Thursday, 20 November 2025

Transhumanism - a cure for entropy? No - transhumanism is a faith-based ideology

Like most Men though history; I regard "entropy" as the fundamental problem of this mortal life on earth - in other words, what the IV Gospel called "death" or "sin". 

Entropy is the tendency of all entities to undergo change, degeneration, and dissolution - loss of form; for Men to suffer disease and death. 

Entropy is the fundamental problem of mortal life, because it cannot be prevented - or, at least, it never yet has been prevented. 


But transhumanism claims that entropy can be cured - by human effort, and the application of science and technology. 

And transhumanism is - mostly implicitly, and for lack of any "acceptable" alternative - perhaps the dominant ideal and ideology of the developed world today. 

The main basis of this claim to be able, in principle, to cure entropy; is that disease and degeneration has been delayed in many places; and the average age of death has been been delayed considerably. 

In other words, some of the symptoms of entropy have been - in some cases - quantitatively alleviated by extension of technologies of exactly the kind we already have - drugs, surgery, genetic manipulations and so forth. 


On the other hand, the waning of one disease means the waxing of another - e.g. as a smaller proportion of otherwise healthy old people died of pneumonia in their sixties; a much greater proportion of decrepit older people died with dementia in their eighties. 

While average human lifespan has indeed greatly increased globally, and especially in developed nations; maximum human life span seems to be the same as ever (or hardly changed). 

And while people in their fifties and sixties look and behave younger than those of that age did 100 years ago; if they live long enough the signs of extreme old age will come upon them - and with greater rapidity (somewhat as Aldous Huxley described in his Brave New World). 


So, transhumanism is not based on any fundamental insight or empirical discovery; rather it should be considered an ideology (i.e. a "religion" minus the divine) that is intended to, and sometimes does, replace religions - especially Christianity.

In the IV Gospel; the work of Jesus Christ is rooted in his offering an eternal and complete cure for entropy (which is called "death" or "sin") - but on the other side of death and by resurrection.

Transhumanism offers its cures for entropy on this side of death, and without the re-making of self that is resurrection - which is probably the basis of the appeal of transhumanism.


The promise of transhumanism is one of alleviation of suffering and abolition of death soon, and without having to die first.

If this was possible, and true, then the appeal of transhumanism is obvious to anyone who desires above all to escape from disease, degeneration, and death. 

However; at root the transhumanist proposed cure of entropy is purely imaginary, a "nice notion", a wave of the hand, an unfounded assertion...

If entropy is real, then it cannot (cannot) be cured by any possible technology - because all technologies are subject to entropy - and so on, all the way down.

And if entropy is not real... well, that would be something that transhumanists would need to argue explicitly


Yet transhumanism passes-itself-off (with its quantitative analogies) as "hard science" or more like "applied technology"; a thing attainable with bureaucratic reliability, by a sufficiently large and well-funded project management of research effort: by directed human effort. 


With transhumanism we have, as so often, unacknowledged metaphysics as the basis of an assumed ideology - an ideology that pretends to be a consequence and inference of solid and inescapable empirical facts. 

Thus people are choosing to be transhumanist purely on the basis of wanting to escape the effects of entropy, and then assuming that it is possible to abolish entropy in this mortal life and world. 

The assumption that entropy can be cured is the basis of all that follows in transhumanism; and, as an assumption, it cannot be disproved - it is a matter of faith.


What I ask is that such an assumption be regarded as an assumption.

The assumption should be made clear and explicit and up-front; rather than hidden-away, implicit - or falsely denied to be "an assumption". 

And consequently the ignorant or dishonest pretence should be dropped that transhumanism is a rational extension of further-developing science, medicine, or technological breakthroughs. 

It is no such thing:   


Transhumanism Just-Is a faith-based ideology; and should be acknowledged, evaluated and judged as such. 

 

11 comments:

  1. I work in the technology industry, including some years in Silicon Valley. I've known many people afflicted with the spiritual disease of transhumanism.

    My fundamental impression is that this belief system constitutes a hard rejection of Jesus Christ's offer of eternal life for those who willingly follow him.

    Neo-Gnosticism remains as opposed to Christ as ever. The AI Prometheus is stirring.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Stephen - If you follow the links, you will see that I had a lot to do with transhumanism from the period around the millennium until 2008; so I speak as an ex-insider.

