Kultūrinis ir Visuomeninis Poveikis - www.Kristalai.eu

Cultural and Social Impact

Transhumanism and society:
Philosophical origins, societal perception, and ethical discussions

Laser-controlled CRISPR, brain–computer interfaces for users, and algorithmic teachers learning faster than any human—what was once science fiction is now becoming real products and policy topics. All this inspires a movement called transhumanism: the pursuit of enhancing human capabilities through science and technology. Supporters envision healthier, longer, and cognitively richer lives. Critics warn of existential risk, loss of authenticity, and deepening inequality. This comprehensive guide explores the philosophy, cultural narratives, survey data, and ethical "hot spots" shaping humanity's collective response to the transhumanist horizon.

Contents

  1. 1. Origins of transhumanism: from myth to manifestos
  2. 2. Philosophical directions
  3. 3. Cultural narratives and symbolism
  4. 4. Public Perception: What Surveys and Social Media Reveal
  5. 5. Ethical discussions
  6. 6. Governance responses: policy and regulatory trends
  7. 7. Scenario analysis: futures of human enhancement
  8. 8. Key Insights
  9. 9. Conclusion
  10. 10. Sources

1. Origins of transhumanism: from myth to manifestos

The term „transhumanism“ emerged in the 1950s (Julian Huxley), but the dream of transcending biological limits is as old as humanity. Alchemists sought the elixir of immortality; Daoist texts describe „huàn gǔ“ – bone replacement for longevity. Modern transhumanism formed in the 1980s with F. M. Esfandiary (FM‑2030) and the Extropy Institute, presenting technological self-governance as a moral duty. Today the movement is global: NGOs (Humanity+), conferences (TransVision), venture capital, political parties (UK Transhumanist Party).

2. Philosophical directions

2.1 Posthumanism versus transhumanism

  • Transhumanism – technological human enhancement aiming to surpass but still recognize human capacities.
  • Posthumanism – a philosophical stance shifting focus from humans to networks, ecologies, or AI—often skeptical of human "exceptionalism" and enhancement goals.

2.2 Core values

  1. Morphological freedom. The right to change one's body and mind.
  2. Radical life extension. Anti-aging biotechnologies as a moral good (reducing forced death).
  3. Expansion of sentience. AI and "awakened" animals are included in the moral circle.
  4. Pragmatic optimism. Technological solutions are seen as better than political redistribution in solving world problems.

2.3 Main philosophical critique

  • Bioconservatism (B. Fukuyama, L. Kass). Fear of the erosion of human dignity and civic equality.
  • Authenticity thesis (M. Sandel). Abilities become property rather than gifts.
  • Ecocentric critique. Humanity's technological escalation distracts from planetary boundaries and non-human well-being.

3. Cultural narratives and symbolism

3.1 Mythological precursors: Prometheus and the Golem

Prometheus's theft of fire echoes the ambiguity of CRISPR's promise and peril: knowledge grants power but brings punishment (Zeus's chains → modern regulation). The Golem motif warns of creations gaining autonomy—this also reflects fears of AI singularity.

3.2 Films, literature, and games

Work Depicted enhancement Message tone
Gattaca (1997) Germline gene selection Warning—eugenic caste
Ghost in the Shell Cyborg bodies, brain coercion Ambivalent—identity change
Cyberpunk 2077 (game) Underground implants Dystopian—corporate exploitation
Limitless Nootropic pill First ecstasy, then the cost of addiction

3.3 Responses from Religions

The Catholic Bioethics Council supports somatic gene therapy as cura (treatment) but rejects germline modifications. Buddhists debate whether radical life extension disrupts karma cycles. Evangelical transhumanists (e.g., the "Christian Transhumanism Association") argue that enhancement helps fulfill the "imago Dei" co-creation task.

4. Public Perception: What Surveys and Social Media Reveal

4.1 Overview of Global Opinions (2022–2025)

  • Genetically edited babies. 68% of EU respondents oppose; 54% of Chinese support if disease risk is removed.
  • Memory brain implants. Support ranges from 31% (US) to 52% (Brazil) when it comes to Alzheimer's prevention; it drops 20 percentage points regarding "academic performance."
  • Nootropics. 40% of US students consider prescription drug use for studying "morally acceptable," but only 18% of adults agree.

