> [[itc-qvh-01|← Previous]] | [[quo-vadis-humanitas-toc|TOC]] | [[itc-qvh-03|Next →]] # Chapter I. Development: Humanism and Posthumanism 21\. Let us begin by analysing the notion of ‘development’. It is a category that is present in debates on current changes and concerns very different human and social problems. This chapter aims to contextualise the potential of the various ways in which science, technology and cultures today conceive of the ‘development’ of the individual, of societies and of the global world. It is a category that points towards the future of humanity, which many today feel is at risk and which requires the urgent contribution of all social agents in order to defend it. Precisely for this reason, the same question arises forcefully in many social, cultural and political contexts: where are we as humanity going? *Quo vadis, humanitas?*\[18\] 22\. Any conception of ‘development’ implies a specific axiological and anthropological understanding, according to which what is progress or regression is judged with respect to a certain ideal. To facilitate discernment of these challenges, we begin with a brief presentation of magisterial teaching on ‘development’ from the Second Vatican Council onwards. The magisterial texts express concern for the ‘integral development’ of humanity, which respects its dignity and authentic identity, as well as its ultimate goal, which refers to a mystery of full communion with the Triune God and among ourselves. This balance can be compromised by two temptations. First is the dream of using technology to make an evolutionary leap that transforms humanity as we know it, enhancing it with the wonders of science and technology, almost in the manner of self-generation, allowing us to invent and ‘create’ ourselves beyond the conditions and limitations of human nature. Secondly, such dreams are built on an individualistic view of the subject and his or her destiny and rely solely on scientific innovations, hoping that they can improve individual well-being, even though in reality the strong impact of the anonymous laws of the market and profit often negatively affect the existence and future of real people. The result comprises our common humanity and bonds of fraternity on the one hand, and at the same time the space for real freedom for people who have few or no opportunities, on the other. 23\. It is precisely the acceleration triggered by scientific and technological discoveries, fostered by favourable economic conditions and political constellations, that calls for a review of the meaning and direction of this ‘development’, both in comparison with other categories, such as ‘progress’ or ‘evolution’ rather than ‘regression’ or ‘decline’, and above all in relation to the demand for human improvement to the point of seeking a ‘superhuman’.\[19\] The question remains whether this dream of a transition to a superhuman phase will not rather lead to a ‘subhuman’ condition. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that this desire to ‘go beyond’, to surpass oneself and one’s current condition in order to be fully human, represents a tension that is constitutive of human nature. We can therefore distinguish between a positive meaning of ‘surpassing’, in which we recognise an openness to what lies beyond human nature, and a negative meaning, where the idea of overcoming implies the replacement or suppression of the human. 24\. The correct meaning of this ‘going beyond’ that is proper to human beings is found in the ‘transumanar’ spoken of by Dante in the first Canto of the Paradiso,\[20\] as in other expressions of the experience of ‘divinisation’, the effect of intimate union with God through grace rather than the product of more or less elaborate human techniques: ‘Thanks solely to this encounter – or renewed encounter – with God’s love, which blossoms into an enriching friendship, we are liberated from our narrowness and self-absorption. We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.’\[21\] At this level of discourse, we can measure the profound distance that exists between certain forms of *transhumanism’s* or *posthumanism’s* dream of ‘becoming like gods’ (cf. *Gen* 3:4) and the gift of ‘divinisation’ understood as participation in the divine life in the transfigured humanity of the children of God in Christ.\[22\] **1\. The Magisterium’s discernment regarding development and technology** 25\. *Progress as historical development entrusted to humanity*. Taking up John XXIII’s call to read the ‘signs of the times’\[23\] and recognising the global impact of technological transformations that affect the whole of society, the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution *Gaudium et spes* placed the development of technology within the dynamic of progress through which humanity realises itself in history: ‘Through their labours and native endowments human beings have ceaselessly striven to better their life. Today, however, especially with the help of science and technology, they have extended their mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continue to do so.’\[24\] The intensity of development, thanks to which human beings procure for themselves things they once considered beyond their reach, raises certain questions: ‘In the face of these immense efforts which already preoccupy the whole human race, human beings agitate numerous questions among themselves. What is the meaning and value of this feverish activity? How should all these things be used? To the achievement of what goal are the strivings of individuals and societies heading?’\[25\] 26\. *The call for ‘integral development* ’. These questions are taken up by Paul VI, who recognises the valuable contribution of technological progress as necessary for economic growth and human development. At the same time, he warns against the risk that the human person is no longer the author of progress: ‘It is not enough to develop technology so that the earth may become a more suitable living place for human beings. \[...