More Misrepresentations of Transhumanism

Journalist Matt Taibbi and Aaron Kheriaty get it wrong

I admire much of the work of investigative journalist Matt Taibbi. I was therefore sad that he conveys a number of confused ideas about transhumanism in “The Ersatz Religion" of Transhumanism: Interview With Dr. Aaron Kheriaty.”

Misunderstandings and misrepresentations of transhumanism abound. As someone who is both an enthusiastic fan of Matt’s journalistic work and as the founder of transhumanism in its modern form, I have to comment. I will try to limit myself to a two or three points.

First, “I think it’s an ersatz religion,” says Dr. Aaron. No, transhumanism is not a religion. It is not ersatz since it does not claim to be a religion nor is it one. It is a philosophy of life, like humanism or Stoicism. Philosophies of life serve some of the roles of religions but differ in lacking a belief in supernatural entities, reliance on faith, or worship.

Second, Taibbi quotes Nick Bostrom (misspelled “Bostrum”) on “perpetual pleasure.” That actually comes primarily from David Pearce and his Hedonistic Imperative. That does not reflect transhumanism. It is David’s particular flavor of transhumanism – or add-on to transhumanism. Nick and David are utilitarians so it is not surprising that they have this view. I and many other transhumanists reject utilitarianism. I am more of an Aristotelian/Nietzschean/Stoic virtue ethics kind of guy. My founding Principle of Extropy are all about challenging oneself and improving oneself, not wallowing in pleasure.

Third, he should not associate coercive COVID measures with transhumanism. I developed the principle of morphological freedom which insists that each individual should get to decide what is or is not done with their body. Personally, I strongly opposed mandatory COVID vaccinations, lockdowns, and other NPIs. Although transhumanist politics vary considerably, many of us (especially those associated with the original Principles of Extropy) tend to be libertarian.

Fourth, while Martine Rothblatt is a friend, I disagree that transgenderism is the on-ramp to transhumanism. We share the view that we can and should work toward improving the human condition (not based on a central master plan but by enabling choice). One day it may be possible to truly change your sex (I dislike the term “gender”) but is not today. You can wear makeup, have surgery, and make some hormonal changes but it is currently impossible to alter your genetics and neurology to become a different sex.

Taibbi is correct that human nature exists. It is an abstraction but one that represents a set of existing potentialities, capabilities, and limits. He (and Kheriaty) are mistaken if they think transhumanism does not believe there is a human nature. Far from it, most definitions of transhumanism explicitly talk about the possibility and desirability of changing the human condition. You cannot change something that doesn’t exist!

Progressives think they can change human nature just by declaring it so. Transhumanists acknowledge current human nature and understand that advanced technology is the way to eventually make changes (such as doing away with aging).

Taibbi asks: “Lastly: how much of this current transhumanist movement is born out of the presence of new technology, and how much of it is born out of the loss of connection to old thought?” Those who are familiar with my work know that I see transhumanism very much as a continuation of Enlightenment humanism.

Finally, it is shocking and absurd to see the video labeled “An Ideology of Death.” Transhumanism is the philosophy that favors life extension – pushing back illness and death. It is not about immortality. Life extension does not mean immortality since even ageless people can die from disease, injury, accident, war, etc. I can forgive Taibbi and Kheriaty here because there are too many transhumanists talking about “living forever” and “ immortality.” While biological immortality is possible (and already exists in some species), it is not clear that full immortality is possible. We can certainly push back the threat of death but it seems almost certain to get us one day, whether it is in a few decades or a few million years.

Kheriaty says: “I’m a Roman Catholic, so I believe in original sin, and I consider this life to be a vale of tears. But it’s great, there are many good things. The world is beautiful, I love the world that God created, but it’s also very broken and I really don’t want to live here forever. That sounds to me like a curse. “

That’s fine. He doesn’t have to extend his life. If he wants to rush off to his imaginary Heaven and give up on life in the real world, I won’t stop him. Just let us pursue advances that will let us live as long as we choose (barring accidents, etc.).

For those wanting to understanding transhumanism, my blog has plenty of material. For those unwilling to spend more than a few minutes, I suggest reading my essay “A Letter to Mother Nature” which states the essence of transhumanism concisely.

---

Next time: I will continue my Singularity Series with part 3.