The Age of Transhumanist Politics Has Begun Katja Siepmann and Annabella McIntosh

Will It Change Traditional Concepts of Left and Right? An Interview with Political Analyst Roland Benedikter

The founding of the Transhumanist Party of the United States, the intensifying of the U.S. BRAIN-Initiative and the start of Google's project "Ending death" were important milestones in the year 2014, and potential further steps towards "transhumanist" politics. The most significant development was that the radical international technology community became a concrete political force, not by chance starting its global political initiative in the U.S. According to political scientist and sociologist Roland Benedikter, research scholar at the University of California at Santa Barbara, "transhumanist" politics has momentous growth potential but with uncertain outcomes. The coming years will probably see a dialogue between humanism and transhumanism in - and about - most crucial fields of human endeavor, with strong political implications that will challenge, and could change the traditional concepts, identities and strategies of Left and Right.

Roland Benedikter is the co-author of two Pentagon and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff White Papers concerning the future of Neurotechnology and the Ethics of Neurowarfare (2013 and 2014), several books about global strategic matters (two of those on Xi Jinping's China) and of the upcoming book Neuroscience and Neuroethics: Impacting Human Futures (in cooperation with James Giordano, Springer New York) which will be published in 2015. He has co-authored the commentary "Neuroculture: How to keep ethical pace with the current 'deep' transformations through neurotechnology? for "Leftist Review" with James Giordano in March 2012. Katja Siepmann and Annabella McIntosh conducted the interview.

In the book you co-authored with Pentagon-advisor and Georgetown-neuroscientist and neuroethicist James Giordano "Neuroscience and Neuroethics: Impacting Human Futures" you state that these two fields at the interface between science and politics might lead to bigger changes in the coming years than either conventional politics or science. The reason: Technology is becoming an increasingly more powerful political and social force - not only sectorially or nationally, but globally.

Roland Benedikter: In recent years technology has indeed emerged as a concrete social and political force. 2014 has seen a noticeable intensification of that trend. The traditional political players are poorly prepared for it. What, for example, nowadays takes place in just one year at the interface between the human brain and technology, until recently required a decade. It is an exponential development. The mechanization of society and humanity is occurring within many disciplines- for example, in the form of neurotechnology, which is increasingly used for medical and both dual-use and direct military purposes. But there are other fields too. From neuroeconomics to, neuroaesthetics, neurosprituality, neurosociology and even neuropolitics, the "neuro"-prefix is becoming omnipresent in the understanding and meaning of our time and civilization - and with regard to its self-ascribed identity.

What exactly is going on?

Roland Benedikter: Supporters of "human enhancement"st century. By playing a consulting role in the "high spheres" of politics, science, and management, representatives of the transhumanist movement (including the Supporters of "human enhancement" 1 , which encompasses scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians and transcends language, cultural and ideological barriers, advocate mechanization of the human body in general and the broad "culturalization" of brain-machine interfaces in particular as the progressive, transformative path for humanity in the 21century. By playing a consulting role in the "high spheres" of politics, science, and management, representatives of the transhumanist movement (including the World Transhumanist Association ), which was initiated in the 1980s, are promoting the fusion of humans and computers. Among other things, they recommend the broad use of implants to enhance cognitive abilities, neural engineering to expand human consciousness and the cyborgization of the body and its tissues and systems in order to increase resilience, flourishing and lifespan.

Sounds gruesome at first. What is the idea behind all this?

Roland Benedikter: The name "transhumanism" is the basic concept that tells it all. Its followers want to go beyond the present human condition. At its core it means to overcome the "natural" limitations inherent in human existence, which is to be born, live relatively short, half-conscious lives, and then die. The supporters of "human enhancement" and "transhumanism" intend to break through these current physical and cognitive (and perhaps even spiritual) barriers. In order to do that, they will pursue biotechnological upgrades to the human body and thus, conceivably, try to eliminate the negative effects of ageing and eventually (at least in their aspiration) even death.

You state (in a scientifically "neutral" sense) that the first breakthrough of this development could now be imminent, but there will also be inescapable associated ethical problems?

