Catholicism vs. transhumanism

[AgnosTheist]

According to this list, Japan has the 9th-highest suicide rate in the world. The only predominantly Catholic country with a higher rate of suicide than Japan is Slovenia (5th-highest),

Oh my goodness, PLEASE STOP JOKING! You are making my throat hurt! oh my, look at the #1 spot, its lithuania with 79% catholics harharhar! and 5 other states on the top 9 are christian majorities (most being catholics)! oh well. ok back to Transhumanism again.

 

[djrakowski]

Oh my goodness, PLEASE STOP JOKING! You are making my throat hurt! oh my, look at the #1 spot, its lithuania with 79% catholics harharhar! and 5 other states on the top 9 are christian majorities (most being catholics)! oh well. ok back to Transhumanism again.

I stand corrected w.r.t. Lithuania and Catholicism. However, which of the countries in spots #1-8 are remotely as well-developed (considering availability of high-quality health care, education and social welfare structures) as Japan?

So are you trying to imply that Christianity actually does something to make a country worse? Or is there something else I’m supposed to read from this?

Seriously, though, only 8 countries with sizeable Christian polulations have a suicide statistic that’s worse than Japan. If they’re doing as well as you’d assert, wouldn’t there be less overall despair than is indicated by such a statistic?

You also mentioned the Philippines. Isn’t it interesting that, despite all the problems you claim are present in Philippine society, that they’re ranked only 84th in the suicide statistic (as of 1993, that is)? If you’re trying to imply that Christianity makes a country worse than the alternatives, you’re going to have to explain that one, as the Philippines is approx. 81% Catholic!

As for transhumanism… here’s the definition of it from the Wikipedia page:

Transhumanism (sometimes symbolized by >H or H+),[1] a term often used as a synonym for “human enhancement”, is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death.

Sounds fine… but how in heaven’s name do you ameliorate involuntary death? And what does that leave but… here it comes… suicide? ALL death, except that of suicide, is involuntary! So, at least in this one aspect, transhumanism is glaringly incompatible with Christianity, as evidenced in the Catechism:

**2281 **Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

Also note that it seeks to ameliorate what it regards as unnecessary aspects of the human condition. In other words, transhumanism applies no objective standards by which it has arrived at this list of undesirables.

Further, how would you apply transhumanism to the amelioration of stupidity? What is the definition of stupidity that needs to be ameliorated? For example, I have an 8-year old who suffers profoundly from autism, and may never function independently.

It’s hard to imagine how a philosophy as human-centric as transhumanism could be even remotely compatible with Christianity, as it seeks to make human achievement and scientific prowess take the place of God.

 

[djrakowski]

In addition to (and partly in response to) what I posted above. I started a thought, but due to poor editing skills on my part I was a bit unclear:

Further, how would you apply transhumanism to the amelioration of stupidity? What is the definition of stupidity that needs to be ameliorated? For example, I have an 8-year old who suffers profoundly from autism, and may never function independently. Is he stupid enough to require amelioration, and in what form would that amelioration come - mercy killing, pre-emptive abortion, institutional warehousing, genetic engineering?

**2275 **“One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.” “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”
“Certain attempts to *influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance *are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity” which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[AgnosTheist]

However, which of the countries in spots #1-8 are remotely as well-developed (considering availability of high-quality health care, education and social welfare structures) as Japan?

we’d better continue discussing this on another thread, here let me make one…

 

[mlchance]

are you comparing japan’s karaoke bars with catholic brazil’s rampant sex trade? get outta here!

As opposed to Japan’s rampant sex trade? Its high suicide rates? Its high rates of deliberately unemployed 20-somethings living at home with Mom and Dad? Its endemic racism against non-Japanese? The ongoing disintegration of filial piety?

Yeah, the Japanese have a real utopia.

Back on topic: Transhumanism is just another foolish utopianism, and utopianism put into action always leads to mass murder.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[djrakowski]

Back on topic: Transhumanism is just another foolish utopianism, and utopianism put into action always leads to mass murder.

:yup: If technology can’t solve all these intolerable conditions (that each transhumanist is free to define for himself), then those who suffer from them must face the compassion of the state wanting them dead - you know, for their own good, of course

 

[AgnosTheist]

ALL death, except that of suicide, is involuntary!

So, at least in this one aspect, transhumanism is glaringly incompatible with Christianity, as evidenced in the Catechism

Hey Jesus’ death was voluntary. So was Samson’s. And Samson’s case was a crystal clear suicide approved by God. Sacrificing your life by putting yourself in harm’s way to save people is considerable as ‘voluntary death’.

Also note that it seeks to ameliorate what it regards as unnecessary aspects of the human condition. In other words, transhumanism applies no objective standards by which it has arrived at this list of undesirables.

those have always been viewed as undesirables, long before the advent of christianity.

