Transhumanism

Why do you think it is important to have a transhumanist politician?
Politics is the motor of society, so to bring the battle forward it is important to have a political dimension. I have opposed Italy's "Law 40" that places limits on assisted procreation and have been pushing for more nanotechnology in energy and environmental technology.

Is transhumanism more allied with left- or right-wing politics?
In the UK and the US recently, it has been closer to the left, probably because left-wing themes such as bioethics are important to transhumanists at the moment. But economically, the movement probably leans slightly more to the right. Freedom is very important in transhumanism, leading to a focus on individuals and free enterprise.

Is there a conflict with religion?
In my opinion, no. Transhumanism does tend to avoid recourse to an external deity and, in fact, most adherents are materialists. But there are also quite a few Hindu and Buddhist transhumanists, and even some Mormons.

...if germline manipulation actually does begin, it seems likely to set off a kind of biological arms race....  Of course, the problem with arms races is that you never really get anywhere. If everyone's adding 30 IQ points, then having an IQ of 150 won't get you any closer to Stanford than you were at the outset. The very first athlete engineered to use twice as much oxygen as the next guy will be unbeatable in the Tour de France - but in no time he'll merely be the new standard. You'll have to do what he did to be in the race, but your upgrades won't put you ahead, merely back on a level playing field.

...So let's say baby Sophie has a state-of-the-art gene job; her parents paid for the proteins discovered by say, 2005 that, on average, yielded 10 extra IQ points. By the time Sophie is five, though, scientists will doubtless have discovered ten more genes linked to intelligence. Now anyone with a platinum card can get 20 IQ points, not to mention a memory boost and a permanent wrinkle-free brow. So by the time Sophie is twenty-five and in the job market, she's already more or less obsolete - the kids coming out of college just plain have better hardware.

...The vision of one's child as a nearly useless copy of Windows 95 should make parents fight like hell to make sure we never get started down this path. But the vision gets lost easily in the gushing excitement about "improving" the opportunities for our kids.

If germline genetic engineering ever starts, it will accelerate endlessly and unstoppable into the future, as individuals make the calculation that they have no choice but to equip their kids for the world that's being made. Once the game is under way, in other words, there will be no moral decisions, only strategic ones. If the technology is going to be stopped, it will have to happen now, before it's quite begun.

So I finally did it.  I sat down and read

"The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains.  We will gain power over our fates.  Our mortality will be in our own hands.  We will be able to live as long as we want (a subtly different statement from saying we will live forever.)"

"The Singularity will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but transcends our biological roots."

"There will be no distinction post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality."

"Let's consider where we are, circa early 2030s.  We've eliminated the heart, lungs, red and white blood cells, platelets, pancreas, thyroid and all the hormone-producing organs, kidneys, bladder, liver, lower esophagus, stomach, small intestines, large intestines and bowel.  What we have left at this point is the skeleton, skin, sex organs, sensory organs, mouth and upper esophagus and brain."

"And to the extent that there will be debate about the desirability of such augmentation, it's easy to predict who will win, since those with enhanced intelligence will be far better debaters."

Sometimes I wonder if Germany is the last bastion of common sense in our world.  In Germany, they do not allow any research on human embryos. Germany just recently caved to pressure and allowed preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) on human embryos, but only for cases whether the parents carry genetic disease.  (In the U.S., we have no restrictions on PGD, not even for sex selection.) And it was  Greenpeace of Germany that successfully challenged the patenting of human embryos in Europe.  With the crazy ideas coming out of England and Australia these days, I found this story refreshingly sane. 

Dr Roland Kipke, of the University of Tübingen International Centre for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and his colleagues have written a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing that cognitive enhancing drugs for otherwise healthy people are too dangerous to be ethical.  From Michael Cook's commentary at BioEdge:

They contend that the neuroenhancers are wrong on two counts.

First, the assumption that a non-addictive drug will appear is probably false. The latest research suggests that “the neuronal correlates of key cognitive concepts, such as learning and memory, are so deeply connected with mechanisms implicated in the development and maintenance of addictive behaviour so that modification of these systems may inevitably run the risk of addiction to the enhancing drugs”.

