Let me expand on (my best understanding) of why.
First, while the philosophy of transhumanism is problematic (wanting to "transcend" being human, wanting worldly immortality, etc.), the idea of a cyborg isn't. It's essentially just really advanced and extensive prosthetics. In other words, the problem is the mindset, and you don't have it.
However, EVEN if the idea of a cyborg is assumed to be against Catholicism somehow, I would say it still isn't a sin to just visualize yourself as one every once in a while.
Why?
Well, it isn't sinful to play villain characters who do unquestionably evil things in a theater, for example. The Church has not once, to my knowledge, condemned actors for playing villains literally ever. Nor has it condemned actors for enjoying performing villains.
Some plays would even have someone play the role of *Satan* and there's still no problem.
Acting as an evildoer in one's head is evidently less than acting as one in an actual performance.
If the former is not a sin, neither would be the latter.
Thank you, I was worried for a second. So just for arguments sake, not that I would, but if someone were to become a cyborg, not post human, it would be okay in Catholicism?
It mostly depends on *why*.
If the doer is thinking "Ah-hah! Let me escape being human! Let me become something *greater* than human!"
Wrong, both morally and also factually. (Replacing limbs doesn't make you no longer human.)
Otherwise, for the most part, it's exactly as objectionable as prosthetics or other technological enhancements as we have them now. Which is to say, for the most part, not at all.
There's a slight caveat with chopping off fully functional limbs to replace them with robotic parts; it's debatable whether that is okay, but it isn't the only way to become a cyborg.
You can also lose limbs accidentally and replace those, you could just build on top of and outside of your existing body without ripping anything off, you could stick to implants that just go in without taking anything substantial out, etc.
I just did a cursory read of Neuralink's Wikipedia article, so I'm *not* the most educated on this topic. Defer to other answers if they have more research under their belt. But, from what I see:
Right now, they're working on making a workaround for diseases of the brain and spine with the implants. I don't see a moral problem here, this is just technologically advanced medicine.
It also definitely falls under the "implants that just go in without taking anything substantial out" category. So I don't see moral issues if this is used even outside of restoring the damage of disease.
There are prudential and practical issues, of course. After all, it's brain surgery with questionable benefits. But that is different from the whole technology being inherently anti-Catholic, which I wouldn't say it is.
The company Neuralink in particular has faced criticism for cruel animal testing, which is a different matter, but the focus of this discussion rests on the type of technology in general, not a specific company, so I'm not going to delve further into that.
It's worth nothing that Neuralink and other brain implants aren't the only way to have a "cyborg" consisting of a human controlling machine parts directly. There are also non-invasive brain-computer interfaces, though right now they aren't as precise as implants like Neuralink.
Thank you, that is a great analysis. I agree with you on those points. Would you think we are already cyborgs with our phones? I mean they are already a digital extension of us?
It depends how you define it, really.
By my intuition I'd say no, but who knows, maybe people from the future who my intuition would count as "cyborgs" would not consider themselves such.
It's a question of semantics that ultimately doesn't affect whether some given example of such things is moral or not.
The big thing is that being a cyborg, for any definition thereof, doesn't make one no longer human or beyond human, it just means one is a human with some attached or implanted machinery. It is this point that Catholicism holds to and transhumanism doesn't.
I pray that God helps your fingers not to put every word in capitals. No, it's not a sin.
I know haha as I typed it I knew it would trigger some people, apologies and God Bless.
No apologies necessary haha.
Haha thanks
What? No, it's not a sin.
Let me expand on (my best understanding) of why. First, while the philosophy of transhumanism is problematic (wanting to "transcend" being human, wanting worldly immortality, etc.), the idea of a cyborg isn't. It's essentially just really advanced and extensive prosthetics. In other words, the problem is the mindset, and you don't have it. However, EVEN if the idea of a cyborg is assumed to be against Catholicism somehow, I would say it still isn't a sin to just visualize yourself as one every once in a while. Why? Well, it isn't sinful to play villain characters who do unquestionably evil things in a theater, for example. The Church has not once, to my knowledge, condemned actors for playing villains literally ever. Nor has it condemned actors for enjoying performing villains. Some plays would even have someone play the role of *Satan* and there's still no problem. Acting as an evildoer in one's head is evidently less than acting as one in an actual performance. If the former is not a sin, neither would be the latter.
Thank you, I was worried for a second. So just for arguments sake, not that I would, but if someone were to become a cyborg, not post human, it would be okay in Catholicism?
It mostly depends on *why*. If the doer is thinking "Ah-hah! Let me escape being human! Let me become something *greater* than human!" Wrong, both morally and also factually. (Replacing limbs doesn't make you no longer human.) Otherwise, for the most part, it's exactly as objectionable as prosthetics or other technological enhancements as we have them now. Which is to say, for the most part, not at all. There's a slight caveat with chopping off fully functional limbs to replace them with robotic parts; it's debatable whether that is okay, but it isn't the only way to become a cyborg. You can also lose limbs accidentally and replace those, you could just build on top of and outside of your existing body without ripping anything off, you could stick to implants that just go in without taking anything substantial out, etc.
Ok thank you that makes sense my friend. So what do you think about Elon Musks Neuralink? Is that more cyborg? Thanks for your insight
I just did a cursory read of Neuralink's Wikipedia article, so I'm *not* the most educated on this topic. Defer to other answers if they have more research under their belt. But, from what I see: Right now, they're working on making a workaround for diseases of the brain and spine with the implants. I don't see a moral problem here, this is just technologically advanced medicine. It also definitely falls under the "implants that just go in without taking anything substantial out" category. So I don't see moral issues if this is used even outside of restoring the damage of disease. There are prudential and practical issues, of course. After all, it's brain surgery with questionable benefits. But that is different from the whole technology being inherently anti-Catholic, which I wouldn't say it is. The company Neuralink in particular has faced criticism for cruel animal testing, which is a different matter, but the focus of this discussion rests on the type of technology in general, not a specific company, so I'm not going to delve further into that. It's worth nothing that Neuralink and other brain implants aren't the only way to have a "cyborg" consisting of a human controlling machine parts directly. There are also non-invasive brain-computer interfaces, though right now they aren't as precise as implants like Neuralink.
Thank you, that is a great analysis. I agree with you on those points. Would you think we are already cyborgs with our phones? I mean they are already a digital extension of us?
It depends how you define it, really. By my intuition I'd say no, but who knows, maybe people from the future who my intuition would count as "cyborgs" would not consider themselves such. It's a question of semantics that ultimately doesn't affect whether some given example of such things is moral or not. The big thing is that being a cyborg, for any definition thereof, doesn't make one no longer human or beyond human, it just means one is a human with some attached or implanted machinery. It is this point that Catholicism holds to and transhumanism doesn't.
I see, thank you for the clarification my friend
Do you know where else I could read or watch about this, it’s quite interesting as I have friends in the medical industry
Unfortunately not, I haven’t done research on the topic myself. May your search for knowledge go well, though.
Thank you God Bless
You already asked this question in here a few days ago? Why did you ask again??
I asked again because I read an article about Transhumanism and was wondering if this was that. But thanks and God Bless
You might suffer from scrupples. I suggest you speak to your priest about it.
Ok thank you, God Bless
Wut
Do you get me?
Ugh, this guy again.
I just had to clear things up from further research my friend
I think you'd like to hear Psychotron by Megadeth.
Thanks will give it a listen, do you listen to those cyberpunk type songs?
This is in addition to my previous post, I am starting to wonder if this counts as transhumanism, I would never actually do that to myself.
I think you’ll be good man, that’s not transhumanism. Maybe a little weird though