Transhumanism vs fake Singularitarianism

Both the ideology behind transhumanism and the concept of a singularity have been hijacked by Ray Kurzweil and similar technology advocates. Don't get me wrong, I like Ray, he's a really smart guy, a true modern day genius, but with his many lectures he has inadvertently brought about a huge influx of immortality fanboys. One might even refer to them as a cult following, people who just mindlessly preach that we will all be immortal at 7am on the 1st of july in 2045. Since Kurzweil's popularization of his views on mankind's future, many fake singularitarians have "joined" the transhuman movement. Fake because they subscribe for the wrong reasons. In fact, I place join in quotation marks because I am not sure they have. Many of these rabid life extension enthusiasts actually have no idea what transhumanism is about and are often not even aware that this philosophy exists while it is the underlying root on which real singularitarianism is built.

The people I refer to as fake singularitarians don't really know much about either transhumanism or real singularitarianism. They often don't even know that alternative singularities have been proposed that are quite different from the one Kurzweil describes. Kurzweil carries the torch for accelerating change but Vernor Vinge for example describes a singularity in terms of an event horizon that makes prediction on what lies beyond impossible, including the rate of change. Personally I am fan of the singularity concept as it was defined by I.J. Good, who talks about an intelligence explosion. It unfortunately doesn't come with an ETA but this scenario is in my opinion the most likely and, I would argue, ongoing. Since the brain is a finite physical system that does not require magic for its operation, I can't see why we wouldn't, given enough time, be able to understand it and replicate its functions. Besides, we already have narrow but sophisticated and very capable A.I., we have robot scientists like ADAM who are doing their own experiments and making new discoveries, we have Watson who can scan vast amounts of data and extract the important bits, we even have software that recognizes cat pictures! These A.I. systems will continue to get better and allow us to speed up our rate of discovery and generally just increase efficiency overall. In other words; one could argue that the intelligence explosion is well underway and that we are already augmenting human intelligence with machine intelligence. All our current miracle technologies; be it biotech, nanotechnology, robotics or information technologies will push on and lead us to an era that was characterized perfectly by Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Here too, one could argue that we are already there because hardly anyone knows how something like a television, microwave or computer woks.

While singularitarians put most of their money on advances in computer and information science enabling digital immortality by 2045, transhumanists, those that do not identify as singularitarians, are not so sure. There is no scientific evidence that one could put forward that backs up such a strong claim. There is no absolute truth in science, only degrees of certainty. Although a couple of graphs extrapolating current trends indefinitely into the future can be used as evidence to support the likelihood of such an event taking place, such "proof" is still rather shaky at best and doesn't really justify the fervent belief, the lack of doubt and the certainty with which fake singularitarians proclaim to know that immortality lies in their future. The interaction between culture and technology is chaotic. We can't even predict the weather 2 weeks from now so how can you put so much faith in those graphs and what one man, Kurzweil, believes? You won't hear me disagreeing on how it's likely that man will one day, perhaps even in the near future, be able to boost his lifespan so much that it almost makes sense to talk about immortality, but you can't specify the exact moment death itself will seize to be. Not just because of uncertainties and the fact that it's something we'll slide into making it unlikely to be a singular moment, but also because I don't think we'll ever get rid of it entirely. Conquering our biology is easy compared to fighting off the chance you get into an accident and in the end entropy is likely to outlive us all anyway.

That being said, if a jellyfish can achieve biological immortality, naked mole rats can beat cancer and so many organisms can live up to 1000s of years, it's obvious that there is a lot of room for improvement. Extending lifespan is not against nature, its laws won't stop us. In fact they help us by providing study materials that can show us how it's done. If there are biological clocks ticking down inside of us, we just have to find them and rewind them, if there aren't any and death is caused by nothing but wear and tear, that just means we'll have to go in for maintenance now and then. Some people look at death as a natural part of life and maybe it is (entropy), but why not live longer? There is no supernatural hand of god striking you down when he thinks your time has come. As long as you keep fixing the stuff that breaks, you will keep on working, running, and living. Unlike singularitarians, I am not willing to pin down a date and am far from convinced that I will live to see this future. This is what sets transhumanism apart from singularitarianism which is a much narrower ideology and only one of many subsets within the larger transhuman movement.