Coffee is often cited as a neuroenhancer which is harmless and has no ethical drawbacks. However, coffee does not work in the same way as these drugs: “there is a neurobiologically definable difference that is highly relevant to addiction medicine between coffee consumption and the use of drugs such as modafinil, which indicates the addictive potential of the latter. Coffee and neuroenhancers are not the same.”

Second, its supporters believe that neuroenhancement poses no moral challenges, especially if, as they assume, the drugs are unlikely to be addictive. However, the danger of addiction is so great and so proximate and the potential benefits are so remote and hypothetical that on balance, it would be immoral even to conduct clinical trials.

For instance, although drugs might raise IQ, and therefore productivity and social success. But IQ in developed countries is rising anyway. Why risk addiction? On another level, there would almost certainly be great social pressure to use neuroenhancers. Refuseniks would be forced into lowly-paid jobs or would be forced to compromise their principles.

With all these dangers in mind, the German ethicists argue that the research into the benefits of neuroenhancers is simply too dangerous to waste precious research funds on it.

How we can make machines to do things, rather than modifying ourselves, anyone who prefers the alternative is regressive. One of the key traits of anatomically modern humans is that, rather than adapting our bodies, we adapt our tools.

But transhumanism cannot avoid a fateful engagement with Christianity. Christian institutions may support or oppose transhumanism. Since Christianity is an extremely powerful cultural force in the West, it is imperative for transhumanism to engage it carefully.

Welcome to the posthuman world. Everyone is smart, tall, good looking, free from disease, and, some predict, will live forever.

The Rev. Mark Douglas, a Presbyterian minister, theologian, ethicist, and professor at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga., said in a lecture in Sylvania that transhumanism is "inevitable," as long as humanity continues to exist.

Some have imagined the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool. Some of these proposals exhibit a certain dissatisfaction or even rejection of the value of the human being as a finite creature and person. Apart from technical difficulties and the real and potential risks involved, such manipulation would promote a eugenic mentality and would lead to indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals.

Christians certainly believe that they will indeed become a new (“glorified”) being–but not “post human,” and certainly not through human efforts.  And Rev. Douglas also seems to embrace a trend I see growing within some Christian circles, which expediently conflates what I want with that which supposedly God wants for me.

But more fundamentally, transhumanism’s eschatology is incompatible with that of Christianity.  Transhumanism embraces materialism with white-knuckled fervor, believing that its “New Jerusalem” (if I may) will be wholly here, a human creation located in this ”place,” that is, in the current ”creation” as we know it now.  In contrast, Christian orthodoxy holds that the current reality will “pass away,” and in its place God will create something altogether new, a future reality that is different from the current corporeality, in which Christians will be raised physically but transformed–the same, yet different–and abide for eternity in the very presence of God, in whom most transhumanists disbelieve or find irrelevant– except perhaps, for wanting God’s job....

There is much more that could be said, but I will summarize: “Christian transhumanism” is an oxymoron.

Dean Koontz understands the foundations of the transhumanist movement unlike any other popular fiction writer today.  His latest novel

The dark prospect of posthumanism was part of it that most excited the theorists and scientists: the augmentation of the brain with hundreds of millions of microcomputers made largely of carbon nanotubes, which would be distributed throughout our gray matter.  These tiny but powerful computers would interact with one another, with the brain, and potentially with every computer in the world through a wireless network, tremendously enhancing the individual's intelligence and knowledge.  The posthuman species, a combination of biological and machine intelligence, never aging, nearly immortal, still human in appearance, inspired scientists at MIT and at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, and at hundreds of other universities, institutes, and corporations around the world.  They saw at last a possibly swiftt path to a human civilization with superhuman capabilities, the total submission of nature to humanity, the acquisition of godlike power, the looming end of nationalism and tribalism, and superstition, therefore the elimination of limits in all things.

Reading about the subject to research the novel, I was struck by how insane most people in this movement sound when they are writing about their dream future; insane not because I am too ignorant of science to understand them, but because they are so narrowly focused on the promise of physical immortality, that they can see only the promise of power that entrances them and nothing of the social, civilizational, and biological disaster that will make their dream a nightmare.

