The Super-Machine Doesn’t Love
“To wish to be someone else is to waste the person you are.” — Kurt Cobain
Science has made us realize that we are gods, we are the universe looking at itself. There is an optimism dominating our time. Could this confidence in science be the path to the salvation of our species? Technology has become synonymous with a new leap in our evolution as living beings. By wisely considering who we are and where we are going as a species, with caution, everything we do will make sense, and we will be responsible for future generations. We will not risk stepping on ourselves; we are responsible for human survival and the magnificent nature that surrounds us. We must carefully analyze transhumanism because this topic leads to questions about religiosity, human nature, the extinction of our species as we know it, and presents itself as one of the greatest challenges of our time.
If we are biological machines, obtaining maximum power from our biological engines is a tempting and inevitable idea. Transhumanism is a movement that seeks to improve the human species through technology. The biologist and eugenicist Julian Huxley, brother of the writer Aldous Huxley (author of the famous dystopia “Brave New World”), popularized the term “transhuman.” He advocated a utopian futurism in which humanity would transcend its limitations through technology. He believed that humans could surpass themselves while still remaining human. In the early 1980s, the first self-proclaimed transhumanist group gathered at the University of California, Los Angeles, which became the primary center for transhumanism. The impact of biotechnology and robotics research indicates that perceptions of the meaning of being human will change drastically. In any case, the idea of improvement is what transhumanism seeks to achieve — eliminating weaknesses by modifying and perfecting elements of human abilities to the point of eliminating most diseases, eradicating aging, and ultimately ending death.
In the face of the significant challenges associated with transforming human life, the ethical-moral debate seems violently reinvigorated. These challenges relate to human condition and biotechnology. Issues related to eugenics and the mechanization of human life and their influence on human dignity are not new. There have been many forms of debate on these topics throughout history. Since ancient Greece, topics such as eugenics and species improvement have been proposed.
No concept has become as famous as Nietzsche’s concept of the “Superman.” This concept culminates only in a messianic myth inseparable from what transhumanism has become. Many people do not understand the theory of evolution; the writer Nietzsche was someone who did not properly grasp Darwinism, and one of his main concepts may have arisen from errors in understanding and a lack of mastery of Darwinian theory.
As even casual readers of Nietzsche will observe, most of what Nietzsche has to say about Darwin and Darwinism is hostile. Nietzsche’s attacks seem to miss both Darwin’s position and biology. The central reason for Nietzsche’s criticisms of the theory of evolution seems to be that Darwin emphasizes survival too much and individual power too little. Perhaps Lamarck’s evolutionism is more suitable for the position advocated by Nietzsche.
Few understand that evolution places us in a view of nature that is non-essentialist, non-finalist, non-hierarchical, non-anthropocentric, and non-progressive. Therefore, contrary to what Nietzsche asserted, Darwin’s theory of evolution does not advocate any form of teleology or finalism. According to the theory of evolution, human beings are at the same evolutionary level as bacteria or any other living being. Because evolving simply means changing and adapting to new changes in the environment.
Because Nietzsche did not concern himself with rationality, he often gave more than one meaning to his concepts. He frequently used the concept of the will to power as a synonym for strength, power, and vitality. Evolution, for Nietzsche, takes on a purpose, a teleology that culminates in the creation of the myth of the Superman.
Nietzsche in his book “On the Genealogy of Morality” defined Napoleon Bonaparte as a combination of man and superman in the sense of someone whose moral values are radically different from those of his contemporaries. Nietzsche often mentioned names like Julius Caesar, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Goethe, and even Jesus Christ as individuals who came close to being supermen.
The concept of the superman, although often associated with individual self-improvement, was also used by Nietzsche as a form of teleology that reinvents the religious myth of the chosen one, the myth of progress, the myth that in the future there will be a grand, superhuman, powerful messiah and great leader and savior.
Nietzsche saw the superman as the answer to the nihilistic rejection of all religious and moral principles that would follow the widespread acceptance of the idea that God is dead. The superman was seen as an example of true humanity. However, because it is a teleological concept, it becomes merely a reinterpretation of religiosity through the cumulative notion of power and will to power.
