Luke Robert Mason: You’re lis­ten­ing to the Futures Podcast with me, Luke Robert Mason.

On this episode, I speak to tran­shu­man­ists Max More, and Natasha Vita-More.

I think peo­ple are ask­ing the ques­tion, What are we going to become? What does it mean to be human?”
Natasha Vita-More, excerpt from interview

The basic idea of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom is that we have a right to choose to mod­i­fy our­selves in whichev­er ways we choose.
Max More, excerpt from interview

Max and Natasha dis­cuss their con­tri­bu­tions to the field of tran­shu­man­ism, the philo­soph­i­cal con­cept of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, and how we can work to lever­age advanced tech­nol­o­gy for human enhance­ment. This episode was record­ed on loca­tion at the offices of Futurism dot com, in New York City.

Luke Robert Mason: Transhumanism is a con­test­ed  sub­ject mat­ter, but you guys real­ly and tru­ly under­stand the his­to­ry of tran­shu­man­ism, and most peo­ple want to ask you about the future. What I want to ask you about is the past. So where did this all begin?

Natasha Vita-More: I look at it as hav­ing had its roots in Alighieri Dante’s poet­ry, when he wrote about tran­shu­ma­nar, which in Italian means to trans­form. Basically you could iden­ti­fy that as a human con­di­tion. Going for­ward to T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party, a Pulitzer Prize play, where it dis­cuss­es tran­shu­man­ised as a rela­tion­ship sit­u­a­tion or psy­cho­log­i­cal con­flict between think­ing modalities—and then into Huxley, who wrote a chap­ter on tran­shu­man­ism in New Bottles for New Wines, I believe it was. The bot­tom line is the word tran­shu­man has a his­to­ry across time and across cul­ture, and it sim­ply means trans­for­ma­tion or tran­si­tion­al.

If you look through phi­los­o­phy it’ll have a dif­fer­ent ter­mi­nol­o­gy, and Max is the best at that as a philoso­pher and an author of the phi­los­o­phy. For myself, The Transhuman,”” when I wrote the man­i­festo in 1983, it was about over­com­ing human lim­i­ta­tions, bio­log­i­cal lim­i­ta­tions, dis­ease and age­ing, and intel­lec­tu­al inabil­i­ties, mem­o­ry con­flicts, cer­tain lev­els of sad­ness, and a need for a more humane soci­ety. So that’s the tran­shu­man. I’ll pass it onto Max to get into the philo­soph­i­cal history.

Mason: You wrote these works back in the mid-80s. I mean, how did you come to this top­ic of transhumanism?

Max More: It’s a real­ly tough ques­tion about the roots of tran­shu­man­ism because there’s the ones I can actu­al­ly remem­ber and cite as influ­ences on me, and then of course there’s the his­to­ry which prob­a­bly has a periph­er­al influ­ence. We can go back to the alchemists of course and look at the core dreams. They did­n’t have the tech­nol­o­gy but they had their own ideas of over­com­ing age­ing, of trans­form­ing the ele­ments of flight and so on. So there’s been this kind of dri­ve for over­com­ing lim­its through his­to­ry. As far back as I can think in my own per­son­al his­to­ry to when I was a child, I’ve always been won­der­ing, Why are we lim­it­ed? Why can’t we get off this plan­et?”. I watched the Apollo 11 land­ing when I was five years old and watched every moon land­ing since, and I thought, Yes, why are we lim­it­ed to this grav­i­ty world?”, and then by the time I was in my ear­ly teens, I’m not sure how, but I got into life exten­sion. Not just health and and vitamins—I was start­ing to take those—but actu­al life extension—before I stopped even grow­ing. So I’m not quite sure where that came from. It was­n’t from my envi­ron­ment. Then, I don’t know—I came across Robert Anton Wilson, I mean Robert Heinlein, you know Methuselah’s Children and some of his books, which had some very long lived peo­ple. A lot of the ear­ly works—Saul Kent had a book The Life Extension Revolution in 1982, and there’s [inaudi­ble] and Sandie Shaw. I’m not real­ly sure what caused it but it had the com­mon theme which led to Extropy Magazine of over­com­ing limits—the fun­da­men­tal one of course being lifes­pan, but also get­ting off the plan­et. So it’s almost like there’s a gene for it. I’ve kind of seen this in oth­er peo­ple. Some peo­ple, you can talk to them for hours and they just won’t get it at all. Other peo­ple will just say, Oh yeah! I get it now!”, and it’s almost like there’s a gene for this. A neophil­ia gene or some­thing. I seem to have that, and it’s actu­al­ly very hard to say exact­ly how this happened.

Mason: What was hap­pen­ing cul­tur­al­ly back in the 80s that made you write these works and become inter­est­ed in this field of tran­shu­man­ism? Was it some­thing very unique about the envi­ron­ments that you guys were cir­cling in?

Vita-More: Yes. Well we were in two total­ly sep­a­rate envi­ron­ments at that time. I was in Telluride, Colorado, involved in the film indus­try. I was liv­ing in Japan and per­form­ing there, and was very excit­ed about my career as a per­former, artist, nar­ra­tor etc. The rea­son why I became inter­est­ed in life exten­sion, which is the core of tran­shu­man­ism, is because I became very ill. I was hos­pi­talised. I was told I might die. I was hem­or­rhag­ing to death, and lit­er­al­ly, phys­i­cal­ly going. At that time I had­n’t thought about life extension.

I then start­ed think­ing about the vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of the human body. The inflex­i­bil­i­ty of it. The shelf life of it. The dis­ease of age­ing and that the suf­fer­ing that humans have done just to stay alive and ward off any type of dis­ease. So that real­ly turned my life around. When I returned to the United States, I start­ed study­ing every­thing I could about the tech­nol­o­gy of life exten­sion. The sci­ence, evi­dence based sci­ence, and eth­i­cal tech­nol­o­gy. I want to make that clear because there’s a lot of pseu­do­science out there, and there are a lot of views that you think you can live for­ev­er and you will, and this term immor­tal­i­ty” has got­ten some band­width recent­ly. But the bot­tom line is we can­not sur­vive with­out cer­tain tech­nolo­gies. Genetic engi­neer­ing, stem cells, nano-medicine, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence to mit­i­gate the onslaught of age­ing and dis­ease. But the 1980s for me were a very fun-filled time of get­ting into elec­tron­ic arts and video and mul­ti­me­dia. I had a TV show in Los Angeles on the future. It was called Transcentury Update, and I would inter­view peo­ple about the future. So that’s my back­ground in becom­ing inter­est­ed in the future. Having first hand expe­ri­ence, hav­ing that gene that Max…whatever it is that you just go, Oh, wait a minute. Things are chang­ing.” Perhaps I was ahead of the curve, because now I look where the ideas we talked about back then are now get­ting more band­width and mainstream.

More: I can think of two oth­er kinds of impor­tant influx­es, I sup­pose. Like I said, it’s almost like I have a gene which I’m kind of being most­ly flip­pant about but maybe I don’t, maybe I do. But there’s also a very clear dri­ver in me to be very dis­sat­is­fied with human lim­its. I spent the years from about 11 years old to 14 explor­ing basi­cal­ly the para­nor­mal and the cults, part­ly because my old­er broth­er had left these books around but I found out about all of these dif­fer­ent things dous­ing to astral pro­jec­tion to Rosicrucians—you name it—the Kabbalah. Unfortunately none of it worked.

I also like super­hero comics and I thought, Well you know, why can’t we be super­hu­man? This stuff isn’t work­ing so maybe tech­nol­o­gy and sci­ence is the way to go.” At that time—it must be late 70s, ear­ly 80s—Omni mag­a­zine got going and they had an off­shoot called Future Life mag­a­zine, and it actu­al­ly had Robert Anton Wilson writ­ing about phys­i­cal immor­tal­i­ty or life exten­sion, and space colonisation—all of those kinds of things. So then I start­ed real­is­ing, Oh, there are actu­al­ly more peo­ple inter­est­ed in this”, and I think the idea start­ed to form and come togeth­er, and only lat­er on with my philo­soph­i­cal work did I sort of con­cep­tu­alise that more concretely.

Vita-More: It’s inter­est­ing because around that time too, Mondo 2000 and some of these other…the cyber­punks through sci­ence fic­tion were get­ting a lot of head­way. But it was almost con­trary to the tran­shu­man per­spec­tive because that was always based on a cyborg which is not a human evo­lu­tion or a human transformation—it’s just adding machines to the body as orig­i­nal­ly defined by Nathan Kline and Manfred Clynes. That was the rea­son for cyborgs—to go out into space, like a space suit. But the term real­ly cot­toned on with­in sci­ence fic­tion, espe­cial­ly with­in the film indus­try as well. It came out as a Terminator and some­thing dan­ger­ous and scary. It did­n’t have any humane­ness, any lev­el of human­i­ty with­in the term cyborg.

And then in aca­d­e­mics, we know the post­mod­ernists took it over. The postmodernists—really in espe­cial­ly in the philo­soph­i­cal depart­ments, the human­i­ties, fem­i­nism stud­ies, gay gen­der stud­ies, etc,—really pushed the notion of a cyborg, and fought the notion of the tran­shu­man. Because—and I final­ly fig­ured it out when I was writ­ing my dissertation—they did­n’t have the sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge, or tech­no­log­i­cal prowess to be able to under­stand what was real­ly hap­pen­ing behind the scenes as far as the evo­lu­tion of the human with technology.

