Misplaced Pages

Transhumanism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:53, 3 May 2006 editStN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,796 edits History← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:54, 13 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,404,424 edits Added newspaper. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence | #UCB_Category 39/48 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Philosophical movement}}
]'', an illustration by for ]'s look at how ] will change the human experience]]
{{For|the critique of humanism and related term|Posthumanism}}
'''Transhumanism''' (sometimes abbreviated '''>H''' or '''H+''') is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new ]s and ] to enhance human ] and ] abilities and ] what it regards as harsh aspects of the ], such as disease and aging. Transhumanism cultivates the academic study of the possibilities and consequences of developing and using ] techniques and other ] for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.<ref name="Bostrom 2005">Bostrom 2005</ref>
{{Distinguish|Transhumance|Transgender}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2016}}
{{Transhumanism}}{{Human enhancement sidebar|Advocacy}}{{Utopia}}


'''Transhumanism''' is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the ] by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.<ref name="Mercer">{{Cite book|title = Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement|editor1-last = Mercer|editor1-first = Calvin|editor2-last= Throten|editor2-first = Tracy J.|publisher = Praeger|date=2015|isbn=978-1-4408-3325-0}}</ref><ref name="Bostrom 2005">{{cite journal| last=Bostrom | first=Nick | author-link = Nick Bostrom |title = A history of transhumanist thought|journal = ] |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=1–25 |year = 2005 |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf| access-date=February 21, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hopkins |first1=P. D. |title=Transhumanism |journal=Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition) |date=2012 |pages=414–422 |doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00243-X|isbn=978-0-12-373932-2 }}</ref>
Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from ], the contemporary meaning is a product of the ], when a group of scientists, artists, and ] based in California began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanists postulate that ] beings will eventually be ] into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "]".


Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of ] that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ] of using such technologies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/fuller20150909|title=We May Look Crazy to Them, But They Look Like Zombies to Us: Transhumanism as a Political Challenge|access-date=January 25, 2016|archive-date=November 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106181953/http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/fuller20150909}}</ref> Some transhumanists speculate that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings of such vastly greater abilities as to merit the label of ] beings.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>
Transhumanism's vision of a deeply transformed future humanity has attracted many sympathizers, as well as critics from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by a prominent sympathizer as the "movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity";<ref name="Bailey 2004">Bailey 2004</ref> while according to a prominent critic, it is the world's most dangerous idea.<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">Fukuyama 2004</ref>

Another topic of transhumanist research is how to protect humanity against ]s from ], asteroid impact, ], high-energy particle collision experiments, natural or synthetic pandemic, and nuclear warfare.<ref name="Schuster and Woods 2021">{{Cite book|title = Calamity Theory: Three Critiques of Existential Risk|author1-last = Schuster|author1-first = Joshua|author2-last= Woods|author2-first = Derek|publisher = University of Minnesota Press|date=2021|isbn=9781517912918}}</ref>

The biologist ] popularised the term "transhumanism" in a 1957 essay.<ref name="Huxley 1957"/> The contemporary meaning of the term was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of ], a man who changed his name to ]. In the 1960s, he taught "new concepts of the human" at ] when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles, and worldviews "transitional" to posthumanity as "]".<ref name="Hughes 2004"/> The assertion laid the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher ] to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a ] philosophy in 1990, organizing in California a school of thought that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/><ref name="Gelles 2009"/><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=transhumanism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctranshumanism%3B%2Cc0|title=Google Ngram Viewer |access-date=April 25, 2013}}</ref>

Influenced by seminal works of ], the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives, including philosophy and religion.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>

In 2017, ], in cooperation with philosopher ] and sociologist ], established the '']''<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.psupress.org/Journals/jnls_JPHS.html | title=Journal of Posthuman Studies: Philosophy, Technology, Media}}</ref> as the first academic journal explicitly dedicated to the posthuman, with the goal of clarifying the notions of ] and transhumanism, as well as comparing and contrasting both.

Despite its professed strong attachment to the values of ] and forward-thinking, some critics argue transhumanism is a dangerous resurgence of many ] attitudes and ] ideals of the discredited ] movements of the past.<ref>{{cite journal| last=Sorgner |first=Stefan Lorenz |title = Beyond Humanism: Reflections on Trans- and Posthumanism |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology |date= 2010 |url = http://jetpress.org/v21/sorgner.htm| access-date=2023-05-24}} Section 9.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Levine |first=Susan B. |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/31995/chapter-abstract/267764064?redirectedFrom=fulltext |title=Posthuman Bliss? The Failed Promise of Transhumanism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2021 |isbn=9780190051495 |chapter=Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics}}</ref><ref name="Gebru, T., & Torres, Émile P. 2024">{{cite journal| author1-last = Gebru|author1-first = Timnit |author2-last= Torres|author2-first = Émile P. |title = The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence|journal = ] |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages= |year = 2024 |doi = 10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636 |doi-access = free }}</ref>


==History== ==History==
===Precursors of transhumanism===
In his article ''A History of Transhumanist Thought'', ] finds ancient precedents for transhumanist thinking in various ] expressions of a human desire to acquire new capacities. Bostrom locates transhumanism's more immediate roots, however, in ] and the ]. The ] is the first thinker whom he identifies as speculating about the use of medical science to extend the human life span. In the 20th century, a direct and influential precursor to transhumanist concepts was ]'s 1923 essay ''Daedalus: Science and the Future'', which predicted that great benefits would come from applications of genetics and other advanced sciences to human biology.<ref name="Bostrom 2005">Bostrom 2005</ref>
According to ], ] impulses have been expressed at least as far back as the quest for ] in the '']'', as well as in historical quests for the ], the ], and other efforts to stave off aging and death.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>


Transhumanists draw upon and claim continuity from intellectual and cultural traditions such as the ancient philosophy of ] or the scientific tradition of ].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Porter |first1=Allen |title=Bioethics and Transhumanism |url=https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/42/3/237/3817401 |journal=The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine |access-date=30 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171207175306/https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/42/3/237/3817401 |archive-date=2017-12-07 |pages=237{{ndash}}260 |language=en |doi=10.1093/jmp/jhx001 |date=1 June 2017 |url-status=live |volume=42 |number=3|pmid=28499043 |doi-access=free }}</ref> In his '']'', ] coined the word ''trasumanar'' meaning "to transcend human nature, to pass beyond human nature" in the first ] of ].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Life Expansion|first1=Natasha|last1=Vita-More|author-link=Natasha Vita-More|publisher=University of Plymouth|date=2012|pages=74–75}} See also {{Cite journal|last1=Harrison|first1=Peter|last2=Wolyniak|first2=Joseph|title=The History of 'Transhumanism'|url=https://www.academia.edu/13997038|journal=Notes and Queries|year=2015|volume=62|issue=3|pages=465–467|doi=10.1093/notesj/gjv080|issn=0029-3970|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Trasumanar (neologism)|url=http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/par0101.html|access-date=2021-08-24|website=danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Paradiso 1 – Digital Dante|url=https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/dante/divine-comedy/paradiso/paradiso-1/|access-date=2021-08-24|website=digitaldante.columbia.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=BioEdge: Was Dante a transhumanist?|url=https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/was_dante_a_transhumanist/9468|access-date=2021-08-24|website=BioEdge|archive-date=August 24, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824074524/https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/was_dante_a_transhumanist/9468}}</ref>
Biologist ], brother of author ] (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in ], he defined ''transhumanism'' as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".<ref name="Huxley 1957">Huxley 1957</ref> This definition differs substantially from the one commonly in use since the 1980s.


The interweaving of transhumanist aspirations with the scientific imagination can be seen in the works of some precursors of ] such as ].<ref name="Bainbridge 2011 p. 582">{{cite book | last=Bainbridge | first=W.S. | title=Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook | publisher=SAGE Publications | year=2011 | isbn=978-1-4522-6652-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oAFzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA582 | access-date=2023-05-03 | page=582}}</ref><ref name="Manzocco 2019 p. 2">{{cite book | last=Manzocco | first=R. | title=Transhumanism - Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status | publisher=Springer International Publishing | series=Springer Praxis Books | year=2019 | isbn=978-3-030-04958-4 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=16qMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2 | access-date=2023-05-03 | page=2}}</ref> One of the early precursors to transhumanist ideas is ]'s '']'' (1637), in which Descartes envisions a new kind of medicine that can grant both physical immortality and stronger minds.<ref>Renée Mirkes. Transhumanist Medicine: Can We Direct Its Power to the Service of Human Dignity? The Linacre Quarterly, March 29, 2019</ref>
The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 1966, ] (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), an Iranian-American futurist who taught "new concepts of the Human" at ] in ], began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "]" as "]" (short for "transitory human").<ref>FM-2030 1989</ref> In 1972, ] contributed to the popularization of the concept of "transhumanity" in his book ''Man into Superman''. FM-2030 published the ''Upwingers Manifesto'' in 1973.<ref>FM-2030 1973</ref>


In his first edition of '']'' (1793), ] included arguments favoring the possibility of "earthly ]" (what would now be called ]). Godwin explored the themes of ] and immortality in his ] ], which became popular (and notorious) at the time of its publication in 1799, but is now mostly forgotten. ''St.&nbsp;Leon'' may have inspired his daughter ]'s novel '']''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Godwin, William (1756–1836) – Introduction |work=Gothic Literature |publisher=enotes.com |year=2008 |url=http://www.enotes.com/gothic-literature/godwin-william |access-date=9 August 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828113812/http://www.enotes.com/gothic-literature/godwin-william |archive-date=28 August 2008 }}</ref>
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the ], which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "]" futurist ideology, while John Spencer of the Space Tourism Society organized many transhumanist ]-related events. ] presented the ] "Breaking Away" (1980) at the EZTV Media venue frequented by transhumanists and other futurists.<ref>{{cite web | title=EZTV Media | url=http://www.eztvmedia.com/his.html | accessdate=May 1 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> FM-2030, Spencer, and Vita-More met and soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's transhumanist courses and audiences from Vita-More's transhumanist artistic productions, as well as some from the space and astrophysics community. In 1982, Vita-More authored the ''Transhumanist Arts Statement'', and, six years later, produced the cable TV show "TransCentury UPdate" on transhumanity. This talk show reached over 100,000 viewers.<ref name="Vita-More 1982">Vita-More 1982</ref>


], marking a significant milestone in human history, celebrated its 175th anniversary on October 16, 2021. It was on this day that dentist ] achieved a groundbreaking feat by administering the first public ] ] in Boston. This breakthrough not only allowed for the alleviation of pain with a reasonable level of risk but also helped protect people from ] by inducing ].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lewandowski |first1=K. |last2=Kretschmer |first2=B. |last3=Schmidt |first3=K. W. |date=2021 |title=175 Jahre Anästhesie und Narkose – Auf dem Weg zu einem "Menschenrecht auf Ohnmacht" |journal=Der Anaesthesist |volume=70 |issue=10 |pages=811–831 |doi=10.1007/s00101-021-01043-1 |issn=0003-2417 |pmc=8444521 |pmid=34529093}}</ref>
In 1986, ] published '']'',<ref name="Drexler 1986">Drexler 1986</ref> which discussed the prospects for ] and ]s, and founded the ]. As the first nonprofit company to research, advocate for and perform ], the Southern California offices of the ] became a nexus for futurists. Not all these were involved in "transhumanism", or even familiar with the term, though some eventually had a pioneering role in what would later become known as transhumanism.


There is debate about whether the ] can be considered an influence on transhumanism, despite its exaltation of the '']'' (overhuman), due to its emphasis on ] rather than technological transformation.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/><ref name="Sorgner 2009"/><ref name="Blackford 2010"/><ref name="Sorgner 2012"/> The transhumanist philosophies of More and Sorgner have been influenced strongly by Nietzschean thinking.<ref name="Sorgner 2009"/> By contrast, ''The Transhumanist Declaration'' "advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals)".<ref name="Declaration">{{Cite web |title=The Transhumanist Declaration |url= https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Mind2010/transhumanDeclaration.pdf |access-date=24 May 2023}}</ref>
In 1988, philosopher ] founded the ] and was the main contributor to a formal doctrine for apolitical and ] transhumanists, which took the form of the ''Principles of Extropy'' in 1990.<ref name="More 1990-2003">More 1990-2003</ref> In 1990, More gave "transhumanism" a new definition:


The late 19th- to early 20th-century movement known as ], by Russian philosopher ], is noted for anticipating transhumanist ideas.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sovieteramuseum.com/?product=art-works-by-russian-cosmism-painter-xx-xxi-ct-catalogue-of-exhibition-2013|title=Art works by Russian cosmism painter XX – XXI ct. Catalogue of exhibition 2013 {{!}} Soviet Era Museum|website=sovieteramuseum.com|language=en-US|access-date=2018-06-24}}</ref> In 1966, ] (formerly F. M. Esfandiary), a ] who taught "new concepts of the human" at ], in ], began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviews transitional to ] as "]".<ref name="FM-2030 1989"/>
:"Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a ] condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of ], including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies ." <ref name="More 1990">More 1990</ref>
] magazine of a speculative scenario for humanity's first steps into a transhumanist future]]
In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and ] founded the ] (WTA), an organization with a ]ic perspective.<ref name="Hughes 2005">Hughes 2005</ref> In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted ''The Transhumanist Declaration''.<ref>World Transhumanist Association 2002</ref>
''The Transhumanist FAQ'', prepared by the WTA, gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:<ref>World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005a</ref>
:# 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.
:# The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.


===Early transhumanist thinking===
With the the termination of the Extropy Institute in mid-2006, the World Transhumanist Association has become the leading international transhumanist organization.
], the biologist who popularised the term ''transhumanism'' in an influential 1957 essay<ref name="Huxley 1957"/>|left]]


Fundamental ideas of transhumanism were first advanced in 1923 by the British geneticist ] in his essay '']'', which predicted that great benefits would come from the application of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and unnatural".<ref name="Haldane 1923" /> In particular, he was interested in the development of the science of ], ] (creating and sustaining life in an artificial environment), and the application of genetics to improve human characteristics such as health and intelligence.
For a list of notable individuals who have identified themselves, or been identified by others, as advocates of transhumanism, see ].


His article inspired academic and popular interest. ], a crystallographer at ], wrote ''The World, the Flesh and the Devil'' in 1929, in which he speculated on the prospects of ] and radical changes to human bodies and intelligence through ] and ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Clarke|first=Arthur C.|title=Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds|publisher=St Martin's Griffin, New York|year=2000}}</ref> These ideas have been common transhumanist themes ever since.<ref name="Bostrom 2005" />
==Theory and practice==
], a 2002 report exploring the potential for synergy among nano-, bio-, informational and cognitive technologies (NBIC) for enhancing human performance.]]
While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science, and technology to foster ] principles and values, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual, rather than collective, level. Progressive transhumanists anticipate the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of ] by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers, while libertarian transhumanists seek to remove legal impediments to exercising claimed rights to use advanced technologies to ] themselves and their offspring.


The biologist Julian Huxley is generally regarded as the founder of transhumanism after using the term for the title of an influential 1957 article.<ref name="Huxley 1957"/> But the term derives from a 1940 paper by the Canadian philosopher W. D. Lighthall.<ref name="Harrison and Wolyniak 2015"/> Huxley describes transhumanism in these terms:
Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists an ] for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a ] phase of existence, in which humans are in ]. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate change. To this end, transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on ] and various fields or subfields of science, philosophy, economics, history, and sociology.


{{Blockquote|Up till now human life has generally been, as ] described it, "nasty, brutish and short"; the great majority of human beings (if they have not already died young) have been afflicted with misery… we can justifiably hold the belief that these lands of possibility exist, and that the present limitations and miserable frustrations of our existence could be in large measure surmounted… 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.<ref name="Huxley 1957"/>}}
Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the ]. Though some propose anatomical and peripheral nervous system enhancement, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.<ref>Walker 2002</ref>. More generally, transhumanists support the convergence of ] such as ], ], ] and ] (NBIC), and hypothetical future technologies such as ], ], ] and ]. Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become ].<ref>Naam 2005</ref>


<!-- ]'s '']'', published in 1968, which deals with the transhumanist agenda.]]
Transhumanists therefore support the recognition of ] as a ], so as to guarantee individuals the option to become ], ] or ], which they see as the next significant evolutionary steps for the human species. They speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate such a quantum leap by the midpoint of the 21st century.<ref>Sandberg 2001</ref><ref name="Kurzweil 2005">Kurzweil 2005</ref>
-->Huxley's definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s. The ideas raised by these thinkers were explored in the ] of the 1960s, notably in ]'s ''2001: A Space Odyssey'', in which an alien artifact grants transcendent power to its wielder.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/163072-googles-glass-castle-the-rise-and-fear-of-a-transhuman-future/|title=Google's Glass Castle: The Rise and Fear of a Transhuman Future|first=Christopher|last=Hutton|magazine=PopMatters}}</ref>


Japanese ] architects produced a manifesto in 1960 which outlined goals to "encourage active metabolic development of our society"<ref>Lin (2010), p. 24</ref> through design and technology. In the ] section of the manifesto, Noboru Kawazoe suggests that:<blockquote>After several decades, with the rapid progress of communication technology, every one will have a "brain wave receiver" in his ear, which conveys directly and exactly what other people think about him and vice versa. What I think will be known by all the people. There is no more individual consciousness, only the will of mankind as a whole.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist Movement: Urban Utopias of Modern Japan|last = Lin|first = Zhongjie|publisher = Routledge|year = 2010|isbn = 978-1-135-28198-4|pages = 35–36}}</ref></blockquote>
Some theorists, such as ], believe that the pace of ] is ] and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances but possibly a ], which in turn may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005"/> Transhumanists who foresee such massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable. However, they also explore the possible dangers of extremely rapid technological change, and frequently propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, ] has written extensively on ]s to humanity's future welfare, including risks that could be created by emerging technologies.<ref name="Bostrom 2002">Bostrom 2002</ref>


===Artificial intelligence and the technological singularity===
On a more practical level, as proponents of ] and ], transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.<ref>Kurzweil 1993</ref> Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in ] practices, and funding research in ] in order to make the latter a viable option of last resort rather than remaining an unproven method.<ref>Kurzweil 2004</ref> Regional and global transhumanist networks and communities exist to provide support and forums for discussion and working on collaborative projects.
The concept of the ], or the ultra-rapid advent of superhuman intelligence, was first proposed by the British ] ] in 1965:
{{Blockquote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.<ref>I.J. Good, ( {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128085512/http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Good-Speculations-Concerning-the-First-Ultraintelligent-Machine.pdf |date=November 28, 2011 }}), ''Advances in Computers'', vol. 6, 1965.</ref>}}


] ] wrote on relationships between human and ] beginning in the 1960s.<ref name="Minsky 1960"/> Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as ] and ], who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein.<ref name="Moravec 1998"/><ref name="Kurzweil 1999"/> The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1972, ], whose 1964 ''Prospect of Immortality'' founded the ],<ref name=dilemma>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/the-cryonics-dilemma-will-deep-frozen-bodies-be-fit-for-new-life|title=The cryonics dilemma: will deep-frozen bodies be fit for new life?|website=]|last=Devlin|first=Hannah|date=18 November 2016|access-date=22 September 2018}}</ref> contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" with his 1972 ''Man into Superman.''<ref name="Ettinger 1972" /> FM-2030 published the ''Upwingers Manifesto'' in 1973.<ref name="FM-2030 1973" />
==Currents==
There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold complex and subtle views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:


===Growth of transhumanism===
*], a political philosophy synthesizing ] anarchism and transhumanism.
The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the ], which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, ] lectured on his "]" futurist ideology.<ref name="FM-2030: Are You Transhuman" /> At the ] Media venue, frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, ] presented ''Breaking Away'', her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth's gravity as they head into space.<ref name="EZTV Media"/><ref name="Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge"/> FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in ], which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the ''Transhumanist Arts Statement''<ref name="Vita-More 1982"/> and in 1988 she produced the cable TV show ''TransCentury Update ''on transhumanity, a program that reached over 100,000 viewers.
*], a religious philosophy synthesizing liberal Christianity and transhumanism.
*], a political philosophy synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, direct democracy and transhumanism.
*], an early school of transhumanism characterized by a set of principles advocating a ] to human evolution.
*], a moral philosophy based upon the obligation to use technology to eliminate ] in all sentient life.
*], a political philosophy synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.
*], a social philosophy which seeks the elimination of ] in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and ].
*], an emergent philosophy that seeks to transcend the principles of ] and bring them into closer correspondence with the 21st century's ideas of scientific knowledge.
*], a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a ] is possible and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.
*], a moral philosophy based upon the belief that advanced technology can help restore [[Geophysiology|
Earth's environment]], and that developing such technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.
*], a political philosophy synthesizing democratic socialism and transhumanism.


In 1986, ] published '']: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,''<ref name="Drexler 1986"/> which discussed the prospects for ] and ]s, and founded the ]. As the first nonprofit organization to research, advocate for, and perform ], the Southern California offices of the ] became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of ''Extropy Magazine'' was published by ] and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the ''Principles of Extropy,'' and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:<ref name="More 1990"/>
==Spirituality==
] magazine article on ], a theory that looks to ] to assume roles traditionally assigned to religion and God.]]
According to surveys conducted by the WTA, although some transhumanists report a strong sense of ], they are for the most part ]. In fact, many transhumanists are either ] or ]. A minority, however, follow liberal forms of ] traditions or, as with ], have merged their beliefs with established religions.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/>


{{Blockquote|Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies .}}
Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as ]. Several ], termed ]s, originating in the late 20th century, share with transhumanism the goals of transcending the human condition by applying technology to the alteration of the body (]) and mind (]). While most thinkers associated with the transhumanist movement focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, some speculate that future understanding of ] will enable humans to achieve control of ] and thus "spiritual" experiences.<ref>Hughes 2003</ref>


In 1992, More and Morrow founded the ], a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new ]es by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of ] and the ] counterculture. In 1998, philosophers ] and ] founded the ] (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of ] and ].<ref name="Hughes 2005"/> In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted ''The Transhumanist Declaration.''<ref name="Declaration" /><ref name="World Transhumanist Association 2002"/><ref name="wsj.com">{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/looking-forward-to-the-end-of-humanity-11592625661|title = Looking Forward to the End of Humanity|newspaper = The Wall Street Journal|date = June 20, 2020|last1 = Kirsch|first1 = Adam}}</ref> ''The Transhumanist FAQ'', prepared by the WTA (later ]), gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:<ref name="What is Transhumanism"/>
The majority of transhumanists are ] who do not believe in a transcendent human soul. Many believe in the compatibility of human minds with computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be ] to alternative media.<ref>Sandberg 2000</ref> Most transhumanists subscribe to some version of ] or at least judge as ] ethical theories that give overriding importance to membership in a biological species.<ref name="Glenn 2003">Glenn 2003</ref> A continuing dialogue between transhumanism and faith was the focus of an academic seminar held at the University of Toronto in 2004.<ref>Campbell and Walker 2005</ref>


{{Blockquote|
==Fiction and art==
# 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.
{{details|Transhumanism in fiction}}
# The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.}}
]'s '']'' (1984) examined the concepts of ], ], ], and ] long before these ideas were fashionable in ].]]
Transhumanist themes have become increasingly prominent in various literary forms during the period in which the movement itself has emerged. Contemporary ] often contains positive renditions of technologically enhanced human life, set in ]n (especially ]) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many ] or ]n tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.


