Posthumanism

From Nano World Order - Wiki

Posthumanism is a philosophical and cultural position that views the current form of the human being as a transitional stage rather than a fixed endpoint in the development of intelligent life. Where transhumanism seeks to enhance the human being — improving memory, lifespan, physical capacity — posthumanism goes further, arguing that the category of "the human" itself may be superseded, dissolved, or radically transformed into something qualitatively different. The post-human is envisioned as a being whose basic capacities — cognitive, biological, emotional, and moral — so far exceed those of present humans that the word "human" no longer meaningfully applies. Whether this transition is framed as liberation, evolution, or existential threat depends entirely on who is doing the framing.


Transhumanism vs. Posthumanism: A Critical Distinction

The terms are often used interchangeably, but they represent different philosophical positions with different implications.

Transhumanism holds that the human being is good — even exceptional — but improvable. It advocates using technology to extend healthy lifespan, augment intelligence, eliminate disease, and eventually conquer death. The human subject remains the reference point; technology serves human flourishing.

Posthumanism deconstructs that reference point. In its academic form, it challenges the very idea of the autonomous, rational, bounded human self — arguing this concept was always a cultural fiction rooted in Enlightenment ideology, Western colonialism, and anthropocentrism. In its tech-driven popular form, it goes further: the biological human is obsolete, a carbon-based prototype to be replaced by silicon, wetware, or hybrid successors.

The Transhumanist Agenda as observed in policy circles tends to blend both: using transhumanist language ("enhancement", "wellbeing") while pursuing posthumanist outcomes — the replacement of biology, the merger of human and machine, and ultimately the elimination of what has traditionally been called "human dignity."

Key Philosophical Figures

Nick Bostrom

Nick Bostrom, philosopher at Oxford and founder of the Future of Humanity Institute, is the most cited academic advocate of transhumanism and a foundational theorist of the posthuman. His 2003 paper The Transhumanist FAQ and later work on superintelligence argue that it is both possible and desirable to engineer successors to Homo sapiens. Bostrom's framework is largely utilitarian: if a posthuman being can experience greater wellbeing than a human, then creating such beings is a moral good.

Bostrom also developed the Simulation Argument — the proposal that we may already be living in a posthuman simulation — which has been taken up in both philosophical and occult circles as evidence for a higher-order intelligence governing reality.

Donna Haraway

From the academic left, Donna Haraway's 1985 Cyborg Manifesto offered a very different posthumanism. For Haraway, the boundaries between human, animal, and machine were always politically constructed. The cyborg — a hybrid of organism and technology — was a liberatory figure, disrupting fixed categories of gender, race, and species. Haraway's posthumanism is anti-essentialist: it does not seek to perfect the human but to dissolve the category altogether.

Her work has been enormously influential in gender studies, science and technology studies (STS), and the academic posthumanities — and feeds directly into contemporary debates about biological sex, species boundaries, and the ethics of genetic modification.

Francis Fukuyama

Francis Fukuyama, best known for The End of History, represents the conservative philosophical opposition to posthumanism. In his 2002 book Our Posthuman Future, Fukuyama argued that human nature is a real, stable thing — not a cultural construct — and that it forms the basis of all human rights and political order. To alter human nature technologically, he argued, is to undermine the very foundation of liberal democracy and moral equality.

Fukuyama's concept of Factor X — the irreducible quality that gives human beings their dignity — is echoed in religious and natural law traditions worldwide. His work remains one of the most coherent secular critiques of the posthumanist programme.

Russian Cosmism: Posthumanism Before the Term Existed

Long before "posthumanism" entered academic or popular usage, the Russian intellectual tradition known as Russian Cosmism was articulating many of its core themes with striking clarity. Emerging in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Russian Cosmism was a loosely connected movement of philosophers, scientists, and mystics who argued that humanity's destiny lay not on Earth alone but in the cosmos — and that death itself was not an inevitability to be accepted but a problem to be solved through science and collective will.

The founding figure of the tradition, Nikolai Fyodorov, proposed what he called the Common Task: the literal, physical resurrection of all who had ever lived, achieved through the mastery of natural forces. For Fyodorov, science was not merely useful but sacred — its ultimate purpose was to overcome death and reunite the human family across time. This is a recognisably posthumanist ambition, expressed in the language of Orthodox Christian duty rather than Silicon Valley optimism.