\] Economics and technology are meaningless if they do not benefit human beings, for it is human beings they are to serve. Human beings are truly human only if they are the masters of their own actions and the judges of their worth, only if they are the architects of their own progress. They must act according to their God-given nature, freely accepting its potential and its claims upon them.’\[26\] This concern gives rise to a fundamental criterion: if technology is part of the characteristic activity of human beings in the course of history, we must be vigilant to ensure ‘ *integral and solidary development* ’, that is, the development ‘of each human being and of the whole human being’,\[27\] avoiding the exaltation of technology as the dominant form of life, as an all-consuming way of existing, without really posing the question of its meaning.\[28\] 27\. *Technological development and moral development: towards an integral humanism*. John Paul II, in explaining the need for development to remain centred on the human person and not lose its moral dimension, echoes a widespread concern about technological development that seems to be spiralling out of control: ‘Humanity today seems ever to be under threat from what it produces, that is to say from the result of the work of human hands and, even more so, of the work of the human intellect.’\[29\] The essential question that emerges concerns the ‘human’ quality of such development: ‘Does this progress, which has the human being for its author and promoter, make human life on earth “more human” in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more “worthy of humanity”?’\[30\] What guarantees technological development as a positive force is attention to the ethical dimension of development and therefore attention to the person, to his or her inalienable dignity and responsibility. The goal of development, in fact, cannot be entrusted to anonymous laws or mechanisms, regulated only by the potential of scientific and technological innovations. Development must always have a personal and social horizon, commensurate with the common good and the ultimate goal of the person.\[31\] 28\. *The potential of technology and the temptation to create oneself*. Benedict XVI warns against the dream of ‘creating oneself’ without taking into account the gift that precedes us: ‘ *A person’s development is compromised, if he or she claims to be solely responsible for producing what he or she becomes.* By analogy, the development of peoples goes awry if humanity thinks it can re-create itself through the “wonders” of technology \[...\]’\[32\] At the same time, he welcomes the positive value of technological progress, which indeed corresponds to a true vocation that comes from God.\[33\] However, this is also the source of the ambivalence of technology: ‘Technological development can give rise to the idea that technology is self-sufficient when too much attention is given to the “ *how* ” questions, and not enough to the many “ *why* ” questions underlying human activity.’\[34\]When human beings give in to a purely functional view of technology, they may see it as a tool for unconditional freedom, allowing them to disregard the limitations inherent in life and in things, dreaming of an absolute autonomy that authorises them to create or recreate themselves. In reality, the mystery of a creation which must be respected no longer resonates, but everything is reduced to pure ‘fact’, the result of chance or some necessity, to be exploited according to the interests of the powers of the day. 29\. *The power of technocracy and the environmental sustainability of development*. Francis denounces the devastating effects produced by forms of ‘technocracy’ before which human beings ‘stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.’\[35\] What is lacking is a sufficiently solid ethic, a culture and spirituality that truly set limits and contain it within a lucid self-control. At the root of this problematic situation is the tendency to set the methodology and objectives of technoscience according to a paradigm of power, which conditions the life of persons and the functioning of society. This *technocratic paradigm* reveals a conception of the subject who possesses the object in a logic of domination and transformation for his or her own use and consumption. It is as if the subject were faced with a formless reality, entirely available for manipulation. Human intervention in nature is no longer limited to accompanying and supporting the possibilities offered by things themselves: ‘Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us. Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth \[...\]’.\[36\] This concern about potential abuses is accompanied, however, by wonder at the beauty of the results of technological development: ‘Technoscience \[...\] can also produce art and enable men and women immersed in the material world to “leap” into the world of beauty. Who can deny the beauty of an aircraft or a skyscraper?’\[37\] 30\. On several occasions, Leo XIV has expressed a position of critical openness towards the potential of technology, emphasising the importance of promoting a model of technological development that serves the person and the common good and warning against the ‘harmful’ consequences of uncontrolled progress. Acknowledging the challenge posed by a pervasive and irreversible ‘new digital humanism’, he invites us to know how to live with it in the right way: ‘Science and technology influence the way we live in the world, even affecting how we understand ourselves and how we relate to God, how we relate to one another. But nothing that comes from human beings and their creativity should be used to undermine the dignity of others. \[...