In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed.<ref name = "Hughes 2004"/> A particular concern is equal access to ] technologies across classes and borders.<ref name="Utne"/> In 2006, a ] within the transhumanist movement between the ] and the ] resulted in a more ]ward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director ].<ref name="Utne" /><ref name="Among the Transhumanists" /> In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, saying that its mission was "essentially completed".<ref name="Extropy Institute 2006" /> This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to "]".<ref name="Newitz 2008" /> In 2012, the transhumanist ] had been initiated as an international union of people who promote the development of scientific and technological means to significant life extension that now has more than 30 national organisations throughout the world.<ref>{{cite web |last=Stambler |first=Ilia |title=The Longevity Party – Who Needs it? Who Wants it? |url=http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/stambler20120823 |work=IEET |access-date=August 23, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/07/a-single-issue-political-party-for-longevity-science.php|title=A Single-Issue Political Party for Longevity Science|work=Fight Aging!|date=July 27, 2012}}</ref>
The ] genre, exemplified by ]'s '']'' (1984) and ]'s '']'' (1985), has particularly been concerned with the modification of human bodies. Other novels dealing with transhumanist themes that have stimulated broad discussion of these issues include '']'' (1987&ndash;1989) by ]; the "]" novels (1987&ndash;2000) of ]; '']'' (1990&ndash;94) by ]; much of ]'s work since the early 1990s, such as '']'' (1994); '']'' (2003) by ]; and '']'' (Eng. trans. 2006) by ].


The ] Transhumanist Association was founded in 2006.<ref>{{cite web |title=About |url=http://transfigurism.org/pages/about/ |work=Mormon Transhumanist Association |access-date=June 4, 2016 |archive-date=January 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190111175720/https://transfigurism.org/pages/about/ }}</ref> By 2012, it had hundreds of members.<ref>{{cite web |title=Member Survey Results |url=http://transfigurism.org/pages/about/member-survey-results/ |work=Mormon Transhumanist Association |access-date=June 4, 2016 |archive-date=November 6, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181106221218/https://transfigurism.org/pages/about/member-survey-results/ }}</ref>
Fictional transhumanist scenarios have also become popular in other media during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Such treatments are found in ]s (''],'' 1982; ''],'' 1997; ''],'' 1999), ] (the ] of '']''), ] and ] ('']''), ]s ('']'') and ]s ('']''). Many of these works are considered part of the cyberpunk genre or its ] offshoot (although the distinction between the two is not universally seen as useful).


The first transhumanist elected member of a parliament was ], in Italy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/italy-elects-first-transhumanist-mp |title=Italy elects first transhumanist MP |publisher=Kurzweilai.net |access-date=April 25, 2013}}</ref>
In addition to the work of ], mentioned above, transhumanism has been represented in the visual and performing arts by Carnal Art, a form of ] originated by the French artist ] that uses the body as its medium and ] as its method. The American performer ] used technologies such as plastic surgery, ] drugs and ] to transform his artistic persona over the course of his career so as to blur indentifiers of gender, ] and age. The work of the Australian artist ] centers on the alteration of his body by ] ] and ]. Other artists whose work coincided with the emergence and flourishing of transhumanism and who explored themes related to the transformation of the body are the Yugoslavian performance artist ] and the American ] ]. A 2005 show, "Becoming Animal," at the ], presented exhibits by 12 artists whose work concerns the effects of technology in erasing boundaries between the human and non-human.


== Criticisms== == Theory ==
It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of ] and how this philosophical movement should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Umbrello|first1=Steven|last2=Lombard|first2=Jessica|date=2018-12-14|title=Silence of the Idols: Appropriating the Myth of Sisyphus for Posthumanist Discourses|url=https://www.lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/po/article/view/1118|journal=Postmodern Openings|language=en|volume=9|issue=4|pages=98–121|doi=10.18662/po/47|issn=2069-9387|doi-access=free|hdl=2318/1686606|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Evans, W. | title = Review of On Transhumanism | journal = Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation | volume = 38 | issue = 2 | pages = 271–74 | date = June 2022 | doi = 10.13169/prometheus.38.2.0271 | s2cid = 252023683 | doi-access = free }}</ref> The latter is often referred to as a variant or ] form of posthumanism by its ],<ref name="Fukuyama 2004"/> ]<ref name="Hook 2004"/> and ]<ref name="The Hedgehog Review 2002"/><ref name="Coenen 2007"/> critics.<ref>{{Citation|last=MacFarlane|first=James Michael|title=The Techno-Centred Imagination|date=2020|work=Transhumanism as a New Social Movement|pages=205–233|place=Cham|publisher=Springer International Publishing|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-40090-3_8|isbn=978-3-030-40089-7|s2cid=219495940}}</ref>
Criticisms of transhumanism can be divided into two main categories: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms); and those objecting to the moral principles of transhumanism (ethical criticisms). These two strains sometimes converge and overlap, particularly when the ethics of changing human biology in the face of incomplete knowledge is considered. Some of the most widely known ethical critiques of the transhumanist program are found in novels and fictional films which, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, can be used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.


A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve and which eventually will supplement or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. ]),<ref name="Hughes 2004" /> but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of participant evolution.<ref name="Bostrom 2006">{{cite web | last = Bostrom | first = Nick | title = Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up | url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/posthuman.pdf | access-date = December 10, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Umbrello|first=Steven|date=2018-10-17|title=Posthumanism|url=https://pubs.biblio.laurentian.ca/index.php/contexte/article/view/279|journal=Con Texte|language=en|volume=2|issue=1|pages=28–32|doi=10.28984/ct.v2i1.279|issn=2561-4770|doi-access=free}}</ref>
=== Practical criticisms ===
].]]
In his 1992 book ''Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy'', sociologist Max Dublin points out many past ] of technological progress and argues that modern futurist predictions will prove similarly inaccurate. He also objects to what he sees as ], fanaticism and ] by some in advancing transhumanist causes, and writes that historical parallels exist to ] religions and ].<ref>Dublin 1992</ref>


Nevertheless, the idea of creating ] (proposed, for example, by roboticist ]) has influenced transhumanism.<ref name="Moravec 1998" /> Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "]" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "]" in ] and the arts.<ref name="Cultural Critique 2003" /> While such a "cultural posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relationships between humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "]", but are expanding its "]s" into the realm of the ].<ref name="Hayles 1999" /> Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of ] and ] thinking correspond with this view.
In his book ''Redesigning Humans'' (2002), ] ], despite his sympathies for transhumanism, is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the ] of humanity predicted by ], ] and ]. He believes that throughout the 21st century, many humans will find themselves deeply integrated into systems of machines, but will remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character will arise not from ] but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism and biochemistry.<ref>Stock 2002</ref>


Some ] conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist ] movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. ]) and on the issue of mortality.<ref name="Inniss 1998" /> Other progressives have argued that posthumanism, in its philosophical or activist forms, amounts to a shift away from concerns about ], from the ] and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings to transcend the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.<ref name="Winner 2005" />
Those thinkers who defend the likelihood of massive technological change within a relatively short timeframe emphasize what they describe as a past pattern of exponential increases in ]. This emphasis is clear in the work of ], notably '']'' (1997), which contains his speculations about a radically-changed future. Kurzweil develops this position in much detail in his book, '']'' (2005). Broderick points out that many of the seemingly implausible predictions of early science fiction writers have, indeed, come to pass, among them ] and ]. On the other hand, he says, many unforeseen innovations have appeared. Broderick expects the future to be very strange, which is not to say that particular predictions will be correct. He also emphasises the core ] of current predictions of very rapid change, including the proven track record of such observers as Kurzweil in predicting the pace of innovation.<ref>Broderick 1997</ref>


The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to ], an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society and focusing on the changing nature of relationships between humans and technology.<ref>{{cite book|author=Management Association, Information Resources|title=Public Affairs and Administration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2S51CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2192|year=2015|publisher=IGI Global|isbn=978-1-4666-8359-4|page=2192}}</ref>
=== Ethical criticisms ===
Critics or opponents of transhumanism often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values. Some also argue that strong advocacy of a transhumanist approach to improving the human condition might divert attention and resources from social solutions. As most transhumanists support non-technological changes to society, such as the spread of political liberty and ], and most critics of transhumanism support technological advances in areas such as communications and health care, the difference is often a matter of emphasis. Sometimes, however, there are strong disagreements about the very principles involved, with divergent views on humanity, human nature, and the morality of transhumanist aspirations. At least one self-described socially progressive organization, the ] of Oakland, California, has come into existence with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term cloning and germline gene alteration.


====''Playing God'' argument==== === Aims ===
{{Blockquote|You awake one morning to find your brain has another lobe functioning. Invisible, this auxiliary lobe answers your questions with information beyond the realm of your own memory, suggests plausible courses of action, and asks questions that help bring out relevant facts. You quickly come to rely on the new lobe so much that you stop wondering how it works. You just use it. This is the dream of artificial intelligence.|'']'', April 1985<ref name="lemmon198504">{{cite news | url=https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1985-04/1985_04_BYTE_10-04_Artificial_Intelligence#page/n125/mode/2up | title=Artificial Intelligence | work=BYTE | date=April 1985 | access-date=14 February 2015 | author=Lemmons, Phil | page=125 | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420115129/https://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1985-04/1985_04_BYTE_10-04_Artificial_Intelligence#page/n125/mode/2up | archive-date=20 April 2015 | df=dmy-all }}</ref>}}
] argument is perennial in debates about ].]]
"]" criticisms take two main forms, theological and secular.


] believes that a countdown to when "]" can be made through plotting major world events on a graph.]]
The first form is based on the alleged inappropriateness of humans substituting themselves for an actual God. This approach is exemplified by the 2002 Vatican statement ''Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God'',<ref>International Theological Commission 2002</ref> in which it is stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an ] being is radically immoral," implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature."


While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology to reduce poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe,<ref name="What is Transhumanism" /> transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of ], while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating ].
The second form is aimed mainly at attempts to pursue transhumanist goals by way of genetically modifying human ]s. It emphasizes the issue of ] and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological ]. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist ], is based on the recognition that the ] and ] ] of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic ]. Accordingly, it would create unacceptable risks to apply such processes to human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans, would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see ]). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, there is claimed to be no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref name="Newman 2003">Newman 2003</ref>


Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a ] for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition, but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence in which humans enhance themselves beyond what is naturally human. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate participatory or ].
The first argument does not trouble transhumanists since most secular bioethicists reject it as irrelevant to public policy in a society that embraces freedom of religion. To the extent that it relies on a supposed sin of defying God's will, secular thinkers argue that it is not morally binding on non-believers and is inappropriate as a political argument.


Some theorists such as ] think that the ] and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances, but possibly a ], which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005"/> Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable, but some are concerned about the dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on ]s to humanity's future welfare, including ones that emerging technologies could create.<ref name="Bostrom 2002"/> In contrast, some proponents of transhumanism view it as essential to humanity's survival. For instance, Stephen Hawking points out that the "external transmission" phase of human evolution, where ] and ] is more important than transmission of information via ], may be the point at which ] becomes unstable and self-destructs, one of Hawking's explanations for the ]. To counter this, Hawking emphasizes either self-design of the ] or mechanical enhancement (e.g., ]) to enhance ] and reduce ], without which he implies human civilization may be too stupid collectively to survive an increasingly unstable system, resulting in ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html|title=Life in the Universe|last=Hawking|first=Stephen|work=Public Lectures|publisher=University of Cambridge|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421051343/http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html|archive-date=April 21, 2006|access-date=May 11, 2006}}</ref>
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss the second argument out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. However, transhumanists say that a greater risk lies in ''not'' using genetic engineering and other emerging technologies, because present technologies threaten the environment <ref>World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005b</ref> and large numbers of humans die from potentially solvable problems. The implication is that the potential benefits of enhancement technologies outweigh the potential harms, with the moral imperative, if any, being to use the technologies as quickly as possible.<ref>World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005c</ref> Further, transhumanists add that "tampering with nature" is something that humans have done for millennia with every technology, with tangible benefits. <ref>World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005d</ref> Some transhumanists argue that parents have a moral responsibility called ] to make use of genetic engineering methods, assuming they are safe and effective, to have healthy children with maximum potential. They add that this responsibility is a moral judgment best left to individual conscience rather than imposed by law, in all but extreme cases. In this context, the emphasis on freedom of choice is called ]. <ref name="WTA Eugenics">World Transhumanist Association 2002-2005e</ref>


While many people believe that all transhumanists are striving for ], that is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (2011–2012), surveyed transhumanists. He found that, of the 818 respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality.<ref name="Pellissier, Hank 2012">Pellissier, Hank. "Do all Transhumanists Want Immortality? No? Why Not?" Futurist 46.6 (2012): 65-. Web.</ref> Some of the reasons argued were boredom, Earth's overpopulation, and the desire "to go to an afterlife".<ref name="Pellissier, Hank 2012"/>
====''Terminator'' argument====
]'' (1984) and its sequels, ] rise against human beings]]
A notable critic of what some see as transhumanist ] is ], co-founder of ], who argued in his essay ''Why the future doesn't need us'', that human beings would likely guarantee their own extinction by developing the technologies favored by transhumanists. He evokes, for example, the "] scenario" where out-of-control self-replicating ]s could consume entire ecosystems, resulting in global ].<ref name=Joy 2000">Joy 2000</ref>


=== Empathic fallibility and conversational consent ===
Related notions were voiced earlier by Unabomber ], an avowed ] zealot, and ] ], who claimed that humanity has an inherent lack of competence to direct its own evolution and should therefore completely relinquish ].<ref name=Kaczynski 1995">Kaczynski 1995</ref>
{{See also|Uplift (science fiction)}}
Certain transhumanist philosophers hold that since all assumptions about what others experience are fallible, and that therefore all attempts to help or protect beings that are incapable of correcting what others assume about them, no matter how well-intentioned, are in danger of actually hurting them, all ] beings deserve to be ]. These thinkers argue that the ability to discuss in a ] way constitutes a ] at which it becomes possible for someone to speak for themself in a way that is independent of exterior assumptions. They also argue that all beings capable of experiencing something deserve to be elevated to this threshold if they are not at it, typically saying that the underlying change that leads to the threshold is an increase in the preciseness of the brain's ability to discriminate. This includes increasing the neuron count and connectivity in animals as well as accelerating the development of connectivity to shorten or ideally skip non-sapient childhood incapable of independently deciding for oneself. Transhumanists of this description stress that the genetic engineering that they advocate is general insertion into both the somatic cells of living beings and in germ cells, and not purging of people without the modifications, deeming the latter not only unethical but also unnecessary due to the possibilities of efficient genetic engineering.<ref>Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential: A Cosmic Vision of Our Future Evolution, Ted Chu 2014</ref><ref>The thinker's guide to ethical reasoning, Linda Elder and Richard Paul 2013</ref><ref>How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age Theodore Schick</ref><ref>Ten Billion Tomorrows: How Science Fiction Technology Became Reality and Shapes the Future, Brian Clegg 2015</ref>


=== Ethics ===
British ] ] argues, in his book '']'', that advanced science and technology brings as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific progress; he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.<ref>Rees 2003</ref>
{{Humanism}}
Transhumanists engage in ] approaches to understand and evaluate possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on ] and various fields of ethics.{{citation needed|date=December 2017}} Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who morally value preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the concept of the specifically natural as problematically nebulous at best and an obstacle to progress at worst.<ref name="Bostrom, Sandberg 2002">{{cite web |author=] |author2=]| title = The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement |website=Nick Bostrom |date=2007| url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/evolution.pdf| access-date=September 18, 2007}}</ref> In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates, such as Dan Agin, call transhumanism's critics, on the political right and left jointly, "]" or "]", the latter term alluding to the 19th-century ] social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.<ref name="Hughes 2002"/>


A belief of counter-transhumanism is that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use, ]. The same disparity may happen when people have certain neural implants that give them an advantage in the workplace and in education.<ref name="Tennison 2012"/> Additionally, according to M.J. McNamee and S.D. Edwards, many fear that the improvements afforded by a specific, privileged section of society will lead to a division of the human species into two different species.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|jstor=27719694|doi=10.1136/jme.2005.013789|pmid=16943331|pmc=2563415|title=Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes|journal=Journal of Medical Ethics|volume=32|issue=9|pages=513–518|year=2006|last1=McNamee|first1=M. J.|last2=Edwards|first2=S. D.}}</ref> The idea of two human species, one at a great physical and economic advantage over with the other, is troublesome at best. One may be incapable of breeding with the other, and may by consequence of lower physical health and ability, be considered of a lower moral standing than the other.<ref name=":0" />
Advocates of the ], such as the ], also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that ] and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.<ref name=Arnall 2003">Arnall 2003</ref> (], the malign computer network of the ] film series, represents a fictional version of this scenario.)


] has said that transhumanism advocates for the wellbeing of all sentient beings, including ], ], and artificial forms of life.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Transhumanist Values |url=https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/values#:~:text=Transhumanism%20advocates%20the%20well-being,and%20religious%20intolerance%20are%20unacceptable. |access-date=2022-12-21 |website=nickbostrom.com}}</ref> This view is reiterated by ], who advocates the use of biotechnology to eradicate suffering in all ].<ref name="The Hedonistic Imperative">{{Cite web |title=The Hedonistic Imperative |url=https://www.hedweb.com/ |access-date=2022-12-21 |website=www.hedweb.com}}</ref>
Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on ] so as to lessen the prospect of ]. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often ] and sometimes even counter-productive. In his television series '']'', science historian ] dissects several views on technological advance, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the ''status quo'' of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist view is that society should take deliberate action to ensure the early, yet safe, arrival of the benefits of emerging technologies rather than contributing to ] and ].
One transhumanist solution proposed by ] is ], in which attempts would be made to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful ones.<ref name="Bostrom 2002"/>


=== Currents ===
====''Brave New World'' argument====
There is a variety of opinions within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development.<ref name="WTA FAQ 5.2"/> Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:
]'s '']'' (1932) anticipated developments in ] and ]s that combine to change society.]]
* ], the concept of using biotechnology to eradicate suffering in all sentient beings.<ref name="The Hedonistic Imperative"/>
Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the ] depicted in '']'' (1932) by ]. Sometimes, as in the writings of ], the fear is that various institutions and practices, judged as fundamental to civilized society, would be destroyed or greatly altered. In his book '']'' and in a '']'' magazine article,<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">Fukuyama 2004</ref> political economist and philosopher ] designates transhumanism as one of the world's most dangerous ideas because it may undermine the progressive ideals of ] that it ostensibly favours, through a fundamental alteration of "]" and an erosion of human equality. The German social philosopher ] makes a similar argument in his book ''The Future of Human Nature'', in which he asserts that human values are tied to a species identity that is, in part, biologically based. This leads Habermas to suggest that the human "species ethic" is susceptible to being undermined by genetic alteration.<ref name="Habermas 2004">Habermas 2004</ref> ]s, such as Kass, Fukuyama, and Habermas hold that attempts to significantly alter the natural human state (specifically through ] and ]) are not only inherently immoral but also threats to the social order.
* ], a political ideology synthesizing ], ], ] and transhumanism.<ref name="Hughes A2002" />
* ], a socioeconomic theory based upon the idea that emerging technologies will put an end to social stratification through even distribution of resources in the ] era.<ref>{{cite book|first=Newton|last=Lee|title=The Transhumanism Handbook|publisher=Springer Nature|date=2019}}</ref>
* ], an early school of transhumanist thought characterized by a set of principles advocating a ] to human evolution.<ref name="More 1990"/>
* ], a moral ideology based upon the belief that radical ] and ] is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.<ref name="imminst"/>
* ], a political ideology synthesizing ] and transhumanism.<ref name="Hughes 2002"/>
* ], a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of ] in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and ].<ref name="Dvorsky 2008" />
*], a transhumanist political proposal that aims to create a "]" based on reason and free access of enhancement technologies to people.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327756347|title=Extrapolitical Theory and Postpoliticism - A Transhumanist Political Theory|last=Gayozzo|first=Piero|date=2018-09-20}}</ref>
*], a moral ideology based upon the belief that a ] is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005" />
* ], an ecological ideology based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment and that developing safe, ], ] should therefore be an important goal of ]s.<ref name="Hughes A2002" />


=== Spirituality ===
In an article in ], science journalist ] has contested these claims by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. In fact, ] is already the solution to the issue of human and ] rights since, in liberal societies, the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.<ref name="Bailey 2004"/> Other thinkers who are sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as ], have also objected to the appeal to ], and what they see as ], involved in Brave New World-type arguments.<ref name="Blackford 2003">Blackford 2003</ref>
Although many transhumanists are ], ], and/or ], some have ] or ] views.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/> Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as ],<ref name =imminst/> while several controversial ]s from the late 20th century have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals of transforming the human condition by applying technology to alter the mind and body, such as ].<ref name="Rael 2002"/> But most thinkers associated with the transhumanism focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, while speculating that future understanding of ] and the application of ] will enable humans to gain greater control of ], which were commonly interpreted as ]s, and thus achieve more profound ].<ref name="Hughes BH 2004"/> Transhumanist Buddhists have sought to explore areas of agreement between various types of Buddhism and ] and mind-expanding neurotechnologies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/cyborgbuddha|title=IEET Cyborg Buddha Project|work=ieet.org|access-date=October 14, 2014|archive-date=October 16, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141016231222/http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/cyborgbuddha}}</ref> They have been criticised for appropriating ] as a tool for transcending humanness.<ref name="Evans 2014"/>


Some transhumanists believe in the compatibility between the human mind and computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media (a speculative technique commonly known as ]).<ref name="Sandberg 2000"/> One extreme formulation of this idea that interests some transhumanists is the proposal of the ] by Christian cosmologist ]. Drawing upon ideas in ], Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the ] billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a ] within a megacomputer and thus achieve a form of "]". Before Tipler, the term Omega Point was used by ], a ] and ] theologian who saw an evolutionary ] in the development of an encompassing ], a global consciousness.<ref name="tipler1994"/><ref>{{Cite journal |url=http://jetpress.org/v20/steinhart.htm?pagewanted=all |title=Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism |first=Eric |last=Steinhart |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology |volume=20 |issue=1 |date=December 2008 |pages=1–22}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Transhumanism and Transcendence |first=Michael S. |last=Burdett |page=20 |quote=...others have made important contributions as well. For example, ] and Frank Tipler in the twentieth century... |publisher=] |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-58901-780-1}}</ref>
====''Enough'' argument====
]'s ''Enough'']]
In his book ''Enough'' (2003), ] ] has argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including ] ], ] and radical ].


