Occasionally a demon is called "satan": "Stand not in the way of an ox when coming from the pasture, for Satan dances between his horns".[17]
Demonology never became an essential feature of Jewish theology.[citation needed] The reality of demons was never questioned by the Talmudists and late rabbis; most accepted their existence as a fact. Nor did most of the medieval thinkers question their reality. Only rationalists like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra, clearly denied their existence. Their point of view eventually became the mainstream Jewish understanding.
Rabbinical demonology has three classes of demons, though they are scarcely separable one from another. There were the shedim, the mazziḳim ("harmers"), and the ruḥin ("spirits"). Besides these there were lilin ("night spirits"), ṭelane ("shade", or "evening spirits"), ṭiharire ("midday spirits"), and ẓafrire ("morning spirits"), as well as the "demons that bring famine" and "such as cause storm and earthquake" (Targ. Yer. to Deuteronomy xxxii. 24 and Numbers vi. 24; Targ. to Cant. iii. 8, iv. 6; Eccl. ii. 5; Ps. xci. 5, 6.)[18]
[edit]
Christian demonology
Main article: Christian demonology
Death and the Miser (detail), a Hieronymus Bosch painting, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC
"Demon" has a number of meanings, all related to the idea of a spirit that inhabited a place, or that accompanied a person. Whether such a daemon was benevolent or malevolent, the Greek word meant something different from the later medieval notions of 'demon', and scholars debate the time in which first century usage by Jews and Christians in its original Greek sense became transformed to the later medieval sense. Some denominations asserting Christian faith also include, exclusively or otherwise, fallen angels as de facto demons; this definition also covers the "sons of God" described in Genesis who abandoned their posts in heaven to mate with human women on Earth before the Deluge.[19]
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus casts out many demons, or evil spirits, from those who are afflicted with various ailments. Jesus is far superior to the power of demons over the beings that they inhabit, and he is able to free these victims by commanding and casting out the demons, by binding them, and forbidding them to return. Jesus also lends this power to some of his disciples, who rejoice at their new found ability to cast out all demons.[20] The demons are cast out by the pronunciation of a name according to Matthew 7:22, some groups insisting the original pronunciation of the name Jesus and pure form of worship be used i.e. Yahshua / Joshua meaning "Yahweh is salvation".
By way of contrast, in the book of Acts a group of Judaistic exorcists known as the sons of Sceva try to cast out a very powerful spirit without believing in or knowing Jesus, but fail with disastrous consequences. However Jesus himself never fails to vanquish a demon, no matter how powerful (see the account of the demon-possessed man at Gerasim), and even defeats Satan in the wilderness (see Gospel of Matthew).
There is a description in the Book of Revelation 12:7-17 of a battle between God's army and Satan's followers, and their subsequent expulsion from Heaven to Earth to persecute humans — although this event is related as being foretold and taking place in the future. In Luke 10:18 it is mentioned that a power granted by Jesus to cast out demons made Satan "fall like lightning from heaven."
Augustine of Hippo's reading of Apuleius, in City of God (Bk. IX, ch.11) is ambiguous as to whether daemons had become 'demonized' by the early 5th century:
"He [Apulieus] also states that the blessed are called in Greek eudaimones, because they are good souls, that is to say, good demons, confirming his opinion that the souls of men are demons.[21]
The contemporary Roman Catholic Church unequivocally teaches that angels and demons are real personal beings, not just symbolic devices. The Catholic Church has a cadre of officially sanctioned exorcists which perform many exorcisms each year. The exorcists of the Catholic Church teach that demons attack humans continually but that afflicted persons can be effectively healed and protected either by the formal rite of exorcism, authorized to be performed only by bishops and those they designate, or by prayers of deliverance which any Christian can offer for themselves or others.[22]
Building upon the few references to daemons in the New Testament, especially the visionary poetry of the Apocalypse of John, Christian writers of apocrypha from the 2nd century onwards created a more complicated tapestry of beliefs about "demons" that was largely independent of Christian scripture.
At various times in Christian history, attempts have been made to classify these beings according to various proposed demonic hierarchies.