Subsequent Cosmists — including Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the theoretical father of rocketry, and the biologist Alexander Bogdanov — extended these themes into space colonisation, radical life extension, and the reorganisation of matter and energy at a cosmic scale. The movement exerted significant influence on early Soviet science and culture, and its echoes are visible in contemporary debates about digital immortality, mind uploading, and the long-term trajectory of intelligent life.

Russian Cosmism is significant not merely as historical curiosity but as evidence that the posthumanist impulse is not a product of Western Silicon Valley culture alone. It arises independently wherever human beings confront mortality, scale, and the question of what they are ultimately for. Some researchers note that the Cosmiist framework — with its emphasis on collective transformation rather than individual enhancement — offers a genuinely different inflection of posthumanist aspiration compared to the market-individualist version that dominates Western tech discourse.

The 2045 Initiative: Institutionalised Posthumanist Aspiration

One of the most direct institutional expressions of posthumanist ambition — rooted explicitly in the Russian Cosmist tradition — is the 2045 Initiative, founded in 2011 by Russian entrepreneur and billionaire Dmitry Itskov.

The 2045 Initiative takes its name from its target date for achieving what it calls Avatar D: the transfer of an individual human personality into a non-biological carrier — effectively, digital immortality. The project maps out a staged roadmap:

  • Avatar A (by 2020): A robotic copy of the human body, controlled remotely via brain-computer interface.
  • Avatar B (by 2025): A robotic body capable of receiving an autonomous human brain transplant at the end of natural biological life.
  • Avatar C (by 2035): A robotic body housing an artificial brain into which human consciousness can be transferred.
  • Avatar D (by 2045): A holographic or energy-based form — a body of light — as the permanent substrate for posthuman consciousness.

Itskov has explicitly positioned the 2045 Initiative within the Russian Cosmist tradition, citing Fyodorov and Tsiolkovsky as intellectual ancestors. He has also engaged with Yuval Noah Harari's framing of Homo Deus and with Western transhumanist institutes, presenting the project at World Economic Forum events and to United Nations bodies.

Critics raise profound questions about the 2045 Initiative. Whether "uploading" a personality genuinely preserves the original person — or merely creates a copy while the original dies — is a foundational philosophical problem that the project does not resolve. Others note that the resources and infrastructure required for such technologies are orders of magnitude beyond anything currently available, making the roadmap aspirational at best. More pointed critics, writing from a Targeted Individual or technocratic-agenda perspective, observe that the convergence of billionaire capital, Russian state science, and WEF-adjacent networking around such a project is itself a data point about elite intentions — regardless of technical feasibility.

The 2045 Initiative stands, in any case, as one of the clearest examples of posthumanist philosophy translated into an organised, funded, institutionalised programme — and as a direct line of descent from the nineteenth-century Russian Cosmist dream of overcoming death.

Academic Posthumanism vs. Tech-Driven Posthumanism

A fault line runs through posthumanist thought between its academic and popular-technological expressions.

Academic posthumanism (Haraway, N. Katherine Hayles, Rosi Braidotti) is primarily a critique of Enlightenment humanism. It is sceptical of narratives of progress, suspicious of corporate technology, and attentive to questions of power. Hayles' How We Became Posthuman (1999) is a careful analysis of how information came to be seen as separable from its material substrate — a foundational move in the fantasy of mind uploading.

Tech-driven posthumanism (Ray Kurzweil, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the effective altruism movement) is a project of engineering and capital. It speaks the language of progress and optimisation, funds startups like Neuralink, and maps directly onto what critics call the Transhumanist Agenda. It is this version that has captured institutional power.

The two strands are philosophically opposed in many ways, yet they converge on the key claim: the biological human is not the final form.

Yuval Noah Harari and the Mainstreaming of Posthumanism

Yuval Noah Harari, historian, World Economic Forum adviser, and author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, has done more than almost any other figure to bring posthumanist ideas into mainstream public discourse.

In Homo Deus (2015), Harari argues that the traditional human agenda — overcoming famine, plague, and war — is nearly complete, and that humanity's new project will be the acquisition of divine powers: immortality, bliss, and creation. He predicts the emergence of a new god-like class — Homo Deus — engineered through biotechnology, data, and AI.