Viewed from the perspective of some Christian thinkers, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a ], characteristic of ] manichaean belief.<ref name="Pauls 2005"/> Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as ] by non-Christian and secular commentators.<ref name="Giesen 2004"/><ref name="Davis 1999"/>
He claims that it would be morally wrong for human beings to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging and death and and genetic constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" ourselves through such tampering would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. McKibben claims that human lives would no longer seem ] in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Furthermore, even the goal of using germline genetic modification for clearly ''therapeutic'' purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities.<ref>McKibben 2003</ref>


The first dialogue between transhumanism and faith was a one-day conference at the ] in 2004.<ref name="Campbell & Walker 2005"/> Religious critics alone faulted transhumanism for offering no eternal truths or relationship with the divine. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of ] ] and ]. Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of transhumanist philosophy, which, far from being cynical, is rooted in optimistic, idealistic attitudes that trace back to the ].<ref name="TransVision 2004: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium"/> Following this dialogue, ], a ], conducted a pilot study, published in the ], suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with acceptance of transhumanist ideas and indicating that people with highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as a direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their spiritual beliefs.<ref name="Bainbridge"/>
Transhumanists and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology, such as ], reject the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless in a world with such technologies. They suggest, for example, that a person with greater abilities would tackle more advanced and difficult projects and continue to find meaning in the struggle to achieve excellence.


Since 2006, the Mormon Transhumanist Association sponsors conferences and lectures on the intersection of technology and religion.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mormon Transhumanist Association |url=https://www.youtube.com/user/transfigurism |work=YouTube}}</ref> The Christian Transhumanist Association<ref>{{cite web |title=CTA Website |url=https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/ |publisher=Christian Transhumanist Association}}</ref> was established in 2014.
====''Gattaca'' argument====
]'']]
] also advances one of the most widespread criticisms of ]: that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "biotech divide" (see the film '']'' (1997) for a fictional depiction of this scenario).


Since 2009, the ] holds a "Transhumanism and Religion" consultation during its annual meeting, where scholars in the field of ] seek to identify and critically evaluate any implicit religious beliefs that might underlie key transhumanist claims and assumptions; consider how transhumanism challenges religious traditions to develop their own ideas of the human future, in particular the prospect of human transformation, whether by technological or other means; and provide critical and constructive assessments of an envisioned future that place greater confidence in nanotechnology, robotics and information technology to achieve virtual immortality and create a superior posthuman species.<ref name="AAR: Transhumanism and Religion Consultations"/>
This criticism is also voiced by ]s, such as ] bioethicist ]. In his book ''Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future'' (2004), Hughes argues that ] must articulate and implement public policies (such as universal health care and vouchers which cover human enhancement technologies) in order to attenuate this problem, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. This, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies available only to the wealthy on the local black market or overseas in countries where such a ban is not enforced.<ref>Hughes 2004</ref>


The physicist and transhumanist thinker ] states that "cosmist religions based on science, might be our best protection from reckless pursuit of superintelligence and other risky technologies."<ref>{{cite web | publisher=Turing Church | title=Religion as Protection From Reckless Pursuit of Superintelligence and Other Risky Technologies | date=September 9, 2014 | url=http://turingchurch.com/2014/09/09/religion-as-protection-from-reckless-pursuit-of-superintelligence-and-other-risky-technologies/ | first=Giulio | last=Prisco | access-date=May 8, 2016 | archive-date=May 7, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507034125/http://turingchurch.com/2014/09/09/religion-as-protection-from-reckless-pursuit-of-superintelligence-and-other-risky-technologies/ }}</ref> He also recognizes the importance of spiritual ideas, such as those of Russian Orthodox philosopher ], to the origins of the transhumanism movement.
====''Frankenstein'' argument====
]'s '']'' (1818) was a cautionary tale warning of the "over-reaching" of modern man and the unanticipated harms of ].]]
Acknowledging the power of biotechnology to make profound changes in organismal identity, ] activist ] and biologist ] argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact. In the extreme this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "]s" such as ]s, ]s, ]s or even ]s (see the novels '']'' (1818) and '']'' (1896), and the film '']'' (1982) for fictional depictions of these scenarios), but even lesser dislocations of humans and nonhumans from ] and ] systems are seen as problematic. They propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent these potentially ] projects from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.<ref name="Otchet 1998">Otchet 1998</ref><ref name="Newman 2003">Newman 2003</ref><ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads">Darnovsky 2001</ref>


== Practice ==
Objecting to what ] termed the "]", transhumanists and ] ], such as ], reply that if they are ], all these creations would still be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights and citizenship as any other person. Furthermore, they suggest that an ], such as a gorilla genetically enhanced to gain human-like ], could become the most effective spokes''person'' for the animal condition and ]. They conclude that the coming ethical issue which must be dealt with is not the creation of monsters but what they view as the "]" and "]" that would judge and treat these creations as monsters.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/>
While some transhumanists{{who|date=October 2014}} take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including heritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human ]. Though some, such as ], propose modification of the ], the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.<ref name="Walker 2002"/>


In fact, Warwick has gone a lot further than merely making a proposal. In 2002 he had a 100 electrode array surgically implanted into the median nerves of his left arm to link his nervous system directly with a computer and thus to also connect with the internet. As a consequence, he carried out a series of experiments. He was able to directly control a robot hand using his neural signals and to feel the force applied by the hand through feedback from the fingertips. He also experienced a form of ultrasonic sensory input and conducted the first purely electronic communication between his own nervous system and that of his wife who also had electrodes implanted.<ref name="doi10.1001/archneur.60.10.1369|noedit">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1001/archneur.60.10.1369| pmid = 14568806| title = The Application of Implant Technology for Cybernetic Systems| journal = Archives of Neurology| volume = 60| issue = 10| pages = 1369–73| year = 2003| last1 = Warwick | first1 = K. | last2 = Gasson | first2 = M. | last3 = Hutt | first3 = B. | last4 = Goodhew | first4 = I. | last5 = Kyberd | first5 = P. | last6 = Andrews | first6 = B. | last7 = Teddy | first7 = P. | last8 = Shad | first8 = A. | doi-access = free }}</ref>
Some ] critics, however, such as ], drawing on concepts of "]" developed by the social philosopher ], question the validity of treating the specific products of human biological and cultural ], such as rights and moral values, as ahistorical ].<ref name="Foucault 1988">Foucault 1988</ref><ref name="Hayles 1999">Hayles 1999</ref>


As proponents of ] and ], transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity.<ref name="Kurzweil 1993"/> Depending on their age, some{{who|date=October 2014}} transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in ] strategies and in funding research in ] to make the latter a viable option of last resort, rather than remaining an unproven method.<ref name="Kurzweil 2004"/>
====''Eugenics Wars'' argument====
]: the ] eugenic ], from the '']'' television series and movies.]]
A trenchant argument against transhumanism comes from Marxist-oriented critics who allege social bias in the use of concepts such as "limitations", "enhancement", and "improvement". Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, for example, has suggested that transhumanism's concentration on the individual body as the locus of solutions to social inequities represents the triumph of the ].<ref>Giesen 2004</ref> Other critics see the ], ] and even "]" ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what transhumanism might unintentionally encourage, fearing future "]" (a speculative form of ]) as the worst-case scenario.<ref name="Hughes 2002">Hughes 2002</ref> Health law professor ], technology law professor ], and health and human rights attorney ] are prominent advocates of the position that the use of genetic enhancement technologies could lead to human-] conflict and new forms of ].<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads"/><ref>Annas, Andrews and Isasi 2002</ref>


While most transhumanist theory focuses on future technologies and the changes they may bring, many today are already involved in the practice on a very basic level. It is not uncommon for many to receive cosmetic changes to their physical form via cosmetic surgery, even if it is not required for health reasons. Human growth hormones attempt to alter the natural development of shorter children or those who have been born with a physical deficiency. Doctors prescribe medicines such as Ritalin and Adderall to improve cognitive focus, and many people take "lifestyle" drugs such as Viagra, Propecia, and Botox to restore aspects of youthfulness that have been lost in maturity.<ref>{{Cite journal|jstor=40260800|title=Humanity 2.0|journal=The Wilson Quarterly |volume=27|issue=4|pages=13–20|last1=Elliott|first1=Carl|year=2003}}</ref>
For most of its history, eugenics has manifested itself as a movement to involuntarily sterilize the "genetically unfit" and encourage breeding of the genetically advantaged. The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the ] and ] assumptions on which they were based, along with the ] notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful timeframe through selective human breeding. Some transhumanists instead advocate a form of ] ], arguing that the use of reproductive and genetic technologies to increase the probability of a ] is a responsible and justifiable application of parental ]. Others holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "]") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.<ref name="WTA Eugenics"/><ref name="Humphrey 2004">Humphrey 2004</ref><ref>Silver 1998</ref>


Other transhumanists, such as cyborg artist ], use technologies and techniques to improve their senses and perception of reality. Harbisson's antenna, which is permanently implanted in his skull, allows him to sense colours beyond human perception such as infrareds and ultraviolets.<ref>Adams, Tim , ], 29 October 2017</ref>
==Notes==
<div style="font-size: 85%">
<references/>
</div>


=== Technologies of interest ===
==References==
{{Main|Human enhancement technologies}}
<!-- Alphabetically arranged -->
Transhumanists support the ] and ] of technologies including ], ], ] and ] (NBIC), as well as hypothetical future technologies like ], ], ], ], ], chemical brain preservation and ]. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become ].<ref name="Naam 2005"/> Therefore, they support the recognition and/or protection of ], ] and ] as ], so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using ] on themselves and their children.<ref name="Sandberg 2001"/> Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than at the midpoint of the 21st century. Kurzweil's book '']'' and Michio Kaku's book '']'' outline various human enhancement technologies and give insight on how these technologies may impact the human race.<ref name="Kurzweil 2005"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Kaku|first=Michio|title=Physics of the Future|year=2011|publisher=Doubleday|location=United States|page=389}}</ref>
<div style="font-size: 85%">


Some reports on the converging technologies and NBIC concepts have criticised their transhumanist orientation and alleged ]al character.<ref name="The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering 2004"/> At the same time, research on brain and body alteration technologies has been accelerated under the sponsorship of the ], which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the ]s of the United States and its allies.<ref name="Moreno 2006"/> There has already been a brain research program to "extend the ability to manage information", while military scientists are now looking at stretching the human capacity for combat to a maximum 168 hours without sleep.<ref name="Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society"/>
*{{cite paper

| author = ], ] and ]
Neuroscientist ] has been practicing on the method of scanning ultra-thin sections of the brain. This method is being used to help better understand the architecture of the brain. It is currently being used on mice. This is the first step towards hypothetically ].<ref name="Sandberg 2009"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fan |first1=Xue |last2=Markram |first2=Henry |date=2019-05-07 |title=A Brief History of Simulation Neuroscience |journal=Frontiers in Neuroinformatics |volume=13 |page=32 |doi=10.3389/fninf.2019.00032 |doi-access=free |issn=1662-5196 |pmc=6513977 |pmid=31133838}}</ref>
| title = Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations.

| publisher = Am. J. Law & Med. 28: 151
{{anchor|Controversy}}
| date = 2002

}}
Some detractors have criticized transhumanists' views on human enhancement, arguing that the pursuit of radical transformation could undermine human dignity and identity. Critics also contend that transhumanists often underestimate the ethical complexities and potential unintended consequences of their proposed technologies, such as exacerbating social inequalities or creating unforeseen risks to individuals and society. These concerns have led to debates about whether transhumanist ideals prioritize technological progress over considerations of moral and societal responsibility ({{Cite journal |last1=McNamee |first1=Michael J. |last2=Edwards |first2=Steven D. |title=Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery Slopes |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |volume=32 |issue=9 |pages=513–518 |year=2006 |doi=10.1136/jme.2005.013789|pmid=16943331 |pmc=2563415 }}).
*{{cite paper

| author = Arnall, Alexander Huw
== Debate ==
| title = Future technologies, today�s choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics.
The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse public controversy.<ref name="Garreau 2006"/> Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms) and those objecting to the moral principles or worldview sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). Critics and opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values.
| publisher = Greenpeace U.K

| date = 2003
The human enhancement debate is, for some, framed by the opposition between strong ] and transhumanism. The former opposes any form of human enhancement, whereas the latter advocates for all possible human enhancements.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls |url=https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/ageless-bodies-happy-souls |access-date=2023-10-25 |website=The New Atlantis |language=en-US}}</ref> But many philosophers hold a more nuanced view in favour of some enhancements while rejecting the transhumanist carte blanche approach.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brennan |first=Cian |date=2023-06-01 |title=Weak transhumanism: moderate enhancement as a non-radical path to radical enhancement |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09606-6 |journal=Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics |language=en |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=229–248 |doi=10.1007/s11017-023-09606-6 |issn=1573-1200 |pmc=10172256 |pmid=36780070}}</ref>
| url = http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf

}} URL accessed on April 29, 2006
Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program are novels and fictional films. These works, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/> Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the ] depicted in the 1932 novel '']'' by ].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UVRim2WvW50C&q=Various+arguments+have+been+made+to+the+effect+that+a+society+that+adopts+human+enhancement+technologies+may+come+to+resemble+the+dystopia+depicted+in+the+1932+novel+Brave+New+World,+by+Aldous+Huxley&pg=PR7|title=Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution|last=Fukuyama|first=Francis|date=2003-05-01|publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux|isbn=978-0-374-70618-0|page=7|language=en}}</ref>
*{{cite paper

| author = ]
On another front, some authors consider humanity already transhuman, because medical advances in recent centuries have significantly altered our species. But this has not happened in a conscious and therefore transhumanistic way.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Casas|first1=Miquel|title=El fin del Homo sapiens: La naturaleza y el transhumanismo|date=2017|page= 112| publisher=2017|location=Madrid|isbn=978-84-16996-35-3}}</ref> From such a perspective, transhumanism is perpetually aspirational: as new technologies become mainstream, the adoption of new yet-unadopted technologies becomes a new shifting goal.
| title = Transhumanism: the most dangerous idea?

| date = 2004
=== Feasibility ===
| url=http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml
In a 1992 book, sociologist Max Dublin pointed to many past failed predictions of technological progress and argued that modern futurist predictions would prove similarly inaccurate. He also objected to what he saw as ], fanaticism and ] by a few in advancing transhumanist causes. Dublin also said that historical parallels existed between ] religions and ].<ref name="Dublin 1992"/>
}} URL accessed on February 20, 2006

*{{cite paper
Although generally sympathetic to transhumanism, public health professor ] is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the ] of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, ] and ]. He said that, throughout the 21st century, many humans will be deeply integrated into systems of machines, but remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character would arise not from ], but from the direct manipulation of their ], ] and ].<ref name="Stock 2002"/>
| author = ]

| title = Who's afraid of the Brave New World?
In her 1992 book ''Science as Salvation'', philosopher ] traces the notion of achieving immortality by ] of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of ]) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including ] and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving ] from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the ] speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for ] and the remoteness of their ] visions.<ref name="Midgley 1992"/>
| date = 2003

| url = http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/brave_new_world.htm
Another critique is aimed mainly at "]" (a portmanteau of ''alchemy'' and ''genetics''), which ] defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance".<ref name="Rifkin 1983"/> It emphasizes the issue of ] and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological ]. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist ], is based on the recognition that ] and ] ] of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic ]. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 ]). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, it is claimed that there is no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.<ref name="Newman 2003"/>
}} URL accessed on February 8, 2006

*{{cite paper
As a practical matter, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.<ref name="Smolensky 2006"/>
| author = ]

| title = Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios
Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. But ] ] suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in ], Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/> ] professor ] points to ] as a safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.<ref name = "Stock 2002"/>
| date = 2002

| url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
Thinkers{{who|date=October 2014}} who defend the likelihood of ] point to a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. Kurzweil developed this position in his 2005 book '']''.
}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006

*{{cite paper
=== Intrinsic immorality ===
| author = ]
It has been argued that, in transhumanist thought, humans attempt to substitute themselves for ]. The 2002 ] statement ''Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,''<ref name="International Theological Commission 2002"/> stated that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an ] being is radically immoral", implying, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". The statement also argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "]". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical transhumanism promises, such as indefinite ] or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of ] movements which seek to ].<ref name="Mitchell & Kilner 2002"/><ref name="Barratt 2006"/> On the other hand, religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and ] hold that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.<ref name="Cole-Turner 1993"/><ref name="Peters 1997"/>
| title = A history of transhumanist thought

| date = 2005
Other critics target what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body in the writings of Minsky, Moravec, and some other transhumanists.<ref name="Hayles 1999"/> Reflecting a strain of ] criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher ] points to "contemporary obsessions with slenderness, youth and physical perfection", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture."<ref name="Bordo 1993"/> Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on ]. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of ] and body ] within a ].<ref name="Giesen 2004"/>
| url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf

}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006
Bostrom responds that the desire to ], specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the ] and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>
*{{cite book

|author=]
=== Loss of human identity ===
|title=The Spike
] are a religious group most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies. They believe their choice must be respected and protected.<ref name="Alexander 2000"/>]]
|publisher=Tom Doherty Associates

|year=1997
In his 2003 book ''Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age'', ] ] argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including ], ] and ] strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to ], ] and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples ], ] and the contemporary ].<ref name="McKibben 2003"/>
|id=ISBN 0312877811

}}
] activist ] and biologist ] accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in ]al identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and ].<ref name="Newman 2003"/><ref name="Otchet 1998"/> Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in ] in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artefactual".<ref name="Lee 1999"/> In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "]s" such as ]s, ] ], or ]s, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from ] and ] systems are seen as problematic. The film '']'' (1982) and the novels '']'' (1976) and '']'' (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel '']'' is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create ] and ] people as well as ]. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as ] possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ] on human genetic engineering.<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads"/>
*{{cite paper

| author = Campbell, Heidi; ]
] ] claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed and support different conclusions when studied more closely.<ref name="Bailey 2003"/> For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but, though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of ] since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases.<ref name="Stock 2002"/> Bailey and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology also reject the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with ] as extremely subjective.
| title = Religion and transhumanism: introducing a conversation

| date = 2005
Writing in '']'' magazine, Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in ] when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of '']''. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human ] benefits.<ref name="Bailey 2001"/>
| url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/specialissueintro.html

}} URL accessed on March 21, 2006
A different response comes from transhumanist ] who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science fiction writer ] termed the "]". For example, ] argues that, provided they are ], human clones, human-animal chimeras and ] would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights, responsibilities, and ].<ref Name="Evans 2015"/> They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters, but what they characterize as the "]" and "]", that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous.<ref name="Hughes 2005"/><ref name="Glenn 2003"/> In book 3 of his ''Corrupting the Image'' series, Douglas Hamp goes so far as to suggest that the Beast of John's Apocalypse is himself a hybrid who will induce humanity to take "the ]," in the hopes of obtaining perfection and immortality.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hamp |first=Douglas |title=Corrupting the Image 3: Singularity, Superhumans, and the Second Coming of Jesus |publisher=Eskaton Media Group |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-63821-417-5 |location=USA |pages=129–130}}</ref>
*{{cite paper

| author = Darnovsky, Marcy
At least one ] organization, the U.S.-based ], was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term ] and ]. The ] of the ] critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.
| title = Health and human rights leaders call for an international ban on species-altering procedures

| date = 2001
{{anchor|Genetic divide}}
| url = http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter/archive/20.html

}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006
=== Socioeconomic effects ===
*{{cite book
Some critics of ] have focused on the likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which ] are on the rise. ], for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide".<ref name="McKibben 2003"/> Even ], the biologist and ] who coined the term "]" and supports its applications, has expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and "have nots" if ] lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies.<ref name="Silver 1998"/> The 1997 film '']'' depicts a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic potential and is often cited by critics in support of these views.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>
| author = ]

| title = Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology
These criticisms are also voiced by ] transhumanist advocates, especially self-described ]s, who believe that the majority of current or future ] and ] (such as ] and ]) must be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (like a ] and ]). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James Hughes, in his 2004 book '']'', argues that ] or, more precisely, ]s, must articulate and implement public policies (i.e., a ] ] system that covers human enhancement technologies) to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local ] or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.<ref name="Hughes 2004"/>
| publisher = Anchor Books

| year = 1986
Sometimes, as in the writings of ], the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed.<ref name="Kass 2001"/> In his 2002 book '']'' and in a 2004 '']'' magazine article, political economist and philosopher ] designates transhumanism as the ] because he believes it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of ] (in general) and ] (in particular) through a fundamental alteration of "]".<ref name="Fukuyama 2004"/> Social philosopher ] makes a similar argument in his 2003 book ''The Future of Human Nature'', in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration.<ref name="Habermas 2004"/> Critics such as Kass and Fukuyama hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral, but also threaten the ]. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of ] or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. ] pioneer ] criticizes what he sees as ] tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Minsky and Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.<ref name="Platt 1995"/>
| url = http://www.foresight.org/EOC/Engines.pdf

| format = PDF
In a 2004 article in the libertarian monthly ''],'' science journalist ] contested Fukuyama's assertions by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that ] was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or ''de facto'' equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or ''de jure'' equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance". In fact, he says, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and ] rights since in liberal societies the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced.<ref name="Bailey 2004"/> Other thinkers sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as ], have also objected to the appeal to ] and what they see as ] involved in ''Brave New World''-type arguments.<ref name="Blackford 2003"/>
| id = ISBN 0385199732}}

*{{cite book
==== Cultural aesthetics ====
|author=Dublin, Max
In addition to the socioeconomic risks and implications of transhumanism, there are indeed implications and possible consequences in regard to cultural aesthetics. Currently, there are a number of ways in which people choose to represent themselves in society. The way in which a person dresses, hair styles, and body alteration all serve to identify the way a person presents themselves and is perceived by society. According to Foucault,<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|jstor=20010374|title=Pragmatism, Artificial Intelligence, and Posthuman Bioethics: Shusterman, Rorty, Foucault|journal=Human Studies|volume=27|issue=3|pages=241–258|last1=Abrams|first1=Jerold J.|year=2004|doi=10.1023/B:HUMA.0000042130.79208.c6|s2cid=144876752}}</ref> society already governs and controls bodies by making them feel watched. This "surveillance" of society dictates how the majority of individuals choose to express themselves aesthetically.
|title=Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy

|publisher=Plume
One of the risks outlined in a 2004 article by Jerold Abrams is the elimination of differences in favor of universality. This, he argues, will eliminate the ability of individuals to subvert the possibly oppressive, dominant structure of society by way of uniquely expressing themselves externally. Such control over a population would have dangerous implications of tyranny. Yet another consequence of enhancing the human form not only cognitively, but physically, will be the reinforcement of "desirable" traits which are perpetuated by the dominant social structure.<ref name=":1" />
|year=1992

|id=ISBN 0452268001
=== New eugenics ===
{{Main article|New eugenics}}
The tradition of human enhancement originated with the eugenics movement that was once prominent in the biological sciences, and was later ] in various ways. This continuity is especially clear in the case of ] himself.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Weindling |first=Paul |date=18 June 2024 |title=Julian Huxley and the Continuity of Eugenics in Twentieth-century Britain |journal=Journal of Modern European History |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=480–499 |doi=10.17104/1611-8944_2012_4|pmid=25798079 |pmc=4366572 }}</ref>

The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the ] involved in such policies and reject the ] and ] assumptions on which they were based, along with the ] notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding.<ref name="Bashford545">{{cite book | title= The Oxford Handbook of The History of Eugenics |author=] |author2=] | page= 545| publisher = Oxford University Press | year= 2010 | isbn= 978-0-19-537314-1 }}</ref> Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "]", a form of ] ].<ref name="WTA FAQ 3.2" /> In their 2000 book ''From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice'', non-transhumanist bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' ] or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) to maximize ] and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.<ref name="Buchanan 2000" /> Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "]" or "]")<ref name="Silver 1998" /> to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Levine |first=Susan B. |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/31995/chapter-abstract/267764064?redirectedFrom=fulltext |title=Posthuman Bliss? The Failed Promise of Transhumanism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2021 |isbn=9780190051495 |chapter=Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics}}</ref>

Health law professor ] and technology law professor ] are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to human-] ] warfare.<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads" /><ref name="Annas 2002" />

=== Existential risks ===
{{See also|Existential risk studies|Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence}}

In his 2003 book '']'', British ] ] argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity. Instead, he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness.<ref name="Rees 2003"/> Advocates of the ], such as many in the ], also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that ] and ] present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.<ref name="Arnall 2003"/>

Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of ]. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often ] and sometimes even counter-productive as opposed to the ] current of transhumanism, which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series '']'', science historian ] dissects several views on ], including precautionism and the restriction of ]. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the '']'' of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, ], ], rather than fostering what it considers to be ] and ].

