So this is a post I’ve been waiting years to write: explaining the meaning behind the title of my series H+. Because throughout most of our six year process creating this series (even up to about a year ago), most people who saw the title were like, “Huh? Esoteric much?” It sounds a bit pretentious, I know, but it’s not as cryptic as you think. In fact, within the past year, there seems to have been a big explosion in public awareness of this two character symbol. Hopefully, that continues to grow as the series launches.
“Okay, so what is H+? I’ve still never heard of it.”
H+ is, quite simply, the globally recognized symbol for transhumanism.
“Okay, helpful. So what is transhumanism?”
I’m glad you asked. Well, let’s break it down like Crazy Legs, why don’t we: That’s trans (i.e. “in transit” somewhere) and humanism (i.e. the state/study/system of being human). So the symbol is basically “Human Plus”… which I guess suggests that transhumanism is always humanism in forward transit. And I think that has lead many to believe that transhumanism is basically humanism, only better… more premium features.
Not exactly.
Let’s take a closer look. First of all, it’s important to note that H+ is actually a philosophical movement, not a scientific field of study; however, several sciences, technologies and working methods do serve as the basis of transhumanist theory. That’s to say, there’s a lot of research happening (in fact, has been happening for decades) and new breakthroughs in science that are also a part of transhumanism… even if the biologists and engineers responsible for those breakthroughs view them as advances solely within their individual fields.
So like, let’s imagine that back in 2004 a team of researchers at Brown University implanted a device into a paralyzed man’s head that allowed him to move a computer mouse cursor with his thoughs… they would have probably called that an advance in computer engineering… or a breakthrough in neuroscience, medical tech, etc. But it also fits into the larger story of transhumanism because that one technology is likely to grow into many others which will eventually find their way into everyone’s lives… if not their brains.
But transhumanism also suggests that we are in transit somewhere, right? Where exactly? Well that’s when we use the world posthuman.
Currently we are human. Right? We can all agree on that. And unless you believe in creationism, we were at one time pre-human (well, I guess even if you believe in creationism). And one day, what is human to us now will have become posthuman. What that’ll look like, we can only speculate. But it’s the basis of many transhumanist discussions.
Transhumanism is simply the path along all of that. In fact, we are technically transhumans already. Always have been. From an evolutionary standpoint, our humanity is constantly in transit. We were in transit long before we were human by our current standards. The difference now is that we control that progress and especially its pace. All of these breakthroughs in science are causing a rapid biological evolution. That evolution is transhumanism. That is H+. The human body, mind, and condition moving forward at a rapid rate of change. In fact, that last one, the human condition, is probably the most relevant to our series.
The aging process being slowed down. Lives extended.
Computer and network technology woven seamlessly into our own bodies and minds.
A collective world consciousness that doesn’t just rely on that technology anymore, but is defined by it.
How does all of that affect the quality of our lives. Our relationships. Our dreams.
H+
Last year we had a panel at Comic Con and one of the members speaking with us was Phil Bowermaster. He is a pretty well known transhumanist thinker and writer. He runs a fun blog about the subject called The Speculist. You gotta check it out, because it’s super geeky and full of interesting facts about where he thinks we’re headed.
I remember, before we all went down to San Diego to speak, a bunch of our creative team got on the phone with Phil to go over what we were planing to discuss. At one point, we asked him how plausible he thought some of our predictions in H+ The Digital Series were. I’ll never forget his response.
“If you’re asking me how plausible is a world where we’re implanting tiny medical devices into people’s bodies to save their lives… where humans are living decades longer than they were before… a world where nearly every person is connected wirelessly, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at home and abroad, to a massive global network that allows them to instantly communicate their thoughts to almost anyone anywhere… without even opening their mouths? Well then I’d say take a look at the world we live in today. Because all of that is here. The only leap you’re asking your audience to accept is the idea that these small devices that we currently carry in our pockets will one day be inside our own bodies. And if that still sounds too much like science fiction, then consider this: 20 years ago, if you had told the average person that one day they would be having full spoken conversations with robots in their daily lives, they’d have assumed you were watching too much Star Trek. But that’s exactly what we do whenever we call Bank of America or United Airlines or pretty much any large company. We have conversations with software.”
