The Machine shall Inherit the Earth?

It is a strong consensus among many scientists today that man is but a biological machine; different in substance but not in essence from the computer that is in front of you. Thus when faced with the primordial war with death, disease, ignorance and immense human misery, it is logical to many members of the technological elite to advocate a ‘transhumanist’ final solution: where the root of all human misery is traced to the limitations and problems of our randomly evolved biological hardware, and where the prospective nirvana concerns a systemic ‘upgrading’ to achieve a vastly superior and ever-improving post-human body.

For those who firmly believe in some form of materialistic monism, and who stridently equates the human being with the human body—the transhumanist impulse surely represents the final triumph of our (merely) human rationality and redeeming technologies. Death, where is your sting indeed, in the face of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, cybernetics and nanotechnology. Even if mere homo sapiens fail or refuse their transfiguration, there is always the transhumanist Singularity, the true Apocalypse when the mighty machine matches and then exponentially exceeds the prowess of the puny human brain. Thus will the true Gods be born, the incredible and superhuman intelligences that will establish a true and invincible dominion over the forces of Nature.

And the post-human, freed from all biological imperfections, will emerge victorious over death and all suffering. After this, these new Gods must naturally purge the earth of the unworthy ones who have refused to partake of the Tree of Life, or at least put them in their proper place as the failed relics of evolution. Thus the Machine will inherit the Earth. And woe to those who dare to think otherwise.

Thus says the transhumanist gospel.

Some transhumanists may claim that the above represents an extreme version of their creed. Indeed, most transhumanists do not advocate a cleansing of the earth. But many do recognize it as a pretty inevitable consequence of the emergence of a superior species. We need not look beyond the extinction of homo erectus and Neanderthal man after the appearance of homo sapiens.

Indeed, evolution is anything but a sweet process; yes there is collaboration and altruism within social species and sometimes there is mutualism between species. But war underlies the process of evolution. Those who are best able to use the scarce resources of the universe inevitably crowd out or relegate to irrelevance any competing species in similar ecological niches. Of course post-humans might eventually become energy beings that fly off to live on the sun, but in the short term, competition, war and even genocide are probably inevitable. And in such a conflict, transhumanists have little doubt about the outcome.

Some transhumanists may also argue that the post-human could well be a kinder and sweeter version of the human being. Perhaps. But who’s to stop other transhumanists from creating demonic versions of the human being? Since when have we NOT misused our technologies? And the sweetest post-human have to defend their fledging communities in order to survive. And self-defense could easily take on a pre-emptive spin.

Thus utopian visions of a fuss-free emergence of new post-human species and civilizations alongside our own is quite simply that—utopian and practically impossible.

More importantly, what if transhumanism itself is based on a terrible delusion? The great world religions are surprisingly unified in their analysis of suffering. Buddhism, Hinduism and the 3 monotheistic religions attribute human misery—so pervasive, deep and terrible to even a cursory observer—to one simple thing: human evil. Buddhism and Hinduism may call it bad karma, and Christians, Muslims and Jews might call it sin, but we intuitively understand what they are talking about. And they are similarly agreed that the way to true joy consist of putting an end to the perversity of sin.

Some might quickly point out how these religions appear to have quite different definitions of sin. Christians kill cows without qualms while Hindus see it as a mortal sin. Similarly Hindus horrify Christians and Muslims with their caste system and supposed polytheism. Jews and Buddhists do not believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the sole savior of the world, while many Christians see such disbelief as a sure road to eternal hell. So what is evil? What is good?

There is obviously no simple answer to this age-old question. Christianity shapes my personal answer, and I believe that we should define evil not by legalistic ‘Thou-shalt-nots’, but by whether certain actions or thoughts take us spiritually closer to God: that which brings us to closer communion with the Fount of all life, goodness and joy is good. That which brings us further away is evil and sin. But there might not be clear-cut rules for all men in all circumstances. The best guide in an immensely complex world might not be a code of good behavior but the Spirit of God in a pure heart and mind.

This may sound to some like a post-modernistic denial of absolute truth and right. But that will be nonsense. Obviously I do believe in absolute truth, but that truth is God himself and it is also divine Love. And I see no reason why the expression of divine love and truth can ever be cast into a dead mould. I think the ‘glorious liberty of the children of God’ should consist in the unpredictable and yet perfectly regulated action that result when we manage to connect with the Spirit of God and obey him.

And I also believe the closer we are to God, the clearer our vision becomes and the more perfect our actions become. And this perfection, or holiness, as Christians put it, will in turn facilitate an even deeper journey into the heart of God. ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good’ says the Psalm. It is through spiritual journey that we appreciate the resounding truth of the Biblical teaching that human beings are made for God and can never rest till we enter deeply into the joy of God. It is also when we have developed the taste for God that we are able to understand why being cut off from God is truly the essence and foundation of all suffering.

From a spiritual and Christian perspective, the transhumanist vision is aptly described by a verse from the prophet Jeremiah: “They have forsaken Me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (Jeremiah 2:12-14). If the true cause of suffering is man’s isolation from the living God, the transhumanist ‘solution’ is utter folly. Indeed in its presumptuous hubris of seeking to become ‘like gods’ without God, it perfectly re-enacts the primordial fall of Adam and Eve. Perhaps the just consequence will be humanity’s exile from its technological Eden. Thus instead of ascending to the heights of immortality, man may well descend through catastrophe to the level of beasts.