Are you ready for Humans 2.0? Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism with Fuz Rana

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
And welcome to another edition of the handcum Plug podcast
of podcasts that is absolutely committed to bringing the most interesting, informative,
inspirational people on the planet directly to your earbuds. And
I'm really looking forward to the podcast that we're just
about to engage in. Before we do, however, I want

(00:44):
to say, if you enjoy the podcast, please subscribe, rate review.
It helps a lot. And we're going to be talking
about a particular book called Humans two point zero and
I absolutely loved the title of this book. This book
is available through the ministry of the Christian Research Institute.
You can get a copy for standing should to shoulder

(01:06):
with us in the battle for life and truth by
simply going to the web at equipped dot org or
writing me at Post Office Box eighty five hundred, Charlotte,
North Carolina, zip code two eight two seven. One. Our
guest today has made great contributions to the Christian Research Journal.
His name is Fuzz Rana. He is president. He's the

(01:28):
chief executive officer of Reasons to Believe in Incredible Ministry.
He has a PhD in chemistry. He's the author of
many different articles as I just mentioned, some of which
have appeared in the Christian Research Journal. He's the author
of quite a few books, but the book we're really
interested in today in a book you have to read.

(01:51):
I mean, this is cutting edge stuff. Humans two point
zero subtitled Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Perspectives on Tree and Humanism.
If you don't know what transhumanism is all about, this
will be your primer. This book is so interesting in
the way it's designed. I get chills when I think

(02:13):
about the chapters. Each one of the chapters really relates
back to a superhero, something we're familiar with. But you
start to understand that there's rhyme and reason behind why
we gravitate towards superheroes. And I'm going to ask Fuzz
about that as we get into the podcast. But first

(02:33):
of all, just a delight to have you on the
Handkum Plug podcast.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well, Hank, it's an honor and a privilege to be
invited onto your show, So thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
Well, you are welcome, And of course this book is
co authored with Ken Samples, and he used to work
at the Christian Research Institute and I've been following his
development over the years and so proud of the person
he's become and certainly an incredible intellect.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Yeah, a good friend and love the man to death.
And he's shaped and influenced the way I think about
so many things. So it's an honor to call him
a friend.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
Absolutely, And you know, I want to start with what
I just mentioned superheroes. What an interesting way to design
the book and to make a correlation between are fetish
so to speak, with superheroes and the transhumanist movement.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, well, you know, I have the true confession here.
I collect comic books. I'm a comic book buff. To
my wife's horror. You know, my garage is full of
stacks of comic books. But you know, one of the
things that's fascinating about comic books, in superhero comics in general,
is it really is a theodicy, a response to the

(03:51):
problem of evil. The world is not the way it's
supposed to be, and that we imagine the need for
a savior. And so these superheroes represent a type of savior.
They provide a pathway for salvation, rescuing people from again,
you know, dire predicaments, but also really trying to correct

(04:12):
the wrongs in the world. And you know, one of
the superheroes I've long been fascinated with is iron Man right,
And in a sense, iron Man represents really a solution
to the problem of evil, where our salvation is found
in what we can understand about the world through science

(04:34):
and what we can then turn into technology. This is
sometimes called techno faith, where we turn to science and
technology to solve the biggest problems that confront us as
human beings, and for many people, maybe the chief problem
is our mortality and can technology grant us a type

(04:56):
of eternal life if you will?

Speaker 1 (04:58):
Yeah, techno faith as a term we'll get back to
a number of times in the podcast, But I think
what would be really helpful at the outset is to
get some kind of perspective, in an overarching sense of
what transhumanism is, what does it embody?

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah, well, you know, if there's the ultimate expression of
techno faith, it would be this idea of transhumanism. And
I find that many people have never heard that term,
but they're very familiar with the concepts of transhumanism because
it is the stuff of science fiction. Right in a nutshell,
Transhumanism is this philosophical movement in which the objective is

(05:41):
to use technology to correct our flaws in our biological
makeup to transcend our limitations as human beings, with the
hope of maybe even extending human life expectancy to a
practical immortality. Some transhumanist argue that we ought to use
science and technology to evolve humanity into these posthuman species

(06:08):
that would be so different from us that we wouldn't
recognize them as humans. And this idea, as I mentioned,
is the type of thing that you would expect to
see in science fiction, and it's an idea that's been
around for well over a century, but nobody in the
Academy really took it seriously. It was a fringe idea.

(06:28):
But within the last decade, there's been incredible advances in
three areas gene editing, brain, computer interface technology, and in
anti aging technology that suddenly give legitimacy to this transhumanist vision.
And it's now been propelled from the fringe of the

(06:49):
Academy into the mainstream, and it's very much infiltrating pop culture,
infiltrating our world at large. I would submit that it
may very well be one of the most important ideas
that will shape the world that we live in the
next couple of decades.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
And one of the points you make in the book
is that techno faith transhumanism is rooted in a concept
that comes out of the Enlightenment. It's the idea that
there's such a thing as progress in a cultic sense,
the cult of progress or the myth of progress. Help

(07:28):
us understand the myth of progress.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
In a nutshell, it's this idea that as we develop
a better understanding of the world, as we develop new technologies,
we are inexorably going to move into better and better
places as human civilization, ultimately attaining a type of utopia.
And this is the mindset that you know, fuels really

(07:55):
transhumanism and really fuels much of what we see in
science and technology that if we can only make that
next discovery, if we can only develop that next technology,
things are just going to get better. And so many
people operate in that mindset, whether they fully appreciate that

(08:16):
or not, that technology is the path to, you know,
ultimately a type of utopian future. And to be clear,
technology has changed our world as it has improved the
lives of many people. But the story is a lot
more complicated than that.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Yeah, and that's why you use iron Man again, because
he's the embodiment of techno faith and therefore the melding
of man and machine in a way that really is
emblematic of the cult of progress.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Yeah, well, you know, it's interesting because, you know, even
though iron Man is a superhero, you know, and he's
the stuff of comic books, the Iron Man comics have
been pretty sophisticated over the years in engaging the relationship
between human beings and technology, and so, yes, indeed, he

(09:07):
is an embodiment of techno faith. But there's a number
of themes that emerge in the Iron Man comic over
and over again, like the question of identity what does
technology do to our identity? And with Iron Man, he's
obsessed with developing armor that becomes more and more integrated
into his personal being. To the point where where does

(09:28):
Tony Stark end and Iron Man begin? For example, right?
Or you know, iron Man embodies our addiction to technology.
We want more, we want more, we want better, we
want better, and even it exposes our vulnerability. That technology
improves our lives, but it also makes us vulnerable in

(09:49):
new ways because of our dependence on the technology, and.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
As human beings, we're all subjected to the idea of
transhumanism because we have this innate sense of transcendence that's
built into our very nature isshuman beings.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Yeah, you know, it's very easy to look at transhumanism
as a philosophical movement and almost dismiss it as being
extreme or maybe even a little bizarre. But you know,
we were just chatting off air. You know, I turned
sixty two today, and so you know, I want to

(10:28):
do what I can to live as long as I can,
to be as healthy as I can. And so there
are developments and anti aging technology that look very attractive
to me, right, And so this anti aging pathway may
be what makes transhumanists of us all where we are
looking for can we take drugs, Can we you know,

(10:50):
develop some kind of regime that you know, helps to
extend our life expectancy. Can we actually intervene and disrupt
the aging process? The scientists who think that we not
only can arrest the aging process, but maybe even reverse it.
And so this leads to all kinds of very interesting
ethical questions. But there's an appeal to that that maybe

(11:14):
becoming a human machine, you know, hybrid a cyborg, isn't
that appealing to me? Right? Or having my genome altered
with gene editing. But boy, if I can do something
to extend my life expectancy, it's going to be very
attractive to me. Even though I operate within a Christian worldview,
there's something you know, within me that craves you know,

(11:36):
what transhumanism offers. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (11:39):
Absolutely. And one of the things I really like about
your book is you're not telling us what to think.
You're teaching us in this book how to think about transhumanism.
And I think that distinction bears elaboration.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, you know, and I appreciate that you picked up
on that point, because who am I to tell anybody
what to think about something as complex as transhumanism. But
if I can at least suggest to people ways in
which we can engage this idea as really a community
of Christians where we all need to be working together

(12:18):
to help formulate the response, that that could be the
best thing that I could accomplish is to make people
a aware of transhumanism, how important this idea will be,
and to give people some ways to think about it
so that we can then effectively engage this idea with
the idea of really pushing the gospel forward. But you know,

(12:41):
there are many issues to be quite Frank Hank, that
I have wrestled with related to transhumanism that I'm not
even sure what I think or what I believe. Right,
these are complex issues. I need to hear your input,
you know, hopefully you need to hear my input, and
we need to debate it with the each other, you know,
in a spirit of love, with the idea of how

(13:04):
do we formulate the best engagement from a Christian perspective?
And there may not be a single way to approach
this from a Christian perspective.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
Well, it's great about this book as well as you
get into some very complex issues. You mentioned gene editing,
and you warn the reader this is going to be
heavy duty material. It might take a while to slog
through this. Maybe you want to skip ahead, and you
can do that without losing the sense of this book.
But let's talk about gene editing for a moment. What

(13:35):
is gene editing?