] argues that even barring the occurrence of a singular ], basic ] and evolutionary forces facilitated by technological progress threaten to eliminate the positive aspects of human society.<ref name="bostrom-evolution">{{cite journal|last1=Bostrom|first1=Nick|title=The Future of Human Evolution|journal=Bedeutung|volume=284|issue=3|page=8|date=2009|url=http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html|bibcode=2001SciAm.284c...8R|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0301-8}}</ref>

One transhumanist solution proposed by Bostrom to counter existential risks is control of ], a series of attempts to influence the sequence in which technologies are developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.<ref name="Bostrom 2002"/>

In their 2021 book ''Calamity Theory'', Joshua Schuster and Derek Woods critique existential risks by arguing against Bostrom’s transhumanist perspective, which emphasizes controlling and mitigating these risks through technological advancements. They contend that this approach relies too much on ] and speculative technologies and fails to address deeper philosophical and ethical problems about the nature of human existence and its limitations. Instead, they advocate an approach more grounded in secular ], focusing on ], ], international ], and ] to better cope with existential risks.<ref name="Schuster and Woods 2021"/>

==== Antinatalism and pronatalism ====
Although most people focus on the scientific and technological barriers on the road to human enhancement, Robbert Zandbergen argues that contemporary transhumanists' failure to critically engage the cultural current of ] is a far bigger obstacle to a posthuman future. Antinatalism is a stance seeking to discourage, restrict, or terminate ] to solve existential problems. If transhumanists fail to take this threat to human continuity seriously, they run the risk of seeing the collapse of the entire edifice of radical enhancement.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Zandbergen |first=Robbert |date=2021-12-09 |title=Morality's Collapse: Antinatalism, Transhumanism and the Future of Humankind |url=https://jeet.ieet.org/index.php/home/article/view/76 |access-date=2023-04-05 |journal=Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies|volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=1–16 |doi=10.55613/jeet.v31i1.76 |s2cid=248689623 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

], founders of Pronatalist.org, are activists known primarily for their views and advocacy related to a secular and voluntaristic form of ], a stance encouraging higher birth rates to reverse ] and its negative implications for the viability of modern societies and the possibility of a better future.<ref name="Dodds 2023">{{Cite news|url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley|title = Meet the 'elite' couples breeding to save mankind|newspaper = The Telegraph|date = April 19, 2023|last1 = Dodds|first1 = Io}}</ref> Critical of transhumanism, they have expressed concern that ] would worsen the problem of ], causing toxic imbalances in power. The Collinses lament that ] transhumanists who "want to live forever believe they are the epitome of centuries of human cultural and biological evolution. They don’t think they can make kids that are better than them."<ref name="Weiss 2023">{{Cite news|url = https://www.thefp.com/p/tech-gods-immortality-live-forever|title = The Tech Messiahs Who Want to Deliver Us from Death|newspaper = The Free Press|date = May 24, 2023|last1 = Weiss|first1 = Suzy}}</ref>

==In news media==
=== Common enemy to anti-democratic movements ===
Transhumanism has increasingly been co-opted by ] movements as a common enemy ]. These movements range from ] to radical ] and ]. Critics argue that nonsensical claims often stem from deliberate ignorance, and terms like "Putin sympathizer" or "]" are used to defame legitimate criticism.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=Linden |first=Markus |date=2022-09-11 |title=Ideologischer Kitt für die Querfront |url=https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2022-09/transhumanismus-natur-wladimir-putin-querdenker-technologie |access-date=2024-04-25 |work=] |language=De}}</ref>

Political scientists like Markus Linden point out that Putin, in his speeches, argues against the so-called "liberal-globalist American egocentrism" and ], which parallels the agitation seen in ]. These discourses also occur on platforms like ''Nachdenkseiten'', '']'', and '']'', where they are presented as analyses of the decline of Western democracy.<ref name=":2" />

The ] use of the term "transhumanism" aims to create a comprehensive ] that unites ], ] groups, and liberals. Transhumanism is portrayed as a threat to traditional values and human nature. These narratives can also be found among ideologues like ], who condemns transhumanism as the work of the devil, and Christian fundamentalists who equate it with the denial of traditional values.<ref name=":2" />

The use of the term "transhumanism" as an ideological rallying point for the '']'' is also evident in the fusion of ], ], and libertarian ideas that collectively oppose liberal democracies. This development emphasizes individual conceptions of humanity that are often incompatible with a ]. It requires a critical examination of the political implications of transhumanism and its instrumentalization by anti-democratic forces.<ref name=":2" />

== See also ==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=20em|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* '']''
* ]
* ]
* ]
* '']''
* ]
* ]
}} }}
*{{cite book
| last=Ettinger
| first= R. C. W.
| authorlink=Robert Ettinger
| title=Man into Superman
| year=1974
| url= http://www.cryonics.org/book2.html
| format= HTML
| publisher=Avon
| id=ISBN 0380000474
}}
*{{cite book
|author = ]
|title = UpWingers: A Futurist Manifesto
|year = 1973
|id = ISBN 0381982432; available as an eBook: ISBN FW00007527
}}
*{{cite book
| author = ]
| title = Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World
| publisher = Viking Adult
| year = 1989
| id = ISBN 0446388068}}
*{{cite book
|author=Foucault, Michel
|title=]
|publisher=Vintage
|year=1988
|id=ISBN 067972110X
}}
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=]
|publisher=Farrar Straus & Giroux
|year=2002
|id=ISBN 0-374-23643-7
}}
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = The world's most dangerous ideas: transhumanism
| date = 2004
| url = http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2004/09/01/564801?page=4
}} URL accessed on 1 May, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = Giesen, Klaus-Gerd
| title = Transhumanisme et génétique humaine
| date = 2004
| url = http://www.ircm.qc.ca/bioethique/obsgenetique/cadrages/cadr2004/c_no16_04/c_no16_04_01.html
}} URL accessed on 26 April, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = Glenn, Linda MacDonald
| title = Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm
| date = 2003
| url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/articles/glennjet2003/
}} URL accessed on March 3, 2006
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=The Future of Human Nature
|publisher=Polity Press
|year=2004
|id=ISBN 0745629873
}}
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=How We Became Posthuman : Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics
|publisher=Univ. of Chicago Press
|year=1999
|id=ISBN 0226321460
}}
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = The politics of transhumanism
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm}} URL accessed on February 26, 2006.
*{{cite paper
| author = Hughes, James
| title = God's getting uploaded
| date = 2003
| url = http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/245/Default.aspx}} URL accessed on March 3, 2006.
*{{cite book
| author = Hughes, James
| title = Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future
| publisher = Westview Press
| year = 2004
| id = ISBN 0813341981}}
*{{cite paper
| author = Hughes, James
| title = Report on the 2005 interests and beliefs survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association
| date = 2005
| url = http://transhumanism.org/resources/survey2005.pdf}} URL accessed on February 26, 2006.
*{{cite paper
| author = Humphrey, Stephen
| title = No death, please, I'm bionic
| date = 2004
| url = http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2004-08-12/news_story.php
}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Transhumanism
| date = 1957
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/huxley/
}} URL accessed on February 24, 2006.
*{{cite paper
| author = International Theological Commission
| title = Communion and stewardship: human persons created in the image of God
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
}} URL accessed on April 1, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Why the future doesn't need us
| date = 2000
| url = http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
}} URL accessed on November 14, 2005
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Industrial society and its future
| date = 1995
| url = http://en.wikisource.org/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future
}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006
*{{cite book
| author = ]
| title = ]
| publisher = Three Rivers Press
| year = 1993
}}
*{{cite book
| author = Kurzweil, Raymond
| title = ]
|publisher = Viking Adult
| year = 2004
| id = ISBN 1579549543
}}
*{{cite book
| author = Kurzweil, Raymond
| title = ]
|publisher = Viking Adult
| year = 2005
| id = ISBN 0670033847
}}
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age
|publisher=Times Books
|year=2003
|id=ISBN 0805070966
}}
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Principles of extropy
| date = 1990-2003
| url = http://extropy.org/principles.htm
}} URL accessed on February 16, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]|
| title = Transhumanism: a futurist philosophy
| date = 1990
| url = http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm
}} URL accessed on November 14, 2005
*{{cite book
| author = ]
| title = More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement
| date = 2005
| publisher = Broadway Books
| id = ISBN 0767918436
| url = http://www.morethanhuman.org/
}}
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title= Averting the clone age: prospects and perils of human developmental manipulation
| year = 2003
| url=http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commentaries/newman_averting.pdf
| publisher = J. Contemp. Health Law & Policy 19: 431
}} URL accessed on February 23, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = Otchet, Amy
| title = Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world
| date = 1998
| url = http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_09/uk/dires/txt1.htm
}} URL accessed on February 20, 2006
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=]
|publisher=Basic Books
|year=2003
|id=ISBN 0465068626
}}
*{{cite paper
|author = ]
| title= Uploading
|date = 2000
| url=http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Uploading/
}} URL accessed on March 4, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title= Morphological freedom -- why we not just want it, but ''need'' it
| date = 2001
| url=http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Texts/MorphologicalFreedom.htm
}} URL accessed on February 21, 2006
*{{cite book
|author=]
|title=Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World
|publisher=Harper Perennial
|year=1998
|id=ISBN 0380792435
}}
*{{cite book
| author = ]
| title = Redesigning Humans: Choosing our genes, changing our future
| publisher = Mariner Books
| year = 2002
| id = ISBN 0618340831}}
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Tranhumanist arts statement
| date = 1982; revised 2003
| url = http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm
}} URL accessed on February 16, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Create/recreate: the 3rd millennial culture
| date = 1997
| url = http://www.natasha.cc/createrecreate.htm
}} URL accessed on April 30, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Prolegomena to any future philosophy
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume10/prolegomena.html
}} URL accessed on March 2, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = The transhumanist declaration
| date = 2002
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = The transhumanist FAQ
| date = 2002-2005a
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Are transhumanist technologies environmentally sound?
| date = 2002-2005b
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Is there any ethical standard ...
| date = 2002-2005c
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/72/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Isn�t this tampering with nature?
| date = 2002-2005d
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/76/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
*{{cite paper
| author = ]
| title = Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?
| date = 2002-2005e
| url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/
}} URL accessed on April 3, 2006
</div>


==External links== == References ==
{{Reflist
|refs =
<ref Name="Coenen 2007">{{cite book | last = Coenen | first = Christopher | editor-first = Gerhard | editor-last = Banse | title = Assessing Societal Implications of Converging Technological Development | edition = 1st | publisher = edition sigma | location = Berlin | isbn = 978-3-89404-941-6 | pages = 141–172 | chapter = Utopian Aspects of the Debate on Converging Technologies | chapter-url = http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/epp/2007/coen07-pre01.pdf | year = 2007 | oclc = 198816396 | display-editors = etal | access-date = August 22, 2008 | archive-date = January 28, 2011 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110128151649/http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/lit/epp/2007/coen07-pre01.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref>


<ref Name="Evans 2015">{{cite journal | last = Evans | first = Woody | author-link = Woody Evans | title = Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds | journal = Teknokultura | publisher = Universidad Complutense, Madrid | date = 2015 | volume = 12 | issue = 2 | pages = 373–384 | doi = 10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072 | url = http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN/article/view/49072/46310 | access-date = December 5, 2016| doi-access = free }}</ref>
====Manifestos, organizations and portals not discussed in main article====
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


<ref Name="Cultural Critique 2003">{{cite web | last = Badmington | first = Neil | title = Theorizing Posthumanism | work = Cultural Critique | date = Winter 2003 | url = http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/cultural_critique/v053/53.1badmington.html | access-date = December 10, 2007 }}</ref>

<ref Name="The Hedgehog Review 2002">{{cite web | author = Winner, Langdon| title = Are Humans Obsolete? | work = ] | date = Fall 2002 | url = http://www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR_Archives/Technology/4.3DWinner.pdf |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080910161220/http://www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR_Archives/Technology/4.3DWinner.pdf |archive-date = September 10, 2008 | access-date = December 10, 2007 | author-link = Langdon Winner }}</ref>

<ref Name="Utne">{{cite web | last = Ford | first = Alyssa | title = Humanity: The Remix | work = ] | date = May–June 2005 | url = http://www.utne.com/2005-05-01/humanity-the-remix.aspx | access-date = March 3, 2007 }}</ref>

<ref name="AAR: Transhumanism and Religion Consultations">{{cite web |title = AAR: Transhumanism and Religion Consultations |url = http://www.aarweb.org/meetings/Annual_Meeting/Program_Units/PUinformation.asp?PUNum=AARPU187 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130112192312/https://www.aarweb.org/meetings/Annual_Meeting/Program_Units/PUinformation.asp?PUNum=AARPU187 |archive-date=January 12, 2013 }}</ref>

<ref name="Alexander 2000">{{cite magazine |author = Alexander, Brian | title = Don't die, stay pretty: introducing the ultrahuman makeover | magazine = Wired | year = 2000 | url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/forever.html | access-date=January 8, 2007 }}</ref>

<ref name="Among the Transhumanists">{{cite magazine | last = Saletan | first = William | author-link = William Saletan | title = Among the Transhumanists | magazine = ] | date = June 4, 2006 | url = http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/06/among_the_transhumanists.html <!-- http://www.slate.com/id/2142987/ -->}}</ref>

<ref name="Annas 2002">{{cite journal |author=] |author2=] |author3=] | title = Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations | volume = 28 | page = 151 | year = 2002 }}</ref>

<ref name="Arnall 2003">{{cite journal | last = Arnall | first = Alexander Huw | title = Future technologies, today's choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics | publisher = Greenpeace U.K. | year = 2003 | url = http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf | access-date = April 29, 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060414081108/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf | archive-date = April 14, 2006 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<ref name="Bailey 2001">{{cite journal | last = Bailey |first= Ronald | author-link = Ronald Bailey | title = Right-Wing Biological Dread: The Subhumans are coming! The Subhumans are coming! | date = December 12, 2001 | url=http://reason.com/archives/2001/12/12/right-wing-biological-dread <!-- http://www.reason.com/news/show/34926.html --> |access-date= January 18, 2007 |journal = ]}}</ref>

<ref name="Bailey 2003">{{cite journal | journal = ] | author = Bailey, Ronald | author-link = Ronald Bailey | title = Enough Already |date=October 2003 | url=http://reason.com/archives/2003/10/01/enough-already <!-- http://www.reason.com/0310/cr.rb.enough.shtml --> | access-date=May 31, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Bailey 2004">{{cite journal | last = Bailey | first = Ronald | author-link = Ronald Bailey | title = Transhumanism: the most dangerous idea? | journal = ] | date = August 25, 2004 | url = http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/25/transhumanism-the-most-dangero <!-- http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082504.shtml --> | access-date = February 20, 2006 }}</ref>

<ref name="Bainbridge">{{cite journal | author = Bainbridge, William Sims | title = The Transhuman Heresy |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology | year = 2005 | url = http://jetpress.org/volume14/bainbridge.html | access-date = January 2, 2008 }}</ref>

<ref name="Barratt 2006">{{cite journal | author = Barratt, Helen | title = Transhumanism | year = 2006 | url = http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=1717 | access-date = December 5, 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120402084702/http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=1717 | archive-date = April 2, 2012 |df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<!--
<ref name="Black 2003">{{cite book | author = Black, Edwin | title = War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race | publisher = Four Walls Eight Windows | year = 2003 | isbn = 978-1-56858-258-0 | author-link = Edwin Black | url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781568582580 }}</ref>
-->

<ref name="Blackford 2003">{{cite journal | author = Blackford, Russell | title = Who's afraid of the Brave New World? | year = 2003 | url = http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/brave_new_world.htm | access-date = February 8, 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060823035344/http://www.users.bigpond.com/russellblackford/brave_new_world.htm | archive-date = August 23, 2006 | author-link = Russell Blackford }}</ref>

<ref name="Blackford 2010">{{cite journal | last=Blackford | first= Russell | author-link = Russell Blackford | title = Editorial: Nietzsche and European Posthumanisms |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology | year = 2010 | url = http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford.htm }}</ref>

<ref name="Bordo 1993">{{cite book |author=Bordo, Susan |title=Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body |url=https://archive.org/details/unbearableweight00bord |url-access=registration |publisher=]|year=1993|isbn=978-0-520-08883-2|oclc=27069938|author-link=Susan Bordo }}</ref>

<ref name="Bostrom 2002">{{cite journal | author = Bostrom, Nick| title = Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios | year = 2002 | url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html| access-date=February 21, 2006| author-link = Nick Bostrom}}</ref>

<ref name="Buchanan 2000">{{cite book|author1=Buchanan, Allen |author2=Brock, Dan W. |author3=Daniels, Norman |author4=Wikler, Daniel | title = From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice| publisher = Cambridge University Press| year = 2000| isbn = 978-0-521-66977-1| oclc = 41211380}}</ref>

<ref name="Campbell & Walker 2005">{{cite journal |author=Campbell, Heidi |author2=]| title = Religion and transhumanism: introducing a conversation |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology | year = 2005 | url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume14/specialissueintro.html| access-date=March 21, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Cole-Turner 1993">{{cite book|author=Cole-Turner, Ronald|title=The New Genesis: Theology and the Genetic Revolution |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=1993|isbn=978-0-664-25406-3|oclc=26402489 }}</ref>

<ref name="Darnovsky Crossroads">{{cite journal | author = Darnovsky, Marcy | title = Health and human rights leaders call for an international ban on species-altering procedures | year = 2001 | url = http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2809 | access-date=February 21, 2006 }}</ref>

<ref name="Davis 1999">{{cite book| author = Davis, Erik| title = TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information| publisher = Three Rivers Press| year = 1999| isbn = 978-0-609-80474-2| oclc = 42925424| author-link = Erik Davis}}</ref>

<ref name="Drexler 1986">Drexler 1986</ref>

<ref name="Dublin 1992">{{cite book| last=Dublin| first= Max| title=Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy| publisher=Plume| year=1992| isbn=978-0-452-26800-5| oclc=236056666}}</ref>

<ref name="Dvorsky 2008">{{cite journal | last = Dvorsky | first = George | author-link = George Dvorsky | title = Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary| year = 2008 | url = http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2008/03/postgenderism-beyond-gender-binary.html| access-date=April 13, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="Evans 2014">{{cite journal | last = Evans | first = Woody | author-link = Woody Evans | title = If You See a Cyborg in the Road, Kill the Buddha: Against Transcendental Transhumanism |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology | year = 2014 | url = http://jetpress.org/v24/evans.htm | access-date=October 14, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="EZTV Media">{{cite web | title=EZTV Media | url=http://www.eztvmedia.com/his.html | access-date=May 1, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Ettinger 1972">{{cite book|last=Ettinger |first=Robert |title=Man into Superman |year=1974 |url=http://www.cryonics.org/book2.html |publisher=Avon |isbn=978-0-380-00047-0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828014330/http://www.cryonics.org/book2.html |archive-date=August 28, 2013 }}</ref>

<ref name="Extropy Institute 2006">{{cite journal| author = Extropy Institute| title = Next Steps| year = 2006 | url = http://www.extropy.org/future.htm| access-date=May 5, 2006| author-link = Extropy Institute}}</ref>

<ref name="FM-2030 1973">{{cite book|author = FM-2030|title = UpWingers: A Futurist Manifesto|year = 1973|isbn = 978-0-381-98243-0|edition=Available as an eBook: FW00007527|publisher = John Day Co.|location = New York|oclc = 600299|author-link = FM-2030}}</ref>