\] Faced with cultural changes throughout history, the Church has never remained passive; she has always sought to illuminate every age with the light and hope of Christ by discerning good from evil and what was good from what needed to be changed, transformed, and purified.’\[38\] **2\. Some anthropological consequences of recent technological development** 31\. Magisterial discernment regarding development and its ambivalences recognises first and foremost the positive value of technological innovations which, when used well, constitute a great resource for humanity in many aspects of civilisation and culture. It therefore seems to many that it would suffice to distinguish between good and positive applications and harmful and dangerous applications, on the assumption that technology is nothing more than a tool in our hands. But, as Pope Leo XIV warns, the recent acceleration of technological development in certain specific areas such as communication, data management and artificial intelligence, biotechnology and robotics, makes discernment more complex and delicate: ‘Humanity is at a crossroads, facing the immense potential generated by the digital revolution driven by Artificial Intelligence. The impact of this revolution is far-reaching, transforming areas such as education, work, art, healthcare, governance, the military, and communication. This epochal transformation requires responsibility and discernment to ensure that AI is developed and utilized for the common good, building bridges of dialogue and fostering fraternity, and ensuring it serves the interests of humanity as a whole. \[...\] Therefore, the development of such technological advancements must go hand in hand with respect for human and social values, the capacity to judge with a clear conscience, and growth in human responsibility. It is no coincidence that this era of profound innovation has prompted many to reflect on what it means to be human, and on humanity’s role in the world.’\[39\] 32\. The relationship with technological tools is complex, as the relationship between the technological tool and the person using it is circular, implying *mutual conditioning*. Those who use technological tools are, to some extent, conditioned by the possibilities that the tools offer and may imagine the organisation of their lives in a different way. For example, the construction of motorways and high-speed railway lines encourages the distribution of work over larger areas and allows for rapid travel, which facilitates exchanges, contacts and activities over distances that were previously unthinkable. This leads to greater mobility and a different organisation of working and family life. This dynamism has a greater impact on the individual when we move from technological tools that increase the speed of travel (cars, trains, aeroplanes) to ‘intellectual technologies’ that aim to enhance knowledge, that is, what and how we think (digital technology, social media, artificial intelligence). 33\. Since these tools are more *closely connected to our self-understanding*, used to express ourselves in various forms of social communication, to shape personal or collective identities, and to cultivate relationships with others, a more intimate transformation ensues. Digital technology is no longer just a tool, but constitutes a real living environment, with its own way of structuring human activities and relationships. This technological development has a strong impact on the self-understanding of the individual, inscribed in new cognitive and communicative potentialities. The digital age inaugurates a new horizon of meaning in which we think and communicate. The notion of what is universal also changes, referring less to the idea of a common nature and more to what is shared in global connections.\[40\] Let us now give consideration to some of the anthropological implications that are emerging in relation to these phenomena, analysing them on the basis of the four fundamental relationships in which human persons express themselves: with the environment, with others, with oneself and with God.\[41\] 2.1. *Relationship with the natural environment* 34\. Our *relationship with the environment* is modified by synthetic reality, or rather by the artificial, which pervades all areas of life, from food (preservation of food; genetically modified organisms) to living space (urbanisation) to bodily transformations (biotechnology). The *expansion of the artificial world,* with materials not found in nature such as plastic, steel and concrete, makes our relationship with nature and its laws more fluid and indeterminate, and can create the illusion that only human freedom, based on the transformative power of technology, offers a right relationship with the real world.\[42\] In this way, the very relationship between nature and culture is transformed and becomes more complex: it is not nature with its laws and limitations that regulates and directs development, understood as the drive to overcome unfavourable living conditions, but rather technological potential, with its ‘unlimited’ resources. Following this direction, a mentality guided by an economic logic of maximum profit often prevails, according to which nature must be corrected, modified and transformed with a view to ever-increasing productivity. The exploitation of the earth’s resources is then intensified without measure, promoting, for example, the deforestation of vast areas for intensive cultivation, which ends up impoverishing the land. The tragic consequence of this is the ‘ecological debt’, especially between the North and the South.\[43\] A similar logic guides projects of uncontrolled and abusive urbanisation, which disfigure entire ecosystems, as well as policies for the extraction of materials needed for technological products, which pollute entire natural areas.\[44\] In short, the artificial relativises what is ‘natural’ as a normative reference for human action, causing, in vast regions of the earth, especially in the South, the phenomena of impoverishment of the plundered natural environment and of situations of impoverishment of the existence of entire populations, creating situations of great social injustice.