More: Yeah, this con­cept of the cyborg caus­es a lot of trou­ble. But gen­er­al­ly cyborgs like the Terminator are gen­er­al­ly sub­hu­man. I mean, they can be very phys­i­cal­ly pow­er­ful, but they’re very nar­row, you know, they have a very nar­row focus. Punch and destroy, react in cer­tain ways. So that’s why we real­ly don’t like to use that term. It’s actu­al­ly noth­ing real­ly wrong with the term  inher­ent­ly, but it’s got this very bad con­no­ta­tion now of being con­trolled by the out­side and pro­grammed. That’s of course the very oppo­site of tran­shu­man­ism, which is all about mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, psy­cho­log­i­cal free­dom, choos­ing who you want to become.

Mason: Let’s talk a lit­tle bit about mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom because that was the essay that real­ly helped to define what the tra­jec­to­ry is for how we want to change and extend our­selves. I mean, could you explain what mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom is?

More: Yeah, I think I first used the term—at least that I can remember—at the Extropy Conference, where I gave a talk on this. It’s real­ly a typ­i­cal kind of pon­der­ous philoso­pher’s term, I sup­pose. But the idea was real­ly to encap­su­late all these dif­fer­ent ideas of shap­ing our­selves, and Natasha’s writ­ten about that from her own per­spec­tive. But to cre­ate ourselves—I mean, go back to obvi­ous­ly Friedrich Nietzsche. He talks about choos­ing one­self and oth­er peo­ple have, too—but he did­n’t have the tech­nol­o­gy. So the basic idea of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom is that we have a right or we should have a right assert­ed to choose to mod­i­fy our­selves and whichev­er ways we choose. Now I would choose to do it in ways that make me bet­ter, smarter, more intel­li­gent, kinder, more thought­ful, have bet­ter fore­sight and so on. Other peo­ple might choose oth­er things. And there could be some, you know, legit­i­mate legal argu­ments as to what you can and can­not do.

For instance, in the blind com­mu­ni­ty, this whole blind pride thing where they actu­al­ly want to make their chil­dren blind who would­n’t oth­er­wise be. That gets into some tricky areas. But as long as we’re talk­ing about increas­ing chil­dren’s capa­bil­i­ties and our own, that’s real­ly what it is—the free­dom both polit­i­cal­ly and with the tech­nol­o­gy to choose who you are phys­i­cal­ly, intel­lec­tu­al­ly, cog­ni­tive­ly, emotionally.

Mason: And you took that idea, Natasha, and you turned that into these won­der­ful art pieces with Primo-Posthuman. You real­ly explored what the pos­si­bil­i­ties of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom could actu­al­ly look like.

Vita-More: The way I saw it—that was in 1996, so it seems like aeons ago—I don’t even do any artis­tic endeav­ours. Maybe my life has become my art, I don’t know. But with Primo Posthuman, the idea was to design a whole body pros­thet­ic as a pro­to­type for the future. Design with the emerg­ing and spec­u­la­tive tech­nolo­gies and pon­der­ings of sci­ence in revers­ing and mit­i­gat­ing age­ing, etc.

But using nanomed­i­cine before the term nanomed­i­cine was even brought up out­side of Robert Freitas wrote the book Nanomedicine. And a lot of the ideas that maybe CRISPR has now with genet­ic engi­neer­ing. But it was­n’t only that. It was about encryp­tion, because in the ear­ly 1990s we talked about on the Extrope Transhumanist email list—it was the first email list on the inter­net, on the future. That was real­ly excit­ing. Encryption was some­thing impor­tant and so Bitcoin was dis­cussed, or cryp­tocur­ren­cy. Taking a look at maybe blockchain—all these ideas orig­i­nat­ed from the pur­vey­ors of that knowl­edge who have since been the the ear­ly adopters and entre­pre­neurs. The idea of Primp Posthuman was that we could have an alter­na­tive body that could be inter­change­able with biol­o­gy. It would­n’t have to be exclu­sive­ly technological—it could be semi-technological, semi-biological.

One thing that’s very impor­tant for every­one to know—and and here’s where I think that the news cov­er­age since the 1980s and cov­er­ing tran­shu­man­ism through the 1990s has got­ten it a lit­tle bit wrong—morphological free­dom means that while you may have the right to your body and to morph as you choose, a per­son also equal­ly has a right nev­er to be forced to enhance. And that’s very impor­tant because the idea that maybe tran­shu­mans think that we should be per­fect—what­ev­er per­fec­tion is—I have no inter­est in per­fec­tion. I think it’s a wast­ed space because once you’ve reached per­fec­tion, there’s no place else to go.

The idea that they’ll be the haves and the have nots, the elit­ist, those who have mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom or the mon­ey to do it, and every­one else will be an oth­er, some­one who’ll be dis­re­gard­ed is a ridicu­lous notion. I think that’s very obvi­ous through the world we live in, the mon­e­tary eco­nom­ic sys­tem we live in. I think Max could explain—it’s not just cap­i­tal­ism but com­pe­ti­tion with­in prod­ucts and the mar­ket­place. It dri­ves the price down. So that just about every­one today has a smart­phone. But ear­ly on only the elite, the rich will have smartphones.

More: I think it is very impor­tant to stress that aspect to mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom. Basically the neg­a­tive right not to be coerced. So if the gov­ern­ment decides, Oh yeah, it’d be good if peo­ple were much more intel­li­gent, they could be more pro­duc­tive and pay more tax­es by doing so, so we’re going to require every­body to get this upgrade.” Ah, not accord­ing to mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom. That says you have the right to decide. We don’t want peo­ple decid­ing what kind of behav­iours we should have or to change our emo­tion­al responses.

Of course, you know, you’ve got the clas­sic works of SOMA—people being pas­si­fied, basi­cal­ly. We don’t want that. We want peo­ple to choose what kind of modifications.

For instance, here’s a good one. What about you know, there’s this long run­ning and kind of cliche, which I’m not sure how true it is, but that great artists are often a lit­tle bit mad. I’m not entire­ly con­vinced that that’s true, but maybe in some cas­es, there is a trade off. Maybe you have to decide, Okay, am I will­ing to put up with a lit­tle bit of schiz­o­phre­nia or men­tal pain to pro­duce this kind of work or not?” I actu­al­ly tend to think the oppo­site is prob­a­bly true more often, actu­al­ly. The bet­ter men­tal health you’re in, the more free­dom you have to cre­ate. But there might be peo­ple in that con­di­tion and they would choose—the choice should­n’t be made for them. As long as they’re not choos­ing a state where there’s a dan­ger to oth­ers obvi­ous­ly, like a homi­ci­dal rage, I think there was a nov­el fol­low up to Blade Runner, a sort of a sequel to Blade Runner in which the char­ac­ter has his amyg­dala wired kind of back­wards. So the more dan­ger he’s in, the bet­ter he feels. He’s going on killing ram­pages and endan­ger­ing him­self, and he just feels bet­ter and bet­ter. That is prob­a­bly some­thing that’s to say well maybe we should­n’t allow that par­tic­u­lar mod­i­fi­ca­tion, it’s too dangerous.

Mason: Let’s stick on the top­ic of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom because the inter­est­ing thing about that 1989 essay is that it seems all about being stronger, bet­ter, faster, more enhanced. I won­der as we enter the 21st cen­tu­ry, whether mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom just needs to be about enhance­ment, whether it can be about dif­fer­ence. So we have these mod­ern 21st cen­tu­ry sci­ence cyborgs, folks like Neil Harbisson who is a col­or­blind artist, which makes the idea of his anten­na that allows him to hear colour a lit­tle bit more chal­leng­ing, because arguably, it is an enhance­ment. But for him, he sees it as a form of dif­fer­ence. He makes that choice him­self to have that anten­na. It does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly enhance him, or make him bet­ter. It just makes him dif­fer­ent. And I won­der in the envi­ron­ment, in the world in which we’re in right now about how we think about our own bod­ies and our iden­ti­ty, whether we need a revival of the idea of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom. Not just to be about being bet­ter, or faster or stronger, but being allowed to be dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed in what­ev­er way you see fit.

More: I mean, the rea­son why there’s an empha­sis on aug­men­ta­tion was because nobody else was empha­sis­ing that aspect. So every­body agrees that you should have help with the colour blind­ness or some­thing like that. But it’s very inclu­sive. Certainly it obvi­ous­ly includes…we have tran­shu­man­ism, it’s fun­ny now we now have trans­gen­derism. But it includes that—if you want to change your agen­da, that’s part of mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom. You should have the free­dom to do that.

Mason: How far do we allow mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom to go? If peo­ple decide that they want­ed to become some­thing oth­er than the body, should we have some form of limitation?

Vita-More: What you’re get­ting at—and cor­rect me if I’m wrong—you’re get­ting at maybe the psy­chol­o­gy of iden­ti­ty. What it means to be a per­son or per­son­hood, or what is agency? And could agency be some­thing oth­er than bio­log­i­cal? And would that be mor­pho­log­i­cal freedom—if I want­ed to become maybe this micro­phone, would I have that right to be this microphone?

Mason: That’s an extreme case, but can I change myself bio­log­i­cal­ly to also be that? I just won­der if mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom is get­ting to be a very use­ful top­ic as we enter these new times of pol­i­tics. I won­der if we need a revival and a re-look at mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom as a very egal­i­tar­i­an, very use­ful term.

More: I think it’s impor­tant to dis­tin­guish between the idea that you can just declare your­self to be some­thing. As one of the Monty Python crew annoyed at the BBC’s polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness recent­ly said. It was the American one, what’s his name? Terry Gilliam. He said…so the BBC said, We have this new com­e­dy troupe. They would all be boys from, you know, Oxford and Cambridge University.” So John Cleese said some­thing snarky, and then the oth­er guy said, Okay, I declare myself to be a black les­bian woman in tran­si­tion, then.” So there is this kind of ridicu­lous thing that you know, there are some good crit­ics of, where you just declare your­self to be a cer­tain kind of per­son. To me, that’s just delu­sion­al. But if your goal is to become that, and to actu­al­ly make use of real tech­nolo­gies, like obvi­ous­ly, hor­mone ther­a­py treat­ments, and maybe in the future, much more sophis­ti­cat­ed changes in the brain struc­ture, that’s anoth­er mat­ter. That’s some­thing that actu­al­ly is workable.

