A New Perspective on Humanity in the Cosmic Future: A Critical Reflection on Some Transhumanist Visions

1 Introduction

“We are lost”. These words will be very familiar to many people thinking about the situation in which humanity currently finds itself. Scholars have been sounding the alarm for several decades now, warning of the threats associated with the overpopulation of the Earth. But that is not the only problem. With the depletion of natural resources and the polluted environment, the unstable geopolitical situation in the world is deteriorating.^[1] The unjust world order that disadvantages third-world countries to the advantage of Western civilisation and the growing environmental burden on natural resources is becoming unsustainable. The Earth, it would appear, is too small for us and, in the light of the new pressures, finding the meaning of human existence is now more difficult. Instead of seeking solutions on Earth, we are increasingly turning “upwards”, to Space. It is thus right to ask if this is not all a little rushed; indeed, the last part of the world to be discovered by humans was Antarctica, only viewed from the sea until 1895, and we still have not fully explored our own planet. Nevertheless, rich countries, as well as private companies,^[2] are investing colossal amounts of money in Space research, which is slowly beginning to bear fruit, opening up previously unimaginable possibilities.

All this is the manifestation of the human desire to comprehend the meaning of existence, understand ourselves and our immediate surroundings, as well as the distant world (and even the universe). Human curiosity along with a high level of intelligence and the ability to act upon it is what distinguishes humans from other animals and enables humans to project their future. But despite new empirical knowledge about the external physical world (and the universe), as well as the human body and human consciousness, we have not been able to resolve the so-called “harshness of existence”. Alexis Carrel used this term in 1935 to describe the complexity of human existence. He also referred to the human species as an unknown creature (Carrel, 1959, p. 24), despite our wealth of knowledge. Inspirational ideas about human beings searching for the meaning of life, despite incomplete knowledge, can be found in the works of the eminent physician and psychoanalyst (Frankl, 1984, pp. 128–130). However, he emphasises that humans also live in an “existential vacuum”. This vacuum is the sense of meaninglessness and aimlessness that shrouds our existence. He called on us not to become resigned to life but to cultivate “the will to meaning”, which still resonates today as one of the most important philosophical appeals of the 20th century. He was not simply referring to situations inseparably bound up with the tragic experiences of the second world war.^[3] And the appeal is still relevant today in the context of the global environmental, climate and geopolitical crises. The search for the meaning of human existence remains a key question in philosophical/anthropological research.

New horizons are opening up and altering the traditional paradigms of historical-philosophical, theological and psychological approaches. The search for new planetary and even cosmic prospects for humanity has come to the fore. Generalising to some degree, one can claim that there is a human desire to discover new cosmic spaces and not just explore them but also colonise them. With these ambitious desires comes the need to tackle the physical, biological and mental limits of the human being. In other words, to transcend these limitations and search for the possibilities of human enhancement. Transhumanistic opinions play a key role in this. Transhumanists propose methods for enhancing (completing and transforming) humans from earthly beings into “Cosmic Beings” based on scientific knowledge from the fields of biology, neuroscience and biotechnology. In this paper, we present a critical philosophical-ethical reflection on selected transhumanist visions, focussing on the creation of a new type of human, so-called “Cosmic Beings” and Cyborgs.

2 Humanity’s Path to a Cosmic Future – Cosmic Beings and Cyborgs

For transhumanists, Cyborgs and above all Cosmic Beings represent a possible future, the evolutionary continuation of the human species. In other words, these are a special kind of “posthuman” who may help us solve some of humanity’s global crises and restore the deep meaning of our existence. Nonetheless all this entails a fundamental change to humanity itself. Therefore, we have to consider several types of human enhancement in the context of the cosmic future and point out the risks and negative ethical consequences. Numerous scholars have reacted to the new circumstances of humanity described above. Prominent among these is the transhumanist author Ted Chu and his cosmic vision of the future. He may well be the most important figure in transhumanist research on the cosmic possibilities for humans. Chinese macroeconomist and philosopher Chu provoked a debate on the topic with the publication of his Human Purpose and Transhuman Potential: Cosmic Vision for Our Future Evolution (Chu, 2014).