\[45\] 2.2. *Relationship with others in the digital world* 35\. *Relationships with others* have been revolutionised in the digital age through radical transformations in communication (*mass media*) and information (*big data*). These have reached unprecedented levels of universality, immediacy and involvement, increasing widespread awareness of belonging to one large human family. However, individuals ‘online’ can often feel like insignificant dots within an ungovernable and therefore destabilising flow of information, which pushes them to develop their identity within virtual bonds (contacts) that are timeless and placeless. This immense mass of data in which we are immersed, constantly revisable and therefore fluid, intensifies the perception of the complexity of reality, generating anxiety, insecurity and fear. 36\. In this context of increasing complexity, advances in *artificial intelligence* offer a process of data management, organised on a statistical basis, and the development of effective solutions, based on algorithms, which are not always controllable by individuals, and sometimes not even by companies or states (the algorithms of some systems have not been disclosed to any public authority). The development objectives are managed independently by the system. This highlights the power of artificial intelligence, with its ability to manage enormous amounts of data, identifying correlations and proposing decisions based on inferences that are unavailable to human calculation. 37\. AI actually refers to a vast field of research and applications that have various implications for people’s lives, both at work and in their family and social lives.\[46\] Without going into an analysis of the different forms of AI, it is useful to clarify the distinction between AI *in the strict sense*, with its many applications, and *general* AI (AGI).\[47\] This distinction highlights two different ways of conceiving artificial intelligence and imagining its meaning and use. AI in the strict sense offers fast processing of large amounts of data using algorithms that perform complex analysis and probability calculations, including artificial intelligence systems that autonomously generate training data and refine their own internal processes. These forms of use are widespread in civil (individual and corporate) and military contexts in many parts of the world.\[48\] 38\. AGI refers to a future, pervasive technology capable of replacing all computational and operational aspects of human intelligence thanks to extremely high computing speeds, made possible by the future development of quantum processors. Where specific aspects of human intelligence are consciously weakened or abandoned, AGI could have profound consequences that risk escaping human control. Some therefore hypothesise that AI will be asked to manage the problems it has created, according to a dynamic that would become irreversible. This vicious circle is presented by some as an almost necessary process, as in natural processes, a destiny that would bring to extreme consequences what human beings would themselves have originally caused. 39\. In the context of fundamental anthropology, we must ask ourselves whether we can consider as exhaustive the understanding of the human being as *homo faber* and *homo technologicus*, supported both individually and collectively by AI that subtly saturates and determines every aspect of life. The result is a ‘hyperconnected’ world, with an increasing acceleration of economic, political, social and military dynamics, which risk becoming uncontrollable and therefore ungovernable. In such a world, human action itself becomes material to be analysed and shaped according to power or market objectives that are not always transparent. Social control and the risk of manipulation increase. 40\. At the application level, AI *in the strict sense* raises questions about the reliability of data and the criteria by which programmers process it so as to make it available. It is unclear what biases or power systems influence the work. In particular, serious doubts arise regarding automated, AI-based decision-making processes in sensitive areas of human life: when deciding whether to provide medical care or grant loans or mortgages or insurance, or when prosecuting criminal cases in court or assessing the conduct of prisoners and the likelihood of reoffending with a view to reducing sentences, or when deciding on military attacks or law enforcement interventions.\[49\] 41\. As for AGI, there is an intense race to increasingly bridge the gap between the self-improvement of AI systems and the achievement of AGI. Although the goal is still far off, it is being pursued with great determination, but sometimes without the caution generated by the wise recognition that good always involves appropriate limits and proportions. Whether it is a distant dream or an imminent innovation, this form of *general* AI stimulates the search for a deeper understanding of the nature of human intelligence, its uniqueness among living beings, its irreplaceability, especially in relation to moral responsibility and its intrinsic openness to transcendence. A type of knowledge and calculation that dispenses with intelligence that is experienced in a body and situated, as well as with a type of relational knowledge which is transmitted from generation to generation through educational processes that play on identity and the meaning to be given to one’s destiny and role in the world, constitutes a threat to the true good of humanity. Yet, the dreams of *transhumanism*, which in *posthumanism* even imagines an evolutionary leap, are based on this type of knowledge without a body, without limits, without ties, and without moral sense. Such imagination forcefully raises the question of the ultimate goal of technological progress.