The Transhumanist Wager

Julian Huxley popularised the term transhumanism in an influential 1957 essay.

Transhumanism is: 

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities … transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.1

The transhumanist wager can be understood as follows.2 If you love and value your life, then you will want the option to live as long and as well as possible. How do you do this? Suppose you bet on one of the following:

Alternative #1 – don’t use science and technology to try to defeat death and hope there’s an afterlife. But, since you don’t know an afterlife exists, doing nothing doesn’t help your odds.
Alternative #2 – use science and technology to try to defeat death. By doing something you are increasing your odds of being immortal.

The choice is between bettering your odds or not; good gamblers say the former is the better choice. At least that’s what the supporters of the argument say.

Now there are two basic obstacles that prevent individuals from taking the wager seriously. First, most people don’t think immortality is technologically possible or, if they do, they believe such technologies won’t be around for centuries or millennia. Most are unaware that research on life-extending and death-eliminating technologies is progressing. Some researchers think we are only decades from extending life significantly, if not defeating death altogether.

Second, even if convinced that we can overcome death, many feel we shouldn’t. I am always amazed at how many people—confronted for the first time with the idea that technology may give them the option of living longer, happier, and healthier lives—claim to prefer death. There are many reasons for this, but for most, the paradigm shift required is too great, guided as they are by ancient religion, distorted views of what’s natural, or a love of stasis and disdain for change—even if this means condemning their consciousness to oblivion.

In order to better clarify the transhumanist wager let’s compare it to two other wagers—Pascal’s Wager and the Cryonics Wager.

Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager advances a pragmatic argument for the existence of the Christian God. It’s simple. Bet that God exists, believe in God, and you either win big (heaven) or lose nothing (except perhaps a little time and money in church). Bet that God doesn’t exist, don’t believe in God, and you either lose big (hell) or win nothing (except perhaps saving a bit of time and money in church.) The expected outcome of betting that God exists is infinitely greater than betting the reverse. Thus the smart money bets that God exists.

The main reason this argument fails is that it assumes there is a certain kind of God who rewards and punishes in a specific way. But we don’t know reality is like this. You might bet on the existence of the Christian God but in the afterlife find that Allah or Zeus condemns you for your false beliefs. Or even if the Christian God exists, you can’t be sure that your version of Christianity is correct. Perhaps only one of the thousands of sects of Christianity is true; the version you believe is incorrect (which is likely); and you will be condemned for your false beliefs. 

Or consider another scenario. You believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, go to church, do good deeds, and the Christian God resurrects your body at the last judgment. You’re feeling pretty good until you hear a voice say: “I made you in my image by giving you reason. Yet you turned your back on this divine gift, believing in supernatural miracles and other affronts to reason. You believed in me without good reason or evidence. Be gone then! Only scientists and rationalists, those who used the precious gift of reason that I bestowed upon them, can enter my kingdom.”

I don’t think this scenario is true but it is as plausible—if not more so—as typical religious explanations of what earns reward and punishment. The point is that Pascal’s wager doesn’t work because we don’t know that there is a single god who rewards or punishes us based on whether we believe in him/her. We don’t know reality is like that. Why would reality be like that? 

The Cryonics Wager

Now consider the cryonics wager.3 What happens if you buy a cryonics policy? The continuum of possibilities looks like this:


awake in a heaven                         never wake up                          awake in a hell

You might be awakened by post-human descendants as an immortal being in a heavenly world. You might be awakened by beings who torture you hellishly for all eternity. Or you might never wake up. Should you make this wager? Should you get a cryonics policy? I don’t know. If you don’t preserve yourself cryonically, then you might die and go to heaven, hell, or experience nothingness. These outcomes parallel those of Pascal’s wager.

So all you can do is assess the probabilities. Does having a cryonics policy, as opposed to dying and taking your chances, increase or decrease your chances of being revived in a good reality? I don’t know. But if the policy increases that chance, if you desire blissful immortality, and if you can afford a policy, then you should get one.

Personally, I believe that having a cryonics policy slightly increases your chance of being revived in a better reality than dying and taking your chances. I place more faith in my post-human descendants than in unseen supernatural beings. Still, I understand why others believe differently and I respect their right to die and hope for the best. 

The Transhumanist Wager

Now recall the transhumanist wager:

1 – Do nothing (scientifically) about death -> the odds for immortality are unaffected.
2 – Do something (scientifically) about death ->  the odds for immortality improve.
Thus, doing something is better than doing nothing.

The problem is with alternative #2. You don’t know that doing something to eliminate death increases your odds of being immortal. On the one hand, it seems like doing something is better than doing nothing. On the other hand, maybe the gods think that trying to defeat death displays hubris so they’ll punish you for your efforts. Of course, the gods might favor those who try to defeat death. We just don’t know. 

