The transhumanism movement hopes to “slow, reverse, or eliminate” aging, while augmenting human abilities. It proposes that “humans with augmented capabilities will evolve into an enhanced species that transcends humanity—the ‘posthuman.’”

In a piece at Merion West today, lawyer and bioethicist Wesley J. Smith calls the movement “unrealistic and immoral.”

He points to a recent article at Merion West by transhumanism proselytizer Zoltan Istvan, noting,

I know and like Istvan. I admire his indefatigable work ethic that has him writing hundreds of transhumanist-boosting columns and engaging in countless interviews (including by opponents like me). But his recent piece in Merion West “When We’re Overly Optimistic about the Pace of Life Extension Research” took a dark and disturbing turn…

Writing that “morality is defined by the amount of time one has to live”—!!!—and insisting that “realistic transhumanists know only that the most extreme measures, acts, and diligence can have a chance to save those alive today”—he justifies “extreme utilitarian acts” as “philosophically justified”—”even those that are illegal or traditionally perceived as immoral, such as civil disobedience, stealing property, and even starting wars…so long as they seem reasonable and tangible measures actually to increase the speedy success of life extension goals.”

Wesley J. Smith, “Why Transhumanism Is Unrealistic and Immoral,” Merion West, September 3, 2024

A billion atheists vs. death?

Fifty-one-year-old Istvan seems to dread death in consequence of being an atheist. In 2014, he wrote that a billion atheists might mass together to defeat death through technology:

Sometime in the next decade, the number of worldwide godless people — atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with religion — is likely to break through the billion-person mark. Many in this massive group already champion reason, defend science, welcome radical technologies, and implicitly trust and embrace modern medicine. They are, indeed, already transhumanists. Yet many of them don’t know it because they haven’t thought much about it. However, that is about to change. A transformative cultural storm comprised of radical life improving technologies is set to blow in soon.

Zoltan Istvan, “I’m an Atheist, Therefore I’m a Transhumanist,” Huffington Post, February 4, 2014

There are many problems with Istvan’s assumptions, including the fact that entropy rules our universe, guaranteeing that even the universe itself will wind down. But Smith focuses on the ethical void to which transhumanism leads:

While I do not believe transhumanism’s dream of immortality will ever be attained, I do worry that its values could take hold. That would be bad for society. Why? At its core, transhumanism is an immoral belief system. Transhumanist obsessions are utterly solipsistic. In the end, all that ultimately matters is “me” staying alive. Virtues? Altruism? Self-sacrifice? What good are they if we are going to die and “morality is defined by the amount of time one has to live”?

Smith, “Unrealistic and Immoral”

Indeed. A morality “defined by the amount of time one has to live” isn’t a morality at all. Morality begins at precisely the point where we choose to do things for reasons other than self-interest.

Are all atheists on board?

What’s curious about all this is that many atheists are simply not in such a panic about death. In The Atlantic in 2010 Andrew Sullivan offered the thoughts of various atheists responding to an article as follows:

“My afterlife will be in the memories of those I knew, those who loved me, those who carry me on in their hearts. I, myself, cease to exist.”

“… I’m still glad, in principle, that some day life will cease, and my burdens will dissolve with my joys. I don’t want to live forever.”

“Wringing my hands over it would be about as pointless as wailing over the gravitational constant of the universe not having a different value more to my liking.”

Andrew Sullivan, “The Dish” The Atlantic, May 16, 2010

If Istvan proposes to raise an army of atheists to fight death by all means fair or foul, he may be plagued by draft dodgers. Given his anti-ethical panic, we can all be grateful for that.

Sullivan offered a saying widely attributed to the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE):

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

That’s more the attitude that philosophical atheists have traditionally recommended.

Most religious people also see that death is unavoidable. But they take for granted that some part of the human mind is — likewise unavoidably — immortal and thus survives death. A classical explanation is that the mind that can understand immortal concepts like justice and mercy participates in immortality itself. But the mind is responsible for what it knows so after death comes judgment…

Either way, the sheer panic Istvan conveys is comparatively new, as is his readiness to abandon the moral principles that make human life unique in the world of life. Smith is right to be disturbed by the implications if transhumanism catches on.

Merion West, an online magazine, was founded in 2016 to publish critical commentary and in-depth interviews from across the political spectrum. In a statement, the editors say, “At Merion West, we believe that there are few dangers more pernicious than the urge to become an obedient, unthinking member of a one-size-fits-all ideology.”