Trans-humanists vs Traditionalists: The Revolutionary Phenotype

The post is in part a review of JF Gariépy's new book, The Revolutionary Phenotype (2018) and in part an introduction of a set of broader questions about "what it means to be human". Cliché enough?!

Hopefully not. Allow me to provide some context to convince you of that... 🙃

Machines and Me

Currently, there are many, many people interested in how the evolution of technology will transform humanity. One need look no further than the work of Sam Harris and the guests he interviews to meet some of the most prominent voices in this field.

One particularly prominent, and dare I say... theatrical guest on Harris' show is Yuval Noah Harari, who quotes himself on his website proclaiming: 

History began when humans invented gods, and will end when humans become gods

There are many specific claims advanced by people like Harari who would like to see (or believe it to be inevitable that) humanity becomes something much different than what we are today (as long as we don't destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons first).

Harari and other techno-utopia-LARPers (lol okay, enough name-calling) dream of using technology to engineer better humans who are able to transcend many of the problems that currently plague humanity as we know it—whether that be senescence, the biological basis of intelligence, etc.

If we have technology to "solve" these problems, why not go for it? The Chinese will try it first if we don't! 🇨🇳

What I will call the transhumanist perspective, broadly, is the view that humans should evolve beyond current physical/mental limitations by use of science and technology. In other words, we should engineer ourselves to be better. This position can be contrasted with what I'll call the traditionalist perspective, that humans should be conservative in their meddling—steer clear of genetic modification, sex selection, etc. as much as possible.

Now, we ask the transhumanists—what could possibly go wrong?

RNA → DNA → ???

It is at this point that we introduce Gariépy's book, The Revolutionary Phenotype (2018) as well as libertarian ethics into this discussion.

Gariépy makes the case that we (DNA-based life forms) came about from the demise of the previously dominant RNA-based life forms. I'm no biologist, so I will take Gariépy's word that there is ample evidence for this—as an awake, but relatively biologically naïve reader, this book makes a compelling case for this which I will not try to reproduce here—buy and read the book!

From the past couple centuries of studying DNA, we know that while DNA and RNA had coexisted for a long time in a "tango", DNA eventually took over its RNA-based overlords. In the past, RNA may have been using the more stable structure of DNA to do useful things like store genetic information for copying, assist in reproduction, and defend against attacks. DNA, however, breaks free from being RNA's tool, eventually rising to control the reproduction of RNA. Now, even RNA-based viruses rely on DNA-based hosts to survive and reproduce!

For the not-so-biologically minded reader, things get more interesting in the second half of the book.

Gariépy draws eerie parallels between how RNA "off-loaded" many important tasks—crucially that of reproduction to DNA—and current directions humans (DNA-based life forms) are taking with technology. DNA became indispensable to RNA, and eventually was able to become DNA's master. Are humans currently doing the same thing with gene editing technology, machines, etc.?

The Revolutionary Phenotype concludes with a hypothetical account of the future wherein DNA-based life forms become overtaken by "organisms" they had sought to exploit. While DNA-based life isn't completely erased—just as RNA is still with us—the form that it takes is anything but glorious in the (silicon?) ruled future. 

What is 'the human' of the future?

At the end of the day, The Revolutionary Phenotype a serious scientific work. However, it is also a compelling philosophical and literary work that get's the noggin' joggin' on the question—"what does it mean to be human?".

If being DNA-based is an essential component of what it means to be human—even if this means we get old and die, are prone to damage by radiation, and other inconveniences—then does making each individual's DNA matter less and less by introducing editing technology consequently erode our humanity?

Furthermore, we can ask the question of who will benefit from the continued adaption of more and more gene editing technology. Will this mean more freedom for more people, or will power be further consolidated in the hands of elites who may be very unlike the people we love and care about?

Libertarian ethics

Gariépy qua JF (as he is commonly called on the Internet) is a self-described moral nihilist who leans libertarian on political questions. 

In other videos (not this book), JF articulates the view that species ("lines of descent") should be allowed to pursue their own reproductive strategies, regardless of whether or not those strategies agree with what our present moral sensibilities. Should we become vegan and deny farm animals their chosen reproductive strategy of being food to humans, for near-guaranteed continued reproduction? Will the original, friendly-to-humans wild chicken that became the forefather of all modern chickens' choice be in vain as its descendants are genocided à la veganism?

The conservative conclusion of The Revolutionary Phenotype—that we should not fundamentally change what it means to be human by taking the reins of DNA-controlling technology—echoes thoughts expressed by JF elsewhere on his show, The Public Space.

Are we to end up like the domesticated chicken, choosing a path of subordination for guaranteed "life"? Should we force others to choose the same strategies for survival and reproduction that we choose? The libertarian ethical answer, centered around ideas like the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), says NO. Insofar as others are not exerting their own wills upon us, we should not enact violence upon others.

So, should we just not genetically modify our own babies and let life go on?

The fear of post-DNA life is parallel to that of the AI singularity—once it is released, there is no going back. There is no defending against a "superior" being that does not honor libertarian ethics. People will soon be able to opt in to using technology that ostensibly produce smarter, healthier, and all around "better" offspring. At what cost will this come?

The Revolutionary Phenotype presents an argument that all DNA life on earth is at stake in the coming decades and that even if a Transhumanist utopia seems to emerge for some time, we are dangerously playing with tools that may soon play with us.