The debate around transhumanism was initially born in a real climate of moral panic. Transhumanists themselves and their supporters proposed to bring to the general public undisclosed, all the unpublished promises of their purpose, which, however, could only be achieved at the cost of a group of incredulous transgressions and transgressions of the lows. This is why commenters’ reactions were more often negative and even toxic.
It was judged that the humanitarian project was dangerous, fraudulent and moreover unrealized. That it was nothing more than a preliminary study of a crime against humanity or a state of preparation for a worldwide universal “robotization”. That it was the symptom of an over-enrichment of man, diminished and limited to his solitary brain alone. That it concealed, rather imperfectly and unsuccessfully, a variety of unrecognizable economic and social interests. That there was an urgent need to realize, in a world ravaged by misery, war, environmental emergencies and inequalities, to pursue and bring about future sustainable and happy forms of life…..and so on.
In the prophecies of some there seemed to be the answers to the theses of others. However, the situation regarding the issue was softened and pacified. The transhumanists themselves “self-circumcised”, realizing that it might not have been very smart to foresee the abolition of humanity in favor of “transcendent” people with superpowers. As for their opponents, they were involved in the reading and interpretation of a whole work, more complex and subtle than they initially thought.
In addition to research on human enhancement (human “augmentation” across the board), we have increasingly recognized that the transhumanist enterprise is to promote a directed radical improvement of our species, and in this sense university research programs have been developed to evaluate it. We can also highlight the historical or genealogical work that aims to find transhumanist theses and propositions from various authors: Science fiction, fringe scientific publications, ideological texts, etc.
We are now at a point where it has become possible to clearly present a series of recognizable positions constituting a transhumanist program. Therefore, it is important to do it methodically and comparatively and to interpret transhumanism not only from its relation to humanity, but also from its relation to technology.
First, it is necessary to distinguish transhumanism from transhumanism, even if their partial or total approaches and overlaps are possible and possible. One can indeed think that transhumanism and transhumanism are two ways of future relation to the humanism that we have inherited from the past. This is indeed the case, but we must be particularly careful to avoid a naive and superficial reading which would create a false symmetry.
The great Athenian philosopher Antisthenes (444 – 365 BC), founder of the school of Cynic Philosophers, declared: “The beginning of the wisdom of names is visitation!”. Its determination is at the foundation of all true and complete knowledge. “Inspection” means an overview. The first word is derived from the verb scheptomai and the second from skopoumai. It means examination, research. Here we refer to the research of names, i.e. the research of the etymology of the word and its meaning, i.e. the root from which other words are produced by production or composition, but also the semantic differentiation of the word over time. Af’eterum “Etymos” means genuine, true, real. Therefore, etymology is the discourse about the real root of words and their original meaning.
So let’s be clear: In both cases, we have the term “humanism”, prepositioning some prefix. We could therefore consider that it is the meaning of the prefix that creates the difference as follows:
The prefixes here are extremely important:
The “trans-” of “transhumanism”, transhumanism, means in Latin “that which goes beyond – which goes beyond” and indicates here the meaning of “beyond”, so therefore it draws the elements that go beyond the human. Transhumanism is therefore a program for establishing values and standards intended to transcend humanism. It is a “superhumanism”.
The “post” of “posthumanism”, transhumanism, means in Latin “that which comes after, after something”. Therefore, transhumanism is a program that aims to establish values and standards for what comes after humanism and points here to everything that comes after humanism.
The first is hypothetical, it concerns that kind of utopianism that changes (quite) easily, transitioning into dystopia. The second will come regardless of what will mediate: Humanism, like any ideology, is not eternal, therefore it will be succeeded by another ideological formation. Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates the transformation of the human condition and its transcendence (hence “superhumanism”), through the development, widespread availability and application of advanced technologies to greatly enhance the human intellect and physiology.
Under these conditions, transhumanism would be essentially positive: It would be able to further promote the liberating potential of technologies (especially biotechnologies) and would more fully recapture the human aspiration from time immemorial for a more contented, more fruitful existence, freed from scourges such as sickness, early death, the wretchedness of poverty, etc.
Transhumanism, on the other hand, would be a transhumanism endlessly punishing the infinite, not knowing where to stop: While we can expect the after-examination legitimization of the techniques invented and applied to improve the lot of humanity (which remains essentially unchanged, even if its capabilities increase), transhumanists would like to hand over man to technology.
