For a long time, when people talked about fate, they referred to the large, unalterable aspects of life:
Being born, getting ill, aging, dying.
In fact, a whole new lexicon has arrived at the scene:
Updates, upgrades, biotechnology, AI, brain interfaces, gene editing….
Transhumanism is exactly at that intersection.
To sum up, it is a concept which denies that humans should be biologically bound and suggests that humans may use technology to overcome their limits and may even become better than they are.
As a matter of fact, the idea sounds like hope.
Diseases would be less. Aging would be slower. Bodies would be stronger. Minds would be sharper.
However, philosophy does not allow us to remain in a state of comfort for a long time. It prompts the question that is really important:
What if by improving human beings, we also begin turning human beings into things into projects… Or even products?
What does transhumanism promise?
In brief, the main idea is: human enhancement.
* Gene editing (reducing disease risk, fixing inherited conditions)
* Bionic limbs and advanced prosthetics (expanding physical capacity)
* Brain computer interfaces (merging mind and machine)
* Longevity research (slowing aging, extending life)
* AI supported cognition (better focus, stronger memory, faster learning)
On the one hand, it can be understood as health and progress. On the other hand, the debate will be different from the moment the line is crossed:
Treating illness is different from upgrading the normal human.
Healing is one thing. On the other hand, redefining the human as not enough unless optimized is quite another.
And the difference is the ethical problem’s core.
The psychology: Why is this idea so seductive?
Beyond being a mere tech fascination, one component of the transhumanist agenda is that it implies directly a very human craving which is: Control.
We are at odds with uncertainty.
Disease may come at a person without any pattern. Aging cannot be avoided. Death is the only certainty we cannot bargain with.
What technology says is something that is quite intoxicating:
You are the one to control it.
This is where a psychological change takes place. Instead of coming to terms with our vulnerability, we try to find a workaround for it.
Another thing is that modern life puts invisible pressure on us: the feeling of not being enough.
Be better. Be fitter. Be more productive. Be more efficient.
Transhumanism could be that powerful to take such an argument and biologize it:
Don’t just grow upgrade.
Then, the uncomfortable question is there:
Is it growth… Or a new kind of performance slavery?
The philosophical fault line: Is a human being a machine to be fixed?
One of the characteristic things of transhumanism is that it frequently treats a human being as such:
A human is a system. Systems can be optimized.
However, philosophy doesn’t go that far in reducing a person to a system. A person is also an idea, a paradox, a soul (or an inner life at least), a vulnerable, imperfect being, and that peculiar profundity that comes from being finite.
Therefore, we have to wonder:
In case we get rid of suffering, do we also get rid of depth?
If we decide to live death off until a later time, do we silently lessen the value of life?
There is a paradox here: The desire to live longer is quite natural.
What if immortality were to become a reality one day, would the human psyche still stay the same?
Because a very large part of what influences our choices, love, urgency, courage… Is the fact that time is limited.
The hardest question: Who is this for?
The day when the transhumanist technologies will be at everyone’s disposal might never come. The future of such technologies may be not for everyone. In history, the development of technology has generally been like this:
In the beginning, it is very pricey.
Afterward, the technology becomes available to the rich only.
Subsequently, it either spreads… Or it never really does.
As a result, we must pose the question of the uncomfortable nature of the situation: What if the longer life and cognitive enhancement were limited to the rich?
This results in the creation of a new class system:
* The upgraded
* The unupgraded
And the issue here is not solely about money it debases into the question of human status.
Who will be considered more valuable?
Who will have more power?
Who will control work, relationships, and the society?
The most significant danger of transhumanism is, precisely, this one:
The loss of human equality due to technical privilege.
The product problem: Will we become something that can be bought?
Envision a world in which memory packages, focus subscriptions, emotion regulation tools, and attention upgrades are consumer products of daily use.
At that stage, the question arises:
Will we fragment the self and put pieces of it on subscription?
Since the point when the body, the mind, and the emotion are made available for the market, a change occurs.
A person is no longer merely a user.
A person is the one who is used.
As data. As a behavior model. As a target.
This is the moment where transhumanism ceases to be progress and starts resembling a novel form of possession.
So, what is the verdict technology rejection?
Not at all.
Being grounded would resemble a bit more of this:
* It is okay to use technology to heal and relieve people of their suffering.
* Protecting dignity, consent, privacy, and equal access should be foremost in anyone’s mind.
* Giving up the definition of being human to the optimization logic is a very risky thing to do.
However, the debate we have here is not about technology.
It is about our definition of a human being.
Are we only biological beings that need to be optimized?
Or are we conscious beings that create meaning?
. . . .
Transhumanism is essentially the current version of a very ancient dream:
To go beyond one’s limits.
But not every time we break a limit is it a new freedom.
Sometimes, by breaking a limit we create a cage that we don’t see at the beginning.
Therefore, the real question is:
While improving the human, are we ready to lose the human?
Will we remain human… Or become products?
In case the response is human, then, our loyalty should extend beyond innovation.
It should be loyalty to dignity, privacy, and equality.