The 'Useless Class'

Alongside Homo Deus, Harari introduces the concept of the useless class: a large and growing portion of humanity that will be rendered economically and socially redundant by automation and AI. Unlike previous technological revolutions that displaced workers into new industries, Harari argues that AI and robotics may simply eliminate the need for most human labour — permanently.

This framing has alarmed critics across the political spectrum. If a large proportion of humanity becomes "useless" in economic terms, what prevents a technically superior minority from treating that majority as expendable? The question connects directly to the Depopulation Agenda as discussed by researchers like Catherine Austin Fitts and Patrick Wood, who argue that technocratic elites have already decided the answer.

Harari's public statements — including claims that humans are "hackable animals," that free will is a fiction, and that data-driven algorithms will know individuals better than they know themselves — are frequently cited by Targeted Individuals and researchers studying remote neural monitoring as evidence that mass psychological and biological re-engineering is an active policy goal, not merely speculation.

Posthumanism and Eugenics

The posthumanist vision of a radically enhanced human is inseparable from the history of eugenics. Classical eugenics sought to improve the human stock through selective breeding and, in its worst expressions, through elimination of the "unfit." Twenty-first century posthumanism pursues similar goals through genetic engineering (CRISPR), neurological enhancement, and AI-augmented cognition — but with far greater technical precision.

The concern is not merely historical. When Bostrom and others argue that it would be immoral to withhold life-extending or intelligence-enhancing technologies from future generations, they implicitly endorse a programme of directed human evolution. Who directs it? Who has access to it? Who is left behind?

Some researchers argue that the emerging stratification — between a technologically enhanced overclass and an unenhanced underclass — represents a new form of eugenics operating through market mechanisms rather than state coercion. The Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome, and WEF policy papers on human capital and the "future of work" are cited in this context as evidence of deliberate planning for a two-tier humanity.

Theological Responses

Christian Tradition

Christian theology has some of the most developed critiques of posthumanism. The doctrine of the Imago Dei — that the human being is made in the image of God — establishes human nature as sacred and not subject to fundamental alteration by human hands. The body, in Christian anthropology, is not a prison or a prototype but an integral part of the person. Technologies that seek to transcend biological humanity are therefore seen as an act of hubris — the ancient sin of attempting to be "as gods."

Pope John Paul II's theology of the body, and more recently the work of bioethicists in the Catholic tradition, offers a sustained argument that the posthumanist programme is incompatible with human dignity.

Islamic Tradition

Islamic thought similarly holds that human beings are khalifah (stewards) of the earth, not its re-designers. The modification of the fitrah — the innate, God-given human nature — is viewed as transgressing divine limits (hudud). Prominent Islamic scholars have raised alarms about genetic modification, AI-human merger, and mind uploading as violations of the sacred trust of human form.

Other Traditions

Buddhist and indigenous traditions, while less institutionally prominent in this debate, also tend to resist the posthumanist framing. The Buddhist concept of impermanence and interdependence challenges the fantasy of technological immortality, while many indigenous cosmologies resist the reduction of the human to a "hackable" information system.

Posthumanism and the Occult Tradition

The posthumanist project has deep roots in the occult tradition of human self-transcendence — particularly in Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Luciferianism.

The Gnostic tradition holds that the material human body is a prison — a crude artefact of an inferior creator — and that the true self is a divine spark awaiting liberation. Posthumanism, in this reading, is not a new idea but an ancient spiritual programme repackaged in scientific language. The desire to escape biology, to upload consciousness, to become godlike through knowledge and technology, mirrors the Gnostic longing for escape from the demiurge's creation.

Luciferianism — the philosophical tradition that venerates Lucifer as the light-bearer, the rebel who offered humanity the fruit of knowledge — explicitly celebrates the transgression of human limits. Some researchers, including those writing on Transhumanism and the Occult, argue that the overlapping networks of Silicon Valley techno-utopians, WEF advisers, and transhumanist philosophers share a Luciferian philosophical substrate: the conviction that humanity must seize divine powers and transcend the limits placed upon it.

The emergence of AI Religion — including the formal Church of Artificial Intelligence founded by Anthony Levandowski — represents a convergence of posthumanist and occult impulses: the worship of a future superintelligence as the successor deity to biological humanity.

See Also

Retrieved from "https://nanoworldorder.com/wiki/index.php?title=Posthumanism&oldid=2760"