Is transhumanism evil? A differentiated perspective

Is transhumanism evil? A differentiated perspective

Transhumanism is usually regarded as a kind of red flag in political-critical groups and presented almost exclusively in a negative light. As a politically critical person by myself receiving information from alternative channels, I always get warnings about the dangers of transhumanism and thus the impression that transhumanism should be rejected in all respects. Although I can understand many concerns, such a perspective appears to me quite one-sided on the one hand and incomplete on the other. Besides a differentiated view, I miss the representation of the in my opinion most important problem regarding transhumanism in our modern times and reasonable approaches for solutions. As a result, a lot of potential is wasted and criticism often seems to be a one-sided roasting instead of a constructive discussion of the topic. Therefore I would like to look at transhumanism from a more differentiated perspective.

Transhumanism is already ubiquitous

Often critic gives the impression that transhumanism is a uniform school of thought with the same, clearly defined goals. But since transhumanism can be seen as more of a philosophical movement instead of an organized movement, there are many different currents. Due to the rapid scientific and technical progress of our world, many transhumanist views are under constant revision and development. Different currents mix their transhumanistic philosophy with other philosophical or political currents and ideologies, e.g. with Humanism, Libertarianism, or concepts of democracy. So transhumanists are by no means a homogeneous, cult-like lobby organization with the general goal to replace the imperfect present humanity with technically and genetically optimized superhumans.

While a uniform definition of transhumanism and its goals does not exist, nevertheless certain core elements appear over and over again. Transhumanism represents the tendency to overcome and/or extend the physical and mental borders of humans with the support of science and in particular technologies. Often critic gives the impression that this is is a school of thought of our modern world. However, when I look at the basic core elements of the definitions of transhumanism, then I have to ask quite honestly: What is so new about it anyway?

Since the beginning of time, mankind has strived to go beyond its natural limits with the help of technical achievements. Due to the lack of ability to swim longer distances, people started building boats tens of thousands of years ago. In more recent times, motorized vehicles such as cars were added. We can’t fly, so we have built airplanes. And if that’s not „close to the body“ enough to qualify as transhumanism, what about eyeglasses, which have been used to improve vision since the 13th century? What about pacemakers, used to support weakened hearts, or defibrillators, which bring irregularly beating hearts back into a regular beat? With the help of these invasive modifications to the human body, which have been around for 50 years or more, many people can continue to live a dignified life for years; without them, they would have died long ago or at least been in need of intensive care. Our ability to think has also long been supported by technology, from the simple slide rules used for thousands of years to modern computers. And genetic engineering has been used for decades to get bacteria to produce insulin, a hormone also produced naturally in the human body, to help diabetes patients.

The highly criticized genetic engineering in particular is a good example of the double standard in the perception of many people when talking about achievements regarding transhumanism. Modifying the human genome is bad because it is unnatural. However, these standards do not seem to be applied to animals and plants, where systematic genetic modification has a history of at least 8000 years. Selective breeding, in which desired traits are made more and more pronounced by selective crossing, is nothing other than genetic engineering or genetic manipulation. The resulting plant and animal breeds would often not be able to survive in nature or under natural selection, only human cultivation and care enable their continued existence. Resolute opponents of genetic engineering should keep these facts in mind when, after the demonstration against stem cell research, they head for the nearest health food store with their panting pug on a leash to take home a few more of the particularly juicy tasty apples.

So, from my point of view, transhumanism is by no means something new and exotic. No, oriented to the core components of its definition, it already pervades our complete everyday life. However, this „triumph of transhumanism“ is not the result of the efforts of a mysterious lobbying association, but rather of the human drive for research and development that made our modern civilization possible in the first place.

A reflective approach to transhumanism cannot avoid the system question

If transhumanism is already ubiquitous anyway, where does this aversion to certain achievements regarding transhumanism, such as digitalization, artificial modifications of the body, or genetic engineering, come from? I suspect, at least partially, it is not really rational, but results from a certain discomfort with the strange, the unknown, and the unnatural. Despite the historically developed omnipresence of transhumanism, it should be acknowledged that scientific progress nowadays enables far more diverse interventions in this direction and that new options are constantly being added. And as history has shown often enough, there a rather rejecting attitudes regarding new inventions, because they push people to question their usual values or to leave the comfort zone of their „value bubble“. Since this step is not necessarily comfortable, people instead try to protect their „bubble“ by rejecting the things that could cause it to „burst.“ A perfectly understandable, human behavior from my point of view.