4.2 Acceptance and rejection factors

  1. Benefit framing: Medical therapy > enhancement.
  2. Risk perception: Uncertainty and irreversibility increase fear.
  3. Trust in institutions: Greater trust means greater support.
  4. Cultural attitudes: Communal vs individualist societies value collective and personal autonomy differently.

4.3 Polarization and identity politics

Online, "techno-optimist" and "bioconservative" camp debates rarely overlap. Algorithms reinforce confirmation bias—enhancement content receives twice the engagement of neutral posts, strengthening echo chambers.

5. Ethical discussions

5.1 Authenticity and the "good life"

Does CRISPR-enhanced intelligence undermine the meaning of merit, or simply rewrite it? Philosopher J. Habermas warns of "genetic programming" turning children into objects of parental projects. Enhancement advocate A. Buchanan counters that literacy once changed human thinking—and we value it today.

5.2 Equality and enhancement divide

If only the elite can afford gene editing or implants, social mobility may become a "Gattaca" genotype caste. Possible solutions:

  • Public funding for therapeutic enhancement.
  • Progressive license fees directed to access grants.
  • Open-source biotechnologies reducing costs.

5.3 Existential and long-term risks

Enhancement may encourage preference divergence: superintelligent posthumans might pursue goals incompatible with prior humanity. Superlongevity could burden ecosystems or hinder generational turnover. Risk analysts urge simulating "dry runs" and implementing safety brakes before mass deployment.

6. Governance responses: policy and regulatory trends

6.1 Neuro-rights and human rights development

Chile became the first country (Law 21.383, 2022) to enshrine neuronal privacy, personal identity, and cognitive freedom. The UN Human Rights Council is preparing a similar declaration, but there is no agreement on implementation yet.

6.2 Participatory evaluation models

Citizen assemblies in France and Ireland considered gene editing and provided balanced recommendations instead of categorical bans. Deliberative voting increases knowledge levels and reduces polarization—proof of democracy's resilience.

7. Scenario analysis: futures of human enhancement

Scenario Main features Societal outcome
Inclusive enhancement Public–private sector subsidies, strong neuro-rights. Broad health benefits, moderate inequality.
Elite biosovereignty Expensive germline editing, weak regulation. Genotype caste, social unrest.
Synthetic singularity AI surpasses human intellect; implants not necessary. Economy without work, identity rewriting.
Backlash and moratorium Public scandal → universal bans. Innovation slows down, a black market emerges.

8. Key Insights

  • Transhumanism is a multifaceted intellectual movement, not a monolith; its values intersect with bioconservative and ecocentrist views.
  • Cultural narratives—from Prometheus to Gattaca—influence risk perception more than technical documents.
  • Surveys show conditional public support: therapy > performance enhancement.
  • Key ethical issues: authenticity, equality, existential risk.
  • Governance decisions require neuro-rights, inclusive access, and participatory dialogue.

9. Conclusion

Transhumanist technologies compel us to rethink eternal questions: What does it mean to be human? Who has the right to decide how our mind and body change? Whether society accepts, regulates, or rejects enhancement will depend on a balance of philosophical reflection, data, and inclusive dialogue. The stakes are high, but so is democracy's potential to wisely manage change. Our shared future—as is humanity itself—depends on this balance.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not professional legal, medical, or ethical advice. Always consult specialists when deciding on enhancement technologies.

10. Sources

  1. Huxley J. (1957). "Transhumanism." New Bottles for New Wine.
  2. Bostrom N. (2003). "The Transhumanist FAQ." Humanity+.
  3. Buchanan A. (2021). Better Than Human. Oxford University Press.
  4. Fukuyama F. (2002). Our Post‑Human Future. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
  5. Sandel M. (2007). The Case Against Perfection. Harvard University Press.
  6. PSO (2023). "Human Genome Editing Position Paper."
  7. IEEE Standards Association (2024). "Neuro‑Rights Draft."
  8. Pew Research Center (2024). "Public Views on Human Enhancement."
  9. Chile Law 21.383 (2022). "Neurorights and Algorithm Regulation."
  10. Extropy Institute (1998). "Principles of Extropy 3.0."

 

 ← Previous article                    Next topic→

 

 

To the beginning

    Return to the blog