\[50\] 42\. In this context, it is understandable how *interpersonal communication* has undergone profound changes in the *society of mass communication* (radio, television, internet, social media), especially in recent times. There are advantages to this techno-scientific development, such as active citizenship or more direct and participatory information at the social and political level. But often, contacts are created without bonds, functional relationships without real solidarity, in an infinite market of news and personal data that is not always verifiable and is often manipulated. Communication is not always fully transparent. The pervasiveness of social media, which has become so indispensable that the existence of the human family without it is unthinkable, requires greater vigilance regarding cultural and economic conditioning. These are not neutral means: ‘Often such views, stressing the strictly technical nature of the media, effectively support their subordination to economic interests intent on dominating the market and, not least, to attempts to impose cultural models that serve ideological and political agendas.’\[51\] Their influence on the ethical-cultural dimension of globalisation is a challenge to anthropology.\[52\] 43\. In many areas of the infosphere, there is a perceived insistence on being recognised, a constant sharing of thoughts and emotions online, which must be ‘given recognition by others’. Despite the legitimate human need for recognition, this excessive phenomenon is a symptom of uncertainty of identity.\[53\] Precisely because identity must be ‘invented’ without objective external references (nature, cultural values, social roles, shared customs), it is weaker: it calls for recognition but must negotiate, attract and conquer it, even by shouting or by distorting reality. Today, the self struggles in the hope of being recognised by someone, yet it often does so by asserting its individual rights *against* the other, *challenging* the other. This leads to an increase of social conflicts, which often become identity conflicts. The current crisis in Western democracies cannot be understood without taking into account this growing difficulty in the shared recognition of what unites us as human beings. This context leaves the way open for political leaders to make important decisions based solely on their own will. 44\. A sensitive social area that is symptomatic of the possible ethical and cultural implications of *social media* is the world of children and young people: ‘The web and social networks have created a new way to communicate and bond. They are “a public square” where the young spend much of their time and meet one another easily \[…\]’\[54\] On the positive side, these media offer new opportunities for dialogue and are often a source of independent information, protecting the most vulnerable and denouncing human rights violations. But they also have limitations and serious risks: ‘the digital environment is also one of loneliness, manipulation, exploitation and violence, even to the extreme case of the ‘dark web’. \[…\] New forms of violence are spreading through social media, for example cyberbullying. The internet is also a channel for spreading pornography and the exploitation of persons for sexual purposes or through gambling.’\[55\] 45\. New forms of social communication have a strong impact on political debate because, while on the one hand they allow for experimentation with forms of direct democracy, in which every citizen can express and make known his or her opinion, on the other hand they can generate strong polarisation between groups that think differently and confront each other in a conflictual and violent manner, treating each other as enemies simply because they think differently. Social exchange itself undergoes a ‘tribalisation’ that fragments society into opinion groups homogenised by ‘ *likes* ’. Political debate risks no longer being based on shared arguments, but rather on opposing sides in a logic of power driven by pressure groups. There is often a lack of ‘social dialogue’ that patiently builds consensus from the bottom up, starting from a common world and bonds of solidarity: ‘These closed circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting prejudice and hate. The proliferation of fake news is the expression of a culture that has lost its sense of truth and bends the facts to suit particular interests.’\[56\] 2.3. *Understanding oneself: consciousness and corporeality* 46\. The information revolution (‘infosphere’) is changing the way knowledge is exercised: it is no longer a question of developing theories to interpret data and find solutions to problems, but rather of establishing correlations between data and calculating success rates. The risk is that, in this way, we tend to overlook critical knowledge, while delegating certain operations such as calculation, reasoning and translation could diminish the mental agility and creativity of the individual. But the greatest danger is that of reducing the horizon of human knowledge, limiting it to those forms of knowledge that correspond to what AI can process, with a strong impact on the educational environment (in schools and universities).\[57\] Questions of meaning and ethical issues, but also philosophical (ontological) and theological questions, may be excluded as irrelevant. Thus, AI could effectively decide what is permissible to know, relegating other issues to the subjective realm or to matters of taste. Self-awareness itself can be considered as a series of pieces of information to be transferred to digital media that are more resistant than human flesh and organised according to algorithms, while sensory perception is enhanced by the digital revolution (cyborgs, neuroscience, the internet), which provides images, sounds and situations in real time, creating strong emotions in a system of immediate communication and therefore without any mediation of meaning that would allow for understanding and reasoning. 