There is a dangerous philosophy emerging in our fast-paced, technology-driven world of which most people are totally unaware. And yet, when Francis Fukuyama, economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, was asked what idea posed the "greatest threat to the welfare of humanity," his answer was this philosophy.
And yet I am positive most Catholics have never heard of it. Catholics certainly do not realize that they are being fed a steady diet of images in popular media that play right to the more seductive aspects of this ideology.
What is it? It is transhumanism. "What is that?" you ask. Transhumanism is a philosophy that seeks to use technology to surpass treating or preventing disease and use it to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities.
Transhumanism sees technology as a way to direct the evolution of humanity into something other than human: the "transhuman" meaning "beyond" human.
To the transhumanist, medical advances like drugs, artificial limbs and genetic engineering are tools, not just to heal the sick and injured, but to create a technological utopia where you can be "beyond" human.
Transhumanists envision a world where you can leave your ignorant, weak existence behind and enhance your way to being supersmart, superstrong, superhappy, basically superhuman. They desire to replace perfectly healthy eyes and limbs with artificial ones or genetically modify themselves or their offspring to be unnaturally strong with unheard-of IQs or merge their minds with artificial intelligence.
Their goal is to create a new species of "post-humans," where human limitations, including death, are a thing of the past.
Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Singularity Is Near, widely accepted as a pivotal book in transhumanist ideology, predicts we will become so intimate with our technology that we will not be content to simply use cellphones and computers. We will integrate technology into our already healthy bodies.
Kurzweil describes the human-body version 2.0 that will be mostly "non-biological," where nanobots replace our heart, lungs, nervous and digestive systems. The enhanced human 2.0 could run an "Olympic sprint for 15 minutes without taking a breath," eat anything and never get fat, have superintelligence and create any virtual reality, including a virtual lover, inside the nervous system at will. And most importantly to Kurzweil, the human 2.0 will never die.
It all sounds like kooky science fiction that is easily dismissed, and yet transhumanists have technical journals, magazines, societies and even international conferences.
Kurzweil, an expert in predicting future trends in technology, insists that because of the exponential progress of this technology, these enhancements are maybe only decades away. He estimates that human intelligence will be able to merge with computers as early as 2030.
The promises of transhumanism are very seductive. Who would not want to be superintelligent, superstrong and live forever? And, frankly, whether we know it or not, we are increasingly surrounded by transhumanist images. Some of our favorite characters in fiction are transhumanist.
Take Captain America. Captain America is the perfect, palatable and patriotic example of transhumanism. Captain America’s enhancements were a choice. Other superheroes are tragic figures born of accident or genetic lottery. But in this transhumanist tale, everyday American Steve Rogers was experimented on to make a better soldier to help win a war.
He was weak and small, but healthy, and underwent potentially fatal procedures to make him a superhero.
Even Disney has gotten on the transhumanist bandwagon. The Disney Channel has a show called Lab Rats. Three of the main characters are teenagers who were genetically engineered by a billionaire investor to "save the world." One has been altered to have superintelligence. Another has been enhanced with superspeed and agility. And the third was modified to be superstrong.
With the resurgence of Captain America and TV shows like Lab Rats, we are now seeing heroes made by intentional enhancements performed by scientists. These transhumanist depictions of human augmentations are planting the seed that, as long as the intentions are noble, it is morally acceptable to take your otherwise healthy body and modify it to become superhuman.
So why should Catholics care about transhumanism? What is so wrong with becoming a "post-human" anyway? Catholics need to care because transhumanism is an insidious philosophy that rejects the nature of humanity and our natural limitations. By rejecting the nature of man, transhumanism also rejects the inherent dignity of every human being in the process.
In Discover Magazine, transhumanist Kyle Munkittrick laid out his "Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism." One condition is we leave the traditional ideas about humanity behind and reject being biologically human as a prerequisite for personhood. Munkittrick writes, "When African grey parrots, gorillas and dolphins have the same rights as a human toddler, a transhuman-friendly rights system will be in place."
Another notable pitfall is that human augmentation will likely result in a world where the enhanced superhumans will rule over the un-enhanced. Those who can afford or have access to enhancements will be the elite, and those who do not or cannot be enhanced will be second-class citizens, especially in the transhumanist world, where personhood and rights are based on everything but natural biology.