[Note this little chat happened months before the release of the iPhone 4S and commercials depicting Zooey Deschanel talking to Siri.]
I’ll have more fun stuff to share with you about transhumanism and posthumanism, but for now I’ll leave it here; let you do some of your own exploring, in the interim. Trust me, it’s way more than just brain implants.
“Hold on, there’s a bit more in that title than just H+, Cabrera.”
Okay, so let’s turn our attention to the second part, shall we? H+ The Digital Series. Rae Hanson once asked what a “digital series” was exactly. I told her it was a series made specifically for digital platforms… whereas the word “web” limits the series to the web or web browser. Was I being totally straight with, Rae? Of course not. She knew that. I knew that. We both knew that and decided we’d let it lie.
Truth be told, this is a web series. Meaning that at this point, it’ll primarily be viewed on the web. The thing is, the word “web”, particularly when it comes to media, is starting to get a little confusing. Sure, if you watch it at a website, in a browser, that’s a web series. No one can argue that. Even if you watch it on Facebook, it’s a web series, just being shared socially. Maybe you want to call it a social series. Go ahead, I won’t mind.
But what if it plays in an app on your tablet or phone? Is it a web series then? Or a mobile series? How about on your XBox or PS3 or Wii? A… console series? And that new smart TV you’re considering getting this Christmas; the one that has YouTube, Hulu, Netflix all at the touch of your remote? What then? Oh I know, I know! A smart TV series! Ooo, I like that.
The bottom line here is that our H+ is a series. So we figured the added descriptor “The Digital Series” would be a nice way to express that while simultaneously speaking to the digital themes of the story itself.
So there you have it… H+ The Digital Series… sometimes written as H+: The Digital Series… usually called H+ by me for short. Please, spread the word.



June 21, 2012 at 5:35 am
I kinda dig the idea of it as a ‘social series.’ Though that evokes a series that some requires some social interaction on my part (other than sharing it on a social network or watching it embedded there).
Either way, I continue to eagerly anticipate H+.
Unrelated – Love the (new?) jc favicon.
June 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Seriously, Rae, you totally made my day by noticing! I spent some serious time getting that favicon just right! The last favicon was pretty weak.
This new one is also going to be a new signature across all of my blogs and social media sphere. Add my site to the home screen of your iPad or iPhone to check out the apple icon I designed. What do you think?
June 21, 2012 at 6:26 pm
I love it. So elegantly simple.
June 21, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I am super excited about this!!! I also agree that your jc is looking great, I love it! but mainly I just can’t wait to learn more about H+! xoxoxoxo
June 21, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I also just wanted to say, it breaks my heart a little that Mac can’t see what you’ve done with this and participate in dialogues about it, he was my main source for this subject info and is immediately in my thoughts when I hear about it. I think he’d be so into it, and conversations would have been fascinating, as they always were with him.
you don’t need to post this one, JP, I just wanted to say, I think Mac would have been pleased about this show! also, if you’re coming back to comic con this year, please let me know!! a bunch of the tumblr/twitter gang is going to be there and I’m sure I can speak for all of us to say we’d love to see you!! xoxoxoxo
June 21, 2012 at 8:45 pm
The problem with your definition is that the term ‘human’ itself is defined hazily at best, and often used or abused whenever it comes in handy. Usually wavering between how humans are and how the user of the expression would wish them to be.
Living longer lives with gadgets would be great if this planet were not so overcrowded with people without a place (in the sense of what a territory is for animals) to live in.
Would constant connection not imply overlaod? I am already wondering how people handle following more than thousand people on Twitter, or being follwed and contacted by ten thousand…and there are billions of us around.
June 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Hey Beate! Thanks for the comment and bringing some discussion about this! I’m defining “human” simply as the animal species you and I belong to. Similar to saying homo sapien. There are certainly other ways to define it, and they actually contribute to the many definitions of “transhumanism”. My definition is more closely aligned with the idea that our technology is changing our actual physicality. But there are also definitions of “transhumanism” that include changes in culture. One could easily argue that changes to our society could alone force rapid biological change.
