Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Philosophical critique examines risks of transhumanism in enhancing human capabilities, suggesting ethical limitations.
This article presents a philosophical and ethical critique of transhumanism, with particular attention to projects aimed at radically enhancing the human body and mind through artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, implants, biotechnology, and human–machine integration. The study examines the main assumptions of transhumanist thought, including the belief that technological progress can overcome biological limitations, extend human life, increase cognitive capacities, and ultimately lead to the emergence of a posthuman form of existence. It argues that these promises are based on a reductionist understanding of the human person and insufficiently address the moral, social, political, and existential consequences of technological enhancement. The article introduces the concept of “destructive transhumanism” to describe forms of technological development that may undermine human autonomy, privacy, equality, personal identity, and responsibility. Particular attention is given to the risks associated with neurotechnologies, artificial intelligence, corporate control over human data, social inequality, and the gradual normalization of permanent technological intervention in the human body. The analysis does not reject therapeutic medicine or technologies designed to restore lost functions. Instead, it distinguishes medical treatment from enhancement projects aimed at creating a technologically superior human being. The article concludes that technological progress should remain subordinated to human dignity, ethical responsibility, democratic oversight, and the protection of fundamental rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam Obidowski (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: