Transhumanism: The Search Immortality in 21st Century - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: MORALITY IN RESEARCH Shelly’s Frankenstein and the search for immortality in 21st century science through transhumanism University Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 4 God and Science 5 Frankenstein’s Folly 7 21st Century Research and Transhumanism 9 Discussion 11 References 13 Abstract The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a story about a man who is a monster because he plays with science as a way of exploring his own arrogant belief in his ability to create life. Because he believed that he had a right to interfere with nature, Dr. Frankenstein unleashed a creature that was both sentient and without the morality and control of most human beings. A type of scientific inquiry that is very similar to the work of Dr. Frankenstein is that of transhumanism. Transhumanism is based on the pursuit of immortality through artificial recreation of the human mind in a mechanized system which is essentially a robotic form. In exploring what this type of evolution would mean for human beings, the ethic considerations are vast and complicated making one wonder if this form of research will do more harm than good. Shelly’s Frankenstein and the search for immortality in 21st century science through transhumanism Introduction “What is the difference between God and a doctor: God doesn’t believe he is a doctor” This old joke creates a sense of the problem that is sometimes perceived about the medical and research establishment. It also suggests something about society and religion. It is believed sometimes that the pursuit of knowledge is not enough to justify playing with the natural cycles of life that God has created. In the pursuit to discover the mysteries of the world there is a violation against the God that is believed to have created them. Mary Shelley, in her novel Frankenstein, discussed the concept of the monster, creating a creature that could be conceived of as the monster, but relating the arrogance of Dr. Frankenstein in such a way as to suggest that his actions were more monstrous than those of the creature that he created. Shelley created a discourse on the monstrous, placing the academic at the center of a debate on the rights of man to pursue the unnatural for the sake of science. Morality is often interchangeable with the idea of God. How God is envisioned is central to the discussion of the monstrosity of some scientific inquiry. Moral judgment against science has come in many forms, some of them based on beliefs that science has no place in the story of creation, while others are based on the arrogance involved in making what God has created better. The theme of improving on nature has been a long standing theme in literature, with stories revolving around the arrogance involved in trying to create as God or reinvent nature. Methods to prolong life for the vanity of extending what God has naturally given limits is one of the controversies that invoke the ideas put forth in Frankenstein. The question involves the right that humankind has to challenge the nature of life and the hubris involved with challenging the limits of nature are often met with literary consequences that thrill and excite the reader. The real life consequences are a more realistically frightening prospect. In examining current trends in scientific study towards the extension of life and the possibility of its immortality, the morality and commentary of Frankenstein can be used in order to examine the wisdom of both constraints put on scientific discovery and the freedoms that exist for research at the expense of nature. One of the ways that 21st century science is imitating something of the hubris of Dr. Frankenstein is in pursuing immortality through the idea of transhumanism. Transhumanism means that the mental processes that are defined as the individual, all thoughts, capacities, and potentials, are transmuted into a form of artificial intelligence in which the person is then uploaded into some form of mechanized life. During the M.I.T. project, God and Computers Project, Anne Foerst was brought on board as a doctor of both theology and computer science in order to help bridge the gap between spirituality and computer based life. According to Geraci (2008) humans will in the future “frustrated by the limitations of bodily life, look forward to a virtual world inhabited by intelligent machines and human beings who have left their bodies. Having downloaded their consciousnesses into machines, human beings will possess enhanced mental abilities and, through their infinite replicability, immortality” (p. 138). In looking at this attempt to circumvent death and recreate the nature of life, the novel by Shelley comes to mind, the mistakes made in creating the monster looming in the future of 21st century scientists as they wrestle with the same moral considerations as Dr. Frankenstein, Shelley’s true monster. God and Science According to Grossman (2007) a great deal of the decision making done in the United States is based on the perspective that people have on God. It is less about beliefs as it is on how God is characterized, thus suggesting that the personification of God is more important than doctrine. There are four basic types of the image of God that have emerged from a longitudinal study done across nations, which included the United States. God is often seemed as authoritative with those who see Him this way believing that “American will lose God’s favor unless we get right with Him” (Grossman, 2007). The research shows that 28% of the nation believes in this characterization of God. The second type of God is a benevolent God. Grossman (2007) states that this