Julian Huxley and Gustavo Gutierrez: An Analysis of When and How Liberation Theology Can Embrace Transhumanism

Abstract

In this essay, the transhumanist movement is analyzed through the lens of liberation theology, vis-á-vis the founding fathers of their respective movements, secular transhumanist Julian Huxley and liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez. Although Gutiérrez is not a transhumanist, he delineates a theology of liberation which is driven by a social justice enhancement of the marginalized. The central question which will be analyzed is: How does a liberation theologian understand the transhumanist movement? Critically, both men begin on similar ground, arguing that the human condition is not as it should be. Through a careful exegesis of Guiterrez's seminal works on A Theology of Liberation and On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, the arguments of liberation theology will be elucidated with respect to the transhumanist discourse, arguing that Gutiérrez privileges the telos of drawing humanity out of poverty and illness. However, Gutiérrez's work on Job restricts the potential social justice enhancement espoused by liberation theology. For Gutiérrez, God's gratuitous love precedes God's justice, making it so humanity cannot occupy the creative space of God. After establishing the theoretical arguments, the paper turns to the clinic to underscore when and how Huxley and Gutiérrez differ in relying on medical technology in the present day. The distinction between caring and curing is the deciding clinical factor to denote when a liberation theologian can embrace the transhumanist impulse. While Huxley does not limit his transhumanist project to conquer the limits of humanity, Gutiérrez sequesters the capacity of human transcendence because of his faith and hope in God's deliverance on earth.

Introduction

This essay analyzes the transhumanist movement through the lens of liberation theology. The central question of this essay is: How does a liberation theologian understand the transhumanist movement? To provide the necessary context to address this question, this essay explores the founding fathers of their respective movements, British secular transhumanist Julian Huxley and Peruvian liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez. Although Gutiérrez is not a transhumanist, he works from Catholic social teaching in such a way that seems to mirror Huxley's theoretical impulses. Gutiérrez delineates a theology of liberation which is driven by a social justice enhancement of the marginalized. Critically, both men begin on similar ground, arguing that the human condition is not as it should be.

Through a careful exegesis of Guiterrez's seminal works on A Theology of Liberation and On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent this essay will delineate the arguments of liberation theology with respect to the transhumanist discourse, arguing that Gutiérrez privileges the telos of drawing humanity out of poverty and illness. After establishing the theoretical arguments, the paper turns to the clinic to underscore when and how Gutiérrez and Huxley differ in relying on medical technology in the present day. The distinction between caring and curing is the deciding clinical factor to denote when a liberation theologian can embrace the transhumanist impulse. While Huxley does not limit his transhumanist project to conquer the limits of humanity, Gutiérrez sequesters the capacity of human transcendence because of his faith and hope in God's deliverance on earth.

Transhumanism and Julian Huxley

What began as a challenge to draw up a horror story in the recesses of the Swiss Alps fundamentally altered the landscape of modern medicine. Not only did Lord Byron's challenge define the horror genre, but it also underscored the human proclivity for transcending earthly limits. Overnight, Mary Shelley (1994) composed her groundbreaking novel Frankenstein, the story of a man created by another man. In 1818, technology was not on par with the imagination of Shelley; Frankenstein was largely conceptual, a terror meant to scare Lord Byron and the other weekend guests (Shelley 1994, vii). Yet, Shelley placed her finger on a powerful human longing—the desire to push the very boundaries of human life. In this way, Shelley's novel mirrored the theoretical framework for the transhumanist movement. It took over a century for medicine to reach parity with Shelley, but once it did, the critical question raised by Frankenstein remained: Should humankind transcend its limits? Transhumanism responds firmly in the affirmative to this question. In fact, this is the very foundation of transhumanism, the yearning to move beyond the limits of humanity through the merging of human nature with technology (Bostrom 2005).

