A Critique of Transhumanism, By Brian Simpson

Transhumanism, the philosophical and technological movement aiming to transcend human limitations through advanced technology, promises a future of enhanced bodies, augmented minds, and even immortality. Its advocates envision a world where genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and cybernetic integration overcome disease, aging, and mortality itself. Yet, this utopian vision carries profound risks and ethical dilemmas that argue strongly against its pursuit. Far from liberating humanity, transhumanism threatens to erode our essence, widen social divides, and destabilise the very foundations of existence.

At its core, transhumanism assumes that human nature is a problem to be fixed rather than a condition to be embraced. This premise dismisses the intrinsic value of our limitations—mortality, physical frailty, and cognitive boundaries—which shape our experiences, relationships, and sense of meaning. To live forever or to become a hybrid of flesh and machine might strip away the urgency that drives art, love, and purpose. A life without an endpoint could devolve into monotony, as the finite nature of our current existence gives it depth and weight. By seeking to eliminate these defining traits, transhumanism risks creating beings who are no longer recognisably human, trading soul for circuitry.

The practical consequences amplify this existential concern. Transhumanist technologies—whether brain-computer interfaces, gene editing, or nanotechnology—will not be universally accessible. History shows that innovation favors the wealthy and powerful, and transhumanism is unlikely to break this pattern. Imagine a world where the elite enhance their intellects and lifespans while the rest remain "unupgraded," relegated to a permanent underclass. Such a divide would dwarf today's inequalities, fostering resentment and conflict. Rather than uniting humanity, transhumanism could fracture it into biologically distinct castes, with the enhanced viewing the unenhanced as lesser, perhaps even expendable.

Moreover, the pursuit of transhumanism invites catastrophic risks. Tampering with the human genome or integrating AI into our bodies could unleash unintended consequences—mutations, psychological breakdowns, or loss of autonomy to machines. The complexity of biological and cognitive systems defies perfect prediction; a single misstep in editing a gene or coding an implant could spiral into disaster. Consider the cautionary tales of past technological overreach, from nuclear accidents to ecological collapse. Transhumanism's ambition to rewrite humanity itself multiplies these dangers, gambling with our species' survival for the sake of an untested ideal.

Ethically, transhumanism raises questions of consent and identity that remain unanswered. If parents can engineer "perfect" children, what becomes of individual agency? If minds are uploaded to digital substrates, are those entities still "us," or mere echoes? The movement's push to transcend the body overlooks the cultural and spiritual frameworks that have long anchored human life. Many traditions hold that our physical form, with all its flaws, is sacred or purposeful—a view incompatible with transhumanism's relentless optimisation. To discard this heritage for a sterile, technocratic future is to impoverish our collective soul.

Proponents argue that transhumanism is merely an extension of humanity's drive to improve, akin to medicine or education. But this comparison falters: curing disease restores us to a natural state, while merging with machines propels us beyond it, into uncharted territory. The allure of godlike power—freedom from death, mastery over nature—echoes ancient myths of hubris, from Icarus to Faust, where overreach ends in ruin. Transhumanism seduces with promises of control, yet it may deliver chaos, alienation, and a world where humanity is a relic, not a triumph.

As technology accelerates, the case against transhumanism grows urgent. It is not progress to abandon what makes us human—our fragility, our diversity, our shared mortality—for a synthetic unknown. The movement's vision, though dazzling, risks unravelling the threads of meaning, equity, and safety that hold us together. Rather than chasing transcendence, we might do better to cherish the imperfect, fleeting beauty of being human as we are. That will require defeating the globalist psychopaths who are advancing the transhumanist agenda.

https://www.technocracy.news/transhumanism-salvation-or-the-end-of-humans/