God “is engaged in our world and loves and supports us in caring for others”, which is the point of view of 22% of Americans. The third type of God is critical. This idea of God is judging people in this world in order to enact justice in the next. This God is seen by 21% of the people of the United States. The final type of God is a distant God which “booted up the universe, then left humanity alone” (Grossman, 2007). In determining the motivating factors behind determining the characteristics of God, the following themes influence the way in which American find context for God’s nature. Those themes are morality, science, money and the incidences of evil, war, and natural disasters (Grossman, 2007). When science and morality come into conflict, the foundation of the argument is often based on the beliefs that an individual has on the intentions and expectations of God. Without the intervening idea of God, the ideas of moral constraints on science are less potent within current culture. While there are many reasons why human science should have constraints, it is the idea that it is a defiance of God that holds the most weight. The first idea that conflicts between science and religion is that God created the universe. The second is that humanity and all of its companions on this earth are the result of an evolutionary system (Steele, 2009). Both of these conflicts are based on the idea that God created nature. Through this belief, the idea that human beings can manipulate and rearrange nature is abhorrent, suggesting a monstrosity of arrogance. The importance of understanding how Americans envision God lies in the way in which they protest or support research. If God is the moral center of all decisions, then the way in which God sees his creation of humanity and judges their actions is founded in how God is characterized. Frankenstein discusses the boundaries to which human discovery should adhere, to how the search for discovery cannot be undertaken without first understanding the power of what is being researched. As Dr. Frankenstein narrates his experiences, he states “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world” (Shelley & Smitth, 2000, p. 58). The hubris of this statement is based on the idea that it is within his power to enlighten the world. The narcissism with which Frankenstein operates his scientific discovery is the monstrosity of his work, his belief that it is his power to wield without constraint and without public consensus. Frankenstein’s Folly According to Craciun (2011), “Scholars have demonstrated how the novel’s critique of imperialism, masculinist romanticism, and aggressive science is orchestrated through the interrelations of its three nested frame-narratives” (p. 438). The two primary narratives, that of Dr. Frankenstein and that of Captain Walton who is attempting to explore the North Pole, are made by men of a similar ambition and drive. Dr. Frankenstein narrates his story to Captain Walton who has discovered the doctor on the brink of death in the arctic. In relating his story to the Captain, Dr. Frankenstein is purging himself of the guild he has for having played with nature in such a way as to give birth to a monster. He gives his creation no name and no identity, leaving it merely the monster in his eyes and a source of humiliation and pain in contrast to his narcissistic belief in his scientific right to play God. Imperialism is the belief that a nation will adopt in thinking that they have the right to dominate the economic, political, and social structures of another nation in order to benefit from their resources. The idea of science as an intruding force upon the peaceful balance of nature is an idea that relates to the discourse on imperialism as it is made by Shelley. There is condescension in the way in which Imperialism is discussed. The discussion is often made as if the people of nations and cultures that are less developed that they are somehow natural where developed countries are beyond nature. Looking at the monster, he can be seen to represent nature as it has been corrupted by the interference of human science. This can be similar to cultures that have been interfered with through the influence of conquering nations who assert their consumerist beliefs over the survival methods of the indigenous populations. What is left is something that is not quite natural nor does it have social normality. What is left has been corrupted. What Frankenstein does recognize about the darkness of his scientific actions is that he may have “responsibility for a new category of vermin, a species of creatures likely to reproduce exponentially like Crusoe’s cats, Swift’s Yahoos, the rats of Peru and Virginia or the rabbits of Australia or New Zealand” (Armstrong, 2008, p. 76). He understands this at the time that he chooses to destroy the female he creates at the behest of the male who has promised to live without interaction with humankind. Frankenstein realizes at this point, however, that he has no real depth of understanding of the ramifications of his research and the enacting of his science. He states “He had sworn to quit the neighborhood of man and hide himself in deserts, but she had not; and she who in all probability was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation” (Shelley, 2000, p. 144). Frankenstein has created his monster through aggressive, arrogant acts of discovery that are violent and invasive upon that which he has conducted his experiments. He has reanimated flesh and the mind, taken that which was not his and reassembled it into something that it had not been intended to be in its original forms. During his second attempt, he now recognizes the hubris of acting without philosophy of thought. He had dealt with what his creation meant. He had acted to create without thinking about how his act of creation would leave in its wake destruction, much the way that the act of birth leaves behind it torn and stretched tissue. When he is given his next opportunity to create, he regrets what he has done and destroys her, not wishing to further inflict his own poor imitations of life on the world. 