Although Nietzsche was not an avowed anti-Semite, his ideas were perfectly suited to the ideals of Nazism. Adolf Hitler declared himself a superman, the great messiah who would save Germany from the supposed Jewish and communist threat.
According to the theory of evolution, human beings, despite changing and adapting, are not necessarily better than in the past. Human intelligence does not even imply that we are the fittest species on the planet. Obviously, humanity could become extinct. In the future, there will not be beings superior to all of current humanity, as the theory of evolution denies the myth of progress and the myth of the superman. Evolving does not necessarily mean improving. The possibility of improvement always presupposes a limit to be reached. Evolution is eternal and without a specific goal. There is no sense in improving endlessly because that would be merely change and not necessarily improvement. Humans cannot “improve” forever; there are physical and technological limits, and one day science may encounter insurmountable boundaries.
It’s funny because the only things that can be improved are technological mastery and social and environmental justice, causes that Nietzsche always opposed. In other words, Nietzsche was against true human improvement because he was against the will to truth and against science.
Everyone perceives the pace of progress at some level. Technological transformation is the accelerator of much utopian, messianic, and apocalyptic thinking in society. According to the Swedish writer Nick Bostrom, at least in the epic of Gilgamesh and the quest for the Fountain of Youth, the religious desire for immortality and the prevention of aging were expressed. Erroneously, many assume that the transhumanist movement is synonymous with atheism. Transhumanism is the ultimate stage of religious thought. There are many relationships between religion and transhumanism, as the desire for immortality and salvation originates in religions. Some religions, known as transhumanist religions, already exist.
In the late 19th century, Nikolai Feodorovich Feodorov, an Orthodox priest, was one of the main theorists of the Russian philosophical movement known as Cosmism. This philosophical movement advocated the use of scientific methods to make space exploration and eternal life possible, as well as the resurrection of the dead.
A transhumanist church with complete faith in technology was established in Hollywood, Florida. The Church of Perpetual Life offers a religious and spiritual view of the quest for immortality. Believers often light candles for those who are cryogenically preserved in a low-temperature room. The temple conducts a ritual called the “Vigil of the Resurrected,” a celebratory ceremony for those who choose to freeze their bodies after death in the hope that technology can bring them back to life.
Today, there is Christian transhumanism, represented by theologians like Christopher J. Benek, who “would like intelligent machines to be able to receive baptism if they express the desire to do so.” Transhumanism has become the radical secularization of Christian eschatology. Thus, there is a quest for transcendence through biotechnology that applies the design of the messianic era to a world not far from reality. The Christian Transhumanist Association has advocated modern secular forms of religion based on scientific and religious beliefs. Its founder, Lincoln Cannon, sees transhumanism as a movement that allows humans to develop into what he calls “superhumans.” In his treatise titled “The New God Argument,” Cannon envisions a creator god as a superhuman. He postulates an evolutionary cycle in which we were created by a superhuman god before evolving to become our own superhuman gods, from which we will create life that will worship us as gods and continue the cycle anew. The New God Argument provides a fascinating justification for the evolution of religious thought but also pushes transhumanism into the religious and spiritual realm. The Transhumanist Mormon Association, another non-governmental organization of Mormon Christians, blends Mormonism and transhumanism, believing that there are similarities with transhumanist ideas.
Another more extreme religious branch of transhumanism is Terasem, which calls itself a “transreligion.” Terasem is a nonprofit religious organization with a New Age style from the 1990s. It has four main beliefs: life is purposeful, death is optional, God is technology, and love is essential. Terasem was founded by millionaire Martine Rothblatt as a transhumanist spiritual movement and a charity organization dedicated to technological research. Terasem emphasizes cryogenic technology and studies ways to maintain human consciousness by virtually storing thoughts and memories in independent central processing units or social robots.
Allowing only a small portion of the population to have access to technological advances in healthcare but not benefiting billions of people for purely economic reasons is not far from what we see today. The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, and people inevitably worry that future development may be limited to those with financial resources. If life-extending technologies were to become viable and were applied only to the billionaire class, the rich would become richer and live longer, while the poor would become poorer and die earlier. Imagining the possibility of immortality would certainly exacerbate the class divide, even creating the possibility of the human species splitting into a new species.