I think there is a lev­el of delu­sion where you just declare, you’re like, I’m going to be a dol­phin.” There’s actu­al­ly a guy who, like in his 50s, who lives as an eight year old girl, and to me that’s…okay that’s his choice. If you find peo­ple that want to put up with him to do that, okay—but I don’t see that as the same kind of thing that we’re talk­ing about here.

Vita-More: You know, when you have a gen­der change you go through psy­cho­log­i­cal treat­ment. You have to pass cer­tain lev­els of under­stand­ing of what the ram­i­fi­ca­tions will be or could be. So I think that prob­a­bly there will be a new field in psy­chol­o­gy that deals with agency, and dif­fer­ent lev­els of psy­chosis, and iden­ti­ty trans­fer­ence. And also there is body dys­mor­phia, there could be psy­cho­log­i­cal dys­mor­phia. Different lev­els of lack of under­stand­ing. That’s what I think along with mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, some­thing that is total­ly cru­cial to us right now is arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, and using nar­row AI and just about every­thing that we do today. Now AI is here. It’s all around us. But we don’t think of it as hav­ing agency or being some­thing that is real­ly chang­ing us. However, right around the cor­ner, a stronger AI or arti­fi­cial gen­er­al intel­li­gence will be used to aug­ment our cog­ni­tive process­es, to help us carve new neur­al path­ways in per­haps being more humane, being more empath­ic, being kinder peo­ple, and to actu­al­ly devel­op the essence of being humane, which is a very much miss­ing from a large sec­tion of human­i­ty. We call our­selves humans,  but where’s our lev­el of humane­ness? I think that’s some­thing that will be very impor­tant as we look at using tech­nolo­gies with­in mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, espe­cial­ly ones that will help our cog­ni­tive prop­er­ties and help us actu­al­ly get beyond some of our maybe depres­sions or strains and stress­es and trau­mas in life.

More: The way you kind of phrased mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom a while ago was to term it like the six mil­lion dol­lar man. Yes, we have the tech­nol­o­gy. We can make you faster, bet­ter, stronger. But it is, again—apart from what we’ve just been talk­ing about—other kinds of changes. It can also mean mak­ing the best of who you are right now. Because before we make too many wild changes, we might first of all want to improve the way we func­tion as we are.

More: I was talk­ing last night about this topic—and this is the idea of the kind of meta-brain idea—that right now the way we evolved, we real­ly don’t under­stand what the heck we’re doing, what our moti­va­tions are, why we get in cer­tain moods, because we don’t have very good access from the cor­ti­cal areas down into the emo­tion­al regions. We just pro­gramme you know: Tiger run­ning at me; get fright­ened; move. We’re not very good at deal­ing with com­plex­i­ty. We don’t have many path­ways going in the oth­er direc­tion. And I men­tioned a book by Joseph LeDoux, the neu­ro­sci­en­tist, called The Emotional Brain where he talks about that. So before mak­ing rad­i­cal changes to your­self, you might first of all, want to make the best of your­self. Really learn how to under­stand your­self. And peo­ple can say, Well you can med­i­tate.” Well, yeah you can, but there’s lim­its to that because you just don’t have the neur­al path­ways that are real­ly going to give you all the infor­ma­tion you need. So it’s not either or, but you could­n’t do both.

Mason: So to think that we might have this pos­si­bil­i­ty and mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom seems to con­flate bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion with cul­tur­al evo­lu­tion. Cultural evo­lu­tion is hap­pen­ing at a cer­tain speed but bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion takes mul­ti­ple gen­er­a­tions. It feels like we arrived at one point in time. We’ve got a body for 60 to 120 years and there is a degree of frus­tra­tion that these tran­shu­man­ists who advo­cate these mas­sive sort of rad­i­cal trans­for­ma­tions the body have, you know, they see cul­tur­al evo­lu­tion. They’ve got all these things that trav­el at the speed of light, why can’t we upgrade the brain to the speed of information?

Vita-More: I think that’s a nar­row seg­ment of the tran­shu­man­ist think­ing that per­haps are—yeah I agree, impa­tient, and want­i­ng to upload, and I think that one size does not fit all. The core of philo­soph­i­cal attrib­ut­es of tran­shu­man­ism are human and tran­si­tion to trans­form, and part of that trans­for­ma­tion is to go beyond our bio­log­i­cal limitations.

Our main bio­log­i­cal lim­i­ta­tion is shelf life. We only have a cer­tain amount of time that we’re alive, and the age­ing process is caus­ing us dis­ease. It’s a pret­ty sad thing actually—that you can only live so far. But there’s some peo­ple that are impa­tient so they want to upload with­out under­stand­ing tru­ly what that would be like.

More: My response is, yes, I’m one of those impa­tient peo­ple. I don’t want to wait for bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion to take, you know, hun­dreds of gen­er­a­tions to make these changes, because I won’t be there that point or else, I’ll be cry­op­re­served and come back, and I’ll be way out of date. So yes, I want to ben­e­fit from those things much, much soon­er. And bio­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion actu­al­ly, it does hap­pen all the time, but in kind of small ways. To pro­duce the big changes we’re talk­ing about would take way too long. So yes, I’m one of those impa­tient peo­ple, I want to speed up the process. I don’t want to over speed it up, and we have to be care­ful in what changes we make and mod­els and exper­i­ment in small ways and inte­grate those care­ful­ly, not just sud­den­ly fly off and—

Vita-More: Let’s con­tex­tu­alise this here. We have not evolved. Humans have not evolved for over 200,000 years.

More: Well we have but not in mas­sive ways, our brain structures—

Vita-More: We are the same species, homo sapi­ens, the hominid. We have not evolved in 200,000 years. Yes, we have devel­oped new psy­cho­log­i­cal process­es, we may be able to do things slight­ly dif­fer­ent­ly, but those are those slight things. We’re talk­ing about big changes with the tran­shu­man­ist agen­da of extend­ing life well beyond 123 max­i­mum human lifes­pan, to extend agency or con­scious­ness across sub­strates from bio­log­i­cal sub­strate to com­pu­ta­tion­al sub­strate to chem­i­cal sub­strate to vir­tu­al or aug­ment­ed sub­strate, and sub­strates we haven’t even con­sid­ered yet.

So that means that we would be liv­ing as uploads or down­loads or cross loads with­in dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments, and I think that this is evi­denced in the gam­ing indus­try, the gam­ing field where play­ers take on char­ac­ters and they’re there. They’re there. When you watch gamers play­ing, they’re real­ly in that game. That’s them as that char­ac­ter in the game. There are cer­tain issues psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly that can occur from that. We don’t need to go into that, but peo­ple can take on iden­ti­ties that are not them­selves. But yes, upload­ing is great. We just don’t have the tech­nol­o­gy now. So if you talk to some peo­ple they say I want this to hap­pen right now.” you know. Technology is advancing—exponential this, expo­nen­tial that, and I’m still human. I’m age­ing, and we don’t have any cure for it right now. What am I going to do?” Well, hold on, let’s not upload too fast. Because to do that, it’s going to take a hell of a lot more pro­cess­ing pow­er than we have right now, and bet­ter pro­gram­ming tools, bet­ter pro­gram­ming soft­ware. Until then, the best thing is cryonics.

I mean, I want to upload too, but I want to cross load and down­load and live in numer­ous envi­ron­ments with numer­ous bod­ies and iden­ti­ties and mul­ti­ple cells, etc., as long as they’re not frac­tured. But I would not want to do it too soon, if the tech­nol­o­gy is not ready yet.

More: Of course evo­lu­tion isn’t one thing. It’s hap­pen­ing to mil­lions of dif­fer­ent species at dif­fer­ent rates. And we have a big prob­lem right now in that we’re hav­ing, you know, resis­tance to antibac­te­r­i­al treat­ments, because bac­te­ria evolve much faster than we do. I mean, that is actu­al­ly one thing—I think most things peo­ple pan­ic about real­ly aren’t that big a deal. That one actu­al­ly real­ly does con­cern me unfor­tu­nate­ly, there is some work on that. So it’s not real­ly good enough to say, Oh, we’ll just wait til we evolve resis­tance.” because  we could have lost 90% of the species at that point. So learn­ing how to accel­er­ate the improve­ments to our immune sys­tem seems to be pret­ty important.

Mason: If we make a col­lec­tive deci­sion to change our­selves in a cer­tain way, shape or form, what we’re going to end up doing is homogenis­ing the human species. I won­der if there’s a mis­un­der­stand­ing of evo­lu­tion. It’s not sur­vival of the fittest—it’s sur­vival of the mutant. And if we get rid of all the mutants, then are we going to be expos­ing our­selves to one sin­gu­lar bac­te­r­i­al infec­tion that would wipe us all out? Because we all have these hyper effi­cient bod­ies and hyper effi­cient sys­tems, but it only takes one thing to knock out every­body with that same genet­ic similarity.

More: Well, it’s fun­ny because now you’re kind of tak­ing the very oppo­site of what we were just talk­ing about. We were talk­ing about how mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, basically—you were kind of wor­ry­ing about the oth­er extreme that we might be to dri­ve rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent from each oth­er, but now wor­ried about you know, peo­ple being homogenised, which is prob­a­bly the more com­mon objec­tion mech­a­ni­sa­tion, mar­gin­al­i­sa­tion. And those are valid con­cerns. But I think there’ll be cer­tain things that just are obvi­ous­ly good things to have. It’s a good thing that we have antibi­otics right now—they’re just los­ing their effec­tive­ness. It’s a good thing we have antivi­ral agents. It’s a good thing we have ways of killing bugs in hos­pi­tals. So I don’t think we wor­ry about those.

