40 Comments
User's avatar
APersonWhoDisagrees's avatar

In all these years I've been aware of you and read you, you're arguments on transhumanism haven't really strenghtened. Don't get me wrong I'm no transhumanist because I think there are major problems with the concept. But that doesn't mean they haven't got a point on some of the problems baked into the character of existence.

Gah there's so many things here. I'm disappointed because around things like Phil of Science and philosophy from you.

For example it just seems like you haven't really engaged with the thinking when you put Benatar as opponent of Bostrom. When in fact they actually have the same ethical concerns. In other words if Bostrom's transhumanist project could remove some of the clearly horrible aspects of life Benatar would jump on.

Or I mean going after Ray Kurweil of all people. Talk about low hanging fruit.

Or even the title of the piece. Why would the world end if humans disappeared? You'd love Patricia MacCormack. Altho I don't agree with her evaluation of Nature good, humans intrinsically bad.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Well, sorry to disappoint you with my trivial writings, bad arguments, and going after low hanging fruits. I'm sure there are plenty of other and better newsletters and blogs out there to follow.

Regarding Bostrom's trans humanist project, I can see why--if it succeeded--it may alleviate Benatar's concerns. My position on both is that we have far more important and pressing matters to concern ourselves with. I regard both notions as the luxury of people with too much time on their hands and not enough to write about.

Expand full comment
APersonWhoDisagrees's avatar

"My position on both is that we have far more important and pressing matters to concern ourselves with."

Like what? Why is people's suffering or the implications of procreation on the procreated not important?

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Because I don't believe people are suffering from procreation as much as Benatar thinks. They are suffering from injustice, climate change, wars, and so forth. All things we can work on without having to renounce life altogether.

Expand full comment
APersonWhoDisagrees's avatar

You haven't actually read or grasped what Benatar has said it seems very clear to me. He never ever says the Universe would be better off without us. Like never. His position is on the ethics of procreation as far as an individual is concerned. He concludes that for the person that will exist it would be better they never existed in the first place.

The logical consequence is of course that a species that took that position en masse would go extinct. Benatar even says this isn't likely at all! Benatar never claims that extinction is valuable in and of itself. So it would seem you've struck down a strawman.

Now what you've actually got to demonstrate is why the continued existence of one particular species is far more important such that it outweighs the cost of the very real and ghastly suffering individuals do go through. Either way given our understanding of the world all species go extinct. Am I wrong?

"Ethics, after all, is the study of how to live a good, productive, meaningful life as a human being, that is as a social being capable of reason."

Isn't this just your definition of ethics so you can promote your preferred outlook aka Stoicism?

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Well, that passage in my essay includes a direct quote from Benatar, so I'm pretty confident I got what he was saying right. Moreover, I actually corresponded to him after I wrote an essay articulating a Stoic response to anti-natalism (see: https://medium.com/socrates-cafe/is-it-morally-wrong-to-have-children-a-stoic-response-to-the-anti-natalism-argument-b5b3364828db) and he agreed that the Stoics do have a good answer.

As for why the continuation of one species is more important than the suffering of individuals, "importance" isn't the point. That is what species do: reproduce. If your suffering is so unbearable, as Epictetus says, the door is open.

No, that is not my definition of ethics, it's the common definition across the Greco-Roman schools. You can find a similar articulation in Plato's dictionary of philosophical terms.

And yes, I "promote" Stoicism because I think it's a good idea. Nobody has to follow my recommendations, there are other choices.

Expand full comment
APersonWhoDisagrees's avatar

Benatar addresses human(he is explicit in the book to say that he targets humans only because he believes it would have the most impact but actually cares more about sentience) extinction because if it's a consequence of his views on procreation not because he's "anti-human". He's taking an ethical position on the effects of procreation.

I'll have to believe you on your correspondence. Take it on faith as it were.

"As for why the continuation of one species is more important than the suffering of individuals"

You're whole article is on these so called strange ahuman points of view. Now I'm completely confused.

"That is what species do: reproduce."

I'm really not quite sure why this is relevant? What are you getting at here? That one can't question this state of affairs?

"If your suffering is so unbearable, as Epictetus says, the door is open." Again not sure what this has to do with critiquing ahuman philosophies but it comes of super cruel. That is if you're suggesting what I think you are?

Again I don't see why we have to privilege the ancients in our definitions. I thought ethics was about figuring out the best course of action given one's values.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

You don't have to take what I say on faith. On trust is a better way to put it.

Sorry about your confusion, but I'm not sure what the root of it is. The Stoics believe in acting "in agreement with nature." Nature endows us with a strong instinct for survival and reproduction, and that's what we follow. Could we do otherwise? I suppose. But why? I find Benatar's argument that suffering far outweighs joy in life to be entirely subjective. Maybe that's how he looks at life, but most of the rest of us don't.