Roland Benedikter: Possibly. Those who view the future human being as a technoid being, if not as a body fully integrated into technology - as seem to do, for example, Google's chief engineer Ray Kurzweil or the Oxford professor of philosophy Nick Bostrom, who is the head of the st Century School -- regard the mid of the century as a probable date for reaching the "singularity." That's the moment when artificial intelligence allegedly surpasses that of human intelligence and becomes in some way "self-conscious", as these thinkers expect. Possibly. Those who view the future human being as a technoid being, if not as a body fully integrated into technology - as seem to do, for example, Google's chief engineer Ray Kurzweil or the Oxford professor of philosophy Nick Bostrom, who is the head of the "Future of Humanity Institute" at the faculty of philosophy and the Oxford James Martin 21Century School -- regard the mid of the century as a probable date for reaching the "singularity." That's the moment when artificial intelligence allegedly surpasses that of human intelligence and becomes in some way "self-conscious", as these thinkers expect. 2 Kurzweil has recently even referred to the year 2029 as the date when technology could reach a level of self-conscious "intelligence". 3 If that happens, even on an approximate basis, it will without doubt affect virtually everything, even though it will likely not occur in as spectacular ways as predicted.

Why will it affect everything?

Roland Benedikter: Every conscious "being", not even speaking of a self-conscious "being" (assuming that technology can achieve such a status, which is contested) possesses the first and basic instinct of self-preservation. Like other beings, a technological singularity will presumably apply its intelligence anticipatively once it has a satisfactory level of consciousness in order to preserve its status. That could hold true also for highly developed Artificial Intelligence (AI). Due to that Bostrom in his current book on "Superintelligence" Every conscious "being", not even speaking of a self-conscious "being" (assuming that technology can achieve such a status, which is contested) possesses the first and basic instinct of self-preservation. Like other beings, a technological singularity will presumably apply its intelligence anticipatively once it has a satisfactory level of consciousness in order to preserve its status. That could hold true also for highly developed Artificial Intelligence (AI). Due to that Bostrom in his current book on "Superintelligence" 4 believes that the most important question of the coming decades will not be how to prevent wars or how to build the best weapons or the best international relations, but how to control an increasingly intelligent technology - a "superintelligence" which is coming into existence through the combination of artificial intelligence and bioengineering. The question is how to provide some kind of AI-inherent "control mechanism" to prevent it from turning against humans in order to eliminate the only ones who could switch it off.

There is in fact an increasingly intense debate about the possibility that artificial intelligence may harm humanity - to the point of wiping it out.

Roland Benedikter: That's right. Influential opinion-makers like Microsoft's Bill Gates That's right. Influential opinion-makers like Microsoft's Bill Gates 5 , investor Elon Musk 6 or scientists like Cambridge's Stephen Hawking 7 believe that artificial intelligence could become a serious threat, actually the most important threat to humanity in the coming decades, because it could become too powerful to control. In contrast, others like Microsoft's Research lab's managing director, Eric Horvitz 8 , are of the opinion that we will be so "pro-active" in implementing the new intelligent technologies, that we will master their inborne threats before they become harmful.

Both sides, the apocalyptics and the optimists, have good arguments.

Roland Benedikter: In fact, with a strong surplus still on the optimistic side. If you've noticed, essentially all internet- and technology-based firms in the meantime are committing a good part of their innovation efforts to the development of artificial intelligence, and if you follow the parallel developments in the traditional heavy industry towards non-human production through the massive substitution of robotics for humans, combined with AI, then it becomes clear that this development will impact humanity's future as perhaps no other - not only by merging man and machine, but also by replacing humans with technology. For example, automaker Volkswagen (VW) is replacing a large part of its work force with robots, and will deploy artificial intelligence on a large scale. In fact, with a strong surplus still on the optimistic side. If you've noticed, essentially all internet- and technology-based firms in the meantime are committing a good part of their innovation efforts to the development of artificial intelligence, and if you follow the parallel developments in the traditional heavy industry towards non-human production through the massive substitution of robotics for humans, combined with AI, then it becomes clear that this development will impact humanity's future as perhaps no other - not only by merging man and machine, but also by replacing humans with technology. For example, automaker Volkswagen (VW) is replacing a large part of its work force with robots, and will deploy artificial intelligence on a large scale. 9 A member of VW's board of management for human resources, Horst Neumann, declared in February 2015, that this will dramatically reduce costs from 40 euros per human working hour in Germany and 10 euros per hour in China to just 5 euros for a robot. And this is only the beginning of a massive wave of change coming throughout industry, and from there reaching out to most other fields too.