Political scientist Francis Fukuyama, when discussing transhumanism as his answer to the greatest threat to humanity, believes the "first victim of transhumanism might be equality."
Fukuyama writes, "If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?"
Transhumanists often insist that a core value of transhumanism is freedom: freedom to choose to do to our bodies what we want. But, in reality, those who are un-enhanced will be coerced into enhancements just to keep up with the elites, a fact that even they will hint at. Kurzweil admits un-enhanced humans will be a rarity because the un-enhanced will be "unable to think fast enough to keep up."
If these elitist ideas of using science to take the evolution of humanity into our own hands to create a "better human" sound familiar, they should. Transhumanism has its roots in the eugenics movement — the very philosophy that inspired the Holocaust in Germany.
The term "transhumanism" is attributed to Julian Huxley, president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959-1962 and brother of the famous novelist Aldous Huxley. In his 1957 piece "Transhumanism," Huxley wrote that the human species can "transcend itself" and that when we embrace transhumanism "the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man."
Even the logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics proudly proclaimed, "Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution."
I don’t believe modern transhumanists have any idea where their ideology originated, but it is still instructive toward what will lie ahead if their technological dreams come to pass. We have tried transhumanism already, only it was called eugenics then. Eugenics, in its attempt to control the direction of human evolution, did create a world where the lesser humans were second-class citizens whose rights were forfeitted to the "greater good" determined by the elite.
The Catholic Church is very aware of the social disparity between using technologies like genetic engineering to heal and using them to enhance humanity beyond what can be accomplished by nature. The Church embraces advances like genetic engineering for therapeutic purposes but rejects the use of such technologies to take otherwise healthy people and transform them into superhumans.
In regard to genetic engineering for enhancement purposes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae states that "such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities," which "would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings" and "would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals."
More importantly, Dignitas Personae warns "that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator."
So what can we do to resist transhumanism? First, we must not fall into the typical transhumanist trap. The transhumanists always present the scenario that in accepting medical progress for treating disease or disability one must also accept technology to enhance man beyond what can be accomplished by nature. They argue that rejecting enhancement means taking away Grandma’s new hip and Grandpa’s defibrillator and only the angry, hate-filled Luddites of the world would want that.
In reality, it is not all or nothing. We can make the decision to limit such technology for therapeutic uses only. Grandma can have her hip replacement and Grandpa can have his defibrillator without embracing a world where every human, not just ones in a deadly accident, has to become the Six-Million-Dollar Man.
Second, we can recognize transhumanist ideas and discuss them, especially with our children. Whether parents realize it or not, transhumansim is in the consciousness of our children. My own son once asked me why I don’t like human enhancements. He was distressed and asked, "Then how can I become a superhero?" My husband commented that he wanted to be a superhero too when he was 9 and that every boy in the world wants to be a superhero.
My son’s generation may actually be able to fulfill those childhood dreams of becoming enhanced. The problem with childhood fantasies is that children often cannot see the possible devastating effects of invasive procedures on their otherwise healthy bodies or the effects of enhancements on society as a whole.
I fear without bringing transhumanism out of the shadows and into the light for scrutiny that an entire generation may not be equipped with enough insight to resist the overwhelming pressure to enhance simply because everyone else is doing it. We all need to be reminded that we are made in God’s image and likeness and to enhance ourselves into the immortal transhuman means we are taking the place of our Creator.
Rebecca Taylor is a clinical
laboratory specialist
in molecular biology.
She writes about bioethics on
her blog Mary Meets Dolly.
Comments
Post a Comment
This has already come to pass. There already are situations where people feel compelled to have plastic surgery, breast enhancements, or anabolic steroids because the bar has been raised by those who are already making use of these things.
The Church doesn’t “embrace genetic engineering” anywhere! I read that and it rejects IVF, which is necessary for genetic engineering, and it rejects taking control of human reproduction as taking the place of God. It does say that the desire not to pass on genetic defects is understandable, but it doesn’t say it justifies genetic engineering of people. It says the opposite.
