On Buddhist Transhumanism

[Javi]

Transhumanism is an intellectual movement which promotes certain techno-progressivist views on human enhancement and includes thinkers like Aubrey de Grey, Ray Kurzweil and David Pearce. This short video introduces the three main revolutionary advances that transhumanists seek: super longevity (aka life extension), super intelligence (including Artificial intelligence, cyborgization and genetic engineering) and super wellbeing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY

The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the World Transhumanist Association (later Humanity+), gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:

1. 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.
2. 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.

In 1990, Max More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy, and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:

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 [...]

David Pearce, a key thinker in this movement, published The Hedonistic Imperative which focuses on the abolishing of all suffering through technological means, arguing that "[o]ur post-human successors will rewrite the vertebrate genome, redesign the global ecosystem, and abolish suffering throughout the living world."

A related idea is the idea of the Singularity, which is most strongly defended by Ray Kurzweil, and is the "hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization. According to this hypothesis, an upgradable intelligent agent (such as a computer running software-based artificial general intelligence) would enter a 'runaway reaction' of self-improvement cycles, with each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an intelligence explosion and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that would, qualitatively, far surpass all human intelligence." (Wikipedia)

While in the 90s this was a sort of fringe movement, we are seeing more mainstream thinkers and public intellectuals discussing the topic of the singularity and AI explosion, such as the philosophers David Chalmers, Nick Bostrom and Jaron Lanier. Likewise there is also a backlash now against these ideas, either by people who think that it is feasible and that it will lead to the end of humanity as we know it and hence should be stopped, or by people who think that it is not feasible: see for example "The Relativistic Brain: How it works and why it cannot be simulated by a Turing machine by Miguel Nicolelis and Ronald Cicurel

While there are a lot of issues here, and alot of questions and topics in this intellectual movement, I figured it would be important to discuss what the role and future of Buddhism would be in the far future, even if there is no singularity, no superintelligent general AI or perfect immortality, we know that at least some of the technology being proposed by these folks is possible - cyborgs, genetically engineered people and more advanced ways of ending suffering are most likely on the horizon - and perhaps much more, how will Buddhism deal with all of this? Should Buddhists promote some of these new technologies since they might lead to less suffering? What will be the role of the Dhamma in the future posthuman era?

Interestingly enough, there are folks doing just that at the moment, Buddhist transhumanists are already beginning to promote their ideas.

The key author here is James Hughes - a former Buddhist monk and Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Executive Director who has written a book titled "Cyborg Buddha: Using Neurotechnology to Become Better People".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hug ... ciologist)

Here's the IEET website titled "Cyborg Buddha" with relevant blog content. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/cyborgbuddha

The site includes content by two other transhuman Buddhists, Mike LaTorra a Zen priest and George Dvorsky.

James has been interviewed by tricycle and here another available interview on the future thinkers podcast:
http://futurethinkers.org/cyborg-buddha ... ghtenment/

He mainly argues for taking Buddhist insights into the nature of the self, enlightenment and compassion, and using future human enhancement technologies to better implement Buddhist values and goals. Agreeing with him, Mike LaTorre writes: “[T]here is nothing in the teachings of the Buddha that forbids the inclusion of science and technology in Buddhist practice”.

The inevitable rejoinder from those who disagree has already begun as well, as seen in this essay: If You See a Cyborg in the Road, Kill the Buddha: Against Transcendental Transhumanism by Woody Evans:
http://jetpress.org/v24/evans.htm

A stream in transhumanism argues that the aims of Buddhism and transhumanists are akin. It is the case that transhumanism contains religious tropes, and its parallels to Christianity are readily apparent. It does not share much, however, with Buddhism’s Zen tradition. Zen tends to focus its practitioners on becoming fully present and human, not on becoming transcendent, super-powered, or posthuman. This paper explores some of the tensions between transhumanism and Buddhism through the lens of Zen, and suggests that transhumanist Buddhists should be careful not to conflate moments of spiritual enlightenment with permanent techno-social transcendence.

