Having introduced transhumanists ideas to university students over the years, I am familiar with typical objections to transhumanist philosophy: 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 include evil and death, then the condemnations of transhumanism are justified. But will this opposition succeed? I doubt it. Most do not desire to go back to the middle ages when believers prayed sincerely and then died miserably. Today some still consult faith healers, but the intelligent go to their physicians. Everything about technology plays god, and letting nature takes its course means that half the people reading this article would have died in childbirth or 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.” (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.
If we do nothing we will 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.
Maybe the church should be a little more falibilistic. That probably isn’t really a word but, I think it works. What if God wants us to fulfill a transhumanist destiny. If there is a God didn’t he give us the intelligence and resources to accomplish the task? If there really is an omniscient, omnipresent being that created us how can we really know what his wishes are? The religious works such as, the Bible or the Koran were not written by the deities they are man’s interpretation of what they believe to be God’s wishes for us and our world. Perhaps something has been lost in the translation.
You make several points that I’ll try to address in turn. 1) Catholicism specifically rejects fallibilism with the doctrine of “papal infallibility.” Needless to say many other religious sects think they are the only way to the truth. 2) You can reconcile religion with transhumanism. In fact some kinds of process theology should be comfortable with “evolving into gods,” or for non-dualistic Hindus, who think we already are gods, the reconciliation between religion and TH should be viable too. 3)The problem of knowing what the gods want is a classic issue in phil of religion. Usual answers include scripture, revelation, mystical experience, church teaching, etc. But I think this problem is impossible to solve; it is simply self-evident you couldn’t know what gods wanted even if there were gods. 4) Holy books are the products of fallible human beings, as you point out. 5) Anybody who has ever translated knows that translation is imprecise and perfect translation is impossible.
Some Mormons enjoy the transumanist notion. Rejoice?
Don’t know much about Mormons and transhumanism.