Transhumanism and immortality

Humanist, July-August, 2004 by Adelaide Winston, Matthew Schultz, Troy Schmidt, Richard H. Nethe

More than fifty years ago a professor at the University of Chicago observed to his class that most humans are incapable of imagining their own oblivion. Already a Humanist, I found his declaration certainly accounted for the endless myths of immortality.

Imagine my surprise, then, on reading George Dvorsky and Brian Trent in the May/June 2004 Humanist. The articles on transhumanism and immortality affected me as poignant reminders that the professor's observations applied even here. For example, Dvorsky writes, "Transhumanists ... have no trouble imagining themselves as nonbiological or transgenic post-human organisms." That sounds like the first description I've ever seen of theology's soul. Why would such a hypothetical condition appeal to a rational Humanist mind? Golly! Even reincarnation sounds more attractive!

As for Trent's expectation that "the first chorus of objections [to his notions] will hail from ... crowds of major political parties and religions," have they really beaten me to the keyboard? Good grief! To what possible purpose would anyone wish to "live to see endless sunrises?" I won't insult the intelligence of your readers by raising all the most obvious objections that come to this octogenarian's mind. Looking back on forty-three years of a happy marriage and having enjoyed 38 years of profitable employment, with time out to raise one child, I now enjoy a comfortable retirement and have no reason to wish for "the creeping dawn of attainment" of those endless sunrises. Nor, thankfully, do I see that likelihood "brightening the horizon."

Adelaide (Mrs. Glenn E.) Winston

San Antonio, TX

I am writing in response to the "Better Living through Transhumanism" article in the May/June Humanist.

Better living? I would have to disagree. Transhumanism or posthumanism is in no way, shape, or form better living. In fact I would have to wonder if the utopia that is looked for is even living. The ability to make yourself obsolete unless you have the highest capacity for a certain trait or a certain technological advancement is disturbing to say the least.

Part of being human is developing, not being programmed or updated. This utopia would be such a thin slice of humanity that it would be hard to regard it as humanity. What traits would be those desirable to upload? Intelligence? Technical understanding?

But what about those traits that are first undesirable, to be eradicated, that turn out to be the better way? Such as the kid in class who acts up and causes problems, but grows up to become Robin Williams? Or the boy who doesn't speak until he is over the age that is seen as normal, being called stupid, only to grow up to become Albert Einstein? Einstein was learning, developing outside of the "normal" human program so that he could think outside the "normal" physical world.

Being uploaded with "the best" might be nice, but not if it means that it is only one type. Someone else's view of what the best is may not be what is truly best.

Matthew Schultz

O'Fallon, IL

Brian Trent's article, "The Future of Immortality" was a good start at addressing a very tough question. He begins with the presupposition that death, although natural, isn't necessarily good. The quest of science for immortality of the human body is seen as a mechanical problem that can and will be solved in a lab. There is an obvious danger if all the focus is on if we can and forget to take into account if we should. I do represent Trent's first chorus of objectors--the religious crowd. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I fear for those who seek scientific answers for theological questions. I take issue with the assumption Trent makes that "if science suddenly could give eternal life, then scientists would become the new priests, handing out eternity in pills rather than prayers." Science may succeed in keeping a human body alive in this world but science can't replace Christ and the immortality that He gives in the world to come. Science may already be a religion to some but it will never succeed in replacing the hope and assurance brought through one's faith in a Savior. As Trent points out himself, the problems of life in this age would only be multiplied if they were to continue far beyond that which is natural today. It is not natural for man to live in this world forever.

Troy Schmidt

St. Louis, MO

Brian Trent's thought-provoking article, "The Future of Immortality," will stimulate the Humanist's readership to start searching for a cautious approach to deal with the impact of untried longevity. But we humans, having been much better equipped with intelligence and tool making ability, are now the most dangerous of all the predators on earth. We use our advantages at the cost of the other living beings to further our temporary and often superficial wants, often instead of our real needs.

Will we become more dangerous if we approach "immortality?" Or can longevity make us gain more wisdom and thus enable us to plan further ahead? It's unlikely that we can achieve immortality as long as we cannot totally protect ourselves from global disasters. But in the past century the human race succeeded in doubling its life expectancy. Today we experience a remarkable acceleration in medical research. But if we carelessly implement the findings, we'll kick the balance out of kilter in our social and environmental relationships.