In its winter challenge, New Humanist examines the questionable ideologies of rich tech-industry patrons. Whereas organizations like Elon Musk’s Neuralink are growing merchandise that would probably revolutionize healthcare, innovation is outpacing regulation, elevating critical moral questions.
Gatekeepers of wellbeing
Journalist Peter Ward delves into the rising reputation of efficient altruism and longtermism – gatekeeping ideologies, which have develop into guiding rules for a few of the world’s strongest corporations. Ward asks whether or not the novel concepts of those actions symbolize a menace to society.
Efficient altruism, whereas purporting to avoid wasting lives in growing international locations via massive donations to charitable organizations, ‘ignores the many complexities of aid’, writes Ward, ‘skimming over unintended consequences’ and ignoring high quality of life. The fraud and money-laundering case in opposition to crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, who strategically shared his wealth, broken the fame of efficient altruism, writes Ward. And but, regardless of such demonstrations of its moral limitations, the philosophy has already taken agency root in college campuses and globally influential companies.
Longtermism, in the meantime, which goals to guard future generations, has successfully been hijacked by tech giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, who ‘believe the key to ensuring the safe evolution of … technology is – conveniently – that they undertake the development themselves’, writes Ward.
His critique continues: the ideology’s single-minded focus exposes it to accusations of ignoring current considerations reminiscent of poverty and local weather change; the longtermism group’s hyperlinks to the transhumanist motion, which promotes the modification of people with expertise, and its ‘obsession with IQ and intelligence’ trace at eugenicist beliefs; and its mega-rich philanthropists with outsized political affect threaten to undermine the democratic course of.
Tech on the mind
Moral considerations additionally lie on the coronary heart of science author Moheb Costandi’s analysis into the cyborg. In contextualizing the rising use of Mind-computer interfaces (BCIs), Costandi acknowledges that the implantable chips are dramatically bettering the lives of individuals with spinal twine accidents or neurological illness by facilitating communication and partial rehabilitation. The gadgets is also used within the therapy of a complete vary of neurological circumstances, from epilepsy to despair and presumably even Alzheimer’s illness. However these purposes are nonetheless at early levels of growth and outcomes are blended.
In the meantime, ‘wearable BCIs, which don’t require a surgical process, are more and more out there available on the market, typically with bold claims and little regulation’, writes Costandi. Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which in simply eight years has develop into one of many leaders within the area, has set its sights on creating BCIs for wholesome folks. Musk’s ambition is to develop commercialized gadgets that can be utilized by thousands and thousands to boost the facility of the human mind and increase bodily talents.
Whereas a lot of this technological progress must be welcomed, Costandi cautions that there’s a essential distinction between aiding these with disabilities and augmenting the capabilities of wholesome folks. ‘While the field progresses in leaps and bounds,’ writes Costandi, ‘there are questions about how the research is being conducted’.
Considerations abound over participant choice, privateness and private information safety, in addition to the social disruption that would consequence from an individual’s feeling of management over their behaviour, or maybe even their sense of identification, being modified. ‘While BCIs have revolutionary potential’, writes Costandi, ‘strict regulation and proper data governance are urgently needed to ensure that the technology is used safely and equitably’.
Vein males
Elsewhere within the challenge, Peter Salmon explores the continued obsession with blood transfusions as a manner of extending human life or halting the ageing course of. The New Humanist common paperwork the historical past of blood transfusion, from the primary experiments within the seventeenth century to the primary human-to-human transfusion in 1818 and Soviet scientist Alexander Bogdanov’s ill-fated experiments with ‘young blood’ in 1928.
Bogdanov, who died of a hemolytic transfusion response, was a believer in Cosmism, a socialist utopian philosophy which noticed it as mankind’s moral obligation not solely to remedy the sick but in addition to beat dying. The socialist’s concepts have seen a resurgence in reputation amongst billionaires who embrace transhumanism, embodied by the likes of tech mogul Bryan Johnson and the start-up firm Ambrosia, which affords ‘young blood transfusions’ at a value solely the super-rich can afford.
But Salmon echoes Ward’s considerations about transhumanism. Right this moment’s tech billionaires and longevity proponents ignore altruistic considerations in favour of a capitalist mannequin of innovation, separating the wealthy from the poor. ‘While benefits for humankind are touted,’ Salmon warns, ‘it is generally an extreme form of individualism that is front and centre’.
Assessment by Alastair Gill
