Transhumanism and Society by Stephen Lilley

Author:Stephen Lilley
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht

Rhetoric of Risk

Some individuals can’t bear the thought of a transhuman future. They can’t see a place for themselves among the transcended and transformed. Nor can they see transhumanity supporting their beliefs and values. They feel an anticipatory anomie—an expectation of being displaced from a changing culture and society. The possibility of physical harm, the type of risk that comes quickest to mind, is not a primary consideration. In other words, absent personal risk they still would oppose transhumanity. Others can’t bear the thought of a future without transhumanity. Their hope for self-transformation is kept alive by this prospect. It would be better if risks were low, but they would accept elevated risks in light of expected rich returns.

How accurate could a risk analysis of transhumanity be, anyways? Common sense informs us that confidence in predictions diminishes as the timeline extends out and the number of variables increases. Both sides figure transhumanity would require global sociotechnical change over a period of decades! How can anyone foretell with any precision the risks involved in that?

If subordinate to convictions and not a viable actuarial exercise, why are both sides so intent on characterizing future risk? I believe it is done for the sake of rhetoric. Please don’t take this as sarcasm. By “rhetoric” I’m not using the pejorative connotation of word play which distracts and misleads. Rather, I mean argumentation of a very serious nature meant to influence the thought and conduct of an audience or audiences. Whether small (a government committee) or large (the literate adult population), it is important to win over audiences because therein lies important resources such as votes and financial support.

Although individuals live in the present, they have a stake in the future and act to the best of their ability to secure a promising future. Much of this is mundane. We pay utility bills for monthly service and schedule periodic health check-ups. All this is done with the assumption that present regular patterns will continue into the future. Nevertheless, we also anticipate that change will occur, personal and societal. For example, venture capitalists invest in technologies that they hope will have commercial success ten years down the road. Expecting a devastating nuclear war, survivalists build personal fallout shelters. Although these futures are imagined or have yet to be realized (let’s hope nuclear warfare never is), the commitments are very real. Certainly the businesses involved benefit.

Imagined futures are socially constructed and shared. Purveyors work through social networks and the mass media and compete with one another. Louise Bedsworth, Micah Lowenthal, and William Kastenberg (2004) note that in the California low-level radioactive waste debate opposing parties attempted to influence public opinion by portraying different futures, one safe and the other hazardous, each reinforced by its own “rhetoric of risk.” The transhumanity controversy is more extensive, nevertheless, it is conducted in a similar manner. If the transhumanists dazzle audiences with alleged future benefits and go unchallenged, they will secure commitments for transhumanity. Similarly, if opponents face no opposition as they depict a dark and dangerous transhuman future, they will garner sufficient resistance.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.