At the Institute of Art and Ideas’ Dec. 4 debate, neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín called transhumanism a “death cult,” arguing it threatens essential aspects of being human. Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan defended efforts to treat aging as a disease and reduce suffering, while philosopher Susan Schneider rejected extreme claims like mind uploading. AI researcher Adam Goldstein urged a focus on governance, design choices, and equitable access as AI and biotech progress.
‘Death Cult’ Label Sparks Fiery Debate Over Transhumanism’s Ethics and Future
Transhumanism — the movement that seeks to use technology to extend life and overcome biological limits — became the focus of a heated public debate on Dec. 4 at the UK-based Institute of Art and Ideas’ “World’s Most Dangerous Idea” series. Neuroscientist and philosopher Àlex Gómez-Marín denounced the movement as a pseudo-religion that aims to erase core aspects of the human condition, a charge that drew sharp rebuttals from advocates and fellow thinkers.
What Was Said
“I think transhumanism is a death cult,”Gómez-Marín said. He argued that dressed in technical language, the movement promotes an eradication of what it means to be human rather than a preservation of human dignity.
Joining Gómez-Marín on the panel were philosopher Susan Schneider, AI researcher Adam Goldstein, and transhumanist author and political candidate Zoltan Istvan. The participants presented sharply divergent views on whether transhumanist ideas represent humanitarian progress, philosophical error, or an ethical misstep.
Positions And Concerns
Zoltan Istvan rejected the “death cult” label and framed transhumanism as a humane project aimed at reducing suffering. “Most transhumanists such as myself believe that aging is a disease,” he said, tying his stance to personal loss and the desire to prevent death where possible.
Susan Schneider, who once identified as a transhumanist, distinguished between the reasonable use of technology to improve health and more speculative claims such as uploading consciousness. She cautioned that copying a mind into a machine would not preserve the person but create a separate digital replica — a distinction with profound ethical implications — and warned that transhumanist rhetoric can distract from urgent policy questions like data privacy, regulation, and access.
Adam Goldstein urged a practical turn in the conversation: rather than hinge on utopian or apocalyptic predictions, the debate should focus on governance and design choices being made today about AI and biotech. He emphasized building cooperative systems and political frameworks that preserve human dignity as technology advances.
Broader Context
A recent report from the Galileo Commission added another layer of critique, warning that efforts to merge humans and machines risk reducing human life to technical systems and sidelining questions of meaning, identity, and agency. The term “transhumanism” originated in the mid-20th century and was developed by thinkers such as Julian Huxley, Max More, Natasha Vita-More, Ben Goertzel, Nick Bostrom, and Ray Kurzweil. Supporters from biohackers to tech investors argue that technology can help transcend aging and disease; critics counter that such projects risk deepening inequality and blurring the line between science and quasi-religious belief.
Takeaway
The debate underscored that transhumanism is no longer an abstract philosophy but a practical issue with political, ethical, and social consequences. Panelists agreed — implicitly if not in tone — that the key questions now involve governance, equitable access, and the values that will guide technological development as AI and biotechnology advance.