The problem of "Transhumanism" is so critically important to understand, and so poorly understood, that I think the topic deserves more than a single column. I therefore address it here and in my next ZENIT bioethics briefs.

You might have seen the feel-good movie Captain America. It takes place during World War II. A patriotic fine arts student from New York City named Steve Rogers wants to enlist in the army. But the army won't take him because he's too scrawny. The recruiters tell him that they're doing him a favor by rejecting his application.

One of his interviews is overheard by a brilliant German scientist, now working for the Americans, named Abraham Erskine. Dr. Erskine is impressed by Rogers' tenacity and thinks he might make a good candidate for a secret military project named Operation Rebirth, intended to transform the bodies of U.S. soldiers into super-human fighting machines.

Rogers eagerly accepts the invitation to become the first U.S. test subject. He's strapped to a gurney and sealed in a pressurized chamber. He's injected with "Super Soldier Serum" and exposed to an almost lethal burst of "Vita-Rays," which activate and stabilize his biochemistry. The once scrawny adolescent emerges from the chamber with a physique like Arnold Schwarzenegger, in possession of a lean, muscular, maximally efficient -- indeed, practically perfect -- body.

Fortunately, Rogers also possesses unusually -- indeed unworldly -- sincerity, self-sacrifice and courage. As "Captain America" -- so dubbed by his superiors -- he goes on to perform deeds of heroism, which will delight all but the most cynical of audiences.

Although we find ourselves firmly on the side of Captain America in the movie, the comic book scenario raises one of the most intense debates facing the future of biotechnology, and indeed, of humanity: should we use science to make ourselves more-than-human, in the words of the president's Council on Bioethics, "better than well"?

The Disney channel has a new show called Lab Rats.  Three of the main characters are teenagers that according to the promotional material are super-human kids genetically engineered by a billionaire investor to "save the world."  Each kid has a special enhancement.  Chase has been altered to have super intelligence.  Bree has been enhanced with super speed and agility.  And Adam is super strong, has laser vision, and is super dumb.

Is this just another super hero series that is nothing for parents to worry about?  I don't think so.  In the past, our favorite super heroes were super because of an accident or the result of the genetic lottery.  And usually there were serious downsides.  Think Spiderman, the Hulk, The Fantastic Four and the X-Men.

Along with the resurgence of Captain America and TV shows like Chuck, now we are seeing heroes that have been intentionally experimented on, intentionally enhanced by the Army or the CIA.  Lab Rats is no different.  These transhumanist depictions of human enhancements are really planting the seed that to save the country, or the world, it is OK to have the government or scientists experiment on you.

We need to the have the conversation with our children now.  Even if the intentions are good, experimenting on otherwise healthy people is wrong.  Tell them that their faith says that human enhancements are wrong.  Enhancing humans will create a world where those that are enhanced will rule over those that aren't.  And enhancing children, like the Lab Rats, who cannot give informed consent is super wrong.

Many people think my rants about transhumanism are alarmist.  Well meet Chase, Bree and Adam and then tell me I am wrong to be concerned:

Hat Tip: Bill Genereux

We’ll shortly be able to choose the genetically-shaped pain thresholds of our future children. Autosomal gene therapy will allow adults to follow suit. Clearly, our emotional response to raw pain is modulated by the products of other genes. But recent research suggests that variants of the SCN9A gene hold the master key. Thus in a decade or two, preimplantation diagnosis should allow responsible prospective parents to choose which of the SCN9A alleles they want for their future children — leading in turn to severe selection pressure against the SCN9A gene’s nastier variants.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to phasing out suffering altogether is wild animal suffering. Right now, billions of sentient beings in the wild are dying of thirst and hunger, or being disembowelled, asphyxiated or eaten alive by predators. Jeff McMahan’s landmark article in the New York Times is the first print-published plea from a mainstream academic calling for predatory carnivorism to be phased out.

It maybe official.  I think I am a TED video junkie.  Here is one (hat tip ScienceRoll) that describes how researchers are developing a prosthetic eye to treat blindness.  Take the time to watch the whole thing because it is fascinating.

This is the very kind of biotechnology that we Catholics should support.

