Posthumanism is an attitude on how to deal with the limitations of the human form. It is a vision of how to move beyond those limits by the radical use of technological and other means. Let's examine this attitude to get a better idea of what it's all about.
To start, there is nothing special about the current form of humanity. This includes not only social systems and cultures, but also the organs of the body. This does NOT mean these various organs and systems are unnecessary, but that they leave room for change and improvement. For example, there is no reason why our average life-span should be around 70 years and not 200 or more. There is no compelling reason to accept things as they are. There is no reason to accept 20/20 vision as the final goal of all corrections of vision. Why not expand vision further, and into other parts of the spectrum, such as the infrared?
This can be applied to hearing, physical strength, speed, intelligence, and many other aspects of human existence. In essence, this very human desire to improve is a pillar for posthumanism. The latter merely differs with the common inclination in that it takes it to an extreme.
Another base is human diversity in its broadest possible sense. This includes the diversity of goals and means of reaching them. This form of diversity is largely responsible for our complex social and economic systems. In posthumanism this diversity is very important, hence the slogan "moving in clades." A clade is a biological family of species having a common ancestor. Birds, as a group, are a good example. Birds all share a common origin and all modern birds descended from this single beginning. All their diversity springs from evolutionary changes from this common origin. Clades, in this way, mean the unity of origin and the diversity of descent. The slogan emphasizes that while we come from common origins we will move on differing paths, toward differing goals.
The slogan also implies that this diversity does not rule out cooperation between the different. Our current societies are proof that many different individuals, with differing languages, cultures, ideologies, religions, temperaments, and backgrounds, can get along and cooperate. This is the basis of trade. Another is Earth's total ecosystem. According to current biological theories, all life originated from one common ancestor. Even with the so called "struggle to survive" there is still much cooperation (in a nonconscious way) between the various life forms.
The third base of posthumanism is techno-transcendence. This big word simply means using technology to overcome our limits, to transcend. This blends very well with the first two attitudes covered because any amount of change - even if tiny - will add up after awhile. For instance, the addition of oxygen -- so vital to our lives today -- to this planet's atmosphere over 1.7 billion years ago caused the extinction of many species as well as opened up opportunities for new life forms to exploit. The actual process was an extremely slow one, taking over 600 million years to complete, according to current estimates. The slow pace still led to major changes. Today, of course, people take this change for granted.
The few applications listed above illustrate posthumanism somewhat. Delving deeper into these will flesh out this skeleton. Much research going on today centers on studies on the mind in fields such as artificial intelligence, ethology, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. The new interdisciplinary study of the mind is called cognitive science, and welds these fields in an attempt to grasp the big picture. Much more research needs to be done before minds can be re- engineered, but it wouldn't hurt to stretch our imaginations a little.
The problem of increasing intelligence can be attacked from many different angles. One is to use chemicals to stimulate already existing processes in the brain. Some drugs have already shown a positive effect on memory, e.g., vasopressin. These and other drugs can be experimented and improved upon. Thus, chemicals can be used to boost memory, an important component of intelligence.
Another approach is to implant new brain tissue -- assuming brain tissue will do the job -- or remove damaged tissue. Innovations like these might make rewiring the brain a possibility. Already, many experimental findings point out that the structure and plasticity of the brain might be related to the functioning of the mind.
A third technique is to wire the brain directly into computers. Such brain-computer interfaces are not as fantastic as they sound. The computers could be small enough to be contained inside the body. By far, the most ambitious method is "migration through silicon" or "uploading". This involves putting the mind into a machine, the machine being a computer designed for this purpose. This idea has potential, but it's still too early to estimate its feasibility.
Other applications include upgrading the bacteria that already grow in our intestines. They help break down many foodstuffs. Without them people would most likely die of bowel impaction. Upgrading them might be the easiest change of them all. The technology, genetic engineering, is already here. As an example of this, many babies die in the Third World from dehydration caused by chronic diarrhea. Certain strains of bacteria could be made to fight the infections that cause this illness and help the body to use the water content of foods more effectively.