Reluctantly and absolutely, as part of a “plan of all-out attack to eliminate man as the ‘measure of all things'”, as the great French intellectual born in 1951, Luc Ferry (Luc Ferry-essayist, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy and former Minister of Youth, National Education and Research of France, in the conservative government of Raffarin, during the presidency of Jacques Chirac. He is irreligious and a supporter of “secular humanism”).
This amounts to the obsessive transhumanism of clinging to technology, clinging precisely to that critical point of abhorrence, intense reaction and social “backlash”, where any assurance of human agency would be neglected. Thus, through the accompanying metahumanism, a modern version of the “preeminently contemporary” ambition would be produced: To make ourselves master, owner and despot of nature.
In fact, transhumanism is an attitude of distrust of the values and norms of Enlightenment humanism. It manifests itself in writers who believe that man is not an “island of freedom and autonomy” within a universe of natural causality and “fluidity”. The latter emphasizes the mixture, the hybridization, the intermediate states, thus potentially demonstrating the illusions of those who believe in immutable “fixed essences”, at the forefront of which is the essence of man. In short, transhumanists believe that we are already “transhuman” as long as we are no longer attached to the vision of the world espoused by humanism.
Transhumanism proceeds in a very different way. He believes that Darwinian evolution proceeds too slowly and that the biological condition of humans that has resulted is largely unsatisfactory: Limited sensory and intellectual capacities. Subjecting the individual to poorly controlled and potentially destructive emotions. Possible diseases and the inevitability of old age and death: So many limits from which it is theoretically possible to get rid of, to “liberate”!
A key point is that this liberation is expected from technology and not from the help of religion or wisdom and insight. Transhumanists believe that we must become metahumans, and that we will achieve this by manipulating our own evolution, subjugating ourselves to the bearer of our current biological heritage, that of humanity.
The representative authors – apologists of transhumanism (Rosi Braidotti, Donna Haraway, Kathy Hayles, Roberto Malteri, Cary Wolfe) claim that we will get rid of humanism, not in the sense of seeing it as a doctrine, but in the sense that it is a way of thinking which has essentially exhausted its potential. The representative writers – apologists of transhumanism (Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil, Max More, Anders Sandberg) claim to embody a new humanism, freed from superstitions and conservatisms like those of the Enlightenment, but more essential and radical than that of the Enlightenment. This is the reason why they look for their “forerunners”, (with a certain amount of naivety and childishness).
The aim of this maneuver is not only to give a “continuing legitimacy” to an enterprise which otherwise will only glorify itself. Their aim is also to identify the chronological steps within the same process, in the present, which continues the past and implements the preparation of the future, up to a certain point. But only up to a point. Indeed, as most have noted, transhumanists rely heavily on technology: Transhumanism is an impressively technological movement.
The strategies envisioned for liberating humanity from an inadequate “biological endowment” are diverse: biological, bionic, informatic. Their goal is to radically increase the performance of people, by extraordinary development of the abilities they already have and perhaps, giving them several completely new abilities. This is therefore a utopian project. But precisely from this relationship with technology, utopia can turn into dystopia. It was proposed by the distinguished American political scientist Langdon Winners, Professor of “Scientific and Technological Studies” at the Rensselaer Institute of Technology in New York, that one could interpret transhumanism as the work of elevating humanity to the level of technologies. which she herself developed.
Subsequently, the project was “infected” in principle with a very common form of absurdity. What was initially a means, inadvertently, without anyone seeking it, became the goal, the end: The techniques of technologies had to enjoy the fruit of the earth with less fatigue and work. Now they challenged their supposed masters to continue to dominate, to be converted vigorously, permanently and “from the top down”. Transhumanists dare not claim to possess a magic formula to control and end this movement, as in the titanic Goethe’s poem “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (“Der Zauberlehrling”).
On the contrary, they propose to accompany said action, or even to accelerate it, assuring that it is the nature of man to always go beyond what he has done for himself. It is by no means certain that they have really approached the humanistic inspiration they think they embody.
Did transhumanism pique your curiosity and interest? Then you will probably be seduced by transhumanism! If the first, while desiring the universal rise, increase and improvement of man, still affirms the central position of man, the second intends to transcend man and humanity, with the aim of placing at the center, instead of man, the tools which he created, at the core of the whole complex.
Let us pause for a moment to consider this worldview, which can in itself motivate many strategies around the world. What could be after man in the “continuum” of progress, in which proponents of this kind of theory are undoubtedly involved? There could easily be a multi-layered rupture. Finally, the world always hesitates between humanism (which places man at its center) and thought (which places man’s ideas at the center). Two important forms of the second category can be easily identified: Religions and ideologies.