But there will be cer­tain changes that…I don’t think every­body will do the same thing any­way, because just try and get every­body to do the same thing. They’re not going to. We’re even gonna have some peo­ple who won’t make any changes, who’ll refuse to. They’ll say, No, I just want to be human.” and I came up with this amus­ing term for this. Just like we have the Amish—and there isn’t just one Amish group—but they choose a lev­el of tech­nol­o­gy they find accept­able. So some of them allow mobile phones out on the field, for instance, but not inside the house, because it takes away from the group. But they set the lim­its there. And there may be peo­ple who will set the lim­its at being human. Okay, we’ll allow these kinds of surg­eries and this kind of can­cer treat­ment, but we’re not gonna have any kind of max­i­mum life exten­sion increase or changes to my brain.” and they should be free to do that. They may form their own human­ist com­mu­ni­ties at some point. They may have a hard time com­mu­ni­cat­ing with us, but they should be free to do so.

Mason: The prob­lem is, and it’s one of the cri­tiques of tran­shu­man­ism is, is it too indi­vid­u­al­ist and indi­vid­ual cen­tric? It’s my life that I want to extend. It’s me, me, me, I want to change some­thing. I want to adapt some­thing. I want to upgrade some­thing. Rather than think­ing about human­i­ty as a col­lec­tive. When we get into those dis­cus­sions, my mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom ver­sus your mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom. The cri­tique, or one of the large cri­tiques of tran­shu­man­ism is that it’s too self focused.

Vita-More: I used to think that maybe tran­shu­man­ists are self­ish. Maybe it’s wrong to want to live longer. And when peo­ple inter­view­ing over the years, espe­cial­ly in the 1990s, say­ing, Why do you want to live longer? Why are you so impor­tant? Why is your life so valu­able that you know, that you think you should live longer, and the old­er are sup­posed to die and make way for the young?” I’ve giv­en that con­sid­er­able thought. And final­ly I had an epiphany. I nev­er knew how to answer that artic­u­late­ly. I’d always stum­ble around with it until I was fly­ing on an aero­plane one when day, and I woke up, paid atten­tion to the flight attendant—everyone’s usu­al­ly not pay­ing attention—and the flight atten­dant was going through their dance and said, If there’s a prob­lem with air, oxy­gen, down from the top will come this oxy­gen thing. Now, put it on your­self first. Make sure you put it on your­self first and then turn to the per­son sit­ting next to you—whether it’s a child or an elder­ly per­son or some­one who needs help—then help them. But put it on your­self first.” I take that as a safe­ty mea­sure, unless we help our­selves first, improve our humane­ness, our human­i­ty, our lev­el of under­stand­ing, our own per­son­al growth, our lev­el of knowl­edge, under­stand­ing, crit­i­cal think­ing, prob­lem solv­ing skills, etc., we can­not help oth­ers. So no, it is not self­ish. It’s a smart thing to do.

More: I think it can be both. I mean it’s self­ish in the kind of a neu­tral sense of being attend­ed to first. That’s a great anal­o­gy real­ly, because unless you take care of your­self first, you can’t real­ly help oth­er peo­ple. But you can do both at once. And my big con­cern is, I don’t want to build into mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, for instance, some kind of pos­i­tive right to have these treat­ments, because then you can get the gov­ern­ment involved, decid­ing what kind of mod­i­fi­ca­tions you can make. That’s why I think it’s impor­tant to be indi­vid­u­al­is­tic, because oth­er­wise you’re gonna end up with—now that you’ve used the word eugen­ics—unfor­tu­nate­ly it has all these hor­ri­ble con­no­ta­tions, because there’s noth­ing inher­ent­ly wrong. It just means good genes. But it’s been asso­ci­at­ed with poli­cies of cen­tral con­trol who cen­tral author­i­ties decide who you should be. So I make no apol­o­gy for it being indi­vid­u­al­is­tic in that sense. But I think it’s kind of a false dichoto­my. We can have indi­vid­u­als mak­ing those choic­es, as long as we have the right kind of socio-economic sys­tems and rea­son­able bands that should ben­e­fit everybody.

I mean, it should be a cliche by now but you know, how many peo­ple had these things? You know, 30 years ago, it used to be just a few exec­u­tives car­ry­ing a big brief­case. Now peo­ple in you know, in very poor areas have cell phones. If it was­n’t for the rich peo­ple hav­ing those first, every­body else would­n’t have them. So they’re kind of first adopters, they actu­al­ly take more risks, I sup­pose. And I think we’re actu­al­ly see­ing the time between first adop­tion and wide­spread adop­tion shrink­ing, and that’s going to be even faster. So I real­ly make no apol­o­gy for that. I think first of all, it’s not that I’m more impor­tant than any­one else, it’s that I can make my own choic­es. I’m not going to make your choic­es for you. Hopefully, I can set a decent exam­ple. But I think by devel­op­ing these and talk­ing about them, mak­ing them avail­able, oth­er peo­ple are more like­ly, then, to ben­e­fit from them.

Vita-More: You know, you asked in the begin­ning about the his­to­ry of tran­shu­man­ism and how it arrived and and where the term stems from and what it was like in the ear­ly days. I’d like to focus on that, if we could, because it’s real­ly inter­est­ing from the 1980s the changes that took place. From the 1980s, before the world view was devel­oped, tru­ly. The term tran­shu­man was out there in the mar­ket­place. It had been a term used by F. M. Esfandiary, myself, let’s see—Ettinger may have used it. Of course Huxley used it. Damien Broderick used to in dif­fer­ent ways. But it was­n’t until the late 1980s that the phi­los­o­phy was writ­ten by Max, and there­fore became a worldview.

But how did it become a world­view? What was the his­to­ry of that? That’s some­thing that is so dis­card­ed in not only in jour­nal­is­tic nar­ra­tives, but in many aca­d­e­m­ic books and papers, and doc­u­men­taries on tran­shu­man­ism, and I think one thing that would be love­ly and and so impor­tant for you to do with your project is to set that straight and to get that his­to­ry clear from the two pio­neers who are still with us today. The third one is in cry­on­ics, so he isn’t here that’s F. M. Esfendiary.. But from the 1980s I remem­ber I went to F. M.‘s class­es. He was a very dear friend, and he said specif­i­cal­ly that he did not want a move­ment. He had cre­at­ed the Upwingers Movement ear­ly on in the 1970s, but F. M. was adamant about not mak­ing it a move­ment. He did­n’t want to do a move­ment. But he was a bit of a staunch indi­vid­u­al­ist guru. Someone who thought every­one should emanate his view of what the tran­shu­man was—and I had an extreme dif­fer­ence of opin­ion. I think you be your tran­shu­man, I’ll be mine—as long as we val­ue life.

More: A very impor­tant route of that: Sometimes when I try to explain tran­shu­man­ism, I some­times say you can pass that as trans-humanism, or as transhuman-ism, which stress­es two dif­fer­ent aspects. The trans-humanism one ties into the enlight­en­ment and the enlight­en­ment route—so tran­shu­man­ist think­ing which stress­es rea­son, progress, even if there is a God or not. Understanding what is up to us to improve our lives. Really, tran­shu­man­ism has grown out of that, in the sense that it has the same kind of basic goals, but more rad­i­cal. So I think that’s impor­tant to note from a philoso­pher’s point of view. But in terms of the cul­ture of the time, it’s hard to say. I think it’s because we had some suc­cess in space until—of course it was political—so we stopped for a long time. Until more recent­ly, because new bio­log­i­cal tools are being devel­oped, because computers—personal computers—started appear­ing, and peo­ple start­ed talk­ing on inter­net forums, includ­ing our very ear­ly one.

All these new ideas kind of start­ed bub­bling to the sur­face. And peo­ple start­ed con­nect­ing them in ways they nev­er real­ly had. And that was one rea­son I start­ed my Extropy magazine—because I had no one real­ly to talk to about these ideas. I’ve had peo­ple call me from the mid­dle of nowhere say­ing, Oh, thank good­ness. I just read an under­ground pub­li­ca­tion review of your mag­a­zine, and I got it. And thank good­ness oth­er peo­ple actu­al­ly think this way.” So I think it was just all these dif­fer­ent ideas of space and even like blockchain stuff ear­ly on, and robot­ics and AI and life exten­sion, and peo­ple con­nect­ing and actu­al­ly start­ing to see how those affect­ed one anoth­er, and like obvi­ous­ly this leads into a big­ger worldview.

Vita-More: And what’s so inter­est­ing there too, is that—and this was in the ear­ly 90s—and through Extropy which was the first tran­shu­man­ist organ­i­sa­tion, it was a 501 (c) (3) non-profit that Max start­ed with a col­league of his. And even­tu­al­ly I became President of it for—I guess—maybe four years. But Max ran it pret­ty much sole­ly, and put on these amaz­ing con­fer­ences in Silicon Valley. But the speak­ers at the con­fer­ences are the peo­ple that every­one wants to know about now. We had Kim Eric Drexler, father of nan­otech­nol­o­gy, who is one of our col­leagues and friends, and a mem­ber of Extropy Institute. Marvin Minsky, father of arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. Marwick, Kurzweil, Greg Faye, Gregory Stock, Martine Rothblatt. The list goes on and on. The ear­ly thinkers. We did­n’t have the term entre­pre­neur” then, but it’s the orig­i­nal thought mak­ers of the sci­ences and tech­nolo­gies that are now in the mar­ket­place today, that are being used. Robotics, AI, nan­otech­nol­o­gy, blockchain, Bitcoin—all these ideas orig­i­nat­ed through those indi­vid­u­als, who hap­pened to get togeth­er. It’s kind of like hap­pen­stance, in a way. It was quite wonderful.