Further, how would you apply transhumanism to the amelioration of stupidity? What is the definition of stupidity that needs to be ameliorated? For example, I have an 8-year old who suffers profoundly from autism, and may never function independently.

i think it only means to get smarter through medical means. christian doctors have been doing that for hundreds of years now. fighting mental illnesses and deterioration.

 

[ribozyme]

Further, how would you apply transhumanism to the amelioration of stupidity? What is the definition of stupidity that needs to be ameliorated? For example, I have an 8-year old who suffers profoundly from autism, and may never function independently. Is he stupid enough to require amelioration, and in what form would that amelioration come - mercy killing, pre-emptive abortion, institutional warehousing, genetic engineering?

Relax, transhumanists do not intend to kill people. Some transhumanists, are strongly pro-life.

This is from an abstract of a talk at a transhumanism conference held at Stanford called “Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights” titled “Our Right to Life”:

I will argue that it will not, because of its irreconcileability with values that are more deeply held by the large majority of humanity than any values that argue against the quest for a cure. **Foremost among these is the view that humans have a right to live as long as they wish to. **

ieet.org/index.php/IEET/HETHR_bios/degrey

How can that stance be anti-life? He says that human have a right to live.

 

[djrakowski]

Relax, transhumanists do not intend to kill people. Some transhumanists, are strongly pro-life.

This is from an abstract of a talk at a transhumanism conference held at Stanford called “Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights” titled “Our Right to Life”:

ieet.org/index.php/IEET/HETHR_bios/degrey

How can that stance be anti-life? He says that human have a right to live.

But nobody has answered what happens when their attempts to alleviate ‘stupidity’ (whatever that means) via technology fail.

Note also that you said that “some transhumanists” are pro-life. First, that’s only some, not all.

Second, what’s meant by pro-life? Catholicism rejects artificial birth control, and some methods are abortifacient. Abortion, as you well know, is regarded as gravely sinful by Catholicism.

Third, with their emphasis on technology, to what extent does the transhumanist movement (if such a thing exists as a coherent entity, something of which I’ve seen no evidence) rely upon such life-destroying techniques as embryonic stem cell research, which is also forbidden in Catholicism?

Too, nobody has elaborated on what’s meant by ending ‘involuntary death.’ The only death that’s not involuntary is suicide, and that’s incompatible with Christianity.

So no, transhumanism is wholly incompatible with Christianity.

 

[ribozyme]

But nobody has answered what happens when their attempts to alleviate ‘stupidity’ (whatever that means) via technology fail.

Note also that you said that “some transhumanists” are pro-life. First, that’s only some, not all.

Second, what’s meant by pro-life? Catholicism rejects artificial birth control, and some methods are abortifacient. Abortion, as you well know, is regarded as gravely sinful by Catholicism.

Third, with their emphasis on technology, to what extent does the transhumanist movement (if such a thing exists as a coherent entity, something of which I’ve seen no evidence) rely upon such life-destroying techniques as embryonic stem cell research, which is also forbidden in Catholicism?

Too, nobody has elaborated on what’s meant by ending ‘involuntary death.’ The only death that’s not involuntary is suicide, and that’s incompatible with Christianity.

So no, transhumanism is wholly incompatible with Christianity.

Well, transhumanist do not encourage suicide.

If you do not know what “pro-life” means according to transhumanists, see this link.

Tell me how that isn’t pro-life and the talk is titled our right to life.

It isn’t a coherent entity; there are several transhumanist organizations, but they are able to organize conferences such as “Human Enhancement Technologies and Human Rights” at Stanford.

We support the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In other words, we want people to be better than well.

I thought that is a pro-life philosophy as it respects and seeks to foster life. Many people are unhappy with their own existence and they would be happier when they can control of own physiology with technology. They do not have to suffer with their current limitations.

 

[Nullasalus]

What do Catholics think about transhumanism?

I actually have a very positive view of some transhumanist aims and goals. I disagree strongly with some of their popular views, such as atheism (How anyone can be a transhumanist and an atheist boggles me - some form of deism, however weak, would make more sense), and other specifics. I also dislike the idea of ‘uploading’ consciousness, and think that particular plan is ridiculous, though I imagine there are alternative plans I’d agree with more.

I’ve read about some christian (even Catholic) transhumanists, and frankly, I think transhumanists have vastly more in common with christians and catholics than they do with the current New Atheist crop.

My favorite transhumanist would be this guy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Fyodorovich_Fyodorov

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We know from human experience that great intelligence does not equal great morality. Therefore, if human/machine blends of some kind did come into existence at some point in the future, there’s no reason to think they’d be any more moral than anyone else.

In fact, as Christians we know that an archangel and many other angels, in spite of their exalted status and superhuman intellects and knowledge, rejected God and chose ultimate immorality.

The idea that transhumans could enable people to transcend pain, sin or evil is absurd. Greater capacity to do good or evil does not mean one chooses good more often. The technological advances of modern times, as it has progressed into greater scientific knowledge and greater and greater immorality, has proven that pretty effectively.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

double post