Are You Ready to Upgrade Yourself? A Deep Dive into Transhumanism Where 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 Question Within 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 Spectrum I 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 Think Here’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 Says A 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 population cap. Let’s say 100 billion people. Once you’re there, you plateau. And to maintain it — you outlaw having children. A policeman literally goes around controlling who’s allowed to reproduce. That scenario is a serious problem. And it’s not science fiction — it’s the logical downstream consequence of a world that decides death is optional. The CRISPR Question No conversation about transhumanism is complete without the ethical shrapnel of CRISPR gene editing. Here’s a scenario. Your baby in the womb has a debilitating, life-altering disease. It’s not going to kill them — they’ll live a full life — but it’s going to be a hard one. CRISPR can edit it out. Do you do it? Most people say yes. That one feels clear. Now the same technology, different scenario: you want your child to have blue eyes. More muscle mass. Lower predisposition to type 2 diabetes. Same tool, completely different moral weight. Where is the line between my child needs this and I want this for my child? That’s not a question with an easy answer. But it’s the question we need to be asking loudly and often, because the technology is already here. Brian Johnson — the most measured man alive, Mr Blueprint himself — went to a jurisdiction with lax regulations and had CRISPR-based gene therapy done on himself. This isn’t theoretical anymore. The Biohacker Problem Something I keep noticing in the world around me: a lot of people are far more willing to take a pill than to change a habit. Unregulated peptide use has exploded — particularly among younger, tech-adjacent men chasing weight loss, productivity, recovery, or longevity. The New York Times has covered it. The FDA warns of serious safety risks. And yet the subculture thrives, fuelled by distrust of traditional medicine and amplified by influencers. I know people who’ll spend hundreds on supplements rather than getting seven hours of sleep, moving their body, and eating food that doesn’t come in a packet. I get the appeal. Behaviour change is hard. But the philosophy behind it matters. When you learn to regulate yourself — emotionally, physically, cognitively — you’re essentially learning the operator’s manual for your own machine. That’s the foundation. The molecule should come after you’ve maxed out what the behaviour can give you, not instead of it. Transhumanism You’re Already Doing Before you decide where you sit on this spectrum, consider what you’re already doing: * Taking caffeine for cognitive or physical performance * Using creatine or protein supplements to train beyond your natural baseline * Vaccines as preventative immune enhancement * Beta blockers to control a stress response * Laser eye surgery * Cosmetic or functional surgery * Fillers. Botox. Injecting a toxin derived from botulism into your face to look younger All of it is transhumanism. The question isn’t whether you’re on the spectrum. You already are. The question is: how far are you willing to go, and have you thought about why? What Does Being Human Mean to You? At the core of all of this is a values question, not a technology question. Research shows that positive attitudes toward enhancement correlate with achievement orientation, scientific worldview, and evolutionary humanism. They correlate negatively with tradition-oriented values. Neither side is wrong. They’re just operating from different answers to the same fundamental question. On one end: the beauty of the natural human form. The meaning that comes from limitation. The sense that messing with what we were given creates more problems than it solves. On the other: advancement, adaptation, growth. The idea that becoming something greater is the most human thing of all. I know where I sit. But I’m genuinely curious where you do. So tell me: where are you on the agreeability spectrum? Are you behaviour-first, selectively bio-curious, or fully techno-enthusiastic? Are you in the camp of nature is sacred, or are you already booking a consultation for your first enhancement? I want to hear from you. Drop it in the comments — and if you’ve got a compelling argument for why living forever is actually a good idea, I’m listening. So far, no one’s sold me. But I’m open to being convinced. This post is based on a recent episode of the show. If you prefer to listen, the full episode is available on Spotify or Youtube. Chapters 00:00 Exploring the Nature of Humanity 02:55 Transhumanism: The Future of Human Evolution 06:12 Bio vs. Tech: The Transhumanism Spectrum 09:00 The Ethics of Genetic Modification 12:12 Behavior vs. Technology: The Human Experience 14:59 The Role of Traditional Values in Transhumanism 17:47 The Future of Human Enhancement 21:09 The Balance of Nature and Technology 24:02 The Implications of Living Forever 26:49 Current Trends in Transhumanism Get full access to Thought Architecture at becomingresilient.substack.com/subscribe