If the inhumane agenda of transhumanism is not deeply studied, it could be fully realized, much like the inhumane agenda in corporate capitalism. A dystopian future, as seen in the movie “Gattaca” (1997), where genetic modification creates a dystopian class divide, could become a reality. The transhumanist critic Francis Fukuyama soberly outlined the dangers of this modern movement in his book “Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.” Fukuyama believes that human complexity cannot be reduced to advantages and disadvantages. If we try to eliminate characteristics we consider negative through genetic modification or other means, we would dangerously misunderstand how we fundamentally function; no one is simply good or bad. He wrote, “If we were not violent and aggressive, we would not be able to defend ourselves; if we did not feel exclusive, we would not be loyal to those around us; if we never felt jealous, we would never feel love.”
Is there a human nature? Assuming that there is no human nature is the same as saying that the pursuit of new technologies is our true essence, as if we were merely robots who can choose their parts and bodies at any time. To allow transhumanism, many authors argue that we should not interfere with others’ choices because they believe we are in eternal evolution, a transitory existence that can freely transform itself. (This demonstrates a certain scientific ignorance; there are organisms that do not evolve, from bacteria to fish that remain unchanged for millions of years, because the biological rule is not to evolve unless there are changes in the physical or biological environment.) Transhumanism proponents argue that current humans are already transhuman because medical advances in recent centuries have changed our species through artificial limbs, transplants, and life-extending drugs.
So, what is transhumanism? I define transhumanism as the use of technology capable of instantly transforming the human being into another species. Therefore, the use of any type of prosthesis or technology that brings new abilities to Homo sapiens is not truly transhumanism!
Many authors argue that being human is a prerequisite for thinking about equality and should not be transformed into a new species. Matter is information, and as a materialist, I am inclined to believe that there is definitely a human nature! In fact, this nature should be studied; Charles Darwin believed that compassion and love were the strongest characteristics of human nature, and he wrote about it in the book “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.” Darwin gave significant impetus to the study of human emotions. Darwin’s theory remains an important part of psychology, undoubtedly a product of natural selection. Darwin observed that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a mechanism that can complement natural selection, making the study of behavioral genetics possible. He understood that many psychological characteristics (including behavior) have some genetic basis and that for natural selection to work, genetic material and the expression of individuals must differ, and these differences will be affected by natural selection; so it can be said that our emotions are the essence of human nature. An essence that can change over time is not the same as having no essence, just as a gene can be replicated indefinitely, meaning that something in human nature could be perpetually repeated. We love, and our descendants thousands of years from now may also love if humans still exist, and not just robots.
Biologist Richard Dawkins, known for his hypotheses about “selfish genes” and the spread of atheism, received much criticism on Twitter when he wrote that, leaving ideology and morality aside, selective breeding of humans, i.e., eugenics, is a scientific possibility to be considered. “[Eugenics] works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs, and roses. Why the hell wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” Dawkins is being associated with the eugenics movement and Nazi policies to eliminate the sick, disabled, and Jews. In response to criticism, Dawkins wrote that he “deplores” eugenics as an ideological tool but, as a scientist, must recognize that this procedure could bring benefits to humans, just as to animals. “For those determined not to understand, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he wrote. “I only said that lamenting it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to produce more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.” He added that it is necessary to “fight for moral reasons,” but this should not entail denying “obvious scientific facts” because, in that case, everyone loses.
Chinese scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to edit the genes of babies in 2018. He attempted to immunize the babies against HIV by removing the CCR5 gene, which makes it possible for the virus to infect cells. As shown in experiments with mice, the manipulated genes in the Chinese “CRISPR babies” also have brain functions. It’s unclear whether this will affect the children; the two genetically modified babies live in China. Currently, there is no way to measure the changes these babies may experience, and these changes could alter their cognitive function. The genes susceptible to HIV were not edited correctly, and it is still unknown whether the children will be immune to the virus or develop severe illnesses. This technology is not yet ready for clinical use. Gene editing can produce new diseases and mutations. Following the disclosure of this experiment, the use of CRISPR for gene editing was banned in China. The scientist and two of his colleagues were sentenced to three years in prison for “illegal medical practice.” The Chinese scientist was also fined 1.7 million reais and prohibited from working in reproductive medicine.