In Michael Zimmerman’s opinion, Ted Chu’s book is the most important volume promoting transhumanism since the publication of Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near (2005). Furthermore, it has great potential to connect Eastern and Western civilisations (Zimmerman, 2014, p. 85). Let us now consider the concept Ted Chu presents in his book. He assumes that humanity finds itself in the situation, where solving the Earth’s global problems (for example, the ecological crisis) is no longer as important as it was; instead, we should be focussing more on expanding into Space. This could be achieved through the creation of Cosmic Beings, which can be described as posthuman techno-beings with enhanced intelligence and multiple physical and mental abilities. Chu specifies:

Cosmic Being (or in abbreviated form, CoBe, is also an abbreviation for ‘Could Be’, and shorthand for the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer). More precisely, this term is reserved for the sentient beings that are on the cutting edge of cosmic evolution … CoBe should not be viewed as a single species, like human beings, but as an explosion of conscious mind … This vision of CoBe taking over our evolutionary baton … (Chu, 2014, p. 52).

These Cosmic Beings would have capabilities that surpass those of today’s humans and would thereby help us to restore the deep meaning of our existence in the inhabited universe (Chu, 2014, p. 340–341). Chu embraces the probability of transcending biological dispositions and of creating or becoming a completely new form of life. One could mention here Nietzsche’s well-known “superman”, a prototypical new ideal human, which present-day humans should aim for, going beyond their existing level of development, as the transitional link between animal and superman. Although Nietzsche’s superman lies behind transhumanist visions, contemporary transhumanists such as Chu are attempting to achieve it through science and technology. Chu recognises that humans have always dreamed of self-enhancement and immortality:

The concept of some conscious and intelligent higher being, or transhuman, is not new – think of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch (superman), Joseph Fletcher’s Homo autofabricus, Hans Moravec’s “ex-humans”, William Day’s Omega Man, and Nigel Cameron’s Techno Sapiens, to name just a few (Chu, 2014, p. 20).

Chu even admits that modernity and science put humanity in danger, but he suggests we follow Nietzsche’s path in responding to these challenges by embracing them, in the hope of an unprecedented “quantum leap” in the human condition. Chu believes that the notion of humanity’s place in the universe has to be the focus of attention so we can answer “Nietzsche’s still-unaddressed concern about the ‘death of God’ and the corresponding lack of human purpose in a scientific age” (Chu, 2014, p. 26). Chu, like Nietzsche, is against the slave morality and is critical of the overarching human objective of human transformation being reduced “to the simplistic notion of the maximization of human happiness” (Chu, 2014, p. 26). In this sense we can only agree with Michael Zimmerman that Chu is Nietzsche 2.0 (Zimmerman, 2014, p. 85).

A decade earlier, Natasha Vita-More came up with a similar vision of a new posthuman person and presented her design at the 2004 Ciber-Art Bilbao Conference. Her artistic vision did not focus on the cosmic potential as Chu’s vision does. She gave the first posthuman person the name primo posthuman. The body of the first prototype posthuman is tailor-designed from choice of skin colour to height, gender and other biotechnological components. The intention as Francesca Ferrando explained was that the body of the primo posthuman would simply be an editable shell of the eternally living mind (Ferrando, 2016, p. 8–9). Ted Chu seems to be developing this idea in his concept but in a new context that incorporates cosmic dimensions. Although similar futuristic visions may still seem unrealistic, we need to consider the fact that the discourse on transhumanist concepts is pushing for a change in the current understanding of humans in line with the scientific knowledge and legitimising new ethical starting points. Hence the boundaries of what we consider to be human are shifting, and the ground is being prepared for even the radical use of new biotechnologies. We believe that it is important to respond to these new visions and to attempt a philosophical-ethical reasoning about the paradigmatic change in our understanding humanity.^[4] This is even more necessary now that humans have truly entered the era of going beyond the boundaries of our home planet and have begun to shape our cosmic future.

