Should we transcend humanity?

Christianity, transhumanism, and EA – part I

This is the first part of a two-part post examining transhumanism, a movement that advocates the use of technology to enhance human capabilities and improve the human condition. There is some overlap with transhumanism and parts of the Effective Altruism movement, especially the longtermist space. 

There are many different views inside the transhumanist movement, so I am making many generalisations that may not apply to all transhumanists. I’m focussing on secular transhumanism (the majority of the movement is nonreligious) and not commenting on the views of religious transhumanists in this posts.

The goal of the transhumanist movement could be loosely defined as overcoming current human limitations to achieve a better future. Transhumanists not only want to improve humans as they currently are but to more radically transcend current humanity. Some think this will ultimately lead to a future populated with beings so vastly different (and, arguably, better) than current humans that they should be called posthumans. Transhumanists are particularly interested in enhancement of human minds, space colonisation, artificial intelligence, and technology to end ageing and enable extensive modification of the human body. 

Disease, ageing, and death are obvious limitations of humanity, so transhumanists want to develop means to overcome them – sometimes unconventional and even controversial, like genetic engineering or cryonically preserving human bodies or brains in the hope that they can be resurrected in the future. 

Developing new technology to treat illness and injury is something both Christianity and the wider EA movement embrace, but aiming to eradicate death altogether through technological means is hubristic from a Christian perspective – however, this topic deserves a more nuanced treatment than is possible in this post. Within the EA movement there has been some consideration of anti-ageing research, but it is not a popular cause area.

Human biology in general is seen as a limiting factor by transhumanists. Many advocate for what is called morphological freedom: radical freedom to choose your own bodily form, enabled by future technology. Some also think existing as minds simulated in a computer system is preferable to having a physical body, but this is contested and some disavow the possibility entirely. The idea of future beings living in computer simulations has also been discussed in the EA longtermist space.

These desires have interesting similarities to Christian eschatological hopes of resurrection and eternal life. Christians also hope for immortality in a body free of current limitations like ageing and pain. On the other hand, while transhumanists want the ability to radically transcend the human form (for those who so desire) and many of them look forward to a posthuman future populated with beings fundamentally different from current humans, Christians see the resurrection as perfecting the human body and human nature in a glorified form. 

Part of this might be semantics. C.S. Lewis remarked that if we met one of the beings Christians hope to eventually become, we might be tempted to worship them because they are so much beyond what humans currently are. They would be included under some definitions of the term posthuman. Still, the resurrected will remain recognizably and essentially human, like Jesus after his resurrection and ascension, so they cannot be properly called posthumans from a theological perspective.

Another difference with some transhumanists is that even though Christianity acknowledges a period of non-bodily existence for humans between death and resurrection, the idea of existing only with a simulated body as a final goal does not fit together with a hope of bodily resurrection. Christianity does not view humanity as something to be left behind but perfected, and the same goes for the human body.

In addition to the human body, transhumanists see the human mind in its current state as severely limited. They believe technology could make humans much smarter than they are now. They also believe human experience could be improved by making us happier, more in control of our mental processes, and perhaps also able to easily experience mental states that are currently hard or impossible to reach. Some have also considered the possibility of enhancing human morality. 

In and near the EA movement there is a clear interest in improving human decision making. This usually means providing better information and techniques on an individual and institutional level. Many transhumanists go much further and are interested in modifying human brains genetically and pharmacologically, or going beyond biology by linking human minds with computer augments or AI, perhaps even replacing biological brains altogether. Some people in EA have considered cognitive enhancement as a cause area, but again this is not a very popular cause in the movement.

The transhumanist goals of enhancing the human mind bear some similarities with Christian hopes. Christians want to become more moral and ultimately to live in a state of heavenly bliss. People in the world to come will be more intelligent and wise than humans in their current state. When it comes to this life, however, I would imagine most Christians feel at least some caution towards genetic, neurotechnological or pharmacological interventions to increase human intelligence. On the other hand, very few Christians condemn things like medication for ADHD – or coffee – that can improve concentration. I find it hard to establish where exactly the limits of acceptable enhancement would lie. Regardless, the biggest difference is that the secular transhumanist does not involve God. In any case, things like improving institutional decision-making and individual skills of rational thinking seem to be clearly acceptable and even commendable from a Christian perspective. 

Space colonization is also a popular idea within the transhumanist movement, since having humanity limited to one planet in a vast universe seems like a waste of human potential. Here it is hard to make direct comparisons with Christian ideas, but as there will be no population growth in the Christian afterlife (“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”, Mark 12:35 ESV), one of the main reasons for colonization is lacking in the eschatological state.

Regardless of the plausibility of the particular technologies transhumanists are interested in, from the perspective of a person living in 1000 BC, we live in a future that transcends many of the limitations faced by humanity at that time, at least to some degree. We live much longer and healthier lives on average. We have drugs that can make us less anxious or help us concentrate. We are more free of the limitations of space and time: we can instantly talk with people on the other side of the world and it is also possible to travel there ourselves. And it seems technological progress will continue to change human lives even further. What I think is distinctive and relevant from a Christian perspective is the transhumanist attitude to technology-caused change in human lives and the goals of the transhumanist ethos, as well as the worldview in which these are embedded. I will explore these themes more in the next post of the series.

by Vesa Hautala