I also don't understand why you think Epictetus' open door policy is cruel. If someone truly thinks that life is unbearable and full of suffering then that person has the option of leaving. If they stay, Epictetus says, it means they aren't finding the whole thing so unbearable after all.

As for definition of ethics, I "privilege" the ancient one because I find it more useful. That's how we assess definitions, by whether we can use them.

Expand full comment
APersonWhoDisagrees's avatar

" But why? " because we can reason and make judgements? I still don't understand your point.

I can easily make the judgment that giving a strong instinct for survival and then setting it up that we decay is a very bad aspect of a nature you claim we must be in agreement with.

"life is unbearable and full of suffering then that person has the option of leaving." Suicide isn't free disposal.This just a slightly more eloquent way of saying "why don't you just kill yourself?" You have to admit that's a little problematic. To me cold hearted and mean. No one asks to be here and having to kill oneself is profoundly difficult.

"useful" for what? Reproduction? Round the merry go round.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

The Stoics think of the possibility of suicide as the root of our freedom. Again, if we find the situation unbearable we are free to leave. It's not cold hearted, it's a fact and a choice. And no, I don't think walking through the open door is that difficult. But if it is more difficult than to stay and face life then you have your answer right there.

Expand full comment
Bartek's avatar

About "according to whom" questions: what stops us or them from interpreting it as "we anti-humanists think that world would be better off without us according to us" or "we trans-humanists think that humanity should evolve further because we value human intellect"?

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

The difference lies in the arguments adduced to defend one's position. *Why* do anti-humanists or trans-humanists think this, that, or the other?

Expand full comment
Bartek's avatar

well, because they value "pure world without human technology" or "human reason per se". It can't be refuted, but we can disagree with such view unless they somewhere explicitly say that's not just opinion but a fact.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

I don't know about "refuted," but it can certainly be argued for or against. For instance, why, exactly, would a world without human technology be better? Better by what criteria? Why those criteria, specifically? And so forth.

Expand full comment
Antony Van der Mude's avatar

Perhaps you can expound on the difference between Teleology and Teleonomy, if you haven't already. I'd love to get your thoughts on it.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Antony, teleology is the notion that there is a goal or purpose to things, a la Aristotle. Teleonomy is the *appearance* of such purpose. For instance, a teleological understanding of the human eye is that it was designed for the purpose of seeing. A teleonomic understanding would put it in terms of natural selection favoring increasingly complex eye-like structures because they increased the fitness of their carriers. Does that make sense?

Expand full comment
Antony Van der Mude's avatar

I am well aware of the difference, having been published in philosophical journals such as the International Journal of Quantum Foundations (Supplement), and in biology journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology. When I read "I thought talk of “function,” technically known in philosophy as teleology, had gone out of the window with David Hume and Charles Darwin, and generally with the scientific worldview" my thought was, yes that's so, but teleonomy has been accepted since the 1960s. As someone who is both a biologist and a philosopher, I would be interested in your viewpoint of this distinction above and beyond this statements here regarding transhumanism. OK, we don't have a "cosmic endowment" as mentioned in the article. And Gould put to rest the notion that humans are the "Crown of Creation". But your statement "“Minding,” if you will, is what an embodied brain and peripheral nervous system allows us to do, like breathing is what lungs make possible." is implicitly teleonomy - "lungs make possible" "nervous system allows". I value your insights, and since you have been both a biologist and a philosopher, it would be edifying for me if you discuss in more detail why there is no "ultimate destiny of the universe" but there is mind, which "allows" us to do stuff and what the difference is.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Antony, sorry, I didn't get exactly what you were asking the first time around. I have no problem at all with teleonomy, and as a biologist I regularly use functional / purposive language, with the implicit understanding that I do so in a teleonomic, not teleologic, sense.

I do, however, restrict teleonomic talk to the biological world, as I see natural selection and related processes as the only ones that could possibly be generating any appearance of purpose / function.

When it comes to human (and possibly other) minds, however, I do think we have genuine purpose, not just the appearance thereof. What I am writing now has meaning, both immediately (I'm trying to answer your question) and long-term (writing is part of what makes my life meaningful). Does that help?

Expand full comment
Antony Van der Mude's avatar

It's a beginning. I'm hoping this could be expanded into an essay in its own right. Maybe you could provide your thoughts on questions liek:

Why is there no teleonomy outside of biology? What is it about life that makes possible or results in teleonomy?

Is evolution a driving force for teleonomy? How? Does teleonomy arise from within, or from an interplay between organism and environment? Does teleonomy derive solely from evolution, or is it inherent in biological process that predate evolution, assuming that evolution starts only after abiogenesis.

Is telenomy reducible in the sense that bioloogical functions are reducible to proteins and chemeisty?

Is teleonomy emergent, in the sense that human appreciation for art or a sense of consciousness are? Maybe there are levels of teleonomy?