Speaker 3 (13:37):
And also I want you to touch upon the complexity
of gene editing in the sense that it not only
affects an embryo at a particular stage, but it will
affect the lineage of that embryo and perpetuity.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, you know and gene editing has been the dream
of medical doctors and geneticis for probably a good fifty years,
maybe even longer than that, with the idea that, look,
many human diseases involve genetic defects. There's mutations that have
taken place that introduce genetic defects in our genome. And

(14:20):
in fact, there's probably somewhere between five to ten thousand
diseases that are genetic nature that involve a mutation in
a single spot in the genome. Many of them are rare,
there's not really any kind of treatments for them. And
maybe about ten fifteen years ago, a researcher at Stanford

(14:41):
University invented this new technique for gene editing called crisper
gene editing, and it's a very powerful way to alter
genomes of organisms, including human beings, with a high degree
of precision. It's very easy to use, it's very inexpensive,
is revolutionary, and since that time people have developed all

(15:04):
kinds of different variations of the technique. But we now
have a toolkit where we can literally go in and
alter the genetic makeup of any individual precisely the way
that we would want it to be altered. This is
going to revolutionize medicine in terms of treating genetic disorders
again and maybe even curing people that have genetic diseases.

(15:28):
In fact, about a year ago, there was a small
scale clinical trial involving about forty people with sickle cell
anemia and using Crisper gene editing, they cured. They cured
seventy five percent of the clinical participants of sickle cell anemia.
That's absolutely unheard of right to have that kind of success.

(15:52):
So this is a reality that's increasingly upon us. Even
though it's a very simple technique to use, there's a
lot of complication that prevent it from moving into a
clinical setting, but it really is a very powerful technique
again that will change medicine and in many respects in
good ways. But that same technology now can be used

(16:15):
to create designer human beings as well, or even to
modify human beings so that we're stronger and maybe more
intelligent or more psychologically well adjusted. At least that would
be the vision that some people have of gene editing.
But when it comes to gene editing, you know you
can you know, for example, with sickle cell anemia, what

(16:38):
you're doing is your gene editing particular cells that would
be found in bone marrow, so that you now produce
healthy red blood cells. But you're not really altering the
genetic makeup of that individual. So if that individual has
a child, that child very well could have sickle cell anemia.
The gold standard would be to do gene editing at

(17:02):
the embryo stage right where you are, you know, making
that genetic correction in the embryo, so then when that
embryo grows and develops, that genetic defect would not be
part of that individual's makeup or.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
The lineage of that individual.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
That's exactly right. But you know, this is all there's
all kinds of problems with this because you've got to
do genome screening at the mother and the father. Then
you have to then basically do gene editing, and all
the embryos that you would generate through in vitro fertilization,
those that weren't successfully gene edited would be destroyed. You know,

(17:41):
so there's a lot It's gruesome in many respects. I mean,
that is the cost. And if you happen to do
the genetting in such a way that not only you
correct the genetic defect, but maybe introduce other genetic changes
that you're unaware of. As you said, when that individual
reprise is that genetic defect is now introduced into the

(18:03):
human gene pool, and so that in and of itself
is deeply concerning. So you know, there are ways in
which this technique can be used that raise minimal ethical issues.
There are other ways the technique that can be used that,
even in a medical context, raise just horrendous ethical concerns.

(18:23):
And then when you start thinking about enhancements, you know
you are in a completely different ethical regime at that point.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yeah, and I suppose it depends on what worldview you
attack this issue on. What is your worldview when you're
involved in gene editing makes all the difference in the world.
A point that you make throughout the book is the
destruction of embryos, which you alluded to just a few
moments ago. From your worldview and my worldview, when you
destroy an embryo, you're destroying a human being created the

(18:54):
image and likeness of God.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
Yeah, that is one of the chief concerns you know,
gene editing, particularly again if you're working at the embryo stage.
You know, but this idea of worldview is really very important,
as you're pointing out, Hank, you know, because as a Christian,
we take the view that human beings are made in
God's image and have infinite worth and value, and so

(19:18):
on one hand, we want to do whatever we can
to promote human flourishing, right to mitigate pain and suffering
when we can, but we also recognize that we want
to protect human beings. We want to make sure that
we're protecting those people that are marginalized. That would include embryos.
But even then there's also going to be you know,

(19:41):
women that provide eggs for in vitro fertilization that could
be exploited as well, so that exploitation is pretty extensive
when you start playing out different scenarios. So that Christian
worldview is very powerful in the sense that it's not
anti science, it's not anti technology, but it also puts

(20:03):
in place safeguards that ensure that the technology is going
to be used in the best possible way. This is
something that secular worldviews don't really offer in any way,
shape or form, which is why it's so important, I
think for Christians who are interested in science and technology

(20:23):
in medicine to actually think about pursuing careers in things
like brain computer interfaces and in things like gene editing
because they represent a Christian worldview. They're salt in light
in a area that desperately needs salt in light. So
it's not just enough for us to be informed and engage,

(20:46):
you know, but it's also critical that we encourage young
people to see this kind of work is part of
their calling right, that they could actually serve God in
real ways by being involved in research and gene editing,
for example.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
That's such a brilliant point. I want to read something
that we looked at prior to the podcast. This is
about neuralink, and I want to talk about Elon Musk
for a second. In neuralink and Brain Computer Interface BCI.
And this is something you brought up as well just
a few moments ago. But here's what it says in

(21:23):
terms of the promo on the website. So Neuralink's website
currently claims this our brain computer interface is fully implantable,
cosmetically invisible, and designed to let you control a computer
or mobile device anywhere you go. I mean that sounds fantastic.

(21:46):
What could be the downside to that?

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Yeah, well, you know, and again this is the challenge
is that this technology, why gene editing, can be used
for really good purposes, but it could also you could
cross lines very easily and very quickly. And Elon Musk,
to his credit or to the team at neurlinks credit,

(22:10):
have developed probably a state of the art BCI. This
is one of the most exciting and rapidly advancing areas
in bioengineering. But he's probably outpaced everybody in terms of
what they've been able to create. And so part of
the vision is look with BCIs you could implant them
into patients who are locked in that can't communicate, that

(22:33):
they can learn to communicate through texting by just simply
using their thoughts. Or people that are quadriplegic or paraplegic
can learn to control exoskeletons and gain movement, or amputees
can learn to control robotic prosthetic limbs. So it's going
to revolutionize medicine. But people like Elon Musk not only

(22:56):
see humanitarian applications, but they see this as the next
generation of user interfaces with the electronic devices that are
all around us. So instead of a voice command, you
just give a thought command, and in fact Elon musk
Is probably I would call a reluctant transhumanist because he's

(23:17):
deathly afraid of AI, and he is concerned that we
may create these AI systems that actually either subjugate humanity
or drive humanity to extinction. And his argument is the
only way that we're going to prevent that from happening
is if we develop these brain computer interfaces that allow
us to interface our brains with computer systems so that

(23:41):
we now compete with the AI systems that we're creating.
And so he's really advocating the creation of a type
of human machine conglomerate or a cyborg of sorts, and
that's where many people that are transhumanists CBCI technology going.
So it raises a lot of questions, you know, in

(24:04):
terms of what are the boundaries for this type of work.
But even for BCI technology that's going to be used
simply for medical purposes, there are a lot of very
serious ethical issues that are starting to emerge. In fact,
there's a whole new area of bioethics called neural ethics

(24:24):
where people are just trying to wrestle through the ethical
issues with BCIs. So, for example, you can through BCI
technology stimulate certain areas of the brain that will actually
arrest the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. And so this very
well made factor in the future in how we help
people to manage Parkinson's. The problem is is that these

(24:48):
BCIs actually alter the personality of the patient, right, They
actually make the patient consistently less risk averse. So that
then raises questions is that patient actually giving consent to
the second wave of treatments or not They have given

(25:08):
maybe a different response without the BCI because they're less
risk averse, they may be more willing to have a
subsequent treatment because of the BCI itself, or some of
the more sophisticated ones are actually using machine algorithms basically
AI technology to extract user intent from the electrical activity

(25:32):
happening in the brain and they are interpreting that and
then they are affecting some kind of machine hardware or
machine software. Well, the problem here is who's actually making
the decision, right, is it the patient, is it the BCI,
or is it some kind of collaboration And would that
patient have made that same decision without the BCI. So

(25:56):
even in the most pure applications of BC technology, you
know where you're seeing it as a means to alleviate
suffering that people have because of you know, paralysis or
being locked in from a brain injury, or because of
a loss of limb. There's all kinds of really deep,

(26:16):
profound ethical issues. Now what happens when you start thinking
about enhancements or using this in a commercial sense? You
know where this becomes a you know, the primary user
interface between humans and electronic devices. And it's really crazy, Hank,
because you can actually tether people's brains together with BCIs,

(26:40):
so people can now begin to communicate to one another
with BCI technology. You know where you would route the signal,
let's say, through the Internet. I could actually have my
brain tethered to somebody else's brain on the other side
of the world, and that we could somehow share thoughts,
maybe even can join our brains together to solve problems.