In 1953, the possibility of altering the makeup of human DNA entered the scientific vocabulary. James Watson and Francis Crick's pivotal paper outlined the building blocks of humanity, thus opening the possibility of a transhumanist future (Watson and Crick 1953). Albeit brief, this paper marked the identification of the biochemical foundation for human nature. Julian Huxley recognized the magnitude of this discovery: by knowing the constitutive elements of human nature, the application of transhumanism could begin (Weindling 2012). As Huxley worked as an evolutionary biologist, Watson and Crick's work unearthed the transformative power of science for human life. For Huxley, humankind finally paralleled the creative powers of Dr. Victor Frankenstein. In his own words, Huxley claimed: “[T]he 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 ¹ will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature” (Huxley 1957a). The uncloaking of humanity's molecular make-up indicated a first crucial step towards the potential use of technology to conquer death.

Shelley dreamed of the gauntlet; Watson and Crick identified the constitutive elements of it; and Huxley threw down the gauntlet. The playbook of Victor Frankenstein was on the cusp of possibility due to scientific advancement. Yet, the modification of humankind was still in its infancy. While Huxley grew excited at the prospect of transhumanism, the praxis of the movement lagged behind the dreams of Huxley. The description of DNA did not yet translate into the modification of the biochemical foundation of humanity. However, scientists soon discovered that the double helix could be modified through the rearrangement of atoms. Not all scientists shared the same enthusiasm as Huxley; K. Eric Drexler posed a critical question as he underscored the ability to rearrange atoms through nanotechnology: “Advances in the technologies of medicine, space, computation, and production—and warfare—all depend on our ability to arrange atoms. With assemblers, we will be able to remake our world or destroy it” (Drexler 1986, 14). For Drexler, modification of human DNA brought the potential for great power and catastrophic failure.

At this point, in 1986, nanotechnology had developed to the point where the rearrangement of atoms was no longer a dream. However, Drexler wisely pondered the telos of transhumanism, clearly noting what is at stake. Not only could transhumanism bring advances to medicine and science, but it also could bring a destructive side. Despite the technology being available, there still was a teleological question. For Huxley, transhumanism was, at first, a noble pursuit. The promise of transhumanism offered “that no one need be underfed or chronically diseased, or deprived of the benefits of its technical and practical applications” (Huxley 1957b). Thus, the starting point for Huxley's vision of transhumanism is care for the marginalized. For Huxley, transhumanism was the answer to illness and poverty. The possibility of an egalitarian society could be realized through the betterment of the human condition by the application of technology. Huxley spoke with such optimism as he argued the case for transhumanism: “We have pretty well finished the geographical exploration of the earth; we have pushed the scientific exploration of nature, both lifeless and living, to a point at which its main outlines have become clear; but the exploration of human nature and its possibilities has scarcely begun” (Huxley 1957b).

Despite the idealism with which Huxley spoke, the starting point of transhumanism is more complex than merely the improvement for the marginalized in society. Not only did he stress care for the poor and ill, but Huxley also saw transhumanism through a colonial lens. Furthermore, this colonial bend extended beyond discovering what mysteries were wrapped up in the double helix; Huxley identified the mapping of human nature as a critical framework to bring his transhumanist agenda to life. Huxley was an idealist, but he was also a man with a proclivity for eugenics. After visiting the United States in the 1950s: “Huxley returned to Britain convinced of the ‘Negro’ cultural inferiority and of the rectitude of US immigration controls designed to keep out racial inferiors. Huxley gravitated to a social vision of a scientized society, organized on rational lines, efficient, productive and prosperous” (Weindling 2012). Huxley's racist views combined well with a twisted form of biological determinism that enabled Huxley to lean into his eugenic hope for humanity.

While the transhumanist movement allowed Huxley to advance his eugenic ideals, Huxley was also sensitive to the political climate of his time. With the growing influence of the Nazi party and its privileging of the Aryan race, Huxley was careful to tread lightly with respect to race-related topics. His public posture was one of a chameleon, where he was clear to sign any anti-racist manifestos and announce himself as an opponent of Nazism (Weindling 2012). With an eye on public opinion, Huxley selectively emphasized certain aspects of transhumanism, playing into the more palatable components, such as care for the ill and poor, while leaving out his colonial and eugenic vision. At its origins, transhumanism was not only a movement to cure the ill, but it was also a hope to transcend the limits of humanity, which for Huxley, also meant to disenfranchise immigrants and people of color.