To these transhumanists, technology is the key to basically every single problem of our time and the future

You state, that in terms of technology as an increasingly "universal factor" the year 2014 generated three important developmental steps, that some consider milestones on the way to "transhumanism". What are those?

Roland Benedikter: Firstly: Tech giant Google - which has recently been focusing more and more on transdisciplinary "moon shots" or "major advances" that others may regard as utopian or fantasy - launched its new project Calico to "stop ageing and eliminate death" Firstly: Tech giant Google - which has recently been focusing more and more on transdisciplinary "moon shots" or "major advances" that others may regard as utopian or fantasy - launched its new project Calico to "stop ageing and eliminate death" 10 under the guidance of its technology director Ray Kurzweil. The aim of the project is to make information on how to fight ageing more "intelligent" by combining data volumes, some of which have been collected and compared by Google's search engines, with a "self-learning" ability. Information could then potentially develop itself further generating new information. As a first step this is supposed to eliminate disease and increase the lifespan of the human body by a measurable amount and ultimately - if possible - defeat death. According to those responsible for this and similar projects, new life-technologies such as the prevention of telomere shortening or genetic modification, are available for this purpose but need to be combined with artificial intelligence in order to become sufficiently sophisticated to reach an advanced level.

Secondly?

Roland Benedikter: Leading transhumanists, for example the cofounder of the transhumanist movement Nick Bostrom, have been providing commentary input to the USA BRAIN-initiative since summer of 2014. Leading transhumanists, for example the cofounder of the transhumanist movement Nick Bostrom, have been providing commentary input to the USA BRAIN-initiative since summer of 2014. 11 On the initiative of President Barack Obama, the BRAIN initiative is generally dedicated to unraveling the secrets of the brain through the use of neurotechnologies so as to improve human health and well-being. Explicit to this is the "enhancement" of the human brain and cognition ("cognitive enhancement"). It deals with fundamental questions of how to improve human existence based on consciousness issues, and it focuses on the responsibility that derives from the perspective that a possible transformation of the human being as we know it is becoming feasible. The BRAIN initiative and its European counter-part, the Human Brain Initiative of the European Commission since 2012, set a trend - willingly or unwillingly - that conveys a strong transhumanist message. As James Giordano and I have noted 12 , and urged preparation for, this trend will not only have an impact in the USA but also will have international influence. It is already being imitated, and embellished upon by nations such as China within their current capabilities.

Thirdly

Roland Benedikter: Thirdly, the transhumanism movement organized itself for the first time as a concrete political force in autumn 2014, thereby reaching a new level of public visibility and potential impact, irrespective of the immediate success it can or will have at the ballots. In October 2014, the American philosopher and futurist Zoltan Istvan founded the Thirdly, the transhumanism movement organized itself for the first time as a concrete political force in autumn 2014, thereby reaching a new level of public visibility and potential impact, irrespective of the immediate success it can or will have at the ballots. In October 2014, the American philosopher and futurist Zoltan Istvan founded the Transhumanist Party of the USA and wants to run for president in 2016 as its candidate. Istvan published the book The Transhumanist Wager 13 in 2013, which became an Amazon number one best seller, and he is the founder of the philosophical current Teleological Egocentric Functionalism (TEF) that advocates radical efforts to transform oneself, for example, through "enhancement" of one's own body and brain. 14 Istvan wants to fashion this into a concrete political agenda that will play a role in the US-presidential campaign. For this purpose he apparently has financially strong sponsors, who are supposed to guarantee his party public attention.

Istvan's step did not just appear out of nowhere?