(27:04):
This sounds like science fiction, but you know, I just
did a literature research a couple of days ago, and
this area is progressing at a pretty rapid pace. You
know this BCI, BCI, you know, connection from brain to brain.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Yeah, you know, I think one of the things that
you do a great job you and Ken Samples together.
As you wrote this, we could do a great job
of pointing out that the worldview you bring to this
issue makes all the difference in the world. If you
believe in substance dualism that the mind and the brain
are not identical, that the mind is metaphysical, the brain
is physical, you have a completely different perspective on BCI

(27:44):
than you do if you're a materialist.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah, that's exactly right. And you know, and it depends
too on your model for how our material and immaterial
aspects of our nature interact. You know, I've seen some
models that have been advanced by CIS and neuroscientists who
would say, well, you know, there's the brain, the mind,
and the spirit, and maybe we could call the mind
and the spirit the soul, but that the brain can

(28:10):
influence the mind, the mind can influence the brain, the
spirit can influence the mind, and hence the brain. So
you've got this three way interaction. And so even in
a substance dualist model, right, you still could have these
BCIs somehow altering the immaterial aspect of our nature. So

(28:31):
I don't know, I mean, maybe that model isn't a
valid model, but it raises all kinds of really hard
questions about the brain and the mind and how they
relate to each other. And you know, and again I'm
a substance dualist like you, But for many people like
Elon Musk, I would dare venture they're operating in a

(28:51):
materialistic framework where the brain is the mind, and so
you know, they would probably not see the complications that
we would see with BCI technology. You know, so I
can see, you know, legitimate medical uses for it that
as a Christian I could be strongly in supportive. But

(29:12):
there's other applications I really am troubled by, not only
from a you know, in terms of what could be
the unintended consequences of the technology, but even in terms
of what does it actually do to human identity, you know,
particularly as image bearers.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
Speak to this issue of maybe I should say this mythology.
I'll let you be the judge, But this idea of
uploading your mind to computer so you can achieve immortality.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
Yeah, I, personally, because of my worldview, don't think that
is ever going to be possible, right, I don't think
we're going to be able to actually do something like that.
But it doesn't matter so much what I think, what
matters is what other people think, right, And so you
could very well if people are convinced that really our

(30:02):
brain is who we are, that they would very much
look to something like, you know, uploading the essence of
who we are into a machine hardware, because that's a
way to gain a type of digital immortality, if you will.
And so there very well could be a lot of
people that find that idea alluring, even if it's not,

(30:26):
at the end of the day, technically feasible, whether because
of the limitations of the technology or because of you know,
a misunderstanding about the complexity of human beings, you know,
and neglecting to take into account or immaterial nature. But
you know, that idea of uploading our mind, let's say,

(30:47):
into a machine framework is really intriguing because in a sense,
it's not going to actually give people what they want.
It's not going to actually make them immortal, because what
they're doing is they're uploading a copy of their brain.
They're not uploading their brain into machine framework, and so
it's not them that actually is going to live forever,

(31:11):
but a copy of themselves. So I don't think people
have thought this through thoroughly. You know, who are advocating
that kind of an idea. But you know what I've
come to appreciate again is it's not so much what's
technically reasonable that's important. It's what people think is reasonable.
And if people think that something is possible, even if

(31:33):
it isn't, they're going to make decisions, critical life decisions
based on what they think is possible versus what the
reality is.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
Something else you mentioned just a few moments ago was
anti aging technologies, and I'd love you to elaborate on that.
I mean, there's a sense in which you can say
that there's mythology involved here if you have a Christian worldview,
because there are parameters around our age. I'm almost seventy
five years old, I had an anti aging technology. I

(32:05):
suppose I had a stem cell transplant, and so my
immune system was killed, but blood system was completely destroyed,
so the blood system immune system of another person could
take the place of my blood system and my immune system.
So you kill through chemotherapy and radiation, you kill your
blood system or your immune system. Then they graft in

(32:25):
stem cells, and then stem cells grafted into the bone
marrow and produce a new blood system, a new immune system,
and so here alone and behold, I'm still alive. I'm
still kicking because of an anti aging so to speak, therapy.
But the idea that I'm going now, I'm you know,
I'm in the fourth quarter of my life from the
perspective my worldview. No matter if I live to one hundred,

(32:48):
that's still in the fourth quarter of my life. So
there are parameters. If you have a Christian worldview around
anti aging, you are going to die. The death right
is one per person. We're all going to make it.
And you know, the Bible really indicates parameters around age
in threescore and ten years or by reason of strength

(33:09):
for score, so around seventy to eighty years, maybe ninety
one hundred on the outliers and so forth. But there
are limitations to our age, and maybe there are good
reasons that God designed us that way.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Yeah, yeah, well you know, and again you know, your
point about worldview is really critical, and yeah, I would
agree with you that you know, it's not good to
live for forever, right at least in a physical form,
in the form that we're in right now, right that
this is not our hope. Our hope is in eternity,
where we will have resurrected bodies and we will live

(33:44):
forever in the presence of our Lord. But there are
good reasons why, you know, God limits you know, I
think life expectancy, and even people that are not holding
to a Christian worldview who deliberate about the ethical issues
connected to know anti aging technology have raised all kinds
of very real concerns. It literally would change the world

(34:07):
that we live in, if suddenly people could live for
hundreds of years, it would alter the economic system.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Of the world.

Speaker 2 (34:15):
Right. There's a great Christian thinker, Brent Waters, who influenced
me in this respect that it would lead to what
he calls a loss of natality. And what he means
by that is that we recognize that we have a
finite lifetime and that really the future is represented by
our children. And even if you don't have children, who

(34:37):
recognize that the future is represented by children, and so
we are willing to sacrifice and invest our lives in
our children's future so that they have maybe a better
world to live in than we did, that things would
be a little bit easier than it is for us. Right,
And that sense of natality means we are outward looking

(35:01):
in terms of how we live our lives, that we
are less selfish in that lack of selfishness extends to
how we engage other people. And his point is that
if you have, you know, this long life expectancy, no
longer are you concerned about the welfare of your children.
Your children are now a threat to you, right, and

(35:23):
you are a threat to them. You're standing in the
way because your goal is to live as long as
you can, not to have children and see those children successful.
And he argues that that actually would lead to a
complete breakdown in the way we understand the world, in
that people are going to become inherently selfish. We're not

(35:44):
going to be concerned about future generations. We're not going
to be concerned about one another. That there's a you know,
there's finite resources, and then we're going to be battling
for those resources as we seek to live longer and longer.
So there's some very real concerns that you know, ethicists
who are secular rays who recognize, perhaps you know, unintentionally,

(36:08):
the wisdom of God's design to limit our life expectancy, right,
And with that being gone again, people are going to pursue,
you know, a type of practical immortality, you know. And
it's interesting because there's a growing number of medical doctors
who are actually arguing that really we should think about

(36:29):
aging not as an inevitability, but actually as a disease.
And if it's a disease, it means we can treat it,
it means we can cure it. And so there are
a growing number of medical doctors who are arguing that
we really ought to be redirecting most of our research
dollars in medicine to anti aging, not to cardiovascular disease

(36:51):
or diabetes or cancer or stroke work, but rather to
anti aging, you know, where the idea it would be
that if we can solve the aging problem, all these
other dominoes fall and we don't have to be worried
about them. So there really is this changing mindset among
you know, biomedical researchers about the nature of the aging process.