An alternative to the concept of Cosmic Beings is the concept of hybrid beings or “trans- and posthuman” beings known as cyborgs.^[5] A key proponent of this concept is the philosopher and cognitive scientist Andy Clark, who views cyborgs differently from the traditional notion of them. He aims to change the stereotypical image of cyborgs and reveal the hidden essence of our biological nature. He says that cyborgs are not to be feared, because we already are cyborgs (Clark, 2004. p. 3). What makes humans so different from other biological species is our ability to incorporate tools and diverse supporting cultural practices into our existence. Whether it is the most varied technologies, from smartphones to Google searches or mind-expanding neural implants, all of these point to the astonishingly plastic nature of our brains. The human mind is therefore also prepared to seek out and incorporate non-biological resources into our bodies, and thanks to the best technologies we are capable of thinking and experiencing things more authentically (Clark, 2004, p. 58). Drawing on these ideas about humans’ ability to incorporate artificial technologies into their own lives and bodies, Kevin Warwick, an English cybernetics and robotics engineer, wrote Cyborgs in Space (2013), a book about the vision of creating and using cyborgs to explore space. Many of the limitations of the natural human body can be overcome by creating cyborgs. The author has already tested the first prototypes that connect the human brain to various technologies. Cyborgs may be the first stage in artificial human enhancement before intelligence-focused enhancement (or connecting our brains to artificial intelligence).

Let us take a step back from these ideas about the role of cyborgs in the exploration and penetration of space to focus on Cosmic Beings. These beings are seen somewhat differently from cyborgs. Here the emphasis is on the controlled evolution of intelligence. Ted Chu states that the creation of the first of these Cosmic Beings will be preceded by so-called “conscious evolution”. He explains this in terms of the following challenges: “from Think different (referring to ourselves) to Make it think differently (from ourselves)” and “from Create a better life to Create a different life” (Chu, 2014, p. 49). According to Chu, this truly posthuman transition could occur when the emphasis shifts to efforts to develop our intelligence following research into humans. Chu perceives humanity as an important but transitory phenomenon in a long-lasting evolutionary process that is not tightly bound to planet Earth and so will naturally go beyond it. Although his thinking is inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche, it is based on new evolutionary knowledge and focuses on human spirituality as well, emphasising the need for humans to go beyond themselves given that human existence is inevitably heading towards a state of existential threat. As self-conscious beings it is our duty to prevent this. Chu believes that we should first create these intelligent techno-posthumans – Cosmic Beings and then work with them to transform the entire cosmos of which we would form an integral part (Chu, 2014, p. 52). The most interesting aspect is the way Chu incorporates the spiritual dimension into his vision. He acknowledges that spirituality is a part of human nature. He starts from the assumption that God is the transcendent creative principle that underpins evolution. In Western monotheistic religions it is believed that human beings are created in the image of God and so resemble their creator and are empowered to create extremely intelligent beings that would not be encumbered by the limits of human existence (Chu, 2014, p. 68). He also refers to the human desire for self-transcendence, which is present in all the spiritual traditions of both the West and the East. But here his thinking takes an astonishing turn. He separates the human ability to transcend from its religious context and then applies this distinction to scientific research (Chu, 2014, p. 70). Hence, he calls on scholars from various backgrounds – religious or atheistic, liberal or libertarian – to understand that their values can be aligned with the values relating to the creation of Cosmic Beings. Here we need to point out that although we welcome the fact that Chu did not overlook spirituality, which is an extremely important aspect of human existence, we do not agree with its intended application. For us, the importance of spirituality in human life is linked to the human desire to live a happy and meaningful life. We therefore consider it an integral part of living a (good) life. Hence, we lean towards the views of the English philosopher John Cottingham, who, like Chu, considers spirituality to be an important transformative power connected to the person’s type of self-awareness and intentionality. Although he specifically connects it to the individual achieving a meaningful and happy life, as he states in his book The Spiritual Dimension (Cottingham, 2005, p. 126). His view can be contrasted with the views on spirituality presented by Ted Chu, who would like to see this quality being used to achieve the creation of a new human species.

