In his engaging book, James MacFarlane details the emergence of Technological Human Enhancement Advocacy (THEA) and provides a detailed ethnographic account of this phenomenon. Specifically, he aims to outline how transhumanism, as a specific offshoot of THEA, has “come to represent an enduring set of techno-optimistic ideas surrounding the future of humanity, with its advocates seeking to transcend limits of the body and mind according to an unwavering Enlightenment-derived faith in science, reason and individual freedom” (pg. 3). 

In his opening chapter, MacFarlane introduces us to the topic of his study and his motivations for conducting this research. A key reason for the project is rooted in what he determines is an under-researched aspect of contemporary post-industrial culture: the persistence of various forms of techno-utopian ways of thinking (pg. 3). Such discourse takes as its starting point that technology can meaningfully extend our capacities as humans, not just in the sense of being set of tools that we can use, but in the embodied sense of being “an extension of the human nervous system” (pg. 4). We simultaneously change our internal worlds via our attempts to change the external world through technological innovations. These internal changes occur both to the way we view ourselves, and to what our “selves” might be. It is this thought that is at the heart of THEA, and transhumanism specifically, as both seek to “upgrade” the human experience through the use of technology. As MacFarlane points out, this requires us to not only investigate how technologies, as tools, influence material reality, but also how such systems affect our symbolic order and ways of thinking (pg. 5). In other words, one of MacFarlane’s key objectives is illuminating the two-way flow that exists between technology and culture. He refers to this constellation as the Techno-centred Imagination. Specifically, he aims to study the intersection between Science and Technology Studies (STS) and New Social Movement Theory (NSMT) (pg. 8). NSMT highlights how, since the 1960s, activism and social mobilization have come to focus on issues of identity and quality of life. STS provides the framework for discussing the legitimation of such scientific-technical schemes in practice. 

In his second chapter, McFarlane outlines the literature associated with social movement theory (pg. 16) and justifies his “dynamic research strategy”, which entailed him moving between various location throughout the project. Moreover, here we are shown how transhumanism specifically represents a new kind of social movement. Unlike “traditional” movements, which aim(ed) at improving workers conditions, advocating for rights or higher wages, etc. “new” movements focus on issues such as identity and quality of life (pg. 20). Here the “multi-sited ethnographic” approach is justified as a conceptual framework (pg. 58), which is a result of the dynamic nature of the research, as introduced earlier. Moreover, there is a reinforcing of the overarching goals of the study: who are the constituents of THEA? What are their goals? What are their political and existential beliefs? (pg. 77).  

In chapter four, MacFarlane starts to reveal the findings of his ethnographic research. Here, he introduces us to the subjects of his study: the participants and constituents of THEA. Who they are, where they come from, and how they come to determine who “counts” as a member of their group. In terms of their professed values, these were mostly in line with the values of the European Enlightenment: Reason, Rational Empiricism and Belief in Science (pg. 107). While these kinds of values are found in quite moderate forms among various parts of any given population, MacFarlane notes that in some cases THEA endorsed an all or nothing approach, where “If you’re in, you’re all in” (emphasis in original) (pg. 111). 

Next, we encounter the objectives of this group. What is it that members of THEA want to achieve? It seems that the main objectives for such advocacy lie in the technologically inevitable extension and enhancement of what it means to be human, in existential, legal and social terms. This focus naturally results in a focus on the nature of human well-being and aims to find the most rational means to achieve an enriched sense of human well-being with the leveraged use of technoscience. A key difficulty that emerged in this discussion specifically was the tension between the merely functional aspects of technological leverage versus the attendant ethical risks. While technology has historically been a key feature of “progress”, this has also resulted in large economic gaps between the haves and the have-nots. At the very least, it seems at least some THEA are worried about such moral questions, but overall, there is a sense that a specifically moral vision is lacking (pg. 138). This constitutes a significant worry; especially as nascent technologies are often developed before coherent ethical and legal frameworks have been developed to cope with their implementation.

Building on this, the next chapter seeks to outline, on the one hand, how members of THEA relate to “traditional” politics, and, on the other, what their political convictions are. In the first instance, it seems there is a split between those who use traditional political structures to achieve their goals (with the formation of political parties), and those who believe that new approaches to politics and governance are required to achieve their technoscience goals (pg. 147). MacFarlane found that the latter group are by far in the majority, with little representation of THE issues in mainstream political discourse (pg. 150). One of the key reasons for this ambivalence is that for many proponents of THEA, there is a belief that traditional forms of democratic governance get in the way of scientific innovation, and therefore work against their explicit goals. There is more than a hint of technological determinism here, as the claim seems to be that unfretted technological innovation holds the cure to all social and political ills. Moreover, there is an acute focus by THEA on autonomy: that is, the freedom of individuals to “experiment” on themselves with the latest technology. This naturally dovetails with the finding that most members had broadly libertarian political commitments.

Chapter seven uncovers the existential presuppositions of THEA, such as their attitudes towards theism more generally, and how their attitudes are reflective of an interesting combination of rationalism and faith. In one of the most interesting findings of the book, a common intuition is overturned. Specifically, with all that has been said about the close relationship that THEA has with science and technology, one would expect very low levels of religious belief. However, as Macfarlane notes, while there is a contingent of transhumanists who are indeed atheist, “most transhumanists I encountered would more accurately be classed as ‘agnostic’—a perspective which, although while typically disavowing clerical authority, stops short of issuing any absolute metaphysical claims as to God’s existence or non-existence” (pg. 181). While there was an undercurrent distrust in religious dogma, this did not manifest in the overt atheism one often finds with many other popularisers of science and rationality (such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and A. C. Grayling). It seems THEA, generally, is more concerned with open-mindedness and “freethought” over and above explicit atheism.

In the final chapter, MacFarlane does important work in showing what the common themes of THEA are. While throughout the text, the individuals encountered often have seemingly divergent views and presuppositions, in this final chapter, it is shown that there is indeed a common thread running throughout. As noted earlier, MacFarlane terms this the Techno-centred Imagination (TCI), and describes it as “a novel type of imagination which assigns primacy to science and technology” (pg. 205). TCI is “a distinct non-spatially determined psychic-social-ideational entity” (pg. 212). What this characterization draws attention to is the importance of narrative, as this relates to identity construction not bound by any specific geographic constraints. He claims that THEA, while seemingly being grounded in the material reality of science and technology, is nevertheless legitimated through a strong attachment to a future-orientated imagination, which aims to uncover the potentials for the various ways in which technology may upgrade what it means to be human (pg. 206). The future is by its nature uncertain, and so there is an important sense in which the THEA is in principle always incomplete: it is an imaginative striving towards a potential future in which many uncertainties are solved through the application of technology. 

Transhumanism as a New Social Movement is a vital contribution to the nascent field of ethnographic work in NSMT, as this applies to THEA. As the first of its kind, it marks an important stepping stone in understanding both the kinds of beliefs and the ways in which those beliefs are formed in THEA groups. There are clear implications here for researchers interested in moral psychology, as if we do “upgrade” the human experience, there will also likely be an attendant change in our psychological makeup. Moreover, how such research is guided will have immense social and political significance. The enhanced capacities dreamed of by THEA, if they do come to fruition, will perhaps require a reworking of our current normative practices. MacFarlane has done a fine job in formalising the essential components of THEA, which will allow for greater conceptual clarity in understanding its past, present, and future. 

Fabio Tollon is a doctoral candidate at Bielefeld University, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project 254954344/GRK2073 “Integrating Ethics and Epistemology of Scientific Research”. He is also a fellow at the Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR).

Categories: Philosophical

Keywords: transhumanism, philosophy