(37:15):
And again with that comes this idea that people are
going to put their hope in this prospect of maybe
through medicine, living for hundreds of years, you know, towards
attaining a practical immortality. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
That great prologue to the second part of your book,
Part two, The Ethics of Human enhancement, and you talk
about ethical challenges there, but one of the things that
you raise here is the question should we play God?
And you know, if you have a knee jerk reaction,
you might say no, of course we shouldn't play God.
But you're saying yes, we should. And there's a reason

(37:52):
you say that.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
Yeah. Well, and it's because we're made in God's image, right.
And so because we're made in God's image, we are
creators like our God as a creator that God has
made us in a sense quote unquote co creators, right.
He's given us a creative capacity that we are to
implement to understand the world, to develop technologies. We are

(38:17):
to subdue the earth to bring it under our control. Right,
we are to promote human flourishing. We're to care for
the planet. We are to use animals appropriately, we're not
to abuse them. And so these are all We're co creators,
we're co rulers, you know, we are co stewards with God.
And so as a result of that, we have no

(38:39):
choice but to play God. And the real issue is
are we trying to take God's place?

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Serve good? Right?

Speaker 2 (38:46):
And so what I see with transhumanism is this is
a movement where we're trying to take God's place. I
can see using these technologies for medical purposes as we're
trying to function in a way that respects the image
of God in people and promotes human flourishing. But transhumanism

(39:08):
is where we're serving God. And remember, God gave us
dominion over creation, except for one part of that creation,
human beings. We don't have dominion over human life that
belongs to God.

Speaker 1 (39:22):
Yeah, it's just a powerful distinction and a well written section.
One of the ethical considerations that you bring up in
the book is the distinction between adult stem cells and
their use and embryonic stem cells. And I don't think

(39:43):
that can be emphasized enough. We sort of touched on
it a few moments ago, but I really think this
is an area that bears elaboration, both from a moral standpoint,
an ethical standpoint, but also from a practical standpoint. There's
a big distinction between embryonic stem cells and how they
behave and adult stem cells.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
Yeah. Well, you know, because a stem cell is just
simply a cell that is undifferentiated that has the potential
to develop into particular cell types. So embryonic stem cells
can develop into virtually any of the two hundred and
ten cells that make up the human body. Adult stem

(40:26):
cells have limited developmental potential, but one of the things
that we've discovered is that many adult stem cells in
a laboratory setting can actually develop into a remarkably wide
range of different cell types, much more so than people
would have initially thought. And the beauty is that adult
stem cells are coming from adult tissues, right, So we're

(40:49):
not creating an embryo and destroying it. We're taking the
cells from you know, existing adult tissue, versus embryonic stem cells,
which have to come from embryos that have been created
specifically to isolate the stem cells. So there's a very
different you know, ethical and mortal status to those different

(41:10):
types of cells. And most of the success that people
have had in the clinic is with adult stem cells.
It's not with embryonic cells.

Speaker 1 (41:19):
That's so interesting. That's so interesting because you don't hear
about that nearly as much as embryonic stem cells.

Speaker 2 (41:26):
Yeah. Well, and there's another type of stem cell that's
been invented, if you will. This was maybe a little
bit over a decade ago now, but these researchers took
a type of cell from the skin. It's called a
fiber blast, and they figured out how to convert it
into a cell that is like an embryonic stem cell.

(41:49):
And so these are called induced pluripotent stem cells. So
you know, a mouthful there, but they are very interesting
cells that behave like embryonic stem cells, but are not
embryonic stem cells. They come from adult tissues and in
fact next to adult stem cells. A lot of the
work that I see today in stem cell biology is

(42:10):
with induced pluripotent stem cells. And what's interesting is that
the people that developed this were motivated because of the
ethical concerns with embryonic stem cells. So this is a
place where the Christian community, in a broad sense this
would include Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well
as you know, people from Judaism, maybe even Islam voice

(42:36):
these ethical concerns with enough force involving embryonic stem cells
that there were researchers who may not have otherwise been
motivated realized that if we're really going to make progress
with stem cell biology, we've got to sidestep the use
of embryos, and we're motivated to search for new types

(42:58):
of cells like these induced potent stem cells, or we're
motivated to pursue adult stem cell technology and push it
maybe further than people thought it could potentially go. But
this is a point where Christians actually are people of faith.
Maybe is a better way to say. This actually moved

(43:19):
the needle in the right direction. Right. It doesn't mean
that there's still not people pursuing embryonic stem cell work.
There are, but there are alternatives now that are not
ethically and morally problematic. And I think the lesson to
learn from this is that it's so easy to get
discouraged when you start seeing things like advances in gene editing,

(43:41):
advances in brain computer interface, advances in anti aging. I mean,
I actively read the scientific literature in these areas. I
can't keep up with it. The advances are happening so rapidly,
I can't keep up with it. I'm just as surprised
as the next person when I read articles about what's
been accomplished, And a lot of times it's things that

(44:02):
have been accomplished that I never thought would even be possible,
you know, even just even six months prior to that.
So it's happening so fast that ethicists don't have time
to deliberate on the implications of the technology before the
next advance happens and the next advance happens, and so

(44:22):
it's so easy to get discouraged, you know, when you
see this type of thing happening, when you're concerned about
the consequences of you know, gene editing or BCI technology.
But I've seen in the past where Christians have engaged
our culture in a sophisticated way with their worldview and

(44:45):
have influenced the direction that research goes. They have influenced
things in a way that is in line with our
worldview and our values as Christians. So to me, the
worst thing we can do is give up. If we
fight the good fight, it's surprising the influence that we
can have in the world.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
Yeah, and I think this is one of the more
brilliant points you made early on in the podcast. We
need to get our children and their children involved in
the process. Otherwise the materialists will have the only seats
at the table. We need to be represented. The worldview
has everything to say about potentiality, even much less the

(45:27):
ethics involved. How about clones? How to clones factor into
all of this?

Speaker 2 (45:32):
Yeah, Well, with transhumanism. I've not seen a ton where
people are looking at cloning. In terms of the technology,
trying to clone primates, let alone humans, has not been
really successful. There's even though there were like the UFO cult,
the Realiens and their company Clone Aid, and some other

(45:54):
physicians a couple of decades ago made claims that they
had cloned humans. The fact that the matter is cloning
humans for reproductive purposes is right now not even on
anybody's right OAR screen in terms of having the technical capability.
Where cloning does factor into this though, is in the
creation of embryos for isolating embryonic stem cells. So people

(46:19):
are looking at creating clones through a technique called somatic
cell nuclear transfer, where you're taking the nucleus from an
adult cell and you're transferring it into an egg cell
that has had its nucleus removed, and now you're creating
what's called a clonal zygote or a clonal embryo. And

(46:40):
some people try to argue, well, because this is an
embryo that has not been made through normative reproductive means,
it's technically doesn't hold the status as a human. I
think that's a very flawed argument. I see it as
being a human being. And so cloning does factor into

(47:01):
the creation of embryonic stem cells, where people see embryonic
stem cell work and human cloning is kind of going
hand in hand in that sense. And so this is
an area that is again deeply problematic. So it would
factor into the anti aging technology in terms of, you know,

(47:21):
trying to create embryonic stem cells that you could then
implant into the patient who would have donated the genetic
material in the first place to make that clonal Zygote.

Speaker 1 (47:32):
I made a little note in the margin of your
book as I was reading, because I want to be
reminded to ask you about if gene editing is used
to produce a high tech baby, for lack of another moniker,
a high tech baby. Isn't that essentially eugenics. Yes, that's
really science of being well born.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Yes, that's really perceptive. It is a version of eugenics,
you know. And this is one of the ethical concerns
with using gene editing to treat people with genetic disorders.
And by all means, I'm all for exploring aggressively how
we can use gene editing to treat genetic disorders, but
we could easily move into a regime where we begin

(48:17):
to look at people with genetic diseases as somehow being substandard,
as somehow, you know, not having the same value or
worth as somebody who is quote unquote genetically healthy. And
so then the pressure would be to use the technology
to modify your genetic makeup so that you are genetically healthy. Right,

(48:41):
So you could see this representing a type of genetic
discrimination and a high tech version of eugenics as we
move into the future where again people with genetic diseases
are going to be marginalized or be viewed as being
again substandard in some respect, and you can ease this.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
That's happening in Iceland right where you're basically getting rid
of all the Down syndrome babies. There are no incidents,
at least said no incident of Down syndrome babies in Iceland.
But the reason is they're all being killed, they're all
being avoided.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yeah, that's a beautiful illustration of the use of technology
for eugenics purposes. So you're not discriminating against people based
on ethnicity and race, but you're discriminating them on the
basis of their genetic makeup. Right, And are they viewed
as quote unquote healthy or unhealthy from a genetic standpoint.