More: And I think the oth­er part of it was kind of the the ris­ing of dig­i­tal cul­ture, gen­er­al­ly. So Wired mag­a­zine start­ed in what­ev­er year that was. But I remem­ber in the sec­ond issue of Wired mag­a­zine, Kevin Kelly did a lit­tle review of Extropy mag­a­zine, which of course got us a flood of enquiries. Then they did a cov­er fea­ture on us not too long after that. From 1994 it would have been—the first con­fer­ence. So I think Wired mag­a­zine sort of reflect­ed a new cul­ture of the mix­ture of ele­ments of cyber cul­ture. Some very crit­i­cal, some very opti­mistic, and that was obvi­ous­ly close­ly con­nect­ed to us. So we had par­ties at Wired mag­a­zine and knew a lot of those peo­ple. So it was part of the zeit­geist, to use the term.

Vita-More: Yes, and Kevin Kelly went on to work with The Quantified Self, which was a great project, and look­ing at the TED con­fer­ences, Chris Anderson. I guess it was more like a Silicon Valley, Northern-Southern California, part­ly film indus­try where I was locat­ed. Then the aca­d­e­m­ic crowd where Max was locat­ed, with the Silicon Valley where Extropy flour­ished, and then all that was the the Nexus—that whole California, with the link to New York City of course, as well—and London.

You know it’s inter­est­ing, but it was nev­er about being self­ish. It was about hav­ing com­mu­ni­ty and com­mu­ni­cat­ing, and solv­ing prob­lems. How could we use these tech­nolo­gies to fur­ther the tran­shu­man­ist agen­da, life exten­sion, mit­i­gate dis­ease, help peo­ple any­where, any­time, live a bet­ter life? The idea of per­fec­tion, again, was nev­er in our think­ing modal­i­ty at all. It was more about going out into space, the inter­plan­e­tary future of things, and look­ing at automa­tion and robot­ics, and pros­thet­ics. In fact, an exam­ple of how far things have come since I designed Primo Posthuman—that was 1996. Think of how far robot­ics has come since then with the nar­row AI and hap­tic sys­tems and neural-interface. You can have some­one with legs that can walk, and run, and be in the Olympics. How incred­i­ble is that? Or pick up a cup and feel the heat or cool­ness of that cup. This is amazing.

Mason: But the prob­lem was at the time, the stuff that you guys were talk­ing about was con­sid­ered vaporware.

Vita-More: Oh, yes.

Mason: I mean, how did you deal with the detrac­tors who were like, Yes this is this is very nice, as a phi­los­o­phy, as an idea. Maybe some of this stuff will hap­pen, maybe not.”

Vita-More: Cried a lot. Cried a lot. Oh, man. I remem­ber when we were on the cov­er of LA Magazine, I thought, Oh, this is going to be great.” I was so excit­ed. And then the journalists—I was giv­ing a talk at MGM. The jour­nal­ist who was inter­view­ing me for it came to MGM, you know, the film stu­dio where I was giv­ing a talk on the future. And the astro­naut Buzz Aldrin was there. And we were giv­ing a talk about the future of the human and why we need­ed stronger, more durable, last­ing bod­ies, etc. Primo Posthuman orig­i­nal­ly was my naked body, and it was a point and click web­site. So you’d go to my naked body. I did­n’t show tits and ass too much, just a lit­tle bit. Enough to be sexy. But you point and click around my brain to see aug­ment­ed to my meta-brain, cog­ni­tion, mem­o­ry, the skin. So I could change the colour of my skin, the inter­nal organs; replace­ment. It was more ath­let­ic than any­thing, since I am more ath­let­ic than then try­ing to be a Playboy mate. But that jour­nal­ist lied in the mag­a­zine LA Weekly and said I was pass­ing around naked pic­tures of myself. I was hor­ri­fied by that. So some­times you don’t expect a project that you do to have legs. That real­ly makes a big difference.

Mason: I want to talk a lit­tle bit about being a female tran­shu­man­ist in the mid 80s. It is some­thing that you’ve shared with me before, but it was a dif­fi­cult envi­ron­ment to be in from what you were describ­ing. Transhumanism—the oth­er cri­tique is it’s a lot of white male guys talk­ing about poten­tial­ly what women will do with them­selves in the future.

Vita-More: Gotta love them. Gotta love you both, every­one. Yes, it was tough. Number one—I was an artist, some­thing I do not call myself today. I don’t get jobs being an artist. So I’m a strate­gic design­er, the­o­reti­cian, academic.

Working out, hav­ing a body that I could show off. Being in the film indus­try, being with­in the Telluride film crowd that I was in. Having dat­ed Warren Beatty, and hav­ing been with­in that sector—it was real­ly hard to to be accept­ed with­in this high lev­el intel­lec­tu­al domain of all these incred­i­ble, tal­ent­ed philoso­phers, sci­en­tists, tech­nol­o­gists. I was pret­ty much ignored except by Max and F. M. Esfandiary. It’s true. It was very hard—women were not at these meet­ings. Women were not there. It was­n’t the norm, and it was very dif­fi­cult, too.

Since then, of course, I’ve got­ten two mas­ters and a PhD, and now I can outtalk any­one about soft­ware pro­gram­ming and AI and nano, but back then it was hard. But I have to blame myself. I take full respon­si­bil­i­ty. I have no idea why I got an under­grad­u­ate degree in paint­ing. That’s like get­ting a degree today in…philosophy.

Mason: Philosophy, yeah. Let’s not men­tion that.

More: You know, a cou­ple of things about that. It is actu­al­ly real­ly fas­ci­nat­ing to think about the ear­ly days. I talk to peo­ple about these ideas, and they just kind of think, Well, this is just nuts. This is just pure sci­ence fic­tion.” And it’s been fas­ci­nat­ing to see how that’s changed since we have start­ed dis­trib­ut­ing stu­dents to the con­fer­ences, and then Humanity+, and now it is not like sci­ence fic­tion. It’s, Oh, my good­ness, that’s going to hap­pen. What should we do about that? Does that mean that AI’s going to take con­trol?” Now they’re tak­ing it very seri­ous­ly and they’re argu­ing about the outcome—not about whether it’s pos­si­ble. So that’s been a huge change.

Mason: The prob­lem is, these ideas only receive a cer­tain degree of trac­tion when they’re through the lens of an indi­vid­ual who has the finan­cial or busi­ness means. So Elon Musk on sim­u­la­tion theory—no one even knew about sim­u­la­tion the­o­ry and what Bostrom was writ­ing about that, until sud­den­ly Elon Musk opens the Overton Window, makes a state­ment in a pub­lic forum—and sud­den­ly the press go absolute­ly wild over it. Or with his Neuralink project. And then what Brian Johnson is doing. The indi­vid­u­als who’ve made their mon­ey from oth­er means, whether it’s entre­pre­neur­ship or it’s some form of web based com­pa­ny now have a cer­tain degree of dis­pos­able finance to -

Vita-More: Yes. Ray Kurzweil’s tech­no­log­i­cal sin­gu­lar­i­ty which came from Vernor Vinge, a math­e­mati­cian sci­ence fic­tion writer.

More: I. J. Good before that.

Vita-More: I. J. Good before that.

More: Then of course Google is doing the Calico project, kind of a life exten­sion company.

Mason: In what way are both of you, as the pio­neers of these ideas, being brought to the table with these dis­cus­sions? Because all the eth­i­cal impli­ca­tions, or the cul­tur­al and social impli­ca­tions that they’re deal­ing with right now as they’re build­ing these com­pa­nies are things that you guys have dealt with for the last 20 years.

Vita-More: And we’ve thought about it and talked about it, and writ­ten about it and debat­ed about it, and it’s been part of our con­ver­sa­tion. That tran­shu­man­ist con­ver­sa­tion, whether from The Extropy Institute to the World Transhumanist Association, and Humanity+. The tran­si­tion of the devel­op­ment out of bring­ing peo­ple togeth­er for con­fer­ences. It has been so deeply argued, debat­ed dis­cussed, but we must be included.

More: It would be nice to be called on more often to advise but there are some inter­est­ing things that do hap­pen. We were actu­al­ly in New York Cut last time but one maybe for this gam­ing con­fer­ence, which is kind of fas­ci­nat­ing because it was a very—what was it – Deus Ex?

Vita-More: Deus Ex, yes.

 More: Yes. But the inter­est­ing thing was the con­fer­ence was tak­ing this very seri­ous­ly. They had peo­ple com­ing in demon­strat­ing pros­thet­ics and talk­ing about the phi­los­o­phy, and try­ing to have rules for this world on a very seri­ous lev­el. That was interesting—that was a gam­ing company.

Vita-More: That gam­ing indus­try is look­ing at this. The gam­ing indus­try has actu­al­ly tak­en a lot of the tran­shu­man­ist writ­ing and ideas and put it with­in games, but not at the lev­el that could be very ben­e­fi­cial. I think anoth­er area is with what Peter Diamandis is doing with the X Prize. He’s look­ing at abun­dance for all, but that idea gen­er­at­ed from Eric Drexler in his book, his PhD dis­ser­ta­tion Engines of Creation from MIT.

What I’m intend­ing to do is to real­ly focus more and be more like, like you and Alex Klokus and oth­ers. As Executive Director of Humanity+, I’m real­ly going to work very hard at look­ing at mor­pho­log­i­cal free­dom, the proac­tionary prin­ci­ple, look­ing at leg­is­la­tion and gov­er­nance on an inter­na­tion­al level—not just the United States, but through­out the world.

It’s very impor­tant that peo­ple under­stand no mat­ter what par­tic­u­lar polit­i­cal agen­da is in con­trol or not, or reli­gious view that’s in control—it’s hap­pen­ing. What it means to be human is on the tip of every­one’s tongue, and some­thing that we have thought about for 30 or 40 years, look­ing at what the future sce­nar­ios could pos­si­bly be. And there are so many dif­fer­ent alter­na­tive futures. Certainly no one has the answer to any one future. But many of the com­ments that you brought up and the ques­tions that you’ve asked are cer­tain­ly per­ti­nent to this larg­er discussion.