Is purpose unique to the individual, universal in the species or both?

What is the difference between teleonomy and "genuine purpose"? After all, teleonomy comes into play with the development of body parts such as the esophagus. What is the esophgus's genuine purpose compared to that of the person whose esophagus it is. Is there a teleonomic hierarchy?

Is my genuine purpose to reproduce and extend the species, or is there more, like my bugging you with all these questions?

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Antony, all excellent questions! But as you say, best devoted to a separate essay. Meanwhile you may enjoy this conversation: https://youtu.be/7iKWoobyYQ0

Expand full comment
Vivian Baruch's avatar

A lovely philosophical perspective on the degrowth (Anti-humanist) and techno-optimist (Trans-humanist) ways of conceptualising the major challenges we’re facing today. A humorous exploration between these two perspectives, more narrowly focused on the interface between climate change science and policy making, is portrayed by Roger Pielke Jr in his article Defund the Economy - The marvellous, muddled mess that is "degrowth" https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/defund-the-economy?r=hbtw3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email Especially funny is the video with Hans Rosling’s story about his grandmother’s reaction to his mother’s first ever washing machine. Let’s go back to washing clothes by hand as in the good ol’ days.

Expand full comment
Arthur Snyder's avatar

I'm not worried about AI taking over as there's no I in it anyway. It is lookup tables. Very clever look up tables, but the only I is put in by the people who construct (a.k.a, train) them.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Yup!

Expand full comment
Glenn Williams's avatar

Anti-humanism and trans-humanism remind me of a line in the song "Con la frente marchita" by Joaquin Sabina: "No hay nostalgia peor que añorar lo que nunca jamás sucedió" ("There is nothing worse than nostalgia for what never happened").

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Nice!

Expand full comment
Andrew Ralston's avatar

To me Trans-humanism is just another immortality project of the wealthy, much like cryonics, which surprisingly is still a thing. As a society it seems we spend more time trying not to die than actually living.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Exactly.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

Lovely and relevant piece, thank you Massimo.

I’ve no real locus to post a recommendation here, so please take the following as a personal observation on my part.

Much of my thinking on futurism and transhumanism had crystallised a while ago (reads vaguely pompous - apologies), but I very much enjoyed the journalistic insights and musings if Mark O’Connell in his “Notes from an Apocalypse“ - it was an unexpected pleasure. With kind regards, John

Expand full comment
Ed Buckner's avatar

Interesting (as usual) analysis. I consider myself a humanist, and when told by others that that seems to mean I value humans more than other organisms or that I'm prejudiced or that I'm a species-ist, I say, "Yep." Should Earth be preserved for the sake of the birds or the koalas or the roaches? Not if it's up to me.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Exactly. I find the anti-humanism moralizing to be both rather hypocritical and philosophically incoherent.

Expand full comment
Mark Miles's avatar

“Despite some excesses, environmentalism has always held the scientific as well as moral high grounds.”

I think in the actual historical record, environmentalism has always had a strong strain of anti-human sentiment, starting with the Malthus, through the eugenics era, through the Club of Rome, to current versions of misanthropic environmentalism.

The current iterations are just secular versions of the Fallen State narrative, an ancient cosmology of Western thought manifest in the apocalypse eschatology of the Judeo-Christian culture. This worldview always include fantasies of massive human suffering as punishment for offending God, in this case tampering with the optimal state of nature. And it always includes a path to salvation for the select few, in this case through AI.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

I wouldn't put Malthus and eugenics in the same boat as the Club of Rome. And environmentalists are not invoking AI salvation, that's the trans-humanists. That said, the environmental movement does have limitations. But it seems hard to me to deny them both the scientific and the moral point.

Expand full comment
Mark Miles's avatar

I’m curious about what leads you to conclude that the environmental movement occupies a moral high ground in the global picture.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

The simple and undeniable fact that we are the cause of environmental collapse, that this is hurting millions, and that it is the result of greed that benefits few.

Expand full comment
Mark Miles's avatar

OK. Thanks for the reply.

Expand full comment
Nicolás Bayona's avatar

There seems to be a real problem with trans-humanism as a new opium of the masses, being as it is dangerously adopted by multi-millionaire jerks and potentially millions of ambitious smart and unwise young people. Anti-humanism, however, is so depressing that it'll just probably die out with its childless promoters ;-)

Expand full comment
Andrew Ralston's avatar

Much like the Shakers found, it's hard to build a society on childlessness.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Right, but anti-humanists would argue that's a good thing.

Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Nicolas, yup, I think that's a fair assessment...

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Dec 15, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Massimo Pigliucci's avatar

Interesting possibility, but it doesn't change my basic point: Nature doesn't care, because values are a human thing. The value added would be in our own eyes, and for our own benefit, aesthetic, if not practical.

Expand full comment