But beware! The transhumanists will claim these advancements for themselves. They will say this prosthetic eye is just one more example of how transhumanism, the movement that seeks to use technology to make ordinary man "post human," will make all of our lives better. Except this prosthetic eye is not an example of transhumanism. This is an example of medicine, taking technology to restore a normal human function. Transhuman literally means "beyond human."  So the transhumanist does not just want to restore normal function, they want to augment or replace it.  So once the technology is good enough that the digital images are as good or better than what the normal human eye can see, the transhumanist wants such prosthetics to replace their eyes that can see perfectly well. 

We can embrace ethical technology where the intent is to cure or reconstruct.  Once the technology passes into the realm of enhancement of the otherwise healthy, it is no longer medicine and becomes something else entirely.

"These are at the heart of the next 40 years.  And we've got to understand: Somewhere on this planet there will be a dictatorship that uses science in a way that is truly grotesque. And then you're gonna have, for example, a decision to make, if someone can participate in the Olympics who's been genetically engineered. I mean you're gonna have, there's an array of different countries out there, some of which have values so lacking to any of us that you're gonna have these kinds of things."

"This may be the first time in some ways since leaving the Garden of Eden where we have to address the question of what it means to be human. And I think it's also a time to be very aware of the fact the greatest of all sins is hubris, putting yourself before God. And that there is a really great danger posed by scientists and those technicians, who believe that they now have God-like powers. Because it defies the very essence of humans."

Brian J. Gail speaks my language. 

He strode purposefully to the podium and settled in behind it. “Genesis 1: God creates man in His image and likeness.” He paused dramatically and swept the room with an undisguised air of triumph. “Genesis 2: Man creates man in his own image and likeness.”

"We live in hubristic age, when politicians imagine themselves to be messiahs and when many in the sciences frankly discuss their dreams of creating a “post-human” civilization of genetically engineered supermen, ignorant of the fact that like minds have often come before them and have left no legacy but death, destruction, and despair."

Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics that states, "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution."

I have been talking about transhumanism a lot lately because I believe it is the greatest threat to humanity that no one knows about.  Transhumansim is a philosophy that wants to use technology to surpass treating or preventing disease and use it to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities.  They envision a world where you can leave your pathetic, ignorant, weak existence behind and enhance your way to being super-smart, super-strong, super-happy, basically super-human. Transhumanists want to take man's evolution into their own hands creating a race of "post-humans."

We are already justified in the con­viction that human life as we know it in history is a wretched makeshift, rooted in ignorance; and that it could be transcended by a state of existence based on the illumination of knowledge and comprehension, just as our modern control of physical nature based on science transcends the tentative fumblings of our ancestors, that were rooted in superstition and professional secrecy.

The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but trans­cending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.

So who was Julian Huxley?  Besides being the brother of the famous novelist Aldous Huxley who wrote

"No-one doubts the wisdom of managing the germ-plasm of agricultural stocks, so why not apply the same concept to human stocks?"

"The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore... they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation."

"...unless [civilised societies] invent and enforce adequate measures for regulating human reproduction, for controlling the quantity of population, and at least preventing the deterioration of quality of racial stock, they are doomed to decay..."   

"We live in hubristic age, when politicians imagine themselves to be messiahs and when many in the sciences frankly discuss their dreams of creating a “post-human” civilization of genetically engineered supermen, ignorant of the fact that like minds have often come before them and have left no legacy but death, destruction, and despair."

There are two movements afoot that truly disturb me.  They are radical environmentalism and transhumanism.  Radical environmentalism wants the plague of humanity to disappear so the Earth can be "healthy" again.  Transhumanism wants man to live forever through enhancements.  These two movements seem diametrically opposed and yet they suffer from the same faulty underpinning.  A hatred for humanity.  

Lawler argued that if, say, Mormons and Roman Catholics wanted to have babies the old-fashioned, unenhanced way, “we won’t let them do it.” Why not? Because enhanced people would regard “the stupid and disease-ridden Catholic babies as a risk to their own well-being.”

Transhumanist enhancement, on Lawler’s account, thus threatens the “liberty” of doctors to be relatively incompetent, professors to be unproductive, and parents to ensure that their children are comparatively stupid and more likely to suffer disease, disability, and early death. Enabling people to lengthen their healthy lifespans and improve their intellectual capacities, their physical stamina, and their emotional resilience expands rather than contracts their liberty. These are general capacities that anyone would want because they increase the range of their possible life choices. It is rarely the case that being stupid and sick makes one freer.

