I. A Marginal Movement

For many forward-thinking individuals, transhumanism represents an enticing vision for the future. As technological innovation progresses, we increasingly liberate ourselves from nature's constraints. We have made significant advancements, and it appears that we are on the brink of taking full command of our bodies and, ultimately, our evolution.

Despite this, transhumanism has yet to gain widespread acceptance. This may seem perplexing to fervent progressives, yet there is a logical rationale behind it. The continued commitment of transhumanists to overlook the troubling elements within their ideology is puzzling.

Radical ideas like transhumanism often face scrutiny from multiple fronts, and transhumanists can often concede to some of the criticisms without much discomfort. For instance, acknowledging that their most ambitious aspiration—mind uploading—faces both epistemological and ontological hurdles is relatively easy. However, the principal challenge of transhumanism is not rooted in technology or biology but rather in philosophy.

> It claims to instigate a transformative liberation of the human condition, yet fails to present a comprehensive vision of the new state of humanity resulting from these transformations.

This disconnect between lofty ambitions and practical applicability keeps transhumanism confined to the fringes, despite the technological advancements it champions.

II. The Established Order

Transhumanist notions appear alien to most because they suggest an entirely different vision for the future. While transhumanists perceive it as a realm of transcendence, for many, it resembles the status quo.

The alluring prospects of enhanced abilities and infinite lifespans offered by transhumanism are often beyond the imagination of the average person. Life, for them, is inherently unchanging. Its structure is fixed, and nothing can alter it. Consequently, the average individual does not engage with existential inquiries; instead, they resign themselves to their limitations, believing that if life has always been this way, it must always remain so.

Thus, the search for life's meaning is supplanted by the mundane necessity to organize the time allocated to them by an external force (“psychological time,” as noted by C. Jung). They merely seek to occupy their time without pondering the ultimate purpose of their actions.

In essence, the average person spends their life waiting for external guidance regarding their path and actions. Therefore, the prospect of immortality is not seen as a journey of continual discovery but as an unending cycle of monotony within the same purposeless existence. Unsurprisingly, when asked about the desire for eternal life, many respond negatively [2011, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2021, 2021, 2022, 2023, …]. For them, it signifies not endless exploration, but rather eternal ennui.

This constrained perspective might be attributed to a lack of imagination, but a deeper issue plagues the average person. What transhumanists advocate transcends the limits of known human experience. It is understandable that many perceive this transgression as an affront to the established order—an order that no one is entitled to alter. This anxiety breeds a psychological barrier, leading them to preemptively reject the transhumanist vision of the future.

Although it is unclear what this order entails and who established it, people often rely on instinctive knowledge. They sense that the phenomena surrounding them are interconnected, forming a cohesive scheme. If someone were to gain unauthorized access to this scheme and alter it arbitrarily, the entire structure would be upended. While transhumanists believe in humanity's capacity to comprehend and optimize this scheme, most view it as unattainable. They contend that such understanding necessitates not just scientific knowledge—no matter how extensive and reliable—but a revelation from an infallible source. However, they doubt that such knowledge will ever be ours.

III. The Ultimate Evil

This clash of worldviews exists across various levels of understanding and cognitive capacity. It transcends the traditional conflict between progressives and conservatives, and its metaphysical nature leaves little room for compromise.

Ultimately, transhumanists seek more than just the “enhancement” of human abilities. They aim to change the fundamental rules of engagement with the Universe itself. Their aspiration to overcome the ultimate human plight—physical death—drives this ambition. What they view as an absolute good is perceived by others as an attempt to dismantle the essential fabric of existence, which they believe is vital for the Universe's continuity.

For transhumanists, death is the ultimate evil. The demise of an individual equates to the disappearance of their unique universe, which in turn causes the Universe itself to fade, as it relies on its observers. Furthermore, once someone exits this Universe, they lose the ability to influence its state—speaking in transhumanist terms, its progression from entropy to extropy.

In contrast, critics of transhumanism argue that humanity should accept its existential barriers. They maintain that individuals are inherently separated from the Universe by an impenetrable boundary and should not strive to breach it. Instead, they believe we should simply acquiesce to the natural course of existence. Since death is a natural phenomenon, attempts to eradicate it threaten to undermine human essence and the value of our collective achievements—those borne from centuries of struggle and hardship.