47\. With the development of *biotechnology*, neuroscience and DNA mapping, combined with advances in pharmacology and robotics (*cyborgs*), our *perception of the body* and its meaning is also changing. The obvious gains for the health and well-being of many sections of the population should be appreciated: prevention campaigns, early diagnosis, calculation of the risks of various therapies or the side effects of drugs on the body have greatly improved the possibilities for medical intervention and so of public health. However, we cannot ignore the trends that reduce the body to biological material to be enhanced, transformed and remodelled at will, with the dream of achieving conditions of existence capable of avoiding pain, ageing and death. Especially in the West, advances in cosmetic surgery, combined with pharmacology (hormonal treatments, substances that enhance emotions or concentration) offer tools that greatly change the relationship with one’s own body and therefore with reality and with others. The result is a widespread ‘cult of the body’, which tends towards a frantic search for a perfect figure that is always fit, young and beautiful. Once modified, often with relentless frenzy, the body becomes a body-object in which the person-subject mirrors themselves, creating a relationship in which the person is no longer his or her body but ‘owns’ a body, from which arises the search for a ‘borrowed’ identity. In this dynamic, it is no longer necessary to accept one’s own body in order to realise one’s identity. It can be transformed according to the tastes of the moment. A curious situation is created: the ideal body is exalted, sought after and cultivated, while the real body is not truly loved, being a source of limitations, fatigue and ageing. One desires a perfect body, while dreaming of escaping from one’s own concrete body and its limitations.\[58\] 2.4. *Relationship with God* 48\. Digital technologies offer many opportunities to religions that mobilise digital communication resources in service of their mission. Today, the internet is a ‘place’ where one can find many positive proposals for religious and Christian life, facilitating knowledge and information in ways that were unimaginable until recently. One need only recall how much religious communication ‘exploded’ during the COVID-19 pandemic.\[59\] However, there is a risk that a wide variety of digital religions will fill the internet like a giant ‘religious market’, offering *à la carte* choices according to individual interests. These are religious offerings without real ties or community belonging, closer to the emotional tastes of individuals than to a shared experience. One may also doubt the authentically ecclesial character of certain Christian communication on social networks, especially when used to fuel controversy, create divisions and even destroy the good reputation of other people. Furthermore, some of these new online spiritual practices end up producing a metamorphosis in the mode of believing, since digital technology has a very strong hold on the religious imagination. Not infrequently, the result is a new paradigm that redefines religious identities: technology itself also acts as a spiritual guide and mediator of the sacred. In fact, devotees of various religions and spiritual seekers often place indiscriminate trust in online search engines, rendering human mediations of the sacred superfluous, replaced by the digital. Extreme cases include requests for virtual blessings and exorcisms, digital spiritualism and three-dimensional ‘false religions’. 49\. This trust in a world governed by machines, which not only facilitates the provision of religious resources but also the direct reception of proposals for the meaning of life and access to the divine through digital technology, is not far from the logic of *transhumanism* and *posthumanism*: digital religion presents itself as if it even had the power to create a ‘God in its own image and likeness’ to offer to a humanity that places total trust in technology. The ‘living God’ can be replaced by a ‘virtual God’ with the claim to ‘save’ humanity on the basis of technological performances made available to the spiritual aspirations of human beings.\[60\] 50\. In sum, these transformations affect our relationship with the Mystery of the origin and ultimate purpose of human life. When human beings reduce created nature (persons, the cosmos) to matter to be transformed, they no longer manifest the glory of the Creator, but take His place. The same happens when the task of giving meaning to existence and pointing out its ultimate end is identified with the implementation of technological potential. In this context, religious and spiritual traditions have something essential and indispensable yet to offer regarding the wisdom of living in relationship with God.\[61\] **3\. The cultural impact of technological revolutions: towards a critical discernment** 51\. The impact of the anthropological transformation linked to scientific and technological development is already leaving its mark on the *social imaginary of mass culture*, but it finds its strongest expression in the *movements of transhumanism and posthumanism*. The study of the myths developed by mass culture regarding the future of humanity (science fiction, dystopias) and the critical analysis of the founding principles of the *transhumanist* and *post-humanist* movements highlight the significance and scope of the anthropological changes taking place. 