IMPACT COMMUNICATION
AND INNOVATION
AND INNOVATION
When we talk about post-humanism and transhumanism, we are talking about a new perspective—a philosophical movement that considers new ways for the human being to manifest, or, ultimately, a reevaluation of what it means to be human and whether we want to modify ourselves and transcend our condition.
While we have evolved as a species naturally and through environmental influence over thousands of years, we now have the opportunity to use technologies such as cybernetics, bioengineering, and nanotechnology, for example, to accelerate this process of evolution and modification of our bodies and minds.But while different species have died out due to an inability to adapt to their environment and the evolution of their peers—giving rise to Charles Darwin’s concept of survival of the fittest—today we may end up becoming the species that fails to survive, not because of an inability to adapt, but largely due to our purchasing power.
In his text Survival of the richest,Douglas Rushkoff plays on the expression “survival of the fittest,” highlighting the issue of how today’s millionaires and billionaires are, in effect, the ones most “fit” to continue living for many, many years, perhaps even on other planets. That is, if the promises of immortality, using genetic engineering to alter our “defective” genes to avoid diseases like cancer, or even living in a colony on Mars sound exciting, it is likely that we mere mortals who pay the bills will not get to experience them. Not because technology won't have evolved enough before we die, but because broader, more democratized access will take much longer than we have in our lifetimes.
The truth is that transhumanism, as it developed in the West, already had a liberalist strain in its origins, as futurist Nick Bostrom described. The popularization of futurology or futurism also occurred because of the market: large companies are interested in knowing about future possibilities to continue prospering and not lose the power they have gained over so many decades. People pay for courses and lectures to hear that their business is threatened by a new technology or a new startup that promises disruption, but what is actually done in this context? Well, often these startups are bought by large companies like Facebook and Google, and the logic of monopoly remains the same, though in a slightly subverted form: instead of the decision coming from a large company forcing consumers to use its service or product by commanding the market and preventing a diversity of choices, it is now the consumers (or users) who define which companies remain relevant by concentrating on their platforms.
In other words, as futurist Daniela Klaiman describes in her lectures on the concept of social monopoly, it is no longer because a large company buys all the bars and forces everyone to sell its beer, but rather because people prefer to frequent the bar that has the beer they like and that other people frequent. This is what happens with Facebook: it doesn't matter if other social networks are created with the promise of, for example, protecting your privacy. The very logic of a social network is to be where everyone else is, after all. And if a large movement of people doesn't leave Facebook, this new platform will never work, because that is its operating logic. But even after learning about cases of data leaks or the modification of algorithms to reinforce our echo chambers, we don't leave because that is where our friends are. Perhaps this will change with the new generations,who do not want to be on the same social network as their parents. But for now, they are focused on networks like Instagram, which is also owned by Facebook.
What does this mean, after all, when we talk about our future as a species? It means that these large companies and entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos are not really interested in what internet enthusiasts dreamed of during the 1990s. As Rushkoff describes, back then,
“technology was becoming the playground of the counterculture, which saw in it the opportunity to create a more inclusive, distributed, and pro-human future. But the interests of established industries only saw potential for the same old extraction, and many technologists were seduced by unicorn IPOs. Digital futures began to be understood more as future businesses—something to be predicted and bet on. So almost every lecture, article, study, documentary, or official document began to be considered relevant only if it related to the stock market. The future became less something we create through choices in the present or hopes for the future of humanity than a predestined scenario in which we bet our venture capital, but win passively.”
Curiously, during the 2016 US elections, the United States also had a presidential candidate representing the Transhumanist Party: Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanism enthusiast who found in politics and journalism a way to promote and discuss the topic. A few days ago, he published the article Transhumanism is Under Siege from Socialism, in which he comments that “transhumanists must defend the free world and the free market to make their movement as powerful and successful as possible,” so that, to this end, transhumanist enthusiasts must protect themselves from socialism.
In light of these findings, fellow futurist Gray Scott wrote an articlecriticizing Itsvan’s stance by raising the point that, in reality, transhumanism needs socialism if the goal is for it to truly prosper and generate social transformation in the face of the growing automation movement.
In his text, Scott comments that Itsvan assumes transhumanism has taken on certain leftist tones after a history focused on liberalism. According to him, this happened because many young people have adopted this line of thinking and, over the last few years, some research have shown that the majority of young people today have a more positive outlook regarding socialism.
What Zoltan conveniently forgets to mention, however, is that the history of transhumanism does not begin with the libertarian extropians of the late 80s and early 90s: in fact, its origins go much further back to so-called Russian Cosmism—a philosophical and cultural movement from the early 20th century. From Nikolai Fyodorov to Vladimir Vernadsky, its members, though few in number at the time, not only discussed topics like life extension but were also quite socially progressive, believing that a transhumanist future would naturally be post-capitalist.
Yes, many of these ideals were introduced to the Western world by visionary libertarians in the late 20th century, but after a few decades of growth, the transhumanist movement, as Zoltan himself reluctantly admitted, is returning to its roots. And it is doing so correctly.