21st Century Research and Transhumanism In the 21st century the search for immortality faces the same challenges of morality that Shelley discussed during her discourse within her novel. In their own discussion between God created nature and the nature of immortality created by human intervention, Deane-Drummond and Scott (2010) discuss the work of Anne Foerst in the God and Computers Project out of MIT where the topic of the definition of humanity in compared with artificial intelligence has been examined and discussed. The belief that has been held by many in the artificial intelligence research corner of the world is that human thought will one day be able to be transmuted into a downloadable file that can exist in a robotic body. Through this transference, the human entity can live forever. The evolution will occur in a three prong venture: first artificial intelligence will be created for a robotic form, second portions of the brain will be replaced by mechanized computer systems, and third human existence will be transferred into patterns of information that is then put into a physical system that recreates human life, thus eliminating the need for flesh and blood. In this way, immortality is achieved. When asked about this concept, Foerst told the New York Times that they were trying to “build robots that were social and embodied” (Driefus, 2000). Foerst who has a both a doctorate in theology and in computer science, answered the question about her presence in a lab devoted to artificial intelligence she answered by stating that “when we build social interactive robots that force people to treat them as if they were persons, tricky moral questions come up” (Driefus, 2000). She brought up the idea of defining human experience and the understanding of what it is to be human for her presence during the creation of artificial intelligence. She states “For instance, Who are we, really? Are all our reactions actually developed in a very mechanistic, functionalist way? Or is there a dimension to social interaction that goes beyond that? What are ethics here? Why should I treat someone else like a human, with dignity, when it is just a mechanistic thing?” (Driefus, 2000). In 1980 a philosophical argument was posed by Max More in which the transhumanist doctrine of future expectations was created. He stated humans are a transitional stage standing between our animal heritage and our posthuman future, which will be reached through genetic engineering, life-extending biosciences, intelligence intensifiers, smarter interfaces to swifter computers, neural computer integration, world-wide data networks, virtual reality, intelligent agents, swift electronic communications, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, neural networks, artificial life, off-planet migration and molecular nanotechnology (Hansel, Grassie, Blackford, Bostrom, Depuy, & Metanexus Institute, 2011, p. 23-24). This list of desired transitions for human development leads to a place where the human body is no longer relevant to human life. In the late 1990s a movement arose called the World Transhumanist Association actively sought the advancement of research and science that would make immortal human life through artificial means (Hansel et al, 2011). In creating a new form of human being, modern science is imitating Frankenstein’s attempt to control human life through interfering with what it means to be human. The meaning of being human is still under debate and has yet to be fully defined but human science is making roads towards finding a way to recreate the human experience and place it into posthumanism. Coekelbergh (2011) talks about the ethical meanings that are involved in trying to create a new form of human existence. His first form of discourse is based on the idea that human existence and posthuman existence are always going to be based upon the idea of vulnerability. Once this concept is discussed, he concludes that vulnerability will always exist in any form, thus transhumanism will not be a guarantee for immortality. He writes “this paper suggests that if we can and must make an ethical choice at all, then it is not a choice between vulnerable humans and invulnerable posthumans, or even between vulnerability and invulnerability, but a choice between different forms of humanity and vulnerability” (Coeckelbergh, 2011, p. 9). The question becomes based on the idea that to change the nature of human existence should be questioned for its value rather than as a form of creating absolute protection from vulnerability. Discussion According to (Stambler, 2010) “Transhumanism is presently forming into a sizable intellectual and social movement, advocating the ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities” (13). The hubris of Frankenstein is seen in the aims of the transhumanist movements. This technology is intended to extend life through artificial means, thus evolving the nature of human existence. At present, the human mind and the computer assistance that is available are still separate, a basic set of choices made with the use of computer technology. Even as fast as the computer response to the requests that a human may make, even to the point of making adjustments and changes to the information that is received without posing a question about choice, the mind is still independent to computer enhanced work