According to most Christian demonology demons will be eternally punished and never reconcile with God. Other theories postulate a Universal reconciliation, in which Satan, the fallen angels, and the souls of the dead that were condemned to Hell are reconciled with God. This doctrine is today often associated with the Unification Church. Origen, Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa also mentioned this possibility.
In contemporary Christianity, demons are generally considered to be angels who fell from grace by rebelling against God. However, other schools of thought[who?] in Christianity or Judaism teach that demons, or evil spirits, are a result of the sexual relationships between fallen angels and human women.[19] When these hybrids (Nephilim) died they left behind disembodied spirits that "roam the earth in search of rest" (Luke 11:24).[citation needed] Many non-canonical historical texts describe in detail these unions and the consequences thereof. This belief is repeated in other major ancient religions and mythologies. Christians who reject this view do so by ascribing the description of "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 to be the sons of Seth (one of Adam's sons). There are some who say that the sin of the angels was pride and disobedience, these being the sins that caused Satan's downfall (Ezek. 28). If this be the true view, then we are to understand the words, "estate" or "principality" in Deuteronomy 32:8 and Jude 6 ("And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.") as indicating that instead of being satisfied with the dignity once for all assigned to them under the Son of God, they aspired higher.
[edit]
Renaissance demonology
Although no canon of Renaissance demonology exist, the interest in classic Greco-Roman culture, philosophy, science and Greek and Roman mythology also created a playground for experience with, what was supposed to be a Pre-Christian religious practice. Most notably found in popular culture like the legend of Faust.
[edit]
Islam
The Majlis al Jinn cave in Oman, literally "Meeting place of the Jinn".
See also: Islamic teaching about the Devil and Islamic creationism
Islam recognizes the existence of the jinn, which are sentient beings with free will that can co-exist with humans and are not all evil as demons are described in Christianity. The creation of Jinnkind preceded that of mankind. They exist in what is known as the Al-Ghaib (unseen or unknown) realm or world, they have the ability to see us but we can not see them. Angels also exist in this realm, as well as the human soul (hence why it can not be seen leaving the human body in death). The Jinns are made from the smokeless flame of fire and both angels and the human soul are made from light, whilst the human body is made from clay. Though this "fire" and "light" is beyond matter, whatever exists in this realm is made from matter. In Islam, the evil Jinns are referred to as the shayātīn, or devils, and Iblis (Satan) is their chief. Iblis was one of the first Jinn (he is not considered an Angel in Islamic Cultures) who disobeyed Allah (God) and did not bow down before Adam.
Angels are servants of Allah (God) who do not possess any freewill, whilst Jinnkind and mankind do. It was because Adam possessed freewill and the ability to choose (to do either good or bad) but instead chose to submit his will to the will of Allah (God), Allah (God) loved him so; so much so that mankind's status was elevated higher than that of Angelkind because the Angels have no choice but to serve Allah (God). According to the Qur'an, when Allah (God) created Adam from clay, all the angels and Iblis himself were ordered to bow before Adam. Iblis became very jealous and disobeyed Allah (God), holding that jinns were the superior creation, as they were made of fire, while humans were made of clay.
Adam was the first prophet and deputy of the human race, and as such was the greatest creation of Allah (God). Iblis could not stand this, and refused to acknowledge a creature made of "clay" (matter). Allah (God), thus, condemned Iblis to be punished in the hellfire. But Iblis asked for respite until the last day (judgement day) and this is when the devil and God made a pact and the devil claimed that if he was given the chance, he could make mankind fall and vowed that one day he would even have Allah's (God's) beloved creation (mankind) denying the very existence of their creator, to which Allah's (God) agreed, but warned that he and all who would follow him in evil would be punished in hell. Allah (God) also stated that Iblis would only be able to mislead those who have forsaken Allah (God) and not the righteous believers.
Adam and Eve (Hawwa in Arabic) were both together misled by Iblis into eating the forbidden fruit, and consequently fell from the garden of Eden (allegorical) into a state of degeneration.