<ref name="FM-2030 1989">{{cite book| author = FM-2030| title = Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World| publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1989| isbn = 978-0-446-38806-1| oclc = 18134470| author-link = FM-2030| url = https://archive.org/details/areyoutranshuman00fm20}}</ref>

<ref name="FM-2030: Are You Transhuman">{{cite web | title=FM-2030: Are You Transhuman? |website = ]| date=October 2013 | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaS9QBdVHMs&t=4s | archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211030/eaS9QBdVHMs| archive-date=2021-10-30| access-date=March 16, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

<ref name="Fukuyama 2004">{{cite journal | last = Fukuyama | first = Francis | author-link = Francis Fukuyama | title = The world's most dangerous ideas: transhumanism | journal = ] | issue = 144 | pages = 42–43 | date = September–October 2004 | doi = 10.2307/4152980 | jstor = 4152980 | url = https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2004/09/01/transhumanism | format = reprint | access-date = November 14, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="Garreau 2006">{{cite book | last = Garreau | first = Joel | author-link = Joel Garreau | title = Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What It Means to Be Human| publisher = Broadway| year = 2006| isbn = 978-0-7679-1503-8| oclc = 68624303}}</ref>

<ref name="Gelles 2009">{{cite journal|author=Gelles, David |title=Immortality 2.0: a silicon valley insider looks at California's Transhumanist movement |year=2009 |url=http://ce399eugenics.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/immortality-2-0-a-silicon-valley-insider-looks-at-californias-transhumanist-movement/ |access-date=April 14, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120512223654/http://ce399eugenics.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/immortality-2-0-a-silicon-valley-insider-looks-at-californias-transhumanist-movement |archive-date=May 12, 2012 }}</ref>

<ref name="Giesen 2004">{{cite journal | author = Giesen, Klaus-Gerd | title = Transhumanisme et génétique humaine | year = 2004 | url = http://www.omics-ethics.org/observatoire/cadrages/cadr2004/c_no16_04/c_no16_04_01.html | access-date = April 26, 2006 | archive-date = July 22, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170722130848/http://www.omics-ethics.org/observatoire/cadrages/cadr2004/c_no16_04/c_no16_04_01.html }}</ref>

<ref name="Glenn 2003">{{cite journal| author = Glenn, Linda MacDonald| title = Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm| year = 2003 | url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/articles/glennjet2003/| access-date=March 3, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge">{{cite book | title=Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge | first = Ed | last = Regis | publisher = Perseus Books | year=1990 | author-link= Ed Regis (author)}}</ref>

<ref name="Habermas 2004">{{cite book| author=Habermas, Jürgen| title=The Future of Human Nature| publisher=Polity Press| year=2004| isbn=978-0-7456-2987-2| oclc=49395577| author-link=Jürgen Habermas }}</ref>

<ref name="Harrison and Wolyniak 2015">{{cite journal |author1=Harrison, Peter |author2=Wolyniak, Joseph |name-list-style=amp | title = The History of 'Transhumanism' |journal=Notes and Queries |volume=62 |issue=3 |pages=465–467 | year = 2015 |doi=10.1093/notesj/gjv080 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

<ref name="Hayles 1999">{{cite book| author = Hayles, N. Katherine| title = How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics| publisher = University Of Chicago Press| year = 1999| isbn = 978-0-226-32146-2| oclc = 186409073| author-link = N. Katherine Hayles}}</ref>

<ref name="Hook 2004">{{cite book | last = Hook | first = Christopher | editor-first = Stephen G. | editor-last = Post | title = Encyclopedia of Bioethics | edition = 3rd| publisher = Macmillan | location = New York | isbn = 978-0-02-865774-5 | pages = 2517–2520 | chapter = Transhumanism and Posthumanism | chapter-url = http://gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp657748.pdf <!--| access-date=December 10, 2007 -->| year = 2004 | oclc = 52622160}}</ref>

<ref name="Hughes 2002">{{cite journal | last = Hughes | first = James | title = The politics of transhumanism | year = 2002 | url = http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/TranshumPolitics.htm | access-date=December 14, 2013}}</ref>

<ref name="Hughes 2004">{{cite book| author = Hughes, James | title = Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future | publisher = Westview Press | year = 2004| isbn = 978-0-8133-4198-9| oclc = 56632213| title-link = Citizen Cyborg }}</ref>

<ref name="Hughes 2005">{{cite journal | last = Hughes | first = James | author-link = James Hughes (sociologist) | title = Report on the 2005 interests and beliefs survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association | year = 2005 | url = http://transhumanism.org/resources/survey2005.pdf | access-date = February 26, 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060524181809/http://transhumanism.org/resources/survey2005.pdf | archive-date = May 24, 2006 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<ref name="Hughes A2002">{{cite journal| author = Hughes, James| title = Democratic Transhumanism 2.0| year = 2002 | url = http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm| access-date=January 26, 2007}}</ref>

<ref name="Hughes BH 2004">{{cite journal| author = Hughes, James| title = Technologies of Self-perfection: What would the Buddha do with nanotechnology and psychopharmaceuticals? | year = 2004| url = http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/222/Default.aspx| access-date=February 21, 2007|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070510094442/http://archives.betterhumans.com/Columns/Column/tabid/79/Column/222/Default.aspx |archive-date = May 10, 2007}}</ref>

<ref name="Huxley 1957">{{cite book |last=Huxley |first=Julian |author-link=Julian Huxley |year=1957 |chapter=Transhumanism |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/NewBottlesForNewWine/page/n15/mode/2up |title=New Bottles for New Wine |url=https://archive.org/details/NewBottlesForNewWine/page/n15/mode/2up |location=London |publisher=Chatto & Windus |pages=13–17 |access-date=1 March 2023}}</ref>

<ref name="Inniss 1998">{{cite web|last=Inniss |first=Patrick |title=Transhumanism: The Next Step? |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_8_4.htm |access-date=December 10, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071106102151/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/inniss_8_4.htm |archive-date=November 6, 2007 }}</ref>

<ref name="International Theological Commission 2002">{{cite journal| author = International Theological Commission| title = Communion and stewardship: human persons created in the image of God | year = 2002 | url = https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html| access-date=April 1, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Kass 2001">{{cite magazine| author = Kass, Leon | title = Preventing a Brave New World: why we must ban human cloning now| date = May 21, 2001| magazine = The New Republic| author-link = Leon Kass}}</ref>

<ref name="Kurzweil 1993">{{cite book| last = Kurzweil | first = Raymond | title = The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life | publisher = Three Rivers Press | year = 1993| title-link = The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life }}</ref>

<ref name="Kurzweil 1999">{{cite book| author = Kurzweil, Raymond| title = The Age of Spiritual Machines | publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1999 | isbn = 978-0-670-88217-5| oclc = 224295064| author-link = Raymond Kurzweil| title-link = The Age of Spiritual Machines }}</ref>

<ref name="Kurzweil 2004">{{cite book| last = Kurzweil | first = Raymond | title = Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever|publisher = Viking Adult| year = 2004| isbn = 978-1-57954-954-1| oclc = 56011093| title-link = Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever }}</ref>

<ref name="Kurzweil 2005">{{cite book| last = Kurzweil | first = Raymond | title = The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology | publisher = Viking Adult| year = 2005 | isbn = 978-0-670-03384-3| oclc = 224517172| title-link = The Singularity Is Near }}</ref>

<ref name="Lee 1999">{{cite book | author = Lee, Keekok | title = The Natural and the Artefactual | year = 1999 | publisher = Lexington Books | isbn = 978-0-7391-0061-5 | oclc = 231842178 }}</ref>

<ref name="Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society">{{Cite book | last = Goldblatt | first = Michael | date = 2002 | contribution = DARPA's programs in enhancing human performance | editor-last = Roco | editor-first = Mihail C. | editor2-last = Bainbridge | editor2-first = William Sims | title = Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society | url = https://archive.org/details/managingnanobioi00bain_947 | url-access = limited | edition = 1 | location = Arlington, VA | publisher = Springer | pages = –340 | isbn = 978-1-4020-4106-8}}; cited in {{cite journal | last = McIntosh | first = Daniel | title = Human, Transhuman, Posthuman: Implications of Evolution-by-design for Human Security | journal = Journal of Human Security | volume = 4 | issue = 3 | pages = 4–20 | date = December 2008 | issn = 1835-3800 | doi = 10.3316/JHS0403004}}</ref>

<ref name="McKibben 2003">{{cite book|author=McKibben, Bill|title=Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age|publisher=Times Books|year=2003|isbn=978-0-8050-7096-5|oclc=237794777|author-link=Bill McKibben}}</ref>

<ref name="Midgley 1992">{{cite book|author=Midgley, Mary|title=Science as Salvation|publisher=Routledge|year=1992|isbn=978-0-415-06271-8|oclc=181929611|author-link=Mary Midgley}}</ref>

<ref name="Minsky 1960">{{cite CiteSeerX | author = Minsky, Marvin| title = Steps toward artificial intelligence| pages = 406–450| year = 1960 | author-link = Marvin Minsky| citeseerx = 10.1.1.79.7413}}</ref>

<ref name="Mitchell & Kilner 2002">{{cite journal |author1=Mitchell, Ben C. |author2=Kilner, John F. |name-list-style=amp |title=Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future |journal=Dignity |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=1, 5 |year=2003 |url=http://www.cbhd.org/resources/biotech/mitchell_kilner_2003-08-29.htm |access-date=December 5, 2006 |archive-date=September 28, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928131439/http://www.cbhd.org/resources/biotech/mitchell_kilner_2003-08-29.htm }}</ref>

<ref name="Moravec 1998">{{cite journal| url=https://jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=1998| volume=1| title=When will computer hardware match the human brain?| author=Moravec, Hans| access-date=June 23, 2006| author-link=Hans Moravec| df=mdy-all}}</ref>

<ref name="More 1990">{{cite journal|author=More, Max |title=Transhumanism: a futurist philosophy |year=1990 |url=http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm |access-date=November 14, 2005 |author-link=Max More |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051029125153/http://www.maxmore.com/transhum.htm |archive-date=October 29, 2005 }}</ref>

<ref name="Moreno 2006">{{cite book | last = Moreno | first = Jonathan D. | author-link = Jonathan D. Moreno | title = Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense | publisher = Dana Press | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-1-932594-16-4 | url = https://archive.org/details/mindwarsbrainres00jona }}</ref>

<ref name="Naam 2005">{{cite book| author = Naam, Ramez| title = More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement| year = 2005| publisher = Broadway Books| isbn = 978-0-7679-1843-5| url = https://archive.org/details/morethanhumanemb00naam| oclc = 55878008| author-link = Ramez Naam}}</ref>

<ref name="Newitz 2008">{{cite journal| last = Newitz | first = Annalee | author-link = Annalee Newitz | title = Can Futurism Escape the 1990s? | newspaper = Io9 | year = 2008 |url = http://io9.com/5067829/can-futurism-escape-the-1990s | access-date = November 18, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="Newman 2003">{{cite journal|author=Newman, Stuart A.|title=Averting the clone age: prospects and perils of human developmental manipulation|year=2003|journal=Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy |volume=19|issue=2|pages=431–63|pmid=14748253|url=http://genetics.live.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/200303_jchlp_newman.pdf|access-date=September 17, 2008|author-link=Stuart Newman|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216215328/http://genetics.live.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/200303_jchlp_newman.pdf|archive-date=December 16, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

<ref name="Otchet 1998">{{cite journal | author = Otchet, Amy | title = Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world | year = 1998 | url = http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_09/uk/dires/txt1.htm| access-date=February 20, 2006 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050910013827/http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_09/uk/dires/txt1.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = September 10, 2005}}</ref>

<ref name="Pauls 2005">{{cite journal| author = Pauls, David| title = Transhumanism: 2000 Years in the Making| year = 2005 | url = http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=189| access-date=December 5, 2006|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061010102349/http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=189 |archive-date = October 10, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Peters 1997">{{cite book|author=Peters, Ted|title=Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom|publisher=Routledge|year=1997|isbn=978-0-415-91522-9|oclc=35192269|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/playinggodgeneti0000pete}}</ref>

<ref name="Platt 1995">{{cite magazine| author = Platt, Charles| title = Superhumanism| magazine = Wired| year = 1995 | url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.10/moravec.html| access-date=December 5, 2006| author-link = Charles Platt (science-fiction author)}}</ref>

<ref name="Rael 2002">{{cite book| author = Raël| title=Oui au clonage humain: La vie éternelle grâce à la science| publisher=Quebecor| year=2002| isbn=978-1-903571-05-7| oclc = 226022543| author-link= Raël}}</ref>

<ref name="Rees 2003">{{cite book| last=Rees | first=Martin | author-link=Martin Rees | title=Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century—On Earth and Beyond| publisher=Basic Books| year=2003| isbn=978-0-465-06862-3| oclc=51315429| title-link=Our Final Hour | bibcode=2003ofhs.book.....R }}</ref>

<ref name="Rifkin 1983">{{cite book| author = Rifkin, Jeremy | title = Algeny: A New Word--A New World| publisher = Viking Adult| year = 1983 | isbn = 978-0-670-10885-5| author-link = Jeremy Rifkin}}</ref>

<ref name="Sandberg 2000">{{cite journal|author = Sandberg, Anders | title= Uploading|year = 2000| url=http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Uploading/| access-date=March 4, 2006|author-link= Anders Sandberg}}</ref>

<ref name="Sandberg 2001">{{cite journal| author = Sandberg, Anders| title= Morphological freedom – why we not just want it, but ''need'' it| year = 2001 | url=http://www.aleph.se/Nada/Texts/MorphologicalFreedom.htm| access-date=February 21, 2006| author-link= Anders Sandberg}}</ref>

<ref name="Sandberg 2009">
{{Cite book
|first1=Anders
|last1=Sandberg
| author1-link=Anders Sandberg
|first2=Nick
|last2=Boström
| author2-link=Nick Bostrom
|title=Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap
|quote=The basic idea is to take a particular brain, scan its structure in detail, and construct a software model of it that is so faithful to the original that, when run on appropriate hardware, it will behave in essentially the same way as the original brain.
|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/Reports/2008-3.pdf
|access-date=April 5, 2009
|series= Technical Report #2008-3
|year=2008
| publisher = Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
}}</ref>

<ref name="Silver 1998">{{cite book| author=Silver, Lee M.| title=Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World| publisher=Harper Perennial| year=1998| isbn=978-0-380-79243-6| oclc=40094564| author-link=Lee M. Silver| url=https://archive.org/details/remakingeden00leem}}</ref>

<ref name="Smolensky 2006">{{cite journal| author = Smolensky, Kirsten Rabe| title = Parental liability for germline genetic enhancement: to be or not to be? (Public address, Stanford University) | year = 2006| url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/HETHR_bios/smolensky/ | access-date=June 18, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Sorgner 2009">{{cite journal| last=Sorgner | first=Stefan Lorenz | title = Nietzsche, the Overhuman, and Transhumanism | url = http://jetpress.org/v20/sorgner.htm |journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology |volume=20 |issue=1 |date= March 2009 | pages= 29–42| author-link= Stefan Lorenz Sorgner}}</ref>

<ref name="Sorgner 2012">{{cite journal| last=Sorgner | first=Stefan Lorenz | title = Was Nietzsche a Transhumanist? | url = http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20120423 |journal= IEET News |date= April 24, 2012 | author-link= Stefan Lorenz Sorgner}}</ref>

<ref name="Haldane 1923">{{cite book| author=Haldane, J.B.S.| title=Daedalus or, Science and the Future| publisher=Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. | year=1923|author-link=J. B. S. Haldane| url=https://jbshaldane.org/books/1923-Daedalus/haldane-1923-daedalus-ocr.pdf| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210715141807/https://jbshaldane.org/books/1923-Daedalus/haldane-1923-daedalus-ocr.pdf| archive-date=July 15, 2021}}</ref>

<ref name="Stock 2002">{{cite book| author = Stock, Gregory| title = Redesigning Humans: Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future| publisher = Mariner Books| year = 2002| isbn = 978-0-618-34083-5| oclc = 51756081| author-link = Gregory Stock| url = https://archive.org/details/redesigninghuman00stoc}}</ref>

<ref name="Tennison 2012">{{cite journal| last = Tennison | first = Michael | title = Moral transhumanism: the next step | journal = The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy | year = 2012 | publisher = J Med Philos | volume = 37 | number =4 | pages = 405–416| doi = 10.1093/jmp/jhs024 | pmid = 22855738 }}</ref>

<ref name="The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering 2004">{{cite journal| author = ] & The ]| title = Nanoscience and nanotechnologies (Ch. 6)| year = 2004| url = http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/chapter6.pdf| access-date = December 5, 2006| archive-date = September 9, 2012| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120909192902/http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/chapter6.pdf}}</ref>

<ref name="TransVision 2004: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium">{{cite web|title=TransVision 2004: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium|url=http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/program.shtml#Faith|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070104110507/http://transhumanism.org/tv/2004/program.shtml#Faith|archive-date=January 4, 2007|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

<ref name="Vita-More 1982">{{cite journal | author = Vita-More, Natasha| title = Transhumanist arts statement | orig-date = revised, first published 1982|year=2003 | url = http://www.transhumanist.biz/transhumanistartsmanifesto.htm| access-date=February 16, 2006 | author-link = Natasha Vita-More}}</ref>

<ref name="WTA FAQ 3.2">{{cite journal| author = World Transhumanist Association| title = Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?| date = 2002–2005 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/| access-date=April 3, 2006|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060909005028/http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/66/ |archive-date = September 9, 2006|author-link = World Transhumanist Association}}</ref>

<ref name="WTA FAQ 5.2">{{cite journal| author = World Transhumanist Association| title = What currents are there within transhumanism?| date = 2002–2005 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/81/| access-date=November 3, 2007|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071016194900/http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/81/ |archive-date = October 16, 2007|author-link = World Transhumanist Association}}</ref>

<ref name="Walker 2002">{{cite journal | last = Walker | first = Mark Alan | author-link = Mark Alan Walker | title = Prolegomena to any future philosophy | journal = ] | volume = 10 | issue = 1 | date = March 2002 | url = http://www.jetpress.org/volume10/prolegomena.html | issn = 1541-0099 | access-date=March 2, 2006}}</ref>

<ref name="Winner 2005">{{cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zwolIIz9zg0C&pg=PA385| author = Winner, Langdon |editor-first1=Harold |editor-last1=Bailie |editor-first2=Timothy |editor-last2=Casey | title = Is Human Nature Obsolete?| publisher =M.I.T. Press | location = Massachusetts Institute of Technology|isbn=978-0-262-52428-5|pages=385–411|chapter =Resistance is Futile: The Posthuman Condition and Its Advocates|author-link=Langdon Winner| year = 2005 }}</ref>

<ref name="World Transhumanist Association 2002">{{cite journal| author = World Transhumanist Association | title = The Transhumanist Declaration | year = 2002 | url = http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/| access-date = April 3, 2006 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060910010545/http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/79/ |archive-date = September 10, 2006| author-link = World Transhumanist Association}}</ref>

<ref name="What is Transhumanism">{{cite journal| author = Humanity+ | title = What is Transhumanism? | url = http://whatistranshumanism.org/ | access-date = December 5, 2015 | author-link = Humanity+}}</ref>

<ref name="imminst">{{cite web|title=Immortality Institute|url=http://www.imminst.org/}}</ref>

<!--unused<ref name="montrealmirror">{{cite news |last=Leijon |first=Erik |url=http://www.montrealmirror.com/wp/2011/08/18/cover-the-transhuman-factor/ |archive-date=March 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160311060609/http://montrealmirror.com/wp/2011/08/18/cover-the-transhuman-factor |title=The transhuman factor |newspaper=Montreal Mirror |date=November 14, 2011 |access-date=January 26, 2015 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>-->

<ref name="tipler1994">{{cite book| author = Tipler, Frank J.| title = The Physics of Immortality| url = https://archive.org/details/physicsofimmorta00fran| url-access = registration| publisher = Doubleday| year = 1994| isbn = 978-0-19-282147-8| oclc = 16830384| author-link = Frank J. Tipler}}</ref>

}} <!-- end of reflist -->

== Further reading ==
* Adorno, F. P. (2021). ''The Transhumanist Movement''. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. {{ISBN|978-3-030-82423-5}}.
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Cole-Turner|editor1-first=Ronald|title=Transhumanism and transcendence: Christian hope in an age of technological enhancement|date=2011|publisher=Georgetown University Press|location=Washington, D.C.|isbn=978-1-58901-780-1}}
* {{cite book|author=Frodeman, R.|year=2019|title=Transhumanism, Nature, and the Ends of Science|publisher=]|location=]|isbn=978-0-367-18939-6}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Hansell|editor1-first=Gregory R|editor2-last=Grassie|editor2-first=William|title=H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics|date=2011|publisher=Metanexus Institute|location=Philadelphia|isbn=978-1-45681-567-7}}
* ]: ''Virtual Immortality: God, Evolution, and the Singularity in Post- and Transhumanism''. Bielefeld: transcript 2021. {{ISBN|978-3-8376-5059-4}}.
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Maher|editor1-first= Derek F.|editor2-last= Mercer|editor2-first=Calvin|title=Religion and the implications of radical life extension|date=2009|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=New York|isbn=978-0-230-10072-5|edition=1st}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Mercer|editor1-first=Calvin|editor2-last=Trothen|editor2-first=Tracy|title=Religion and transhumanism: the unknown future of human enhancement.|date=2014|publisher=Praeger|location=Westport, CT|isbn=978-1-4408-3325-0}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Mercer|editor1-first=Calvin|editor2-last=Maher|editor2-first=Derek|title=Transhumanism and the Body: The World Religions Speak|date=2014|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=New York|isbn=978-1-137-36583-5}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=More|editor1-first=Max|editor2-last=Vita-More|editor2-first=Natasha|title=The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future|date=2013|publisher=Wiley|location=Hoboken, N.J.|isbn=978-1-118-33429-4|edition=1.publ.}}
* {{cite book|author=Pilsch, A.|year=2017|title=Transhumanism: Evolutionary Futurism and the Human Technologies of Utopia|publisher=]|location=]|isbn=978-1-4529-5488-2}}
* {{cite book|editor1-last=Ranisch|editor1-first=Robert|editor2-last=Sorgner|editor2-first=Stefan Lorenz|title=Post- and Transhumanism|date=2014|publisher=Peter Lang|location=Bruxelles|isbn=978-3-631-60662-9}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category|Transhumanism}}
{{Wikiquote|Transhumanism}}
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages|Transhumanism reading1.ogg|date=2008-11-22}}
* , transhumanist wiki
*

{{Transhumanism footer}}
{{Emerging technologies|topics=yes}}
{{Doomsday}}
{{Authority control}}

]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 22:54, 13 December 2024

Philosophical movement For the critique of humanism and related term, see Posthumanism. Not to be confused with Transhumance or Transgender.

