The mission of Issues in Perspective is to provide thoughtful, historical and biblically-centered perspectives on current ethical and cultural issues.

Transhumanism is a not a new concept. Known as the father of transhumanism, Julian Huxley, brother of the famed writer Aldous Huxley, described this concept in a 1957 essay saying “the human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself—not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirely, as humanity.”  Similarly, Elon Musk has long sought to upgrade humanity claiming that “to avoid becoming like monkeys, humans must merge with machines.” This argument is based on a materialistic and in some cases an evolutionary worldview that concludes we must improve upon evolution’s current iteration of humanity or be left behind by the rise of sophisticated machines. Musk, along with many other transhumanists, seeks to transcend our frail humanity through the use of technological upgrades.  The Economist calls this a “messianic ideology, in which innovation conquers humanity’s intractable challenges . . . .”

In 1947 C.S. Lewis published The Abolition of Man, in which he charted the “negation of human dignity in the name of progress.”  He lived long enough to see the accuracy of his assessment:  “For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please.”  Transhumanism comes close to fulfilling Lewis’s warning about the “negation of humanity.”  It is a philosophy or ideology that aims to control and transform the human species using bio technologies, in order to eliminate suffering, disease, aging and death. One of Transhumanism’s proponents, Alexander Thomas of the University of East London, suggests that “If we want to live in paradise, we will have to engineer it ourselves. If we want eternal life, then we will have to rewrite our flawed genetic code and become godlike.”  The core assumption underlying transhumanism is that human life is nothing sacred or special.  Humans are mere biological machines, which can be modified and improved. “If they should prove obsolete, they can be discarded and replaced by a new form of biomechanical life.”  Julian Huxley, in his 1927 book, Religion Without Revelation, wrote, “The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself—not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way—but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.” [In 1932, Huxley published A Brave New World, his fictional account of a dystopian, totalitarian world in which individual liberty is usurped by an all-powerful state.]

Transhumanist ideas have been a part of popular culture for years.  Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein, in which a scientist creates life in the form of a murdering monster, is one of the earliest examples.  But also consider these recent movies: Transcendence, Limitless, Lucy and Ex Machina as well as earlier movies such as Gattaca, The Matrix and Blade Runner.  Most of these are bleak, disturbing films, while others ask “thought-provoking questions about what it means to be human.”

Transhumanism has strong religious overtones:  James Hughes, who heads the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a transhumanist think tank, says. “I think the overarching issue is that transhumanism is promising things that religion has always promised” (e.g., a version of eternal life).  Transhumanism also promises profound wisdom through enhanced cognitive capacity, and bliss through modification of the senses.  Consequently, traditional religions are often directly threatened by transhumanism.  Mark Walker writes that “One common reaction here is that using technology to re-create humanity is tantamount to humanity ‘playing god.’ Also, some transhumanists are quite dismissive of religion. For example, on occasion it is claimed by some that transhumanism is a secular philosophy and that transhumanists ought to be ever vigilant that it is not confused with religious ideas or interpretations. These views create a hostile polarization between religious and transhumanist visions of humanity’s existence and future.”

The Transhumanist vision of Elon Musk has affected how he views children, family and marriage.  He has at least 14 children with four women.  [Multiple sources close to Musk believe the true number of Musk’s children is much higher.]  Musk has warned that “civilization is going to crumble” if people don’t start having more children, a view popularized as pronatalism in right-wing circles. The pronatalism movement is composed of people concerned about the birthrate and eager to implement policy and cultural solutions to the problem.  As Dana Mattioli reports, “In Musk’s dark view of the world, civilization is under threat because of a declining population.  He is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence . . . .Musk refers to his offspring as ‘legion,’ a reference to the ancient military units that could contain thousands of soldiers and were key to extending the reach of the Roman Empire.”

How does Musk’s arguably bizarre views fit with the conservative movement within the Republican Party, as well as with evangelicals who have wholeheartedly and uncritically supported Donald Trump?  In the journal First Things, Matthew Schmitz places Elon Musk in the context of the American “right.”   He writes, “A battle has broken out on the American right.  Two visions of what it means to have children are contending for supremacy.  On the one side stands the genetic-determinist right, which celebrates people with ‘good genes’ who have children together inside or outside of wedlock, ideally with the aid of embryo selection and genetic screening. On the other side is the culturalist right, which insists on the importance of marriage and monogamy. The outcome of this battle is more important than most people realize. It will determine which conception of human excellence will guide Western societies in the twenty-first century.  Not so long ago, the right was seen as the bastion of traditionalism, uniformly supportive, in principle if not in practice, of family values. It deplored single mothers and absentee fathers, not merely from religious conviction, but in the belief that the presence of a married mother and father was the best way to ensure that a child would grow up to be happy, productive, and law-abiding. But that view has come under assault—not only from the anti-judgmental left with its rainbow of ‘family types,’ but from new voices on the right who regard genes as the be-all and end-all. Heredity, they insist, is a vastly more powerful predictor of outcomes than parental influence.”

Elon Musk embodies the values of the genetic-determinist right.   Far from censuring him for deviating from traditional norms, parts of the right have celebrated Musk, often in eugenic terms. Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman from Florida, hailed [Ashley] St. Clair’s announcement on X [of giving birth to another Musk child]: “This child has incredible genetics.” Another user declared, “Elon Musk is acting just as one would act if one took behavioral genetics seriously. Post-natal parental impact isn’t that important.”

