Reflections on Perspectives of Transhumanism, Buddhist Transhumanism, and Buddhist Modernism on the Self

A claim by Buddhist-affine scholars that transhumanism and Buddhism are compatible because both aim to alleviate suffering and attain stable happiness is challenged. Since the 1980s, dialogues between Tibetan Buddhism and scientists have produced new interpretations like 'Buddhist modernism.' However, two arguments show why Buddhist transhumanism is difficult to reconcile with Buddhist terminology, values, and methods: the difference between contemplative practices like meditation and the use of human enhancement technologies, and differences in self-understanding between Western science and Buddhism.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Abstract A claim made by Buddhist or Buddhism-affine scholars such as Michael LaTorra and James Hughes is that transhumanism, neuroscience, and the teachings of Buddhism are compatible because they aim to alleviate suffering and pain and attain a stable state of happiness. This claim can be challenged. At first glance, the approach seems valid, because since the 1980s there have been dialogues and scientific collaborations with representatives of Tibetan Buddhism and scientists on the topics of neuroscience, consciousness, ethics and technology, and in this context new interpretations of Buddhist thought have emerged such as ‘Buddhist modernism’ (E. Thompson). In this discussion note, however, two main arguments are advanced as to why the claim and terminology of Buddhist transhumanism are difficult to reconcile with Buddhist terminology, values, and methods: (1) the difference between the use of such methods as meditation and contemplation and the application of so-called human enhancement technologies (2) and differences concerning self-understanding in Western science and Buddhism.