What about those old-fashioned folks who want to make sure that their children are just like them, naturally stupid and disease-ridden?...

And the more intelligent enhanced would also be better able to anticipate and counter aggressive acts by the emotionally unstable unenhanced.

Tara looked into Taylor's eyes.  "You, me, all of us electric children are those eagles... If you want to keep on pecking through life with the chickens it's up to you, sis.  So what will it be, eagle or chicken?"

"But I like the chickens," Taylor said.

Tara grinned. "Come on."

Taylor sighed. "Of course I want to be an eagle."

"Good. Then stop worrying so much about the chickens.  They don't matter.  Eagles eat chickens.  It's not because eagles are bad, it's just how they are made."

Cartoon by Chris Madden

What always fascinates me about the transhumanist is that they are so blinded by their love of technology and their desire to change humanity that they always skip over the dirty details.  In case you are unfamiliar with transhumansim, it is a philosophy that wants to use technology to surpass treating or preventing disease and use it to enhance otherwise healthy humans beyond natural capabilities.  They envision a world where you can genetically enhancing your offspring to be smarter, faster, bigger and maybe even to glow-in-the-dark.  They speak of this perfect world where man is no longer human, but "posthuman."  And yet the details about how to achieve this technological utopia always seem to escape their notice.  They assume that whatever genetic enhancement is inflicted on the next generation can be as easily removed as it was to introduce.  In fact, I have argued repeatedly with transhumanists about their lack of attention to the mechanics of genetic engineering and their reply is almost invariably, "Well if we can put in genetic enhancements, we can take them out! Duh!"

The bottom line being, if we’re talking about significant genetic changes to human beings, whether it’s making people smarter or stronger or able to fly or whatever, we’re talking about making changes to extraordinarily complex systems – all at once. Those changes will almost certainly have to be made on the embryonic level, and those embryos will grow into babies. And only once they’re born will we even know if the “enhancement” actually worked as planned. Of course, as any engineer will tell you, the more complex the system, the more testing is required. The more testing required, the more prototypes are made. Most of them failures.

Only in the case of human genetic enhancement, the tests are performed on people. The “failed prototypes” are people. People who have to grow up and live with the consequences of the inevitable mistakes that will be made in the process of experimenting. Assuming, of course, they can physically live with those consequences at all.

And there’s the problem. When you get right down to it, I do not see any way to perform experiments involving significant genetic enhancements that don’t end in the suffering of a human being. A human being whose DNA was altered without consent, who is participating in a scientific experiment without consent, and is, basically, being born into slavery, with their sole purpose in life being a stepping stone to making other people “better.”

Biotechnology is one of a suite of new intimate technologies which are well on the way to empowering people to enhance themselves and their progeny by giving them stronger bodies, longer and healthier lives, and smarter brains. Certainly technologies dealing with birth, death, and the meaning and purpose of life need protection from meddling by others who, however democratically, would force their visions of the good on the rest of us.

The Transhumanism Trap is out there.  I am seeing it more and more often.

Splice

If you do not know what transhumanism is let alone know that it has a logical trap into which the average person is likely to fall, don't worry.  Most people don't.   Transhumanism is a movement that wants to use technology to go beyond curing or preventing disease or disability.  Transhumanists hunger for technology that will take an otherwise healthy individual and enhance him or her beyond normal human ability.  Transhumanism seeks not just to cure disease but to change the very nature of man.  To make him more than human, even immortal, with whatever means are available, whether it is with nanotechnology, artificial limbs, artificial intelligence, or genetic enhancement.  Transhumanism is a insidious philosophy because it rejects the nature of humanity and our natural limitations.  Rejecting the nature of man, it also rejects the inherent dignity of every human person in the process.  In their imagined technological utopia, transhumanists often turn a blind eye to the medical realities of enhancement, genetic, pharmaceutical or otherwise and the possibility that without proper ethical guidance we may no longer control technology.  Instead it may control us.  You may think that transhumanism is just a fringe ideology but they have journals, societies and even conferences.