Wow, so are you in favor of allowing genetic engineering of children to get rid of diseases or something? I think that too qualifies as Transhumanism, it is like giving people super fertility, super sperm for average people just like Captain America. Unenhanced normal people pass on their own genes, Transhuman people overcome that limitation, they do not have children like normal people, they use technology to improve their children from natural. Transhumanists also insist on overcoming the limit of being either a man or a woman and having to reproduce with someone of the other sex. They insist that people be allowed to use artificial gametes to reproduce with someone of either sex, or to change sex and reproduce as that new sex. Postgenderism and Transgenderism are part of Transhumanism. And the Church is very opposed to the idea of changing sex.
The Church does support somatic gene therapy which is genetic engineering. The Charter for Health Care Workers states:
“In moral evaluation, a distinction must be made between strictly ‘therapeutic’ manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), and manipulation, ‘altering’ the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called ‘genetic surgery,’ will be considered desirable in principle, provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.”
Read this piece outlining the Church’s teaching on genetic engineering in humans:
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/human-or-superhuman/#ixzz2CVHWMte5
I see, I’m using the term genetic engineering to refer only to creation of new people with genes that are not the union of a man and a woman’s genes, genes that have been manipulated before they become a new person’s genes. I think “gene therapy” on existing people is not generally what people mean by “genetic engineering” though it certainly does involve genetic engineering. But who is opposed to that? How is it controversial? I understand it is dangerous, sometimes people die from gene therapy, but that seems a different sort of controversy, like using any risky new process might be.
I think you are confusing people with saying what is important is “the difference between therapy and enhancement.” That’s not what I read in those encyclicals, I think the difference is between therapy for existing people that only attempts to help their own pain and disability, and therapy to create offspring without genetic diseases. I don’t think the Church cares if someone uses some kind of genetic therapy to improve their strength above some kind of average base-line, any more than they are upset if they use exercise equipment to become stronger than average. Maybe, but it seems an entirely different issue from germ line engineering of new people versus helping existing people, and that I think is what Catholics should learn the difference is.
this has been carefully laid out for years.
the use of media to condition people to accept anything - de-Christianizing the West & killing us softly w/language
http://www.infiltratednation.com/2012/11/cultural-marxism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+infiltratednation/ueQF+(INFILTRATED+NATION)
Informed consent of the person so transhumanized is neglected or not satisfied. Informed consent of all people is necessary since the transgendered person may introduce his anomaly into the whole of the gender pool. Who is a sovereign person but the image of God in free will, a human soul. Ignoring the human soul got us into abortion, and euthanasia. Experimenting on persons is still the operation of the concentration camps, super race and youth camps. In raising the dead, the dead person must will it. I can’t wait to see and feel the compassionate charity of a computer, or the embrace of my new decanting jar. I need a big one. Hell hath no fury like that of a woman’s soul scorned.
These people need to watch more science fiction. Breeding supermen never ends well… Anyone remember Khan from Star Trek?
So Rebecca, are you trying to make the case that genetic engineering of egg and sperm before fertilization should be allowed, if it is only to prevent abnormal defects and not enhancements? I think that even that is illicit according to the encyclicals I’ve read. Because the purpose of that is “to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of “normality” and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.” Also, when a man and a woman marry, they are supposed to give their whole person to each other and accept each other’s whole person, including their genes, and not reject them by desiring to fix a defect. Also, allowing people the option of fixing genetic defects in their gametes would put coercive pressure on them to reject their own genes which would not give them the “unconditional respect owed to every human being.” We have to prohibit the creation of people by any means other than joining the unmodified sperm of a man and the unmodified egg of a woman. Do you agree?
If you haven’t yet, you should check out novelist Brian Gail’s trilogy Fatherless, motherless, and Childless. they are a chilling look at the devlopment of a transhumanist regime with chilling parallels to what is going on around us.
John, I think you are inferring things that are not implied in this piece. On germ-line gene therapy Dignitas Personae states:
“In theory, it is possible to use gene therapy on two levels: somatic cell gene therapy and germ line cell therapy. Somatic cell gene therapy seeks to eliminate or reduce genetic defects on the level of somatic cells, that is, cells other than the reproductive cells, but which make up the tissue and organs of the body. It involves procedures aimed at certain individual cells with effects that are limited to a single person. Germ line cell therapy aims instead at correcting genetic defects present in germ line cells with the purpose of transmitting the therapeutic effects to the offspring of the individual….
Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit. Such actions seek to restore the normal genetic configuration of the patient or to counter damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to other pathologies….
The moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential offspring. Because the risks connected to any genetic manipulation are considerable and as yet not fully controllable, in the present state of research, it is not morally permissible to act in a way that may cause possible harm to the resulting progeny. In the hypothesis of gene therapy on the embryo, it needs to be added that this only takes place in the context of in vitro fertilization and thus runs up against all the ethical objections to such procedures. For these reasons, therefore, it must be stated that, in its current state, germ line cell therapy in all its forms is morally illicit.”
Reading carefully it states that “in the present state of research” and “in its current state” germ-line gene therapy is not morally permissible. As of now this kind of gene therapy requires IVF and has not proven to be safe. The qualifying phrases “in the present state of research” and “in its current state” implies that germ-line therapy could in the future be morally licit IF human lives were not being created in a laboratory and the germ-line therapy could be proven to be safe for future generations.
In my personal opinion, I am not sure that those objections can be overcome sufficiently that the Church would ever support germ-line therapy.
But, because this passage does not state that germ-line therapy is inherently immoral in and of itself, I read this passage to mean that in principle the Church is not opposed to some kind of germ-line therapy but practically “in the present state of research” because of the risks and the use of IVF, we now cannot support such practices.
So to answer your question, no I do not support germ-line gene therapy because “in the present state of research” it is morally illicit.
Ok, so you should support an immediate ban on creating a person by any other means than joining a man’s unmodified sperm and a woman’s unmodified egg then, right? Because a ban can always be repealed later, and it isn’t licit now, so it should be banned now. There is certainly no good reason to leave it legal right now, right? Research could continue just as it would without a ban, just as long as the research never involves attempting to conceive a person by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes.
And I think the Church is forgetting what it said about the unconditional respect owed to every person, which is violated when they are coerced into improving their progeny, and allowing it “presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of “normality” and physical well-being.” It would be expensive and lead to a materialistic consumerist understanding of reproduction, where people sued their parents for not engineering their diseases away before they reproduced, etc etc.
The question I asked you was if you agreed it should be prohibited ASAP. Keep in mind that I think anyone who thinks genetic engineering of children should be legal, or even would be a good thing to do in principle once it is quote safe unquote, is a Transhumanist. Normal human beings reproduce with their own genes and pass on their own genes to their children, and it is a desire of transhumans to overcome that human limitation and be able to reproduce with better genes than the ones they were born with.
John, yes, of course, I would like at least some regulation of germ-line modifications like other countries have. Some have an outright ban, which would be good until germ-line therapeutic modifications to sperm and egg precursor cells in vivo can be shown to be safe in humans. I am not sure than can ever be ethically proven.
I think you are wrong germ-line gene therapy is transhumanist in nature. Germ-line gene therapy would replace a malfunctioning gene with the normal human gene in an atempt to return some level of normal human functioning. Transhumanists want to go beyond that to becoming something OTHER than human; to insert non-human genes and such, so that they are no longer functioning in the range of a normal human. They want to be “transhuman” not human. Ideologically, gene therapy and transhumanism are two totally different things.
Don’t fall into their trap that therapy=transhumanism. It doesn’t.
OK, that’s great that you support a ban on all germline engineering until it is proven safe. And I agree that there is some kind of distinction that can be made between enhancement and correcting malfunctioning genes. But that distinction doesn’t make one OK and the other bad. It doesn’t mean we should allow labs to offer ways for people to reproduce sexually without passing on their malfunctioning genes. That is transhumanism to not be bound by natural human limits of passing on our genes, defects and all. It would still lead to coercive pressure for everyone to get screened and hire labs to perform this augmentation on their gametes, so they are free from defects. It would still be offensive and lead to infanticide and abortion so that people can start over fresh and hire the lab like they should have. And we would still have that debate about what is a defect and what is just less than perfect functioning, and what’s enhancement. That line will always be slipping down the slope if we ever allow germline engineering. I don’t think people have a right to pass on better genes than they received, and I think it is a sure mark of Transhumanism to be able to do so.