In other words, eliminating death diminishes the significance of life itself. A common belief holds that the value of anything is recognized only after its loss. Thus, life becomes the highest value when juxtaposed against its annihilation, the loss of everything that imbues existence with meaning and prompts morally justified actions. If death were to cease to exist, the framework for evaluating life itself would dissipate.

IV. Transhumanism and Humanity's Future

Given that this is a conflict of foundational beliefs, it is improbable that either side will manage to persuade the other. The stakes are existential, revolving around humanity's ultimate fate: Are we constrained by our biological nature, and must we accept it, or can we transcend it?

This question is not novel, and transhumanism is not the first movement to pose it. Its worldview is rooted in a significant philosophical tradition in the West that regards reason as a defining trait of humanity, distinguishing us from the natural world and opposing us to it. Our entire history underscores the relevance of this notion; ultimately, societal evolution is driven by the desire to liberate humanity from external constraints, regardless of how natural they may seem to most.

Whether we were expelled from Paradise by God or chose to leave it ourselves is a matter of preferred metaphor. The essence remains unchanged—there is no turning back. In forging civilization, we accepted the burden imposed by the conflict between its demands and our biological constitution. We have had to learn to sustain our living environment, provide for a growing populace, and devise technological solutions to meet escalating social demands. Each challenge has led to conflicts, whether between humanity and nature, between human societies, or among all these actors.

We have discovered solutions time and again, but they were always makeshift because our adaptability to the world we created was not encoded in our genes. It relies on our technology and culture, and until recently, we managed to navigate these complexities. However, we have now reached the limits of our adaptability and must consider altering ourselves. Should we surpass these boundaries?

V. Change to Survive

The scope of this inquiry extends beyond transhumanism's philosophy. The response is dictated by our reason, with transhumanism serving as a means of articulation.

We must adapt if we care about the future of our reason as much as preserving our species. It is our reason that makes humanity unique, not our biological makeup. Reason inherently seeks to overcome its limitations, opposing its biological nature. We must recognize that if we do not empower it to achieve this liberation, we cannot genuinely consider ourselves sapient beings.

Furthermore, we must acknowledge one more critical point. Regardless of our stances on transhumanism, we cannot remain as we are. In our present state, we cannot reconcile with the increasing intricacy of the world we have created.

We have reached our cognitive limits as dictated by biology. With each passing year, it becomes increasingly evident that the only viable approach to this dilemma is to delegate its resolution to AI. Yet, as many believe, “our final invention” could pose an existential threat.

It is already apparent that Strong AI will emerge in the foreseeable future, and it is uncertain whether we can maintain control over this development. We cannot even fathom how it will evolve. However, it is clear that the most perilous situation at this pivotal juncture is the alienation of artificial intelligence from our worldview. Therefore, it is unsurprising that AI specialists regard the so-called Alignment Problem as crucial for our survival.

If we cannot integrate our values into Strong AI, we will become dependent on the objectives set by a superintelligent entity whose intentions we cannot foresee or influence. Consequently, the radical transhumanist idea of merging human and artificial intelligence may become essential for our survival. By making AI an extension of our minds or creating a synthetic symbiotic intelligence, we stand a chance of controlling its power.

VI. Transhumanism and Politics

Even with societal consensus and the necessary technological capabilities, resolving this dilemma is not guaranteed. Our future is also shaped by elements unrelated to rational thought and often even to common sense.

The trajectory of modern society hinges on public policy, which is dictated by the opinions of voters. Transhumanism has its advocates, with a notable concentration of bright, successful, and cognitively advanced individuals among them. Additionally, many who may not explicitly identify as transhumanists support transhumanist ideals.

However, the challenge is that in a democratic decision-making system, it is not the quality of voters that matters but their quantity. The perspective of an uninformed individual who believes in conspiracy theories equates to that of a Nobel laureate (you can guess which group is more populous).