(49:40):
But you can easily envision a future where, you know,
the society is such that before a couple reproduces, they
have to go through genetic screening. If they've identified, you know,
particular genetic variants that may make their child susceptible to
a genetic disease, that they are forced into env true
fertilization where those embryos have to be gene edited, you know,

(50:05):
before they could have children, right to ensure a genetically
healthy child. And you could see a scenario where if
you didn't agree to do that and you had a
child that was genetically defective, that child would be discriminated
against or maybe the family and the child would be
denied medical care, you know. And so there's a very

(50:26):
real possibility of a type of eugenics emerging from this
that is horrifying in many respects.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
Yeah, absolutely, talk about human exceptionalism as you do in
the book. How would you make the case for human exceptionalism?
And this is all being considered within the purview of
technologies producing people that are superhuman or transhuman or human
two point zero.

Speaker 2 (50:54):
Yeah, Well, there's someone that I've had the privilege of
debating a couple of times named Peter Clark, who is
a transhumanist thinker, and Peter Clark argues that the work
in Transhumanism completely decimates this idea of human exceptionalism, where
he argues that the take home lesson from transhumanists is

(51:16):
that the human condition isn't particularly sacred, right, There's nothing
special about us. And so what we do in the
book is we actually engage that idea and argue that
we can actually make a case that human beings truly
are exceptional. And part of that is presenting a scientific

(51:37):
argument for the fact that human beings bear God's image right,
and with the idea that really the image of God
concept forms the foundation of the Christian ethic that we
would use to engage transhumanism and human enhancement technologies. And
one of the points that I make is that if

(51:59):
you think about it, transhumanism ironically doesn't undermine human exceptionalism,
actually demonstrates human exceptionalism, because there's no other creature that
has ever lived or currently exists that has the wherewithal
to a understand the world through science and then to
develop technology and then be to envision using that technology

(52:25):
to take control of quote unquote evolution, right to imagine
altering themselves through that technology that they create. It's only
human beings that are even capable of imagining something like transhumanism,
and that in and of itself says that we are
distinct and unique and special compared to all other creatures.

(52:49):
And that capability appears to be a manifestation of four
qualities or four attributes. Our ability to represent the world
with symbols and then in turn manipulate those symbols in
a near infinite number of ways. Our theory of mind,
where we recognize that others have minds like ours, and

(53:10):
that we desire to connect with other people with those
other minds. And as a result, because of our significant
intellect and cognitive capacity, we can structure relationships with other
people through very sophisticated societal structures. And it's that combination
of properties that seemingly makes human beings unique. You know,

(53:32):
it's interesting, hank Is, You're I'm sure well aware. You know,
Darwin's idea that we only differ in degree, not kind,
from other creatures has shaped the signs of anthropology for
one hundred and fifty hundred and seventy years, and there
is a growing minority of anthropologists who are thoroughly entrenched

(53:53):
in an evolutionary framework, who wouldn't necessarily align with the
Christian worldview in any way, shape or form, who are
actually arguing Darwin was wrong that human beings actually differ
in kind, not degree, from other creatures that we actually
stand apart, and the attributes that they think makes us

(54:15):
exceptional you could see as maybe scientific descriptors of how
we would understand the image of God, or at least
how some Christians would understand the image of God. And
so by taking advantage of this idea of human exceptionalism
that's emerging as a scientific idea, connecting it to the
image of God, we can actually show that it's scientifically

(54:38):
reasonable to think that humans bear God's image and that
we are justified in building an ethical system around that concept.
But it also means that this idea that transhumanism is
somehow undermining human exceptionalism is really a very weak argument.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
Yeah, and you mentioned Neanderthals in this regard with respect
to a weak argument, I mean that argument is used
by the materialist saying that we really are not exceptional.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
Yeah, so to me, it felt like it was worth
spending time in the book really justifying the image of
God concept that it's not just simply a position we're
taking on faith as Christians, but it's a position that
we can take that has scientific credibility. You know, maybe
it's not proved or demonstrated scientifically, but it has scientific

(55:32):
credibility because of this idea of human exceptionalism and that
it's now becomes a legitimate framework to create an ethical
system that can engage, you know, ideas like transhumanism.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Ye talk about the origin of language in relation to
human exceptionalism.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Yeah, well, you know, at the end of the day,
I think it's our capacity for symbolism that really causes
us to stand apart. And symbolism simply means that we
are able, as human beings uniquely to represent the world
in symbols, and then we can combine and recombine those
symbols in a variety of ways. That's essentially the basis

(56:14):
for language, it's the basis for music, it's the basis
for art. And I see that as really being emblematic
of the image of God. And what's interesting is that
evolutionary biologists cannot explain the origin of language, right that
every approach that has been taken to try to come

(56:35):
up with an evolutionary model to explain how language could
evolve from just simply animal communication falls short. And it's
also interesting that when humans appear on the scene, modern
humans us, when we appear on the scene, the evidence
for symbolism in the archaeological record shows up suddenly out

(56:58):
of nowhere. Sometimes it's is referred to as the sociocultural
Big Bang by anthropologists. So it looks like when humans
appear right away, there's something different about us that causes
us to stand out. And you know, it's interesting because
because of our capacity for language. And this is a
point that atheists who are anthropologists make, not me that

(57:22):
because of our capacity for language, that even though our
technology began you know, quote unquote in primitive form, within
a relatively short period of time, we've put people on
the moon, we're now contemplating, you know, taking control of
evolution quote unquote to evolve post human species. Whereas creatures

(57:43):
like Neanderthals had technology, but it was static, it never changed.
And so the point would be, there's got to be
something different. And the argument is that that difference is
our language capacity, and I would argue that that is
really a reflection of the fact that we bear God's
image and even Neanderthals did not.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
Yeah, you know, this is something so fascinating in your book.
I mean, there's so many interesting aspects of this book,
a special focus section in which you talk about artificial
womb technology, for example, which I want to get to
in a little bit. But it's interesting as you talk
about language that and I've written about this in other venues,
but we are hired wired for language from birth. But

(58:30):
a point that you made in the book that I
hadn't really considered fully is the fact that even before
a child is born, they've already picked up language skills
from the surrounding world. So from the womb, they're already

(58:50):
being educated in language.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
Yeah, that's absolutely remarkable that. Yeah, even in the womb,
there's development that's happening, you know, And as you said,
it's because we're fundamentally hardwired and you know, for language.
And I see that again, as you know, a reflection
of the fact that we bear God's image. This is
part of the case that we can marshal to say

(59:15):
that really humans are distinct we stand apart from all creatures.

Speaker 1 (59:20):
Absolutely, And maybe this is a bit redundant, but I
think we'd be remiss if we didn't repeat some of
this because it's complex, it's interesting, it's a motive. I mean,
it's a fascinating topic. But I want to have you
emphasize how Christian worldview, how the Christian worldview helps guide

(59:43):
ethical deliberations on the use of all of these biotechnologies
we've been talking about. I mean, if you're a materialist,
you say, look, we're just molecules in motion, so there
really are no ethical guidelines except artificial guidelines. But you say, no,
there is a worldview that we have been given because

(01:00:05):
we're creating the image and the likeness of God that
guides all ethical and moral decisions we make. And it's
not arbitrary, it's not happenstance, it's not societal. It's a
function of the way we were created.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
Yeah, you know, and this is something that you know,
I marvel at Hank is you know, the Christian ethical
framework is flowing out of scripture that is thousands of
years old, where the people that were inspired by the
Holy Spirit writing the words of Scripture had no concept

(01:00:42):
of what we're dealing with today, right with the implications
of science and technology today. But yet these ideas that
again formed the basis of Christian ethics are so robust
that they can be applied thousands of years later in
situations that no one could ever imagine. That to me

(01:01:04):
says that there's something about the Christian worldview and the
ethical framework that we really ought to be paying attention to.
R And it all centers around the idea that we
bear God's image. Because we bear God's image, every human
being has infinite worth and value. Because we bear God's image,
we have responsibilities that include subduing the earth, bringing it

(01:01:24):
under our control, ruling over the earth, caring for the planet.
All of this implies that we need to understand the
world and develop technology. So the Christian ethical framework advocates
science that advocates technology so that we can fulfill the
roles that God has given us as image bearers. That

(01:01:47):
we want to promote human flourishing, we want to mitigate
pain and suffering. We want to see genuine progress happening
in the world. But we also recognize that there are boundaries,
and those boundaries are such that we want to ensure
that we are protecting those people that are marginalized. Right,
that we don't want to harm human beings in any way,

(01:02:10):
or we don't want to compromise our identity as human
beings is because bearing God's image is the means by
which we enter into a relationship with the Godhead mediated
through Christ. So we want to protect our identity as
human beings as well. And this tension between promoting human

(01:02:32):
flourishing but protecting the marginalized. We're concerned about injustice in
the world. We want equitable access to these technologies. This
all is a very powerful framework that helps us, I think,
effectively navigate a lot of this technology in sometimes very
clear black and white ways. Sometimes there are shades of gray,

(01:02:55):
but those shades of gray are nothing like what a
secular ethicist has to deal with. Secular ethicists are very
good at giving dimension to the problem, saying, well, these
are the ethical concerns, but they don't really have a
framework that actually helps them to make deliberations as to
what should be the right decision or what is a

(01:03:15):
collection of decisions that would be more right than wrong.
All they can rely on is utilitarianism, right, you know,
or some kind of consequentialism, But who decides, you know,
what really is you know, promotes the greatest happiness for
the greatest number or minimizes you know, pain and suffering.