Liberation Theology and Gustavo Gutiérrez

Similar to Huxley, Gustavo Gutiérrez strongly identified with the need to better the human condition. Born in Peru and educated in both Latin America and Europe, Gutiérrez came of age during a challenging climate in Peru. As a young boy, Gutiérrez developed a severe case of osteomyelitis where he was confided to a wheelchair from ages twelve to eighteen (McAfee Brown 2013, 24). It was during this time that Gutiérrez developed a love for reading and a passion for higher study. In his time, the standard recommendation for an aspiring Latin American theologian was to study in Europe. And so, Gutiérrez travelled to Belgium, France, and Rome where he completed his graduate work and was ordained a priest in the Catholic Church (McAfee Brown 2013, 24–25). After a decade abroad, Gutiérrez returned to Peru to begin his teaching career. However, he was quickly confronted with the lived experience of his students where:

… the next stage in Gustavo's education consisted of unlearning much of his hard-won education, rereading the history of his own continent, rereading the Bible, rereading theology, and discovering that rereading meant a remaking of the situation of the poor and oppressed, and a refashioning of the theological tools he was continually honing to use more directly in that situation. (McAfee Brown 2013, 26)

For Gutiérrez, his students caused him to realize that the orthodox theology of his day did not pay close enough attention to the oppressed. Much like Huxley's secular project, Gutiérrez recognized the need for a theology which took seriously the marginalized. However, unlike Huxley, Gutiérrez unequivocally privileged the marginalized as the starting point for bettering the human condition. In his journey of reinterpreting his European education with respect to the needs of his students, Gutiérrez employed a political hermeneutic to the Gospel, where he operationalized the kingdom of God as making the world a better place (Gutiérrez 1988, 10–11). Still, the Bible is not limited to just reading; for Gutiérrez, there was more at stake than just description, one must also be an active participant in history. In praxis, this meant that humans need to take control of their destiny and look towards a society free of alienation and servitude (Gutiérrez 1988, 19). At a cursory glance, it appears that the father of liberation theology followed in the same line of thinking as the father of transhumanism. Moreover, Gutiérrez argued that “we become aware… that we are agents of history, responsible for our own destiny” (Gutiérrez 1988, 42). This sounds strikingly similar to the rallying call of Huxley. While the starting points for Huxley and Gutiérrez mirror each other, the employed methodology and resulting conclusions differ greatly.

For Gutiérrez, his theology needed to take the experience of his students and his fellow compatriots in Latin America seriously. In so doing, Gutiérrez privileged the experience of the poor and argued “that it is the poor who must be the protagonists of their own liberation (Gutiérrez 1988, 67). This viewpoint marked the beginning of the critical departure from Huxley. Unlike Gutiérrez, Huxley had a eugenic vision for the world with respect to transhumanism. It was not just the poor that bothered Huxley, but also the disabled. In his own words:

There is only one immediate thing to be done to ensure that mental defectives shall not have children. Whether this should be achieved by the prohibition of marriage, or, as many believe, by combining the method of segregation in institutions with that of sterilization for those who are at large, is not our present concern. We want a general agreement that it is not in the interests of the present community, the race of the future, or the children who might be born to defectives, that defectives should beget offspring. (Huxley 1931, 98)

For Huxley, a preventative approached was deemed the best approach to helping the disabled. Moreover, Huxley had unique propositions for society's treatment of the poor. He argued in favor of a system which would provide family allowances proportional to the family's income, so that the “stupid” do not inherit the earth (Huxley 1931, 109–110). For Huxley, the world was a survival of the fittest, and society ought to support that impulse. In this manner, Darwinism needed to be intentionally directed in society so that humanity could continue its arc of progress. Thus, the methodology which Huxley employed privileged the wealthy and powerful. Following a Darwinian lens, transhumanism allowed humankind to be active participants in natural selection. For Huxley, only those with wealth and able bodies could be active participants. Those who were “unfit to reproduce” could be replaced by those who achieved success. Huxley's solution to the disabled and poor was to enable the reproduction of the powerful over and against social justice enhancement.

