Should we transcend humanity?
by Vesa Hautala.
Christianity, transhumanism, and EA – part II
This is the second part of a two-part post examining transhumanism, a movement that advocates the use of technology to enhance human capabilities and improve the human condition. (First part here) There is some overlap with transhumanism and parts of the Effective Altruism movement, especially the longtermist space.
Underlying worldviews
Secular transhumanists generally hold a physicalist worldview where God plays no meaningful part. Consequently, they see the world as a sort of an empty canvas: produced by coincidence, containing no intrinsic meaning or purpose. Humans are faulty biological machines produced by blind evolutionary forces. This leaves humanity and the world free to be modified however people desire and technology permits.
Christians on the other hand see the world as created by God and directed towards God. Creation has a purpose and finds its fulfilment in union with God. Humans are created in the image of God. Creation gives humanity intrinsic value.
Creation also sets limits on what is good for humans. Most Christians would probably at least have questions about using one’s “morphological freedom” to radically alter the human form or mental processes. In a survey of members of the World Transhumanist Association in 2005, 95% of respondents answered “No” when asked, “Do you believe there are clear divinely-set limits on what humans should do?”
I do not mean to say secular transhumanists see no value in humans, or that they would see humans only as machines, like some Christian critiques seem to imply. Transhumanists value life and human beings deeply – why would they otherwise be so insistent on what they see as improving the lives of humans and other beings? Rather the difference is that Christians understand humanity and human potential in relationship to God, whereas secular transhumanists do not. Hence their vision of the good of humanity and how to achieve it looks different from the traditional Christian one.
How transcension is achieved
Christianity agrees with transhumanism that we should transcend the current human condition. Humanity is not as it should be; our lives at the present state are far from realising our true potential. There are similarities with Christian eschatological hopes and transhumanist goals. Christians, too, wish to be freed from ageing and death, disease, and all forms of misery. Christians are told to accept suffering in their lives ("to carry the cross"), but their ultimate goal is the New Creation where all suffering ceases. So despite the encouragement to accept or even embrace disease and other hardships that fall upon us as means of spiritual growth, there is nothing fundamentally wrong from a Christian perspective in desiring eternal life or freedom from suffering.
Where I see a difference between classical Christianity and transhumanism is in how this goal is achieved. Christianity has an eschatological vision in which God brings about a radical transformation of the world. Secular transhumanism seems to make this transformation something humans are capable of achieving by their own power. In the previously mentioned survey, 93% of respondents answered “Yes” to the question “Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?” (but the remaining 7% is very interesting).
Still, there is a role for human activity in improving things here and now in Christian thought. Most Christians would happily thank God for freeing the world from smallpox and see no contradiction in saying this was achieved through human efforts and ingenuity. A similar pattern can be found already in the Old Testament: God promises deliverance but works it through people. For example, it is God who delivers Israel from Midianite oppression in the book of Judges, but this deliverance comes through Gideon and his fighters. Sometimes there are no obviously miraculous elements involved. The people God raises up to fulfil his plan may not even be Israelites: King Cyrus of Persia is called an anointed one of the Lord in the book of Isaiah due to his role in ending the Babylonian exile. I think it would fit this Biblical pattern to say, for example, that God raised up Viktor Zhdanov to hasten humankind's deliverance from smallpox. This kind of reasoning makes the picture more nuanced, but I believe a difference remains.
In addition to who can ultimately bring about a change to this condition, there is disagreement about the means to achieve this change. In secular transhumanism, the human predicament is fundamentally conceived as an engineering problem that has a technological solution. For Christians, the root of humanity’s problems is spiritual, and so is the solution. Instead of seeking to overcome human limitations, Christianity aims to overcome sin that separates humans from God.
Interestingly, similar criticism could be raised against EA. From a Christian perspective, most EA work is not addressing the fundamental problem behind the world’s brokenness but treating the symptoms.
Conclusions
What conclusions should be drawn from this exploration? I am not entirely sure. I would imagine most of the causes advocated by transhumanists are not widely embraced by Christians. Striving to achieve immortality via technological means seems especially suspect. However, these are rather marginal causes within EA, so uneasiness regarding them should not be much of a problem in engaging with Effective Altruism. Perhaps this highlights the nature of EA as a broad tent movement.
Secular transhumanism and Christianity have different narrative framings of (some) attempts to do good in the world. In their efforts to do good, Christians are not trying to “immanentize the eschaton”, but rather attempting to put the great commandment of love in practice by using the means God has given us. Different narrative framings probably also have psychological effects. Christians share the hope of a bright future free of current limitations with transhumanists, but have the assurance that ultimately God is in control of the transformation.