More: I per­son­al­ly don’t have a whole lot of time to go out there advis­ing peo­ple any­way, even if I’m asked, because I’m run­ning the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, which is the world’s lead­ing cry­on­ics organ­i­sa­tion, and that’s very much a full time job right now. But occa­sion­al­ly you have to get away and you know, do some oth­er things to keep perspective.

But I just want to take a lit­tle bit of a step back in the sense of when you were talk­ing about whether tran­shu­man­ist thinking—early or now—is kind of too indi­vid­u­al­is­tic, or too self­ish. Even in the ear­ly days, things we dis­cussed in Extropy mag­a­zine and on the online forums—a lot of that was­n’t just about get­ting big­ger, faster, stronger. It was about, How do we redesign soci­eties for the bet­ter?” You know, we’re only now start­ing to read about smart con­tracts. But Mark Miller and Zac [?] were writ­ing about that a long time ago in Extropy mag­a­zine. How can we actu­al­ly use tech­nol­o­gy in com­bi­na­tion with new social struc­tures to every­body’s benefit?

Vita-More: And it’s still time­ly today because those are struc­tures and blockchain is look­ing that. Where can blockchain go in so many dif­fer­ent areas, where it’s becom­ing a cliche. Those lev­els are con­duits of infor­ma­tion that help with under­stand­ing dif­fer­ent sce­nar­ios and play­ing out strate­gies. Especially with encryp­tion and cod­ing, where this is so cru­cial today—how to pro­tect your­self; how to pro­tect your identity.

Mason: My chal­lenge with tran­shu­man­ism, the move­ment, is it can be a lot of indi­vid­u­als sit­ting online, sort of advo­cat­ing their futures in a very science-fiction way on blogs and mes­sag­ing boards, and it just does­n’t feel very use­ful. There’s a lot of inter­est and a lot of excite­ment around tran­shu­man­ism, but those get­ting excit­ed aren’t always nec­es­sar­i­ly the best advo­cates for transhumanism.

More: Right, sure, not always, but also a lot of those people—like in the ear­ly forums, online forums—after a while they got off the forums and they start­ed, you know. Working on robot­ics or genet­ic engi­neer­ing and so they got busy doing stuff. So there’s gonna be dif­fer­ent peo­ple who, first of all it’s new to them, so that you know—they’re get­ting excit­ed. Maybe overex­cit­ed occa­sion­al­ly, but then that dri­ves them to be inter­est­ed in, Okay, how do I get involved in bio­hack­ing or in blockchain or in life exten­sion?” So I think there’s room for every­thing and I guess I spend most of my time doing some­thing very prac­ti­cal that I actu­al­ly might allow me to live past my nat­ur­al lifes­pan. So I’m busy doing prac­ti­cal stuff. But I think it’s very impor­tant that there is actu­al­ly an aca­d­e­m­ic move­ment as well, because it’s need­ed. You know, we’ve got all this…honestly, I don’t want to go into a tirade but there is a lot of non­sense at universities.

Vita-More: Postmodernist nonsense.

More: Postmodernist. A lot of these stud­ies. I think they could do some tran­shu­man­ist stud­ies, because it would tie togeth­er a num­ber of top­ics in kind of a good way, a very help­ful way of teach­ing crit­i­cal think­ing, and ways of think­ing about the future more effec­tive­ly. That would be, I think, a valu­able thing. So it’s impor­tant to main­tain that. But that does­n’t mean peo­ple should­n’t be work­ing on projects. They def­i­nite­ly should, and more and more so so than what they are.

What I would like to see is more promi­nent peo­ple who are actu­al­ly doing stuff say, Well, yeah, of course, I’m a tran­shu­man­ist.” And for it to just be kind of like a triv­ial thing. Just like, you know, an 18th cen­tu­ry some­one say­ing, Yeah, I’m a human­ist. But let’s talk about the details of this.” So it should be like men­tioned as part of the back­ground in a sense.

Mason: But this is a prob­lem, no one real­ly knows at the turn of the 21st cen­tu­ry. What is a 21st cen­tu­ry tran­shu­man­ist? Professor Steve Fuller in the UK is very com­fort­able say­ing that he’s a tran­shu­man­ist, only inso­far as he’s not a post-humanist.

Vita-More: Right, yes, yes.

Mason: He sees it as there’s tran­shu­man­ism, there’s posthu­man­ism, you’ve got to put your cards in one camp.

Vita-More: Well Kevin Warwick would say, I’m a cybor­gist” because he’s built his career on that so he can’t real­ly say he’s a tran­shu­man­ist, but he real­ly is. Stelarc—another one. He’s very much a tran­shu­man­ist but he will call him­self a tran­shu­man­ist, but due to his career -

Mason: To under­stand tran­shu­man­ism through its rela­tion­ship with posthu­man­ism. Correct me if I’m wrong but the way I’ve always under­stood tran­shu­man­ism is that the human still exists in one form or shape—whether it’s frozen, uploaded, extend­ed through chang­ing or manip­u­lat­ing the body. Something remains about the 21st cen­tu­ry human, where­as posthumanism—they’re a lit­tle more lais­sez faire. They’re like, You know what, if we don’t sur­vive, we don’t exist—whatever.”

Vita-More: Well you have to remem­ber that tran­shu­man is a human in tran­si­tion, evolv­ing. We’re still evolv­ing, although you know, as I said, in 200,000 years not so much.

Mason: So then we’re all transhumanists?

Vita-More: Yeah, I think so.

More: Not con­scious­ly, no.

Vita-More: Not con­scious­ly. We’re all tran­shu­man. We’re all evolv­ing. But the ist’ means your belief sys­tem, how you prac­tice your life. A posthu­man? No one knows what a posthu­man is going to be. It could be any­thing, we can spec­u­late on it. But to give a cod­i­fied def­i­n­i­tion of what a posthu­man is, we’d have to say very loose­ly, with some wig­gle room, that it’s after the species. But chang­ing a species is a tall order. It gets into the germline. It gets into the you know, evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy, it gets into all sorts of ter­mi­nol­o­gy and ram­i­fi­ca­tions that dif­fer­en­ti­ate species.

More: There’s no sharp line between tran­shu­man and posthu­man in my mind, and that’s the way I’ve always pre­sent­ed it. Transhumanism is the move­ment towards the posthu­man, what­ev­er that might be or the many forms it may take. So it’s not exclu­sive of posthuman—whatever that means. The trou­ble is posthu­man­ism, as a term. I have no bloody idea what that means because in some sens­es, it just means think­ing about being uploaded and being non bio­log­i­cal and in the sense that it’s clos­est to us, but it also means post­mod­ernism. Postmodernists use this term. To me, that’s a bunch of non­sense for the most part. So there’s very dif­fer­ent mean­ings attached to that word posthu­man­ism. So some­one says they’re posthu­man­ism, I’m gonna say, I don’t real­ly know what you mean. Can you explain? Which type of posthu­man­ist are you?”

But tran­shu­man­ism is not incom­pat­i­ble with the idea of post-human at all. It is the move­ment towards over­com­ing human lim­its, which has no par­tic­u­lar lim­it. It’s again, it’s not the end­ing of imper­fec­tion, because I don’t believe that con­cept is use­ful. It’s a stu­pid pla­ton­ic idea. It’s con­tin­u­ous improve­ment, which is going to take us to some point where we real­ly are not recog­nis­ably human, if you define that in terms of our genet­ic struc­ture and your log­i­cal capability.

Vita-More: But you men­tioned some­thing that about the 1990s, some of the lack of advo­ca­cy for tran­shu­man, and I think our biggest hin­drance was post­mod­ernist aca­d­e­mics. Because most of them were tenured, and they were in those depart­ments that were real­ly impor­tant for fem­i­nist stud­ies with N. Katherine Hayles, and Andrew Pickering and Donna Haraway, and that whole flux of American and European aca­d­e­mics. The prob­lem there is, that’s all great what post­mod­ernism did in aca­d­e­mics and the­o­ret­i­cal­ly, but where it stopped—it did­n’t under­stand tech­nol­o­gy, and evi­dence based sci­ence. It had those academics—and as skilled and refined as they were with their rhetoric—they lacked the knowl­edge and the inter­est in look­ing at AI and robot­ics and automa­tion and nan­otech­nol­o­gy, all the dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies and the expo­nen­tial­i­ty of them.

More: Even more impor­tant to me, at least as a philoso­pher, is that through the sci­en­tif­ic method and a sense of objec­tiv­i­ty, every­body just has their own world­view, which is equal­ly valid. Even though some­how they can crit­i­cise oth­er peo­ple get angry at them. And I think that’s, as I stress, the empha­sis on on the human­ist tra­di­tion. Part of that real­ly is that there is truth. It’s not like this is very easy to find or that any one per­son knows what that truth is, but there are things that are right and wrong and we can make mis­takes, and sci­en­tif­ic method is a good way to get towards that.

Mason: Against that back­drop, what’s inter­est­ing about you two as indi­vid­u­als is that the last 20 years has been about striv­ing for a degree of legit­i­ma­cy. You know, you had folks in the 80s going, Oh, look at these two talk­ing about their vapor­ware that may or may not hap­pen.” I mean, Max, you just went, You know what, I’ll become the CEO of the largest US based chron­ics Institute. I’ll actu­al­ly build that future.” and Natasha, you went back to acad­e­mia to prove the legit­i­ma­cy of the sorts of things you were saying.

Vita-More: Yes, thank you for recog­nis­ing that. I feel legit­i­mate now. Not like I’ve felt before. I do. I’ve earned it. I’ve worked hard.