Like Huxley, Gutiérrez also diagnosed the need for social progress but arrived at a vastly different conclusion: “… the poor dominated nations keep falling behind; the gap continues to grow. The underdeveloped countries, in relative terms, are always farther away from the cultural level of the center countries; for some it is difficult ever to recover the lost ground. Should things continue as they are, we will soon be able to speak of two human groups” (Gutiérrez 1988, 53). While Huxley sought to empower the powerful, Gutiérrez did not. Gutiérrez took the opposite approach in his development of the preferential option for the poor. Huxley advocated for the creation of two distinct human groups, where over time, the rich and powerful would outgrow the poor, eventually eliminating them. Gutiérrez, however, cautioned against such intentional natural selection. Following the Sermon on the Mount, Gutiérrez took seriously the claim that the meek shall inherit the world and sought to protect the meek.

It is from his relationship with the poor that Gutiérrez took a different direction than Huxley. In reading the Exodus story, Gutiérrez viewed: “The liberation of Israel is a political action. It is the breaking away from a situation of despoliation and misery and the beginning of the construction of a just and comradely society. It is the suppression of disorder and the creation of a new order” (Gutiérrez 1988, 88). In this creation, the rich do not lead the action. Just as Exodus did not have the Egyptians complete the world-building of Israel, Gutiérrez also saw the poor as the architects of their future. This political and historical act of God created the foundation for Gutiérrez's approach to the marginalized. By intervening in a way that supported the poor, God showed his favor for the oppressed. In fact, Gutiérrez asserted that God loves the poor not because they are good, but precisely because they are poor (McAfee Brown 2013, 83). This is a far cry from Huxley's approach. To this end, Gutiérrez is far more inclusive with his preferential option for the poor: “To start with a preferential option for the poor is finally to include the rich as well. To start at the opposite end with a preferential option for the rich, as the church did for centuries, cuts the church off from the poor, for the concern of the rich will always be to keep the poor from threatening them, and creative relationship will be impossible” (McAfee Brown 2013, 60). For Gutiérrez, privileging the poor provided a framework in which social enhancement can positively affect all of society, not just the powers that be.

The Transhumanist Project Through the Eyes of the Poor

While it is clear that Gutiérrez and Huxley share similar starting points—arguing that society is not as it should be—there is still a lingering methodological question when thinking about how liberation theology views the transhuman movement: Could Gutiérrez endorse a transhumanist movement that is initiated and carried out by the poor? In other words, would Gutiérrez embrace Huxley's rallying call as long as it is the marginalized who carry out the marching orders? To answer these questions, one must fully enter the territory of theology. In so doing, this essay will now turn to Gutiérrez's exegesis of the book of Job. It is through this later publication on Job that Gutiérrez limited the potentials of liberation theology.

In the book of Job, there is a wager between Satan and God over the idea of a disinterested religion (Gutiérrez 1987, 5). Satan argued that Job only loves God because he has reason to, and if God were to test Job, then Job would curse him. For Satan, Job's faith was broadly framed through a disinterested religion, and, more precisely, through a theology of retribution. This theology is one to which Job initially subscribed and which all the human characters endorsed in this book. Retributional theology posits that sin is caused by the action of the sinner, meaning that we are the pallbearers of our own suffering (Gutiérrez 1987, 21). It follows a line of thinking very akin to karma, where good is rewarded with good and vice versa with bad. This is similar to the theology that Gutiérrez learned in Europe and which was subsequently shattered by his return to Peru. The central question of Gutiérrez's book on Job was initially posed to him by the reality of his students in Latin America: How humans are meant to speak of God amidst suffering and poverty? (Gutiérrez 1987, 12). Transhumanism also seriously considers this question from a secular point of view, and firmly responds that humans ought to use technology to overcome their suffering and poverty. However, there is a puzzle that arises from the methodologies of Huxley and Gutiérrez with respect to transhumanism: Is transhumanism fundamentally aimed at drawing humanity out of poverty and illness, or is the goal to conquer death and overcome the limits of humanity, namely through the enhancement of both body and mind?

