Catholic Social Teaching (CST) addresses the big issues confronting us – work, the environment, family life, poverty, justice – and in the words of Pope John Paul II, provides us with, “a basis and motivation for action” in their monthly update by Cathy Marshall.
The following article by Cathy Marshall and was first published by The Northern Cross in their May 2025 Edition.
OVER centuries, people have used science and technology to enhance our bodies as a means of overcoming deficiencies – think spectacles, false teeth, prostheses, hearing aids. All of these efforts are most laudable, as they advance dignity of the human person in ways that respect God’s creation.
But there is a new movement afoot that is both serious and frightening – quite Orwellian, in fact.
This concept, known as transhumanism, has been around since the early 20th century, but technological developments mean that its more radical followers actually want to change humanity so much that people will no longer be recognised as the human beings God created – a condition termed “posthuman”. Some proponents even insist that they can do away with death itself and prolong life indefinitely.
The word “transhumanism” was coined by Aldous Huxley in 1957, but the author was initially concerned with advancing the human condition through social and cultural change. As scientific inventions advanced, the aims of transhumanists changed. Computer technology, space travel, cryonics, artificial intelligence (AI), nanotechnology, and bioengineering now all feed into the goal of designing a new type of human.
Although Huxley’s transhumanism was a socially responsible one, more recent forms are quite risky. In 2004, the American political theorist Francis Fukuyama (writing in the journal Foreign Policy) called transhumanism “the world’s most dangerous idea”, warning that biotechnology’s offerings might come at a frightful moral cost to human rights.
Transhumanism also continues to be compared to the eugenics movement, reflecting fears that technology will be exploited by those wishing to become or breed “superhumans”.
Related to transhumanism is technological determinism – sometimes called technodeterminism – a philosophical stance or belief that underpins much of transhumanist thought. Proponents assert that technological progress is the primary force driving all societal change and human evolution. They claim that emerging technologies will inevitably lead to an enhanced human species. But this is far from certain.
Although many scientists believe such developments are decades away, American inventor and entrepreneur Ray Kurzwell and his followers claim their less radical aims (such as a merging of human intelligence with AI) will be reached by the year 2030. They make the claim that “all disease, aging, social ills, and death will be reversed, resolved, or eliminated” by 2045. In his book The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999), Kurzwell predicted machines will appear to develop free will and have emotional and spiritual experiences.
Mark O’Connell summarised the aims of transhumanists in his book To Be a Machine: “It is their belief that we can and should eradicate ageing as a cause of death; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds; that we can and should merge with machines, remaking ourselves, finally, in the image of our own higher ideals.”
Theoretically, there might be some validity to such aims. But what is the reality?
Some enhancements already in existence are praiseworthy, including “powered clothing”, which consists of a suit worn under regular clothing that mimics the body’s biomechanics and allows people such as the elderly the strength they need to get out of a chair, climb stairs, or stand for long periods.
Others, however, may horrify most people. Carbon-fibre blades allow people with amputations to outperform the efforts of athletes who run on natural legs. Some people actually suggest that surgeons should be allowed to replace a runner’s healthy legs with carbon-fibre blades just so they can win race medals.
For example, cybernetics expert Kevin Warwick, of Coventry University, sees no problem in approving the removal of natural limbs and their replacement with artificial blades: “What is wrong with replacing imperfect bits of your body with artificial parts that will allow you to perform better – or which might allow you to live longer?” he says. He himself has had several different electronic devices implanted into his body, including a type that gives him the ability to experience ultrasonic pulses.
Other examples include brain-computer interfaces, implanted with the intention of allowing people to control computers simply by thinking. Yet could a serious possible consequence be the computer being able to turn the tables and take over control of the person’s mind?
Transhumanists who want to do away with death sometimes turn to cryogenics, believing that preserving people’s bodies with liquid nitrogen will allow them to be resurrected at some later time, when science has found a way to reanimate them. Newer technologies visualise the replacement of failing organs with longer-lasting high-tech versions; presumably persons wanting to eliminate death are expecting to receive a never-ending series of organ replacements.
Such ideas were the remit of science fiction Today people are actually trying to make them reality – and the moral and ethical implications are rife. Issues that particularly concern Catholic ethicists include the commodification of human life, theological issues regarding the nature of humanity (created in the image of God), and challenges related to the essence of human identity.
In effect, transhumanists proclaim “We can remake ourselves as we want to be, without any restrictions placed on us by nature (read God) or anything else, or by anyone but we ourselves.” Many subscribers to transhumanism are ultra-wealthy and “follow the culture of youth with fanatical intensity”. There is risk of creating technologies that will only deepen gulfs between the richest and poorest in society.
Writing in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Allen Porter states: “It is crucially important to give proper scholarly attention to transhumanism now, not only because of its … rise as a cultural and political force … but also because of the imminence of major breakthroughs in the kinds of technologies that transhumanism focuses on.”
Dr Steven Umbrello is the Managing Director at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. In Word on Fire (www.wordonfire.org), he clarifies the position of the Catholic church (and Catholic Social Teaching) on transhumanism: “The Catholic Church is no stranger to engaging with modern technology and the corresponding ethical implications and has always emphasised the balancing of technological advancements and respect for human dignity and moral principles. While acknowledging the potential benefits of technology, the Church also warns against its misuse, particularly when it threatens the integrity of the human person. Transhumanism presents a unique challenge in this context, as it seeks to radically alter the human condition in ways that raise crucial ethical and theological questions.
“From a Catholic perspective, technodeterminism is particularly concerning because it risks reducing human beings to mere subjects of technological manipulation, ignoring the intrinsic value and dignity of the human person.”
Although alleviating human suffering and extending life can be noble, in many cases transhumanism is not aimed primarily at such goals. “The transhumanist approach risks dehumanising individuals by reducing them to the sum of their enhanced parts. This perspective undermines the holistic view of the person that the Catholic faith espouses, wherein body, mind, and spirit are integrally united.”
Trying to transcend inherent human limitations through technology disregards human beings’ God-given nature.
Technologies such as AI and bioengineering are based on algorithms and data processing and can simulate decision-making processes, but the self-awareness and moral import that humans need to make ethical decisions are completely lacking.
As Umbrello states: “Authentic human life involves more than just cognitive or physical capacities. It encompasses engaging in meaningful relationships, exercising moral judgment, and seeking spiritual fulfillment. These dimensions of life cannot be enhanced or replaced by technology, undergirding the irreplaceable value of the human person as created by God.”
There is something additional that Catholic teachings emphasise which many people might find a bit surprising. That is the role of suffering in people’s lives. There is no way any human can escape some type of suffering in this world, despite how single-mindedly some transhumanists may try to do so. Catholic teaching does not oppose alleviating suffering through medical and technological means but cautions against an approach that ignores the spiritual and moral implications of various types of human enhancement.
In the Catholic view, suffering is not merely an evil to be eradicated but something that can have redemptive value. No, this is not saying that suffering valued for its own sake. In the normal human experience, however, suffering and death are integral aspects of the human condition that contribute to spiritual growth and moral development.
Through suffering, human beings are offered opportunities to grow in compassion, empathy, and spiritual depth, especially if they align their experiences with the redemptive suffering of Christ. The Catholic theological view is that when suffering is understood correctly, its nature is transformed from a mere consequence of human frailty into a potential pathway for communion with God and personal sanctification.
This is a powerful argument indeed, and views like this must absolutely be part of conversations about how far transhumanism, technodeterminism, and other isms can legally go.
In his encyclical Laudato Si’, Pope Francis stated: “There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means an increase of “progress” itself… [It is] as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such…. Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us.”
Unfortunately, concerned Christians do not at present have any direct way to help prevent the worst forms of transhumanism. Even so, we can’t stand idly by while scientists and businesses increasingly try to change humans into something radically different from what God created.
Official bioethics bodies that address issues such as transhumanism, with a vast number of professionals being involved in decision-making. Healthcare professionals, bioethicists, religious leaders, legal representatives, various types of stakeholders, researchers, and even patients and the public may all provide input. Ethics committees, government bodies and professional organisations may also be involved.
In Umbrello’s words: “Ultimately, a balanced approach that respects human dignity and fosters genuine human flourishing will ensure that technology serves humanity rather than diminishes it, upholding the Catholic vision of a life oriented toward eternal fulfilment in God.”
To foster the common good, we desperately need means of keeping the less ethically oriented companies from pursuing inventions that may very well lead to Frankenstein’s monsters over which we have no control.
Image: Frankenstein’s Monster (played by Boris Karloff) and Little Maria (played by a young Marilyn Harris) in a scene from the 1931 film Frankenstein. Photo credit: Universal Pictures.