Transhumanism: an assessment of a misguided and dangerous project

Edgar Danielyan
Heythrop College
University of London
2016

The word 'transhumanism' was first used in 1957 by Julian Huxley who saw it as 'man
remaining man, but transcending himself, by realising new possibilities of and for his
human nature.' [emphasis added] 1 Huxley was an advocate of eugenics, seeing it as
means to planning and controlling human evolution. 2 H. G. Wells, a friend of Huxley
and author of Men Like Gods 3 imagined 'benevolent scientist-technicians who will use
science and technology to manufacture a perfect future.' [emphasis added] 4 Thus the
scene is set for the general approach to the Good, not in some Platonic, religious or
properly humanist understanding, but as a practical extension of capabilities and
without adequate consideration of the will and its purposes behind the capabilities.

Even at the early stages of definition of transhumanism, we can thus see a

certain mechanistic worldview rooted in the assumption that more technology would
solve humanity's problems and allow the humanity to 'transcend itself'. Despite not
'speaking with one voice' transhumanists are united in their focus on biotechnological
enhancement and 'a technoutopia of human-machine fusion that constitutes practical
immortality.' 5 I suggest that an ethical discussion of the above should take into account
the historical context, namely that proponents of eugenics, a predecessor of
transhumanism, were responsible for inhuman treatment of humans not only in Nazi
Germany, condemned at Nuremberg, but also in the supposedly advanced Western
democracies such as the USA and Scandinavia, with leading scientific establishments,
until the seventies.

Even a cursory review of the twentieth century - the nuclear bomb, the
biological weapons, the mass murder facilitated and made possible by development of
science and technology, particularly by the atheist regimes with accomplished scientists
such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - suggests that for every benevolent use of
science governments and scientists funded by them did, do and will find uses which are
a clear and present danger not just to their enemies or the humankind but the entire

1
Julian Huxley, New Bottles for New Wine (London: Chatto & Windus, 1957), p. 17.
2
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 20.
3
H. G. Wells, Men Like Gods, A Novel (New York: Cassell, 1923).
4
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 21.
5
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 28.

1
planet. 6 This 'new ideology' of 'becoming like gods' (in Wells' words), as defined by
Huxley, I suggest, was a logical development of materialistic secular humanism
intoxicated by scientific accomplishments and was seen as a solution to the problems of
humanity. 7 If God is dead and there are no ultimate moral bounds, why not expand our
capabilities, whatever the consequences? Such utopias were a mainstream theme of the
science fiction that became a popular genre thanks in particular to spectacular
achievements of engineering and high expectations encouraged by ambitious scientists.
A contemporary proponent of transhumanism defines it as follows:

An outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment. It holds that current

human nature is improvable through the use of applied science and other rational
methods, which may make it possible to increase human health-span, extend our
intellectual and physical capacities, and give us increased control over own
mental states and moods.' 8

This definition clearly sets out the mechanistic agenda of 'improving humanity' by
physical modification to 'give us increased control' which is claimed to improve human
nature - while the central question of just what is human nature is assumed and left
unaddressed, as is the question of human will and what that control is going to be used
for. As a materialistic, secular project, transhumanism reject the concepts of the divine
and the sacred. If the human species, with the control we have, are on the brink of
mutual nuclear destruction and ecological catastrophe, 9 what grounds do we have to
believe that a more powerful transhuman subset of humanity is going to have a positive
rather than negative effect despite transhumanists' claim to 'improvement of humanity'?

Transhumanism is not an easily demarcated concept, particularly when it comes

to its practical implications and its relationship with medicine. Transhumanism
critiqued in this paper is the extreme ideological, atheistic, scientistic vision with a
particular pedigree in science fiction and social engineering that claims to 'enhance'
humans, both physically and ethically, by fundamental biotechnological interference
with the human bodies, human minds and the human societies, where the end goal does
not include anything even remotely identifiable with human beings or human societies
(e.g. 'minds in a computer') - and that that is not seen as a problem. Transhumanism
critiqued here therefore is not about better human healthcare, better human education or
better human society; in fact the proposed 'human enhancement' interventions are
targeted at the rich and the healthy, not the sick and imply eventual eradication of
humanity as it is known.

6
Such as accelerated extinction of species, climate change, desertification, air and water
pollution, the threat of nuclear winter, etc. The argument that some of these cataclysms may
have happened even without human influence is a weak one: we know that in the actual world
we have at least contributed to or accelerated their pace.
7
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 21.
8
Nick Bostrom, ‘Transhumanist Values’ <http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html>
[accessed 27 April 2016].
9
‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Doomsday Clock’ (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
2016) <http://thebulletin.org/timeline> [accessed 30 March 2016].

2
 To use a theological metaphor, transhumanism is about 'mortal men becoming
gods' - not by divine grace or spiritual attainment, but by the force of labs and
engineering - and some transhumanists accept the metaphor: 'We have begun to play
god in so many of life's intimate realms that we probably could not turn back if we
tried.' 10 Sutton cites Ramsey's concise and incisive summary of the problem: 'Galloping
technology gives all mankind reason to ask how much longer we can go on assuming
that what can be done has to be done or should be.' 11

Transhumanists today talk about what can be described as the end goal of
transhumanism, namely 'immortality' through transitioning from mortal carbon-based
biological organisms to the disembodied 'life' of our 'uploaded minds' in computers.
Setting aside the question of whether it makes sense to even talk about 'life' in
computers or 'uploading of minds' 12 it is crucial to this analysis to note the move away
from Huxley's original definition that included 'man remaining man': transhumanism
today has 'advanced' to the stage where the transhumanists see no need for humans in
the future.

While many transhumanist ideas can be dismissed as scientifically unfounded

fantasies, some of the proposed 'enhancements' may be possible in principle. This brings
us to the central question of this paper - what are some of the ethical problems and
implications of transhumanism, at least transhumanism that may be possible? In an
influential article on the subject Francis Fukuyama asks,

But is the fundamental tenet of transhumanism — that we will someday use

biotechnology to make ourselves stronger, smarter, less prone to violence, and
longer-lived — really so outlandish? 13

Fukuyama argues that gradual advances in medicine and biotechnology may

imperceptibly move us close to what proponents of transhumanism see as our 'destiny': '
it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnology’s tempting offerings without
realizing that they come at a frightful moral cost.' (ibid). Fukuyama thus calls our
attention to the possibility of creeping introduction of transhumanist ideas into the
mainstream medical practice - and while evolutionary psychologists remain critical 14
the hard problem remains the same one as C. S. Lewis has suggested: 'For the power of
Man to make himself what he pleases means the power of some men to make other men
what they please.' 15

10
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 30.
11
Agneta Sutton, Christian Bioethics: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2008),
p. 99.
12
Even the conceptual coherence of these wild suggestions is open to many objections,
including on computer science grounds, but they are outside the scope of this paper.
13
Francis Fukuyama, ‘Transhumanism’ (Foreign Policy, 2009)
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/transhumanism> [accessed 30 March 2016].
14
H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. by Gregory Hansell and William Grassie
(Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus Institute, 2011), p. 31.
15
Sutton, p. 84.

3
 As McNamee and Edwards point out, 'Think of the idea of human rights and the
power this has had in voicing concern about the plight of especially vulnerable human
beings. As noted earlier a transhumanist may be thought to be beyond humanity and as
neither enjoying its rights nor its obligations. Why would a transhuman be moved by
appeals to human solidarity? Once the prospect of posthumanism emerges, the whole of
morality is thus threatened because the existence of human nature itself is under threat.'
16

The whole edifice of human rights is built on the belief that they apply to human
beings, and no further qualification is necessary to enjoy the protection of human rights
other than membership of homo sapiens. Should we find ourselves living in a society
where some individuals are not quite homo sapiens, a question arises as to their rights
and obligations; insistence on equal treatment may be very challenging as there would
be little or no common bond between such 'transhumans' and homo sapiens to justify
equal treatment. Either 'transhumans' or humans would be necessarily discriminated
against, as suggested below; and while certain scholars have embarked on criticism of
what they call 'specieism' it is outside the scope of this paper to address that charge;
suffice it to say that such criticism may be misplaced not least because 'there is no view
from nowhere' 17 and any creature is bound to be a member of one species or another;
there is no 'supra-speciest' position despite pretensions to the contrary.