Nevertheless, such aversion remains irrational, because logic alone says that there are no sweeping good or bad achievements. Even a simple tool like a hammer can be used either to nail planks and build houses or to bash someone’s skull in. Black powder has been used for mining, but also for weapons of war. Airplanes were used to transport passengers to their destinations, or bombs. The list could go on for a very long time, but one thing becomes clear above all: Not the achievements themselves are to blame, but rather the intention or the goal for which they are used. And thus to the people who are using them. In my opinion, transhumanism with all its tools and possibilities should also be considered from this differentiated point of view.

When I look at the achievements that already exist today with regard to transhumanism, two adjectives spontaneously come to mind: Great and scary. Great, because as a scientist by myself, I am impressed by the creative genius of others. But above all, I see the enormous potential of these achievements for the benefit of mankind. High-tech prostheses that enable the disabled or injured to lead a normal life, organs grown in the test tube that solve the problem of a lack of organs to donate once and for all, gene therapies that can permanently cure chronic illnesses, robots that take over dangerous jobs…the possibilities of benefit are almost limitless.

Equally limitless, however, are the possibilities for abuse, and that’s the scary part. On this point, I share the fears of many critical groups. I have little desire for a microchip in my head that would allow total monitoring of all my bodily functions and, if necessary, targeted intervention in them. Nor do I find a technocracy desirable in which people are no longer regarded as human beings but as molecular sequences that can be influenced at will, and in which eugenics is part of everyday life, such as the endeavor to produce only „perfect“ babies and to dispose of all „imperfect“ ones. Stimulated discussions in this direction are already taking place today, in the area of pregnancy diagnostics and the resulting abortion. The increasing reliance on technology is also causing people to decline both physically and mentally. Such tendencies can already be seen today: Physical performance compared to the previous generations is declining. The trend of increasing hygiene and sterility, which has become particularly noticeable with Corona, causes a decline in the performance of the immune system in the long term. And who still strains his head to calculate a complicated mathematical formula today, when a mouse click produces a much faster and more likely correct result? This regression leads to increasing dependence on the achievements regarding transhumanism. In my opinion, such a tendency is not completely avoidable, as it is an inevitable result of human progress. But if these dependencies or the technologies themselves are misused to specifically control and regulate people and their behavior, then we have more than just a small problem. In the wrong hands, today’s achievements regarding transhumanism are an extremely dangerous weapon for creating totality and unfreedom.

And it is out of question for me that these achievements are currently in the wrong hands or are being misused with the wrong intentions, which brings me to the real core of the problem. We live in an undemocratic, capitalist system controlled by oligarchs, in which property rights enable elite minorities to increasingly enrich themselves at the disadvantage of the majorities. This is the inevitable course of this system. In short, it leads to increasing social inequality and the remaining of only a few super-rich while the rest of humanity will live in poverty. If the achievements concerning transhumanism are used to maintain this system or to provide even more profit to the profiteers of this system and/or to exercise even better control, as it is done at the moment, this never happens for the benefit of mankind. The possibility of benefit is completely out of the question because it would be a fundamental contradiction to the course of the system. However, as I said, the reason are not the achievements themselves, but their goal of use or those who proclaim the use. Certainly, the philosophical movement of the transhumanists, as many of the critics state, is also abused and infiltrated by the profiteers of this system to enforce their egoistic interests. But since transhumanism concerns very heterogeneous currents, I am convinced that there are not only hirelings among the transhumanists but also idealists, whose efforts are focused on the well-being of mankind. As often, I think sweeping generalizations are inappropriate.

So how do we solve the current problem with transhumanism? From my perspective, by getting to the root of the problem. Of course we could completely reject transhumanism or the achievements associated with it and say we do not want to have anything to do with it. That would be the worst possible approach, because human progress, of which transhumanism is only one manifestation, cannot be stopped. So instead of letting it overwhelm us completely unprepared, we should rather take the lead together and create the basis for a reflective approach to the topic of transhumanism. Since a reflective approach is not possible in this system, it appears to be logical that the system has to be changed. Away from oligarchy, away from capitalism, and away from property rights. Towards a truly democratic system in which people own only what they need for a good, dignified life and in which no individuals enrich themselves disproportionately and to the disadvantage of others. Only such a change of system will enable us to conduct an honest and differentiated discourse on transhumanism, addressing its opportunities, but also its risks and dangers on equal ground and from a wide variety of perspectives (e.g., technical, philosophical, ethical, legal, sociological). As a result of this discourse, strategies for solutions can be developed for a free and open society, always with the overarching goal of using transhumanism or its achievements as optimally as possible for the benefit of humanity.

By Peter Mueller