Limitless

So what is the Transhumanist Trap?  It is the blurring of the line, intentional or otherwise, between therapy and enhancement. Therapy is aimed at curing or preventing disease or disability and returning a patient to a more normal state. Enhancement takes an otherwise healthy individual and makes them more than human in intelligence, strength or other desired characteristic.  An example would be artificial limbs.  In therapy, an artificial limb would be for a patient who is missing a limb.  In enhancement, a perfectly good limb would be chopped off and replaced with an artificial one that functions better than the natural ever could.  Therapy and enhancement may employ the same technology, but are two fundamentally different processes. 

And there in lies the trap.  Transhumanists will insist that therapy is transhumanism because technology is involved. They argue if we embrace the use of technology for therapy, we automatically embrace transhumanist ideals as well.  In any article that denounces transhumanism, even on this very blog, there is always a comment suggesting that rejecting transhumanism means rejecting the good use of technology for healing.  Here is one example.  On a post by Joseph Farrah on the dangers of transhumanism at World Net Daily, a commenter wrote the following:

So does Farah now believe that former VP Cheney should have the implanted defibrillator (that's been keeping him alive for the last decade) removed?

Or does he think that onetime WND commentator Neal Boortz should have his artificial knee replacements cut out?

Or does he think that the myriad of WND readers who have had hip replacements, heart valve replacements, etc. should have them removed?...

Opposing medical and scientific progress does not make you "conservative" or a "traditionalist;" it just makes you a Luddite.

sick and stupid

Sounds good right?  Now the trap is set. The average reader immediately takes the transhumanist side and says to themselves, "Well I am certainly not against defibrillators, or heart valves or hip replacements.  This transhumanist thing must not be so bad." Trap sprung.

The transhumanist always presents the scenario that in accepting medical progress for treating disease or disability, one must also accept technology to enhance man beyond what can be accomplished by nature. Opposing transhumanism means "opposing medical and scientific progress."  That is the Transhumanist Trap:  therapy equals enhancement and with one comes the other.  Rejecting enhancement means taking away Grandma's hip and Grandpa's defibrillator and only the angry, hate-filled Luddites of the world would want that. 

In reality, technologies like genetic engineering, artificial limbs and pharmacology are not all or nothing.  We can make the decision to limit technology for therapeutic uses only.  Grandma can have her hip replacement and Grandpa can have his defibrillator without embracing a world where every human, not just ones in a deadly accident, has to become the Six Million Dollar Man.  The Church draws a clear and convincing line between therapy and enhancement.  That which brings man back to natural functioning is good.  That which goes beyond therapy to reject the nature God gave is us bad.

The only way to fight the logical fallacy of the Transhumanist Trap is to explain the difference between therapy and enhancement.  Every time you see the trap being set in a com box, point it out.  It becomes very obvious, very quickly, that the transhumanist philosophy has very little to do with healing.  Think about it.  If technology was limited to therapy in the movies, there would be no plot in Surrogates, or Splice or Limitless.  Hollywood seems to get it.  It is time for the real world to take a note.

Transhumanism is a insidious philosophy that many people are simply unaware of.  It is time to become aware.  Transhumanism seeks not just to cure disease but to change the nature of man.  To make him more than human with whatever means are available, whether it is with nanotechnology, artificial limbs, artificial intelligence, or genetic enhancement.  Transhumanists have societies and magazines and conferences. They even argue that the writings of a Jesuit priest will convince Christians of their cause.  It seems like benign science fiction, but transhumansim is far from it.  It rejects the nature of humanity and the fundamental principles that have governed society for thousands of years.  Transhumanists envision a world where man is a master of technology and wields it to his advantage.  They do not realize that what they advocate will do the exact opposite.   It will make man a slave to the technology he creates.

If you want to understand transhumanism better you must read When Will We Be Transhuman? Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism by Kyle Munkittrick on Discover Magazine's blogs.  Kyle lists the seven conditions needed to make transhumanism a reality.  The first condition is that prosthetics are not just for the disabled.  When the average Joe considers chopping off a perfectly good limb to make way for an artificial one, then transhumansim is on the way.  He writes about condition 1:

If you ever find yourself seriously considering having your birth-given hand lopped off and replaced with a cybernetic one, you can tick off this box on your transhuman checklist.