In a way, one can see a theology of retribution at play with Huxley. The particular bend that Huxley placed in his eugenics movement is one in which he hoped to reward the rich and biologically prosperous while restricting the poor and biologically impoverished. Moreover, Huxley went as far as calling for the deep-freezing of sperm during the Cold War to protect the “outstanding donors” from atomic fallout (Huxley 1931, 228). Theologically, Huxley privileged those who achieved worldly success and discarded those who suffer. This line of thinking is also picked up in the book of Job as Job's friends seek to understand and comfort him. After the wager between God and Satan, Job lost all his worldly possessions and his children. In response to his friends’ theology of retribution, where they sought to find a rationale for Job's tragic loss, Job called his friends “worthless doctors.” His friends heard Job's cries of lament, but they tried to pin the blame on Job to explain why God was punishing him. For Job, this theology does not take into consideration concrete situations, namely, the ways in which suffering and hope are lived out. For Gutiérrez, those that subscribe to this line of thinking worship their theology, instead of the God of their theology (Gutiérrez 1987, 29). In so doing, adherents of retributional theology create a causal loop where their worship serves to justify their own wealth. The conflict between Job and his friends indicates the failure of such a theology to care for the suffering.

There is a turning point in the book of Job when Job realized that he is not the only one to experience unjust suffering and pain; so, too, do the poor live and die with such grief (Gutiérrez 1987, 31). Put differently, Job recognized that his experience is universal. In this moment, Job shifted his attention away from his particular situation to the universal nature of the marginalized. Job sees himself joining the universal community of the poor. As Gutiérrez puts it: “[A]bove all, however, Job sees that commitment to the poor puts everything on a solid basis, a basis located outside his individual world in the needs of others who cannot be ignored” (Gutiérrez 1987, 48). Through these revelations, Job fully rejects the theology of his friends. However, God has yet to speak to Job, and the mystery of God is maintained. For liberation theology, no one can ever create a complete theology that understands the actions of God in the world. As such, one cannot help but wonder whether transhumanism can offer a solution to the plight of the poor while still holding onto the mystery of God.

Nonetheless, the question remains: How ought one understand God in the midst of suffering? Job now has come to recognize his suffering is a universal experience, but this is not enough to satisfy his yearnings. He continued to lament, and even spoke the most critical lament of God in the entire Bible. He declared God as irrational: “He destroys innocent and guilty alike, he laughs at the plight of the innocent, and allows a country to fall into the power of the wicked” (Gutiérrez 1987, 57). From this lament, Job demanded an audience with God. He wanted to understand his situation. On a granular level, he wanted to know where God is amid his suffering. Moreover, on a universal level, he wanted to know where God is when the poor suffer. Gutiérrez is clear to emphasize that, “in the person of Job, alone here before God, are present all the innocent of this world who suffer unjustly and ask ‘why?’ of the God in whom they believe” (Gutiérrez 1987, 68). Prior to the response of God, Gutiérrez underscored how Job sees two sides of God. For Gutiérrez, this is one of the most profound messages of the Book of Job: Job accused God of persecuting him, but he also knows that God is just and does not want humans to suffer (Gutiérrez 1987, 65). In the same God, there is a side that allows for suffering, but there is also a side that hears the laments of Job.

