Transhumanism is a collective of (mostly) naked materialists who hope science and technology will replace the deeper meaning they lost by rejecting metaphysical beliefs. Transhumanists harbor futuristic dreams of making themselves immortal and possessing what would now be thought of as superpowers through technological recreation. Toward those ends, they spend a lot of time and energy discussing and debating arcane issues such as the ethics of uploading consciousness into computers and living forever.
I find it all rather sad. And worrying. Transhumanism harbors blatantly eugenic ambitions and as part of its theology (more on that in a moment) it angrily rejects human exceptionalism. For example, one of the movement’s high priests, J. Hughes, has yearned to enhance a chimp into human attributes to prove we are not special.
I used the word “theological” above because in many ways transhumanism is a quasi religion. It has dogma, eschatology, and yearns for a material New Jerusalem of immortal life. And if Belinda Silbert is to be believed, they want to be gods. Literally. From, “Transhumanism as a Bridge to Divinity:”
“What this life is for” is a question that Transhumanists are engaging with all of the time. Most of us wish for longer lives so that we can live up to a potential that has not yet been defined by the confines of the human brain. To “see eternity in a grain of sand” is all very well, but to LIVE in that eternity and to experience it multi-dimensionally (with senses that are not dulled by the confines of the present human paraphernalia) would be true bliss. Responsible Omniscience; Omnipresence; Omnipotence AND Benevolence would be the totality of the sensory apparatus of the new human.
Well, no one can say the movement isn’t ambitious.
OOO will never happen for humans, of course. I can’t think of a theistic religion that so holds. And Buddhism’s concept of enlightenment isn’t the same thing. Moreover, if we had that kind of power, it wouldn’t always be “benevolent,” however the transhumanists would define the term. Considering its eugenic premises, it isn’t benevolent now. Power corrupts. And being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent would certainly corrupt absolutely.
Silbert closes with a little “humility:”
What then is humanity? I would posit the opinion that humanity is the seed of all potential that could flower into what we have painted as Divinity. The lines will blur. The true revelation will be that Human and Divine are one and the same.
If that is so, how are we not exceptional? Very confusing. But like I have been saying for years now, transhumanism is religion, and religion depends on faith, the “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”