Bostrom, "Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up," 12 Brief Sketches of Some Objections and Replies

by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Posthumanism, Entry Directory]
[Bostrom's "Why I Want to be a Posthuman", Entry Directory]

Do we still object to posthumanity?

Nick Bostrom

"Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up"

XII. Brief Sketches of Some Objections and Replies

[Much of the following is quotation.]

Objection: One might think that it would be bad for a person to be the only posthuman being since a solitary posthuman would not have any equals to interact with.

Reply: It is not necessary that there be only one posthuman. (20)

Bostrom presumes that there would be a posthuman society that functions as smoothly as does our human one.

Objection: The accumulated cultural treasures of humanity might lose their appeal to somebody whose capacities greatly exceeded those of the humans who produced them. More generally, challenges that seemed interesting to the person while she was still human might become trivial and therefore uninteresting to her when she acquires posthuman capacities. This could deprive posthumans of the good of meaningful achievements.

Reply: It is not clear why the ability to appreciate what is more complex or subtle should make it impossible to appreciate simpler things. Somebody who has learnt to appreciate Schoenberg may still delight in simple folk songs, even bird songs. A fan of Cézanne may still enjoy watching a sunrise. (21)

Normal human challenges might become too easy for posthumans. But that is all the more reason for posthumans to take on greater challenges.

Objection: A sense of vulnerability, dependence, and limitedness can sometimes add to the value of a life or help a human being grow as a person, especially along moral or spiritual dimensions.

Reply: A posthuman could be vulnerable, dependent, and limited. (21-22)

Posthumans as well endure existential limitations.

Objection: The very desire to overcome one’s limits by the use of technological means rather than through one’s own efforts and hard work could be seen as expressive of a failure to open oneself to the unbidden, gifted nature of life, or as a failure to accept oneself as one is, or as self-hate.

Reply: This paper makes no claims about the expressive significance of a desire to become posthuman, or about whether having such a desire marks one as a worse person, whether necessarily or statistically. The concern here rather is about whether being posthuman could be good, and whether it could be good for us to become posthuman. (22)

Bostrom is not here concerned with bad motives for becoming posthuman. He is more interested in evaluating whether or not it is a good idea to become posthuman.

Objection: A capacity obtained through a technological shortcut would not have the same value as one obtained through self-discipline and sacrifice.

Reply: I have argued that the possession of posthuman capacities could be extremely valuable even were the capacities are effortlessly obtained. It is consistent with what I have said that achieving a capacity through a great expenditure of blood, sweat, and tears would further increase its value. I have not addressed what would be the best way of becoming posthuman. We may note, however, that is unlikely that we could in practice become posthuman other than via recourse to advanced technology.

If we obtain a posthuman ability by our own efforts, that could increase its value. But if we obtain the posthuman ability by means of technology, that would not decrease its value. And, having that ability itself is valuable.

Objection: The value of achieving a goal like winning a gold medal in the Olympics is reduced and perhaps annulled if the goal is achieved through inappropriate means (e.g. cheating). The value of possessing a capacity likewise depends on how the capacity was acquired. Even though having posthuman capacities might be extremely valuable if the capacities had been obtained by appropriate means, there are no humanly possible means that are appropriate. Any means by which humans could obtain posthuman capacities would negate the value of having such capacities.

Reply: The analogy with winning an Olympic medal is misleading.

While it might apply in sports, consider when we are sick. We do not think that the way we get better needs to be difficult to justify our improved health.

But one might say that the goals become morally tainted when the means of attaining those goals are immoral. So consider for example all the horrific scientific experiments the Nazi's performed on Jews. This produced a body of scientific knowledge that could be highly useful to the medical community. However, we reject this science because the means of obtaining it were immoral.

Bostrom counters that these are only special cases. Posthuman enhancements will probably not use such immoral means as the Nazi experiments.

Objection: Posthuman talent sets the stage for posthuman failure. Having great potential might make for a great life if the potential is realized and put to some worthwhile use, but it could equally make for a tragic life if the potential is wasted. It is better to live well with modest capacities than to life poorly with outstanding capacities.

Reply: We do not lament that a human is born talented on grounds that it is possible that she will waste her talent. (23)

Posthumans most probably will use their talents, just as humans do. If any do not, it would be an exceptional case.

[Next entry in this series.]

[Directory of other entries in this series.]

Nick Bostrom. "Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up." Forthcoming in Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity, eds. Bert Gordijn and Ruth Chadwick (Springer), 2007.

PDF available at:

http://www.nickbostrom.com/posthuman.pdf