What, then, is the principle?
What artificial elements, interacting with our biology, are morally licit? Which are intrinsically illicit? And which are, while not intrinsically illicit, so rarely wise and so frequently problematic as to recommend an almost-always-avoid policy, along the lines of capital punishment?
It seems that PART of the answer is that it is morally licit and often obligatory to repair that which is dysfunctional, never to cause dysfunction or to pretend that dysfunction is normal or desired or pursued.
As for ENHANCEMENT, it seems to me that in some cases this is morally licit, but calls for a far deeper and sounder understanding of what constitutes “enhancement” than is currently commonplace among men. And this will require a resurrection of the concept of teleology and of Natural Law, the better to understand what constitutes the genuine flourishing of a creature.
Finally, it seems to me that one must make a distinction between the alteration of the body and tool-use. It is accepted neurology that skillful tool-use comes because the brain effectively adopts the tool as an “extension of one’s arm.” Well, is an implanted face-recognition name-helper tool an extension of one’s brain? It helps the brain do what it would ideally do anyway, but better…. But then there is the danger of relying excessively on the tool; does one’s native capability atrophy? And what if the enhancement does not augment a natural power of the human body, but grants it a new power, such as underwater breathing? Does that make it less good? Or does that merely make it a tool by definition, since it neither replaces nor augments a normal power of the human body? Is an airplane merely a body-enhancement that more than one person can wear at once?
Is the permanence of the attachment or implantation a factor? What if I have an arm-mounted port, into which I may temporarily plug many different things, from a USB drive to a 10mm battery-driven socket wrench? Is that port a tool (and no more immoral than holding a hammer)? Is it a modification of the body because the port is permanent? Is it morally neutral until a particular device is mounted into it, and then the nature of the device determines its moral status?
Interesting questions.
Remember it is the technology (i.e. computer) that is dominate. Those maintaining technology in a catbird seat. The altered and unaltered persons are both in a subposition. However, those that do not accept the technology altering them may be able to have the commonsense, the right way and humanism left to them to order the technology to correct itself or destroy itself; and, influence or order those maintaining technology to see what a real human is. In my weakness He is strong.
Our recent “superstorm” shows how fragile any technology-based system can be. Our transhuman friends will advance into their self-made technological prison, and find the door closed ineradicably behind them.
I just finished reading Brian Gail’s trilogy: Fatherless, Motherless, Childless and have to agree with commenter Jay Dunlap. We ARE already there. I have to sadly add that I personally know so many IVF babies and even a family that chose “selective reduction” from 4 implanted and thriving embryos to 3. That was an Italian, Catholic family, and they feel they did the RIGHT thing! In their case, the right thing would have been not waiting until age 40 to start a family and adopting children instead of designing a family.
Tired of being merely human? Want to be something more? Try our new patented tin body parts! Now you too can become a Tin Man! And all it will cost you is your heart!
Tin Men! Brought to you by the Wicked Witch of the East!
Hello Mr. Smith, and welcome to Central Processing. I’m afraid due to data processing shortfalls, we are unable to maintain your (really high) level of CPU time.
We will be transferring your discretionary RAM to a more suitable and productive unit. Meet Fi Lay Chun. He will be assigned your virtual wife and family capacitors.
Your base unit will be assigned to a lithium iode pressing facility, and your higher functions will be placed into sleep mode. Good night, Mr. Smith.
What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.
What’s everyone worried about? God can’t die. God is all powerful. God can wipe secular humanists off the planet! Jesus will return from the dead?
Anyone ever read “That Hideous Strength” by C.S. Lewis? Lewis never uses the term “transhuman” in the book, but this concept plays a huge role in the plot. As usual, Lewis proved to be prophetic.
The essence of the ultimate downfall of transhumanism can be visualized less with scientific philosophy and more with cartoons and Disney Lab Rats. In this new super-human world, they have provided Lab Rats to cover super intelligence, speed and strength. Only thing missing? How about empathy, charity, and humility?