Transhumanism
Issues
People
Influential works
Variants
Related topics
Part of a series on
Human enhancement
Statue of Prometheus gifting mankind fire
Advocacy
(De facto) germline interventions
Somatic interventions

Chemical

Neurological

Opposition
Related
Part of a series on
Utopias
Mythical and religious
Literature
Theory
Concepts
Practice

Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.

Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of using such technologies. Some transhumanists speculate that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings of such vastly greater abilities as to merit the label of posthuman beings.

Another topic of transhumanist research is how to protect humanity against existential risks from artificial general intelligence, asteroid impact, gray goo, high-energy particle collision experiments, natural or synthetic pandemic, and nuclear warfare.

The biologist Julian Huxley popularised the term "transhumanism" in a 1957 essay. The contemporary meaning of the term was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, a man who changed his name to FM-2030. In the 1960s, he taught "new concepts of the human" at The New School when he began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles, and worldviews "transitional" to posthumanity as "transhuman". The assertion laid the intellectual groundwork for the British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, organizing in California a school of thought that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.

Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives, including philosophy and religion.

In 2017, Penn State University Press, in cooperation with philosopher Stefan Lorenz Sorgner and sociologist James Hughes, established the Journal of Posthuman Studies as the first academic journal explicitly dedicated to the posthuman, with the goal of clarifying the notions of posthumanism and transhumanism, as well as comparing and contrasting both.

Despite its professed strong attachment to the values of liberalism and forward-thinking, some critics argue transhumanism is a dangerous resurgence of many discriminatory attitudes and elitist ideals of the discredited eugenics movements of the past.

History

Precursors of transhumanism

According to Nick Bostrom, transcendentalist impulses have been expressed at least as far back as the quest for immortality in the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in historical quests for the Fountain of Youth, the Elixir of Life, and other efforts to stave off aging and death.

Transhumanists draw upon and claim continuity from intellectual and cultural traditions such as the ancient philosophy of Aristotle or the scientific tradition of Roger Bacon. In his Divine Comedy, Dante coined the word trasumanar meaning "to transcend human nature, to pass beyond human nature" in the first canto of Paradiso.

The interweaving of transhumanist aspirations with the scientific imagination can be seen in the works of some precursors of Enlightenment such as Francis Bacon. One of the early precursors to transhumanist ideas is René Descartes's Discourse on Method (1637), in which Descartes envisions a new kind of medicine that can grant both physical immortality and stronger minds.

In his first edition of Political Justice (1793), William Godwin included arguments favoring the possibility of "earthly immortality" (what would now be called physical immortality). Godwin explored the themes of life extension and immortality in his gothic novel St. Leon, which became popular (and notorious) at the time of its publication in 1799, but is now mostly forgotten. St. Leon may have inspired his daughter Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein.

Ether Day, marking a significant milestone in human history, celebrated its 175th anniversary on October 16, 2021. It was on this day that dentist William T. G. Morton achieved a groundbreaking feat by administering the first public ether anesthesia in Boston. This breakthrough not only allowed for the alleviation of pain with a reasonable level of risk but also helped protect people from psychological trauma by inducing unconsciousness.

There is debate about whether the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can be considered an influence on transhumanism, despite its exaltation of the Übermensch (overhuman), due to its emphasis on self-actualization rather than technological transformation. The transhumanist philosophies of More and Sorgner have been influenced strongly by Nietzschean thinking. By contrast, The Transhumanist Declaration "advocates the well-being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human animals)".

The late 19th- to early 20th-century movement known as Russian cosmism, by Russian philosopher N. F. Fyodorov, is noted for anticipating transhumanist ideas. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F. M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught "new concepts of the human" at The New School, in New York City, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and worldviews transitional to posthumanity as "transhuman".

Early transhumanist thinking

Julian Huxley, the biologist who popularised the term transhumanism in an influential 1957 essay

Fundamental ideas of transhumanism were first advanced in 1923 by the British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane in his essay Daedalus: Science and the Future, which predicted that great benefits would come from the application of advanced sciences to human biology—and that every such advance would first appear to someone as blasphemy or perversion, "indecent and unnatural". In particular, he was interested in the development of the science of eugenics, ectogenesis (creating and sustaining life in an artificial environment), and the application of genetics to improve human characteristics such as health and intelligence.

His article inspired academic and popular interest. J. D. Bernal, a crystallographer at Cambridge, wrote The World, the Flesh and the Devil in 1929, in which he speculated on the prospects of space colonization and radical changes to human bodies and intelligence through bionic implants and cognitive enhancement. These ideas have been common transhumanist themes ever since.

The biologist Julian Huxley is generally regarded as the founder of transhumanism after using the term for the title of an influential 1957 article. But the term derives from a 1940 paper by the Canadian philosopher W. D. Lighthall. Huxley describes transhumanism in these terms:

Up till now human life has generally been, as Hobbes described it, "nasty, brutish and short"; the great majority of human beings (if they have not already died young) have been afflicted with misery… we can justifiably hold the belief that these lands of possibility exist, and that the present limitations and miserable frustrations of our existence could be in large measure surmounted… 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.

Huxley's definition differs, albeit not substantially, from the one commonly in use since the 1980s. The ideas raised by these thinkers were explored in the science fiction of the 1960s, notably in Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which an alien artifact grants transcendent power to its wielder.

Japanese Metabolist architects produced a manifesto in 1960 which outlined goals to "encourage active metabolic development of our society" through design and technology. In the Material and Man section of the manifesto, Noboru Kawazoe suggests that:

After several decades, with the rapid progress of communication technology, every one will have a "brain wave receiver" in his ear, which conveys directly and exactly what other people think about him and vice versa. What I think will be known by all the people. There is no more individual consciousness, only the will of mankind as a whole.

Artificial intelligence and the technological singularity

The concept of the technological singularity, or the ultra-rapid advent of superhuman intelligence, was first proposed by the British cryptologist I. J. Good in 1965:

Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.

Computer scientist Marvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s. Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil, who oscillated between the technical arena and futuristic speculations in the transhumanist vein. The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1972, Robert Ettinger, whose 1964 Prospect of Immortality founded the cryonics movement, contributed to the conceptualization of "transhumanity" with his 1972 Man into Superman. FM-2030 published the Upwingers Manifesto in 1973.

Growth of transhumanism

The first self-described transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the main center of transhumanist thought. Here, FM-2030 lectured on his "Third Way" futurist ideology. At the EZTV Media venue, frequented by transhumanists and other futurists, Natasha Vita-More presented Breaking Away, her 1980 experimental film with the theme of humans breaking away from their biological limitations and the Earth's gravity as they head into space. FM-2030 and Vita-More soon began holding gatherings for transhumanists in Los Angeles, which included students from FM-2030's courses and audiences from Vita-More's artistic productions. In 1982, Vita-More authored the Transhumanist Arts Statement and in 1988 she produced the cable TV show TransCentury Update on transhumanity, a program that reached over 100,000 viewers.

In 1986, Eric Drexler published Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, which discussed the prospects for nanotechnology and molecular assemblers, and founded the Foresight Institute. As the first nonprofit organization to research, advocate for, and perform cryonics, the Southern California offices of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation became a center for futurists. In 1988, the first issue of Extropy Magazine was published by Max More and Tom Morrow. In 1990, More, a strategic philosopher, created his own particular transhumanist doctrine, which took the form of the Principles of Extropy, and laid the foundation of modern transhumanism by giving it a new definition:

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies .

In 1992, More and Morrow founded the Extropy Institute, a catalyst for networking futurists and brainstorming new memeplexes by organizing a series of conferences and, more importantly, providing a mailing list, which exposed many to transhumanist views for the first time during the rise of cyberculture and the cyberdelic counterculture. In 1998, philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association (WTA), an international non-governmental organization working toward the recognition of transhumanism as a legitimate subject of scientific inquiry and public policy. In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted The Transhumanist Declaration. The Transhumanist FAQ, prepared by the WTA (later Humanity+), gave two formal definitions for transhumanism:

  1. 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.
  2. The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

In possible contrast with other transhumanist organizations, WTA officials considered that social forces could undermine their futurist visions and needed to be addressed. A particular concern is equal access to human enhancement technologies across classes and borders. In 2006, a political struggle within the transhumanist movement between the libertarian right and the liberal left resulted in a more centre-leftward positioning of the WTA under its former executive director James Hughes. In 2006, the board of directors of the Extropy Institute ceased operations of the organization, saying that its mission was "essentially completed". This left the World Transhumanist Association as the leading international transhumanist organization. In 2008, as part of a rebranding effort, the WTA changed its name to "Humanity+". In 2012, the transhumanist Longevity Party had been initiated as an international union of people who promote the development of scientific and technological means to significant life extension that now has more than 30 national organisations throughout the world.

The Mormon Transhumanist Association was founded in 2006. By 2012, it had hundreds of members.

The first transhumanist elected member of a parliament was Giuseppe Vatinno, in Italy.

Theory

It is a matter of debate whether transhumanism is a branch of posthumanism and how this philosophical movement should be conceptualised with regard to transhumanism. The latter is often referred to as a variant or activist form of posthumanism by its conservative, Christian and progressive critics.

A common feature of transhumanism and philosophical posthumanism is the future vision of a new intelligent species, into which humanity will evolve and which eventually will supplement or supersede it. Transhumanism stresses the evolutionary perspective, including sometimes the creation of a highly intelligent animal species by way of cognitive enhancement (i.e. biological uplift), but clings to a "posthuman future" as the final goal of participant evolution.

Nevertheless, the idea of creating intelligent artificial beings (proposed, for example, by roboticist Hans Moravec) has influenced transhumanism. Moravec's ideas and transhumanism have also been characterised as a "complacent" or "apocalyptic" variant of posthumanism and contrasted with "cultural posthumanism" in humanities and the arts. While such a "cultural posthumanism" would offer resources for rethinking the relationships between humans and increasingly sophisticated machines, transhumanism and similar posthumanisms are, in this view, not abandoning obsolete concepts of the "autonomous liberal subject", but are expanding its "prerogatives" into the realm of the posthuman. Transhumanist self-characterisations as a continuation of humanism and Enlightenment thinking correspond with this view.

Some secular humanists conceive transhumanism as an offspring of the humanist freethought movement and argue that transhumanists differ from the humanist mainstream by having a specific focus on technological approaches to resolving human concerns (i.e. technocentrism) and on the issue of mortality. Other progressives have argued that posthumanism, in its philosophical or activist forms, amounts to a shift away from concerns about social justice, from the reform of human institutions and from other Enlightenment preoccupations, toward narcissistic longings to transcend the human body in quest of more exquisite ways of being.

The philosophy of transhumanism is closely related to technoself studies, an interdisciplinary domain of scholarly research dealing with all aspects of human identity in a technological society and focusing on the changing nature of relationships between humans and technology.

Aims

You awake one morning to find your brain has another lobe functioning. Invisible, this auxiliary lobe answers your questions with information beyond the realm of your own memory, suggests plausible courses of action, and asks questions that help bring out relevant facts. You quickly come to rely on the new lobe so much that you stop wondering how it works. You just use it. This is the dream of artificial intelligence.

— Byte, April 1985
Ray Kurzweil believes that a countdown to when "human life will be irreversibly transformed" can be made through plotting major world events on a graph.

While many transhumanist theorists and advocates seek to apply reason, science and technology to reduce poverty, disease, disability, and malnutrition around the globe, transhumanism is distinctive in its particular focus on the applications of technologies to the improvement of human bodies at the individual level. Many transhumanists actively assess the potential for future technologies and innovative social systems to improve the quality of all life, while seeking to make the material reality of the human condition fulfill the promise of legal and political equality by eliminating congenital mental and physical barriers.

Transhumanist philosophers argue that there not only exists a perfectionist ethical imperative for humans to strive for progress and improvement of the human condition, but that it is possible and desirable for humanity to enter a transhuman phase of existence in which humans enhance themselves beyond what is naturally human. In such a phase, natural evolution would be replaced with deliberate participatory or directed evolution.

Some theorists such as Ray Kurzweil think that the pace of technological innovation is accelerating and that the next 50 years may yield not only radical technological advances, but possibly a technological singularity, which may fundamentally change the nature of human beings. Transhumanists who foresee this massive technological change generally maintain that it is desirable, but some are concerned about the dangers of extremely rapid technological change and propose options for ensuring that advanced technology is used responsibly. For example, Bostrom has written extensively on existential risks to humanity's future welfare, including ones that emerging technologies could create. In contrast, some proponents of transhumanism view it as essential to humanity's survival. For instance, Stephen Hawking points out that the "external transmission" phase of human evolution, where knowledge production and knowledge management is more important than transmission of information via evolution, may be the point at which human civilization becomes unstable and self-destructs, one of Hawking's explanations for the Fermi paradox. To counter this, Hawking emphasizes either self-design of the human genome or mechanical enhancement (e.g., brain-computer interface) to enhance human intelligence and reduce aggression, without which he implies human civilization may be too stupid collectively to survive an increasingly unstable system, resulting in societal collapse.

While many people believe that all transhumanists are striving for immortality, that is not necessarily true. Hank Pellissier, managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (2011–2012), surveyed transhumanists. He found that, of the 818 respondents, 23.8% did not want immortality. Some of the reasons argued were boredom, Earth's overpopulation, and the desire "to go to an afterlife".

Empathic fallibility and conversational consent

See also: Uplift (science fiction)

Certain transhumanist philosophers hold that since all assumptions about what others experience are fallible, and that therefore all attempts to help or protect beings that are incapable of correcting what others assume about them, no matter how well-intentioned, are in danger of actually hurting them, all sentient beings deserve to be sapient. These thinkers argue that the ability to discuss in a falsification-based way constitutes a threshold that is not arbitrary at which it becomes possible for someone to speak for themself in a way that is independent of exterior assumptions. They also argue that all beings capable of experiencing something deserve to be elevated to this threshold if they are not at it, typically saying that the underlying change that leads to the threshold is an increase in the preciseness of the brain's ability to discriminate. This includes increasing the neuron count and connectivity in animals as well as accelerating the development of connectivity to shorten or ideally skip non-sapient childhood incapable of independently deciding for oneself. Transhumanists of this description stress that the genetic engineering that they advocate is general insertion into both the somatic cells of living beings and in germ cells, and not purging of people without the modifications, deeming the latter not only unethical but also unnecessary due to the possibilities of efficient genetic engineering.

Ethics

Part of a series on
Humanism
History
Forms
Organizations
See also
Philosophy portal

Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understand and evaluate possibilities for overcoming biological limitations by drawing on futurology and various fields of ethics. Unlike many philosophers, social critics, and activists who morally value preservation of natural systems, transhumanists see the concept of the specifically natural as problematically nebulous at best and an obstacle to progress at worst. In keeping with this, many prominent transhumanist advocates, such as Dan Agin, call transhumanism's critics, on the political right and left jointly, "bioconservatives" or "bioluddites", the latter term alluding to the 19th-century anti-industrialisation social movement that opposed the replacement of human manual labourers by machines.

A belief of counter-transhumanism is that transhumanism can cause unfair human enhancement in many areas of life, but specifically on the social plane. This can be compared to steroid use, where athletes who use steroids in sports have an advantage over those who do not. The same disparity may happen when people have certain neural implants that give them an advantage in the workplace and in education. Additionally, according to M.J. McNamee and S.D. Edwards, many fear that the improvements afforded by a specific, privileged section of society will lead to a division of the human species into two different species. The idea of two human species, one at a great physical and economic advantage over with the other, is troublesome at best. One may be incapable of breeding with the other, and may by consequence of lower physical health and ability, be considered of a lower moral standing than the other.

Nick Bostrom has said that transhumanism advocates for the wellbeing of all sentient beings, including non-human animals, extraterrestrials, and artificial forms of life. This view is reiterated by David Pearce, who advocates the use of biotechnology to eradicate suffering in all sentient beings.

Currents

There is a variety of opinions within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development. Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:

Spirituality

Although many transhumanists are atheists, agnostics, and/or secular humanists, some have religious or spiritual views. Despite the prevailing secular attitude, some transhumanists pursue hopes traditionally espoused by religions, such as immortality, while several controversial new religious movements from the late 20th century have explicitly embraced transhumanist goals of transforming the human condition by applying technology to alter the mind and body, such as Raëlism. But most thinkers associated with the transhumanism focus on the practical goals of using technology to help achieve longer and healthier lives, while speculating that future understanding of neurotheology and the application of neurotechnology will enable humans to gain greater control of altered states of consciousness, which were commonly interpreted as spiritual experiences, and thus achieve more profound self-knowledge. Transhumanist Buddhists have sought to explore areas of agreement between various types of Buddhism and Buddhist-derived meditation and mind-expanding neurotechnologies. They have been criticised for appropriating mindfulness as a tool for transcending humanness.

Some transhumanists believe in the compatibility between the human mind and computer hardware, with the theoretical implication that human consciousness may someday be transferred to alternative media (a speculative technique commonly known as mind uploading). One extreme formulation of this idea that interests some transhumanists is the proposal of the Omega Point by Christian cosmologist Frank Tipler. Drawing upon ideas in digitalism, Tipler has advanced the notion that the collapse of the Universe billions of years hence could create the conditions for the perpetuation of humanity in a simulated reality within a megacomputer and thus achieve a form of "posthuman godhood". Before Tipler, the term Omega Point was used by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit theologian who saw an evolutionary telos in the development of an encompassing noosphere, a global consciousness.

Viewed from the perspective of some Christian thinkers, the idea of mind uploading is asserted to represent a denigration of the human body, characteristic of gnostic manichaean belief. Transhumanism and its presumed intellectual progenitors have also been described as neo-gnostic by non-Christian and secular commentators.

The first dialogue between transhumanism and faith was a one-day conference at the University of Toronto in 2004. Religious critics alone faulted transhumanism for offering no eternal truths or relationship with the divine. They commented that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie. Transhumanists responded that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of transhumanist philosophy, which, far from being cynical, is rooted in optimistic, idealistic attitudes that trace back to the Enlightenment. Following this dialogue, William Sims Bainbridge, a sociologist of religion, conducted a pilot study, published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, suggesting that religious attitudes were negatively correlated with acceptance of transhumanist ideas and indicating that people with highly religious worldviews tended to perceive transhumanism as a direct, competitive (though ultimately futile) affront to their spiritual beliefs.

Since 2006, the Mormon Transhumanist Association sponsors conferences and lectures on the intersection of technology and religion. The Christian Transhumanist Association was established in 2014.

Since 2009, the American Academy of Religion holds a "Transhumanism and Religion" consultation during its annual meeting, where scholars in the field of religious studies seek to identify and critically evaluate any implicit religious beliefs that might underlie key transhumanist claims and assumptions; consider how transhumanism challenges religious traditions to develop their own ideas of the human future, in particular the prospect of human transformation, whether by technological or other means; and provide critical and constructive assessments of an envisioned future that place greater confidence in nanotechnology, robotics and information technology to achieve virtual immortality and create a superior posthuman species.

The physicist and transhumanist thinker Giulio Prisco states that "cosmist religions based on science, might be our best protection from reckless pursuit of superintelligence and other risky technologies." He also recognizes the importance of spiritual ideas, such as those of Russian Orthodox philosopher Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov, to the origins of the transhumanism movement.

Practice

While some transhumanists take an abstract and theoretical approach to the perceived benefits of emerging technologies, others have offered specific proposals for modifications to the human body, including heritable ones. Transhumanists are often concerned with methods of enhancing the human nervous system. Though some, such as Kevin Warwick, propose modification of the peripheral nervous system, the brain is considered the common denominator of personhood and is thus a primary focus of transhumanist ambitions.

In fact, Warwick has gone a lot further than merely making a proposal. In 2002 he had a 100 electrode array surgically implanted into the median nerves of his left arm to link his nervous system directly with a computer and thus to also connect with the internet. As a consequence, he carried out a series of experiments. He was able to directly control a robot hand using his neural signals and to feel the force applied by the hand through feedback from the fingertips. He also experienced a form of ultrasonic sensory input and conducted the first purely electronic communication between his own nervous system and that of his wife who also had electrodes implanted.

As proponents of self-improvement and body modification, transhumanists tend to use existing technologies and techniques that supposedly improve cognitive and physical performance, while engaging in routines and lifestyles designed to improve health and longevity. Depending on their age, some transhumanists express concern that they will not live to reap the benefits of future technologies. However, many have a great interest in life extension strategies and in funding research in cryonics to make the latter a viable option of last resort, rather than remaining an unproven method.

While most transhumanist theory focuses on future technologies and the changes they may bring, many today are already involved in the practice on a very basic level. It is not uncommon for many to receive cosmetic changes to their physical form via cosmetic surgery, even if it is not required for health reasons. Human growth hormones attempt to alter the natural development of shorter children or those who have been born with a physical deficiency. Doctors prescribe medicines such as Ritalin and Adderall to improve cognitive focus, and many people take "lifestyle" drugs such as Viagra, Propecia, and Botox to restore aspects of youthfulness that have been lost in maturity.

Other transhumanists, such as cyborg artist Neil Harbisson, use technologies and techniques to improve their senses and perception of reality. Harbisson's antenna, which is permanently implanted in his skull, allows him to sense colours beyond human perception such as infrareds and ultraviolets.

Technologies of interest

Main article: Human enhancement technologies

Transhumanists support the emergence and convergence of technologies including nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), as well as hypothetical future technologies like simulated reality, artificial intelligence, superintelligence, 3D bioprinting, mind uploading, chemical brain preservation and cryonics. They believe that humans can and should use these technologies to become more than human. Therefore, they support the recognition and/or protection of cognitive liberty, morphological freedom and procreative liberty as civil liberties, so as to guarantee individuals the choice of using human enhancement technologies on themselves and their children. Some speculate that human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies may facilitate more radical human enhancement no later than at the midpoint of the 21st century. Kurzweil's book The Singularity is Near and Michio Kaku's book Physics of the Future outline various human enhancement technologies and give insight on how these technologies may impact the human race.