This is exactly the kind of enhancement that the Church rejects.  There is a difference between using technology to restore normal human function and using technology to replace it.  The latter rejects our nature with potentially dangerous consequences.   Transhumanists either do not see or choose to ignore the idea that once artificial limbs and or bodies become common place among the healthy, such prosthetics will be required.  Anyone who does not have access or cannot afford it will become the under class.  Kyle does not envision a future where chopping off perfectly good limbs becomes a necessity to participate in society instead of just a luxury, but I certainly do.

Condition 3 is that everyone is fine with enhancing the human brain with artificial intelligence.  Whether it is cognitive enhancing drugs or a cyberbrain in your fanny pack, for transhumansim to become a reality, society has to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) for everyday life.  Kyle writes:

When it is expected that most people will have an AI advisor at their side analyzing the situation and providing instructions through their implants, go ahead and count humanity another step closer to being transhuman.

Once again the transhumanist ignores the possibility that AI may just become a necessary upgrade to survive in an enhanced world which then makes man a slave to the technology instead of the other way around.

Condition 5 is particularly illuminating.  For transhumanism to flourish, procreation the old fashioned way needs to become, well, old-fashioned, for everyone.  Only artificial technologies like IVF need to be the norm in bringing about the next generation.  That way we can make sure the next generation is the best it can be:

Furthermore, genetic modification, health screening, and, eventually synthetic wombs will enable the child with the best possibility of a good life to be born.

Again transhumanism has no problem with ordering up children from a menu making them more commodities than precious gifts.  And just like in GATTACA, having a child the old fashioned way will become a one way ticket to second class citizenship.  Transhumanists cannot imagine a world where parents of "genetically defective" children who have decided to love their children despite their limitations will be branded "genetic outlaws." But I can, because it is already happening.

Condition 6 has been in the making for decades already.  Condition 6 is "My Body, My Choice."  See Roe vs. Wade was not just about abortion.  It was about inventing a constitutional right called "reproductive rights" which is more than just aborting your children for whatever reason.  It is about having children anyway you see fit and doing with your body anything you like.  "Reproductive rights" have morphed into "somatic rights" and for transhumanism to thrive the following must be embraced:

Actions such as abortion, assisted suicide, voluntary amputation, gender reassignment, surrogate pregnancy, body modification, legal unions among adults of any number, and consenting sexual practices would be protected under law....  Transhumanism cannot happen without a legal structure that allows individuals to control their own bodies. When bodily freedom is as protected and sanctified as free speech, transhumanism will be free to develop.

Condition 7 is the most insidious.  Unfortunately it is the one that is gaining a lot of ground.  In a transhumanist world, being human is not a condition for personhood.  Only humans that have some arbitrary set of qualities will be considered persons.  And any non-human species that shares those qualities will also be considered persons:

Rights discourse will shift to personhood instead of common humanity.... Using a scaled system based on traits like sentience, empathy, self-awareness, tool use, problem solving, social behaviors, language use, and abstract reasoning, animals (including humans) will be granted rights based on varying degrees of personhood.... When African grey parrots, gorillas, and dolphins have the same rights as a human toddler, a transhuman friendly rights system will be in place.

The transhumanist never imagines that they someday maybe considered a non-person at which point an African grey parrot will have rights when they do not.  But of course rational, forward thinking people can see it.  Rational people can also see that a toddler is nothing like a parrot.  Transhumanists also ignore the possibility that at some point, under their arbitrary set of conditions needed for such a granting of rights,  only enhanced humans will be considered "persons."  So if you do not want to be enhanced or cannot afford it, you would no longer be considered a person.  Meanwhile a chimp with a cyber-brain would be.

The Catholic Church resoundingly rejects transhumanism.  The Church instead embraces and loves mankind as it is without cyberbrains, artificial limbs, or genetic enhancement.  It accepts and loves children who are begotten and not made no matter if they are considered "genetically defective" or not.  While the Catholic Church embraces technology that returns man to his natural state, the transhumanist hates mankind's limitations and seeks to eliminate them with technology.   In doing so, transhumanists will create a society where being human is not enough to have rights and participate in society.  In their world, you must have the right qualities to be considered a person.  You may even need to be enhanced to make sure you and yours are not second class citizens.  I don't call that mastering technology.  I call that ensuring that technology is our master.