So, the battlelines are being drawn in the future arguments and debates between pro and anti transhumanist Buddhists, what do you guys think about all this? It is quite a complicated issue, because it is really many different issues and technologies we are talking about, not just one and also technologies can be used in different ways. Also, we do not know the actual feasibility of these technologies, and some of them are quite fanciful (mind uploading, superintelligent AI, etc) - as well as not knowing the full impact of them. I find myself agreeing that yes, technology should be used to end suffering as much as possible, but that we need to be really careful and mindful in their application and use, because unintended consequences could lead to more suffering not less. When it comes to the more fanciful things like the Singularity I am more skeptical, it honestly seems more like a new religion, as Jaron Lanier says, its a "rapture of the nerds", a belief based more on fact than on belief. Lanier, a computer scientist, has written a critique of modern web 2.0 culture in his "You are not a gadget". This book has interesting parallels with a recent book by a Buddhist writer: Reinventing the Wheel: A Buddhist Response to the Information Age by Peter Hershock. This book takes a Buddhist perspective on how digital media is colonizing and appropriating our conscious experience.

Ultimately, I forced to agree that technology is a useful tool, but it is not the path itself, and I cannot see future technologies as ending all dukkha, only dhamma can do that. This is because my understanding of dukkha is that it is a pattern that is embedded in phenomenal conscious experience, and while technology can helpfully alter that experience, it cannot do the work that has to be done to transform conscious experience from within, that can only be done by consciousness working on itself from the inside so to speak.

When it comes to enhancement technologies, I am not against them, but I do not see them as ultimately fixing dukkha, only providing possible aid for future practitioners (such as more years in their lifetime to practice, better mental and physical health, which are all very important!) - however, they might also simply be a source of future distractions and sense pleasures (virtual reality games and pornography to get lost in for years on end). So some might be good, and others might not. As Buddhists we should be mindful of the technology we choose to consume and support as consumers.

[ToVincent]

...

What you have to understand is that Buddha was a conservative person. His reaction to the Upaniṣadic revolution of equating Atman with Brahman, is resumed in his reaction and answer to the question from the ignorant monk in SN 22.82:
Anattakatāni kammāni kathamattānaṃ phusissantī”ti?
What self, then, will deeds done by what is nonself affect?”

No continuous self says Buddha. No Āt-man (thinking continuously-wandering) - No Bṛh-man (thinking expansive-pervasive).
No continuity - No pervasiveness.
No self in this world. No self in paṭiccasamuppada.
And definitely not an immortal man, that will get its kick in the (Buddhist) "world" (SN 35.82 & 35.116). This kind of immortal ātta was not even conceived by the Upaniṣadic Brahmins.

Buddhism can summarize in "get the hell out of this world".
It is called the escape (nissāraṇa). And it can be summarized as follow:
The subduing and abandoning of desire and interest for xxxx -This is the escape from xxxx.
yo xxxx chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ, idaṃ xxxx nissaraṇan”ti.
SN 22.82

So, I suppose that anyone that espouses the construct of an immortal man, driven by desires (chanda) and interests (rāga), would be qualified by Buddha as: a senseless man, obtuse and ignorant, with his mind dominated by craving (SN 22.82) - (dull faculties,” 鈍根 dùn’gēn, and “ignorant,” 無知 wú zhī, one with “evil wrong view,” 惡耶見 è’yējiàn - SĀ 58).
And that is what Buddha thought about the ignorant monk thinking about an Upaniṣadic ātta. Let alone an hedonist, that sees an immortal ātta in this "world" - augmented in his sensual pleasures.
Ignorant - Period.

In other words, transhumanism is transhumanism - and Buddhism is Buddhism. Different kamma. Each one its own.

[Coëmgenu]

...

What you have to understand is that Buddha was a conservative person. His reaction to the Upaniṣadic revolution of equating Atman with Brahman, is resumed in his reaction to the question to the stupid monk in SN 22.82:
Anattakatāni kammāni kathamattānaṃ phusissantī”ti?
What self, then, will deeds done by what is nonself affect?”