    What do you mean by Neo-Gnosticism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @DrCharlton -- by Neo-Gnosticism I meant the tendency of the transhumanists to regard the human body as fundamentally flawed and weak, the ersatz "salvation" through technology, and the secret knowledge available to insiders (billionaires and trillionaires in the coming AI-driven world).

      Delete
    2. @Stephen - OK, that is coherent - but I dislike the name! - because the link to historical Gnosticism is so tenuous as to be misleading. https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=gnosticism

      Delete
  3. You think that youth prolongation is a bad thing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I used to listen quite a lot to Aubrey de Grey talking about research into human longevity.

    He talks among other things about 'longevity escape velocity' which is the date beyond which new treatments to extend human life will be found before already treated human beings die, so their lives will keep on being extended indefinitely, barring accidents.

    He proposes this will be done by repairing existing damage in the human body, just as a classic car may live over a century if worn out parts are periodically repaired and/or replaced.

    He has identified seven categories of damage, one of which is cancer. Another is the gradual accumulation of intracellular 'gunk' : biochemicals which build up in cells and which the cells are unable to break down.

    An interesting example is oxidised cholesterol which builds up in white blood cells attempting to clean arterial walls. They can't break down the oxidised form and it eventually immobilises them: they become giant 'foam cells' which stick to the wall eventually causing problems like inflammation, blood clots, heart disease.

    The ingenious solution to this was to dig up bacterial samples from former cholera burial sites near Cambridge and find an enzyme capable of snipping up this waste product.

    This finding was decades ago; de Grey has written about it and spoken of it many times. Yet as far as I can tell no drug at all has reached the market.

    He's a highly articulate and interesting speaker, though aggressive and relentless. He can sway business leaders just by being in the same room. He has notably set up camps and retreats for young acolytes in North America.

    Overall, much talk about longevity but nothing to show for it (that I've heard of).

    Taken together with other unsavoury facts I conclude that Bruce is correct. What we are witnessing is a nascent ideology, not a serious research programme.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Ap - The guiding *desire* for youth prolongation is a bad thing, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ron - Within medicine there are practices for treating various causes of dysfunctionality - some related to ageing. For example, the drug treatment of high blood pressure has probably extended life overall, and improved functionality in old age.

    But this is just normal medical research.

    What make transhumanism "a thing" is the assertion that it can do more than treat diseases. At the very least; it must claim to *enhance* Life, above and beyond the kind of efforts that always existed with this aim.

    The trouble is that we can observe for ourselves how little difference quantitative improvement has made to the quality of life.

    On average people live to eighty-ish nowadays, compared with living to mid-sixties a few decades ago. But there has been no consequent positive transformation in subjective human well-being - or if there has been, then apparently nobody notices it.

    Instead, dying is more feared now than ever before - such that even the subjective *risk* of suffering late in life, leads millions of people to want to be painlessly murdered in advance of any possibility of suffering.

    And, no matter that people look younger than they used to in middle age, this hasn't made them more contented - but instead *more* terrified of showing their age, eventually.

    So "quantitative" transhumanism (delaying the perceptible effects of entropy) makes no qualitative difference to the human condition.

    Transhumanism would only be a real and new thing, if it could offer a *qualitative* elimination of entropy - which it can't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But if you consider that youth prolongation and medical treatments are a bad thing than you should consider the opposite of it i.e. faster ageing and untreated diseases to be a good thing, which is biologically contrintuitive.
    I think that bioligical and other types of immortality are impossible because universe is moving towards the heat death and even biologically immortal organism will die without external energy to sustain itself. So it's funny that people who pretend to be scientific are really anti scientific.
    However from my point of view in current civilization humans should live longer because most people start to do important things closer to the age of 30 and have like 10~ years of relatively active age. I myself became conscious at the age around 22(currently 24) and sad that I am closer to my 40 years than to my first grade age, while only started to live truly

    ReplyDelete
  8. And I guess there is also a thing in the Bible that the further is someone from Adam generationally the lesser he lived down to the regular human age?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Ap - "if you consider that youth prolongation and medical treatments are a bad thing "

    You will have to read what I have written with a bit more care.

    And also be careful not to conflate unlike things: "youth prolongation" and "medical treatment".

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. "Anonymous" comments are deleted without being read.