Summary

Advances in artificial intelligence, the rise in human enhancing biomedical technologies, and the growing longevity industry have increased people’s concerns about human existence and the future.

The Transhumanism Affirmation is a collaborative recommendation to correct information on transhumanism.

Here, world-leading experts, creatives, and advocates counter 10 unjust claims.

10 Claims Countered.

What transhumanism is.
What it is not.

Growing misinformation and disinformation about transhumanism by its critics must be identified, addressed, and corrected. Distortions about transhumanism confuse the general public, scholars, and students alike about the central values that guide actions for bettering the conditions of every individual. These distortions spread fear about transhumanist technologies that, in fact, can unleash almost unimaged levels of prosperity, longer, healthier lives, and opportunities for flourishing in a bright future for all.

Clarification

Transhumanism is a philosophy that focuses on the scientific and technological advances changing our lives and their potential effects to transform humanity’s future for the better. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach evaluating both the opportunities these technologies offer and their potential dangers. Over the past three decades, transhumanism has developed into a world movement seeking to improve the human condition: reducing or eliminating suffering, disease, mortality, ignorance, and aggression.

Transhumanism strives to overcome innate constructs of fear and stagnant thinking, biases that hinder our full potential, and social and national conflicts. There is a great need for the humanitarian perspective that transhumanism delivers in its aim to understand the problems humanity faces and to proactively pursue solutions to our problems. It is crucial to be informed about the benefits, consequences, and challenges we face with exponential advances in science and technology. In support of this aim, transhumanists advocate for and offer access to reliable knowledge to benefit people at all levels of society. Knowledge liberates us from false authority, provides us with the power to flourish, and enables us to be wise about what is best for ourselves and our society. Without such knowledge, humanity could suffer a very dangerous loss. Transhumanism is an important worldview that must be better understood (Vita-More, 2024).

Philosophical Issue

The integrity of the philosophy of transhumanism is based on the consistency and coherence of its principles and values. Making inappropriate attributions to transhumanist values and inaccurate reporting about transhumanism are harmful for epistemic reasons: they disrespect the integrity of philosophy by producing false and often poorly justified beliefs. The Transhumanism Affirmation aims to correct information on transhumanism. It is written by Natasha Vita-More with the valued, collaborative recommendation of Nell Watson, Max More, Anders Sandberg, David Wood, Edward Hudgens, Marc Roux, Ojochogwu Abdul, and Susan Schneider.

THE TRANSHUMANISM AFFIRMATION

1. Claim: Transhumanism only benefits the rich capitalistic economies.

Response: Transhumanists are known for their advocacy of new types of diverse economic systems such as mixed-markets, digital markets, ecological, distributed decentralized governance, direct democracy, holacracy, and abundance economies.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Key Issue: It is a mistake to claim that transhumanism is inherently capitalist. It is also false to imply that capitalism only benefits the rich “free markets” in which innovators can profit by providing benefits goods and services to willing customers. The “only benefits the rich” belief could be due to associations with Silicon Valley and the technology industry which have very dramatically increased the wealth of those directly involved, creating the perception of “haves and have-nots”, even though both customers and creator’s benefit. It is a fact that transhumanists favor systems that support goals of transhumanism and often disagree about what current systems are favorable.

2. Claim: Transhumanism is science fiction or a new religion.

Response: Many transhumanist ideas are similar to those written about in science fiction. The difference is that science fiction is the art of storytelling and transhumanism is a philosophy. Transhumanism and religion share a concern with origins of life and evolution; however, religion is related to divine or supernatural power while philosophy is based on reason and critical thinking.

Key Issue: The role of any philosophy is to study and attempt to answer fundamental question about the human condition. Transhumanism explores advances in the science of healthy longevity and evolution and technology of AI, AGI, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. Transhumanism also addresses consciousness and the psychology of being human, what it means to be human, and how the advances in science and technology are affecting humanity in ways that are beneficial and harmful. Transhumanism is concerned with humanity today and the future—the mid-term and long-term futures. Therefore, transhumanism intrinsically represents neither a new faith—secular or religious—nor is it an affront to, alternative, or replacement for religion in its normative principles on what constitutes human flourishing and the possibility of finding meaning in our current life and immanent world through an elevated human condition.

