Anthropological Conservatism and Transhumanism

   Aim. To identify the reasons why anthropological conservatives (bio-conservatives) reject transhumanism and to assess the possibility of developing a consolidated approach to the problem of improving human nature.

   Methodology. A systems approach and methods of hermeneutics, mental modeling, analysis and synthesis, abstraction, and comparison were used to describe the positions of anthropological conservatism, moderate transhumanism, and radical transhumanism.

   Results. It is shown that some anthropological conservatives reject transhumanism, not considering the presence of moderate transhumanism within the transhumanist movement. Other critics of transhumanism believe that there is no fundamental difference between moderate and radical transhumanism, as both constitute unacceptable interference in human nature. They don’t consider that moderate transhumanists envision human perfection within the limits of their essence, while the latter believe that there should be no restrictions during the transformation process, and that the application of NBIC-technologies should ultimately result in the emergence of a new intelligent being that is posthuman. Such critics consider the program of radical transhumanism unacceptable, since it would lead to the extinction of humanity. In this regard, the author’s interpretation of moderate transhumanism coincides with a general understanding of anthropological conservatism. It has been established that technological influences on humans can be of three types: 1) therapeutic effects (bringing a body condition to the species norm); 2) improving effects (increasing human capabilities beyond the species norm, but within the limits of its essence); 3) effects of radical transformation of a person, leading to the emergence of a post-human. Radical transhumanists approve the use of all three types, moderate transhumanists – the first and second types, secular and bio-conservatives – only the first type, i. e., therapeutic influences. It is concluded that the anthropological conservatism position is not accepted due to impossibility to eliminate the genetically determined negative qualities of humans, which serve as the underlying mental cause of the deepening global crisis of civilization, without technological enhancement.

   Research implications. The use of the obtained results contributes to the achievement of a consensus on the optimal scenario for the transformation of human nature required to overcome the general civilizational crisis.

1. Cheremnykh, L. G. & Gubanov, N. N. (2023). Moderate and Radical Transhumanism. In: Contemporary Philosophical Research, 3, 112–121. DOI: 10.18384/2949-5148-2023-3-112-121 (in Russ.).

2. Iskevich, I. S. (2024). Transhumanism as a Threat to Traditional Human Rights. In: Moral Imperatives of Russian Statehood: Individual Dignity, Sovereignty, Solidarity: Collection of Scientific Papers of the First Belgorod International Legal Forum (Belgorod, September 11–12, 2024). Vol. 1. Belgorod: Belgorod State University publ., pp. 281–283 (in Russ.).

3. Kostolomova, M. V. (2022). On the Issue of Transhumanism: The Future of Man in the Context of the New Social Reality. In: Vestnik NSUEM, 2, 194–208. DOI: 10.34020/2073-6495-2022-2-194-208 (in Russ.).

4. Zetkin, S. N. (2024). Aspirations for the “Universe 25”: Contradictions in the Philosophical Foundations of the Utopia of Transhumanism. In: Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice. Series: Cognition, 10, 115–119. DOI: 10.37882/2500-3682.2024.10.08 (in Russ.).

5. Nietzsche, F. (1990). The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity. In: Nietzsche, F. Works. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl publ., pp. 610–700 (in Russ.).

6. Dubrovsky, D. I. (2017). The Main Issue of the Problem of Consciousness. In: Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 1, 57–70 (in Russ.).

7. Loskutov, Yu. V. (2025). Transhumanism versus Humanism. In: Research Result. Social Studies and Humanities, 11 (2), 44–55. DOI: 10.18413/2408-932X-2025-11-2-0-4 (in Russ.).

8. Huxley, J. (1957). New Bottles for New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus.

9. FM-2030 (1989). Are You a Transhuman? Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World. New York: Warner Books.

10. Yudin, B. G. (2018). About Man, His Nature, and His Future. In: Humanities Almanac, 13, 235–250. DOI: 10.32691/2410-0935-2018-13-235-250 (in Russ.).

11. Yudin, B. G. (2016). Technoscience and Human “Improvement.” In: Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 48 (2), 18–27 (in Russ.).

12. Semenchuk, S. S. (2024). The Heights of the Human Spirit versus the Prospects of Transhumanistic Existence: The Philosophy of Transhumanism in Culture. In: Sociology, 12, 144–154 (in Russ.).

13. Nedorezov, V. G., Pisarchik, L. Yu. & Strelets, Yu. Sh. (2024). Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Plans for Dehumanization. In: Intellect. Innovations. Investments, 2, 93–108. DOI: 10.25198/2077-7175-2024-2-93 (in Russ.).

14. Nesterov, A. Yu. (2013). The Problem of Man Considering the Ideology of Evolutionary Transhumanism. In: Global Future 2045. Convergent Technologies (NBICS) and Transhumanist Evolution. Moscow: MBA publ., pp. 183–192 (in Russ.).

15. Gubanov, N. I., Gubanov, N. N. & Cheremnykh, L. G. (2025). Moderate and Radical Transhumanism on the Transformation of Human Nature. In: Philosophy and Society, 1, 88–101. DOI: 10.30884/jfio/2025.01.05 (in Russ.).

16. Dubrovsky, D. I. (2013). Human Nature, Anthropological Crisis, and Cybernetic Immortality. In: Global Future 2045. Convergent Technologies (NBICS) and Transhumanist Evolution. Moscow: MBA publ., pp. 237–252 (in Russ.).

17. Gubanov, N. N. & Cheremnykh, L. G. (2023). Our Future – Neo-Human or Posthuman? In: Humanitarian Bulletin of BMSTU, 5. URL: https://hmbul.bmstu.ru/catalog/hum/phil/866.html (accessed: 05.11.2025). DOI: 10.18698/2306-8477-2023-5-866 (in Russ.).