In both cases, it is about “human ideas”, which at some point assume a dominant role: Religions are always born from a revolution about man before they finally come to crush him with their doctrines and cords. Ideologies are born from humanitarian idealism to then come to crush man under their totalitarianisms, passing from freedom to terrorism, from Marxism to Stalinism, from futurism to fascism, from capitalism to “liberal” neo-totalitarianism, or from ecology to ecofascism or ecototalitarianism and so on…
If metahumanism is a continuation of interhumanism, then both are human creations to transcend the prior state of man, human creations to be set as beliefs, as components of faith, as gods. This is where the social division and fracture lies, because religions and ideologies are systems for organizing human societies. This new stage will suggest belief in material creations, the enhancement of our physical abilities (by taking various “drugs” or by direct surgical intervention on human bodies) and our mental abilities (by artificial intelligence). There is no longer any question of belief or doubt in the existence of a god or in the relative importance of a political idea, because everything is material.
So it’s no surprise that the great humanitarian movement that preceded the advent of the Internet is now reaching this totalitarian stage, placing the tool above the people who invented it. This perspective does not bode well for the next 20 years, while it also allows us to understand that it is a new blow of history that humanity must suffer and pass through. But it also allows us to feel that all hopes are allowed and now accessible for turning this dark period around with a happy outcome.
If we consider the transcendence of humanism and thus the advent of a form of transhumanism as inevitable, it is because there is already fertile ground for it, for at least three reasons:
The periods of containment and prevention of the coronavirus epidemic in 2020 have seen an apocalyptic trend appear on social networks under the slogan “We are the virus”. Observing the return of wild animals in settled areas where they had disappeared or become rare, some people see themselves as the inner, intrinsic cause of nature’s destruction, seeing these manifestations of thriving biodiversity as a form of legitimate and just revenge. [See the article by the English Geographers Adam Searle and Jonathon Turnbull of the University of Cambridge, “Regenerative natures? More-than-human perspectives on COVID-19″ (“Resurgent natures? More-than-human perspectives on COVID-19”) “Sage Journals”, California, Volume 10, Issue 2, 10/06/2020].
The logical and terrifying extension of this reasoning is an ultimately necessary eradication of humanity, since it is a “deadly virus”, to make room for wild life that rightfully reclaims its rightful and just place on earth. This is a “suicidal” step that luckily most of the numerous jaded internet users don’t take (yet).
Nevertheless, in many countries of the world a loss of faith in humanity can be observed among the younger generation. An ambitious study called 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 in ten different countries (Australia, Brazil, France, UK, USA, India, Nigeria, Portugal, Finland, Philippines) to measure their likely anxiety about climate issues. To the question “is humanity doomed?” 55% of people answered yes. [ See the prestigious medical journal “Lancet” issue December 2021, Volume 5, Issue 12, collective article “Climate stress in children and youth and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey” (” Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey»)].
Humanity has so far pushed technological progress so far that now the vast majority of the population uses on a daily basis tools whose function they are unable to clearly explain. A smartphone or a computer is not a hammer or a saw. Most of us are unable to understand, repair and thus indeed unable to master all the digital and electronic tools now essential to our daily lives. This lack of mastery and understanding implies a form of trust, not to say faith, in the effectiveness of these tools. A belief that could be cynically exploited by those of us who have mastered these tools, even if this total mastery of ours was a delusion.
This idea is used in Isaac Yudovich Asimov’s novel Foundation (1951), which focuses on nuclear technology. In the society the author imagines, nuclear power plants are so efficient and long-lasting that, from generation to generation, those who maintain them end up having no idea how they work, having never had to interfere with them. This incapacity is then exploited by the members of the “Foundation” who have transmitted this knowledge, in order to establish the “Religion of Science”.
Such events happen because we do not know and cannot know, what exists after death, as the religions developed, which flourished with the promise of a paradise, an eternal life, so they created the means of enforcing their doctrines.
If humanity is doomed, if it acts as a virus to its habitat, and if it possesses tools that are considered more effective than itself, as it is unable to fully understand them…then what can it mean to “prevent what comes next” or even “what will happen beyond man”? That is, what does it mean if a further development far from this morpho-functional model that she had created as closest to her own situation, was far from humanism? In excess of it, beyond it or after it.
We will therefore explore these ideas by looking for explanatory and clarifying elements in history, fact and fiction. This allows us to test the pragmatism of these ideologies, where artificial intelligence is already widely used, while the “enhanced” metahuman is still only a myth. The search must also be focused on transhumanist fiction because we recognize the power of imagination and the therapeutic value required to understand the upheavals, upheavals, and rearrangements of such a dynamic field.