Mason: If you guys called your­self sci­ence fic­tion authors in the mid 90s, and you were the equiv­a­lent of Bruce Sterling and Pet Cadigan, you would­n’t under­go any of these sorts of scrutiny.

Vita-More: None of it! Oh, and boy. You just nailed it there. So well. Bruce Sterling—are you seri­ous? Gibson. They could say any­thing they want­ed and they were val­ued so high­ly, espe­cial­ly by aca­d­e­mics and post­mod­ernists. And then us? We were like, Oh, they’re crazy nuts.” Now it’s impor­tant that this time has come around. We sat through it and strug­gled through it. It was a strug­gle. It was quite a struggle.

More: So now we large­ly have that legit­i­ma­cy. So the cri­tique has shift­ed from, you know, This is crazy, impos­si­ble stuff.” to, You’re hor­ri­ble peo­ple who just look after your­selves. You’re gonna destroy the human race.”

Mason: You can’t win, you guys can’t win.

More: No, we take it step by step.

Vita-More: I am still that same per­son. I believe in shar­ing knowl­edge and help­ing. It’s just a mat­ter of posi­tion­ing myself as the world’s most known thought leader on what is the future of human­i­ty. That is my goal. To be includ­ed at that lev­el where I do have the knowl­edge, and I’ve got the skills to think things through, and I’ve looked at numer­ous sce­nar­ios, and I’m just look­ing for the best solution—not a polit­i­cal solu­tion, not a moral solu­tion like the bioethi­cists do with their agen­da, which is always so very trans­par­ent. That’s the cred­i­bil­i­ty I need to put forth myself for my work in the future. I think Max is doing an excel­lent job as CEO of Alcor.

More: Well cry­on­ics is a kind of inter­est­ing exam­ple of how this has changed. Because 20 or 25 years ago, a typ­i­cal expe­ri­ence of going into a hos­pi­tal, they always go, You want to do what!? Not in my hos­pi­tal you don’t.” Now, typ­i­cal­ly, the response is quite dif­fer­ent. Usually they’ve seen some doc­u­men­tary on one of the sci­ence chan­nels or some­thing, or they’ve read a bit about it. And they go, Oh yeah, I know. People are cry­op­re­serv­ing organs and corneas and all these peo­ple walk­ing around who were cry­op­re­served as embryos.” and now they take it much more seri­ous­ly. They will actu­al­ly lis­ten to us and when we have

vis­i­tors come to tour Alcor, they see it as a real place. Many of them come up to me say­ing, Well, when I first came here, I was­n’t sure if you were gonna freeze my head or if you’d do some­thing real­ly weird.”, but they said, No, this actu­al­ly makes sense, you know. I’m not sure if it will work or not, but it actu­al­ly makes sense now.”

You know, we used to be way out on one end of the spec­trum, and tra­di­tion­al med­i­cine and sci­ences out there, but they’ve got­ten clos­er and clos­er togeth­er, as we’re doing low tem­per­a­ture surgery. We’re cry­op­re­serv­ing many kinds of tis­sues right now. There’s Natasha’s research—cryopreserving a worm and then show­ing that it’s main­tained it’s mem­o­ries. And the pro­fes­sion­al Cryobiology Society actu­al­ly had a clause in its bylaws that basi­cal­ly said, If you asso­ciate your­self with cry­on­ics, you’re out, you can nev­er pub­lish, you’re ruined.”. They took that out recent­ly. The lead­er­ship is now much more friend­ly. That’s a big change. So yeah, there are still peo­ple who are very antipa­thet­ic, gen­er­al­ly out of igno­rance, because they just real­ly don’t know what they’re talk­ing about. Usually, hope­ful­ly, you can edu­cate them a lit­tle bit if they’re will­ing to lis­ten, and that that may go away.

Vita-More: I think that the biggest issue that we’re fac­ing now: What does it mean to be human? I think that is on the tip of every­one’s tongue. What does it mean? What is this going to do to me? What is this? Where am I going to be? Am I going to be left behind? Am I going to be includ­ed in the ear­ly adopters? There’s so many dif­fer­ent sce­nar­ios and those need to be worked out and expressed and edu­cat­ed to the pub­lic. So I think that

Academics are very impor­tant here. But it must include STEHM, not just STEM—science, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing and math­e­mat­ics. The STEHM bring­ing in the human­i­ties is so cru­cial. Where in many of the schools, espe­cial­ly where I teach, the human­i­ties are left out. There’s only maybe one course on ethics. This is so impor­tant, but every­one needs to think about it. Just like peo­ple need to think about their finan­cial sta­tus. How old are you? How old do you want to live? Do you have a 401k What is your retire­ment plan? Are you going to your doc­tor year­ly to have your blood drawn to check how much Vitamin D you have? What are your hor­mones, etc.? And have you been to 23 and Me and had your genet­ics run through? These are respon­si­bil­i­ties that we have as peo­ple. Protect your own life and set an example.

More: I guess in some ways we kind of have a long term dis­ad­van­tage in that tran­shu­man­ism is all about change. People gen­er­al­ly don’t like change for the most part, espe­cial­ly when you look at very rad­i­cal fun­da­men­tal changes—It’s kind of scary. People get trau­ma­tised by too much change at once. I always think of this sto­ry I heard, you know, from way back when there was still the Soviet Union. Some Soviet sys­tems engi­neers had one of those rare visas to come vis­it the United States and had to go buy some tooth­paste. They went in there, and there were all these dif­fer­ent brands of tooth­paste, and they’re just kind of star­ing and going, Oh, my God, what, what do I do?” and were paral­ysed by buy­ing tooth­paste, which to us—we’re so used to that choice—it’s not a big deal. So we’re now adding all these new choic­es. Fundamental choic­es about chang­ing your cog­ni­tion and your body, and all these oth­er things. There are some peo­ple who clear­ly are tran­shu­man­ist, but won’t call them­selves that. And I think, you know, I think Ray Kurzweil is a great exam­ple of that. He’s actu­al­ly explic­it­ly kind of reject­ed that term. But he so obvi­ous­ly is a tran­shu­man­ist. I’ve tried to dis­cuss that with him, and he clear­ly is one, but that’s fine, not every­one wants to asso­ciate them­selves with a move­ment which might have all kinds of dif­fer­ent fac­tions, might push the wrong but­tons. If they’re focused on a par­tic­u­lar project then I can kind of under­stand that they would­n’t want to asso­ciate themselves.

Vita-More: Kurzweil signed up for cry­on­ics. That’s a very tran­shu­man­ist thing to do. I think per­son­al­ly, the rea­son why he does­n’t pub­licly call him­self a tran­shu­man­ist is because he does­n’t want to be part of some­one else’s club. Right? Kurtzweil is an inven­tor. He’s a bril­liant per­son, a gen­er­ous per­son with his cre­ativ­i­ty and his many tal­ents. And he sup­ports Max and I intel­lec­tu­al­ly and emo­tion­al­ly, and he’s some­one who we think of as extend­ed fam­i­ly. But because it’s a philo­soph­i­cal world­view, I think that some peo­ple, when they have their own agen­da or their own prod­uct to sell, may not want to be includ­ed into anoth­er prod­uct that’s being sold at this point. Later on. I don’t think it’s going to make one hell of a dif­fer­ence. But I think as he’s sell­ing his Singularity Is Near and now his Exponential Economy and the Singularity University and all that, I think it would dis­tract a bit from a mar­ket­ing per­spec­tive. Perhaps his mar­ket­ing advi­sors sug­gest­ed that he not.

More: Which is kind of iron­ic because even though Ray does­n’t use the label, peo­ple con­flate the idea of tran­shu­man­ism and the sin­gu­lar­i­ty all the time. They think if you’re a tran­shu­man­ist, you must believe there’s going to be a sin­gu­lar­i­ty, and then I’ll say, Well I don’t.” I think I know a lit­tle bit about tran­shu­man­ism. I’m not a believ­er in the sin­gu­lar­i­ty. The two are com­pat­i­ble, but they’re not the same thing. Although Ray won’t call him­self a tran­shu­man­ist,  peo­ple attach these two terms to close­ly togeth­er, unfortunately.

Mason: To what degree, how do you deal with indi­vid­u­als who come to things like tran­shu­man­ism because they feel so dis­il­lu­sioned about their cur­rent state of being in the present? That they’re look­ing to the future is some­thing that will hope­ful­ly allow them to tran­scend their real­i­ty right now?

Vita-More: I think that’s an excel­lent ques­tion. Because if you open up any mag­a­zine or any head­line it’s about genet­ic engi­neer­ing and crisper and mod­i­fy­ing the body, and new treat­ments for can­cer like you know, therapies.

Mason: And for all these peo­ple, these tech­nolo­gies feel inevitable.

Vita-More: Yes.

Mason: And yet they feel like they have no stake, and the rea­son why they’re com­ing to you is they go, Oh, you saw the inevitabil­i­ty of some of these tech­nolo­gies, and” -

Vita-More: Is it real­ly hap­pen­ing? They want to know if they’re being fed snake oil, it’s like, Okay, now it’s here and it’s all over the place. So is it real­ly here?” and I love that. It makes me feel good. I love it. So I can then dif­fer­en­ti­ate between snake oil, and there’s a lot of snake oil out there. There’s a lot of pseu­do­science out there, and there’s a lot of bull­shit­ters out there.

Mason: Well a lot of peo­ple thought you guys were ped­dling snake oil back in the day.