product. If the transhuman goals are achieved, human and computer interconnectivity will be absolute, with human being indistinguishable from human. Stambler (2010) discusses at length how most religions and ideologies include a need to search for an extension of human life. When Frankenstein considered his creation, he didn’t take much time to consider how the monster would feel about his re-invented life. He had no sense of agency where the creature was concerned, not thinking about what it would mean to live this half life after the act of scientific experimentation had occurred (Deane-Drummond & Scott, 2010). In exploring the idea of creating new incarnations of human life, what will happen during the experimentation stage? What kind of mistakes will have to be made before success is attained and what kind of problems will occur that harm the lives of those where the experiments fail? What will artificial life mean relationship to human life and how will sentience be determined? These topics have been the thematic explorations of literature throughout time, but in real life circumstances the repercussions can be dire. Just as Dr. Frankenstein feared the proliferation of his creations in such a way as to harm the balance of nature, so too will future scientists have to watch the nature of their creations. With the interconnectivity of the internet, the loss of control over artificial intelligence poses a greater danger than might be reasonably considered. Considering all possibilities is not always the priority of those chasing scientific discovery. This is not to discourage scientific discovery, however, but to consider first the long reaching ramification before certain paths of inquiry are undertaken. The problem with that kind of caution also can restrain science in ways that is not healthy for the evolution of human knowledge. Asserting social control on scientific inquiry can be just as damaging as exposing the world to unrestrained scientific discovery. The balance between the horrors of Dr. Josef Mengula or the disgrace committed at the Tuskegee Air Force Base where African American soldiers were experimented on and the laws that constrain stem cell research that can save lives and uses cells that would never become life must be found. Scientific inquiry has the potential for dangerous consequences, but also has the potential for great and wonderful advances in knowledge. A way to regulate between the two has yet to be discovered in an acceptable way. If human experience is nothing more than electrical impulses within the brain, then the transference of humanity to machine might benefit the experience. In doing so, however, what will be the losses to human experience? Procreative needs would be minimized as well as the need to experience the pleasures associated. On the other hand, if pleasure is in the mind then perhaps it would be more euphoric if accomplished within a mechanized system. The question then becomes whether or not it would still be human. If thought of from another perspective, if people become immortal, where would new thoughts and advances in human knowledge be developed? What of the soul? The dangers of creating transhumanized life are many and varied. The nature of Frankenstein’s monster is that it was created out of arrogance and hubris that had not been regulated through human understanding and an understanding of the consequences of his actions. Through real history there are examples of when this kind of inhumane research has met with terrible consequences. In researching transhumanistic potentials, the nature of being human is core to how that research should be pursued. In seeking out immortality through technologies that evolves the human experience from flesh to immortal forms of mechanization, science intends to change what it means to be human. This leads the philosopher to question what it means from an ideological perspective. References Armstrong, P. (2008). What animals mean in the fiction of modernity. New York: Routledge. Coeckelbergh, M. (November 2011). Vulnerable cyborgs: Learning to live with our dragons. Journal of Evolution and Technology. 22 (1): 1-9. Craciun, A. (March 2011). Writing the disaster: Franklin and Frankenstein. Nineteenth-Century Literature. 65 (4): 433-480. Geraci, R. M. (2008). Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the promise of artificial intelligence. Journal of American Academy of Religion. 76(1): 138-166. Hansell, G. R., Grassie, W., Blackford, R., Bostrom, N., Dupuy, J. P., & Metanexus Institute. (2011). H±: Transhumanism and its critics. Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute. Deane-Drummond, Celia, & Scott, Peter. (2010). Future Perfect?: God, Medicine and Human Identity. Continuum Intl Pub Group. Driefus, C. (7 November 2000). A conversation with Anne Foerst: Do androids dream? M.I.T. working on it. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/07/ science/a-conversation-with-anne-foerst-do-androids-dream-mit-working-on-it.html Grossman, C.L. (7 October 2007). Americans’ views of God shape attitudes on key issues. USA Today. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/ Shelley, M. W., & Smith, J. M. (2000). Frankenstein: Complete, authoritative text with biographical, historical, and cultural contexts, critical history, and essays from contemporary critical perspectives. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. Stambler, I. (March 2010). Life extension – a conservative enterprise? Some fin-de-siecle and early twentieth-century precursors of transhumanism. Journal of Evolution and Technology. 21 (1): 13-26. Steele, Charles E. (2009). Discovering God in Science: Science Discoveries That Suggest There Is a Creator. Tate Pub & Enterprises Llc. Read More