Some reports on the converging technologies and NBIC concepts have criticised their transhumanist orientation and alleged science fictional character. At the same time, research on brain and body alteration technologies has been accelerated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Defense, which is interested in the battlefield advantages they would provide to the supersoldiers of the United States and its allies. There has already been a brain research program to "extend the ability to manage information", while military scientists are now looking at stretching the human capacity for combat to a maximum 168 hours without sleep.

Neuroscientist Anders Sandberg has been practicing on the method of scanning ultra-thin sections of the brain. This method is being used to help better understand the architecture of the brain. It is currently being used on mice. This is the first step towards hypothetically uploading contents of the human brain, including memories and emotions, onto a computer.

Some detractors have criticized transhumanists' views on human enhancement, arguing that the pursuit of radical transformation could undermine human dignity and identity. Critics also contend that transhumanists often underestimate the ethical complexities and potential unintended consequences of their proposed technologies, such as exacerbating social inequalities or creating unforeseen risks to individuals and society. These concerns have led to debates about whether transhumanist ideals prioritize technological progress over considerations of moral and societal responsibility (McNamee, Michael J.; Edwards, Steven D. (2006). "Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery Slopes". Journal of Medical Ethics. 32 (9): 513–518. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013789. PMC 2563415. PMID 16943331.).

Debate

The very notion and prospect of human enhancement and related issues arouse public controversy. Criticisms of transhumanism and its proposals take two main forms: those objecting to the likelihood of transhumanist goals being achieved (practical criticisms) and those objecting to the moral principles or worldview sustaining transhumanist proposals or underlying transhumanism itself (ethical criticisms). Critics and opponents often see transhumanists' goals as posing threats to human values.

The human enhancement debate is, for some, framed by the opposition between strong bioconservatism and transhumanism. The former opposes any form of human enhancement, whereas the latter advocates for all possible human enhancements. But many philosophers hold a more nuanced view in favour of some enhancements while rejecting the transhumanist carte blanche approach.

Some of the most widely known critiques of the transhumanist program are novels and fictional films. These works, despite presenting imagined worlds rather than philosophical analyses, are used as touchstones for some of the more formal arguments. Various arguments have been made to the effect that a society that adopts human enhancement technologies may come to resemble the dystopia depicted in the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

On another front, some authors consider humanity already transhuman, because medical advances in recent centuries have significantly altered our species. But this has not happened in a conscious and therefore transhumanistic way. From such a perspective, transhumanism is perpetually aspirational: as new technologies become mainstream, the adoption of new yet-unadopted technologies becomes a new shifting goal.

Feasibility

In a 1992 book, sociologist Max Dublin pointed to many past failed predictions of technological progress and argued that modern futurist predictions would prove similarly inaccurate. He also objected to what he saw as scientism, fanaticism and nihilism by a few in advancing transhumanist causes. Dublin also said that historical parallels existed between Millenarian religions and Communist doctrines.

Although generally sympathetic to transhumanism, public health professor Gregory Stock is skeptical of the technical feasibility and mass appeal of the cyborgization of humanity predicted by Raymond Kurzweil, Hans Moravec and Kevin Warwick. He said that, throughout the 21st century, many humans will be deeply integrated into systems of machines, but remain biological. Primary changes to their own form and character would arise not from cyberware, but from the direct manipulation of their genetics, metabolism and biochemistry.

In her 1992 book Science as Salvation, philosopher Mary Midgley traces the notion of achieving immortality by transcendence of the material human body (echoed in the transhumanist tenet of mind uploading) to a group of male scientific thinkers of the early 20th century, including J. B. S. Haldane and members of his circle. She characterizes these ideas as "quasi-scientific dreams and prophesies" involving visions of escape from the body coupled with "self-indulgent, uncontrolled power-fantasies". Her argument focuses on what she perceives as the pseudoscientific speculations and irrational, fear-of-death-driven fantasies of these thinkers, their disregard for laymen and the remoteness of their eschatological visions.

Another critique is aimed mainly at "algeny" (a portmanteau of alchemy and genetics), which Jeremy Rifkin defined as "the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of 'perfecting' their performance". It emphasizes the issue of biocomplexity and the unpredictability of attempts to guide the development of products of biological evolution. This argument, elaborated in particular by the biologist Stuart Newman, is based on the recognition that cloning and germline genetic engineering of animals are error-prone and inherently disruptive of embryonic development. Accordingly, so it is argued, it would create unacceptable risks to use such methods on human embryos. Performing experiments, particularly ones with permanent biological consequences, on developing humans would thus be in violation of accepted principles governing research on human subjects (see the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki). Moreover, because improvements in experimental outcomes in one species are not automatically transferable to a new species without further experimentation, it is claimed that there is no ethical route to genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages.

As a practical matter, international protocols on human subject research may not present a legal obstacle to attempts by transhumanists and others to improve their offspring by germinal choice technology. According to legal scholar Kirsten Rabe Smolensky, existing laws protect parents who choose to enhance their child's genome from future liability arising from adverse outcomes of the procedure.

Transhumanists and other supporters of human genetic engineering do not dismiss practical concerns out of hand, insofar as there is a high degree of uncertainty about the timelines and likely outcomes of genetic modification experiments in humans. But bioethicist James Hughes suggests that one possible ethical route to the genetic manipulation of humans at early developmental stages is the building of computer models of the human genome, the proteins it specifies and the tissue engineering he argues that it also codes for. With the exponential progress in bioinformatics, Hughes believes that a virtual model of genetic expression in the human body will not be far behind and that it will soon be possible to accelerate approval of genetic modifications by simulating their effects on virtual humans. Public health professor Gregory Stock points to artificial chromosomes as a safer alternative to existing genetic engineering techniques.

Thinkers who defend the likelihood of accelerating change point to a past pattern of exponential increases in humanity's technological capacities. Kurzweil developed this position in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near.

Intrinsic immorality

It has been argued that, in transhumanist thought, humans attempt to substitute themselves for God. The 2002 Vatican statement Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, stated that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral", implying, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". The statement also argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "realizing more fully the image of God". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical transhumanism promises, such as indefinite life extension or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of utopian movements which seek to create "heaven on earth". On the other hand, religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and Ted Peters hold that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.

Other critics target what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body in the writings of Minsky, Moravec, and some other transhumanists. Reflecting a strain of feminist criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher Susan Bordo points to "contemporary obsessions with slenderness, youth and physical perfection", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture." Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on body modification. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of atomized individualism and body commodification within a consumer culture.

Bostrom responds that the desire to regain youth, specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the Human Genome Project and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.

Loss of human identity

In the U.S., the Amish are a religious group most known for their avoidance of certain modern technologies. Transhumanists draw a parallel by arguing that in the near-future there will probably be "humanish", people who choose to "stay human" by not adopting human enhancement technologies. They believe their choice must be respected and protected.

In his 2003 book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued at length against many of the technologies that are postulated or supported by transhumanists, including germinal choice technology, nanomedicine and life extension strategies. He claims that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome technologically. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using as examples Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish.

Biopolitical activist Jeremy Rifkin and biologist Stuart Newman accept that biotechnology has the power to make profound changes in organismal identity. They argue against the genetic engineering of human beings because they fear the blurring of the boundary between human and artifact. Philosopher Keekok Lee sees such developments as part of an accelerating trend in modernization in which technology has been used to transform the "natural" into the "artefactual". In the extreme, this could lead to the manufacturing and enslavement of "monsters" such as human clones, human-animal chimeras, or bioroids, but even lesser dislocations of humans and non-humans from social and ecological systems are seen as problematic. The film Blade Runner (1982) and the novels The Boys From Brazil (1976) and The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) depict elements of such scenarios, but Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is most often alluded to by critics who suggest that biotechnologies could create objectified and socially unmoored people as well as subhumans. Such critics propose that strict measures be implemented to prevent what they portray as dehumanizing possibilities from ever happening, usually in the form of an international ban on human genetic engineering.

Science journalist Ronald Bailey claims that McKibben's historical examples are flawed and support different conclusions when studied more closely. For example, few groups are more cautious than the Amish about embracing new technologies, but, though they shun television and use horses and buggies, some are welcoming the possibilities of gene therapy since inbreeding has afflicted them with a number of rare genetic diseases. Bailey and other supporters of technological alteration of human biology also reject the claim that life would be experienced as meaningless if some human limitations are overcome with enhancement technologies as extremely subjective.

Writing in Reason magazine, Bailey has accused opponents of research involving the modification of animals as indulging in alarmism when they speculate about the creation of subhuman creatures with human-like intelligence and brains resembling those of Homo sapiens. Bailey insists that the aim of conducting research on animals is simply to produce human health care benefits.

A different response comes from transhumanist personhood theorists who object to what they characterize as the anthropomorphobia fueling some criticisms of this research, which science fiction writer Isaac Asimov termed the "Frankenstein complex". For example, Woody Evans argues that, provided they are self-aware, human clones, human-animal chimeras and uplifted animals would all be unique persons deserving of respect, dignity, rights, responsibilities, and citizenship. They conclude that the coming ethical issue is not the creation of so-called monsters, but what they characterize as the "yuck factor" and "human-racism", that would judge and treat these creations as monstrous. In book 3 of his Corrupting the Image series, Douglas Hamp goes so far as to suggest that the Beast of John's Apocalypse is himself a hybrid who will induce humanity to take "the mark of the Beast," in the hopes of obtaining perfection and immortality.

At least one public interest organization, the U.S.-based Center for Genetics and Society, was formed, in 2001, with the specific goal of opposing transhumanist agendas that involve transgenerational modification of human biology, such as full-term human cloning and germinal choice technology. The Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future of the Chicago-Kent College of Law critically scrutinizes proposed applications of genetic and nanotechnologies to human biology in an academic setting.

Socioeconomic effects

Some critics of libertarian transhumanism have focused on the likely socioeconomic consequences in societies in which divisions between rich and poor are on the rise. Bill McKibben, for example, suggests that emerging human enhancement technologies would be disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating the gap between rich and poor and creating a "genetic divide". Even Lee M. Silver, the biologist and science writer who coined the term "reprogenetics" and supports its applications, has expressed concern that these methods could create a two-tiered society of genetically engineered "haves" and "have nots" if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of enhancement technologies. The 1997 film Gattaca depicts a dystopian society in which one's social class depends entirely on genetic potential and is often cited by critics in support of these views.

These criticisms are also voiced by non-libertarian transhumanist advocates, especially self-described democratic transhumanists, who believe that the majority of current or future social and environmental issues (such as unemployment and resource depletion) must be addressed by a combination of political and technological solutions (like a guaranteed minimum income and alternative technology). Therefore, on the specific issue of an emerging genetic divide due to unequal access to human enhancement technologies, bioethicist James Hughes, in his 2004 book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, argues that progressives or, more precisely, techno-progressives, must articulate and implement public policies (i.e., a universal health care voucher system that covers human enhancement technologies) to attenuate this problem as much as possible, rather than trying to ban human enhancement technologies. The latter, he argues, might actually worsen the problem by making these technologies unsafe or available only to the wealthy on the local black market or in countries where such a ban is not enforced.

Sometimes, as in the writings of Leon Kass, the fear is that various institutions and practices judged as fundamental to civilized society would be damaged or destroyed. In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future and in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, political economist and philosopher Francis Fukuyama designates transhumanism as the world's most dangerous idea because he believes it may undermine the egalitarian ideals of democracy (in general) and liberal democracy (in particular) through a fundamental alteration of "human nature". Social philosopher Jürgen Habermas makes a similar argument in his 2003 book The Future of Human Nature, in which he asserts that moral autonomy depends on not being subject to another's unilaterally imposed specifications. Habermas thus suggests that the human "species ethic" would be undermined by embryo-stage genetic alteration. Critics such as Kass and Fukuyama hold that attempts to significantly alter human biology are not only inherently immoral, but also threaten the social order. Alternatively, they argue that implementation of such technologies would likely lead to the "naturalizing" of social hierarchies or place new means of control in the hands of totalitarian regimes. AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum criticizes what he sees as misanthropic tendencies in the language and ideas of some of his colleagues, in particular Minsky and Moravec, which, by devaluing the human organism per se, promotes a discourse that enables divisive and undemocratic social policies.

In a 2004 article in the libertarian monthly Reason, science journalist Ronald Bailey contested Fukuyama's assertions by arguing that political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology. He asserts that liberalism was founded not on the proposition of effective equality of human beings, or de facto equality, but on the assertion of an equality in political rights and before the law, or de jure equality. Bailey asserts that the products of genetic engineering may well ameliorate rather than exacerbate human inequality, giving to the many what were once the privileges of the few. Moreover, he argues, "the crowning achievement of the Enlightenment is the principle of tolerance". In fact, he says, political liberalism is already the solution to the issue of human and posthuman rights since in liberal societies the law is meant to apply equally to all, no matter how rich or poor, powerful or powerless, educated or ignorant, enhanced or unenhanced. Other thinkers sympathetic to transhumanist ideas, such as Russell Blackford, have also objected to the appeal to tradition and what they see as alarmism involved in Brave New World-type arguments.

Cultural aesthetics

In addition to the socioeconomic risks and implications of transhumanism, there are indeed implications and possible consequences in regard to cultural aesthetics. Currently, there are a number of ways in which people choose to represent themselves in society. The way in which a person dresses, hair styles, and body alteration all serve to identify the way a person presents themselves and is perceived by society. According to Foucault, society already governs and controls bodies by making them feel watched. This "surveillance" of society dictates how the majority of individuals choose to express themselves aesthetically.

One of the risks outlined in a 2004 article by Jerold Abrams is the elimination of differences in favor of universality. This, he argues, will eliminate the ability of individuals to subvert the possibly oppressive, dominant structure of society by way of uniquely expressing themselves externally. Such control over a population would have dangerous implications of tyranny. Yet another consequence of enhancing the human form not only cognitively, but physically, will be the reinforcement of "desirable" traits which are perpetuated by the dominant social structure.

New eugenics

Main article: New eugenics

The tradition of human enhancement originated with the eugenics movement that was once prominent in the biological sciences, and was later politicized in various ways. This continuity is especially clear in the case of Julian Huxley himself.

The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "new eugenics", a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics. In their 2000 book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, non-transhumanist bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.

Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to human-posthuman caste warfare.

Existential risks

See also: Existential risk studies and Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence

In his 2003 book Our Final Hour, British Astronomer Royal Martin Rees argues that advanced science and technology bring as much risk of disaster as opportunity for progress. However, Rees does not advocate a halt to scientific activity. Instead, he calls for tighter security and perhaps an end to traditional scientific openness. Advocates of the precautionary principle, such as many in the environmental movement, also favor slow, careful progress or a halt in potentially dangerous areas. Some precautionists believe that artificial intelligence and robotics present possibilities of alternative forms of cognition that may threaten human life.

Transhumanists do not necessarily rule out specific restrictions on emerging technologies so as to lessen the prospect of existential risk. Generally, however, they counter that proposals based on the precautionary principle are often unrealistic and sometimes even counter-productive as opposed to the technogaian current of transhumanism, which they claim is both realistic and productive. In his television series Connections, science historian James Burke dissects several views on technological change, including precautionism and the restriction of open inquiry. Burke questions the practicality of some of these views, but concludes that maintaining the status quo of inquiry and development poses hazards of its own, such as a disorienting rate of change and the depletion of our planet's resources. The common transhumanist position is a pragmatic one where society takes deliberate action to ensure the early arrival of the benefits of safe, clean, alternative technology, rather than fostering what it considers to be anti-scientific views and technophobia.

Nick Bostrom argues that even barring the occurrence of a singular global catastrophic event, basic Malthusian and evolutionary forces facilitated by technological progress threaten to eliminate the positive aspects of human society.

One transhumanist solution proposed by Bostrom to counter existential risks is control of differential technological development, a series of attempts to influence the sequence in which technologies are developed. In this approach, planners would strive to retard the development of possibly harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of likely beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful effects of others.

In their 2021 book Calamity Theory, Joshua Schuster and Derek Woods critique existential risks by arguing against Bostrom’s transhumanist perspective, which emphasizes controlling and mitigating these risks through technological advancements. They contend that this approach relies too much on fringe science and speculative technologies and fails to address deeper philosophical and ethical problems about the nature of human existence and its limitations. Instead, they advocate an approach more grounded in secular existentialist philosophy, focusing on mental fortitude, community resilience, international peacebuilding, and environmental stewardship to better cope with existential risks.

Antinatalism and pronatalism

Although most people focus on the scientific and technological barriers on the road to human enhancement, Robbert Zandbergen argues that contemporary transhumanists' failure to critically engage the cultural current of antinatalism is a far bigger obstacle to a posthuman future. Antinatalism is a stance seeking to discourage, restrict, or terminate human reproduction to solve existential problems. If transhumanists fail to take this threat to human continuity seriously, they run the risk of seeing the collapse of the entire edifice of radical enhancement.

Simone and Malcolm Collins, founders of Pronatalist.org, are activists known primarily for their views and advocacy related to a secular and voluntaristic form of pronatalism, a stance encouraging higher birth rates to reverse demographic decline and its negative implications for the viability of modern societies and the possibility of a better future. Critical of transhumanism, they have expressed concern that life extension would worsen the problem of gerontocracy, causing toxic imbalances in power. The Collinses lament that voluntarily childfree transhumanists who "want to live forever believe they are the epitome of centuries of human cultural and biological evolution. They don’t think they can make kids that are better than them."

In news media

Common enemy to anti-democratic movements

Transhumanism has increasingly been co-opted by anti-democratic movements as a common enemy stereotype. These movements range from Putin sympathizers to radical anti-vaxxers and Christian fundamentalists. Critics argue that nonsensical claims often stem from deliberate ignorance, and terms like "Putin sympathizer" or "conspiracy theorist" are used to defame legitimate criticism.

Political scientists like Markus Linden point out that Putin, in his speeches, argues against the so-called "liberal-globalist American egocentrism" and cancel culture, which parallels the agitation seen in alternative media. These discourses also occur on platforms like Nachdenkseiten, Rubikon, and Compact, where they are presented as analyses of the decline of Western democracy.

The propagandistic use of the term "transhumanism" aims to create a comprehensive counter-narrative that unites right-wing extremists, theocratic groups, and liberals. Transhumanism is portrayed as a threat to traditional values and human nature. These narratives can also be found among ideologues like Alexander Dugin, who condemns transhumanism as the work of the devil, and Christian fundamentalists who equate it with the denial of traditional values.

The use of the term "transhumanism" as an ideological rallying point for the Querfront is also evident in the fusion of right-wing, left-wing, and libertarian ideas that collectively oppose liberal democracies. This development emphasizes individual conceptions of humanity that are often incompatible with a pluralistic society. It requires a critical examination of the political implications of transhumanism and its instrumentalization by anti-democratic forces.