I think it’s hard to say whether our increasing reliance on connectivity and all of these harsh cultural changes (including overcrowding as you cite) will eventually cause an overload or collapse of some kind… or whether we will simply adapt to those changes. We may reach a breaking point and find ways to solve them quickly… or our bodies may just adjust so that we can cope with them better. Hard to predict, really.
As for Twitter, I don’t think anyone truly “follows” more than 1000 people. They may have collected those people over time. But twitter in many ways does represent that power of oneness (a collective consciousness) that all of this tech has giving us. Over the coming years we may be given new tools for managing, compartmentalizing, and exploring that oneness better. Those tools may be something as simple as Facebook apps that help manage all that information… or it might be genetic engineering or brain implants that strengthen our minds to do it naively. Or both.
June 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm
And yeah, Jules, I thought the same thing. I hope you don’t mind that I posted the comment.
June 22, 2012 at 4:26 am
Hey John,
first I want to thank you for taking your time to read through my comment and to really comment on it – I am so tired of all those ‘discussions’ on the net in which everybody just keeps asserting the points of view they brought to the discussion, rarely even bothering to give reasons for their opinions.
So, yes, I am dying for intelligent conversations.
I joined Twitter about a month ago, and I am blown away by all the great stuff I have found through following interesting people, and finding more of them by looking whom they followed. This DOES feel like a kind of superior mind growing to link us all, as happened when those microbes first associated into larger bodies.
Likes and notlikes, favorites and RT may be primitive, but they surely beat what happens in most so-called democratic elections.
Concerning your comment: to me, the problematic expression, as often, is the ‘we’, because it pre-supposes a collective that does not exist (yet?)
Short of a radiaoactive overkill, I am sure some humans will survive, but I am equally sure that many will die, and most of them not of old age. Sure, homo sapiens will adapt, that is its great strength, and I hope there will be a ‘WE’ some day in order to approach ‘our’ problems in a less haphazard way.
Sorry if I am overwhelming here, sorry if I take up too much of your time.
I’ll just stop here .
June 22, 2012 at 5:26 am
awww, of course I don’t mind, my friend. hugs! <3 xoxoxoxo
June 23, 2012 at 8:07 pm
You make a good point, Beate. We are still very much a divided species. But we are much less divided now than we were 10 or twenty years ago. And internet technologies are responsible for that. For example, back in the 80s, few could have imagined a day when people in Germany could be having philosophical discussions with folks in the US any day or at any hour and as often as they want. Or that someone like me could express a random thought about something and halfway around the world, someone like you hears it. I think that’s a step towards that collective ‘we”… in fact, I think that is it’s own sort of transitional ‘we’. No?
The problems of the world aren’t going away tomorrow. But the species is changing very rapidly. Will those changes solve some of our problems? Probably, yes. Will it also bring new ones… I have to imagine, yes. Which is why, I don’t think transhumanism is about trying to fix problems in our species. It’s just about how we take control of our progress.
June 26, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Hi John,
well, ‘we’ actually had transcontinental phone-connections back in the 80′s – but using them for discussions was quite expensive…so, at their best, yes, blogs with comment sections unite the best aspects of phone-connections and air-mail letters.
Sadly, many of the comment sections I have read through were very divisive in that communiccation did not really take place, but people battled over pre-set points of view they brought to the discussions, often without much relationship to the articles in question.
I can see the point of technology ‘upgrading’ biology, as in the great cases when handicapped people can outwit their handicaps by using technology.
But this is not a change in the human biology as set up by DNS information – sure, there are ‘jumps’, but generally evolution happens over millenia, not Xmen style.
But, maybe, this is changing, too, when so many other things accelarate.
So ‘transhumanism’ is about
a) understanding such changes
b) trying to influence them – influence them in which way?
I see you have already posted a lot of stuff here, and will try to read some more of it in order to understand what project H+ is about.
Regards,
Beate