Thus, for transhumanism to evolve into a genuine political force, it must resonate with the masses. Engaging and inspiring them to pursue societal change necessitates involvement in activities they consider vital. For this, they require a corresponding belief system. Historically, this was religion, but in the democratic era, the role has shifted toward political ideologies (various -isms such as Marxism, Communism, Nazism, Islamism, etc.).

This transition should not deceive us: the doctrinal structure of religion and ideology is fundamentally similar. Both claim to possess sacred knowledge of moral truth without providing evidence to their adherents. In essence, both are rooted in the same phenomenon of faith. The only significant difference lies in the source of the moral code: in religion, it stems from the Absolute (God), while in ideology, it is molded by the ruling party (with Islamism being a notable exception).

Of course, transhumanism, with its emphasis on rational knowledge, is neither a religion nor a political ideology. Nevertheless, it holds the potential for both. To realize this potential, it does not need to distance itself from science; it must bridge the gap between its individual goals and its vision for humanity's collective future (as I mentioned earlier).

In other words, a shift in focus is necessary. Currently, the emphasis is on the individual, i.e., the person. The assumption is that radical human enhancement will lead to societal advancement. Instead, the goal should prioritize societal—specifically, moral—progress, with human enhancement being a means to achieve this. However, this progress must not remain an abstract concept; it should encompass tangible and specific objectives, with the biotechnological enhancement of humanity as an integral part.

I will elaborate on this point later. For now, let us consider the role of elites in the societal transformation process.

VII. Social Meta-Transformation

Ruling elites have always been concerned with the mindset of their subjects. In this context, transhumanist ideas do not find favor with them due to their Promethean implications.

Though these ideas do not challenge the existing social hierarchy, their human-centric nature implicitly undermines it. The transhumanist vision of human agency conflicts with the ruling class's desire, intertwined with neoliberal oligopoly, to reduce the populace to obedient automatons devoid of critical thought.

However, this is not solely about the cynicism of modern elites (though they are undoubtedly cynical, hypocritical, and amoral). The ruling class has consistently resisted the proliferation of critical thinking among the masses, and in an era of total automation, it has become even more desirable for them to suppress it. It is not difficult to surmise why: on the horizon looms a question they would prefer to avoid—if everything can function without human input, what role will they serve?

The unprecedented feature of the Brave New World (whose outlines are already visible) is that the function of the masses will undergo dramatic change. They will lose their productive capacity (and therefore their value) and essentially become biomass. Nevertheless, they will still require bread and circuses. The existence of technical feasibility does not equate to expediency. Ultimately, the ruling class's concern for the masses has always been a reluctant necessity. The masses were needed as resources: for warfare, for generating material wealth, and finally, to legitimize those in power.

This necessity will likely persist for some time—until liberal democratic governance is supplanted by another system, where the political worth of biomass is entirely nullified. This system may not formally change, but its essence will adapt to new societal realities.

Thus, the masses may find themselves excluded from history, much like species that failed to adapt to their environments and vanished from the evolutionary landscape.

That means that for the elites, population reduction becomes a relevant concern. This process is already underway, though it is not the result of a conspiracy but a natural consequence of post-industrial society's dynamics.

The elites need not rush events, but they can do so when necessary. The cultural groundwork has already been laid to a sufficient extent:

• The societal significance of women as childbearers has diminished, replaced by their roles as desexualized cogs in a global production machine.
• Approximately 15% of married couples are childless. The child-free movement and LGBTQ+ communities contribute to this statistic. The so-called “transgender revolution” warrants special attention. Although the proportion of transgender individuals remains small, it is steadily increasing. A study by the Williams Institute revealed that the number of teenagers and young adults in the U.S. identifying as transgender has doubled in the last five years.

Cultural factors are complemented by biological ones, including the so-called Semen Quality Decline (a 50% decrease in male sperm production over the last 50 years). The precise causes of this phenomenon remain unclear, raising concerns for those who view declining birth rates as a threat to future human well-being. However, not everyone shares this concern. Various organizations and scientists have long advocated for population stabilization to alleviate ecological pressures on the planet.

Transhumanist concepts do not fit neatly into this narrative. Even if human enhancement on a large scale results in fewer births, many of the remaining humans will be deemed useless by the ruling elites. The elites have no interest in individuals who consume resources without providing any practical utility (the ruling class, as you know, consists of the most pragmatic individuals imaginable).