God's Response to Job: A Problem for Liberation Theology

It took a while for God to respond to the accusations of Job, but when he does, God established that in the beginning there was the gratuitousness of divine love, and this love—not retribution—is the hinge on which the world turns (Gutiérrez 1987, 72). This confirmed Job's rejection of his friends’ theology. God's response allows for the transhumanist question to be answered by establishing the proper roles for both God and the oppressed. Put differently, God clarifies that love overshadows justice. Moreover, God's speeches bring home the fact that humans are not the center of the universe (Gutiérrez 1987, 76). This response directly problematizes those that seek to transcend the human condition and, thus, place humans at the center of the universe. To this point, this divine decree raises issues with liberation theology's attempt to place humans at the center of the universe. Gutiérrez emphasizes the universal application of God's response to Job: “It must be said, moreover, that these words are addressed not only to Job but to all those who, like Job's friends, seek to domesticate God, subject God to their will, decide whom God is to favor, and thus attempt to win a privileged place for themselves in human society” (Gutiérrez 1987, 77). God is not only responding to Job, but he is also speaking to those in the world who experience suffering.

Thus, what Job comes to conclude with respect to the suffering poor is that God's justice does not have the final word. It is God's freely bestowed love that provides the foundation of the world, and only in light of this fact can divine justice be grasped (Gutiérrez 1987, 80). And so, Gutiérrez concludes his book on Job as such:

Job shows us a way with his vigorous protest, his discovery of concrete commitment to the poor and all who suffer unjustly, his facing up to God, and his acknowledgement of the gratuitousness that characterizes god's plan for human history. It is for us to find our own route amid the present sufferings and hopes of the poor of Latin America, to analyzes its course with the requisite historical effectiveness, and, above all, to compare it anew with the words of God. (Gutiérrez 1987, 102)

When placing Gutiérrez's treatise on Job in conversation with his on liberation theology, one runs into critical problems. The book of Job concludes with the restoration of his family, his health, and his wealth. This is not the norm with the marginalized. The conclusion reached by Gutiérrez in Job does not fit neatly with the lived experience of the poor and suffering. In fact, Gutiérrez's work on Job restricts liberation theology in such a way that it misses its mark. The preferential option for the poor is not one where the poor are needing God's divine love; rather, the poor need righteousness to roll on like a river, providing the marginalized with justice. Love does not go as far as justice. Furthermore, as liberation theology places humanity at the center of the universe, namely the poor, Gutiérrez's exegetical work on Job undermines his work on liberation theology. When reading Job through a liberationist lens, the consequential theology is one that does not privilege the marginalized. Taken together, Job hamstrings the preferential option for the poor and supplants the call to liberate the poor with a message of love.

Evidentially, Gutiérrez was not responding to either the transhumanist agenda or Huxley. Nonetheless, Gutiérrez was preoccupied with the betterment of the human condition. Both men employed particular methodologies to achieve the same goal. Huxley privileged the strong and sought to conserve their bloodline through a eugenic program. Gutiérrez took the opposite approach and developed a rich theology where he found divine love in the face of the poor. Gutiérrez concluded that it is up to us to find our own route, but with certain qualifications: God maintains his mystery and is the center of the universe. For Gutiérrez, the: “Liberation of our continent … means, in a deeper sense, to see the becoming of humankind as a process of human emancipation in history. It is to see humanity in search of a qualitatively different society in which it will be free from all servitude, in which it will be the artisan of its own destiny” (Gutiérrez 1988, 56). Consequentially, humanity is not aspiring to transcend its condition as human. With respect to transhumanism, liberation theology cannot endorse its project by forsaking the role of God. Rather, if humanity is seeking to better its condition in qualitative ways while staying human, liberation theology can accept transhumanism.

Liberation Theology and Transhumanism in the Clinic

The way in which one frames the telos of humanity greatly affects the framing of medicine: whether the telos is to cure or to care. On one hand, transhumanism embraces medical advances that enable humanity to cure its limits. On the other hand, liberation theology seeks to provide care for the poor. As a theology, the liberation of the marginalized still respects the divine role of God and does not seek to place the human in the creative throne of God. However, the operationalization of transhumanism and the ends of medicine determine whether liberation theology can endorse this movement. If medicine is seen as a practice where caring is the emphasis, not curing, then liberation theology can support it. However, the critical component for liberation theology is that medicine must begin with and privilege the poor.