3. Claim: Transhumanism believes that technology can fix everything (the “technocratic solutionist approach”).

Response: Transhumanism is an indirect outgrowth of the Enlightenment (17th-18th centuries), also known as the Age of Reason, when the fields of science began shaping philosophical competency in analytical questioning, empirical observation, and effective reasoning. These skills shape practical optimism in solving problems based on reason, not assumptions based on magic or through technology alone.[7] But reason also shows that excessive dependence on technology can lead to hidden or unexpected pitfalls.

Key Issue: Transhumanism endorses the ethical use of technology and reasonable assessment of issues rather than placing the burden of proof on one side or the other.[8][9] Transhumanism also endorses future and foresight studies to develop strategies for solving many of humanity’s supposed intractable problems. The enthusiasm of transhumanists about technological advancement, AI and the singularity does not mean that there is a consensus that technology can fix everything. Machine ethicists who are cautious about technology are active members of the transhumanist movement.[10] Transhumanism does not suggest a cure-all fix for the problems of today or the future.

4. Claim: Transhumanists lack diversity and are all white male elitists.

Response: Transhumanism is concerned with the substance of ideas rather than the identity of the individuals proposing them. It has never discriminated based on gender, race, and/or ethnicity. Truth transcends accidents of birth, and its standard is objective reality, not the biological particulars of those seeking it. The first transhumanist organization was run by a woman as its president. Transhumanist documents,[11] including the Transhumanist Declaration, FAQ, and Manifesto include voices from diverse backgrounds. Over the past several decades transhumanism has grown as a world movement throughout the continents of Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe and Australia.

Key Issue: The validity of an idea does not depend on the sex or ethnicity of the person presenting it. This mistaken assumption could be due to the numerous articles claiming world famous technology entrepreneurs[12] as leading transhumanists. While they are often respected for their technological innovations and may or may not be transhumanists, they are not directly involved in transhumanism.

5. Claim: Transhumanists want to leave biology behind.

Response: Transhumanists are generally life-affirming and want to live healthy, long-lives and support ethical use of biomedical interventions to cure diseases, aging and, ultimately, death. Some think curing death will involve a transition to a postbiological state while others are skeptical on grounds of personal identity, consciousness, or desirability. Transhumanists have diverse views on possible posthuman pathways, and uploading one’s consciousness to a machine is only one. Not all transhumanists desire uploading. Some are AI ethicists who argue the benefits and obstacles of integrating AI with whole brain emulation.[13] And many are in no hurry to upload and prefer to live in rejuvenated biological or prosthetic bio-compatible bodies.

Key Issue: Transhumanism suggests that biology can be improved upon through biomedical interventions that slow down and potentially cure biological disease. This does not mean that all transhumanists want to leave biology behind entirely. It means that at this point in time, we are biological animals and our biology must be respected and cared for to live a long, healthy life. One day we might live in space or in simulated environments as advanced humans, posthumans, and avatars, which are not at the exclusion of the biological body.

6. Claim: Transhumanism is the same as singularitarianism and longtermism.

Response: Singularitarianism or longtermism are not equivalent to transhumanism, which have different goals that should not be bundled together,[14] which causes confusion about the philosophy of transhumanism. While there are clear differences between these philosophies, two similarities they share might be that: (1) the future could become radically different from the present, and (2) this different future could hold enormous value or hazards, which should affect our current actions today to ensure positive results.

Key Issue: Both singularitarianism and longtermism are different theories that hold different approaches to technological advancement and the future. These two terms need to be differentiated.

