Putting Makeup on a Pig

Posted by Jesse Reynolds July 9, 2008
Biopolitical Times
Sometimes, it seems, honesty is not the best policy. Proponents of controversial ideas or products often learn that while a direct description may elicit backlash, a kinder, gentler euphemism may play better. No one supports torture, so the Bush Administration praises "enhanced interrogation." In the face of growing environmental consciousness, the oil company British Petroleum is now just BP, along with a green color scheme, a flower icon, and a "beyond petroleum" tagline. Corporate firings became layoffs, then downsizing, and now resizing.

It seems that advocates of using emerging technologies to create a new type of human have realized that "transhuman" doesn't go over well. The World Transhumanist Association is undergoing a rebranding. It is asking its members to vote on a proposal to leave behind "transhumanism" in favor of "H+" or "humanity plus." It seems the problem, according to the proposal (no link available), is that:
Most thought leaders (especially in science and technology) do not explicitly identify themselves as "transhumanists," and some, by association, have been unwilling to affiliate with the World Transhumanist Association. This is also true for graduate students who may consider it detrimental to their careers to associate with transhumanism in light of possible negative connotations.
However, the proposal does not consider the possibility that it's the actual premise of transhumanism that is unappealing - not its name. Few people besides Lee Silver giddily look forward to a future where the genetically enhanced and the natural have diverged into distinct ruling and proletariat species.

Hopefully, when thought leaders learn of "humanity plus," they will see it for what it is: Not enhancing humanity, but splitting and undermining it.