(01:03:36):
Who gets to make that decision?

Speaker 1 (01:03:38):
Or?

Speaker 2 (01:03:38):
You know, why is sentience such an important criteria the
idea of self awareness. For many ethicists that are secular,
this notion of self awareness or sentience becomes front and center.
We want to, you know, minimize pain and suffering for
those beings that are sentient. If you're not sentient, well

(01:03:59):
it doesn't matter, right, But how do you measure sentience?
Why sentience? What makes that the gold standard? Right? And
who decides? Again, if you adopt consequentialism where you determine
the right ethical outcome based on the consequences of actions,
well who's the determined if the consequences are acceptable or unacceptable? So,

(01:04:21):
you know, I don't see secular ethics as really being
very helpful at all, you know, in this arena. It
really leaves us with more questions and more confusion than
actually helping society make some very important decisions about what
technologies should we pursue and if we do, how do
we implement those technologies in the right and just way.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Yeah, And what's so interesting in reading your book. I
kept thinking as I was reading and rereading your book
that you really believe in humans two point zero, but
from a different worldview perspective. You believe that Christianity is progressive,
that through the sacramental liturgical life of the Church, we
go from one glory to another. Some people call that deification,

(01:05:10):
some people talk about it in terms of sanctification, but
we continue to progress. Then we die because we're mortal,
but we're resurrected, immortal, imperishable, incorruptible. We really do become
what we were intended to be before sin entered the world.
And this is one of the things you point out

(01:05:31):
over and over again in the book that the foundational
flaw in all of the thinking that does not come
from a Christian worldview is the neglect to consider the
real problem, which is the problem of sin.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Yeah. You know, I've had a chance to interact with
a number of leading transhumanist thinkers over the years, and
to me, they are sympathetic people in many ways. And
what I mean by that is increasingly don't view them
as being enemies, but rather as people that are desperately

(01:06:07):
seeking hope, purpose, and destiny. That these are people who
recognize that the world isn't the way that it's supposed
to be, that things are broken right, that there's pain
and suffering in the world, and that's wrong, and they
want to do something about it. They dream of a
utopian future, right. They want justice in the world. They

(01:06:29):
want people to flourish in their own way. They recognize
that death is the enemy, that death is really wrong,
that it's not natural in some respects. They see it
as tragic that human beings could one day disappear and
go extinct. They have a very high view of humanity,

(01:06:52):
and so I'm highly sympathetic to the concerns they have.
And what's interesting is that I meet many scientists who
see science as a way to erect a barrier preventing
the Gospel from penetrating, you know, But with transhumanists, it's
the opposite. It's through science and technology that they are

(01:07:12):
laying there the deepest needs that every human being has,
which is hope, purpose, and destiny, this desire to connect
to the transcendent. They're just looking for salvation in the
wrong place, and they're presenting a false gospel as a result.
Of that, you know. But yet at the same time,
transhumanists is part of this false gospel or unbelievably naive

(01:07:37):
because they do not think about human's propensity to do
horrible things with good technology or with good things. We
have this capacity to take the best and to use
it for the worst possible uses. Right, That's what Christians
bring to the table as an understanding of sin, an
understanding of our lack of wisdom, you know, as human

(01:07:58):
beings in a fallen state. And transhumanists are completely naive
to think that things are going to go in the
way that they hope they go. They don't factor sin
into the equation whatsoever.

Speaker 1 (01:08:12):
Yeah, and I think what a brilliant point made in
the book, how there are good uses of technology, there
are bad uses of technology, and that technology itself is
not the problem. It's, as you point out, sin is
the problem. For example, I think a point that you

(01:08:33):
made in the book is the point of nuclear physics.
A nuclear power plant is clean, safe energy, but it
can also be used to wipe out whole cities like
Nagasaki or Hiroshima. So you have to bring a Christian
ethic to the table for how you use technology because

(01:08:58):
technology can be used for good purposes, could be used
for very evil purposes as well.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
Yeah, well you know. And this is again to maybe
go back to a point we made earlier. This is
why it's so critical for Christians to be engaged in
these conversations and again to encourage young people in the
church to consider pursuing careers in these areas, because one
of the things that we have as Christians is redemption.

(01:09:27):
We are redeemed people that the image of God in
us that was damaged as a result of the fall
is being recovered. When we were born again, it's being
through the process of sanctification. We are being transformed more
into the likeness of Christ. We were recovering that image
of God that was originally created in us. That gave

(01:09:49):
God the confidence to give us responsibilities to be co
rulers and co stewards and co creators with him. And
so as redeemed people, we have the best chance of
anyone of using that technology. Well, we also have other resources.
We have the wisdom of the scriptures, We have the

(01:10:10):
Holy spirits to guide us not only as individuals but
collectively as the church. We have an obligation to help
our world manage this technology, and we are uniquely poised
as Christians to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
What's really interesting, though, and you point this out in
the book, that there are a lot of people that
don't want the Christian worldview represented at the table because
that worldview is a danger to the techno faith, because
it's a substitute faith. And there's even a moniker that
I read in your book. I had actually not heard
about it before. I probably should have Bioluttite. You know,

(01:10:46):
Christians who are involved in this are bringing a worldview
that is anesthetical to the myth of progress, and therefore
they ought to be marginalized or even minimalized by a
moniker like Bioludites.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
Yeah. Yeah, And you know, I think we have to
be very careful as Christians when we are confronted with
emerging technologies to do our homework and to really engage
the technology from a position of knowledge and understanding and
try to look for ways in which the technology can

(01:11:24):
truly benefit humanity. But it is also important, I think,
for people to realize that just you know, because we
can do something doesn't mean we should do it right,
that there really are limits to how we progress. And
you know, so I think it's important for Christians, in
spite of those kind of labels, you know, to be

(01:11:46):
willing to say, wait a minute, we really don't think
the technology needs to be used that way, or should
be used that way, or there's going to be problems
if we use it that way. And I think the
way we can avoid the bioluodite label is when people
appreciate the fact that we really understand the technology and
we're really willing to engage it. Just a real quick story.

(01:12:07):
It's been a few years ago, but I got an
email out of the blue from a person who is
the president of the US Transhumanist political party. Believe it
or not, the transhumanists have a national political party, and
there's a political party in every state. In fact, I
met the person who heads up the Transhumanist party in

(01:12:28):
North Carolina. Oh or not. But they saw a YouTube
presentation I did on transhumanism and they were impressed and
they wanted me to come on to this program that
was called a Virtual and Enlightenment Salon. So I was
on there as a Christian with about twelve other transhumanist thinkers,

(01:12:49):
and they wanted to know how as Christians we understand
transhumanism and how can they make their message appealing to Christians? Right,
But they wanted to hear from me because they recognized,
even though I was going to be that stick in
the mud that was going to tell them that they're naive,
they're not taking sent into account that they're offering a

(01:13:11):
full salvation. Because I understood the technology and appreciated how
the technology could be used for good purposes, they were
willing to engage with me for three and a half hours.
But what was really cool, Hank, was throughout that conversation
we constantly talked about the idea of salvation, and that
was It was a natural part of the conversation because

(01:13:34):
at the end of the day, transhumanism is all about
where can we find salvation? Right? That's what it's all about.
I mean, even though transhumanism is a philosophical idea and
it's couched in science and technology, it really is, at
the end of the day, at its deepest core, religious idea.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
Yeah. And a point that you make in the book
that I think is worth a spending on is we've
done it to some extent already, but I think in
an isolation, it's important to hammer home the fact that,
as you have so well pointed out in the book
Technologies Give, Technologies Take, it's not as though technology constantly

(01:14:18):
brings us to a new level. There's a side effect
to technologies that we have to take seriously as well.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Yeah, you know, and I think we all can come
up with our own examples of where, you know, technology
has done good things but has also now created these
unintended consequences. And what our tendency to do is to
develop new technology to take care of those unintended consequences,
which means we're going to have new points of pain

(01:14:51):
and suffering that didn't exist previously. And it's almost like
we're in this quicksand where we can't get out the
more that we move. And you know, so to me,
it's the idea of unintended consequences is really very frightening
because the technology we're dealing with here is very powerful technology.
And so when you start talking about things going wrong

(01:15:13):
in ways that nobody could have anticipated, and the technology
is very powerful, the ways it's going to go wrong
could be absolutely devastating. And so you know, we want
to proceed carefully and cautiously even when we're using the
technology for what we think are good and noble purposes.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
Can you make a distinction between two words posthuman and superhuman?