At the same time, did the Buddha teach not to study medicine, on the grounds that suffering as much as possible is conducive to Buddhadharma? A lot of transhumanist discourse is simply about the ramifications of what would happen if we developed the means to cure most illnesses etc., reverse most causes of death, etc., via what is essentially medicinal technology, or technology used in the name of medicine.

I don't think its so clear cut.

[Javi]

Hello ToVincent

I would argue the opposite actually, that the Buddha was quite a radical and flexible thinker, who introduced new ideas or radically transformed old ones.

Either way I think the Buddhist response is to take a middle way position on this, look at things issue by issue, and withhold judgement on technologies which are merely speculative while mindfully studying the effects of presently available ones and seeing if they contribute to a dhammic life.

[ToVincent]

Hi Javi,

I would argue the opposite actually, that the Buddha was quite a radical and flexible thinker, who introduced new ideas or radically transformed old ones.

Sure - But in a pretty conservative way, as far as not letting that continuous and pervasive construct of an atman-brahman stuff to get in the way.
Paṭiccasamuppada was his radical new idea. However, keeping Atman out of it was a quite conservative idea.
Sāṃkhya did the latter and became an astika-mata (orthodox school). While Buddha did not even bother to talk about Ātman; for his concern was to unbind from suffering - His concern was to escape; not to speculate about the whereabouts of Ātman.
Escape, like this, you know:

“There is a snare moving in the sky,
says Mara.
Something mental (mānaso) which moves about
By means of which I’ll catch you yet:
You won’t escape me, ascetic!”
The Blessed One:
“Forms, sounds, tastes, odours,
And delightful tactile objects—
Desire for these has vanished in me:
You’re defeated, End-maker!”
SN 4.15

So the question is "what could probably mean and be a "dhammic life"?!?
Where did Buddha talk about a "dhammic life"?
For what I know from my reading , nibbana is the goal of Buddhism - And nibbana is not of this world (the Buddhist "world"). And it seems that it is nibbana that counts - not the intermediate fancied ways.
And for what I know, Buddha didn't need technology to reach liberation & nibbana.

Now, I am not against transhumanism. It's a kamma among others. It's their kamma. But I doubt that it could be called "bhuddist" - as long as form and senses are involved. Let alone formless, space, consciousness, perception & feelings, etc.
As long as you are in form and senses, I don't even think that you could call yourself a "buddhist".
Cyborg buddha!
Let's be serious Pal.
These wishful thinkings might be cool; but they are not Buddhism. Hell, no.

[Coëmgenu]

Now, I am not against transhumanism. It's a kamma among others. It's their kamma. But I doubt that it could be called "bhuddist" - as long as form and senses are involved. Let alone formless, space, consciousness, perception & feelings, etc.
As long as you are in form and senses, I don't even think that you could call yourself a "buddhist".
Cyborg buddha!
Let's be serious Pal.
These wishful thinkings might be cool; but they are not Buddhism. Hell, no.

It is a very real possibility, although not necessarily the most likely, that we will invent new medicines and medicinal technology to extend our lifespans and attempt to improve our quality of life, I think that medicinal sciences are striving for those ends presently now as we speak, and the discourses of transhumanism look forward to the possibility of that, and how that will effect the real lived lives of people living under those conditions. One can do this equally as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist without it diminishing one's Buddhism or non-Buddhism.

[ToVincent]

we will invent new medicines and medicinal technology to extend our lifespans and attempt to improve our quality of life, ...

What do you mean?
I don't see what that has to do with transhumanism (and/or Buddhism)?
Do you mean that if you are pro-technology, it means that you are buddhist - and more than that a transhumanist-buddhist?
Buddha did not talk about "improving the quality of life", by improving medecine, for instance. Otherwise, he would have talked about ayurveda.
Buddha did not talk about the "pursuit of hapiness". George Washington did...

Buddha talked about leaving the "pursuit of hapiness", for a more elevated bliss (ānanda).
May I repeat what Buddha said above:
"Forms, sounds, tastes, odours,
And delightful tactile objects—
Desire for these has vanished in me".

