The Transhumanist Agenda . . . H+ Update

I've been away from the interwebs for a while now, so I haven't had the time to catch up on H+, the web series by Bryan Singer.  But now that I'm back, I thought I'd give the next couple episodes a go and see how they fare.  Before I talk about episodes 10-15 (where I am, even though there are now twenty episodes released), I wanted to brush up on what transhumanism is actually all about. 

I remember reading K. Eric Drexler's groundbreaking work, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology and feeling the exhilaration of knowing I could see this strange new era during my own lifetime.  Yeah, it was science fiction, but the best kind: It's the kind that comes true.

Later, I was introduced to the idea of the singularity through Ray Kurzweil's popular book, The Singularity is Near.  Using a modified version of Moore's Law (which basically states that computing speed/power will double every 18 months) Kurzweil predicts that soon we will reach a level in which technology could actively shape human biology.  The blurb on the cover makes his aims obvious: "When Humans Transcend Biology."  The singularity is described as the point at which human beings become something else; they would be fundamentally unrecognizable if Shakespeare somehow managed to time travel to the present and witness them.  This fundamental re-ordering of the human system--for better or worse--is the hallmark feature of transhumanism, and its perils lie at the foundation of Bryan Singers's web-series H+.  Not coincidentally, H+ is also the self-applied moniker that Transhumanists use to describe their own beliefs.  

Transhumanism basically boils down to making the world better through technology.  Actually, that doesn't really cover it.  Transhumanism is about making people better through technology.  By eliminating aging, disease and many of the biological markers of the physical existence, transhumanists believe that the world will be a fundamentally better place by a more active reliance on technology.

Humanity has always been defined by its access to technology and innovation.  One of the earliest indications of human superiority was access to fire, which early human used to devastatingly effective use.  Combined with access to weaponry, early humans then acquired a ready food staple; this in turn allowed human beings the necessary access to caloric surplus which allows for greater population density; this in turn leads to the stratification of society necessary for the complex cultural hierarchy in which we find ourselves today.

To say that technology is bad for people is simply counter-factual.  We have always relied on our technology to survive and thrive.  The goals of transhumanism seem to be the same goals that human beings have always had.  Immortality, or at least a life bereft of disease, hunger and want, are the focus of our earliest myths.  Indeed, this urge to return to the Garden may be one of the defining features of human culture. 

Most philosophers, theologians, and thinkers have focused on human culture, however, as the path to this return.  Many religions focus on the basic flaw in the individual human.  Perfection is achieved, in most cases, by an active denial of the individual in favor of the community.  By preaching a cultural revival, as it were, humanity could then find itself in a single accord and many of the social evils would be eliminated.  Transhumanists take a somewhat different tack, believing that technology can offer a path toward perfection without the discipline required to modify both individual and cultural behavior.

This is basically where H+ the series takes us.  The promise is the elimination of disease through implanted nanoprobes, which can actively monitor our health and make corrections and modifications when necessary.  This laudable goal was then itself modified when a whole new technology was introduced allowing human beings immediate access to the internet through their implants.  I'm still not sold on the idea of having the internet directly in my head, and I somehow think that large segments of the population will have the same qualms.  There seems to be a fundamental divide between technology that monitors and improves health and one that lets us watch funny YouTube clips all day.

But the premise of the show is interesting, nonetheless.  What happens when some ubiquitous piece of technology goes awry?  In this case, killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of users?

Episodes 10-15 pick up once more in the underground parking structure at San Fransisco International Airport, where we are left in the aftermath of a failed attempt to save someone who was left comatose--but not quite dead--when his H+ went berserk.  It was gritty, human and compelling.  And then it ended.  Just when the best dramatic moments were beginning, the episode ended and we cut once more to another story.  This time, in Helsinki, where undercover cop Topi Kuusela is trying to uncover a hacker menace by infiltrating the life of master hacker, Manta, who seems plagued by a mysterious disease which leave three raised bumps on the inside of her wrist.

Quickly we jump between India, Italy and San Fransisco where nothing much is revealed and as soon as we start to care, we jump again.  This is the underlying, pervasive flaw in the entire endeavor.  It lacks staying-power.  While the producers have said repeatedly that this is for the benefit of the viewer--the episodes can be arranged in whatever order you would like to watch them--it reveals a critical flaw in the execution.  Storytelling is about people overcoming obstacles.  We like to see our heroes prevail.  But by undermining the connection just being established, the viewer is left apathetic.  Our curiosity is piqued, and then crushed--repeatedly.  H+ fails as a story because viewers simply don't care.

On that note, however, it is interesting and the plot is compelling.  The characters are necessarily caricatures and the pacing is ridiculous.  Nonetheless, as it progresses, I've become interested in figuring out what's going on.  The best bet, however, might be to watch them all in a single go on a pretty quick internet connection (the wait time is unendurable and commercials intersperse each episode).  So, my provisional review still stands, but I think you'll get the most enjoyment out of it in a year or so.