Of course, the elites will utilize “transhumanistic” technologies, including brain-computer interfaces, but for distinctly different purposes. While transhumanists aim to elevate humanity to a new level of freedom, the elites, conversely, seek to abolish this freedom. Their goal is to exert control over everything, everywhere, at all times (just listen to Klaus Schwab). Their ideal scenario would involve connecting the biomass to a Metaverse from which no one would wish to escape. This would represent the most efficient, humane, and painless method to optimize the population—far more humane than the guillotine, gas chamber, or lethal injection.

VIII. Can Transhumanism Herald a Second Renaissance?

So, transhumanism is not particularly popular among the general populace and is met with skepticism or disinterest from ruling elites. Does this imply it has no future?

The answer depends on which aspect of transhumanism we examine and the trajectory of societal development.

There is no doubt that many will seek human enhancement. However, it remains uncertain who will be able to afford it. This concern stems from the increasing independence of modern corporations from genuine societal interests (I am not suggesting that corporations do not benefit society; rather, I contend that such benefits are often byproducts rather than primary objectives). This dynamic is partly responsible for the exorbitant costs associated with many high-tech services and products, especially in the medical realm, even when such products could be replicated at low cost.

Thus, the issue is not merely the cost of technology but societal beliefs regarding who should have access to these technologies and under what conditions.

If there is no significant shift in collective perceptions of current realities, we risk descending into a dystopia: the rewards of science and technology will be concentrated among the ultra-wealthy, who will rapidly evolve into a race of superhumans. The rest will remain at the level of subhumans, languishing in high-tech ghettos and, akin to Plato’s cave dwellers, oblivious to the existence of a vastly different world.

In such a scenario, transhumanism would not emerge as the successor to humanism. Instead, this notion would either fade into obscurity or devolve into a mere simulacrum, as has occurred with many grand ideas.

However, an alternative trajectory is conceivable, wherein transhumanism matures and initiates what could be termed a Second Renaissance. This could happen if its agenda transitions from “enhancement” to a new level of human expansion, particularly beyond our home planet, Earth.

This concept is not novel; its roots extend back at least to the 19th century. While it was once a fantasy, it now hinges on motivation. The 20th century rekindled hope with the launch of Sputnik and the Apollo missions, yet this hope fell into stagnation following the conclusion of the great ideological conflict between capitalism and communism.

Then Elon Musk emerged, breathing new life into the idea of space exploration. Colonizing Mars is now a tangible goal. Although this task remains daunting, it is viewed as achievable and imminent, thanks in part to significant technological advancements during the information revolution.

It is important to note that Musk is not the originator of this concept. His predecessor, Robert Zubrin, developed the Mars Direct project in the early 1990s. Unlike Musk, Zubrin was not an entrepreneur and relied solely on government resources.

Unfortunately, despite initial governmental interest, Zubrin’s project never gained traction. However, it cannot be deemed a failure, as the concept of Mars colonization remains relevant not only in the U.S. but globally. Therefore, Musk did not step into a void. His advantage lies in his significantly greater autonomy and resources to actualize this vision.

IX. Transhumanism and the Human Cosmos

One might view Musk’s actions as a calculated pursuit of business interests. However, regardless of his motives (and irrespective of personal opinions about his character), it is undeniable that he has rekindled interest in space exploration. His innovative technical solutions significantly contribute to advancing this mission. It would be unfortunate if transhumanists did not play a role in this emerging movement, capable of reshaping our understanding of ourselves and our place in the Universe.

Although Musk does not identify as a traditional transhumanist, the intersection of his ideas with transhumanist concepts resembles an example of evolutionary convergence, which only adds value to the transhumanist movement. On the contrary, it renders them more practical and aligned with the perceptions and needs of society. Moreover, in addition to Mars colonization, projects like Neuralink aim to realize the transhumanist vision for society and humanity's future.

Musk’s involvement is crucial as a catalyst for the corporate world to engage in space exploration. Many may dislike the idea of its commercialization, but it is currently unrealistic to envision any entity other than corporations leading this effort. In this regard, the infusion of financial and human resources into this domain should be welcomed as an opportunity to reinvigorate human thought and creativity.