We can add that Chu’s approach is more naturalistic than metaphysical, but we do not consider that an obstacle to its investigation. Somewhat relatedly, South African philosopher Thaddeus Metz states that spirituality can also be studied from a naturalistic perspective (Metz, 2013, pp. 35–36). Fiona Ellis, who looks at these questions in her book God, Value & Nature (Ellis, 2014), has a similar view. Both Metz and Ellis are critical of the discourse in which spirituality is antagonistic to the naturalistic understanding of human existence. They are of the view that naturalism and theism are no longer logically incompatible.^[6] But Metz and Ellis emphasise the importance of spirituality, especially in the life of the individual. Our own position differs from Ted Chu’s and corresponds to the opinions of Ellis, Metz and Cottingham, all of whom consider human spirituality to be necessary for achieving a happy and meaningful personal life.

Finally, there is one more distinguishing feature of both our own understanding of spirituality and that of Ted Chu. It is characteristic of Chu that he does not take into consideration the unique and subjective way in which individuals perceive their existence but is concerned with the future of the species as a whole; hence his search for ways out of the existential crisis (Chu, 2014, p. 360). We think his concept neglects the personal dimension of the individual’s life. He calls on us to understand the creation of Cosmic Beings as a transcendent act that will restore the deep meaning of human existence, but he is, of course, referring to the existence of humanity as a whole (Chu, 2014, p. 135). He states: “Beyond the demand for being selfless, the mandate to foster the emergence of a transcendental morality that will expand human-centered morality is the most difficult to realize but also the most honourable. To play our role in cosmic evolution is the ultimate moral imperative for humankind. Its success is not assured, but the effort will be honourable and the possible failure memorable.” (Chu, 2014, p. 337) We can see that this moral imperative has the aim of achieving the greater good. It is therefore utilitarian in character.

3 Authentic Humanity in Cosmic Future

The most well-known proponent of “truly human enhancement” is Nicholas Agar, a critic of radical enhancement who proposes an original concept of human enhancement in his book Truly Human Enhancement: A Philosophical Defense of Limits (2014).^[10] Agar does not consider human enhancement to be bad or wrong, but distinguishes between a radical and a moderate method of improvement and considers the latter to be permissible. It differs from the radical method in that the same attributes and qualities are improved as in the radical version, but more slowly, step by step, so that humans’ existing attributes and qualities do not go far beyond their existing ones (Agar, 2014, p. 2). Agar argues that radical enhancement, like creating Cyborgs or Cosmic Beings, would disrupt the things that give our lives meaning and value i.e., fulfilling our desires and dreams, because it goes beyond the limits of our ability to think about happiness and meaningfulness, which is crucial for human existence (Agar, 2014, p. 21). It is therefore an evolutionary approach to identity that asks what makes the continuity of our ongoing existence meaningful and valuable (Agar, 2014, p. 57). Agar concludes that the radical improvements to human cognition and physical abilities that would lead to the emergence of Chu’s Cosmic Beings for example would threaten the moral status of contemporary humans. To clarify this, Agar distinguishes between three basic forms of moral status: 1. Zero moral status (e.g. rocks), 2. Status of sentient non-persons (animals) and 3. The moral status of persons. Regarding human enhancement, he presumes that another form will appear along with the first posthuman beings, which has 4. The moral status of postpersons. The creation of persons with higher cognitive and physical attributes will present a major threat to the original human beings and possibly a downgrading of their needs (Agar, 2014, p. 180).^[11] This is one reason for preventing such radical human enhancement and for acting to prevent dehumanisation.