52\. The *social imaginary*, expressed in cinema and television series, but also in novels, artistic creations and music, reveals an acute perception of the hopes and risks associated with possible future worlds. Cinema imagined possible scenarios related to epidemics and planetary catastrophes long before we had to go through the Covid-19 pandemic. Dystopias suggested the theme of many of the most important films and novels as early as the twentieth century, exerting a significant influence on these forms of popular culture. These artistic creations convey the perception of the inevitability of a process of technological development that will have a significant impact on people’s lives and the fate of humanity, in awareness of the risks involved. As a result, there is often fear of the unknowns that accompany the uncontrollable evolution of machines or technological devices, which could lead to the creation of autonomous entities capable of determining the future and dominating the planet. 53\. Science fiction films and novels help us to become aware of many difficult issues concerning human identity and destiny that are thus brought into play. They question what can be the value of affection and what bonds are possible, or what will be the powerful forces that will drive progress. They imagine grim scenarios in which new forms of exploitation of the weak will prevail, perhaps reducing them to human material for dangerous experiments. The type of social structure also raises concerns, leaving us uncertain as to whether it will be elitist and unequal, homogenising and hostile to individual freedoms, or open and pluralistic, democratic and participatory; whether there will be a technocratic oligarchy that dominates or a better political organisation based on human dignity and the common good. Finally, there is concern about the environmental impact of progress: what pollution will there be, what energy resources will be available and at what price? What will be the quality of life? These widespread questions reveal a strong ambivalence between, on the one hand, unquestioning faith in technology and its ability for auto-correction and, on the other, mistrust about its being used correctly with the suspicion that the hidden interests of some powerful lobby could lead to devastating results. 54\. Today, it is precisely *the transhumanism and* *posthumanism movements* that provide the conceptual and narrative framework in which this imagery about the future of humanity emerges most strongly. These two forms of interpretation and cultural planning, more or less ideological, of the potential of technology stimulate the collective imagination with the claim of a greater theoretical rigour that would offer a realistic prediction of the future of humanity. Ultimately, they make a proposal for a new vision of reality which involves a new anthropology. They can be considered as ‘systems’ of thought that promote a crusade in favour of science and its progress in light of the slogan ‘everything that technology can do must be done to improve the human condition’. It would thus be a matter of preparing for a new, unprecedented phase in human history. 55\. Behind these movements’ proposals lies the unrestrained and uncritical adoption of the concept of *human enhancement*: a primarily biomedical notion that is very prevalent in the field of biotechnology. It can be defined as the set of biomedical, genetic, pharmacological and cybernetic technologies aimed at improving the physical, cognitive or sensory abilities of human beings beyond what is considered normal or average. Its fields of application include the introduction of advanced prostheses to enhance human physical or mental performance, including by way of technological and electronic devices inserted into the human body; the use of techniques for artificial human fertilisation; the use of drugs that improve the physical and cognitive abilities of human beings in the fields of sport, physical or mental work, and military activity. Now, it is precisely the proposal of *human enhancement* that prompts a critical reflection on *transhumanism* insofar as it invites us to ask the question: ‘Up to what point is it permissible to improve living conditions, enhance performance and overcome limitations, while maintaining the good of the human being as the ultimate goal?’ In fact, in the field of *human enhancement*, it is already clear that, in order to be authentically human, any desire to improve the human condition must maintain a balance between what is technically possible and what is humanly sensible. 56\. Based on the above reflections, we can see the importance of focusing on the anthropological question, asking not so much how to go ‘beyond the limits of the human’, but rather what makes our existence ‘authentically human’. In light of this fundamental anthropological question, it is possible to develop some criteria for a critical discernment of the anthropology underlying these philosophical and cultural movements. 57\. A first element that is problematic is the *negative judgement on the human condition as it is, and ultimately on its identity*. This leads to the dream of reinventing it, a dream motivated by dissatisfaction with what it is, with its limitations and defects. We must ask ourselves, however, whether ‘resentment’ towards real life is a good starting-point for progress or rather a temptation to rebel against or escape from reality. This is not about the necessary struggle to change unjust conditions and structures, but about the rejection of the nature of things and of oneself. In particular, it is necessary to warn against a fundamentally negative perception of corporeality, which can be seen more as an obstacle than as an integral part of human identity. 58\. The second aspect, connected to the first, is the *dream of individualistic and elitist perfectionism*. It seems that every concrete human being can exist or be accepted only on condition that they ‘become more perfect’,\[62\] so much so that one might wonder whether the current human condition still has a right to exist or whether particular human beings have become ‘superfluous’. Some hyper-technological theories seem to challenge the fundamental principle inherited from humanism: ‘Act so that the effects of your actions are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on earth. Act so that the effects of your actions are not destructive of the future possibility of such a life.’