The utilitarian approach to “producing” new humans is already here. We are invading the womb, trying to predict the “lesser” humans and encourage parents to reject these flawed humans in favor of a “more perfect” model with the next pregnancy.
We can engineer flesh. But we cannot engineer the human heart or godly wisdom.
Humanity is a function where dy/dx = 0 @ x = JC (d”>0). Domain (x) = 0 -> JC. Domain (x) > JC is undefined, unreal and illusory.
Sorry, (d”<0)
Or maybe both.
How about M + W = M *W ? M : W ;
Where the difference between Man and Woman is that one is not the other and both are needed to multiply more Men and Women?
One of the human limitations that Transhumanism seeks to overcome is sex, not just as a manner of reproduction, which they think is too random and makes substandard people and should be replaced with something “fully controllable” (the Vatican’s desire too) that makes healthier people, but also sex as having to be male or female and having to find someone of the other sex to reproduce with.
Postgenderism is a special category of Transhumanism, wikipedia explains:
Postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.
Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and cogno-physical disparities and differences are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either become obsolete, or that all post-gendered humans will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, which, postgenderists believe, would have the effect of eliminating the need for definite genders in such a society.
“I don’t believe modern transhumanists have any idea where their ideology originated.” Could it be in Genesis, where Satan tricked Adam and Eve: “You shall be as gods.”?
It’s all very simple. As a writer of Science Fiction and a reader of technology trends, it all boils down to power. The military will use this technology first for obvious reasons. The second issue is that Mr. Kurzweil has not considered the complexity of the human body or mind. If we can become stronger, so what? We will still be liable for death by accident or death by illness. The human body can accept prosthetics to varying degrees, but as we study the human genome, we are finding out it is far more complex than previously imagined. I can download a college course into my mind. So what? If there are thousands of geniuses and only hundreds of jobs in a particular category, then what? The Vatican allows for Divine Providence.
There is no radical potential here, just a lot of talk. And we will not change. Our goals will still be power, satisfying our egos and imagining that we can remove God from the picture. It’s not going to happen.
Howard, your postgenderism is uniquely artless. Read Twain’s “Letters from Earth” for the eminently cultured contra. I guess you could live without gender, but the question remains, why would you want to?
D tells E it is fantastic. E accepts. E tells D it was not great. D tells C I thought you said it was wonderful. C said it was suppose to be. B can not be found. A has to come up with something.
The one thing that caught my attention was, these superhumans will live forever. There won’t be room for all of them to live forever and still let the rest of us procreate. This is already a problem with the population control people.
So wouldn’t superhumans have control over the rest of us since they could win wars and wipe us out easily? This is definitely a twist from the devil, trying to bring humans to his side, promising them all that God has already planned for us in heaven. BUT he is leaving us with problems.
The big problem is -they will be machines. Machines break down a lot and I sometimes think it would be a much nicer world to live back before all the inventions - that are frustrating to keep going.
I believe I will stick with God and work toward heaven. It sounds much nicer, more peaceful, less stressful, and we get to use the full capacity of our brains which now it is said we are only using 10%! I’ll stick with God, thank you!
An eyeopener. Superb
Yes, Mark Twain points out that most people like sex! But yet Transhumanists hate sex, except maybe if it didn’t get people pregnant or sick in the future and didn’t make them feel inadequate, then they might like sex. But for now, it is something to be feared and replaced.
So how is this different than the years of Science Fiction that is behind us. Or Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s philosophy. To me it just seems an extension of that. Everything old is new again.
This is really a very, very, very old philosophy. It was first promulgated in a beautiful garden where there was a choice between two trees. The, literal, snake oil salesman promised that if the occupants and caretakers of the garden at the fruit of the “super tree”, they would become just like God. I guess the very, very, very old sales pitch still works on the vast majority.
Howard, your version of transhumanism and postgenderism sounds like a really expensive face cream. My objection to the left handed criticism you level at my remark would be that “there’s something more to a human being than that which meets the eye.”
Make that “the barely blinking eye” of Steven Hawking, or the “punch drunk swollen eye” of Muhamed Ali, or the swinging in your eye high of a Stevie Wonder, or the slanderous sly guy eye of an Oscar Wilde. If you’re looking for perfection out of a test tube, “you can’t get there from here.” But if you’re looking for someone just to love: subsuperhumanism is not an impediment.
