Yaron Marc Ben-Avraham

The Transhumanist Future

“It is possible to believe that all the past is

but the beginning of a beginning, and that
all that is and has been is but the twilight
of the dawn. It is possible to believe that
all the human mind has ever accomplished
is but the dream before the awakening”
- HG Wells.

Imagine a world in which disease, death and suffering no longer constitute part of the human

experience; a world in which the physical, psychological and intellectual characteristics of a person can

be determined before they are even born; a world inhabited by beings so vastly superior to us, that the

fundamental notions of who and what we are form a shadowy remembrance of a distant past – welcome

to the future, welcome to the world of the post-human.

The extreme strides made in medical and technological advancements over the past two

centuries enable us to envision such a future. And while these ideas have long been the playthings of

numerous authors and social theorists, now more than ever does the likelihood of such a future not only

seem possible but inevitable. Our progression towards and realization of such a future, however,
unavoidably comes attached with unprecedented moral and ethical questions. The concept of

transhumanism, which seeks to fundamentally transform the human condition by developing

technologies that vastly enhance intellectual and physical capabilities, is in essence striving to free us

from the limitations of our corporeal bodies - death, disease and all other types of human frailty are

now regarded as limitations that can be overcome through the application of science. In overcoming

these “limitations” however, we are edging towards an unprecedented moral and ethical precipice.

While advocates on both sides of the debate disagree on whether or not transhumanism is the natural

progression of evolution, it is clear that transhumanism seeks to change and redefine the fundamental

concept of what it means to be human.

What is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism can broadly be defined as a philosophy that seeks to advocate the application of

biotechnology for the purpose of redesigning the boundaries of human existence. “Brain-Computer

Interfaces (BCIs), radical life extension, neuro-enhancements, genetic selectivity, cloning and bionic

limbs constitute only few instances of technologies that could potentially allow transcending human

biological limitations” (Jotterand, 619). While these applications and objectives reflect some of the

core principles of transhumanism, the term itself designates the social movement that embraces and

advocates the transhumanist philosophy. It is important to note, however, that transhumanism is

different from post-humanism; the latter essentially refers to the end result of “future beings whose

basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human

by our current standards” (Humanity+). The origins of the term are rooted in the works of Julian

Huxley, brother of noted science-fiction writer Aldous Huxley, who outlined some of the key concepts
in the 1950s. For Huxley, transhumanism was more about expanding the horizons of intellectual and

spiritual consciousness more than anything else, and during these formative years, most of the

biomedical applications that exist today were yet to even be considered. Thus, the concept of

transhumanism has witnessed a steady evolution and has molded itself to include all subsequent

technological advancements.

Though the term was coined in the 1950s, the fundamental tenets of the philosophy have their

origin in the Enlightenment of the 19th century. It was during this century that humans began, “using

science to achieve mastery over nature in order to improve the living condition of human beings”

(Bostrom 119). Advancements in medicine coupled with the belief that understanding the physical

world could be attained though rational thought and scientific enquiry resulted in the assumption that

humankind was largely the master of its own destiny. It is interesting to note, however, that as Bostrom

points out, “The human desire to acquire new capacities is as ancient as our species itself”. In this

respect, the notion of improving the human species is not as radical or dramatic as it would seem.

Perhaps the most important development in this line of thought came with Darwin's Origin of Species

(1859), at which point the idea of human evolution as a continual process supplanted the existing

perception of human life as being static. Essentially, engendering the belief that the possibilities of our

development are limitless was the idea that humankind is in a constant process of transformation.

These ideas gained serious momentum during the course of the next century. As scientists

discovered cures for numerous diseases and physical afflictions that had previously been the cause of

widespread suffering and mortality, the application of science to eradicate all forms of human frailty

garnered widespread support. It is on the basis of this perspective that transhumanists contend, “...
[their] agenda is a natural extension of the traditional aims of medicine and technology, and offers a

great humanitarian opportunity to genuinely improve the human condition” ( Bostrom and Solomon 6).

This reasoning is understandable – after all, as our collective understanding of how the human body

functions and operates increases, we become more and more complacent as to the implications of our

progress. In many ways, “transhumanism of a sort is implicit in much of the research agenda of

contemporary bio-medicine. The new procedures and technologies…whether mood-altering drugs,

substances to boost muscle mass or selectively erase memory, prenatal genetic screening, or genetic

therapy...can easily be used to enhance the species as to ease or ameliorate illness” (Fukuyama, 35).

