postmodernbible

Trends, Transhumanism, Digital Theology

At the moment, I am confined to doing research-related work. Confined because the docs think this is better for my health than being engaged in some "other stuff". I am happy to take the medicine and find it invigorating and exciting! Good stuff.

So, along with the fun (???) of writing research applications and bid proposals and having meetings left right and centre, I am trying to focus on reading some of those books which I have had piling up while running around doing that 'other stuff'. I'm intrigued by transhumanism - see my mentions in the past of Amped and Robopocalypse, of Cory Doctorow's Rapture of the Nerds and Little Brother (available free from link) and Baroness Greenfield's (awful) 2121.

So, I'm really enjoiying the articles in The Transhumanist Reader. It's good. And the articles are relatively short with large bibliographies!  This just ends up in being an exercise in hyperreading in that you shoot off to explore something else.  But I am enjoying it all the same.  The one today was by Natasha Vita-More (see here for more of her stuff) on "Art and Transhumanism" - so much potential about what the human essence is - is it contained in body or visualised in art - are we what we are made of or could we exist if we were made in something else. Is Michaelangelo's David only real if it is made in marble - is it as real in gold, or silicon, or electricity? What's the essence of things?

After a heads up from Bex, (@drbexl) I've also been watching a new Youtube series, H+ - not Bible Society's hermeneutics course, but rather Humanity+ - an exploration of transhumanism - it involves the injection of a nanocomputer, and viruses, and lots of dystopia - but I'll let you find out for yourself. But what I would give for some utopia or extropia!!! Nobody seems to like where we are going. Dystopia everywhere!

And on that theme, my friend Seymour (@seeingmore) asked if I had seen the tube map future trends thing - I did a search and found this brilliant map from What's Next. It is great fun - if a little dystopic (as usual). It does some good thinking although I do wonder at how technology seems to do nothing but compexify everything and make things worse and worse and worse. I thought technological advances were supposed to make things better.

Here is the map:

http://www.trustmarquesolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/Trends_2010_XCX_print.pdf

Have fun!

Pete

Transhumanism...is human enhancement anathema to Christian theology?

Just a brief introduction to this theme as it seems to keep cropping up in my research and my thinking.

On the face of it, it seems to be very unChristian. I mean God has created us as we are and so how could we contemplate humans being enhanced. We are made in the image of God why would we want to move beyond that. Although of course that is a massive category error - image does not mean physical image - it's not that God looks like a human being but that we are made to love, to be in relationship, community, to engage and to be like God. Human nature is most human when it is divine. (So much to unpack there...)

But you only need to go to a historical tomb or burial site to realise that humanity is evolving still - we're growing taller, fatter, different. Our brains do different things nowadays. Indeed, we are made to adapt and that's why humanity can survive in both extreme heat and extreme cold, in extreme drought and extreme wet. Humans are always enhancing themselves.

We have glasses and hearing aids, prosthetic limbs and plastic surgery. Indeed, we go further these days with gastric and cardiac implants. We lop off pieces of the brain in extreme cases of brain-centred illness. Some of us were our computers and for others they might as well be glued to our palms in any case. Most people recognise that in a few years, we will have implanted chips (see Susan Greenfield's awful 2121 for one view, or Cory Doctorow's Rapture of the Nerds for another, or even his Little Brother (downloadable free from here) for a third...you do know he co-edits Boing Boing, yes???). Google Glass will soon be Google ContactLens and then Google RetinaInplant.  

Are we not made to change, adapt, be enhanced. If God has created us with the ability to co-create, perhaps transhumanism is a God-given gift for us.  Although I can see the comments on how awful this would be!

I was sorry not to be at Greenbelt to hear the talk between Chris Powell, Luke Mason, Steve Fuller and Sarah Chan.  I've downloaded it and along with reading the Transhumanist Reader at the moment, I'm going to have a list and come back to this theme.  Hence this is a just a starter for ten.  

Ahhh...must see the TedTalks on Transhumanism too...

I thought I'd close by giving you the Transhumanist Manifesto...interesting stuff. If Christianity is about life in all its fullness (John 10:10), perhaps there is much more to talk about here...

The Transhumanist Manifesto:

1. Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
2. We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
3. We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
4. Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
5. Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
6. Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
7. We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
8. We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

The Transhumanist Declaration was originally crafted in 1998 by an international group of authors: Doug Baily, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita-More, Eugene Leitl, Bernie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, and Nick Bostrom. This Transhumanist Declaration has been modified over the years by several authors and organizations. It was adopted by the Humanity+ Board in March, 2009.

 

p.s. Max More, "The Philosophy of Transhumanism" in Tranhumanism Reader, p.8:

"Since rationalism is an approach to acquiring knowledge and says nothing about the content of knowledge, it is possible in principle for a transhumanist to hold some religious beliefs. And some do. The content of soem religious beliefs is easier to reconcile with transhumanism than the content of others. Christian transhumanists, while not completely unknown, are very rare (and I know of none who are fundamentalists, and such a combination would surely indicate deep confusion)...Those with strong religious views tended to regard transhumanism as competing with their beliefs."

Reflections on the Bible as a sacred text and the iBible as not!

I enjoy using an iPad. It is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive devices yet invented. In one light-weight, travel-sized tablet the user has everything at his fingertips. That includes not only the typical social media apps that every user has on his smartphone, but also countless tools that have characterized the laptop or even the home television.

And yet I am finding that cutting-edge, 21st-century technology is subtly but quickly changing important, even indispensable aspects of Christianity. Consider just one example: the ever-growing tendency to substitute a physical, visible Bible (remember . . . the ones where you lick your finger and turn the pages) with a tablet in the pulpit.

To clarify, I am not against pastors using a tablet in the pulpit for, say, sermon notes. Rather, I'm concerned about replacing the physical Bible with a tablet in the pulpit. As the pastor enters the pulpit to bring the Word of God to the people of God, no hard copy of the Bible is to be found in his hand, gracing the top of the podium, visible to the entire congregation as the book at the center of attention. Instead, the congregation sees a tablet. While this may seem harmless enough, I believe there are several potential dangers this subtle shift generates.

via thegospelcoalition.org

This is a really good piece exploring the possible impact of electronic bibles in the contemporary church. I was talking yesterday with some people about the sacred nature of the Bible. We were exploring whether we need to do an experiment where we analyse the psychological impact of destroying a real bible vs. deleting an app. The latter will have much less of an impact than the former. We associate sacredness with bibles - they are sacral objects. But apps aren't. But some muslims treat iQu'rans with much higher dignity arguing that the phone containing the iQu'ran must be treated as a Qu'ran itself - placed highest on the table, not covered, carried near the heart and certainly not in a back trouser pocket. In other words, the sacrality of the sacred text is transferred to the electronic device. I am not yet aware of any Christian who would take that view. Not that may be because Christians do not have the same understanding of the sacredness of their sacred text (Christians tend to see Christ as the centre of faith rather than the text - so Islam tends to give the Qu'ran the same dignity Christians give to Christ - much debate here!). But that is not the whole story since if we were to destroy a Bible text in public, we would be sanctioned. CODEC have tried to get a Digital Bible exhibit in a sacred place and its been turned down because one of the potential exhibits does just that!

Intriguing to ponder what is really going on here...

Pete

p.s. Another insightful view on online vs paper books/bibles can be found here: http://sipech.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/why-i-prefer-a-paper-bible/ 

p.p.s. Bryan Bibb, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Furman University, has also written on this, here: http://bryanbibb.com/archive/2013/09/13/sacred-texts-and-digital-bibles/