\[63\] This principle can even be considered to be a useless and harmful limitation on technological progress. 59\. A third factor is *the social impact of this view of humanity*. In fact, it can lead to the assertion of a separation between a superior form of humanity, equipped with tools that empower it to the point of immortality, and a primitive, pre-technological humanity ultimately doomed for extinction. It is not clear on what basis the different conditions that humanity can achieve will be established: wealth, culture, heritage, openness to experimentation or invention. Nor is it clear who will have the power to make decisions. In this perspective, the bonds between people are in danger of disappearing, as is belonging to a people and a culture on the basis of which the common good can be assessed. Furthermore, if we consider that many social and political structures arise from shared needs and the organisation of institutions and bonds capable of meeting these challenges (hospitals, schools, prisons and rehabilitation centres), we can imagine the difficulty transhumanists and posthumanists have in saying what will become of the social and political world in which we live. Transformations are no longer bound by mutual recognition in a logic of fraternity and solidarity, and the negative consequences of this are reflected primarily in the idea of the family. There is no longer any talk of procreation as the communication of life, nor is there any interest in new births. It is only discussed in terms of planning the lives of other human ‘offspring’, made genetically perfect. But issues such as the generativity of conjugal love or the emotional support of families end up disappearing from view. 60\. Finally, we must not forget *the generally negative view of religious experience*. It is often presented as a resigned and fatalistic position, which sacralises the current human condition with dogmas and precepts that inhibit research and progress. Any ‘sacralising visions’ that emphasise the value of the body or nature as expressions of God’s creation would stand in the way of free research. The idea that biological life is a gift to be treated with care would imply the prohibition of certain experiments and improvements, putting a block on progress. It is no longer clear what is meant by personal identity when the person is reduced to a bundle of sensations or ‘optimised projects’, to a sort of enhanced subjective experience and increased cognitive ability, while the body is reduced to imperfect biological material or, in any case, material that must be enhanced. 61\. Christian anthropology can identify in these contemporary philosophical and cultural trends many features of the mentality that Francis has described as a form of ‘neo-Gnosticism’. These are ways of thinking and attitudes that are to be understood in a sense analogous to the ancient forms of Gnosticism. Such an approach, in considering human persons and their salvation, seeks to free them from all dependence and limitation, separated from the body, the cosmos, community and history.\[64\] It ‘puts forward a model of salvation that is merely interior, closed off in its own subjectivism. \[...\] It thus presumes to liberate the human person from the body and from the material universe, in which traces of the provident hand of the Creator are no longer found, but only a reality deprived of meaning, foreign to the fundamental identity of the person, and easily manipulated by human interests.’\[65\] 62\. The mindset that can be recognised in *transhumanist* and *posthumanist* movements effectively loses sight of the integral nature of the human being and, in particular, human identity and vocation according to God’s plan, exalting some dimensions at the expense of others. The fundamental anthropological question that arises is clear: is this a proposal that transforms or distorts human beings in terms of their essence? Will we arrive at an exceptional human being or at forms of exception to the authentic human being? According to the Christian vision, human beings are defined by a specific form that guarantees the unity and integrity of each one, both in reference to their identity, in the actions through which they become themselves, and in the ultimate end in which they find their fulfilment. At the individual level it is the immortal soul that gives form, that is, unifies and organises matter into a living body, giving human beings a transcendence that *post-* and *transhumanism* can neither achieve nor surpass. However, what unifies and guides personal development does not emerge only from nature and the cosmos, but is also realised through relationships, in which personal identity is anticipated by the expectations of others, and in an original and fundamental way through free dialogue with God. This is why Paul can recommend: ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind’ (*Rom* 12:2), ‘until Christ is formed in you’ (*Gal* 4:19; cf. also *Phil* 3:10-11 and *Phil* 2:6-11). The form of humanity finds its measure and fulfilment in Christ, who died and rose again, and opens up an integral humanism in which all persons are enabled to realise themselves beyond themselves, by virtue of the immeasurable gift of the Holy Spirit. Begun in our earthly existence, this participation in ‘eternal life’ in Christ is consummated – as the Church’s faith professes – ‘in the resurrection of the flesh and in the life of the world to come.’ The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, body and soul, is a sign that we are all called to participate as full human persons in the glory of Christ at the right hand of God the Father. --- ![[maps/bibliography#^biblio-itc-qvh]]