Transhumanism is more than enhancement to be like God, that is the Mormon Transhumanist view, but I say that the Catholics are also being Transhumanist if they want to improve the genes that people pass on to their children. Sure, the person created would be better off and would still be a human soul that could be loved like any one, but it is still a bad idea to go down that road of improving the human race with genetic engineering of children. It is still Transhumanism, because it is not something natural people can do, it gives people enhanced powers.
Transhumanism could point to the end of the world, consider that the Transhumanist seeks to live forever in these Artificial Digital means, it just screams of, “And in those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it: and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them.” [Rev. 9:6]
Don’t treat it like it is inevitable, or that we just have to stand aside and let it happen. We just need to push for a federal Egg and Sperm law that keeps procreation equal and natural for everyone, so that everyone is still created as the natural union of their mother and father and has the same right to marry and reproduce offspring with their spouse as anyone else does. It is the only way to stop Transhumanism, and it is really really easy, all we need to do is start calling for it.
I believe there is a genre of films dedicated to this concept and they are all horror movies.
Just like plastic surgery the only people that will get these things are the rich or the person that is willing to go into great debt to get them.
Scifi has been talking about this since the late 1800s its not a new concept and things can go terribly wrong.
Not all procedures work out as planned even plastic surgery has a ton of horror stories. This isn’t going to happen in one or two generations more like 10 or 20.And even then things will go wrong, people will die or become deformed. When you step over the line(helping the sick is one thing, enhancing the well is another) things will happen because in the long run its God who made that DNA not mankind.
This is scary stuff - scary because it could happen and it appears to be satan’s master plan…offering a kind of mock eternal life (in this world) which is a parody of what God offers humanity. Very chilling stuff, and governments need to be prepared to set serious limits on this kind of technological insanity. One can envision a future where governments secretly create undying super soldiers and citizens, and the most nefarious and willing to reach that level of depravity can then rule the world. After all, their citizens can’t be killed. Sounds like science-fiction, but futurists believe it is the greatest threat to mankind in the future.
1. All technology is potentially therapeutic to improve the suffering of the human condition. We wouldn’t deny anyone the use of a car because they might misuse it or because one person has a car and another doesn’t. Therefore technology per se is not the problem.
2. We must caution against hasty and irrevocable change to our own bodies, because we could lose or damage something that we need later. Someone who destroys their brain to accomodate a palm pilot is going to be regretful when the iphone5 comes out. We tend to naturally draw a line against self-mutilation, although tattoing/body piercing is now extreme as is plastic surgery. Many are starting to lament these decisions.
3. If technology gives us an advantage over another human being, the church still calls on us to share it with others and to not use it for evil. Therefore I think we can embrace technology, but must avoid sin and selfishness.
4. Personally, I think we must guard against avoiding legitimate suffering. There are those who would rather let their bodies deteriorate than do what they need to maintain them. The end of mankind will most certainly come for those who figure out how to use technology to electronically stimulate their “happy centers”. Before they used to use drugs, but technology will now legitimize “tuning out and turning on”.
Hip replacements, defibrillations, etc. are already transhumanizing—- they are unnatural means of treating natural conditions. Same can be said for drugs. And no, I am not an angry, hate-filled Luddite. God alone can cure medical conditions. Sometimes a doctor happens to be standing around when He does it. We have somehow lost track of who’s really in charge.
There’s an underrated sci-fi movie called “Surrogates” that deals with a scenario much like this.
Being a Catholic Christian New Creation creature and belomging to the Body of Christ, belonging to His Kingdom is extremely far beyond transhumanism. If we became a transhuman it would be so far below what we are and be annoying.. If it caused us to sin, we would want to pluck it out! As we grow spiritually we surpass it so much, we would be begging for it to be made right. Our words come to us as needed and we have a conscience, we do not need superbrains. Actually, we could listen more, think less, be still, really live in peace, and feel the peace that settles on the earth. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
“If we became a transhuman it would be so far below what we are and be annoying..” How true, conscience, love, hate, feelings, all gone. That would be boring. Robots! Actually after reading all of this all that came into my mind was HITLER and Hitler lost and GOD OUR SAVIOUR SURVIVED. God gave us the ability to cure illnesses and we have, so far, done so much in this area since I was born. One day we will find the cure for autism and cancer, etc. through cell manipulations [or whatever scientist do with these]. We have done so to a degree today. But Transhuman? No, I trust in God, it will be a hard battle but in the end God will always win.