The phenomenon of Elon Musk embodies the belief that ideas can and should propel humanity forward. His ability to transform what seemed impossible into reality reaffirms that part of humanity is wired to push the limits of possibility. These individuals are prepared to dedicate their lives to this endeavor and embrace risks. They inherently understand that this pursuit gives life its worth.

Such a life undoubtedly deserves to be prolonged.

And why not make it endless?

After all, the Universe is infinite, as is the territory we have yet to explore and claim as our own.

It is hoped that the colonization of space will usher in a new renaissance of contemporary art, akin to the cultural flourishing that followed the advent of the space age in the 1950s. This period birthed the genre of modern science fiction, and often, art serves as a precursor to new realities.

A prime example is Stanley Kubrick’s iconic film 2001: A Space Odyssey (created in collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke). Just a few years after its release, humanity took its first steps on the Moon. Although extraterrestrial artifacts were not discovered, the message advocating for human expansion beyond Earth resonated. Half a century later, we stand poised to embark on a new stage of the mission entrusted to humanity by its most progressive thinkers.

In 2015, shortly after Elon Musk founded SpaceX, the film The Martian premiered. This film encapsulated a renewed vision of humanity’s near future: one that transcends mere comfort and embraces breakthrough discoveries, interplanetary cooperation, and heroic achievements.

From this point, it is a small leap to the conception of transhumanist heroes—individuals who have undergone biotechnological enhancements to fulfill their missions in extraterrestrial environments.

X. Conclusion

At the end of the year in which The Martian premiered (December 22), SpaceX achieved a groundbreaking feat: for the first time, they successfully landed the first stage of a rocket (Falcon 9) back on Earth after delivering a payload to low planetary orbit. This milestone addressed the issue of exorbitant costs associated with space cargo transportation. With the advent of reusable rockets, these costs have dramatically decreased, marking the onset of a new era in space exploration.

Will this also signify the dawn of a transhumanist era?

It is impossible to provide a definitive answer at this moment. If transhumanism fails to redefine itself as a means to achieve new objectives for all humanity, it may become limited to a select few on Earth. In such a case, its original aims are unlikely to be fulfilled. While human capabilities may be enhanced, the fate of humanity may not necessarily improve.

The advancements in cutting-edge technologies will not benefit everyone, and their application will not always be a matter of individual choice. Those who seize control of these innovations may find themselves disconnected from the diverse ideas generated by individuals of entirely different backgrounds. Ultimately, all these other people may fade away, much like many unique cultures have disappeared from our planet. Humanity could lose its diversity, transforming into something uniform, stagnant, and incapable of further evolution, irrespective of its technological advancement.

Perhaps post-humanity is destined to resemble this, but such a vision is unlikely to satisfy those who were instrumental in the birth of transhumanism.

In an alternative vision of the future, humanity continues its cosmic expansion. It becomes increasingly diverse and populous, integrating technology into its very essence; the boundary between technology and humans will blur entirely.

However, this will be a matter of choice, not coercion. Everyone will retain the right to remain the individuals they were before transhumanism's emergence. Humans, transhumans, and posthumans may coexist, though the disparities between their experiences will likely render them inhabitants of parallel realities.

> Of course, such a vision, or one like it, raises numerous philosophical and ethical questions. Yet, we cannot definitively foresee it. All we can hope for is that our technologies do not override us and supplant our humanity.

We must strive to preserve our humanity, even as some individuals transition into posthuman forms.

Undoubtedly, such a life deserves to be prolonged.

And why not make it endless?

After all, the Universe is infinite, as is the territory we have yet to claim and make our own.

• You may also be interested in these stories:
• The Unattainable Dream of the European Enlightenment: How the Age of Reason flowed into a sequence of Calamities.
• The Religion of Dawkins and the Religion of Einstein: Eternal Shining of the Immortal Mind, Faith, and Nihilism.
• A Yawning Hole in the Body of Materialism: You don’t have to be a religious person to notice this…

Dear reader, subscribe to my updates and get the latest insights on our unpredictable yet thrilling future!