Again the problem, as was the case with the other wagers, is that we just don’t know the nature of ultimate reality. No matter what we do, or don’t do, we may reap infinite reward, its opposite, or fade into oblivion. We just don’t know what the future has in store for us. We don’t know with certainty how we should wager.

Conclusion: Make The Transhumanist Wager

Still, not knowing for certain where to place our bet doesn’t mean that all bets are equal. Consider again the three wagers:

Pascal’s wager – do nothing -> except have faith
Cryonics wager – do something -> use cryonics technology
Transhumanist wager – do something -> use any life-extending technology

The choice comes down to doing nothing—except hoping that you have the right religious beliefs to gain blissful immortality—or doing something—buying a cryonics policy and/or supporting scientific research to defeat death. (Cryonics is a particular use of science and technology.) So what should you do?

To answer this question consider a choice human beings faced in the past (and which some still face today.) What should we do about disease? Should we pray to the gods and hope for a cure or put our faith in science and technology? In hindsight, the answer is clear. Praying to the gods made no difference, whereas modern medicine has limited death and disease, and nearly doubled the average human lifespan in the last few hundred years. When medieval Europeans contracted the plague they prayed hard … and then died miserably. Today we cure the bubonic plague with antibiotics. Thank science. 

Other examples easily come to mind. What is the best way to predict the weather, harness energy, capture sound, achieve flight, communicate over great distances, or fly to far-off planets? In none of these cases is praying and hoping a good strategy. The achievements above resulted from scientific research and its technological applications.

These examples highlight another advantage of placing our faith in science—the incremental benefits that accrue from living longer and better lives. Such benefits provide assurance that we are on the right path, increasing our confidence that we are making the correct wager.4 In fact, the benefits already bestowed upon us by science and technology confirm that it is the best path toward a better future. As these benefits accrue, our existence will be more fulfilling thereby removing the need to hope for a hypothetical afterlife. Let us be bold then; wagering on ourselves, not on invisible beings. 


1Humanity+ website’s FAQ section.
2Zoltan Istvan introduced the idea of the transhumanist wager.
3Cryonics preserves organisms at very low temperatures in glass-like states
4I would like to thank Joshua Shrode for this suggestion.

Liked it? Take a second to support Dr John Messerly on Patreon!

5 thoughts on “The Transhumanist Wager

  1. Dante coined the phrase in the 14th century. In Paradiso Canto #1 he wrote, “How I attained to this transhuman state/No words can tell: let this example, then,/Suffice for him whom grace permits to feel it.” The word in the original Italian was the verb “Trasumanar.” (lines 70-34)

  2. i see the word “transhumanize” in line 1-70 in this translation:

    To represent transhumanise in words
    Impossible were; the example, then, suffice
    Him for whom Grace the experience reserves.

    but I don’t understand the context. At any rate, I don’t think Dante has anything in mind like modern transhumanism. Still, thanks for making me aware of this.

  3. To me, this seems an unnecessary extension and expansion of Mssr. Pascal’s Wager. The Huxley’s were a creative and imaginative lot…and knew how to capture the imagination of their readers. Philosophy is a speculative adventure. Many ideas find their fruition in such speculations. It is now being asserted that metaphysics is pointless. At least a few pragmatists have quietly said this all along. But, that is one beauty of philosophy: so much room for differences of opinion, and the changing of one’s mind…

  4. It’s on my Timeline, which goes decade-by-decade—from the 1930s to the 2020s; your articles will be for the 2020s.

  5. One more comment. Would like to discuss religion and afterlife, as my grandfather was a Methodist minister; and was inculcated with views on the afterlife.
    Today I can reify it, somewhat: the key is ‘choose life so that you and your descendants might live’. A modern interpretation could be that the odds of living longer and/or descendants doing so, can be increased by being pious. Though in a modernized sense of ‘piety’.
    Piety has a different meaning in 2022 than it did in 2022 BCE, except for the most traditional of religionists. Faith, in just about all (and possibly All) religions is based imo on sacrifice. Self-sacrifice and sacrificing others; which is where the Crucifixion enters: Christ was sacrificed for the sins of all humanity. By offloading sins onto Christ, the Believer and descendants can live longer. Doesn’t mean they shall live longer, but might. That’s my hermeneutic. As descendants can carry one’s genes into the future indefinitely, one can conceivably such define “Eternal Life”.
    Putting it all together:
    modern piety can be conducive to choosing extended life, so that one and one’s descendants may live indefinitely/eternally. How sacrifice is relatable to this, is for a master theologian—or master con artist—to explain. But a Christian transhumanist can continue to get rid of sin by giving all sins to Christ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.