Come on people, don’t just sit around talking about it! Help push for a federal law that prohibits creating people by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes. Even though Transhumanism will ultimately fail, it will still be very bad to waste time and money on it. WE need to take some action here, and call for a ban! Please join me.
If you have a different metaphysical view of the world then your arguments do not really apply. I think we are all one consciousness, but clearly there is no God looking after us since there is just so much absurd suffering. And suffering exists only because its information signaling value was evolutionarily advantageous in our ancestral environment. David Pearce, a transhumanist philosopher I love and admire has written extensively about why it is in fact imperative to develop technologies to get rid of suffering. All suffering. In principle there is no reason why we cannot eradicate every instance of it, and live lives that are more meaningful and profound.
Profound? What? Yes. We can induce incredible mystical experiences with prayer, meditation and LSD. There are neurocorrelates of deep and profound spiritual experiences. I don’t think that a supernatural agent intervenes in these experiences, but I do think that they are incredibly valuable. There need not be a supernatural realm for us to enjoy a full spiritual life. If such realm does happen to exist, then we better find out with science, e.g. mapping the neurocorrelates of spiritual experiences and ‘entity contact;. But as a secular thinker, I think when people meet God or aliens, they are hallucinating. VERY beautiful and valuable hallucinations for sure, but still hallucinations. We can recreate them and understand them.
If, poetically, we are all God, then technology and the evolution of higher than human intelligence is the way through which God gets to know Himself in His most complete form. We are one link in the evolutionary chain, and we will soon be creating glorious spiritual paradises here on this amazing planet and beyond.
So no, let us encourage intelligent and responsible research. But not burn our bridges to a technological paradise that might, in did, be real (unlike, ahem…).
Blessed Pope John Paul II was admired too and he recommended to read Catechism of the Catholic Church. We do not need to be rocket scientists to understand it. During this Year of Faith, I believe there is a special blessing if we read it. It is pretty clear about scandal and health.
POPE TO IMPLEMENT RFID MARK OF THE BEAST AMONG ITS CLERGY !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKDwLgniQPE&feature=colike
We have been using radios for a long time. Radio Frequency Identification has been in used since 1947. Some devices used today are Transponders for Tollways and ID cards for work, This Security Technology seems what we use already.
@Joe: That U-tube site you have above is all anti-Catholic propaganda & hatred. Is there a reason why you are putting it on this NCR blog?
Sue - Micro chip implants will be happening sooner they we expect. Your claim is one of hoping it is not true. I look forward to your credible evidence to refute it.
correction: “..sooner then we expect….
This story was on the Author’s Blog and relocated here. Some comments might seem out of context. A personal mark, would be a personal decision. Everyone should say “No.” What do you think about ankle bracelets?
Is The Telegraph of the UK anti-Catholic?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9717310/Vatican-introduces-new-security-measures-after-Vatileaks-scandal.html
I’m a huge pro-transhumanist. I also want to make transhumanism better known because when I tell my friends about it, the reaction is universally, “Wow, let’s get it started.” And don’t pull that Hitler card on us, nobody intends to kill you, but indeed, we do intend to leave the luddites in the dust…
There have been repeated Papal documents begging people to meet the challenges of the day, to combat modern warfare no matter how large the threat with the simple but resistless weapon of the Rosary. In spite of the many years since Our Blessed Mother asked us to pray the Rosary at Lourdes and at Fatima, the Rosary still remains a challenge to the imagination and to the intellect. The Family Rosary will conquer the world.
Luddite is someone afraid of technology. Just because someone is a luddite, doesn’t mean there isn’t something to be afraid of. A. Hitler wanted a pure race, so pulling that card is irrelevant. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, our Creator is the One to trust. A horse and ja made a mule, don’t be a human ja. Could someone please kill this story, there are too many references to recreation and not enough about the subject of the story?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.