Trans-humanism: A New Era of Evolution

Failed to add items

Sorry, we are unable to add the item because your shopping cart is already at capacity.

Add to basket failed.

Please try again later

Add to wishlist failed.

Please try again later

Remove from wishlist failed.

Please try again later

Adding to library failed

Please try again

Follow podcast failed

Unfollow podcast failed

Trans-humanism: A New Era of Evolution

Listen for free

View show details

Are You Ready to Upgrade Yourself? A Deep Dive into TranshumanismWhere do you sit on the spectrum between “I’ll sleep on it” and “inject me now”?It started with a TV show.Back around 2013, I stumbled across Orphan Black — a series about a woman who witnesses her exact double commit suicide on a subway platform, assumes her identity, and discovers she’s one of several human clones. Within a few episodes, my mind was completely blown. Not just by the storytelling, but by the questions it forced me to sit with: How far are we willing to go as a species? What parts of ourselves are worth keeping? What does it even mean to be human?That show introduced me properly to the concept of transhumanism — the idea of modifying our species to become more than what we are naturally. And I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since.Two Flavours of the Same QuestionWithin transhumanism, there are two broad camps worth distinguishing:Biotranshumanism — changes to our biology. Gene editing, hormone therapy, peptides, pharmaceuticals. Modifications that work from the inside out.Technotranshumanism — the addition of machinery to our organism. The cybernetic meeting the bioorganic. Think Neuralink, implanted chips, augmented reality overlays.But here’s where it gets interesting. It’s not just about what kind of modification we’re talking about. It’s about where each of us personally draws the line — and why.The Agreeability SpectrumI want you to picture a scale from 0 to 10.At zero, you’re behaviour-first, all the way. Sleep. Food. Movement. Emotional regulation. You believe the body’s natural systems, when respected and trained properly, are the greatest technology ever designed. Tradition matters to you. Maybe faith does too. You see beauty in natural limits.At ten, you’re chomping at the bit for gene edits and brain chips. You want to see the evolution of the species. You’d sign up to have your DNA rewritten to breathe methane and live on Titan if it meant expanding what humanity could become.Most of us — if we’re honest — are somewhere in between. And understanding where we sit, and why, tells us a lot about what we actually value.Two Axes to Help You ThinkHere’s a framework I find useful. Picture two axes:* Internal vs. External — Is the modification happening inside your body or outside it?* Reversible vs. Transformative — Can you undo it, or is it a permanent change?An exoskeleton? External and reversible. You take it off, it’s gone.Steroids or hormone therapy? Internal and transformative. The tissue changes. Your body’s processes change. Even when you stop, the impact remains.LASIK? Internal, largely permanent. Cosmetic surgery? Same category.Your phone? Technically a techno augmentation — you’re outsourcing cognitive function to an external device. You do it every time you open the calculator instead of doing the maths in your head.The point is: transhumanism isn’t some futuristic concept. It’s already woven into how we live. The question is just how far down the path you’re willing to walk.What the Data Actually SaysA large Japanese survey on enhancement technologies found that only 20% of respondents said they’d personally use them. 80% wouldn’t — but 80% were also tolerant of others who did. Not for me, but you do you.In the US, an AARP survey found that 43% of adults were interested in a medical intervention to boost cognition beyond normal capacity. But that number dropped to 34% when the same enhancement involved an implantable device.The takeaway? People are far more open to biotranshumanism than technotranshumanism. They’ll consider the molecule before they’ll consider the machine.And there’s something else that came up in the data that I find genuinely fascinating: the majority of people want to try behaviour first. Even in clinical settings, there’s a preference for changing habits before changing biology. We want to earn it. We want to know we’ve done the hard work first.That resonates with me deeply.Where I Stand (And Why I’m Saying It Out Loud)I’m a behaviour-first person. Full stop.I believe the human body is the greatest technology ever made. We still don’t fully understand it. We understand inputs and outputs — we just don’t understand all the mechanisms. And to me, that’s not a limitation. That’s the invitation to get curious about it.I’m not against interventions that allow kids to fulfil their potential, or that allow adults to continue contributing and creating. But I am — and I’ll own this — resistant to the concept of engineering a human to live forever.Here’s my thinking: a lot of purpose and meaning comes from our limited spectrum. Death isn’t the enemy of a good life. It might actually be part of what gives a good life its shape.There was an episode of Love, Death and Robots that put this beautifully: if all humans develop the technology to live forever, you eventually hit a ...

No reviews yet