Speaker 2 (01:15:42):
Yeah, I'll try. A posthuman, at least in the transhumanist mindset,
would be a new type of human species that would
be distinct from us as Homo sapien sapiens. In principle,
you would hope that that transhumanists would hope that that
post human species would be more adept than we would

(01:16:06):
be in terms of living in a technological world. A
superhuman would be someone who has been enhanced, who transcends
our natural biological limits or natural biological capabilities, and so
you could be potentially a superhuman but still retain your

(01:16:27):
identity as as a Homo sapiens. I mean. It's one
of the things that has emerged out of the Crisper
gene editing technology is something called the biology DIOI movement.
It's a biology do it yourself movement. Because Crisper is
so inexpensive and so powerful and easy to use, there
are a lot of people who are not formally trained

(01:16:50):
as scientists who can get access to Crisper kits and
begin to play around doing gene editing on their own
in their garage right or in a community laboratory setting.
And the people that are behind this movement argue, look,
this is such revolutionary technology. It shouldn't be in the

(01:17:11):
hands of the medical and scientific elites. It should be democratized.
Everybody should have access to it. And one of the
people that is pioneering this movement is a biochemist by
the name of Josiah Zeyner, and he's a legitimate scientist
who actually worked at NASA for a number of years,

(01:17:32):
and he claims to be the first person to have
ever crispered himself, where he literally injected himself with Crisper
gene editing kit that actually inhibits a protein called myostatin.
And myostatin is a protein that controls muscle growth, and

(01:17:52):
as the name implies myo muscle statin stasis, it actually
inhibits muscle growth. If that protein is not active, muscle
is going to grow in an uncontrolled way. And in fact,
Chinese researchers actually use that Crisper gene editing kit to
inhibit myostatin in dog embryos, and the dogs that were

(01:18:17):
produced were these almost grotesque animals in terms of their musculature.
They were just these, you know, and there's a company
in Argentina that's looking at using this technique to actually
create super race horses. But this would be an example
of using crisper gene editing, maybe not to evolve us

(01:18:39):
into posthumans, but to create superhumans who would have unnatural strength.
Let us say, now, who knows what the side effects
are going to be, right, I mean you have to
be incredibly naive to think you're just going to knock
out a critical regulatory protein in and not have wide ranging,
unintended consequences. But this is a type of thing that

(01:19:02):
people are seriously entertaining in terms of human enhancements, you know.
And for somebody who, let's say is an athlete, you know,
this kind of technology is going to be very appealing.

Speaker 1 (01:19:17):
Two parts of the book, I mean, they could be
books in under themselves. The first is artificial intelligence. It's
a special focus artificial intelligence and the posthuman world. So
the question, of course this begs is what is the
relationship of artificial intelligence to human enhancement?

Speaker 2 (01:19:35):
Yeah, well, you know, the brain computer interfaces that we've
talked about, as they become more and more sophisticated, are
going to rely on artificial intelligence as a way to
extract user intent. So that's very much going to be
part of the transhumanist technology. But in addition to that,

(01:19:55):
there are some transhumanists who would argue that if we
create you know, artificial general intelligence, that these entities that
we create are going to be persons like us because
they are going to be sentient, they're going to be
self aware, they would be indistinguishable from us as persons.
And so the argument is that they would represent what

(01:20:18):
a post human or a transhumanist world would look like,
that not only would it be populated by different types
of post human species of our own making, but even
things like you know, artificial intelligence systems would be again
part of that post human world. So it's an idea

(01:20:38):
that is tangential to transhumanism but also intersects with transhumanism
in some significant ways.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
You know, there was a conference less November in Athens
Grace that I participated in. I was on their scientific
committee and selecting speakers, and I wish I would have
thought of you. But one of the things, as I
said at that conference, is that a mega shift in
perception is precisely what is needed today. A shift from

(01:21:08):
buying the materialist myth that artificial intelligence is akin to
actual intelligence, a shift from believing that computers can develop consciousness,
self awareness, and purposeful choices, a shift to authentic physical
and metaphysical realities. So I bring that up simply to

(01:21:28):
say that I see a big distinction between artificial intelligence
and actual intelligence. Is that something that you perceive as well?

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
Yes, I do, because, in a sense, the way our
artificial intelligence systems work is ultimately through associative learning. This
is the type of learning, you know, that's Pavlovian, right,
This is how animals learn primarily, and through associative learning,
people have shown in computer modeling studies that you can

(01:21:59):
accomplish some very sophisticated problem solving. But as humans, our
cognition is fundamentally different than associative learning, where we actually
engage in what's called mental time travel, where we can
actually project ourselves into alternative types of futures and look
at cause and effect relationships in terms of where we

(01:22:22):
are now and what we would need to do to
create each of those distinct types of futures. But it's
through that process of mental time travel that we actually
solve problems by imagining alternate scenarios, and then we can
act upon the particular scenario we think is going to
be the best, versus associative learning, where it's just trial

(01:22:44):
and error, where you're looking for what is the best
possible solution. The thing is is that artificial intelligence systems
are becoming very sophisticated, and they are increasingly designed to
mimic human beings in many different ways. They mimic our responses,
they can mimic our emotions. And because we have this

(01:23:07):
capacity called theory of mind, where we recognize that other
humans have minds like ours, we know what they're thinking,
we know what they're feeling. We can't turn that off,
and so we anthropomorphize. We anthropomorphize animals. We attribute to
animals human motives, human feelings, human thoughts, when in fact

(01:23:27):
they don't have those. We even anthropomorphize machines. So when
we are exposed to an AI system that is fundamentally
functioning differently than we function as human beings, but mimics us,
it's going to be very tempting to think that that
machine is like us, when in fact it isn't. So

(01:23:50):
in a sense, we are our own worst enemy when
it comes to distinguishing between AI systems and human beings.
Because of our tendency to anthrop morphis, we're going to
see something that's fundamentally different than us as being just
like us.

Speaker 1 (01:24:06):
Yeah. I think that's such an important point. It can't
be said enough. I mean, so basically, a computer, no
matter how sophisticated, can never replace a man. If you
have a Christian worldview and a materialistic worldview, it really
becomes a threat. You can have supermachines that become more

(01:24:30):
intelligent than human beings, but if you make a mind
brain distinction, it's not as worrisome. There still are attendant
problems to AI that need to be considered, but it's
not as daunting where you think that a machine can
literally replace a human being because machine simply doesn't have
a mind.

Speaker 2 (01:24:50):
Yeah, and that's a very good point that you make, Cank,
very good point.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
But the materialist oftentimes demotes the mind in the sense
of phenomenalism, the idea that the mind just emerges from
physical processes, so in a sense, it's just physical itself.

Speaker 2 (01:25:09):
Yes, yeah, that's right. Yeah, either the brain is the
mind or the mind is, as you said, an epiphenomena,
but it's not a truly distinct aspect of our nature
that defines, you know, who we are as human beings.

Speaker 1 (01:25:26):
So if you have people like Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates,
Elon Musk, they're concerned that machines are a threat to humanity.
They could destroy us, they could deny us resources, they
could outcompete us, they could actively seek to exterminate us.
Would you share the exact same fear in the exact

(01:25:47):
same way or do you make a significant distinction based
on what we've just said.

Speaker 2 (01:25:52):
Yeah, I am a little concerned about AI systems. I
don't know that I would share the concerns to the
same degree as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking would have.
But I am concerned because these AI systems are becoming
more and more powerful, and the people that are creating

(01:26:12):
them do not know how they are working, right, So
they've created something that then is functioning in a way
that is surprising to them, or the outcomes are unanticipated,
or you have AI systems that are now hallucinating, right,
And so it means that we could create something that's powerful.

