In the writings of transhumanism, Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most famous philosophers.¹ This statement may seem banal at first. In which area, one could ask somewhat polemically, is Nietzsche not one of the most renowned philosophers? Whether in lyrics to black metal² Or bodybuilding, whether in the song lyrics of the Dandy Warhols, in Oi punk in Skinflicks or in beard counselors overgrowing international bookshelves — Nietzsche is referred to everywhere, as his polyphonic, eclectic work offers itself as a calendar archive for everyone and no one.

Especially for those people who don't take it too seriously with context sensitivity and genealogies of thought, Nietzsche's aphoristic style, which anticipated the feverish salvo talk on Twitter/X & Co. and was already pop long before pop, is seductive. Steam chatters long for hammer philosophers. Just search a PDF of the collected works for keywords, and you have a gaudy saying that can be used to philosophically pimp all sorts of things. It's harder with Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Whether it's a manager or a squatter — if things have to be done quickly and smell a bit of dynamite, the quotation would prefer Nietzsche.

It is therefore hardly surprising that transhumanists are no different. And yet the eternal return of Nietzsche in transhumanism is anything but random. It is obvious that those who want to overcome humans and accelerate their profane ascent into the “posthuman” heaven have a particular affinity for the concept and concept of “superman.” Whether their understanding of superman also corresponds to Nietzsche's understanding is to be examined in the present text with regard to a sub-form of transhumanism, extropianism.

‍

I. Against entropic “religionism”

w Max Mores transhumanism. A Futurist Philosophy (1990), one of the defining texts of transhumanism, Nietzsche plays an important role as a source of keywords. The author, philosopher and CEO of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation from 2010 to 2020, sees himself as an “extropianist” and thus represents a current of transhumanism that is aimed directly at (life) practice and the accelerated — limitless, everlasting — psychophysical transformation of humans using the latest technologies (cryonics, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.).

Extropianists aim to quickly and effectively move humans, both as a species and as individuals, beyond what they consider to be a deplorable current state. More contrasts the type of extropianist with that of the “religionist,” whose faith has an inhibitory effect. This is where Nietzsche comes in: “The religionist has no answer to the extropic challenge that Nietzsche's Zarathustra poses to us: “I'll teach you the superman. The human being is something that should be overcome. What did you do to overcome him? '”³. More continues: “I agree with Nietzsche (in The will to power) agree that nihilism is only a transitional stage resulting from the collapse of a false interpretation of the world. We now have enough resources to leave nihilism behind us and affirm a positive (but constantly evolving) value perspective.”

For extropianists, it is important to use all ethically valid (here: respecting the human dignity of the individual) resources for optimization, as acceptance of the human status quo appears to them as an expression of defeatism. In one form or another, this premise runs through the various other trends of transhumanist philosophy and life practice oscillating between liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, social Darwinism and other isms, including through more differentiated and skeptical approaches than the radically optimistic one by Max More, such as that of Stefan Sorgner. The German philosopher believes “constant self-overcoming is central to promoting my own quality of life. I also consider the area of scientific and biotechnological research to be extremely important and call for increased funding for it.”⁴. From Sbergner's point of view, Nietzsche is also elementary for transhumanism: “When dealing with transhumanism, the similarity of transhumanist principles with those of Nietzsche's philosophy is immediately apparent” (ibid., p. 111). In Sorgner's book transhumanism. “The most dangerous idea in the world!? ” Nietzsche is the only philosopher to have a separate chapter dedicated to it. Elsewhere, he directly pleads “for a Nietzschean transhumanism.”⁵.

However, while Sorgner, following his doctoral supervisor Gianni Vattimo, advocates a decidedly “weak transhumanism,” More — in a very cliché Californian way — as a strong transhumanist who is committed to the radical expansion of human abilities and possibilities under the auspices of an undialectical, dogmatically set “positive.” Extropianism is born as the death of tragedy, overshadowed by Nietzsche's will to affirm.

