An Optimist's Tour of the Future

had less cancer.’
This is my lightbulb moment when I ‘get’ the transhumanist view of the future and why they think it’s inevitable. Ask someone ‘Do you think we should live for ever?’ and they’ll probably say no. Ask the same person if we should continue to battle disease, they’ll almost certainly say yes, me included. Transhumanism won’t arrive in a revolution, it’ll arrive one therapy at a time. Fading eyesight? Try large print. Now these spectacles. Now contact lenses. Now laser eye surgery. Now stem cell therapy to return your eye to its former youth. (In fact Italian researchers have been using stem cells to cure corneal blindness for over ten years.) Bad hearing? Have a large cone to stick in your ear. Now a bulky hearing aid. Now an in-ear hearing bud. Now a cochlear implant …
I realise, like it or not, we’re already embracing the transhumanist project, we’re just still calling it ‘medicine.’ We’ve inevitably blurred the line between ‘therapy’ and ‘enhancement

I challenge Nick with the opposite scenario – one where there is equal access to enhancement technologies. Is it possible this could slowly eradicate diversity? ‘For instance,’ I say, ‘we’re very aware of homophobia. Could we “enhance” somebody to become straight? So, rather than fight prejudice, why not just have a “straightening” therapy?’
Then Bostrom says something that turns a key inside me. ‘I think we need to distinguish between good and bad forms of diversity. If nobody had lung cancer, there would be slightly less difference in the world. That’s less diversity. But most people think it would be a good thing if we

.
They go on to argue that the potential for inter-species genocide makes the transhumanist agenda one of potential mass destruction. This is on the apocalyptic end of the criticisms of transhumanism