While there is much talk in futurism, entrepreneurship, and communication circles about new economies—whether collaborative or shared—it is the idea of a new phase of capitalism, now considered more conscious, that is being promoted and supported as a way to transition into this future, where the prospect is that we will undergo a new wave of unemployment due to exponentially growing automation technologies.
But while some people, like Itsvan, believe in a more philanthropic business sector, given initiatives like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or even the multibillion-dollar donations from Zuckerberg aimed at eradicating diseases by the end of this century, Scott views this type of initiative with a certain skepticism:
“Despite recognizing and appreciating the sense of urgency these market leaders have to build a better future, their altruistic veils are beginning to show cracks.
More specifically, remnants of exploitative capitalism have manifested in their business practices when it comes to workers' rights. Yes, tech entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson want to eradicate diseases and democratize space travel. Unfortunately, there is one more thing these three have in common: union busting!”
From Tesla to Amazon and Virgin Galactic, workers at these three companies are exploited with no prospect of improvement. Historically speaking, the right to bargain collectively in the United States was popularized by socialists on the front lines of the battle against child labor, low wages, and terrible working conditions during the Industrial Revolution. And now that a new industrial revolution is happening, unions are more important than ever.
Musk, Bezos, and Branson disagree. And yet, Zoltan believes these market leaders will openly contribute to a universal basic income? Consider me skeptical.
In fact, if human workers laid off by automation have any chance of receiving a basic income, it will not come from market leaders who operate based on the interests of capital, but rather from unions that operate in the interests of workers. Whether through a basic income supported by higher corporate taxes, profit sharing, or even the distribution of federal lands, workers will still need someone fighting for their interests.
Those dismissed from their jobs will need a basic income to remain financially stable and, if possible, in a position to better serve new industries. And for those who still have a job, there is still the problem of growing economic inequality as the rich get richer and the poor live on the bare minimum. Clearly, these tech philanthropists have no interest in providing a basic income. (…)
More importantly, however, is understanding that this basic income system should not be confused as something that will ‘save’ capitalism. As business leaders and economic theorists have already noted, the proliferation of automation will eventually build a future of abundance that is post-scarcity and post-capitalism.”
While Scott focuses primarily on issues like economic inequality and the future of work and the economy, Rushkoff is more concerned with the way these same economic agents are treating certain human characteristics more like a bug than a constitutive element. And this has been addressed in a worrying way in current science fiction:
“Our movies and television series play out these fantasies for us. Zombie shows depict a post-apocalyptic future where people are no better than the walking dead—and they seem to know it. Worse, these series invite the audience to imagine the future as a battle for survival among the remaining humans, where the survival of one group depends on the death of another. Even Westworld—based on a science fiction novel in which robots rebel—ends its latest season with a major reveal: human beings are simpler and more predictable than the artificial intelligences we created. The robots learn that each of us can be reduced to just a few lines of code, and that we are incapable of making any real choices of our own. Hell, even the robots in that show want to escape the limits of their bodies and live the rest of their lives in a virtual simulation.”
All the mental gymnastics required for such an exchange between humans and machines depend on the understanding that human beings are terrible. Let us then change them or flee from them, forever.
In this sense, we have tech billionaires launching electric cars into space—as if that symbolized anything more than a billionaire's ability to promote their corporation. And if some people reach escape velocity and somehow survive in a bubble on Mars—despite our inability to maintain such a bubble even here on Earth, in any of the multimillion-dollar biosphere tests—the result will be less a continuation of the human diaspora than a lifeboat for the elite.
Just as Scott believes in a future more grounded in the ideals of socialism, Rushkoff also advocates for collectivity: “Being human is not about individual survival or escape. It is a team sport. Regardless of what future we have, it will be together.” What he questions, however, is how these great and powerful entrepreneurs already see themselves in a post-apocalyptic context, such that they are not even interested in knowing how to avoid the calamity, but rather how to survive in or through it. As Rushkoff describes, “despite all their wealth and power, they don’t believe they can affect the future. They are simply accepting the worst-case scenario and then bringing whatever money and technology they can to isolate themselves—especially if they can get a seat on the rocket to Mars.”
It is in this sense that only the richest and most powerful will have access to technologies and opportunities to live for more years, if they wish, or to flee from some supposed great catastrophe instead of actually using their wealth and power precisely to prevent any catastrophe that might occur. Even though transhumanism may have taken on this elitist tone, since few people have access to such cutting-edge and also very expensive technologies, Scott argues that we need to think about the non-monetary cost this may have for people who do not have the same possibility. Think of the movie Elysium, for example, and how the characters from the poor side face crusades similar to those experienced at the Mexico-United States border, so that they can have access to the treatments and technologies available only in the elite's space?
As Scott continues, then, if we really want to build a future grounded in the ideals of transcendence and abundance of transhumanism and post-humanism, goals such as curing aging, for example, must be accessible to everyone and not just to those who can pay for a premium health plan. This is why Scott advocates for a more socialist look at transhumanism, not as a way of being anti-capitalist, but as a transition process from the final stage of capitalism, thus offering a possibility of a future in which scarcity no longer exists. That is, more honestly, thinking about a post-capitalism of abundance and greater awareness is not thinking about a capitalism 2.0, but about a socialism updated to the technological and social context in which we are inserted and toward which we are heading.