Some might reject these ideas saying they are unnatural, Frankenstein-like, or that technology and science have already gone far enough and done enough harm. Others might see them as inhuman, premature, or as science fantasy with little relevance or substance. Still others believe this all inevitable and wonder why anyone would spend anytime discussing the inexorable. Hopefully, there are a few out there that think posthumanism is a potential that can be brought to fruition.
Many these days take "unnatural" to be a serious condemnation. "Unnatural" and "natural" are in the eye of the beholder. "Unnatural" is often used as a synonym for "unusual", "abnormal" or, typically, "unfashionable". Would anyone deny the naturalness of earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes? Yet, most people consider these things to be abnormal or at least rare. Would anyone deny the naturalness of trying to avoid these?
For the unconvinced, what could be more natural than a living being using its full potential? If this is "natural", then posthumanism to is natural because it is nothing more than pushing everything desirable in humans to the fullest possible usage. Technology, too, is a natural thing. Chimpanzees, beavers, birds and bugs use tools, but not as extensively as people do. Our technology is almost a part of us. Are we not also natural? If we are, then how could the things we make be any less natural?
The claims that posthumanism, or anything else for that matter, is unnatural has thus been shown to be nothing more than slinging mud, just like calling someone you don't agree with a jerk.
As for Frankenstein-like implications, I won't say there won't be any false starts, accidents, or abuses. New technology can wind up in the hands of vicious people. This should NOT make anyone embrace any form of prohibition. New ideas and technology are nearly impossible to stamp out. The Romans didn't stop Christianity nor did the Spanish Inquisition wipe out heresy. Even the late Soviets couldn't stop black markets from springing up despite their police state apparatus. Even when the Japanese got rid of guns (for a few centuries) this did NOT stop other peoples and even some Japanese from getting hold of them.
But the choice is not between some Frankenstein world or Big Brother control. There is at least one other path to take. This is to move forward, critically with open eyes. You should try to adapt technology to your individual desires where possible and adapt to it only when you can't adapt it to you. The first step is to understand it as best you can. This means taking time to review the situation to form your opinion and plans of action, instead of letting 'experts' make your choices for you. (Experts do mostly what's good for themselves!) Also, others will be out there using new technology and ideas for their advantage. If you don't, they will.
As for technology already doing enough harm, the wheat has to be separated from the chaff. Pollution, for instance, is higher in less developed nations, such as Mexico and the former Soviet Union, than in "technology leaders" such as the U.S. and Japan. This has less to do with governmental regulations than consumer wants and freedom to criticize. The former Soviet Union was definitely more regulated than the U.S., yet it has higher levels of pollution ranging from radioactive Chernobyl to the dead lakes in Siberia. Few would disagree that technology has both costs and benefits, but most of the pro-regulation camp does not seem to recognize that regulations also have costs and benefits. The point is that the best form of regulation is self-regulation, a conclusion supported by history and theory.
As for calling posthumanism inhuman, again this is arbitrary. After all, what is human and what isn't? Personally, I feel posthumanism will expand upon those things that humanity prides itself on, such as intelligence, courage, curiosity, and inventiveness. Other qualities are there, but I don't see any conflict between, say, better eyesight, a longer life-span and more intelligence on the one hand and tenderness, compassion and you-name-it on the other.
Inevitability is harder to tackle, but I don't think it's important as I'm no prophet. If technological and social upheavals push us into posthumanist changes, then it is better to know where we might be heading, isn't it?
Whether writing about it now is premature is difficult to decide. It's very hard to say what the future will be like, but by observing the trends in biotechnology (e.g., genetically engineered plants that have been field tested successfully, humans currently are undergoing gene therapy on a small scale), computer science (e.g., artificial neural networks are being designed; machines that mimic the structure of real brains and also behave as real brains do), and other fields (e.g., materials science, optics, medicine, electronics) - we can get an inkling of where things might be heading and how fast they'll get there. Barring any setbacks -- such as civilization collapsing or the discovery of some hitherto unknown limits on our technological abilities -- I see a good chance for posthumanism becoming a reality in the next few decades.
This entire paper answers the question of whether this is mere fantasy. For those who disagree, what are the fantastic elements in this? Perhaps it is a matter of degree between "out of the ordinary" and "fantastic", but I can find nothing that makes posthumanism impossible or unlikely in principle.
I invite you to criticize this.