Response to Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity.

Bravo to this article: Brint Montgomery's Transhumanism and the so-called "future good" of humanity

Brilliant point about the so called "paradox" of transhumanism.

If I gathered so correctly, here is the basic premise Mr. Montgomery is making. Human morality is not relative; however, the values that the human race embraces as an ethics system at any given time is subject to change, and therefore relative. Our values that compose the ethics system we abide by are subject to biological constraints to environmental constraints. As a result, as the human species continues to exist, values may change based on present conditions.

Therefore, what may be considered good, or moral today may not be so within 100 years. Thus, transhumanists are faced with a problem. What if what transhumanists deemed a moral imperative- the modification, enhancement, and growth of human beings into something greater- is seen as bad, or evil to the post humans created by the transhumanists now.

This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman (or at least self-hating).


Let's go back to the part where we assume that "This is clearly a problem because the transhumanist would have created a self-destructive transhuman." This statement is a paradox in a paradox. Is it really a problem that we've created a self-destructive transhuman? Based on our current ethics system yes, a contradiction of a moral system, even if its a moral system that will be used in the future, is considered bad. But...is what we define a good and bad subject to change? Yes it is. So, it could very well be that it is "good " to have a self-destructive transhuman or good that the value systems of the humans vs. the transhuman are different. The point is that even though moral values may change, we don't know what impact it will ultimately have on a posthuman entity.

It should be important to note that many transhumanist believe in a morally superior posthuman, in addition to the other enhanced aspects of the posthuman; and therefore, a posthuman would have a moral system that is above that of the evolutionary and biological constraints of before. As such, it doesn't matter if the moral system clashes, the post human maintains its own. For example, Taiwan and China might have different political and moral systems (let's just pretend they do for the sake of argument), just because Taiwan branched off from China (like a posthuman will branch from humanity), does it matter that they have different moral systems? Not really, they both function independent of each other.


By the way, when I read this blog, I thought of Mary Percy Shelly's Frankenstein. The monster created by Frankenstein clearly was greater than human, being able to posses great intelligence, reasoning, and strength, but hated its existence. It was consumed by its self-destructive nature because what Frankenstein deemed good at first, the monster detested later. The monster loathed its creation and as a result, only destruction follows. Whooo, tangent.

Now, this is the not the best example of what Mr. Montgomery is trying to describe; nevertheless, it still touches on the important fact that transhumanists really have no clue how to be transhuman.

So I take from this blog article the important point that transhumanism is really a hit and miss philosophy. We are trying to philosophize on something that is not constant and bound to change. We are blindly trying to predict the future without even knowing the future.


In my opinion, a huge flaw within the thinking of many transhumanists is that they believe there is only one ultimate path to be transhuman. Unknown, but predefined. However, I hold that being transhuman is a umbrella term for varying human modifications and enhancements. Maybe all of these different transhuman will merge into one superior posthuman, but there is no one way to be transhuman- and if there is, there is no way in hell we know what that is.

What is the "Other" to the Academia?

What is intelligence? What is smartness? What is being knowledgeable? These are all concepts that are similar but different. I hear these terms used quite often and interchangeably. However, these terms should not be used to replace one another. I mention this point because I have been hearing lately a lot of criticisms that someone who doesn't have high grades isn't smart.

Here's the problem: having high grades does not mean you are smart. Certainly, it indicates you can do well on tests and manage to do well in a class, but does that lead to being intelligent? No.


Some people who get high grades are diligent, hard working students who may not be the most intelligent or smart but work hard to attain that knowledge. Some people who get high grades may be utter slackers who are naturally intelligent and can grasp concepts easily or can retain certain knowledge easier than others.

Similarly, on the converse. Not getting high grades means you are not smart. Untrue. Intelligence is how readily you can grasp concepts and attain knowledge. Knowledgeable means having lots of knowledge and information. You can be knowledgeable but not intelligent- though that is a difficult state of being to have since most knowledge people have some degree of intelligence. Being smart is being both intelligent- ie having the aptitude to learn and adapt in academic situations- and being knowledgeable- ie having the prior information with which to apply that intelligence.

Far too often, people mistake the converse of the statement to be true when both converse and original are false. I wish people who have high grades, are in higher-level classes, or are of the "academia" would be more humble when dealing with those who aren't in that academic class (figuratively and literally). It might be interesting that I make this comment seeing as how most people regard me as being of the "high academic level" in my high school. However, I find sometimes that the "smart" people can be condescending and patronizing to others they consider to be of "inferior" intelligence.

It irks me how haughty some smart people can be to others. While it may be true they aren't as smart or even as knowledgeable, it gives "us" no right to assume such a vain attitude. Humans are humans in the end and fallible. We should not assume role of superiority simply for being more intelligent.