That does not sound too transhumanist to me.

And gee; I am for progress in science and medecine like any sensed human on this planet; like Buddha would have been in his time also - that does not mean that I am a transhumanist.
You are almost telling me: "if you are pro-science and technology, then you surely are a transhumanist and a buddhist".
No sir.

And I'm off with that.
And in the meantime, I am going to tell my children to buy some Pampers stock on Wall Street.
A sound transhumanist's stock.

[Coëmgenu]

You are almost telling me: "if you are pro-science and technology, then you surely are a transhumanist and a buddhist".
No sir.

No, I am simply saying that if you are likewise oriented, you could be a transhumanist and a Buddhist. As in, transhumanist and Buddhists are not mutually exclusive things one could be, if there is even such a thing as a person who calls themselves a "tranhumanist" as their identity. No one "has" to be anything.

[Javi]

So the question is "what could probably mean and be a "dhammic life"?!?
Where did Buddha talk about a "dhammic life"?
For what I know from my reading , nibbana is the goal of Buddhism - And nibbana is not of this world (the Buddhist "world"). And it seems that it is nibbana that counts - not the intermediate fancied ways.
And for what I know, Buddha didn't need technology to reach liberation & nibbana.

Now, I am not against transhumanism. It's a kamma among others. It's their kamma. But I doubt that it could be called "bhuddist" - as long as form and senses are involved. Let alone formless, space, consciousness, perception & feelings, etc.
As long as you are in form and senses, I don't even think that you could call yourself a "buddhist".
Cyborg buddha!
Let's be serious Pal.
These wishful thinkings might be cool; but they are not Buddhism. Hell, no.

Your post is all over the place. I am not sure what you are arguing against.

Sure the Buddha didn't need technology, but times change, and the possibility of future technological progress has to be confronted by the Buddhist sangha eventually. The sangha made the collective decision to start writing down the suttas for example, this is adaptation to new technology. Printing the suttas. Using the internet (sutta central), are all positive ways which technology has helped the sangha. To totally ignore the possible impact new radical technologies could have on the dhamma and its propagation is a mistake.

Cyborgs are not wishful thinking, there are already people with all sorts of prosthetics, implants and artificial organs.

Genetic engineering is already a possibility since the invention of CRISPR (google it).

These are just two examples.

As long as you are in form and senses, I don't even think that you could call yourself a "buddhist".

I don't want to derail the thread, but I wonder just what exactly you mean by this statement. Clearly one can be Buddhist and not have yet abandoned all sense objects, since most Buddhists are not yet arahants.

[Way~Farer]

This is because my understanding of dukkha is that it is a pattern that is embedded in phenomenal conscious experience, and while technology can helpfully alter that experience, it cannot do the work that has to be done to transform conscious experience from within, that can only be done by consciousness working on itself from the inside so to speak.

That nails it, in my view. Provided transhumanism is informed by that understanding, then it is likely to be OK.

Applying science and technology to alleviating human suffering, is one thing, and generally, a good thing. I don't think it is possible to deny the immense benefits of medical science, for example. Science can also be, and often is, beneficial, although it doesn't have to be; it's a two-edged sword, and must be directed rightly, to be of benefit. And what constitutes 'directing it rightly' is not necessarily a scientific question.

I think the problem with transhumanism is that it doesn't properly appreciate humanism. It doesn't really understand the condition which it seeks to transform, which is 'the human condition', with all of its attendent problems and boons.

It is significant that in Buddhism, 'gaining a human birth' is understood as an incredibly rare and precious thing. This is so, even despite the inevitability of suffering; because the Buddha appeared in human form, and in human form one can learn and apply the teachings.