Vita-More: We’ve been very care­ful. We did­n’t just sit back like some peo­ple do. I think peo­ple are ask­ing the ques­tion, What are we going to become? What does it mean to be human?”. Because our biol­o­gy is being tam­pered with, and we’ve asso­ci­at­ed our biol­o­gy with a lim­it­ed lifes­pan and death. Life and death. You live, you have cer­tain cri­te­ria based on mod­ernism and nor­mal’, you know. You get mar­ried, you repro­duce, you come out of the clos­et or you don’t, you change careers or you don’t, and then you get old and you get fee­ble and you die. And that’s been the struc­ture. That’s been the sce­nario. The nar­ra­tive. No mat­ter what native or tribe in the world, there’s each one has their indi­vid­ual myth or lore or nar­ra­tive that peo­ple have abid­ed by. And that’s being re script­ed. So what is the mean­ing? I like to explain that we don’t know what it ful­ly means, just like we don’t know, What is con­scious­ness?” I mean, you know, you have Stuart Hameroff and Chalmers and so many dif­fer­ent sci­en­tists work­ing on What is con­scious­ness?” We still don’t know. So, what does it mean to be human?

Mason: People are com­ing to you with these con­cerns, because they feel dis­il­lu­sioned about the present. The obses­sion and the inter­est in the future—is this an escapism from some­thing that’s so ter­ri­bly ter­ri­ble is hap­pen­ing in their own life? Whether it’s some­thing they’ve set up as, I’m going to die even­tu­al­ly.” and that’s a ter­ri­ble thing that they obsess over. And they’re look­ing for ways to make them feel -

More: I don’t gen­er­al­ly find that. Especially in cry­on­ics, which real­ly brings that into your face, right, because you’ve got to think direct­ly about your extinc­tion. Yeah, in the occa­sion­al case, but for the most part, what I find is peo­ple who aren’t com­ing because they’re clear­ly ter­ri­fied of dying. Because it’s like, if you ask me, Am I afraid of being dead?” my answer is, No, because it won’t be like any­thing. I just know I’ll be out of exis­tence.” What they’re afraid of is that they will have no more life, and no more expe­ri­ences, and no more oppor­tu­ni­ties to learn. So I think they’re gen­er­al­ly dri­ven by more pos­i­tive aspects.

Now there are peo­ple like you say, who basi­cal­ly just want an answer, they want to treat it like any oth­er ide­ol­o­gy, whether it’s Marxism or reli­gion or some­thing like that. There are peo­ple like that. I think most of those peo­ple will just prob­a­bly bury them­selves in sci­ence fic­tion books, because then they don’t have to real­ly wor­ry about actu­al choic­es, they can just watch or read about these futures. So most of the peo­ple I come across are actu­al­ly there because they think, Hey, this stuff, some of this stuff might actu­al­ly work. I have some con­cerns about it, and what can I do with it?” So I don’t think…there are peo­ple like that, yeah. But I don’t think they’re a major­i­ty, by far.

Vita-More: I agree with Max. I think it’s more out of curios­i­ty and con­cern, and want­i­ng an affir­ma­tion about the dif­fer­ence between what is viable evidence-based sci­ence and eth­i­cal tech­nol­o­gy ver­sus non-ethical tech­nolo­gies. Who’s real­ly going to be pro­gram­ming the AI? And how is that going to inte­grate with us? And what doc­tors should I trust? What facil­i­ty should I trust? Is 23 and Me authen­tic? Or do they fake the genet­ic out­put? They want to know if the infor­ma­tion that’s being pre­sent­ed in the news and in many of the arti­cles are viable. I’m very clear, I’m very hon­est about it. I will tell them who to watch out for. I’m very clear on that. Because I think we need to know that. We’re at a point where, come on, we’re tired of peo­ple telling us stuff that’s crap. We need hon­est answers. And if I can’t give an hon­est answer, I have no prob­lem say­ing, I don’t know.”

Mason: So is that where you see your­selves with­in the tran­shu­man­ist move­ment? You’re essen­tial­ly Sherpas to help indi­vid­u­als nav­i­gate these very com­plex times both polit­i­cal­ly, social­ly, tech­no­log­i­cal­ly, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly? I mean, what is the work that you now have to do for the next 20 years?

More: Hey I may have to steal that term. Transhumanist Sherpa—I had­n’t real­ly thought of that but yeah in that sense, that’s how I see my role. Both being a bull­shit detec­tor, because there’s a lot of bull­shit and you know, I’ve got train­ing in crit­i­cal think­ing and so on, so there’s that’s kind of the fil­ter­ing part of it, but also to open up peo­ple’s minds to the pos­si­bil­i­ties and help them to under­stand how all of these dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies can cross con­nect in new ways and fer­tilise oppor­tu­ni­ties I’ve nev­er real­ly thought of. Because almost all the objec­tions are based around very nar­row think­ing, like sin­gle trap pro­jec­tion. Like, Oh, you can’t have peo­ple live longer because the world’s over­pop­u­lat­ed.” or some­thing like that—which is immense­ly frus­trat­ing, but comes up every time because it’s track­ing a sin­gle change with­out every­thing else going on. We have these peri­ods of change in his­to­ry, some­times things stay a lot the same. Like dur­ing the Dark Ages, things did­n’t change for a long time. And then peri­ods of change, like when the steam engine came along, and things change quite rapid­ly. Then you know, 50s and 60s, ear­ly 60s—kind of bor­ing. Now all these new things are hap­pen­ing. These new technologies—we’re hear­ing about CRISPR and AI and this and that in space. And so maybe that is dri­ving peo­ple to actu­al­ly look at a set of ideas, that’s actu­al­ly thought about all this stuff and tries to make sense of it.

Vita-More: It’s quite inter­est­ing, and I think it’s real­ly impor­tant to be a BS detec­tor. But I did­n’t have the aca­d­e­m­ic high-end Oxford back­ground that Max has. So I nev­er par­took in debates. So I had to learn firsthand—the BS detect­ing and being tak­en advan­tage of many times, and being naive. So it’s kind of inter­est­ing that I think we work well on this. We don’t work on this togeth­er, but we’re both will­ing in dis­cussing it, because I can now almost see the body lan­guage and not into it. But you know, I get a sense of things and then I’ll ask a few ques­tions. And then you can find out pret­ty fast if some­one knows their stuff.

One prob­lem I have with this whole blockchain cliche is the encryp­tion aspect of it and the trans­paren­cy aspect, because if we take a look at Wikipedia, it just goes to show that Wikipedia was a great idea for open source and col­lab­o­ra­tive think­ing and col­lab­o­ra­tive projects are great. But are we mature enough as humans? Do we have enough con­sid­er­a­tion and respect for oth­ers not to remove some­one else’s cred­it and put your bull­shit there? And so I think this is very impor­tant in this time and age that we are very care­ful about who’s pro­gram­ming the AI. What’s hap­pen­ing with the nano assem­blers look­ing at genet­ic engi­neer­ing? Do doc­tors real­ly know what they’re talk­ing about? I mean, if you’re going to a den­tist to have a nose job, your doc­tor’s not being hon­est with you.

More: Along with it being an age of uncer­tain­ty, I think we have a cri­sis of exper­tise. Who do you know who is real­ly an expert? I mean, we’ve known this for a long time but there’s clear stud­ies demon­strat­ing that most sci­en­tif­ic results have not been repli­cat­ed or can­not be repli­cat­ed. Most of the stuff in these jour­nals just isn’t right. It has­n’t been backed up. And when you go from the hard sci­ences to the social sci­ences and more abstract disciplines—it’s even even less cer­tain. So you might think, Oh is the Journal of so-and-so studies,

I can believe any­thing they edit­ed.”, well no you can’t believe that because it’s cap­tured by cer­tain inter­est groups. They decide who’s going to peer review your paper, who’s going to be friend­ly to their point of view. It’s get­ting real­ly tough to know actu­al­ly, even in sci­en­tif­ic areas, what the truth is.

One great exam­ple of that is nutri­tion sci­ence, which we’ve seen over the last few decades. We’re now walk­ing around with a pop­u­la­tion of obese peo­ple with dia­betes, because the gov­ern­ment, for decades, rec­om­mend­ed the food pyra­mid that was extreme­ly heavy on carbs and bread and pas­ta. Now as peo­ple final­ly post today, maybe that’s not such a good idea. Though the gov­ern­men­t’s been push­ing this as offi­cial nutri­tion sci­ence. I could give oth­er exam­ples that would prob­a­bly be con­tro­ver­sial, but I think that’s one that peo­ple are start­ing to recog­nise. So there’s a real­ly big prob­lem of who are the experts? And how do you tell? And there aren’t any easy answers. I think we still need to find ways of using new tech­no­log­i­cal forms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion 0 whether its rep­u­ta­tion sys­tems for the devel­oped or what­ev­er it is, how do we actu­al­ly track peo­ple’s suc­cess rate and hon­esty and how do we know that a jour­nal that is actu­al­ly rep­re­sent­ing the field rather than their own bias­es? It’s a tough problem.

Vita-More: Yeah, very big problem.

Mason: So I think ulti­mate­ly this is just the begin­ning of the con­ver­sa­tion on real­ly how we nav­i­gate our col­lec­tive future, our indi­vid­ual future. Natasha Vita-More and Max More, thank you for your time.

Vita-More: Thank you.

More: Thank you so much for hav­ing us.

Mason: Thank you to Max and Natasha for shar­ing their insights into the his­to­ry of tran­shu­man­ism. You can find out more by pur­chas­ing their book The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology and Philosophy of the Human Future, avail­able now.

If you like what you’ve heard, then you can sub­scribe for our lat­est episode. Or fol­low us on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram: @FUTURESPodcast.

More episodes, tran­scripts and show notes can be found at Futures Podcast dot net.

Thank you for lis­ten­ing to the Futures Podcast.

Further Reference

Episode page, with intro­duc­to­ry and pro­duc­tion notes. Transcript orig­i­nal­ly by Beth Colquhoun, repub­lished with per­mis­sion (mod­i­fied).


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.