Transhumanism is being labeled a ‘death cult’ as thinkers clash over the future of humanity

Transhumanism, a movement that seeks to defeat aging and death through technology, was sharply criticized during a recent debate among philosophers, scientists and transhumanist advocates, who dismissed the charge as misleading and reactionary.

The exchange took place on December 4 at the British Institute of Art and Ideas’ ‘World’s Most Dangerous Idea’ event, where neuroscientist and philosopher Àlex Gómez-Marín argued that the movement functions as a pseudo-religion – one that aims to eliminate the human condition rather than preserve it.

“I think transhumanism is a death cult,” Gómez-Marín said. “I think transhumanism is a pseudo-religion dressed up in technoscientific language, with the goal of eradicating the human condition and telling everyone to cheer and clap when this happens.”

The debate has been circulating among technologists, philosophers, and ethicists for decades, but has taken on renewed urgency as research in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and lifespan continues to expand. While proponents argue that technology can save humanity from death, critics warn that the movement is based on fantasies of immortality.

More recently, a report from the Galileo Commission warned that transhumanist efforts to merge humans and machines could reduce human life to a technical system and push aside questions of meaning, identity and agency.

The term “transhumanism” was coined in the mid-20th century and later developed by thinkers such as Julian Huxley, Max More, Natasha Vita-More, Ben Goertzel, Nick Bostrom, and Ray Kurzweil. Proponents such as biohacker Bryan Johnson and technology billionaire Peter Thiel have argued that technology can be used to transcend biological boundaries such as aging and disease. Critics have countered that the movement’s goals would benefit only the ultra-wealthy and blur the lines between science and religion.

Gómez-Marín was joined in the discussion by philosopher Susan Schneider, AI researcher Adam Goldstein, and Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist author and political candidate currently running for governor of California. They rejected Gómez-Marín’s characterization and described transhumanism as an attempt to reduce suffering rooted in biology.

Participants offered competing views on whether transhumanist ideas represented humanitarian progress, philosophical confusion, or an ethical lapse.

“Most transhumanists like me believe that aging is a disease, and we would like to overcome that disease so that you don’t have to die, and the loved ones you have don’t have to die,” said Istvan, who linked the view to personal loss.

“I lost my father about seven years ago,” he said. “We have all accepted death as a natural way of life, but transhumanists do not accept that.”

Gómez-Marín said the greater risk lies not in specific technologies, but in the worldview that guides their development, especially among technology leaders who, he argued, know technology but do not know humanity.

“They know a lot about technology, but they know very little about anthropology,” he said.

For her part, philosopher Susan Schneider told the audience that she was once a transhumanist, drawing a distinction between using technology to improve health and endorsing more radical claims, such as uploading consciousness to the cloud.

“The claim is that we will upload the brain,” Schneider said. “I don’t think you or I will be able to achieve digital immortality even if the technology is there – because you would be committing suicide and a new digital copy of yourself would be created.”

Schneider also warned that transhumanist language was increasingly being used to distract from immediate policy questions, including data privacy, regulation and access to emerging technologies.

Adam Goldstein, an AI researcher, told the audience that the debate should focus less on predictions of redemption or catastrophe, and more on choices already being made about how technology is designed and governed.

“I think if we want to be constructive, we have to think about which of these futures we actually want to build,” he said. “Instead of assuming that the future will be this way or that way, we can ask ourselves what a good future would be.”

The central question, Goldstein said, was whether humans chose to design a cooperative future with artificial intelligence or approached it from a place of fear and control, which could shape humanity’s future once AI systems surpass human intelligence.

“I think we have good evidence for what a good future is, based on the ways in which we have dealt with differences with other people,” he said. “We have, at least some of the time, devised political systems that help us bridge differences and achieve a peaceful solution to our needs. And there is no reason I can see why the future couldn’t look like this with AI too.”