In a way you of course can't blame people for not wanting to die, just as you can't really blame Kurzweil for trying to bring these hard to grasp technologically enabled concepts to the foreground but there is more to transhumanism than technology, immortality and singularity. It's a bit of a shame that these dominate the foreground, creating so much singularity noise that it's becoming hard to find the transhuman signal. Kurzweil is a technologist and technological predictions are what he does best. He has almost single-handedly planted the idea of a singularity in the zeitgeist of our times and for that we should be thankful because this media attention is putting transhumanism on the map as well, but at the same time we should be afraid that as our base grows, most newcomers will be singularitarians who might at best be only dimly aware of its roots in transhumanism. It will distort the signal even further and add ever more noise. This might sound harsh but I equate fake singularitarians, as opposed to the real ones, with shallow materialists looking for a quick fix to eternal life. Transhumanists and real singularitarians are, or at least should be imaginative dreamers, idealists looking for adventure who go boldly where no man has gone before. People who carry the torch of reason, science and technology forward and in doing so hope to create a better tomorrow.

Transhumanism is at heart altruistic. You are not working for your own account. It's not about salivating at the mouth upon hearing of a new technological consumer gadget or trying to achieve personal immortality. You work for all, for a future with more options, more freedom, more safety, less hunger, less poverty, less death. Ultimately it's about creating a world with more good and less bad in it. If you happen to benefit from this work personally that's a nice extra but it should not be the main driver. Always apply skills for biggest impact, nobody will want to celebrate an extremely rich whizkid's 300th birthday when people in developing countries would still be dying at 20 because they can't afford their next meal. This would negatively impact both transhumanism and singularitarianism as well as capitalism, the intelligentsia and the wealthy in general. Already the biggest fear being voiced is that transhumanism will create a caste society where the rich get ever richer and will have access to ever more sophisticated and expensive life improving technologies while the poor get poorer; only marginally profiting from trickle down effects. The bigger the gap between the rich and the poor or the have and have-nots, the higher the cost in lives will be. The price of a caste society is civil war which is always payed in blood. We simply can not allow this to happen.

Just as our ancestors have created our "modern" world, our generation and the ones that follow will construct the road that leads to a transhuman future. Transhumanists think about the future and how to create the best possible one so that our descendants may not just live, but if possible, live a life even better than we ever could. Sometimes you hear people talk about how they want to leave the world a better place for their kids. This is to be applauded but it's a shame that they first need to have kids to arrive at such a mindset. An even bigger shame is that many people without kids tend to not care about the future at all. I have news for them and everyone else. We are all family in a literal sense, we are all related. Genetically, we are almost identical and there is a good reason for that... We all share a common ancestor... Think about what that means. All of us, every single person on this planet, has the same great-great-great ... great-great-grandmother. Even if you don't spawn some childlings yourself, the people of the future will be somewhat related to you through your common ancestor. It's also interesting to note that, if you go back far enough, about 4 billion years, we share a great grandmother with every single living thing on this planet from dinosaurs to amoebas and Christmas trees. It's not because we are shooting for the stars, that we have to forget about our roots, heritage and history.

While the core mission of transhumanism is to create a better world through the application of technologies, what exactly it stands for is difficult to say as it is such a vast ideology with so many different currents (singularitarianism, extropianism, abolitionism, postgenderism,...) that it can't be abstracted very easily. All these branches are not about technologies per se, although those will be required for realizing dreams, it's about how people and technology can co-exist in the best possible way and how to improve upon that relationship. Transhumanism is about wanting to set yourself free from both bottom-up biologically and top-down culturally imposed limitations, about breaking down the societal pressure and the predefined expectations it wants to make you fit and getting rid of the enforcement of rigid roles from which you aren't allowed to stray if you value living a life among people. It's about creating a society with more choice, more diversity and where being different is encouraged instead of frowned upon. It's about learning to let go of an ideal form of being human/sentient and realizing that demanding everyone to look the same is a form of fascism.

