Editing Transhumanism (section)

=== Intrinsic immorality ===
Some argue that, in transhumanist thought, humans attempt to substitute themselves for [[God]]. The 2002 [[Holy See|Vatican]] statement ''Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,''<ref name="International Theological Commission 2002"/> stated that "changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an [[infrahuman]] being is radically immoral", implying, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature". The statement also argues that creation of a superhuman or spiritually superior being is "unthinkable", since true improvement can come only through religious experience and "[[Divinization (Christian)|realizing more fully the image of God]]". Christian theologians and lay activists of several churches and denominations have expressed similar objections to transhumanism and claimed that Christians attain in the afterlife what radical transhumanism promises, such as indefinite [[life extension]] or the abolition of suffering. In this view, transhumanism is just another representative of the long line of [[utopian]] movements which seek to [[immanentize the eschaton|create "heaven on earth"]].<ref name="Mitchell & Kilner 2002"/><ref name="Barratt 2006"/> On the other hand, religious thinkers allied with transhumanist goals such as the theologians Ronald Cole-Turner and [[Ted Peters (theologian)|Ted Peters]] hold that the doctrine of "co-creation" provides an obligation to use genetic engineering to improve human biology.<ref name="Cole-Turner 1993"/><ref name="Peters 1997"/>

Other critics target what they claim to be an instrumental conception of the human body in the writings of Minsky, Moravec, and some other transhumanists.<ref name="Hayles 1999"/> Reflecting a strain of [[feminism|feminist]] criticism of the transhumanist program, philosopher [[Susan Bordo]] points to "contemporary obsessions with slenderness, youth and physical perfection", which she sees as affecting both men and women, but in distinct ways, as "the logical (if extreme) manifestations of anxieties and fantasies fostered by our culture."<ref name="Bordo 1993"/> Some critics question other social implications of the movement's focus on [[body modification]]. Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen, in particular, has asserted that transhumanism's concentration on altering the human body represents the logical yet tragic consequence of [[atomized individualism]] and body [[commodification]] within a [[consumer culture]].<ref name="Giesen 2004"/>

Bostrom responds that the desire to [[rejuvenation (aging)|regain youth]], specifically, and transcend the natural limitations of the human body, in general, is pan-cultural and pan-historical, not uniquely tied to the culture of the 20th century. He argues that the transhumanist program is an attempt to channel that desire into a scientific project on par with the [[Human Genome Project]] and achieve humanity's oldest hope, rather than a puerile fantasy or social trend.<ref name="Bostrom 2005"/>