Vastly increased capabilities of 'transhumans' are bound to be spread unequally

both in and between the societies, resulting in a minority - most likely rich minority of
already privileged human beings - becoming even more privileged, but now not just in
financial or educational terms, but in their very being.

It would be very difficult for a 'normal human’ to compete against an 'enhanced

transhuman' with, say, vastly better memory or reasoning capabilities when faced with a
university admission test or a civil service exam. Such tests and exams are indeed
created to identify the candidates with the best potential - however in a scenario where
capabilities of certain groups are vastly improved by 'transhumanist' methods the rest of
the population will stand no chance, should such methods be effective. Given the
already rising levels of inequality both between the developed and developing countries
as well as within developed societies transhumanism will only contribute to inequality,
potentially leading to civil unrest and breakdown of order. All democratic societies
should ask themselves whether such amplified inequality is in the best interests of
societies as a whole.

Increasing inequality of opportunity would follow the inequality of capability. It

is a widely accepted principle that professional positions and positions of leadership
should be held on the basis of merit and competition, usually understood as personal
intellectual capability. Should 'transhumans' possess vastly superior capabilities it
would be very difficult to argue that they should not hold high professional or

16
M J McNamee and S D Edwards, ‘Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery
Slopes’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 32 (2006)
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563415/> [accessed 30 March 2016].
17
Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

4
leadership positions; it would be absurd to argue that because their capabilities are too
high they should not hold such positions.
The implication therefore is that most if not all positions would eventually be
held, in extreme scenarios, by individuals who do not share fully the bond of human
nature by virtue of membership of homo sapiens. Any oligarchies that have historically
existed would pale in comparison with the potential oligarchy of genetically engineered,
highly capable minority of individuals that are not products of God or nature but of
capricious will of men occupying positions of control and leadership over masses seen
as demonstratably inferior.

Advent of a new and different class of individuals in a polity who are not homo
sapiens would also pose grave questions of political franchise and democratic decision-
making. Should such 'transhumans' be able to vote and to stand for office? The answer I
believe is not an automatic 'yes'.

Like human rights political franchise is contingent upon membership of the

homo sapiens and it is a key concept in modern democracy that citizens of a particular
polity have the right to elect and be elected to lead the polity on behalf of their own
human kind. When a group of individuals is vastly and radically different in their
capabilities and most likely their values and ethical positions (for instance with regard
to their treatment of homo sapiens and other species), should they be allowed to elect
and be elected if their lifespan, for example, is ten times longer than the lifespan of
those who they are to govern? What would make them govern for the benefit of the
majority of the polity, the homo sapiens?

Today selective abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormality is widely

practiced, and in some countries abortion on the basis of sex is tolerated if not legalised.
Advent of some of transhumanist ambitions would invariably lead to rich parents
'ordering' offspring to their own specifications. While everyone would prefer to have
healthy and capable offspring, if actual experience of the humankind is any guide, such
preferences will be used and abused for the benefit of the rich and the powerful, while
leading to commodification of offspring ('we can have a better one darling’).

While some proponents of transhumanism, such as Nick Bostrom, argue that

there is no reason to expect transhumanism to produce negative outcomes the history of
mankind from Sparta to Nazi Germany to social Darwinism demonstrate that there is
every reason to doubt Bostrom's misplaced optimism. Transhumanist project, if it
comes to pass, will be controlled by small groups of corporations, technologists and
their wealthy benefactors for their own benefit; no amount of protestations and promises
of democratic control can conceal the fact that most if not all research in this area is
privately financed and owned for the declared benefit of benefactors who desire to 'live
forever'.