Roland Benedikter: The founding of the Transhumanist party of the USA was based on several pre-initiatives. One impulse for the political mobilization of the radical technophiles was the open letter of the second Global Future 2045 Congress on 11th March 2013, addressed to UN-general secretary Ban Ki-moon.Global Future 2045: The founding of the Transhumanist party of the USA was based on several pre-initiatives. One impulse for the political mobilization of the radical technophiles was the open letter of the second Global Future 2045 Congress on 11March 2013, addressed to UN-general secretary Ban Ki-moon.Global Future 2045: Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. March 12, 2013. In this letter important philanthropists, such as sponsor James Martin, and members of important universities such as Oxford or opinion leaders and entrepreneurs from the USA, Great Britain, Russia and Canada, demanded among other things governmental support for the development of artificial bodies (anthropomorphic avatar robots), for a conjunction of them with further developed brain-computer-interfaces, for extending life supporting measures, especially for the human brain, for the development of a "fully technical equivalent of the human brain" and finally for its "embodiment in a non-biological substrate" for the purpose of immortality, which basically means the reproduction of the human mind as an individualized computer program.

The Congress assumed in 2013 that humanity today is facing a "threshold in its history" and that only a radical technology offensive could "free" humans from several of their existing problems. According to these transhumanists, technology is the key to basically every single problem of our time and the future: it could prevent wars, find a solution to global resource problems and pave the way for a global society centred on the individual. These aims of the Global Future 2045 Congress of 2013 in essence correspond to those of the Transhumanist Party in the USA founded in 2014. Istvan's proposed presidential candidacy in 2016 takes this agenda to the next political and policy level.

With this in mind, the international media posed the question: What if a U.S. presidential candidate for 2016 were a transhumanist, wanting to become a cyborg? 15 Would the predominantly religious Americans tolerate such a candidacy?

Roland Benedikter: A good question. Istvan responded to this with an ingenious manifesto A good question. Istvan responded to this with an ingenious manifesto 16 in which he explains why a transhumanist should run for the U.S. presidency, even if it is unrealistic, at least for the near term. The political agenda of the Transhumanist Party of the USA is primarily threefold, as Istvan presents it: 1) To provide scientists and technologists with the means to overcome human aging and mortality within 15-20 years - an aim which, according to Istvan, a growing number of scientists regard as realistic; 2) to create a "cultural mentality" in the U.S. that assumes that: to "accept and produce radical technology" is in the best interest of Americans and humanity "as a species"; and 3) to protect citizens from the misuse of technology and to explain the planetary dangers implied by the transition to a "transhumanist era." The latter goal of course alludes to the NSA scandal, which alarmed the general public and even led Republican Senator Rand Paul to sue the government for violating the U.S. constitution. A move which in some ways, according to Istvan, is in accordance with the third goal of the Transhumanist Party. All this suggests that the Transhumanist political movement is looking to the traditional parties to collect some votes out of their clientel not only in Silicon Valley, but beyond. It's a serious endeavour with rather traditional plays and strategies.

However, is the third goal not rendered absurd by the first two goals?

Roland Benedikter: To a certain extent, maybe. Who will define the limits and the terms of protection when "radical technology" is the aim? This is just one of the potential contradictions to be found in transhumanism and therefore in Istvan's election program. However, it shouldn't be overvalued at this point since the party is in its first steps.

How is this to be evaluated?

Roland Benedikter: The most ambitious aim of the Transhumanist Party is to overcome ageing and, ultimately, death in the next 15-20 years. I consider this period of time not quite realistic. Overcoming death will stay out of reach for the time being, even though progress towards the extension of life could indeed be made rather quickly. From a political view it seems more important that Istvan's party tries to create a mindset in American society which views radical technologies and science as the best solution to basically each and every challenge of the 21st century. This could translate something that can already be found as a fundamental conviction in Silicon Valley (and the likes in other countries), into a concrete political platform and therefore have a nation-wide impact. In the same way as the U.S. has a Green Party, which is hardly institutionally present but does have an influence on parts of the Democratic Party, and therefore is at least a mediating factor of influence on U.S. domestic policy, the technophiles could now play a role and maybe gain increasing influence on the big popular parties of the U.S., as technology is said to be "non-ideological" and is in principle viewed positively by conservatives and liberals alike.

Is technology really "non-ideological"?

