For the next six weeks I will be taking a special topics course, Philosophy of Singularity. This is the second post of a series of five where I will share my notes, definitions, summaries, and commentary from class lectures and discussions. These posts are living documents that I may edit, adapt, and develop as I gain more insights and information throughout the semester.
Class Summary and Personal Commentary
Required Reading
The
Immortality Upgrade by The New Yorker
The Mormon Transhumanist
Association (MTA) is a “nonprofit organization that syncretizes Mormonism and transhumanism. MTA sees parallels between transhumanist ideas, such as the technological
singularity, and Mormon teachings. The majority of members are also members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), but the LDS
Church is not directly affiliated with the MTA. MTA is affiliated with the
world wide Humanity+ transhumanist
organization.” (Wikipedia)
Members of the MTA agree to both the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation
and the Transhumanist
Declaration.
Mormon Transhumanism takes
the Mormon idea that humans should become gods, and the Transhumanist idea that
we should use science and technology in ethical ways to improve our condition
until we attain posthumanity, and suggests that these are related, if not
identical tasks. That is, we should ethically use our resources including
religion, science, and technology to improve ourselves and our world until we
become Gods ourselves.
While reading What is Mormon
Transhumanism?, by Lincoln Cannon,
which I have read multiple times over the years, I have become increasingly
convinced that much of the profoundness of his work is found in esthetics. While
many views of the singularity, transhumanism, and posthumanism seem steeped in
pessimism and dystopian depictions, Cannon offers a perspective that it
optimistic, not with blind accretions built upon escapism, but rather
trajectories worth aspiring to that are founded upon the resiliency and
resourcefulness of the human spirit. While
risks should certainly be discussed, addressed, and mitigated, dystopian views
without discussion of how to improve circumstances borderline as nihilistic.
Cannon comments, “Esthetics shape and move us, and at their strongest,
they provoke us as a community to a strenuous mood.” This is quite true. We are
literally shaping the reality of our existence and much of that motivation is
found in esthetics. Our projections are forth-telling. Cannon shares an
esthetic that is an all-encompassing trajectory for humanity not only in transhumanist
terms, but also religious terms. While current projections of Gods in
Christianity are overwhelmingly dominated by a singular male esthetic, Cannon’s
New
God Argument provides a plural God and a communal transcendence that is
just as much Mormon, and even Christian, as it is Transhuman. Cannon may or may
not realize how profound his statement concerning esthetics is for women, the
queer community, people of color, the economically disadvantage or anyone who
has experienced systemic institutionalized marginalization and oppression. Perhaps,
if he does realize the broader ramifications of his statement I’d like to think
it has been, in part, to me helping him realize it over the years. Maybe, maybe
not. In either case, Lincoln has been one of the most influential philosophers
in shaping my perceptions of both Mormon theology and Transhumanism, and is a
dear friend.
I have contemplated expanding further on the broader implications of the
New God Argument. I have put off writing The
New God Argument: A Feminist’s Perspective for far too long. Some of the
genius of Cannon’s work has still gone underdeveloped or at least unwritten.
Class Responses to Mormon Transhumanism
Many dystopian views of the singularity, transhumanism, and posthumanism are often predicated, not simply about technological limitations, but human limitations. Mainly, humanity’s capacity for radical love and compassion. The concerns I’m hearing most among peers are those related to social issues and oppression. There seems to be a tone of pessimism toward the potential of human progress, and what progress for the human species actually looks like. Progress is not just the enhancement and development of technologies, but also improving the self. Optimism seems lost in the conversation though. My generation, if my anecdotal observations are of any value, seems highly skeptical of optimism itself, especially if in relation to religion.
(1) The majority of the class identified as active LDS, and even more were familiar with Mormonism.
(1) The majority of the class identified as active LDS, and even more were familiar with Mormonism.
(2) Some seemed to hold to the idea that God should be responsible for
making immortality a reality, and that being changed “in the twinkling of an
eye” does not include technology. There seems to be some hesitance in accepting
that technology is spiritual—which is somewhat silly considering Mormonism’s
unique and quirky relationship with spiritual technologies (i.e seer stones,
the Urim and Thummin, Liahona, the Brother of Jared and glowing stones, tools
to build Noah’s ark, golden plates, brass plates, temple clothing, broadcasting
general conference). I’d go as far to say that Mormonism doesn’t exist without
technology.
(3) There seemed to be some confusion about representation. I had to
clarify we, the MTA, are not directly affiliated with the LDS Church. In fact,
I had to clarify to the class that there was a difference between Mormonism and
the LDS Church, including a brief rundown of Mormonism’s history of other
Mormon sects not affiliated with the LDS Church (i.e. AUB, The Kingston Group, FLDS,
Community of Christ, formerly RLDS). By the end of my response I think it was
clear that Mormonism is bigger than the LDS Church.
(4) Students seemed to be interested in who the Association was led by.
It was important to some students that the Association was led my
self-identified Mormons. Several questions were asked about my specific affiliation
with Mormonism and the LDS Church.
(5) There seemed to be some hesitation toward overstepping our bounds
as followers of God. The word hubris wasn’t used, but the idea was hinted at. I
had to remind the class that in Doctrine and Covenants that our participation
is mandated in building the Celestial Kingdom and that the earth “may be
prepared for the celestial glory…that bodies who are of the celestial kingdom
may possess it forever and ever.” I also included a short commentary about
“faith without works is dead.”
(6) Some students failed to recognize religion as distinct from
theology, and institutions as distinct from religion. They are inter related,
yes, but distinctly different. There was also a need to clarify that many other
institutions and ideologies function as a pseudo-religion.
(7) There was a student that was skeptical of religion entirely and
thought religion should have no place in Transhumanism. I introduced the idea
of religion being a technology and that it is a powerful and effective process
to mobilize large communities to accomplish great acts, both good and bad. Religion
itself is neither good or bad, simply power. Plus fighting the human drive to
be religious and create rituals is a fool’s errand. It’s far more effective to
point that religious drive in the right direction than to try to rid people of
it.
One thoughtful student of anthropology commented, “Mormon Transhumanism
is fascinating. If there is any religion that is likely to survive into the
future it would be them. A religion that cannot adapt will die.” I pointed her
in the direction of the fine work of Jon Bialecki.
(8) Students were concerned about social issues and people having
access to advance technologies. Some conflated religious moral codes with
exclusivity. For example, if religion dominated transhumanism there could be a scenario
where a homosexual would be denied immortality or aging treatments for being a “sinner.”
Students were very much concerned with arbitrary religious moral codes taking
over technological applications and accessibility. This is a legitimate concern—that’s
one reason why we need more intersectionality and diversity in the
Transhumanist movement.
(9) There seemed to be a divide between students who believed in agency
and free will, and those that had a more deterministic view of humanity’s
potential or demise, depending on the student’s utopian or dystopian view.
Specifically, some seemed all too sure of a technological determinist dystopian future.
(10) Lastly, there was a tendency to conflate morality with moral codes.
Class ended so I didn’t get a chance to clarify the differences. In short,
moral codes are a set of rules people live by. Morality is the active process
in which we reconcile diverse values and desires. The two are related, but not
the same.
Key Terms Defined
Humanity+ (H+): is an
international organization which advocates the ethical use
of emerging technologies to enhance human capacities.
Technological Determinism: is
the theory that a society's technology determines the
development of its social structure and cultural values.
Utopia: an imaginary place or
time when all things are in a state of perfection.
Dystopia: an imaginary place or time when all things are in an unpleasant or bad state.
Dystopia: an imaginary place or time when all things are in an unpleasant or bad state.