Schmitz also places Musk in historical perspective:  “In the early twentieth century, eugenic ideas gained a wide hearing among American elites. The foundations set up by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller funded research and political advocacy of methods that promised to root out (in the words of Margaret Sanger) ‘defectives, delinquents and dependents.’ The same purportedly scientific rationales for improving the human stock are now used to justify the behavior of Musk and other masters of the universe. The upshot is jarring. When a lower-class man fathers many children with different women, his behavior is derided as irresponsible. When Elon Musk impregnates woman after woman with no intention of giving the children a stable family, his behavior is celebrated as an act of benevolence, blessing the human race with his great genes.  On this view, Musk is not an erring man, imperfectly pursuing a monogamous ideal. He is advancing a genes-are-king version of right-wing ‘family values.’”

Musk’s version of paternity differs from older patriarchal forms in its focus on genetic self-propagation rather than dynastic succession. It is forward-looking in its embrace of individual choice and technology.  “The possibility of picking and choosing among embryos may help explain why all of Musk’s acknowledged children, save for the first, were conceived with the help of advanced reproductive technologies. According to a report in The Information, a Silicon Valley trade magazine, [Shivon] Zilis [an executive in Musk’s neurotechnology firm] and Musk have used polygenic embryo screening. This technology promises to predict not only the likelihood of a child’s one day developing ailments such as heart disease, but also its chances of having a high IQ.”  Musk’s approach to mating has been applauded by members of the genetic-determinist right. Richard Hanania, a writer who speaks frequently of the genetic superiority of “elite human capital,” has praised Musk as “the one billionaire acting in accordance with evolutionary theory.”

How should evangelical Christians evaluate the perverse, unbiblical views of Elon Musk?  Because he is a friend and ally of President Trump, must we uncritically accept his views?  I reject virtually everything Musk believes and practices about having children, the family and his perspectives on transhumanism.  Here are a few propositions rooted in Scripture that cause me to reject almost everything Elon Musk stands for.

1. Human beings are created in God’s image—the fundamental basis for human dignity, value and worth. Technology must always seek to preserve the worth, dignity and value of all human beings, regardless of age or stage of development.
2. Issues and practices associated with genetic technologies fall under the stewardship responsibility of humanity to God. These technologies give humans power never before realized in history. But because of human depravity, it is difficult to be optimistic about the ultimate use of some of these technologies. In His common grace, God has permitted the human race to develop these technologies—but we must always remember that we are accountable to Him as to how we use them. The sobering fact of human depravity looms over transhumanism.
3. Human life itself is of higher value than the quality of human life. With the eternal perspective that Scripture gives, the quality of life ethic drives the current use of many of these technologies. Ethicist Michael Sandel writes that “In a world without givens, a world controlled by bioengineering, we would dictate our nature as well as our practices and norms. We would gain unprecedented power to redefine the good. . . The more successfully we engineered IQ and muscle-to-fat ratio, the more central these measures would become to our idea of perfection. . . But it w[ill] never be a perfect world.” [The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, p. 5.] Because of sin, we live in an imperfect world, and, until the new heaven and new earth, our fallen world will be characterized by disease, tragedies, accidents and old age. The quality of life ethic, therefore, must never undermine the infinite value of life ethic detailed in the Bible.
4. From God’s perspective, concern for the improvement of the “inner man” is always more important than concern for the improvement of the “outer man.” No procedure or practice will prevent the inevitability of death. Perhaps that is why the Scripture gives focus to such issues as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and the eight quality traits called the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-16). From God’s perspective, these character traits are more paramount than using certain technologies to strive toward the goal of human perfectibility.
5. Carl Henry, years ago in his book, Christian Personal Ethics (1957), provided an important guideline for wise decision-making when it comes to genetic technologies: “Whatever tends to overcome what would be deterioration in the created order and seeks to restore what God purposed in Creation is on far safer grounds than all kinds of novel and experimental enterprise.” In other words, he argued that there is clear biblical warrant for technologies that restore; there is no clear biblical warrant for manipulation toward perfection—an insightful ethical guideline.
6. Finally, human civilization must critically examine the scientific (technological) imperative. Simply because society can pursue a particular medical, reproductive or genetic procedure does not mandate that it must.  Especially in the area of genetics, “can” does not mandate “ought.” The potential for power and control and its obvious abuse mandates an examination of this imperative.

See Carol Szczepaniak, “What is Transhumanism – and why should I care?”(2 February 2021) NCER Comments; www.christiantranshumanism.org; Matthew Waller, “Exploring incarnation: Can transhumanism enrich a Christian theology of humanity?” in Baptist News Global (13 July 2016); The Economist (23 November 2024), p. 11; Subby Szterszky, “Transhumanism: Chasing eternal life without God,” at www.focusonthefamily.ca; Dana Mattioli in the Wall Street Journal (17 April 2025); Kirsten Grind, Ryan Mac, and Sheera Frenkel in the New York Times (10 November 2024);  Matthew Schmitz in First Things (April 2025), pp.  11-13; and James P. Eckman, Christian Ethics, pp. 43-53