For an entertaining and I believe accurate look at transhumanism in action, read Dean Koontz's 5 book Frankenstein series.  A bit gruesome and not for the faint at heart, but illuminating all the same.  For those who are not readers, the movie Surrogates is a perfect depiction of what happens when technology that was meant to fix disability is used instead for enhancement and how man becomes a slave to technology in the process.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers."

Personally, I cannot make head nor tails of Teilhard de Chardin and I do not want to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of his work here.  What I do want to bring to my readers attention is the use of Teilhard de Chardin to argue for human genetic enhancement.

I am certainly no theologian.  But if there is one thing I have discovered shifting through Church teaching, is that the Catholic Church has wisdom well beyond her years.  The Church warns us about things that can seem to make little sense until decades later when we are faced with a moral conundrum.  A moral conundrum that could have been avoided if we had listened.  I fear that this is the case with Teilhard de Chardin.

I am here to warn you that Teilhard de Chardin is being used by transhumanists to argue for something the Church finds immoral.  The Catholic Church teaching on genetic engineering can be summarized thus:  Genetic engineering that seeks to cure disease in a single individual is morally acceptable. This is called gene therapy. As long as the genetic changes are not inheritable, the Catholic Church finds genetic engineering for therapeutic reasons morally acceptable.  But, genetic engineering that seeks to take an otherwise healthy man and make him "better than human" by changing his genetic nature is immoral. This is genetic enhancement.  From the Charter for Health Care Workers:

"In moral evaluation a distinction must be made between strictly <therapeutic> manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), from manipulation <altering> the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called "genetic surgery," "will be considered desirable in principle. provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.

On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is 'the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,' which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, 'are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future,' 'no social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic, that is its finality must be the natural development of the human being."

Transhumanists look forward to a day when genetic engineering can change the very nature of man making us "better than human" in intelligence, beauty and strength.  They embrace human genetic enhancement which is clearly not morally acceptable.  I recently found this paper that describes how Teilhard de Chardin fits into transhumanist philosophy:

There are several specific reasons for transhumanists to study Teilhard’s work.

The first reason is that Teilhard was one of the first to articulate transhumanist themes. Transhumanists advocate the ethical use of technology for human enhancement. Teilhard's writing likewise argues for the ethical application of technology in order to advance humanity beyond the limitations of natural biology...

The second reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that his thought has influenced transhumanism itself....

The third reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that he develops his transhumanist ideas within a Christian context. Teilhard shows how one might develop a Christian transhumanism.... A study of Teilhard can help transhumanists to locate and carefully cultivate friends in that network and to locate, and carefully defend against, opponents.

The fourth reason for transhumanists to study Teilhard is that they are likely to need to defend themselves against conservative forms of Christianity. The dominant forms of Christianity today (at least in the USA) are conservative. As the cultural visibility of transhumanism grows, conservative Christians will increasingly pay it their attention....  Since Christianity is an extremely powerful cultural force in the West, it is imperative for transhumanism to engage it carefully....  Conservative Christianity currently has the political power to effectively shut transhumanism down in the West. Teilhard was attacked by conservative Catholics, and transhumanists may have to fight similar battles over similar issues. And yet Teilhard gained a surprisingly large following both within and beyond the church.  A study of his work can help transhumanists develop nuanced strategies for defending against attacks from conservative Christians. [My emphasis]

Whether or not Eric Steinhart is correct is his interpretation of Teilhard de Chardin or not remains to be seen, preferably by someone else who has better theological chops than I have.  What is vitally important is to understand that this priest's work is being suggested as a way to win over Christians to the transhumanist side.  Please do not be fooled. 

It is clear that the transhumanists are considering strategy to bring about human genetic enhancement decades before it is even possible.  Let us be wise like our Church and fight the transhumanist future well before its time.  If we wait until the technology is upon us, it will be too late.   Identify the rhetoric, understand your Church's teaching and keep your eyes open and and your ears sharp.