This is where the debate becomes one that is more about ethics and morality than it is about

science and technology. Currently, biomedical technology enables us to perform seemingly death

defying procedures that would have been considered impossible only decades ago. Moreover, many of

these applications were regarded as aberrations of natural and divine law; but as time progresses, and

the extent of mankind’s dominion over the physical world increases, society is forced to renegotiate its

levels of consent and acceptance in terms of what it considers to be normative participation. Things like

artificial organs, bionic limbs, organ transplants and reconstructive surgeries are just a few of the

procedures that are available and commonly practised today. As the frequency and availability of these

procedures swell, the line between what can be done and what - as a matter of ethics and morality-

should be done, is continually readjusted in accordance with their benefits and “necessity”. For

transhumanists, however, nothing is outside the realm of ethical scrutiny; if a procedure, medication, or

device, that may alleviate pain or serve to enhance the human species in any way, does exist, then it is a

matter of moral duty to make sure they are implemented. Nick Bostrom, who is regarded as a

preeminent advocate of transhumanism, articulates this in saying, “[transhumanism] holds great

potential for alleviating unnecessary human suffering. Every day that the introduction of effective

genetic enhancement is delayed is a day of lost individual and cultural potential, and a day of torment

for...sufferers of diseases that could have been prevented”. (Bostrom, 505)

Methods of Transhumanism

In order to fully appreciate the magnitude of what transhumanists intend to accomplish, it is

important to review some of the mechanisms by which they intend of realize the emergence of the post

human.

Nanotechnology:
The applications of nanotechnology are vast; one of the most popular future applications among

transhumanists is the use of nanotechnology to scan the structure of our brains atom by atom,

and to preserve all the neural patterns responsible for personal identities, in order to re-create

those structures on artificial hardware. In effect, we could upload our minds to computers and

make copies of ourselves down to every memory, personality quirk, hope, prejudice and desire.

We could then design new and better bodies, or simply live on as information patterns in

computer networks, like ghosts in a vast machine. (Carl, 17)

Cryonics:
The idea behind cyronics is to preserve the human body in a state of suspended animation until

a later point, at which time our benevolent, super intelligent descendants can resurrect them.

Once reanimated they will be cured of their physical afflictions for which we currently have no

cure. Already this technology is being used and cryonics services are available to the public at
 very high prices.

Elimination of all Diseases and Physical Frailty:

In eliminating all diseases it is estimated that it will be possible for us to live for two thousand

years. When we get rid of all the other hazards of living, well be looking at a life span of seven

thousand years. Transhumanists aim to accomplish this primarily through genetic screening and

engineering. This may also be accomplished through the use of medication aimed at super-

charging the human immune system.

Artificial Intelligence/Brain Chips:

A core tenet of the movement is to enhance the intellectual capabilities of the species. While

there are many methods and procedures which transhumanists propose to use, the most popular

are genetic engineering and human-robot interfacing

Space Colonization
For decades we have entertained the idea of one day migrating to space with the intention of

creating an new and better civilization. Part of the transhumanist agenda it to create the

technologies needed to enable us to do so.

“No more gods, no more faith, no more timid holding

back. The future belongs to post-humanity.”
-Max More

Implications of Transhumanism
 One of the greatest concerns in regards to the emergence of the post human is that of biological

compatibility. The application and realization of transhumanist objectives will likely result in the

genesis of two distinct beings – humans and post-humans. These two beings will be so fundamentally

different from each other, that interbreeding will become virtually impossible. Considering that humans

will be markedly inferior both physiologically and intellectually to the their highly evolved

counterparts, it is likely that from an evolutionary perspective, humans will be regarded as inferior and

will thus face genetic marginalization. Additionally, there is also concern as to the anatomical

composition of the post-humans. The incorporation of technology into the physiological makeup of

such beings may ultimately render them more machine than human, thus making interbreeding

phonically impossible. As Dyen's points out:

“Recruitment and deployment of these types of technology can produce people who are intelligent and
immortal, but who are not members of the species homo sapiens...beings who are part machine represent a
profound misalignment between existence and its manifestation...producing bodies so transformed, so
dissociated, and so asynchronized, that there only out come is gross mutation...for they have no real
attachment to any biological structure” (Dyens, 201).

While transhumanists advocate the amelioration of the human species through technology, the

realization of their objectives will ironically result in its likely extinction. As Agar points out, “although

change is essential to the evolutionary process, it is, paradoxically, antithetical to evolutionary

success...one way to go extinct is to have no descendents. But another way to go extinct is to have

descendents that are so different as to count as different species” (Baliey, 36).

Although these arguments take into account some of the physiological pitfalls that will occur if

we are to “wrest [our] biological destiny from evolution's blind process of random variation and

adaptation” (Kaebnick, 41), they fail to take into account the most important factor concerning human
evolution which is its inherent complexity. The process of evolution is sacrosanct because, “for all our

obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process - products

whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts” (Fukuyama, 43). If we are to regard evolution as

a process that can be altered to suit our whims and desires, there is no telling what the consequences

will be. Agar suggests, "every member of the human species possesses a genetic endowment that allows

him or her to become a whole human being, an endowment that distinguishes a human in essence from

other types of creatures." (Agar, 15) Once we start altering the process by which we become “whole”,

we will ultimately be jeopardizing the fate of humanity.

A Matter of Inequality

At the core of the transhumanist dream is the idea of improving the species through various

technological means, and in order to improve it, we must first determine which of the human species'

qualities is most valuable. One of the most problematic aspects of this concept is the idea of assigning

value to the physical and intellectual characteristics of living beings, specifically humans.