‍

II. Transcendence and new faith

More's example makes it clear in an exaggerated way how deeply transhumanism is rooted in Anglo-American philosophy and theory; how strongly it is associated with utilitarianism, humanism, liberalism, individualism, and enlightenment; how much it is based on the typical Western-modern, Promethean nexus of science, (purpose) rationality, self-perfection — “from fate to machsal” to a Good advice from Odo Marquard. Immortality is considered a realistic goal, aging as a curable disease. It is significant that the first conception of transhumanism dates back to the forward-looking atheist eugenicist and first UNESCO Director General Julian Huxley, who in his article transhumanism (1957) postulated:

The human species can, if it wants, 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 faith. Perhaps transhumanism is the right term: Man remains human, but he transcends himself by realizing new possibilities for his human nature and for his human nature [.]⁶

However, transhumanism only became an independent movement in theory and practice in the 1980s with representatives such as FM 2030, Max More or his wife Natasha Vita-More (the self-chosen surnames are literally a transhumanist program to be understood). It is precisely then that references to Nietzsche begin to accumulate, in particular to the superman, who is promoted to the rank of “posthuman.” Julian Huxley's Brave New World (yes, it is the brother of the much more skeptical and technology-critical author Aldous Huxley...) managed without Nietzsche's assistance.

In their euphoria, the extropianists are not only turning into the openness of the future, where they Frontier human existence continues push, but also in the old footsteps of the modern bourgeoisie intoxicated by themselves, as Peter Sloterdijk did in Remembering beautiful politics (2000) portrayed: “One suspects, astonishes, perhaps even envious how secure the bourgeois people of that time were in their ability to avoid the real into hymnics. How short were the paths from piano duo to humanity back then, how quickly did they rise from punch to genre”⁷. In contrast to modern-skeptical European, particularly German, educated bourgeoisie, however, transhumanists enthusiastically affirm and use modern technology and (natural) science.

‍

III. The selective superman

Nietzsche's superman from Zarathustra is an obvious reference when it comes to self-transgression and replacement from traditional, presumed restrictive morality. But extropianists such as More and other transhumanists cultivate a selective and tendentious approach to Nietzsche's most well-known figure. It is undeniable that there are many parallels between Nietzsche's work and transhumanism on the content level — the critique of Christianity (keyword “slave morality”), the orientation towards (natural) scientific research and technology rather than religious morality, the fundamental affirmation of development and self-transgression. But with Nietzsche, the content cannot be thought of without the form and style; indeed, form and style are, stronger than with most other philosophers, even the content.

While transhumanists usually write their texts in a rational style that is quite conditional, yet understandable and also takes into account academic conventions, and strive for technical feasibility (Nick Bostrom has written a user-friendly “Transhumanist FAQ”⁸), the feverish tone of voice, the expressive formulations, the dramaturgy of sentences, which mimetically comprehends his own erratic, essayistic thinking, straddle incessantly into the forming ideological order. At the level of Nietzsche's style, even there is no impression that it is sober science where sober science is praised. And when banal feasibility thinking emerges as a result of going to the last summit, the style lights up like a warning lamp. Anyone who reads Nietzsche minus the style doesn't read Nietzsche.

Another issue concerns semantics. What always with Nietzsche both problem and potential is, the seemingly endless development opportunities after God's death, gives extropianists such as Max More cause for hope in a fairly non-dialectical way. This shows the difference between optimistic affirmation and tragic affirmation. For More, beyond the scope of development of confining metaphysics, humans through science and various techniques, of manifesting themselves in machines Artes mechanicae to optimize action-oriented cultural and anthropogenic technologies until the old person is overcome and a new era of evolution begins. What is the new “posthuman” person (?) The extropianists don't know exactly what to say, but strangely enough, they assume that he — or it, or she — somehow better will be. More wisely omits an in-depth examination of the normative dimension of the “positive” of this optimization — and in doing so deviates from his philosophical personal trainer Nietzsche, whose work can also be understood as incessant strife, questioning, yes, a despair of the possibilities of modernity that sometimes turns into paradoxical affirmation.

‍

IV. Extropianists as the last people

As Nietzsche exposes himself to the abyss and breathes in its cold, More pours it over with new, warming certainties. The fact that “knowledge, freedom, intelligence, longevity and wisdom” are inherently good is the basis of his concept of transhumanism as a dogmatic principle. But why the long life longed for by extropianists per se Should be good, remains unclear. It is true that the extended lifespan is always linked to the requirement to stay healthy longer. But doesn't it rather articulate the bourgeois longing of the “last person”: to get as old as possible, to stay as healthy as possible, to be as satisfied as possible? The fact that human cultural achievements also arise from weakness and pain, from illness and loss, from failure and doom plays a subordinate role for More. However, this insight is still present in Nietzsche, for example in Ecce Homo: “I am a Happy ambassador, As there was none, I know tasks of a level that the term for them has been missing so far; it is only from me on that there are hopes again. With all this, I am also necessarily the person of doom.”⁹.