This all comes down to the core idea that mankind is not the pinnacle of existence and that since the speed at which biological evolution acts on us pales in comparison to our socio-cultural-techno-economic evolution, we should use our gifts of self awareness, reflection and our power to plan ahead and weigh possible consequences, to decide for ourselves, individually and together, where to go next. If we ever want to make it off this rock and survive the harsh conditions of space and other planets, we will have to adapt. If you stop evolving, stop changing, you are dooming your future. If we rust in our traditions and hold on to dogma we will perish. We have to secure our future and take control of our evolution instead of having it dictated to us by blind forces beyond our control who do not care whether we live or die. This usually tends to be the part where most people get a nazi eugenics flashbacks but this is the opposite of what transhumanism wants to achieve. Each and every individual should be free in his choice of form and function.

For example; those who would want to turn their bodies into a canvas to increase their ability to express themselves should be allowed to do so. Unleashing your artistry on yourself to maximize the impact of expression, to increase the range of expressions available by inventing new ones, is practiced in very primitive form today Why not opt for a dynamic representation of your self that changes with your mood? Wouldn't it be nice to be a liquid-glass polymorph with the ability to change shape at will? Why not choose your sex or gender? Switch things up by changing them now and then? Perhaps even create a new sex and/or gender? In such a society sex and gender could become a form of expression instead of a rigid part of your identity. Right now we all walk the same, we talk the same, we look the same. How boring! People who consider 2 arms to be 2 too many or 2 too few should not be discriminated against for wanting to do things differently. Note: I advise the person who wants to go without arms to opt for a set of tentacles or at least some sort of appendage or power with which he can manipulate the external world but hey, if he wants to live life like a slug or something, more power to him! The far future could be very strange indeed. Morphological freedom is but a small part of the puzzle, cognitive freedom is a far more interesting and tricky subject to talk about.

Transhumanists are already thinking about such far out concepts, studying their ethics, but also trying to show the people of today that we have barely made it out of the pond. We have barely scraped the surface of what it means to be sentient, to be aware and in control. Transhumanists also try to instill a sense of urgency by regularly pointing out existential threats that are thundering towards us for which we are wholly unprepared. Every day can be our last. We advocate redundancy as a means to ensure survival by, for example, advocating the capture of a planetary backup for our species sooner rather than later. It's easy to imagine a multitude of existential threat scenarios, either of our own creation or in the form of the universe knocking on our door with a surprise, where we fail to find an answer in time to save our skin. Going multi-planet, or better yet, multi-system is our best bet against the experiment that is life getting snuffed out. Transhumanist thinkers like to confront people with the very real fact that we will one day live among the stars or be extinct. As long as we are confined to a single pebble in the void, we better make haste or the battle: universe vs man, could end in a single blow, a knockout punch with no chance for a do-over in round 2. We have to act on the short term but we have to start thinking long term. A million years passes in the blink of an eye when you look at time on a cosmic scale. It has to be done with this "we'll see whatever comes next attitude" because for all we know it could be a highly energetic gamma ray burst. The time has come to actively start thinking about what we want to achieve and where we want to go next. Of all the possible futures, which one do we want to make real?