Removing this process from the natural course of evolution, “...leads to the questioning of what

our current standards for humanity are and whether they should be trusted...one of history's lessons is

that seeming different does suffice to make someone non human.” (Elliot, 19) . From this perspective it

is easy to see some of the potential problems that might arise if we try to determine which or whose

qualities are considered desirable and worth enhancing. Favouring and enhancing the physical

characteristics of one group over another will lead to process that is akin to genetic genocide.

Moreover, the concept of “improving” implies that something must be inferior and must be
made better than it initially was. By suggesting that our current state in the evolutionary process leaves

much to be desired in terms of improvement, transhumanists are essentially devaluing all the aspects of

human nature that make it unique and worth preserving. If they are to succeed in improving the human

species to the point whereby two distinct entities exist, it is likely that they will each possess entirely

different value systems, likely resulting in the destruction of the basis of equal rights by enhancing only

a select few and inherently altering the shared human essence. This is best described by Fukuyama as

he says:

“...most serious political fights in the history of [humankind] have been over who qualifies as fully

human...slowly and painfully, advanced societies have realized that simply being human entitles a person

to political and legal equality...we have drawn a red line around the human being and have said that this is

sacrosanct. The essence and view that individuals therefor have inherent value is at the heart of political

liberalism. If we transform ourselves what right will post-humans claim? What rights will those left behind

claim?” (Baliey, 22).

As it stands today, the world is rife with inequalities of all sorts; already issues of disparity in

access to, and availability of, technology and biomedical procedures between developed and developing

nations have become detrimental to our understanding of self-determination and social inclusion. When

considered in relation to the applications of transhumanism it is evident that the disparity will

drastically increase. Bailey argues, “One much-discussed possible harm is an exacerbation of social

inequalities. Opponents of enhancement predict war, slavery, and genocide as humans face off against

their genetic superiors…like all utopian visions, transhumanism rests on some conception of the

good…just as humanism if founded on the idea that humans are the measure of all things, who is to say

what the post-human conception of the good will be?” (Solomon, 10). There is no telling what a post-

human's conception of the good might be, but if humankind is no longer the measure of all things, then
it is likely that it might not enjoy the same status that is does today. Because “a post-human may be

thought to be beyond humanity and as beyond its right and obligations”, there is not assurance that such

beings would in any way value human life.

Conclusion

While many of the key tenets of transhumanism seem humane and even undeniably

compassionate toward the human species, the moral and ethical implications of the ideology far out

weigh its benefits. By altering the fundamental boundaries of human existence, transhumanists seek to

remove our species from the safety of natural evolution, ultimately putting us at risk of extinction. The

sad reality is, however, that most of the objectives of transhumanism are currently being realized in

hospitals and laboratories all over the world. The majority unwittingly welcomes the coming of a post-

human future through their complicity and reliance of biomedical science and, while there seems to be

a general consensus as to the condemnation of the transhumanist philosophy, little or nothing is being

done to curb its progress. If our experiences of the past have taught us anything, it is that human inquiry

and our desire to improve and sustain ourselves will likely prove instrumental in the realization of a

post-human future.
 Works cited:

Works Cited
Agar, Nicholas. "Whereto Transhumanism?: The Literature Reaches a Critical Mass." The Hastings
Center Report Vol. 37.3 (2007): 12-17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

Bailey, Ronald. Liberation Biology: the Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution. Amherst,
NY: Prometheus, 2005. Print.

Bostrom, Nick. "A History of Transhumanist Thought." Journal of Evolution and Technology 14
(2005): 117-20. J Store. Web. 11 Mar. 2010.

Bostrom,, Nick. "Human Genetic Inhancements; a Transhumanist Perspective." J Value Inquiry 37

(2004): 493-506. Academic Search Premier. Web. 01 Apr. 2011.

Dyens, Ollivier. Metal and Flesh: the Evolution of Man : Technology Takes over. Cambridge, MA:
MIT, 2001. Print.

Elliott, Carl. "Humanity 2.0." The Wilson Quarterly 27.4 (2003): 13-20. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 21 Mar. 2011.

Francis Fukuyama, Francis Francis Fukuyama. "Transhumanism." Foreign Policy No. 144 (2004): 42-
44. J Store. Web. 25 Mar. 2011.

Humanity+. "Humanity | Transhumanist FAQ." Humanity | Technology & the Future. Web. 22 Mar.
2011. <http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-faq/>.

Jotterand, Fabrice. "At the Roots of Transhumanism: From the Enlightenment to a Post-Human
Future." Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2010): 617-24. J Store. Web. 25 Mar. 2010.

Kaebnick, Gregory E. "The Nature of the Problem." The Hastings Center Report 32.6 (2002): 40-42.
Print.

More, Max. "Transhumanism: A Futurist Philosophy." Max More. Na Feb. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm>.

Solomon, Mark, and Nick Bostrom. "The Transhumanist Dream." Foreign Policy 146 (2005): 4-10. J
Store. Web. 22 Mar. 2010.

Wells, H. G. "The Discovery of the Future." Royal Institute, London. 24 Jan. 1902. Lecture.