While More the values of humanism, enlightenment and modernity as a constructive affirmed, does the voice present itself from Ecce Homo also as an “annihilator”, namely of values, and as an “immoralist”, not least as a “buffoon”: “I have a terrifying fear that one day I will be taken saintly Says: You'll guess why I wrote this book prior Spell out that it is intended to prevent people from making mischief with me... I don't want to be a saint, I'd rather be a buffoon...” (ibid.). In Nietzsche, the superman is not a figure of light: “Superman's beauty came to me as a shadow”¹⁰. Those extropianists, on the other hand, who always bring (predominantly utilitarian) ethics, values, morals into action for their superhuman project and ultimately Gute promises (otherwise it is hardly possible to successfully fundraise for transhumanist experiments...) are therefore more in the tradition of those who work in Ecce Homo as “the Good, which benevolent, benevolent”¹¹ be denounced: as crypto-religious idealists. The ostensible religious critics of extropianism are perhaps religious in a similar way as the Christians criticizing Caesar were Caesar — and soon sat on his throne. If religions, or more precisely: political theologies such as Christianity, had exploited suffering to keep people small (keyword Job) and to deny them superhumans, extropianists exploit suffering ex negativo. They sanctify the optimization of power in a similar way as the “religionists” sanctify submission to fate.

‍

V. Transhumanism vs. Posthumanimus

In contrast to modern-skeptic posthumanism, which no longer recognizes man as the “crown of creation” (Wolfang Welsch), but sends him to the “Parliament of Things” (Bruno Latour) as a representative of political ecology or teaches him the humility of multi-speciesist collaboration in the “hot compost heap” (Donna Haraway), extropianist transhumanism ties in with futurocentric and anthropocentric exceptionalism of modernity, ironically by involving the (previous) human surmount wants — the most human thing about humans is simply the attempt to overcome people. No squirrel tries to overcome the squirrel. No cactus tries to overcome the cactus. No pebble tries to overcome the pebble. Only humans try to overcome people — this is the purest expression of their humanity. And only where anthropocentrism is in full bloom does the diffuse “posthuman” appear to be a desirable state. One's own strength has grown so much that weakening appears attractive, comparable to materially saturated people who regard “minimalism” as a desirable goal.

In this context, a strict distinction must be made between trans- and post-humanism. For posthumanists, the posthuman is paradoxically what has already, always been the case is, but is not recognized, even suppressed and ideologically combated, namely the existential “interconnectedness” (Haraway), the irreducible reliance of us humans on a “network” (Latour) of others and others, human as well as non-human beings. Posthumanism can therefore be described as an act of explication understand. You find again what is already implicitly the case. For transhumanists, on the other hand, the posthuman is a state that has yet to be achieved: The superman must manufactured become. The post-humanist critique of dualism, which wants to find its way out of binary schemes such as nature/culture, is not decisive for transhumanism. The much-cited vision of “mind uploading,” i.e. the technological outsourcing of one's own consciousness onto a carrier medium, alone shows that for transhumanists, despite the naturalistic-materialistic basis of their philosophy, there is a categorical difference between body and mind. The concrete “mind” is supposedly not linked to a specific “body.” But is it not a more concrete Body that one concrete Spirit makes possible in the first place, and is not the “body” (Helmuth Plessner) the unity of their differencethat can't be split up? A mind that existed independently of a specific body would not be the mind of a people, but haunted a Platonic cloud cuckoo home. w Nietzsches The benefits and disadvantages of history for life On the other hand, the criticism of the humanist body-mind dualism is decisive, as it is about the recognition of one's own, irreducible physicality and animalness — an animality that does not have to be overcome by any “superanimal.” The remoteness of animals from history and morals should rather be a corrective for humans: “This is how the animal lives unhistorical: because it opens in the present tense, like a number, without leaving a strange fraction, it doesn't know how to adjust, conceals nothing and appears completely as what it is in every moment, so it can't be anything but honest”¹².

‍

VI. Extropianism is Marx as Musk

Transhumanists, and in particular the extropianists among them, continue to live in human morality and human history, yes they want the most grandiose chapter of this story themselves writingby climbing to the pinnacle of humanity, the posthuman — only ostensibly paradoxical. Extropianist transhumanism is therefore less compatible with Nietzsche in all its tragedy and conflict than with the left-Hegelian tradition on the one hand, whose revolutionary understanding of history is based on the changeability of all relationships through human action, on the other hand, with the liberal capitalist tradition, which is committed to eternal progress, eternal optimization, eternal growth. Extropianism is Marx as Musk.

