Editing Transhumanism (section)

=== Feasibility ===
In a 1992 book, sociologist Max Dublin pointed to many past failed predictions of technological progress and argued that modern futurist predictions would prove similarly inaccurate. He also objected to what he saw as [[scientism]], fanaticism and [[nihilism]] by a few in advancing transhumanist causes. Dublin also said that historical parallels existed between [[Millenarianism|Millenarian]] religions and [[Historical materialism|Communist doctrines]].<ref name="Dublin 1992"/>

Although generally sympathetic to transhumanism, public health professor [[Gregory Stock]] is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the [[cyborgization]] of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, [[Hans Moravec]] and [[Kevin Warwick]]. He said that, throughout the 21st century, many humans will be deeply integrated into systems of machines, but remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character would arise not from [[cyberware]], but from the direct manipulation of their [[genetics]], [[metabolism]] and [[biochemistry]].<ref name="Stock 2002"/>

In her 1992 book ''Science as Salvation'', philosopher [[Mary Midgley]] traces the notion of achieving immortality by [[Self-transcendence|transcendence]] of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of [[mind uploading]]) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including [[J. B. S. Haldane]] and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving [[Escapism|visions of escape]] from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the [[pseudoscientific]] speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for [[layman|laymen]] and the remoteness of their [[eschatological]] visions.<ref name="Midgley 1992"/>

Another critique is aimed mainly at "[[algeny]]" (a portmanteau of ''alchemy'' and ''genetics''), which [[Jeremy Rifkin]] defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance".<ref name="Rifkin 1983"/> It emphasizes the issue of [[biocomplexity]] and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological [[evolution]]. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist [[Stuart Newman]], is based on the recognition that [[somatic cell nuclear transfer|cloning]] and [[germline]] [[genetic engineering]] of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic [[morphogenesis|development]]. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 [[Declaration of Helsinki]]). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, it is claimed that there is no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref name="Newman 2003"/>

As a practical matter, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.<ref name="Smolensky 2006"/>

Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. But [[bioethicist]] [[James Hughes (sociologist)|James Hughes]] suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in [[bioinformatics]], Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/> [[Public health]] professor [[Gregory Stock]] points to [[Human artificial chromosome|artificial chromosomes]] as a safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.<ref name = "Stock 2002"/>

Thinkers{{who|date=October 2014}} who defend the likelihood of [[accelerating change]] point to a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. Kurzweil developed this position in his 2005 book ''[[The Singularity Is Near]]''.