In the early weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic, conspiracy theorists claimed that the virus was engineered (or caused by an accident) in the laboratory of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. If genetic engineering was not the cause of this pandemic, it is likely to trigger the next one. We should treat the coronavirus pandemic as a general exercise for what is about to happen: bioterrorists may cause the next pandemic. Unfortunately, it’s not just naturally occurring viruses that are concerning, but also viruses developed by humans. The primary concern is CRISPR, the molecular biology technology that allows genetic changes. Now, every dictator on the planet knows that pathogens can be as destructive as nuclear missiles. Due to the revolution in genetic engineering, all the tools needed to create viruses have become so cheap, simple, and easy to use that any dishonest scientist or biohacker can use them.
In 2019, a team of American and Indian researchers studying brain-to-brain interfaces (enabling telepathic communication between two or more people) created a method that allows three people to use their thoughts together to solve problems. The system is called BrainNet and allows three people to use their ideas to play the popular video game Tetris. The brain-to-brain network connects people through helmets that send thoughts. One person can use only their brain to receive information and send it to others. Although the technology is still in its infancy, the research team hopes that these results will provide the basis for future brain-to-brain interfaces so that anyone can work together to solve problems that an individual cannot solve alone. The ethics involved in the technical use of this interface must be widely discussed, and privacy guarantees must be established.
In 2020, billionaire Elon Musk introduced to the world a chip developed by his company Neuralink. The brain implant may allow not only the possibility of controlling machines but also listening to music directly in the brain. Without legal permission to test in humans, the chip was only tested in pigs. The chip is inserted into the brain after an incision in the skull, and the device has electrodes thinner than a hair. Musk hopes to treat conditions such as brain injury, stroke, blindness, hearing loss, paralysis, and memory loss. But to achieve this goal, there is still much work to be done because implanting objects in the brain will damage cells, causing severe and permanent damage. Most scientists were not impressed with the chip because there is a big difference between recording brain cells and reading thoughts, especially when it comes to advanced cognitive functions that we still do not understand. The most ironic part is that in 2017, Elon Musk stated, “Artificial intelligence threatens the existence of our civilization,” warning of the risks posed by unsupervised artificial intelligence in society. “[Machines] could start a war by spreading fake news, stealing email accounts, and sending fake press releases, just by manipulating information,” Musk said. “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Artificial intelligence is dangerous, but is it okay to implant a chip in people’s heads?
In many places, there are unnecessary jobs that could be replaced by machines, so capitalism today delays technological development to avoid greater discouragement of the population with unemployment. The inability to freely share ideas is a significant hindrance to technological improvement, a delay maintained through the inefficient patent system where innovations are often protected by monopolies and corporations to generate profits for those already at the top of the market. Therefore, the bourgeois state is not innovative and competitive enough. In fact, cooperation is more important for development than competition. Instead of changing human nature, even if it leads to improved social relations, we should invest in changing society by providing minimal economic opportunities to the poorest. We should abandon transhumanism and return to a humanism that opposes the genetic and mechanical modification of the human being because it brings fewer problems. If used correctly, robots and artificial intelligence will eliminate the need for people to be enslaved. The word “robot” originated from the Czech word “robota,” which means slave; let’s give meaning to this word, with machines being the slaves and not humans. Nationalized and collectivized companies with mechanisms that can operate automatically help ensure that the poorest people receive a basic income. This way, enslaved humans can free themselves and dedicate a good part of their time to personal improvement, becoming true individuals. We need to and must use science only to the extent necessary to save our species.
Since Nazism, genetic enhancement is the perpetuation of the fantasy of the bourgeois subject addicted to competition and power. Undoubtedly, transhumanism is the most dangerous ideology of all time; genetic enhancement can eliminate indispensable characteristics in our nature, so it is wrong and should be prohibited. By denying weakness, illness, aging, and death, transhumanism shows naive and desperate optimism because eliminating the main human vulnerabilities will never immediately lead to a free and happy society. Improving the body does not end physical discomfort, and the elimination of death does not bring love for life. We must leave the task of human improvement to the wisdom of nature; the desire to rebuild and transform humanity into super-machines is the fastest way for our species to self-destruct. Devoid of humanity, super-machines have no emotions!
