This paper presents some of the findings of a larger book project that will be published in the end of 2026 called Hope and the Future of Man. In the book, I consider two new contexts for eschatological reflection, i.e. emergent technologies (transhumanism) and climate change (ecology). These two contexts gain increasing attention from philosophers, theologians, political thinkers and futurists. As Jonathan White writes in a recent book on the notion of future in politics: “In a world of expected tipping points and exponential change, from climate change to artificial intelligence, this capacity to find orientation in the face of the unpredictable seems more important than ever” (White 2024, 211).
My focus in this paper for the AAR-session is on emergent technologies, especially the eschatological vision of futurist and transhumanist Ray Kurzweil. I compare his vision in relation to climate change in order to interpret the hopes and fears connected to transhumanist’s eschatology. My primary focus will be on Kurzweil’s newest work The Singularity is Nearer (Kurzweil 2024) in comparison with anthropologist and philosopher of science Bruno Latour’s book If We Loose the Earth, We Loose our Souls (Latour 2024). Where ecology has been a conversation partner for religious eschatology for five decades, transhumanism has only recently become prevalent in the same conversations. But transhumanism is now indispensable, as Michael Burdett says, since, “technology has become a strong force in our consideration of the ideal society and the future” (Burdett 2015, 47).
Both in relation to the prospects of emergent technologies and climate change we see three different types of responses. The first response is to call both a hype and deny that technology or climate change are subversive phenomena in our time. The second response is fear resulting in a call for radical transformation or even prohibition to innovation and consumption. The third response is hope, seeing our time as a Zeitenwende with the possibility of new directions for humanity. Kurzweil represents the third type, while Latour represents a modest version of the second type. I will situate the discussion more carefully and explicitly in the final paper, but for now this illustrate the comparability between emergent technologies and climate change.
Next, I investigate what these types of responses hold in relation to three contrasting opposites of eschatological themes: Continuity versus discontinuity as the overarching dichotomy, and then time versus space, and individual versus communal. Since this is a session on human enhancement and transhumanism, I focus on Kurzweil’s eschatology and only compares shortly to Latour’s eschatology.
1. The relationship between continuity and discontinuity is the primary distinction when we think of future possibilities. In traditional religious eschatology, this theme gains much attention, but I will argue that it is also the main focus of secular technological eschatologies. I focus on Kurzweil’s distinction between body identity and consciousness (mind identity). Surprisingly, he seems inconclusive on which is primary but he could be understood as emphasizing continuation of mind identity over body identity (Kurzweil 2024, ch. 3). If this is correct, then he is contradicting Latour’s ecology where the whole biosphere is intimately connected and therefore not possible to imagine without foundational continuity.
However, Kurzweil and Latour are also alike in the sense that they see the causal forces of today as determining the future of humanity and the planet. In relation to transhumanism, Burdett says that the proponents of transhumanism “advocate that the future is entirely dependent upon the present. The future is an outworking of the causal forces of today and the decisions humans make in planning for their future today,” (Burdett 2015, 99) and this could also be a characterization of the philosophical presupposition of Latour’s ecological eschatology.
2. As to time versus space, Kurzweil is hard to situate because he is open to emphasizing both aspects. In some places, he outlays a very timely vision where enhancement technologies are incorporated into the biological body, creating cyborgs that will overcome biological shortcomings (Kurzweil 2024, 109). The ambition here is to prolong the life infinitely and thereby challenge the time frame that is now seen as inevitably a part of human life. In other places, his intense support of mind-uploading shows that he also thinks of eschatology in relation to space, and that salvation can be understood as detached from the body (Kurzweil 2024, 104-105). In the final paper, I will consider if space is necessary for religious eschatological reflection as Andrew Davison has recently suggested (without saying that the vocabulary corresponds to reality): “perhaps such spatial metaphors are indispensable for human thought, but only intimate what we cannot conceive” (Davison 2023, 346). If this is correct, it could compromise the intelligibility of Kurzweil’s spatial prophecies. Latour’s ecological thinking, on the other hand, focuses entirely on space and says that time is not a relevant since the time is already up.
3. As to individual versus communal, Kurzweil has a strong emphasis on the individual. His aspirations are usually described in the plural ("we will ..."), but the content is thoroughly individualistic. This is shared by much of transhumanist eschatology (White 2024, 149) even though there is no uniformity.
I end my paper by concluding that emergent technologies and climate change are the most relevant contexts for discussing religious eschatology today. And I conclude that Kurzweil is pushing the reflections in new directions with his vision that is (a) emphasizing continuity but primarily for a non-material existence, (b) inconclusive on the time/space-distinction, and (c) thoroughly individualistic. These eschatological visions are as relevant as ever, since – as Félix Bodin said – “everyone prepares a future according to his fantasy” (Bodin 2008, 38).
References
Bodin, Félix. The Novel of the Future (Hollywood Comics, 2008 [1834]).
Burdett, Michael. Eschatology and the Technological Future (Routledge, 2015).
Davison, Andrew. Astrobiology and Christian Doctrine (Cambridge University Press, 2023).
Latour, Bruno. If We Loose the Earth, We Loose our Souls (Polity, 2024).
Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity is Nearer (Viking, 2024).
White, Jonathan. In the Long Run. The Future as a Political Idea (Profile, 2024).
New contexts appear for religious eschatological reflections. This presentation focuses on the transhumanist vision of Ray Kurzweil and compares it with the ecological eschatology of Bruno Latour. Kurzweil argues for a horizontal understanding of the future without divine interference, for a continuous negotiation between spatial and temporal aspects of the future, and for a continuation of the present into the future but mostly with an emphasis on non-materiality, i.e., mind-uploading. Latour shares the horizontal framework but focuses entirely on the spatial aspect since times already up for the planet’s ecological system, and he emphasizes continuity for the material world since the entanglement of the biosphere makes salvation without the ecosystem unintelligible. The comparison highlights some of the particular themes in transhumanism eschatology and informs new conversations on religious eschatological reflection in general.