November 5, 2023

Humanity tends to “assume control” in two senses of the phrase. First, we think we can (and should) control the course of our own lives and determine our ultimate destiny. We “assume control” by taking command. Second, we think we can overcome any problem and continue to make progress through our individual or collective wisdom. In this second sense, we “assume control” is possible.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

The two sorts of “assuming control” are available in any number of arenas, but are foundational in transhumanism. The Transhumanist Declaration outlines seven core beliefs of the movement, two of which relate to the issue of control and immortality. The basic notion is that technology holds the key to exercising greater control by allowing humans “to extend their mental and physical — including reproductive — capacities.” According to the Declaration, there is an anticipated future ahead in which various challenges associated with the “human condition” will be overcome through “redesign.” These challenges include “the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.”

By positing “the feasibility of redesigning” the human condition so that humans can (a) minimize (if not eliminate) all the effects of human sin and (b) break free from God’s good — though broken — creation, the transhumanists present our humanity and the world as obstacles to be overcome. Interestingly, despite admitting the limitations of human intellect, transhumanists trust that intellect to remake humanity. As such, there is an inherent contradiction in the transhumanist philosophy. It assumes finite, vulnerable beings can, through their own creations, transcend their own finitude and frailty. 

This sort of view is not particularly new. While powerful modern technologies fuel transhumanism, the basic notion that humanity can provide its own “good life” is an old one. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are warned not to believe that the prosperity they enjoy is the product of their own “power and might” (Deut. 8:17). Denying the God who gives the power for prosperity (8:18) leaves humans functionally alone in the world.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

The transhumanist quest goes beyond normal notions of prosperity and well-being. It is fueled by the belief that all humanity has at this point in history was produced by human means. It is, at best, an implicit denial of the Triune God who is present and active in the world. It denies the ongoing works of God on behalf of humanity. Humanity’s so-called “advancements” or “progress” have led to a moment when transhumanist claims are somewhat reasonable potentialities.

While transhumanism proper remains a relatively fringe, though growing, movement, some would argue that many people in today’s world are practicing transhumanists even if they don’t know it. Humanity’s growing dependence on technology is, at the very least, transhuman adjacent. The rhetoric used to encourage the development of A.I. or the expansion of social media — despite mounting evidence of its detrimental impacts on certain members of society — will likely accelerate the shift toward a transhuman world. 

Technology can help humans do things we otherwise couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean technology is an unqualified “good.” As we become more immersed in technology, we run the risk of losing (or abandoning) a theological perspective on reality because technology is increasingly distancing us from and numbing us to the real world in which God is active and present.

This distance is dangerous. First, it ignores the fundamental flaw in all our human efforts.  Our technologies are limited because we are limited.  Humans, individually and collectively, cannot sufficiently grasp everything happening around them. At best, we can make educated guesses rooted in assumptions about the world.  Such guesses will be incomplete, incorrect, or both.

Assuming that we can conquer suffering and death assumes that we can escape the basic human problem of sin. While transhumanists do not affirm human depravity, they do recognize human frailty. However, that frailty is balanced by human capacity. Technology does not become a god. It becomes a pseudo tree of life unguarded by a flaming sword and capable of feeding human desires that will never be sated. 

Such is the challenge of immortality apart from God. We will never be satisfied. We would need some way to diminish our desires, artificially simulate contentment, or come to terms with our incessant need for more.  Transhumanism is correct in its basic insight: for humans to achieve immortality and “seek personal growth beyond our current biological capacities,” we will have to become something other than human.