Roland Benedikter: It is of course not "true" that technology is "non-ideological", and Istvan and the transhumanists know that well. It has ideological implications, as it outlines a very particular conception of the technologization - and probably even cybogization - of humanity as the only meaningful pathway to the future, or at least by far most suitable. That might even be a more fundamental and radical - and, depending of its future use, also more discriminatory -- ideology than those of the left and the right, as it is not only directed at social adjustment but also directly touches the future of the human body, and thus of human nature and the human being itself.

So how should the political programme of the Transhumanist Party be judged?

Roland Benedikter: Istvan could be right in asserting, as he does, that "certainly (politicians) are gonna have to consider it. Transhumanism is here to stay. In the next ten years everyone is gonna be forced to deal with how we deal with Artificial Intelligence, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with longevity as people live longer, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with some of the biotics, the chip implants and the mind uploading. These are very difficult bioethial questions… and every government is gonna have their policies for." Istvan could be right in asserting, as he does, that "certainly (politicians) are gonna have to consider it. Transhumanism is here to stay. In the next ten years everyone is gonna be forced to deal with how we deal with Artificial Intelligence, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with longevity as people live longer, everyone is gonna be forced to deal with some of the biotics, the chip implants and the mind uploading. These are very difficult bioethial questions… and every government is gonna have their policies for." 17

He is also without doubt correct in claiming that "society will be greatly changed by radical science and technology in the next 5-15 years. Most people are unaware how significant these changes could be. For example, we might all be getting brain implants soon, or using driverless cars, or having personal drones follow us around and do our shopping for us. Things like anonymity in the social media age, gender roles, exoskeleton suits for unfit people, ectogenesis, and the promise of immersive virtual reality could significantly change the way society views itself." 18

While this is accurate, my skepticism is toward the proposed "transhumanist" answers. Should we simply and unconditionally embrace the trend towards universal technology and its global substitution of the difference of historic cultures, as Istvan and his party followers in essence, propose, or are more cautious and multi-level approaches the safer and better way? Should we as fast as possible get rid of the human being as we know it, or is it necessary to get to know ourselves better before we make irreversible decisions? In the end, humanity has just begun to explore itself. Here is the chance for the more traditional big popular parties like the Democrats and the Republicans to get to more broadly pondered and shared views. If nothing else, it's their strength to forge great compromises involving as much people of different strata of society as possible.

Does Istvan succeed, as he aspires, to "present transhumanism in the media in noncontroversial ways that emphasize health, wellbeing, democracy, and the upholding of humanitarian values" 19 in order to get as many votes as he can and get global attention?

Roland Benedikter: It's too early to judge this, but certainly the goals of the Transhumanist Party are controversial. Again, there are many contradictions in Istvan's discourse. For example, the concept of "transhumanism" according to Istvan himself means "... beyond human. In this way, transhumanism aims to leave behind the problems and bickering the human race has undergone for millennia, especially ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural divisions. The language of transhumanism is science — and that language and cultural framework is universal." It's too early to judge this, but certainly the goals of the Transhumanist Party are controversial. Again, there are many contradictions in Istvan's discourse. For example, the concept of "transhumanism" according to Istvan himself means "... beyond human. In this way, transhumanism aims to leave behind the problems and bickering the human race has undergone for millennia, especially ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural divisions. The language of transhumanism is science — and that language and cultural framework is universal." 20 That means that Istvan's concept of "transhumanism" as such is to go beyond human, and thus it per definitionem excludes the "upholding of humanitarian values" since it actively aims at overcoming their basis which is being "human". Or, as another interpretation, Istvan wants to suggest that "humanitarian" nowadays means "beyond human", which is a quite dangerous combination in times of new martyrs that are springing up in the age of fundamentalist religious politics. So if Istvan claims the Transhumanist Party "to be a bridge to a scientific and tech-dominated future, regardless what the species may eventually become" 21 , this is a profoundly ambiguous statement. It suggests that transhumanism is going to take care of something that in the end doesn't matter: to be human (in the accepted sense, including the ethics tied to this discourse), since regardless what the species may become, technology is the answer, independent of other considerations.