See also

References

  1. Mercer, Calvin; Throten, Tracy J., eds. (2015). Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement. Praeger. ISBN 978-1-4408-3325-0.
  2. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2005). "A history of transhumanist thought" (PDF). Journal of Evolution and Technology. 14 (1): 1–25. Retrieved February 21, 2006.
  3. Hopkins, P. D. (2012). "Transhumanism". Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition): 414–422. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00243-X. ISBN 978-0-12-373932-2.
  4. "We May Look Crazy to Them, But They Look Like Zombies to Us: Transhumanism as a Political Challenge". Archived from the original on November 6, 2016. Retrieved January 25, 2016.
  5. ^ Schuster, Joshua; Woods, Derek (2021). Calamity Theory: Three Critiques of Existential Risk. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781517912918.
  6. ^ Huxley, Julian (1957). "Transhumanism". New Bottles for New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus. pp. 13–17. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  7. ^ Hughes, James (2004). Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-4198-9. OCLC 56632213.
  8. Gelles, David (2009). "Immortality 2.0: a silicon valley insider looks at California's Transhumanist movement". Archived from the original on May 12, 2012. Retrieved April 14, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. Google Ngram Viewer. Retrieved April 25, 2013.
  10. "Journal of Posthuman Studies: Philosophy, Technology, Media".
  11. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz (2010). "Beyond Humanism: Reflections on Trans- and Posthumanism". Journal of Evolution and Technology. Retrieved May 24, 2023. Section 9.
  12. Levine, Susan B. (2021). "Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics". Posthuman Bliss? The Failed Promise of Transhumanism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190051495.
  13. Gebru, Timnit; Torres, Émile P. (2024). "The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence". First Monday. 29 (4). doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636.
  14. Porter, Allen (June 1, 2017). "Bioethics and Transhumanism". The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. 42 (3): 237–260. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhx001. PMID 28499043. Archived from the original on December 7, 2017. Retrieved May 30, 2023.
  15. Vita-More, Natasha (2012). Life Expansion. University of Plymouth. pp. 74–75. See also Harrison, Peter; Wolyniak, Joseph (2015). "The History of 'Transhumanism'". Notes and Queries. 62 (3): 465–467. doi:10.1093/notesj/gjv080. ISSN 0029-3970.
  16. "Trasumanar (neologism)". danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu. Retrieved August 24, 2021.
  17. "Paradiso 1 – Digital Dante". digitaldante.columbia.edu. Retrieved August 24, 2021.
  18. "BioEdge: Was Dante a transhumanist?". BioEdge. Archived from the original on August 24, 2021. Retrieved August 24, 2021.
  19. Bainbridge, W.S. (2011). Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. p. 582. ISBN 978-1-4522-6652-7. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
  20. Manzocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism - Engineering the Human Condition: History, Philosophy and Current Status. Springer Praxis Books. Springer International Publishing. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-030-04958-4. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
  21. Renée Mirkes. Transhumanist Medicine: Can We Direct Its Power to the Service of Human Dignity? The Linacre Quarterly, March 29, 2019
  22. "Godwin, William (1756–1836) – Introduction". Gothic Literature. enotes.com. 2008. Archived from the original on August 28, 2008. Retrieved August 9, 2008.
  23. Lewandowski, K.; Kretschmer, B.; Schmidt, K. W. (2021). "175 Jahre Anästhesie und Narkose – Auf dem Weg zu einem "Menschenrecht auf Ohnmacht"". Der Anaesthesist. 70 (10): 811–831. doi:10.1007/s00101-021-01043-1. ISSN 0003-2417. PMC 8444521. PMID 34529093.
  24. ^ Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz (March 2009). "Nietzsche, the Overhuman, and Transhumanism". Journal of Evolution and Technology. 20 (1): 29–42.
  25. Blackford, Russell (2010). "Editorial: Nietzsche and European Posthumanisms". Journal of Evolution and Technology.
  26. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz (April 24, 2012). "Was Nietzsche a Transhumanist?". IEET News.
  27. ^ "The Transhumanist Declaration" (PDF). Retrieved May 24, 2023.
  28. "Art works by Russian cosmism painter XX – XXI ct. Catalogue of exhibition 2013 | Soviet Era Museum". sovieteramuseum.com. Retrieved June 24, 2018.
  29. FM-2030 (1989). Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-0-446-38806-1. OCLC 18134470.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  30. Haldane, J.B.S. (1923). Daedalus or, Science and the Future (PDF). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 15, 2021.
  31. Clarke, Arthur C. (2000). Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds. St Martin's Griffin, New York.
  32. Harrison, Peter & Wolyniak, Joseph (2015). "The History of 'Transhumanism'". Notes and Queries. 62 (3): 465–467. doi:10.1093/notesj/gjv080.
  33. Hutton, Christopher. "Google's Glass Castle: The Rise and Fear of a Transhuman Future". PopMatters.
  34. Lin (2010), p. 24
  35. Lin, Zhongjie (2010). Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist Movement: Urban Utopias of Modern Japan. Routledge. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-1-135-28198-4.
  36. I.J. Good, "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine" (HTML Archived November 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine), Advances in Computers, vol. 6, 1965.
  37. Minsky, Marvin (1960). "Steps toward artificial intelligence". pp. 406–450. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.79.7413.
  38. ^ Moravec, Hans (1998). "When will computer hardware match the human brain?". Journal of Evolution and Technology. 1. Retrieved June 23, 2006.
  39. Kurzweil, Raymond (1999). The Age of Spiritual Machines. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-0-670-88217-5. OCLC 224295064.
  40. Devlin, Hannah (November 18, 2016). "The cryonics dilemma: will deep-frozen bodies be fit for new life?". The Guardian. Retrieved September 22, 2018.
  41. Ettinger, Robert (1974). Man into Superman. Avon. ISBN 978-0-380-00047-0. Archived from the original on August 28, 2013.
  42. FM-2030 (1973). UpWingers: A Futurist Manifesto (Available as an eBook: FW00007527 ed.). New York: John Day Co. ISBN 978-0-381-98243-0. OCLC 600299.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  43. "FM-2030: Are You Transhuman?". YouTube. October 2013. Archived from the original on October 30, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  44. "EZTV Media". Retrieved May 1, 2006.
  45. Regis, Ed (1990). Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge. Perseus Books.
  46. Vita-More, Natasha (2003) . "Transhumanist arts statement". Retrieved February 16, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  47. Drexler 1986
  48. ^ More, Max (1990). "Transhumanism: a futurist philosophy". Archived from the original on October 29, 2005. Retrieved November 14, 2005. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  49. ^ Hughes, James (2005). "Report on the 2005 interests and beliefs survey of the members of the World Transhumanist Association" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 24, 2006. Retrieved February 26, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  50. World Transhumanist Association (2002). "The Transhumanist Declaration". Archived from the original on September 10, 2006. Retrieved April 3, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  51. Kirsch, Adam (June 20, 2020). "Looking Forward to the End of Humanity". The Wall Street Journal.
  52. ^ Humanity+. "What is Transhumanism?". Retrieved December 5, 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  53. ^ Ford, Alyssa (May–June 2005). "Humanity: The Remix". Utne Magazine. Retrieved March 3, 2007.
  54. Saletan, William (June 4, 2006). "Among the Transhumanists". Slate.
  55. Extropy Institute (2006). "Next Steps". Retrieved May 5, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  56. Newitz, Annalee (2008). "Can Futurism Escape the 1990s?". Io9. Retrieved November 18, 2008.
  57. Stambler, Ilia. "The Longevity Party – Who Needs it? Who Wants it?". IEET. Retrieved August 23, 2012.
  58. "A Single-Issue Political Party for Longevity Science". Fight Aging!. July 27, 2012.
  59. "About". Mormon Transhumanist Association. Archived from the original on January 11, 2019. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  60. "Member Survey Results". Mormon Transhumanist Association. Archived from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved June 4, 2016.
  61. "Italy elects first transhumanist MP". Kurzweilai.net. Retrieved April 25, 2013.
  62. Umbrello, Steven; Lombard, Jessica (December 14, 2018). "Silence of the Idols: Appropriating the Myth of Sisyphus for Posthumanist Discourses". Postmodern Openings. 9 (4): 98–121. doi:10.18662/po/47. hdl:2318/1686606. ISSN 2069-9387.
  63. Evans, W. (June 2022). "Review of On Transhumanism". Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation. 38 (2): 271–74. doi:10.13169/prometheus.38.2.0271. S2CID 252023683.
  64. ^ Fukuyama, Francis (September–October 2004). "The world's most dangerous ideas: transhumanism" (reprint). Foreign Policy (144): 42–43. doi:10.2307/4152980. JSTOR 4152980. Retrieved November 14, 2008.
  65. Hook, Christopher (2004). "Transhumanism and Posthumanism" (PDF). In Post, Stephen G. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. pp. 2517–2520. ISBN 978-0-02-865774-5. OCLC 52622160.
  66. Winner, Langdon (Fall 2002). "Are Humans Obsolete?" (PDF). The Hedgehog Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2008. Retrieved December 10, 2007.
  67. Coenen, Christopher (2007). "Utopian Aspects of the Debate on Converging Technologies" (PDF). In Banse, Gerhard; et al. (eds.). Assessing Societal Implications of Converging Technological Development (1st ed.). Berlin: edition sigma. pp. 141–172. ISBN 978-3-89404-941-6. OCLC 198816396. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 28, 2011. Retrieved August 22, 2008.
  68. MacFarlane, James Michael (2020), "The Techno-Centred Imagination", Transhumanism as a New Social Movement, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 205–233, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40090-3_8, ISBN 978-3-030-40089-7, S2CID 219495940
  69. Bostrom, Nick. "Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up" (PDF). Retrieved December 10, 2007.
  70. Umbrello, Steven (October 17, 2018). "Posthumanism". Con Texte. 2 (1): 28–32. doi:10.28984/ct.v2i1.279. ISSN 2561-4770.
  71. Badmington, Neil (Winter 2003). "Theorizing Posthumanism". Cultural Critique. Retrieved December 10, 2007.
  72. ^ Hayles, N. Katherine (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-32146-2. OCLC 186409073.
  73. Inniss, Patrick. "Transhumanism: The Next Step?". Archived from the original on November 6, 2007. Retrieved December 10, 2007.
  74. Winner, Langdon (2005). "Resistance is Futile: The Posthuman Condition and Its Advocates". In Bailie, Harold; Casey, Timothy (eds.). Is Human Nature Obsolete?. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: M.I.T. Press. pp. 385–411. ISBN 978-0-262-52428-5.
  75. Management Association, Information Resources (2015). Public Affairs and Administration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. p. 2192. ISBN 978-1-4666-8359-4.
  76. Lemmons, Phil (April 1985). "Artificial Intelligence". BYTE. p. 125. Archived from the original on 20 April 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
  77. ^ Kurzweil, Raymond (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-0-670-03384-3. OCLC 224517172.
  78. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2002). "Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios". Retrieved February 21, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  79. Hawking, Stephen. "Life in the Universe". Public Lectures. University of Cambridge. Archived from the original on April 21, 2006. Retrieved May 11, 2006.
  80. ^ Pellissier, Hank. "Do all Transhumanists Want Immortality? No? Why Not?" Futurist 46.6 (2012): 65-. Web.
  81. Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential: A Cosmic Vision of Our Future Evolution, Ted Chu 2014
  82. The thinker's guide to ethical reasoning, Linda Elder and Richard Paul 2013
  83. How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age Theodore Schick
  84. Ten Billion Tomorrows: How Science Fiction Technology Became Reality and Shapes the Future, Brian Clegg 2015
  85. Bostrom, Nick; Sandberg, Anders (2007). "The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement" (PDF). Nick Bostrom. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
  86. ^ Hughes, James (2002). "The politics of transhumanism". Retrieved December 14, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  87. Tennison, Michael (2012). "Moral transhumanism: the next step". The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 37 (4). J Med Philos: 405–416. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhs024. PMID 22855738.
  88. ^ McNamee, M. J.; Edwards, S. D. (2006). "Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes". Journal of Medical Ethics. 32 (9): 513–518. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.013789. JSTOR 27719694. PMC 2563415. PMID 16943331.
  89. "Transhumanist Values". nickbostrom.com. Retrieved December 21, 2022.
  90. ^ "The Hedonistic Imperative". www.hedweb.com. Retrieved December 21, 2022.
  91. World Transhumanist Association (2002–2005). "What currents are there within transhumanism?". Archived from the original on October 16, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  92. ^ Hughes, James (2002). "Democratic Transhumanism 2.0". Retrieved January 26, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  93. Lee, Newton (2019). The Transhumanism Handbook. Springer Nature.
  94. ^ "Immortality Institute".
  95. Dvorsky, George (2008). "Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary". Retrieved April 13, 2008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  96. Gayozzo, Piero (September 20, 2018). Extrapolitical Theory and Postpoliticism - A Transhumanist Political Theory.
  97. Raël (2002). Oui au clonage humain: La vie éternelle grâce à la science. Quebecor. ISBN 978-1-903571-05-7. OCLC 226022543.
  98. Hughes, James (2004). "Technologies of Self-perfection: What would the Buddha do with nanotechnology and psychopharmaceuticals?". Archived from the original on May 10, 2007. Retrieved February 21, 2007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  99. "IEET Cyborg Buddha Project". ieet.org. Archived from the original on October 16, 2014. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
  100. Evans, Woody (2014). "If You See a Cyborg in the Road, Kill the Buddha: Against Transcendental Transhumanism". Journal of Evolution and Technology. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
  101. Sandberg, Anders (2000). "Uploading". Retrieved March 4, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  102. Tipler, Frank J. (1994). The Physics of Immortality. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-19-282147-8. OCLC 16830384.
  103. Steinhart, Eric (December 2008). "Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism". Journal of Evolution and Technology. 20 (1): 1–22.
  104. Burdett, Michael S. (2011). Transhumanism and Transcendence. Georgetown University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-58901-780-1. ...others have made important contributions as well. For example, Freeman Dyson and Frank Tipler in the twentieth century...
  105. Pauls, David (2005). "Transhumanism: 2000 Years in the Making". Archived from the original on October 10, 2006. Retrieved December 5, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  106. ^ Giesen, Klaus-Gerd (2004). "Transhumanisme et génétique humaine". Archived from the original on July 22, 2017. Retrieved April 26, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  107. Davis, Erik (1999). TechGnosis: Myth, Magic, and Mysticism in the Age of Information. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-609-80474-2. OCLC 42925424.
  108. Campbell, Heidi; Walker, Mark Alan (2005). "Religion and transhumanism: introducing a conversation". Journal of Evolution and Technology. Retrieved March 21, 2006.
  109. "TransVision 2004: Faith, Transhumanism and Hope Symposium". Archived from the original on January 4, 2007.
  110. Bainbridge, William Sims (2005). "The Transhuman Heresy". Journal of Evolution and Technology. Retrieved January 2, 2008.
  111. "Mormon Transhumanist Association". YouTube.
  112. "CTA Website". Christian Transhumanist Association.
  113. "AAR: Transhumanism and Religion Consultations". Archived from the original on January 12, 2013.
  114. Prisco, Giulio (September 9, 2014). "Religion as Protection From Reckless Pursuit of Superintelligence and Other Risky Technologies". Turing Church. Archived from the original on May 7, 2016. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
  115. Walker, Mark Alan (March 2002). "Prolegomena to any future philosophy". Journal of Evolution and Technology. 10 (1). ISSN 1541-0099. Retrieved March 2, 2006.
  116. Warwick, K.; Gasson, M.; Hutt, B.; Goodhew, I.; Kyberd, P.; Andrews, B.; Teddy, P.; Shad, A. (2003). "The Application of Implant Technology for Cybernetic Systems". Archives of Neurology. 60 (10): 1369–73. doi:10.1001/archneur.60.10.1369. PMID 14568806.
  117. Kurzweil, Raymond (1993). The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life. Three Rivers Press.
  118. Kurzweil, Raymond (2004). Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-1-57954-954-1. OCLC 56011093.
  119. Elliott, Carl (2003). "Humanity 2.0". The Wilson Quarterly. 27 (4): 13–20. JSTOR 40260800.
  120. Adams, Tim "When man meets metal: rise of the transhumans", The Guardian, 29 October 2017
  121. Naam, Ramez (2005). More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement. Broadway Books. ISBN 978-0-7679-1843-5. OCLC 55878008.
  122. Sandberg, Anders (2001). "Morphological freedom – why we not just want it, but need it". Retrieved February 21, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  123. Kaku, Michio (2011). Physics of the Future. United States: Doubleday. p. 389.
  124. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). "Nanoscience and nanotechnologies (Ch. 6)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 9, 2012. Retrieved December 5, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  125. Moreno, Jonathan D. (2006). Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense. Dana Press. ISBN 978-1-932594-16-4.
  126. Goldblatt, Michael (2002). "DARPA's programs in enhancing human performance". In Roco, Mihail C.; Bainbridge, William Sims (eds.). Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging Technologies in Society (1 ed.). Arlington, VA: Springer. pp. 339–340. ISBN 978-1-4020-4106-8.; cited in McIntosh, Daniel (December 2008). "Human, Transhuman, Posthuman: Implications of Evolution-by-design for Human Security". Journal of Human Security. 4 (3): 4–20. doi:10.3316/JHS0403004. ISSN 1835-3800.
  127. Sandberg, Anders; Boström, Nick (2008). Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap (PDF). Technical Report #2008-3. Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Retrieved April 5, 2009. The basic idea is to take a particular brain, scan its structure in detail, and construct a software model of it that is so faithful to the original that, when run on appropriate hardware, it will behave in essentially the same way as the original brain.
  128. Fan, Xue; Markram, Henry (May 7, 2019). "A Brief History of Simulation Neuroscience". Frontiers in Neuroinformatics. 13: 32. doi:10.3389/fninf.2019.00032. ISSN 1662-5196. PMC 6513977. PMID 31133838.
  129. Garreau, Joel (2006). Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What It Means to Be Human. Broadway. ISBN 978-0-7679-1503-8. OCLC 68624303.
  130. "Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls". The New Atlantis. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
  131. Brennan, Cian (June 1, 2023). "Weak transhumanism: moderate enhancement as a non-radical path to radical enhancement". Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 44 (3): 229–248. doi:10.1007/s11017-023-09606-6. ISSN 1573-1200. PMC 10172256. PMID 36780070.
  132. Fukuyama, Francis (May 1, 2003). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-374-70618-0.
  133. Casas, Miquel (2017). El fin del Homo sapiens: La naturaleza y el transhumanismo. Madrid: 2017. p. 112. ISBN 978-84-16996-35-3.
  134. Dublin, Max (1992). Futurehype: The Tyranny of Prophecy. Plume. ISBN 978-0-452-26800-5. OCLC 236056666.
  135. ^ Stock, Gregory (2002). Redesigning Humans: Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-34083-5. OCLC 51756081.
  136. Midgley, Mary (1992). Science as Salvation. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-06271-8. OCLC 181929611.
  137. Rifkin, Jeremy (1983). Algeny: A New Word--A New World. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-0-670-10885-5.
  138. ^ Newman, Stuart A. (2003). "Averting the clone age: prospects and perils of human developmental manipulation" (PDF). Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. 19 (2): 431–63. PMID 14748253. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 16, 2008. Retrieved September 17, 2008.
  139. Smolensky, Kirsten Rabe (2006). "Parental liability for germline genetic enhancement: to be or not to be? (Public address, Stanford University)". Retrieved June 18, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  140. International Theological Commission (2002). "Communion and stewardship: human persons created in the image of God". Retrieved April 1, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  141. Mitchell, Ben C. & Kilner, John F. (2003). "Remaking Humans: The New Utopians Versus a Truly Human Future". Dignity. 9 (3): 1, 5. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  142. Barratt, Helen (2006). "Transhumanism". Archived from the original on April 2, 2012. Retrieved December 5, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  143. Cole-Turner, Ronald (1993). The New Genesis: Theology and the Genetic Revolution. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-25406-3. OCLC 26402489.
  144. Peters, Ted (1997). Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91522-9. OCLC 35192269.
  145. Bordo, Susan (1993). Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-08883-2. OCLC 27069938.
  146. Alexander, Brian (2000). "Don't die, stay pretty: introducing the ultrahuman makeover". Wired. Retrieved January 8, 2007.
  147. ^ McKibben, Bill (2003). Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. Times Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-7096-5. OCLC 237794777.
  148. Otchet, Amy (1998). "Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world". Archived from the original on September 10, 2005. Retrieved February 20, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  149. Lee, Keekok (1999). The Natural and the Artefactual. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0061-5. OCLC 231842178.
  150. ^ Darnovsky, Marcy (2001). "Health and human rights leaders call for an international ban on species-altering procedures". Retrieved February 21, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  151. Bailey, Ronald (October 2003). "Enough Already". Reason. Retrieved May 31, 2006.
  152. Bailey, Ronald (December 12, 2001). "Right-Wing Biological Dread: The Subhumans are coming! The Subhumans are coming!". Reason. Retrieved January 18, 2007.
  153. Evans, Woody (2015). "Posthuman Rights: Dimensions of Transhuman Worlds". Teknokultura. 12 (2). Universidad Complutense, Madrid: 373–384. doi:10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n2.49072. Retrieved December 5, 2016.
  154. Glenn, Linda MacDonald (2003). "Biotechnology at the margins of personhood: an evolving legal paradigm". Retrieved March 3, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  155. Hamp, Douglas (2022). Corrupting the Image 3: Singularity, Superhumans, and the Second Coming of Jesus. USA: Eskaton Media Group. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-1-63821-417-5.
  156. ^ Silver, Lee M. (1998). Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-380-79243-6. OCLC 40094564.
  157. Kass, Leon (May 21, 2001). "Preventing a Brave New World: why we must ban human cloning now". The New Republic.
  158. Habermas, Jürgen (2004). The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-2987-2. OCLC 49395577.
  159. Platt, Charles (1995). "Superhumanism". Wired. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
  160. Bailey, Ronald (August 25, 2004). "Transhumanism: the most dangerous idea?". Reason. Retrieved February 20, 2006.
  161. Blackford, Russell (2003). "Who's afraid of the Brave New World?". Archived from the original on August 23, 2006. Retrieved February 8, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  162. ^ Abrams, Jerold J. (2004). "Pragmatism, Artificial Intelligence, and Posthuman Bioethics: Shusterman, Rorty, Foucault". Human Studies. 27 (3): 241–258. doi:10.1023/B:HUMA.0000042130.79208.c6. JSTOR 20010374. S2CID 144876752.
  163. Weindling, Paul (June 18, 2024). "Julian Huxley and the Continuity of Eugenics in Twentieth-century Britain". Journal of Modern European History. 10 (4): 480–499. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2012_4. PMC 4366572. PMID 25798079.
  164. Bashford, A.; Levine, P. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of The History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press. p. 545. ISBN 978-0-19-537314-1.
  165. World Transhumanist Association (2002–2005). "Do transhumanists advocate eugenics?". Archived from the original on September 9, 2006. Retrieved April 3, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  166. Buchanan, Allen; Brock, Dan W.; Daniels, Norman; Wikler, Daniel (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66977-1. OCLC 41211380.
  167. Levine, Susan B. (2021). "Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics". Posthuman Bliss? The Failed Promise of Transhumanism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190051495.
  168. Annas, George; Andrews, Lori; Isasi, Rosario (2002). "Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations". 28: 151. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  169. Rees, Martin (2003). Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century—On Earth and Beyond. Basic Books. Bibcode:2003ofhs.book.....R. ISBN 978-0-465-06862-3. OCLC 51315429.
  170. Arnall, Alexander Huw (2003). "Future technologies, today's choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics" (PDF). Greenpeace U.K. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 14, 2006. Retrieved April 29, 2006. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  171. Bostrom, Nick (2009). "The Future of Human Evolution". Bedeutung. 284 (3): 8. Bibcode:2001SciAm.284c...8R. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0301-8.
  172. Zandbergen, Robbert (December 9, 2021). "Morality's Collapse: Antinatalism, Transhumanism and the Future of Humankind". Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies. 31 (1): 1–16. doi:10.55613/jeet.v31i1.76. S2CID 248689623. Retrieved April 5, 2023.
  173. Dodds, Io (April 19, 2023). "Meet the 'elite' couples breeding to save mankind". The Telegraph.
  174. Weiss, Suzy (May 24, 2023). "The Tech Messiahs Who Want to Deliver Us from Death". The Free Press.
  175. ^ Linden, Markus (September 11, 2022). "Ideologischer Kitt für die Querfront". Die Zeit (in German). Retrieved April 25, 2024.

Further reading

  • Adorno, F. P. (2021). The Transhumanist Movement. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-3-030-82423-5.
  • Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed. (2011). Transhumanism and transcendence: Christian hope in an age of technological enhancement. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1-58901-780-1.
  • Frodeman, R. (2019). Transhumanism, Nature, and the Ends of Science. United Kingdom: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-18939-6.
  • Hansell, Gregory R; Grassie, William, eds. (2011). H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics. Philadelphia: Metanexus Institute. ISBN 978-1-45681-567-7.
  • Oliver Krüger: Virtual Immortality: God, Evolution, and the Singularity in Post- and Transhumanism. Bielefeld: transcript 2021. ISBN 978-3-8376-5059-4.
  • Maher, Derek F.; Mercer, Calvin, eds. (2009). Religion and the implications of radical life extension (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10072-5.
  • Mercer, Calvin; Trothen, Tracy, eds. (2014). Religion and transhumanism: the unknown future of human enhancement. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 978-1-4408-3325-0.
  • Mercer, Calvin; Maher, Derek, eds. (2014). Transhumanism and the Body: The World Religions Speak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-36583-5.
  • More, Max; Vita-More, Natasha, eds. (2013). The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future (1.publ. ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-33429-4.
  • Pilsch, A. (2017). Transhumanism: Evolutionary Futurism and the Human Technologies of Utopia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-1-4529-5488-2.
  • Ranisch, Robert; Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz, eds. (2014). Post- and Transhumanism. Bruxelles: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-631-60662-9.

External links

Listen to this article (59 minutes)
Spoken Misplaced Pages iconThis audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 22 November 2008 (2008-11-22), and does not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
Transhumanism
Overviews
Currents
Organizations
People
Emerging technologies
Topics
Global catastrophic risks
Technological
Sociological
Ecological
Climate change
Earth Overshoot Day
Biological
Extinction
Others
Astronomical
Eschatological
Others
Fictional
Organizations
General
Categories: