Transhumanism: The Final Frontier

“And when everyone’s super—no one will be!” ~The villain “Syndrome” in The Incredibles

What Is Transhumanism?

In 2009, the World Transhumanist Association’s website posted the Transhumanist Declaration. It summarized the goals of transhumanism in saying, “Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.”¹

Max More, in his work Principles of Entropy, provided one of the first precise definitions of the movement:

Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies.

In broad terms, transhumanism is the philosophy and science of using technology to transcend the physical, mental, and psychological limitations of humanity.

In other words, being human is not enough for transhumanists.

As Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom explains:

Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways. Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution. Transhumanists hope that by responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman, beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have.²

Many pro-lifers think that transhumanism is limited to video games like “Deus Ex,” science fiction films such as Gattaca, and personalities like Captain America and the artificial person Data from “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” They believe that transhumanism is an abstract concept that perhaps our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren will have to deal with.

These people are usually astonished to hear that transhumanism is a solidly-established bona-fide social movement that has existed for more than half a century. It boasts glossy magazines and technical journals, a worldwide network of well-funded organizations, international conferences featuring dozens of celebrities whose names we all recognize, and a multi-billion-dollar media machine to push its ideas.

Prophets arise and warn us regarding the life issues in about twenty-year cycles. But we have blithely ignored them and allowed great evils to saunter into our world with virtually no opposition. In the 1930s, these visionaries warned us about contraception, and we chuckled at them. In the 1950s, they told us that abortion would soon be legalized unless we did something, but we disregarded them. In the 1970s, they wrote about impending euthanasia, and we shrugged. In the 1990s, they warned us about the homosexual special rights movement, and we didn’t care because we thought the idea of men marrying men was ludicrous.

And recently, in the 2010s, some raised the red flag about transhumanism. What will our response be the fifth time around? Have we finally learned our lesson? Will we awaken from our peaceful slumber, or will we passively watch yet another evil leisurely occupy our land?

Transhumanism will not gather steam decades from now or in the far future — it is advancing at full speed right now. So we must take concrete and decisive action today, because transhumanism is far worse than abortion, euthanasia, war and genocide combined. It is, in fact, the first truly existential menace to humanity. It is the first threat in history that has the potential to end us as a species.

The Origin of Transhumanism

We have all heard about “transgenderism” by now. A tiny gaggle of mentally confused people are imposing their absence of morality on the rest of us, and we are bombarded by stories of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, bathroom bills, and outraged pro-“trans” celebrities daily. Many of us have also heard about the misadventures of Rachel Dolezal, who pretended to be black, and Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, who faked being Native American for personal gain. This is called “transethnicity” or “transracialism.”

But how many have heard of “transableism” and “trans-speciesism?” These and other bizarre “trans” movements all spring from the loss of a sense of who we are and an indifference to God’s plan for our lives. They all are signs of a deep emotional and spiritual malaise, and they always lead to unhappiness and discontent because they separate us from God and our own nature. They are also all intermediate steps which are helping soften up public opinion for the acceptance of the ultimate step—transhumanism.

As with all advances of the culture of death, activists use the strategy of “incrementalism” or “gradualism.” They wait until society is almost used to their previous changes, and then push hard for the next step, always in the name of the shiny new “human right” that they have just invented. Regarding euthanasia, Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society, (now called Compassion and Choices) said, “We have to go stage by stage, with the living will, with the power of attorney, with the withdrawal of this, and of that; we have to go stage by stage. Your side would call that the ‘slippery slope.'”³

This strategy of “rights creep” has worked very well for the culture of death until now.

Although transhumanist thinking has been around for more than half a century now, it would not have advanced anywhere nearly as quickly had it not been preceded by the several “trans” movements that have paved its way.

Transgenderism

The term “transsexual” generally fell out of favor a few years ago, when more educated and logical people pointed out that there is no such thing as a “sex-change operation.” A person cannot change their sex, because every cell in their body can be positively identified as either male or female.

All you can change is “gender” (which is a matter of how others perceive you) through superficial surgical mutilation and the assistance of a good costume designer.

So the anti-life activists simply switched tactics. Bella Abzug gave us a definition of “gender” which is a superb example of vagueness, and thus tailor-made for manipulation: “The meaning of the word ‘gender’ has evolved as differentiated from the word ‘sex’ to express the reality that women’s and men’s roles and status are socially constructed and subject to change.”⁴

As Abzug says, gender is “subject to change.” So currently we have at least 250 genders, according to Tumblr. Categories include androgyne, neutrois, two-spirit, non-binary, genderqueer, cisgender, pangender, MTF, and on and on and on. A person can even change genders several times a day if he or she (it?) desires. As feminist Kate Bornestein explains, “Gender fluidity is the ability to freely and knowingly become one or many of a limitless number of genders, for any length of time, at any rate of change. Gender fluidity recognizes no borders or rules of gender.”⁵

This insanity is seeping into all aspects of our daily lives — but it is insanity with a purpose, and it has fangs.

For example, there is a confusing proliferation of pronouns that all of us are expected to memorize and address people by. If we do not comply, we will be punished, as has already begun happening in schools. In one 2016 case, a “transmasculine” teacher in Oregon was awarded $60,000 because other staff members refused to go along with his delusions and his increasing demands.⁶ This coercion is all part of the plan, of course—when the next set of “trans” demands arrives (and there will always be more demands), people will be afraid to do anything but comply.

Under the threat of punishment, we are also expected to learn more than two hundred pronouns, including “tey/tem/ter/temself;” “ey/em/eir/emself;” “thon/thon/thons/ thonself;” “fae/faer/faers/ faerself;” “vae/vaer/vaers/vaerself;” “xe/xim/xis/ximself;” and “ze(or zie)/zir/zirs/zirself.”⁷

Postgenderism

Transhumanists see transgenderism as an important step towards achieving their goals. They intend to eventually discard their humanity entirely by melding with machines. If people consider this concept reasonable, why can we not jettison our own gender — and even the concept of gender — now? It is no surprise, therefore, that transhumanists support the concept of switching genders at the drop of an ambiguously-sexed hat.

“Postgenderism” will help usher in transhumanity—that’s part of the game plan. When people get used to one anti-life initiative, there is always another one waiting in the wings, fully prepped and with talking points already drilled into the empty heads of the media.

The paper “Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary” says:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction. Greater biological fluidity and psychological androgyny will allow future persons to explore both masculine and feminine aspects of personality. Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice. Bodies and personalities in our postgender future will no longer be constrained and circumscribed by gendered traits, but enriched by their use in the palette of diverse self-expression.⁷

They always use the word “choice”—at least at the beginning. It is a matter of history that all evils invariably let “choice” fall by the wayside as they gradually morph into mandates, and as they accumulate enough power. If transgenderism can be this coercive and bullying, how much worse will transhumanism be?

But all of this is for the general good, they say, so a little arm-twisting is justified.

Final Thoughts

As British journalist and businessman Matt Ridley acknowledges:

It would be easy to engineer a society with no sex difference in attitude between men and women. Inject all pregnant women with the right dose of hormones, and the result would be men and women with normal bodies but identical feminine brains. War, rape, boxing, car racing, pornography, and hamburgers and beer would soon be distant memories. A feminist paradise would have arrived.⁸

We are being conditioned to accept the idea that transgenderism is here to stay, and that it is useless to even speak out about it.