This final challenge, that of eternal life, has traditionally been the exclusive
domain of religions. Transhumanism, while being hostile to all religious beliefs, has
nevertheless adopted this central religious doctrine while completely replacing the
sacral with the physical - conveniently neglecting to mention that the consensus of the

5
current science is that the universe will inevitably come to a 'thermal death' 18, and
therefore transhumanism is simply not in position to provide the promised eternal life.

To conclude, transhumanism remains a techno-utopia of a minority, albeit with

some vocal and committed followers. To dismiss it as a fantasy rooted in science fiction
however would be dangerous and unhelpful.

It would be dangerous because some less wilder aspects of transhumanism are

becoming reality and we need to subject them to rational and ethical critique as any
other radical idea with lasting changes and consequences, particularly to the human
germ line. The society needs to ask probing and demanding questions about the
legitimate objects of science and technology, on behalf of both living and the future
generations.

It would be unhelpful because realisation of even some of the wilder proposals

of the transhumanists would lead to more and not less division and inequality in a world
struck by conflict which needs humane enhancement, and not the false promises of
'eternal life' in the bowels of computers (which are not eternal as any computer scientist
would confirm) – not to mention the inherent unpredictability of such far-reaching
changes for the already fragile fabric of human societies.

My conclusion is that transhumanism is a misguided and ill-defined project that

may nevertheless cause significant damage unless recognised for what it is and rejected
by means of democratic control of homo sapiens, who have created it. The ‘luminaries’
of transhumanism and their sponsors are not beyond democratic and lawful control of
the humankind as it is.

18
After the Heat Death of the Universe Will Anything Ever Happen Again?’, 2015
<http://www.askamathematician.com/2015/03/q-after-the-heat-death-of-the-universe-will-
anything-ever-happen-again> [accessed 27 April 2016].

6
Bibliography

‘After the Heat Death of the Universe Will Anything Ever Happen Again?’, 2015
<http://www.askamathematician.com/2015/03/q-after-the-heat-death-of-the-universe-will-anything-ever-
happen-again> [accessed 27 April 2016]

Agar, Nicholas, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2010)

Bostrom, Nick, ‘Transhumanist Values’ <http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/values.html> [accessed 27

April 2016]

‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Doomsday Clock’ (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2016)
<http://thebulletin.org/timeline> [accessed 30 March 2016]

Cole-Turner, Ronald, Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological

Enhancement (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011)

Colson, Charles, and Nigel de S. Cameron, Human Dignity in the Biotech Century: A Christian Vision for
Public Policy (InterVarsity Press, 2004)

Elshtain, Jean, The Body and the Quest for Control (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004)

Fukuyama, Francis, ‘Transhumanism’ (Foreign Policy, 2009)

<http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/transhumanism> [accessed 30 March 2016]

Habermas, Jurgen, The Future of Human Nature (Cambridge: Polity, 2003)

Gregory Hansell, William Grassie, H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics (Philadelphia, PA: Metanexus
Institute, 2011)

Huxley, Julian, New Bottles for New Wine (London: Chatto & Windus, 1957)

Kass, Leon, ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’, 1997 <http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-

issues/the-wisdom-of-repugnance.html> [accessed 30 March 2016]

Lilley, Stephen, Transhumanism and Society: The Social Debate over Human Enhancement (Springer
Science & Business Media, 2012)

McNamee, M J, and S D Edwards, ‘Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery Slopes’, Journal
of Medical Ethics, 32 (2006) <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563415/> [accessed 30
March 2016]

Mercer, Calvin, and Tracy Trothen, Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human
Enhancement (ABC-CLIO, 2014)

Nagel, Thomas, The View from Nowhere (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)

Sutton, Agneta, Christian Bioethics: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2008)

Turda, Marius, Crafting Humans: From Genesis to Eugenics and Beyond (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2013)

Wells, H. G., Men Like Gods, A Novel (New York: Cassell, 1923)