Transhumanism and the Philosophy of the Elites
What is the world's most dangerous idea?
By Danica Thiessen
In 2004, when Foreign Policy asked eminent scholar Francis Fukuyama to write an article answering the question, What is the world’s most dangerous idea?, he responded with a piece titled Transhumanism. Fukuyama argued that the transhumanist project will use biotechnology to modify life until humans lose something of their ‘essence’, or fundamental nature. Doing so will disrupt the very basis of natural law upon which, he believes, our liberal democracies are founded (Fukuyama, 2004). For Fukuyama, these losses lay unrecognised beneath a mountain of promise for a techno-scientific future of imaginative self-improvement.
Currently, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in which transhumanism plays a central guiding role, is shaping the policies of global corporations and political governance (Philbeck, 2018: 17). The converging technologies of this revolution are nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, cognitive sciences (NBIC), and artificial intelligence (Roco and Bainbridge, 2002). The political class and the new technology elite routinely tell us that ‘the age of AI has arrived’ (Kissinger et al., 2021). Simultaneously, modern humans have also become increasingly dependent on advanced technologies and the complex systems they enable. These changes have presented new challenges to old questions, namely: what does it mean to be human? And what future do we want for ourselves?
From the hype of super-intelligence to self-assembling nanobiology, the world can seem increasingly science-fictional. Contemporary technological society is “harder and harder to grasp”, is full of “disruptions…that move ever faster”, and is confronting us with “situations that seem outrageously beyond the scope of our understanding” (Schmeink, 2016: 18).
This paper aims to further our critical engagement with an ideology that is emerging across influential sectors of society. With this aim in mind, I will make three essential arguments: Firstly, transhumanism is a movement based on a techno-scientific belief system that is striving towards the technological enhancement of biology and, in this regard, is self-consciously promoting bio-social engineering. Secondly, the technologies of transhumanism have the potential to bring tremendous financial and political gains to corporations and governments who are not incentivised to seek out nor address their potential dangers. Thirdly, the discontent towards transhumanism is diverse and comes overridingly from the threat to traditional values, nature-based ways of life, freedom, equality, and the loss of bodily autonomy to the will of those who operate these powerful systems.
Much of the current scholarship on transhumanism focuses on the intellectual contribution of the movement, with minimal work assessing socio-political impacts. This neglect is worrying since, within the reality of global capitalism, transhumanism may be overridingly motivated by economic and political forces as it may be by ideology. Furthermore, perhaps only a minority of humans may be able to access certain NBIC technologies or utilise them for profits (McNamee and Edwards, 2006: 515). Of course, the socio-economic ramifications may be culturally and politically disruptive in unanticipated ways. It is this overwrought relationship—of transhumanism, the global economy, profitable science, human nature, and traditional belief systems—that demand further critical examination.
Support our independent insights with a donation
Transhumanism is to humanism as plastic surgery is to beauty: in essence it’s nothing but a hack-job that ages bad.
From the continued text on website:
"A clash between individual rights and a movement that aims to “re-design the human condition” seems inevitable."
This clash if individual rights are to have a chance of prevailing, has to take place right now in the four coming months, between now and end October.
Come end October it is too late, no such clash can then ever take place.
End October, ends an 18 month period in which nation states can still opt out of the WHO Intl Health Regulations.
End October, the new IHR enter into force. Their text says that they are binding and their text abrogates the respect of individual human rights, as this is deleted from the text compared to the previously valid version from 2005. It replaces human rights with inclusivity and equity.
The clash needs to be fought out now.
Humans have shown themselves to be very passive.
More commitment and a higher level of activity than usual and than comfortable is required from each usually non player character during these four months. Each one.
Each NPC needs to get temporarily active and assertive.
Each of you,
reflect on the situation, find the things that can be done and those that need to be done, and determine the one thing that needs to be done and can best be done by you.
Then do it.
The oligarchs themselves even cheer you on, against themselves, with their branding of the Goddess of victory:
"Just do it"!
Heed their advice this once. It is for once not poisoned.