The distinction between caring and curing a patient carries significant weight in the clinical context. For the transhumanist, the main slogan is that “aging is a disease that can be cured” (Benedikter and Siepmann 2016). As such, any use of medical technology that can extend one's life is not only permissible but also preferable. For example, dialysis is now commonplace in the United States. By utilizing dialysis to bypass diseased kidneys, a patient's life can be significantly extended (Ahmad 2009, 3). For most, dialysis does not appear to fall under the umbrella of transhumanism since the patient is not merging her body with medical technology. However, the Kidney Project at the University of California San Francisco is developing an implantable bioartificial kidney with the goal of widespread public availability by 2040 (UCSF Kidney Project n.d.). The use of a technological kidney is categorically different than multiple bouts of dialysis or even a kidney transplant. In this instance, a patient would merge her body with medical technology with the goal of extending life. Both traditional dialysis and a bioartificial kidney would produce the same ends of prolonging one's life, but the methodology differs. In this case, a liberation theologian would perceive dialysis as permissible, but the surgical implantation of a bioartificial kidney would encroach on the domain of God's creative process, rendering it impermissible. As it stands, dialysis functions to care for a patient; the research project out of San Francisco seeks to cure a patient.

In a similar light, there was a recent surgery where a patient received a titanium heart in order to keep the patient alive while waiting for a heart transplant (Franco 2024). This surgery marked the culmination of over a decade of research, and even allowed the recipient to engage in exercise (Franco 2024). Like the bioartificial kidney, the use of a titanium heart is another example of a human merging her body with technology with the goal of prolonging life. Put differently, it is a second clinical example of transhumanism. Yet, in this instance, the goal is to prolong one's life so that the patient can receive a heart transplant. One is not receiving a titanium heart with the intention to cure aging. In short, since this surgery privileges care for the patient over curing her disease, liberation theology can accept it. In fact, this example is more akin to utilizing traditional dialysis. As such, this is an instance in which a liberation theologian could embrace the transhumanist goal of prolonging life through technology, albeit with the critical qualifications that this technology would be available for the marginalized. However, if this procedure reached a point where it is not done solely to increase one's wait time for a heart transplant, then liberation theology would reject its use. In sum, liberation theology can accept transhumanist impulses which serve to care for patients, while rejecting interventions which seek to cure patients.

Conclusion

In sum, the transhumanist movement employs medical advances to transcend the limits of humankind. For Huxley, this is a noble goal, and intentional natural selection ought to be employed to ensure that only the fittest survive. However, the fittest correlate to the wealthy and powerful, undergirding Huxley's eugenic agenda. Liberation theology is also concerned with making the world a better place, but the locus of its movement is anchored in the everyday experience of the poor. For Gutiérrez, this is where God is found, among the suffering. Gutiérrez looks to the poor as his starting point for developing a theology that can liberate them. This is a critical difference from Huxley who actively wants to stop the poor from reproducing. While liberation theology seeks to actively change the course of history for the poor, it does not advance methods that seek to transcend the limits of humanity. As a theologian, Gutiérrez maintains a strong degree of reverence for the divine creation of God. Through his exegetical work on Job, Gutiérrez explores what his faith says about the condition of the poor and what one is capable of doing to better it. In so doing, Gutiérrez restricts the potential social justice enhancement promises by liberation theology. Nonetheless, to love the poor is to love God (Gutiérrez 1987, 115), and to know God is to work for justice—there is no other path to reach God (Gutiérrez 1987, 156). However, liberation theology is not fully at odds with the transhumanist movement. If the intention of utilizing medical technology is to care for the poor, a liberation theologian can fully embrace it. However, if the intention is to merge one's body with medical technology as a means to cure the natural progression of aging, a liberation theologian would reject such an intervention.

Biographical Note

Collin Olen-Thomas, MA, MTS, is currently a doctoral student at Loyola University and a Fellow at the MacLean Center at the University of Chicago. He has a Master of Arts in Bioethics from The Ohio State University, a Master of Arts in Religion and Society from the Princeton Theological Seminary, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and Spanish from Hope College. He worked as a trauma staff chaplain at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center after completing his chaplain residency at OSU. He has published works in The Journal of Religion and Health and The Linacre Quarterly.