In More and other extropianists, the posthuman could be interpreted as the equivalent of the Hegel ending of the story. But because the potentially infinite perfection of the human — or the postman — cannot have an end, it cannot have a beginning. In its attempt to determine the course of history, extropianism processes itself, pulsing through optimistic emptiness, outside the story — and thus tilts back into exactly that u—topical religious metaphysics that, if you believe More, it actually wants to overcome:

Our species persists in old conceptual structures and processes that hinder progress. One of the worst is religious thinking. In this essay, I will show how religion works as an entropic force that opposes our progress toward transhumanity and our future as posthumans [.]¹³

It's one of those things about the future. Like the average Messiah, she is prone to delays. And when it finally arrives, it is not recognized as such; indeed, it is already out of date at the time of publication. The Messiah of the future always dies on the cross of increased expectations of him. FM-2030, an Iranian-American author, lecturer, consultant, Olympic athlete and pioneer of transhumanism born in 1930, said 2030 was a “magical time.”¹⁴ ahead — all people would then be ageless and would have an excellent chance to live forever. Transhumanist technology enthusiast Ray Kurzweil seconded him in 2016 (link). Evident is the religious subtext. In 2000, FM-2030 died of cancer. Would he still have been so optimistic in 2024? The darkening world situation and noticeably aging entertainment show us today that the new extropianist prophets are not necessarily more reliable than their old religionist predecessors with their notoriously incorrect apocalypse predictions. And even if their prophecies were received, the beneficiaries would immediately be dissatisfied with them: Excuse me, they fob us off with a bit of immortality and agelessness!? We would have deserved more! The posthuman will probably become human, all too human. Or, in the words of philosopher Leszek Kołakowski: “At the point of an explosion that seems to blow up the inheritance, the explosives always come from inherited stocks.”¹⁵.

‍

Jörg Scheller is a professor of art history at the Zurich University of the Arts (ZHdK) and visiting professor at the Poznań Academy of Arts, Poland. He regularly writes articles for, among others, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, THE TIME Artforum and is a columnist for Stuttgarter Zeitung as well as from Psychology today. As a 14-year-old, he was already on stage with a metal band. He now runs a heavy metal delivery service with the metal duo Malmzeit. Scheller is also a certified fitness trainer. In 2015, he organized the conference with Martin Jäggi Pop! Goes the Tragedy. The Eternal Return of Friedrich Nietzsche in Popular Culture at ZHdK. He TwitterXT at https://x.com/joergscheller1.

‍

bibliography

Campa, Riccardo: Nietzsche and Transhumanism. A Meta-Analytical Perspective. In: Studia Humana, Vol. 8/4 (2019), pp. 10—26.

Huxley, Julian: transhumanism. In: Ders. : New Bottles for New Wine. London 1957, pp. 13—17.

Kolakowski, Leszek: The presence of myth. Munich 1973.

Krueger, Oliver: Virtual immortality. God, Evolution, and the Singularity in Post- and Transhumanism. Bielefeld 2021.

More, Max: transhumanism. Towards a Futurist Philosophy, retrieved online at: https://www.ildodopensiero.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/max-more-transhumanism-towards-a-futurist-philosophy.pdf

Sloterdijk, Peter: Remembering beautiful politics. In: Ders. : The aesthetic imperative. Hamburg 2007, pp. 29—49.

Sorgner, Stefan: transhumanism. “The most dangerous idea in the world”!?. Freiburg, Basel & Vienna 2016.

Der.: (2019): Superman. A plea for Nietzschean transhumanism. Basel 2019.

‍

Source reference for the article image

Nietzsche by Luke Mack, 2010 (link)

‍

footnotes

1: For a quantitative analysis, see Riccardo Campa, Nietzsche and Transhumanism.

2: Editor's note: See the article on Nietzsche's reception in heavy metal by Christian Saehrendt on this blog (link).

3: Cf. So Zarathustra spoke, Preface, 3. All quotes in this article in English have been translated into German by the author.

4: Sorgner, transhumanism, P. 33.

5: That's the subtitle of his book superman.

6: P. 17.

7: P. 39.

8: Cf. https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf.

9: Ecce homo, Why I am a fate, 1.

10: Ecce homo, So Zarathustra spoke, 8.

11: Ecce homo, Why I am a fate, 4.

12: The benefits and disadvantages of history for life, paragraph 1.

13: transhumanism.

14: Quoted by Oliver Krüger, Virtual Immortality, P. 71.

15: Leszek Kołakowski, The Presence of Myth, P. 38.