(01:26:35):
Maybe it's not like us fundamentally, but we could create
something that is powerful that we become dependent upon, you know,
in terms of specialized you know, function that you know
behaves in unanticipated ways and could really be deadly to humanity.

(01:26:57):
But something that is also important to recognize is that
there's huge amounts of resources that are currently required for
cutting edge AI technology. You know, if you've heard about
Google or Amazon, they have these massive facilities that are
running their AI algorithms and they're consuming huge amounts of

(01:27:17):
energy in order to do that. So I think we're
going to reach a point where AI cannot progress much
more beyond its current point simply because we are not
going to have the resources to actually maintain those AI systems.
And as soon as you deny those AI systems those resources,

(01:27:38):
they're going to come to a halt. Right, So we
still have the ultimate ability to pull the plug, so
to speak, ye as human beings, but that's assuming that
people put in place safeguards and that those safeguards are
fail safe.

Speaker 1 (01:27:53):
So something you bring up in the book which I
found interesting, it has to do with repercussions of granting
citizenship to robots as other human beings, and that that
actually happened in twenty seventeen or twenty nineteen in Saudi
Arabia with a robo called Sophia.

Speaker 2 (01:28:09):
Yeah, and that's a you know, there's an irony there happening.

Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
Yeah, that lost done me, you know, But that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:21):
Is emblematic of, I think, the allure of AI systems
being like us in some way. I mean, because the
system that they granted citizenship to is Sophia, which is
a robotic system powered by AI that's being specifically designed
to mimic human emotions so that the users would form

(01:28:43):
an emotional bond with the AI system. And the reason
why Hanson Robotics is doing this is because they recognize
that there are a lot of people in our world
today that just simply are confined to their homes. Elderly
people who us aren't able to make it out. They
don't have family members or friends in their sphere of

(01:29:05):
influence that visit them, and so they're isolated. And so
the thought is, if you have these robotic systems, these
people will have companionship and that will improve their mental health,
improve their physical health. So there's very good reasons to
do this, but this goes back to this idea of
anthropomorphizing a machine. Right, we form an emotional bond with

(01:29:28):
a machine because we anthropomorphize, we think that it's like us,
but again it's an AI system that is fundamentally operating
through associative learning, very different in terms of our cognition.

Speaker 1 (01:29:43):
One other special focus, and I think we can wrap
it up, but the artificial wombs and the post human world.
What is artificial womb technology and is it viable? Again?
It gives and it takes away. I mean, there are
really great, great benefits to artificial womb technology, but they
are also significant liabilities.

Speaker 2 (01:30:05):
Yeah. Well, the idea behind an artificial womb is literally
that would be creating a technology that would allow a
fetus to develop to full term. And a lot of
the motivation behind artificial womb technology is trying to develop
ways to improve the outcome of children born prematurely, and

(01:30:28):
so the idea would be that if you could place
them into an artificial womb that more closely mimicked a womb,
that it would actually not only improve their outcome in
terms of the fetal development and their health at the
time that they would be you know, quote unquote born
or reach full term, but it might even actually allow

(01:30:51):
us to have pre termed children survive if they are
born even earlier. Than twenty weeks, right, So this could
be revolutionary technology in terms of treating children that are
born prematurely. But people that are transhumanists see this as
a ticket to divorce human reproduction from the human being itself.

(01:31:14):
And so there are some feminists who see for women
the fact that they can become pregnant as being a limitation,
and so they want artificial womb technology to allow for
reproduction without having to be pregnant, without having to endure pregnancy.
The technology is developing at a pretty reasonable pace for

(01:31:41):
treating premature fetuses. It's not right now existent for taking
an embryo a single cell zygote and developing it through
the first several months of embryonic growth and development. That
technology doesn't simply exist. So it's interesting to see that

(01:32:03):
intersection between feminism and transhumanism with regard to artificial womb technology.
As a Christian, I actually am highly supportive of developing
artificial womb technology because I see it as a pro
life technology that if you can actually, you know, have
artificial wombs that can extend viability, you know, much earlier

(01:32:30):
than twenty weeks, you now have an option so that
instead of someone getting an abortion, you could actually have
that fetus placed in an artificial womb. So I see
it as having very interesting pro life repercussions and could
really be you know, a technology used you know to

(01:32:50):
advance you know, kind of a pro life position and
really make abortion, you know, obsolete, or you know, give
that woman who is contemplating an abortion and option that
could allow the child to live.

Speaker 1 (01:33:07):
It gives and takes away. Yeah, pros and there's cons.
What do transhumanists mean when they say that gender itself
limits human potential. There's a section in the book, and
one things you point out is the desire to transcend
the limitations of gender is not just a feminist ideal.
It is integral to the transhumanist movement, because, in their view,

(01:33:30):
gender limits human potential.

Speaker 2 (01:33:34):
Yeah, and I think you know, what we're seeing right
now with all these gender identity issues and transgenderism is
you know, I think emblematic of how people see gender
right where people want to see gender as fluid or
is non existent. They want to be able to use
technology to alter their gender. And so I see that

(01:33:57):
very much as part of transhumanism. But if you are
able to divorce you know, human reproduction from the human organism,
then suddenly gender becomes unimportant right that you could conceive of,
you know, at least in some kind of futuristic world,
you know, similar to Brave New World, where you know,

(01:34:19):
reproduction is not part of our lives as human beings anymore,
or at least as whatever entity we happen to become.
So it is very much part of the transgender movement.

Speaker 1 (01:34:31):
When our President Donald Trump said that there are only
two genders, was that, in effect a direct affront to transhumanism?

Speaker 2 (01:34:39):
I think so yeah. And you know, one of the
things that we've done at Reasons to Believe, just a
quick shameless plug, is that we assembled a team of
medical doctors who are volunteers with us, who did a
deep dive into the medical literature and produced this massive
research document on what the medical science says about gender

(01:35:03):
identity and different issues related to gender dysphoria. And through
that process, the medical science really lines up with the
biblical view that there are two genders and that, you know,
gender dysphoria is when something has gone horribly wrong and

(01:35:23):
there are responsible ways to treat it in irresponsible ways
to treat it, and this idea of gender affirming care
is really an irresponsible way to treat it. It does
an enormous amount of harm. But this is again an
example of how people are trying to use technology to
alter human beings, right, And we see from just the

(01:35:49):
horrific effects of puberty blockers, the horrific effects of gender
reassignment surgeries, just how poorly things can go when we
try to use technology to modify who we are as
human beings fundamentally right, that we end up creating enormous
amount of damage to people. So this is I think

(01:36:11):
a warning shot across the bow for people that are
transhumanists that if you naively think that you know, altering
our genetic makeup or right, you know, creating human cyborgs
is somehow the key to a prosperous and utopian future,
you're sorely mistaken.

Speaker 1 (01:36:31):
Yeah, and devastating consequences as well. What a terrific book. Again,
The book is Humans two point zero, a great title
scientific philosophical theological perspectives on Transhumanism. The book is available
through the Ministry of the Christian Research Institute for anyone
who stands children to shoulder with us in the battle

(01:36:51):
for life and truth. And it is written by two
fantastic people, my guest, fuzz Ruana and Ken Samples. And
what an incredible ministry do you have Reasons to Believe?
I mean, a cutting edge ministry really making a difference
for time and for eternity. We're really grateful to you
as Christians in all walks of life for the contributions

(01:37:14):
you're making.

Speaker 2 (01:37:15):
Well, well, thank you, Hank, and you know we are
very grateful for the work that you guys are doing
at CRI, so I see us as kindred spirits and
partners in the gospel.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
Man, Well, you're a dear friend, and I deeply appreciate
the book and we'll continue to plug it and look
forward to the advances that you make for the Kingdom
through Reasons to Believe. And do remember that if you
enjoy the podcast, subscribe, rate review the book available to
the ministry a Christian research institute, check it out on

(01:37:48):
the web, Equipped dot org, equ ip dot org, or
write us at Post Office box eighty five hundred, Charlotte,
North Carolina, zip code two eight two seven to one.
Thanks for tuning in to this edition of the hand
Gun Plug Podcast. Look forward to seeing you next time.

Speaker 2 (01:38:04):
For more

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Are you ready for Humans 2.0? Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism with Fuz Rana

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

All Episodes

Are you ready for Humans 2.0? Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism with Fuz Rana

Stuff You Should Know