● Singularitarianism[15] believes superintelligence may occur as a technological singularity. The technological singularity[16][17] theory[18] refers to a point in time when artificial super intelligence (ASI) comes about. Some forms of singularitarianism hold that the large-scale pathway is inevitable. The technological singularity theory as defined here is accepted by most but not all transhumanists, and the circumstances for how this might come about differ. For example, rather than a fast exponential curve or a critical mass at a specific point in time, it could occur over time or in surges over time.[19]

● Longtermism[20] suggests that the key moral priority for all humanity is to take action to positively influence the long-term future rather than on issues of today or the near-term future. Its theoretical approach to life and the future might share some similarities with transhumanism to responsibly aim to bring about a positive future; the contrasting goals evidence widely different intentions. Transhumanism values all humanity--of present generations and future generations and suggests future-oriented perspectives be integrated in today’s decision-making processes.

7. Claim: Transhumanism seeks the ideal of perfection.

Response: The term “perfection”[21] is not a term used by transhumanism in referring to the future of humanity.[22] Generally, perfection suggests an end-point, where no achievement can increase quality. It also implies that there is one single, best option. Conversely, transhumanism suggests that continually improving our lives, becoming more knowledgeable and wiser are important attributes for transhumanists.[23] If the future is changing, then humans will be changing as well; therefore, perfection cannot and does not fit the scope of transhumanism.

Key issue: Perfection is a static state and seeking perfection often causes unrealistic expectations, fear of failure, and missed opportunities for learning and growth. In this regard, it is an opposite approach to a core value of transhumanism that seeks perpetual progress in overcoming odds and envisioning conditions for well-being.

8. Claim: Transhumanism grew out of eugenics.

Response: Transhumanism is not associated with “eugenics”.[24] Eugenics is the deliberate change of the genetics of a population using any means—whether bans on consanguineous marriages or germline genetic therapy. This charge, without discussion of what eugenics references, is sometimes used to imply that transhumanists are associated with the criminal practices of Nazi Germany meant to produce a “Master Race.” Transhumanists today favor genetic manipulations with new technologies such as CRISPR-cas9 and Car-T to cure diseases. What defines immoral eugenics is that it is coercive and done without regard for the well-being of its individual subjects.

Key issue: The specific misconstrued attribution of eugenics might refer to the use of the term “transhumanism” in an essay on human evolution published in 1957[25] at a time when the term “eugenics” was popular.[26] Unrelatedly, the codified philosophy of transhumanism[27] was published in 1990 using the concepts of “human enhancement” with no reference to eugenics. The use of the term “transhuman”, “transhumanize”, and “transumanar” have diverse etymology and history, not all of which relate to the philosophy, worldview, and cultural movement of transhumanism.[28]

● Subclaim: The term “eugenics” as described here, with a broader negative interpretation concerning deliberate or coercive genetic engineering, is part of transhumanism.

○ Counter: Transhumanism is opposed to coercing selective breeding of people of any population including coercive genetic engineering. Transhumanism champions the principles of morphological freedom and democratic and individual voluntary use of genetic engineering,[29] which is extremely different from enforced use of eugenics to control people and society.[30][31][32][33]

9. Claim: Transhumanism’s Morphological Freedom is morally wrong.

Response: The freedom to modify one's body is essential not just to transhumanism, but also to any future democratic society. Its principle sketches a core framework of rights leading up to morphological freedom, showing how it derives from and is necessary for other important rights.[34] Possibly the most persuasive case for the acceptance of a basic right of morphological freedom is to protect us from coercive biomedicine. Morphological freedom is the right of individual persons (under informed consent) to choose to enhance their bodies and the right not to be coerced to enhance.[35]

Key issue: Arguments against morphological freedom claim that it puts people in a predicament in dealing with potentially problematic situations such as moral issues of right and wrong, what it means to be human, body morphology, and preserving our species. These claims include:

● Subclaim: Morphological freedom is morally wrong because it is against human nature to alter or enhance genetic traits.[36]

○ Counter: This claim implies that there is an invariant, identical-in-all-details morality dictated by human nature to each individual out of all context, and for all humanity. Transhumanism supports the right of moral freedoms for all people rather than to be told what their moral nature ought to be and whether their choice to enhance might reduce the risk and benefit people suffering from hereditary disease and save lives.