Jinns are not the "genies" of modern lore. Like man, there are good and bad, believers and non-believers amongst them. The evil Jinns have been known to possess human beings or enter a humans life in order to hinder it. Their actions are similar to that of a poltergeist in Western understanding. Contrary to the evil Jinns, the good Jinns (servants of good) and can enter a human life in order to help them in numerous ways. The entry to our realm is forbidden without Allah (God's) permission. Both the Angels and Jinns can enter in the form of a human being or an animal. As Angels do not posses free will and the good Jinn are obedient, they never enter without Allah's (God's) permission. However, the same cannot be said for the evil Jinn who enter as they will and have been known to take the form of many animals (especially black Dogs and Snakes) and human beings.
[edit]
Buddhism
[edit]
Hinduism
Hindu mythology includes numerous varieties of spirits that might be classified as demons, including Vetalas, Bhutas and Pishachas. Often Rakshasas and Asuras are taken to mean demons
[edit]
Asuras
Asura in Kōfuku-ji, Nara, 734, Japanese
The Army of Super Creatures - from The Sougandhika Parinaya Manuscript (1821 CE)
Originally, Asura, in the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda, meant any supernatural spirit, both good and bad. Since the /s/ of the Indic linguistic branch is cognate with the /h/ of the Early Iranian languages, the word Asura, representing a category of celestial beings, became the word Ahura (Mazda), the Supreme God of the monotheistic Zoroastrians. Ancient Hinduism tells that Devas and Asuras are half-brothers, sons of the same father Kasyapa; but some of the devas, like Varuna, are also named Asuras. But much later at puranic age Asura (also Rakshasa) came to exclusively mean any of a race of anthropomorphic, powerful, possibly evil beings. All words such as Asura, Daitya (lit., sons of the mother "Diti"), Rakshasa (lit. from "harm to be guarded against") are incorrectly translated into English as demon.
Asuras do accept and worship the Gods, particularly the Hindu triumvirate; some of the rakshasas like Ravana and Mahabali are exemplary devotees. Often the strife between the asuras and the devas is simply a political one: devas are the ordained maintainers of the realms with power (and immortality) accorded to them by the gods and asuras ever strive to attain both. Asuras usually attain or enhance their supernatural powers through penance to gods and waging war on devas using powers thus attained. Unlike Christian notion of demons, asuras are not the cause of the evil and unhappiness in mankind (unhappiness in humans, according to Hinduism is by one's own actions (Karma) and/or due to the continued ignorance of Brahman, the unchanging reality. Asuras, if any, are cogs in the wheel of Karma); they are not fundamentally against the Gods, nor do they tempt humans to fall. In fact, asuras, much like devas, do worship the Gods of Hinduism: many Asuras are said to have been granted boons from one of the members of the Hindu trinity, viz., Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva when the latter had been appeased from their penances. This is markedly different from the traditional Western notions of demons as a rival army of God. In Hindu mythology, pious, highly enlightened asuras, like Prahlada and Vibheeshana, are not at all uncommon. Prahlada even said to have secured enlightenment to his entire lineage (of asuras). All Asuras, unlike the devas, are said to have born mortals (though they ever strive to become immortal). Many people metaphorically interpret asuras as manifestations of the ignoble passions in human mind and as a symbolic device. There were also cases of power-hungry asuras challenging various aspects of Gods, but only to be defeated eventually and seek forgiveness—see Surapadman, Narakasura.
[edit]
Evil spirits
Hinduism advocates the theory of reincarnation and transmigration of souls according to one's Karma. Souls (Atman) of the dead are adjudged by the Yama and are accorded various purging punishments before being reborn. Humans that have committed extraordinary wrongs are condemned to roam as lonely, often evil, spirits for a length of time before being reborn. Many kinds of such spirits (Vetalas, Pishachas, Bhūta) are recognized in the later Hindu texts. These beings, in a limited sense, can be called demons.
[edit]
Bahá'í Faith
In the Bahá'í Faith, demons are not regarded as independent evil spirits as they are in some faiths. All evil spirits described in various faith traditions such as Satan, fallen angels, demons and jinns are metaphors for the base character traits a human being may acquire and manifest when he turns away from God and follows his lower nature. Belief in the existence of ghosts and earthbound spirits is rejected and considered to be the product of superstition.[23]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
