The Revolt Against Transhumanism
Having introduced transhumanists ideas to university students over the years, I am familiar with typical objections: if we don’t die the world will become overpopulated; not having a body would be yucky; this is all science fiction; lots of things can go wrong; technology is bad; death makes life meaningful; immortality would be boring; etc.
So I was surprised after yesterday’s post to receive hostile responses of the “we shouldn’t play god,” or “we should let nature take its course” variety. You can find similar critiques at links like : “The Catholic Church Declares War on Transhumanism” and“Transhumanism: Mankind’s Greatest Threat.” Here is a statement from the latter:
Various organizations desire to use emerging technology to create a human species so enhanced that they cease to be humans. They will be post-humans with the potential of living forever. If these sciences are not closely monitored and regulated, transhumanists’ arrogant quest to create a post-human species will become a direct assault on human dignity and an attack on God’s sovereignty as Creator. We must decide on an unmovable line now, one that upholds human dignity based on Biblical Truth.
It is no longer enough to be pro-life; we have now entered a time when we must be pro-human. Education about the full implications of these emerging sciences is a key to be able to directly confront these assaults on humanity.
If one truly believes that humans should accept their fate, that they were specially designed and created by the gods, and that the divine plans includes evil and death, then the condemnations of transhumanism stand. But these arguments will not succeed. Most do not desire to go back to the middle ages, when believers prayed sincerely and then died miserably. Some may still consult faith healers but the intelligent go to their physicians. More generally, everything about technology plays god, and letting nature takes its course means that half the people reading this article would have died from childhood diseases before the advent of modern medicine.
Still there are good reasons to be cautious about designing and using future technologies, as Bill Joy outlined more than a decade ago in “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.”3 (Here is my published criticism of Joy’s argument.) Yes, we should be cautious about the future, but we should not stand still. Do we really want to turn the clock back 100 years before computers and modern medicine? Do we really want to freeze technology at its current level? Look before we leap, certainly, but leap we must. If we do nothing, eventually we will go extinct: asteroids will hit the planet, the climate will change irrevocably, bacteria will evolve uncontrollably, and in the far future the sun will burn out. Only advanced technologies give us a chance against such forces.
Thus if we do nothing we will surely die; if we gain more knowledge and the power that accompanies it we have a chance. With no risk-free way to proceed, we should be brave and bold unafraid to guide our own destiny.
John G. Messerly, Ph.D taught for many years in both the philosophy and computer science departments at the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent book is The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Scientific, and Transhumanist Perspectives. He blogs daily on issues of futurism and the meaning of life at reasonandmeaning.com