The astrobiologist and chemist Michael N. Mautner, in his thinking on the potential for human expansion in space, draws on his knowledge of biochemistry and genetics to present some general principles that would safeguard the ethical prospects of our cosmic future. Mautner finds guidance in life-centred ethics. It consists of biocentric ethics, in which all living organisms, species and ecosystems are valued, and biotic ethics, which is more specifically about protecting the basic formula of life itself (reproduction through gene-protein cycles). Lastly there is panbiotic ethics, which is about maximising life in space and time and using all the available resources to that end (Mautner, 2009, p. 439). Together these principles underpin the biological unity of all life and are based on evolutionary foundations. Whether or not creating Cosmic Beings/cyborgs is good or bad is not relevant here; instead the focus is on actions that safeguard life and are morally good and actions that are a threat to life and are morally bad. This applies to expansion in space as well and raises some questions. Should we expand all life or just intelligent life? Should we occupy other solar systems? How far can we enhance ourselves whilst preserving the human species and life itself? The future of all life may lie in our hands, and whether life fulfils its full potential may depend on our ethical stance.

We therefore suggest, following Mautner, that we should subscribe to life-centred ethics, despite the many unresolved questions, as its principles are most promising for ensuring future generations have the best possible life. This ethical thinking can give our human existence a cosmic purpose (Mautner, 2009, p. 440). We consider Mautner’s ethical approach, in conjunction with Agar’s concept of authentic human enhancement, to be a satisfactory response to questions about the creation of Cosmic Beings as well as more general questions on the cosmic future of humans. After all, the principle of preserving life is above all crucial to determining an authentic, happy and meaningful life. It would be interesting to know how Ted Chu would react to Mautner’s approach to cosmic evolution using life-centred ethics. He puts ethics and moral arguments in a completely different perspective by proposing changes to human nature itself – such as the creation of Cosmic Beings or Cyborgs (Chu, 2014, p. 301–337). He acknowledges that such conscious evolution would perhaps be messy and unpredictable and that we are unable to prevent mass casualties or even near-death experiences for humanity as a whole. Nonetheless he treats humanity “not as an end but as a means” and his concerns about the posthuman future are similarly centred. We are convinced that Chu would not accept Mautner’s life-centred ethics, since he does not even accept “human-centric morality”. Instead of human or life centred ethics, he proposes a specific type of “transcendental morality”. The following quote is apt here: “Just as human morality has served a vital function of strengthening and reinforcing our moral instincts, a transcendental morality will serve as a guide for us to treat humanity and forthcoming advanced intelligent lives as they should be treated, under the vision of furthering cosmic evolution” (Chu, 2014, p. 301). There is a potential danger in this interpretation of “transcendental morality”. Such an approach to our cosmic evolution would most likely lead to the dehumanisation of human beings as we know them. One cannot predict the risks without having the appropriate ethical underpinning. Mautner’s life-centred ethics and Agar’s truly human enhancement contain the key principles that will prevent us from losing the basic attributes of the good life. Chu’s main aim of restoring the deep meaning of human existence through “transcendental morality” and the creation of Cosmic Beings could paradoxically lead to us losing the meaning of our existence.

4 Conclusion

What are humanity’s prospects in the cosmic future? In seeking to answer this question we have relied on transhumanist visions. We have concluded that the common denominator of transhumanist visions such as Cosmic Beings, Primo Posthuman and Cyborgs is that they all involve a fundamental change in human nature. By engaging in philosophical-ethical reflection, we have attempted to critically examine the impact of radical enhancement on humanity. We acknowledge that there is a risk of the human species as we currently know it being dehumanised or downgraded. In the case of human enhancement, we believe that radical forms should be rejected in favour of more moderate ones. We discuss whether human enhancement should not occur at a slower pace, as that would give stronger guarantees for preserving the authenticity of human life. We have reached the conclusion that the basic ethical principles that will shape our cosmic future have to be derived from life-centred ethics. Despite the many uncertainties, this approach could safeguard the future of humanity in the cosmic era and prevent negative consequences to life on planet Earth.