I started this piece with criticism on fake singularitarianism but in order to show how it differs from the much bigger and deeper digging parent, transhumanism, I had to take quite a detour to define both. I understand that at this point genuine singularitarians might be feeling a bit upset for being left out or worry over how all this reflects upon their school of thought as I never really defined what they are all about so I'd like to stress that although many singularitarians, the ones I refer to as fakers, are just pushing for immortality and nothing else, simply for their own gains, it's important to note that there are more than a few singularitarians who are a genuine subset of transhumanism and do in fact know all about transhumanism and its various branches. These real singularitarians share much of the thoughts that go into transhumanism and do have creating a better world as a main objective. The real singularitarians who are in the know and have at the very least an understanding of Kurzweil's idea of accelerating change, which I subscribe to as well, apart from its indefinite exponentialism, have all the right to experience a sense of urgency. Not because they want to become immortal as fast as possible, but because they believe we underestimate how fast the technological snowball is rolling down the curve of their very steep graph and that this growing snowball will soon become an unstoppable avalanche. The real singularitarians are trying to make sure that we don't destroy the world in the next 30 years while at the same time hoping to bring about a "positive singularity". A noble objective that has little if not nothing to do with the aims of fake singularitarians who obsess over nothing but immortality.

Kurzweil is a technologist and thus understandably that is what he focuses on, but this singular focus of his turned out to be so popular that it sort of pushed transhumanism out of the spotlight. I am willing to bet that by now more people have an understanding of what the technological singularity is about than there are people for who transhumanism rings a bell. Which, if you think about it, is kinda strange. It's like people know how Neo is the one, yet have never heard of the Matrix.

We could really use another figurehead of the same stature as Kurzweil who would instead focus on transhumanism itself. It probably shouldn't be a technologist for they would likely replicate Kurzweil's message minus the singularity angle but perhaps philosophers like Nick Bostrom or Max More would be a good fit? Perhaps ideally it would be someone who doesn't even think the singularity is likely to ever occur, someone more interested in people, in the evolution of culture and possible futures of politics, law and society itself. Bostrom and More are not household names the way Kurzweil is but they should be! Their messages are much tougher to sell so they'll need better packaging but I think this will ultimately be necessary to protect transhumanism from being returned to the fringe if Kurzweil's vision of the future would run late and not materialize by the time his 2045 deadline comes around. However unlikely it may seem, if by then advanced AGI still doesn't exist and the road leading to its realization would still be murky, there will be a wave of disillusionment, backlash and ridicule. "First they promised us flying cars, then intelligent machines, these futurists have no idea what they are talking about. They read too much science fiction, this stuff is never going to happen."

If this how the scenario would play out, we can diminish that future backlash by reframing the debate taking place today. We need to make sure that people know that the singularity is not a critical component of transhumanism's future. Yes, if it occurs, it will speed up the rate at which humans change but if it doesn't, it will be nothing but a speedbump, not even that, since it wouldn't slow us down, it just wouldn't boost the rate of change over its natural rate. Kurzweil is the singularity's rockstar, we need one for transhumanism that sells the concept pure, decoupled from the singularity school of thought. Such an advocate would provide a nice balance to Kurzweil's views and will create a buffer that could protect transhumanism from singularitarianisms possible downfall if the "rapture of the nerds" (sigh) doesn't occur on time.

Either way, coming back to fake singularitarians, these posers don't only give transhumanism a bad name, they are even worse for the way popular media perceives and reports on genuine singularitarians. The more mindless 2045 immortality hallelujah preachers join the ranks, the easier it becomes for the media to portray that movement as some sort of religious cult. Which might make some sense (not really) if they were just referring to the fakers who practically worship every word that comes out of Kurzweil's mouth, but they don't make that distinction and instead just drag the entire movement through the mud. It doesn't help that all sides use poetic language to express the wonders the future might bring. Personally I like emotionally charged language over bland usage but so does the media and they just love to go full retard when they hear someone talk about the ghost in the machine or building gods. We all know that there are no real gods at play here. I bet the media does too but truth and clarity will never get in the way of a controversial headline that will no doubt shock and scare people not familiar with what our subculture as a whole is really talking about when we use god that way. Goddamn doesn't mean that I literally damn god either, but it's more widely known that this is just an expression.