To do that, requires an appreciation of the actual nature of the human condition, and I don't think many of the trans-humanists do that, because their understanding is somewhat skewed by the culture in which they're situated. Western technological culture tends on the whole to reject the idea of 'higher truths', and instead to project such ideas outward onto nature, or onto the Cosmos. 'Cosmos is all there ever is, and will be', said Carl Sagan. So there's a missing dimension, from the Buddhist viewpoint, which is the sapiential dimension ('sapience' meaning 'wisdom', which is jñāna or nana in Buddhism). Search all over the cosmos for it, you won't find that dimension. And why?

I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.

AN 4.45

[ToVincent]

...

I don't have anything against transhumanism; as long as it is shared, and not mandatory.

But the gist of Buddhism is to get the hell out of the world.
I don't really see how you can manage to be a transhumanist and a Buddhist.

Do you mean that you are attempting to reach the goal of nibbana through technnology. That you are going to replace ascetism and withdrawal from the world of senses and forms, by some sort of technological trick?

Looks like that "zorba the buddha" stuff to me.
What that could probably mean?
What could probably mean "buddhist"-transhumanism?
Water and fire don't mix. One of them has to take one's leave.

Anyway, its your kamma. Good for you.
Just wanted to clarify mine.

Be good.

[Javi]

...

I don't have anything against transhumanism; as long as it is shared, and not mandatory.

But the gist of Buddhism is to get the hell out of the world.
I don't really see how you can manage to be a transhumanist and a Buddhist.

Do you mean that you are attempting to reach the goal of nibbana through technnology. That you are going to replace ascetism and withdrawal from the world of senses and forms, by some sort of technological trick?

Looks like that "zorba the buddha" stuff to me.
What that could probably mean?
What could probably mean "buddhist"-transhumanism?
Water and fire don't mix. One of them has to take one's leave.

Anyway, its your kamma. Good for you.
Just wanted to clarify mine.

Be good.

Clearly you didn't read my post carefully and are just jumping to conclusions, that is not at all what I said in my post.

[Coëmgenu]

But the gist of Buddhism is to get the hell out of the world.
I don't really see how you can manage to be a transhumanist and a Buddhist.

I think most people of transhumanist persuasion in their outlooks, and who also are Buddhist, are using the "transhumanism" definition that Javi gave here:

2. 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.

It is this area of exposure to transhumanist dialogue that interests me most. It is also the least "science fictiony" in its outward presentation, because it deals with the here-and-now of developing technologies.

[JMGinPDX]

...

I don't have anything against transhumanism; as long as it is shared, and not mandatory.
But the gist of Buddhism is to get the hell out of the world.
I don't really see how you can manage to be a transhumanist and a Buddhist.

Considering an adequate definition of transhumanism as "using advanced, as-of-yet unknown or undeveloped technology to overcome the physical limitations of human existence," one COULD argue that Buddhists might embrace the technological advances...

After all, what better way to achieve nibbana in this lifetime than to extend one's lifetime so one has more time to practice?
Or, would that simply give us more time to be lazy, to get wrapped up in the defilements, and avoid being diligent and mindful?

[BasementBuddhist]

I've been thinking a lot about this recently. I think that from a Buddhist perspective, Transhumanism doesn't change much. First of all, from a buddhist perspective, I think humanity as a concept does not exist. We make it up. To go beyond it, it would have to be something that inherently exists. Nothing does.

You can make the body immortal, but it will eventually die. Nothing is permanent. Even if you make the body/brain super smart, unaging, and give it godly powers, it still must die. Accident or suicide. If you read sci-fi novels back when sci-fi was about being human and the destiny of mankind, this is commonly discussed. If "you" are infinite, then eventually you will enter a time where you will do something that causes your death through suicide. Statistical fact. or an accident will overwhelm you. The universe will die. Technology will progress beyond the point where there is no brain or body and nothing that could be considered a self in the first place. If this is so, which it HAS to be, then the dhamma is the same, it just plays out over a greater length of time between rebirths. If rebirths even happen. What is immortality if there is no soul?

Besides, there really is no inherent self. "We" are but an idea warped in skin responding to a bunch of processes that "we" are actually the same as. So this idea of living forever, when there is no "we" in the first place does not make sense. If you get the body/brain to live forever, than what have you really accomplished?