Knowledge is not an ends, it is a means.


I have become concerned with this topic because I have met many new people this year in my new capacity as ASB President. As a result, I have slightly departed form the safety and company of the academia of my school I have grown so close and fond to. In retrospect, I find all too often that people of my "class" unassumingly take on an almost arrogant attitude to others- the other being those who don't have high GPA's, those who don't take 7 APs by the end of junior year, those who opt for lower level courses, those who aren't "overachievers." I only hope people will come to realize the dangers of such a faulty mentality towards the "other."

Star Gazing

Looking up from my lawn at the night sky is always a little hobby of mine that never seems to grow old for me. I’ve always been fascinated by astronomy and captivated by the starry night sky. Whenever I get the chance, I’ll go to my front lawn and lie down on the grass and just stare at the infinite expanse of space and blankly gaze at the bright, faint, and twinkling lights in the sky. After taking in the initial awesomeness of the infinite expanses of the speckling night ceiling, I start to think about how grand it is that I, an individual, can see something as massive as a star from my perspective. Oftentimes, my friends will tell they feel insignificant seeing the magnificence of the sky because they feel so small compared to celestial bodies above them. I, on the other hand, look at such objects in the sky and feel the complete opposite. It should make the individual feel empowered that he is able to see so much from his perspective. He should feel significant for that alone, not insignificant. He should not feel lost in the sky, but he should feel a master that he can see so much, so far, and so clearly. Looking at the stars makes me feel reinvigorated.

The Big Three Englightenment Thinkers on Democracy

Sometimes it can irk me when people oversimplify the beliefs of philosophers. [Not that I'm totally innocent of that crime...] Take for example the big three Enlightenment thinker on democracy: Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. People tend to clump these three thinkers as proponents of some form of democratic institution.

Not exactly.

Locke was not necessarily a fervent supporter of democracy- direct or indirect. Rather, it is a common misconception to say that he supported any kind of democratic government. Lock believed that any government could be legitimate as long as it fulfilled certain criteria. He lists the essence of why men enter government in his Two Treatises on Government, “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society: to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society.” For Locke, as long as a government could protect the natural rights of men: “life, liberty, and property,” the government was doing its job. Thus, the government could be a monarchy and still be legitimate as long as if protected other men from encroaching upon those rights, including the monarch himself. Locke’s philosophy, in fact, was one of the main contributors towards a movement of “Enlightened Monarchs” who believed that their legitimacy as monarch came not from a divine source, but from the consent of the governed.

Rousseau was clearly against a representative government in theory. In his Social Contract, he writes, “Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; its essence is the general will or it is something else ... Thus the people's deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; they cannot decide anything finally. Any law which the people have not ratified in person is void; it is not a law at all.” This quote is his most direct attack against a representative democracy and reveals his staunch opposition to the belief that a representative democracy can actually “represent” the people. For Rousseau, another person cannot truly possess another person’s sovereignty and make decisions as a proxy because the point of the government is to guarantee that sovereignty to begin with, thus making any representative system an inescapable paradox. It should be noted, however, that Rousseau ultimately conceded to an imperfect system of representative democracy because it did have the advantage of being able to support larger numbers of people.

Montesquieu, much like Locke, never blatantly supports democratic governments. In fact, in Book 3 of his Spirit of Law, he insinuates that a democracy may be the hardest government to maintain: “There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.” While he is highly critical of the mechanisms a representative democracy would need to be functional- namely high virtue- he seems even more adverse to direct democracy than representative democracy. Montesquieu states that “The principle of democracy is corrupted … likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.” Montesquieu states that in a society, men must give up some of their equality so that those in power, by power of virtue, can make laws to protect men and their equality and rights. Thus, for men to be truly equal, as in a direct democracy would be to re-enter into our natural state of being. Thus, Montesquieu’s argument itself could be construed as an attack on the legitimacy of a direct democracy. His closing words to the essay seem to be a warning that a direct democracy is not a valid form a government, but rather an advanced form of the state of nature: “In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws. Such is the difference between a well-regulated democracy and one that is not so, that in the former men are equal only as citizens, but in the latter they are equal also as magistrates, as senators, as judges, as fathers, as husbands, or as masters.”

Felix Culpa!

I just watched a fascinating anime movie called Appleseed. If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend it to anyone, even if you don't typically watch from the anime genre. Appleseed is great for its action and its plot, but even better for its profound technoethical inquiries into the right to life of man-made life forms and the purpose of man's existence upon the creation of a man-made life form that is intellectually and sociologically superior to man.

In a world where man's imperfections and sins act as a barrier to the continued progression of society, what do you think if the point of man's continued existence?