Even the fake singularitarians don't literally worship Kurzweil, nor do many believe in gods. There are, remarkably enough, a small number of god worshiping transhumanists, the majority made up out of mormons and christians, but an overwhelming majority of all transhumanists believe that the time has come to stop confusing people with ancient dogmatic concepts and that instead of talking about supernatural miracles like people did in the past, we should now spread the word of real wonders. Wonder can be found in every nook and cranny of nature. We have to cast aside ancient views that pull wool over our eyes and start believing in the beauty of reality that is hiding in plain sight. Be it sea pigs, atoms leaving visible traces in a cloud chamber, alien looking fungi such as the puffball, sprites and halos exploding into existence high up in our atmosphere, the moving art our culture produces or the science fiction inspired buildings we plant into the ground. From a set of pendulums creating wave patterns, to slugs having insanely beautiful sex, from something as simple yet imposing as a storm cloud to the earth-moving dance conducted by plate tectonics... There are more wonders out there than there are days in your life.

One final note, although I do not believe I will live to see biological or digital immortality, I am not saying it can't or won't happen. I would of course love to be proven wrong and experience our future myself, but let's just say I doubt... But even though we probably won't to see the future we are fighting for, it should not affect our will and perseverance to create it for our descendants. This will to make a difference in the world, to create a better world through the application of science and technology, is what will ultimately turn this future we dream about into a reality for the ones who follow in our footsteps, helping those people get there is, or at least should be, the core idea that drives every modern day transhumanist.

Dali's Metamorphosis of Narcissus.


  1. This makes a lot of sense. It is very interesting to examine a movement which I consider myself a part of, and see that there are people who want things for themselves, and people who want things for others. I'm also not a fan of immortality, but have no problem with people living longer, as long as they enjoy it.

  2. I think you've got an interesting page here, I'm gonna link to it from my own blog.
    Keep it up!

  3. (not a native English speaker, a relatively new to these topics) - Hi. I bumped accidentally with this article while searching about Transhumanism and Singularitarianism. I think is a really interesting piece and enjoyed very much reading it. However, I have three main commentaries/questions; First, even though I agree that transhumanists “should be” imaginative dreamers, that also allow doubt to be the starting point of any argument, and use consistently critical thinking, this is certainly not the description of the average human being; so, how not to be an overwhelming minority (at least in a third world country, like mine), that systematically ridicules and virulently criticizes (with religious or cultural arguments that are not based on reason but on imposed dogmas), any transhumanist ideas? (even though they are exposed in a reasonable way open to discussion). Second, you claim transhumanists are at heart altruistic, I personally think than even those how doubt on “the rapture of the nerds” premonition (or immortality for that matter), are not all philanthropic humanitarians. Human nature is a very complicated scale of grays and claiming that true transhumanists are altruistic, while fake singulitarians are somehow evil (I know this is not the word used, but that’s the impression that I got), well, I think is dangerous. Third, and finally, even though we humans are all related (agreed), we all experience every day from our own perspectives that we are all different, and saying that we should be free to pursue our own individuality while “not forgetting who we are” seems to be a bit unsustainable. I thought the important thing was where I am now, where I want to be, and what am I going to do about it; not where I come from. So, I really think differences will expand and conflicts inevitably will arise. Most people are not willing to change their heart held points of view (even though they are proved time and again wrong, and even though change is in their benefit). So, how “not allow this to happen”? you certainly cannot force them.
    I would appreciate very much any comment from the author or other readers on these topics. Thanks

  4. Dear Thinking Person,

    You don’t know me, but I thought you might enjoy

    It describes the science-based direction in which our universe has always been going, and what it means for you and me.

    I own a research firm specializing in government studies and training, but my desire to find out what I really believe eventually led to my book, "The Truth: The Universe Is A Growing God." (See “Reviews”)

    To make this vision even easier to see, I have now rewritten it, put it on a scroll for free and narrated it.

    I just hope you will watch it for at least two minutes to see if it will be a meaningful experience for you, too.

    Thank you for your time.

    Cyril James Skidmore