● Subclaim: That biotechnological enhancement is tampering with “Factor X”, a theory that suggests human genetics form the basis of human dignity and must not be tampered with.[37]

○ Counter: Transhumanism supports dignity as theorized by Aristotle, that “magnanimous [hu]man” does not possess dignity from inborn characteristics but chooses and pursues virtues [38] and Pico Della Mirandola’s grounded classical concept of human dignity as the ability of humanity to change itself.[39] Both philosophers, centuries apart, approached human dignity as characteristics that could be gained through transformation.

● Subclaim: Modifications could have irreversible outcomes, affecting the human species.

○ Counter: This is a legitimate and warranted concern, implying that ethical and careful modifications methods must be used; however, such arguments clearly have limits. Leaning too far in one direction feasibly affecting the germ-line[40][41] could also be feasibly reversed. Chromosomes might be engineered to be activated or deactivated and nanomedicine could mitigate molecular structures to counter unexpected and unhealthy or unwarranted problems that could affect the human species.

● Subclaim: Human enhancement must be about enhancing humans to become something other than human.

○ Counter: Throughout history, humans have continuously modified their environment, behaviors, and even their own biology to meet their needs, address challenges, and pursue their goals.[42] Transhumanism suggests that enhancement could increase quality of life, which can be considered a mode of self-expression as well as a respected, cultivated virtue. Preventing self-transformation limits characteristics that are very human. It also recognizes that we must be aware that such advances can be used for malevolent purposes.[43]

10. Claim: Transhumanism wants to play ‘God’.

Response: Transhumanism does not seek to be a higher authority to play ‘God’. Instead, transhumanism seeks the ethical use of technology and evidence-based science to mitigate or eliminate negative aspects of the human condition. This wrongful claim has been used to generate public fear and angst about transhumanism. Whether or not there is a God or gods, it is our responsibility to take charge of our future.

Key issue: Because there is not just one single agreed-upon God among all societies of humanity currently or historically, there is no one God that transhumanism would try to play. Further, the idea of “playing” implies that the transhumanist cause is irreverent, whimsical, or arrogant in knowing what God wants. Conversely, transhumanists are extremely serious about improving the human condition through life affirming technologies and human innovation.

● Fact: Transhumanism a person’s freedom to choose biomedical interventions of gene therapies such as CRISPR-Cas9 to remove dangerous and deadly cells and to ethically use technology and evidence-based science to overcome physical diseases such as cancers, diabetes, heart disease, and cognitive malfunctions such as dementia and Alzheimer's Disease, as well as psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

● Fact: Transhumanism does advocate for people to steer their own health and longevity through biomedical enhancements and interventions intended to prevent, treat or mitigate disease, pharmacological agents to improve cognitive functions, and wearable devices and apps to monitor physiological diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension and muscle disorders as well as psychological mood alterations.

● Fact: Transhumanism also understands that the human life span is limited, but that extending the lifespan beyond the presently known limit of 122.3 years is not only possible, it is beneficial for all humanity.

Acknowledgements:

This project is due to the efforts of those who value philosophy and positive prospects for the future of humanity. Thank you to Natasha Vita-More for developing the project. Special thanks to Nell Watson, Max More, Anders Sandberg, David Wood, Edward Hudgens, Marc Roux, Ojochogwu Abdul, and Susan Schneider for their valuable contributions.

Help support this project through Humanity Plus, Inc. (Humanity+) 501(c)(3) educational organization by making a donation or becoming a member. Thank you!
________________________

Endnotes:

[1] The digital economy: Challenges and opportunities in the new era of technology and electronic communications - ScienceDirect

[2] Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization

[3] Viridian Manifesto: Technoprogressive and Ecological Proposals

[4] Sustainable Superabundance: A Universal Transhumanist Invitation and RAFT 2035: Roadmap to Abundance, Flourishing, and Transcendence, by 2035

[5] Holacracy - Wikipedia

[6] Projects & Proposals – Deepfunding

[7] Technoscience, transhumanism, telos

[8] The Proactionary Principle [More]

[9] Proactionary Principle - H+Pedia (hpluspedia.org)

[10] The Supermoral Singularity

[11] Humanitarian Transhumanism — Humanity+ (humanityplus.org)