A Human-Centric Future: Embracing Humanism in a Technological Age
A lot of humans are feeling very down on humanity these days. Perhaps you’ve encountered them, or even find yourself in that place. The sentiment is growing: “Humans are destroying the planet—causing climate change, making other species go extinct.” Some argue that we are even polluting the cosmos, with space junk and plans to colonize the moon. A darker conclusion some draw is that the world would be better off without us.
This rising anti-humanism is exemplified by a recent inquiry in my philosophical advice column, Your Mileage May Vary. A reader expressed their disgust, saying, “I’m disgusted to be a human.” My response reminded them that vilifying humanity is neither new nor particularly enlightened; it absolves us from accountability and failing to demand improvement from ourselves.
This distaste for humanity, however, is also driving the rise of transhumanism. This movement advocates for the use of technology to evolve our species into a new form, often referred to as Homo sapiens 2.0. Transhumanists—from Silicon Valley tech aficionados to academic philosophers—envision a future where humanity is augmented with technology: brain chips, AI-guided moral decision-making, and even minds uploaded to the cloud. The promise is a utopian future, free from suffering and brimming with perfection.
The Roots of Transhumanism’s Allure
To delve deeper into why disillusionment is propelling some towards transhumanism, I consulted Shannon Vallor, a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh and author of The AI Mirror. Vallor is a committed humanist and offers an uncensored perspective.
She notes that the popularity of transhumanism stems from a fragmented and alienating world due to digital technologies and social media. In an era where people feel busier, lonelier, and more uncertain about the future, there is a diminished faith in humanity. Rather than exploring the root causes of these feelings—like the breakdown of social communities—some are normalizing a sense of anti-humanism.
“Instead of viewing it as a symptom of our societal malaise,” she elaborates, “there’s a push to treat it as an enlightened viewpoint.” This view insinuates that humanism is outdated and overly romantic, dismissing the notion of exceptionalism in our species.
Confronting the Fallacies of Anti-Humanism
Vallor argues that while anti-humanist sentiments may sound appealing, they are based on a misconception of what it means to be human. Recognizing that humans are part of a larger living system is crucial; our value is intertwined with that of other species. Thus, casting aside humanity is misguided.
In this context, the classical humanism that emerged from the Renaissance and Enlightenment falls short of addressing contemporary issues. Vallor argues we need a new humanism—one that acknowledges historical biases and promotes a more inclusive vision of what it means to be human.
Redefining the Vision of Humanity
Vallor challenges the conventional humanist response to technology, which often centers on preserving fixed traits that supposedly define humanity. Although alleviating problems like disease is vital, she argues that we shouldn’t shy away from considering how technology can augment us as a species. Humans have always evolved; from using tools to adopting new lifestyles, change is inherent.
A more expansive vision, as Vallor explains, requires grounding ourselves in sustainability, solidarity, and mutual care. “Survival itself is a positive vision,” she insists, noting that fostering resilience in our communities offers an immense opportunity for growth.
Crafting a Future with Diverse Intelligences
Exciting prospects exist for a future defined by diverse forms of intelligence—whether human, AI, or animal. Vallor expresses her enjoyment of exploring the potential for varied intelligences, suggesting that rather than a threat, this diversity could enhance our collective experience.
“Indeed, I’m a sci-fi nerd,” she admits. “There is nothing about my humanism that blocks a future where humans share the planet with diverse kinds of intelligence.” However, Vallor cautions against allowing commercial interests to exploit this excitement for profit, as evidenced by tech companies presenting flawed AI as genuine minds.
Philosophical Underpinnings and the Present Moment
Vallor mentions a need to pause certain philosophical discussions about humanity’s future, especially those that prioritize abstract ideas over immediate social needs. She advocates for promoting an ethos of care and sustainability rather than ignoring current challenges for the sake of a utopian vision.
“We need to address our present circumstances, not distract ourselves with grand dreams,” she says. This pragmatic view can help refocus societal efforts on creating a supportive environment where creative energies can emerge.
As we confront the complexities of our existence, it is essential to foster a positive vision for humanity—one that embraces our shared responsibility for the future. Acknowledging our interdependence with each other and the natural world can open pathways to innovative solutions and ultimately a more compassionate society.
For further insights into humanism and its relation to technology, check the complete discussion here.
Swati Sharma, Vox Editor-in-Chief
Image Credit: www.vox.com
