I was looking forward to this conference for months. It was my only opportunity in the year to get together with friends that I interact online throughout the year. The line up of speakers was impressive. There were academics, activists, engineers, theologians, pastors and entrepreneurs which made it for a fairly unique event destined to spark engaging dialogue and stretch us into uncomfortable spaces.
In the opening, Micah Redding, Christian Transhumanist Association (CTA) president and founder mentioned that if the conference did no make you uncomfortable then it was not doing its job. This was not a place for cozy group think. In eyes of many, Christianity and Transhumanism make for strange bedfellows. Furthermore, mixing religion, science and technology is still a novel concept. As an emerging organization, CTA is still defining its own identity in an environment where many are too willing to dismiss it as an oxymoron. On the one hand, Science and Technology are weary of religious talk getting into their business. Religious people, on the other hand, get very uncomfortable with movements that exalt a changing humanity.
Entering a new world
The morning kicked off with Bio Logos VP, Jim Stump. He offered preliminary thoughts on how to engage Transhumanism from a Christian perspective. In his view, the jury was still out on the movement and its impact. With that said, instead of fearful rejection, he proposed active engagement. In other words, it was an opportunity to enter the conversation as disciples of Christ with humility, caution and openness.
This was a fitting introduction as the speakers that followed exemplified that engagement. They offered a Christian cultural critique that was not limited to Transhumanism but expanded into digital cultures, AI and the Internet. It is hard to summarize here all the great points made throughout these presentations. I hope that CTA posts the presentations so those interested can browse through them.
One speaker that stood out was Liz Parish. Liz was patient zero in genetic modification treatment. She underwent this unprecedented procedure in 2015 and since then has stayed involved in the longevity and human enhancement movement as an entrepreneur. Her company, BioViva, seeks to find safe ways to expand to make genetic intervention more affordable. Watching her presentation gave mixed feelings of awe, hope and fear. It reminded me that we were entering a new world, one full of possibilities but with no shortage of dangers. Messing with our genes is not something I am comfortable with. Yet, what if that is the way for the cure of many terminal diseases? Don’t we owe ourselves to at least try? Liz Parish’s life and work challenged us all to re-think our pre-conceived answers to these questions.
Learning Solidarity
Right before lunch, I received a text from Micah. I was scheduled to speak in the afternoon right before a panel on future and equity. My presentation explored how the movie Black Panther, as a prime example of Afro-Futurism, represented a hopeful, original and promising vision for the future. In the text, Micah informed me that Cheryle Renee Moses, an African-American activist and one of the key speakers in the event objected to the title of my presentation “Dreaming Alternative Futures with Black Panther.” The plan was to sit down at lunch to discuss her concerns.
In our conversation, Cheryle expressed that she had reservations with the fact that I, a Euro-Brazilian was speaking about a story that belonged to Africans. She was also offended at the word “dreaming” for it reminded her of how slave owners have used that word to keep slaves from asserting their humanity. To be more specific, she was referring to how Christianity was used to tell slaves to simply hope for a better future after death rather than fight for freedom. It reminded her, I write this with tears in my eyes, of how the gospel was used, and in some cases continues to be used for social control and racial subjugation.
There was no choice other than to pull the presentation from the program and to extend the following forum on future and equities. From a personal level this was a difficult decision. I had poured hours into that presentation and thought that it would actually connect a mostly white and male audience with a beautiful African vision of the future. Yet, there was something happening here much bigger than that. If we were to be serious about equitable futures, we could not ignore Cheryle’s concern. As an activist, she was speaking for the margins in a way that none of us could. Her voice at that moment was more important than anything I had to say.
In the forum, Cheryle reminded us of the uncomfortable truths about racism and how this continues to impact even the conversations we were having about technology, faith and the future. She challenged the audience to expand their networks to ensure they were hearing perspectives from diverse voices. For a room full of white men, still the vast majority involved in the conversation, the awkwardness was palpable. It was an unplanned, uncomfortable, awkward moment that was sorely needed.
A few days later, after reflecting on this experience, it dawned on me that I never apologized or expressed sympathy for the hurtful reality that Cheryle was bringing forth. Thankfully, I was able to call her this week and express my heartfelt sorrow for this painful heritage that we often want to forget rather than make it right. Cheryle graciously accepted my apologies and thanked me for reaching out. I also asked her to review this text to ensure I was not working under short-sighted assumptions in my writing. Part of building equitable futures is learning to listen to diverse voices and feel their pain.
It is only in solidarity that we can move forward.
Fruitful Conversations
Like most conferences, great dialogue happens in the breakout sessions. In an age of on-demand streaming, one can watch great speakers at the tip of their fingers. What is rare and even more valuable is good old face-to-face conversations. We were a small but high caliber group. Among attendants there were scientists, theologians, college students, professors, pastors and a good share of technology enthusiasts. The conference offered two opportunities for break out conversations with a broad range of topics.
In the first one, I attended a break out on “AI and the impact on the local church.” Not surprisingly the topic attracted its share of ministry-oriented folks. It did not take long, about 5 minutes to be precise, for our conversation to veer into sex-bots. That’s what happens when pastors discuss AI, we joked . Beyond that, we had fruitful discussions on the differences between narrow and general AI, applications for ministry and the technology impact on social inclusion. Some reported the church’s reluctance to embrace new technologies. Others discussed the benefits and perils of taking virtual communion or conducting virtual baptism. Welcome to doing ministry in the 21st century.
In the second breakout, I joined a stimulating conversation on the future of Christian Transhumanism (XH+). We discussed the baggage Transhumanism carries and why many Christians are reluctant to join or be identified with the movement. There is also resistance from secular Transhumanism in accepting the legitimacy of a religious voice. We explored which audiences had the most to benefit from XH+ and found that it would fit well within a faith at work movement. At its best, the XH+ could help Christians boldly connect their faith with their vocations. Yet, our discussion left many unanswered questions. What is XH+? How does it fit the church ecosystem? What does it believe? These are questions the CTA will be engaging for years to come.
Unexpected Ending
Science Mike closed the night with a stimulating and at times entertaining presentation on technology, faith and Transhumanism. He brought up many valuable points. For one, he questioned the narrative that AI is overtaking humanity and computers would surpass human intelligence. Showing recent trends in computer performance, Mike bluntly put: “Electrons are getting tired of our shit!” In short, we are now finding limits in Moore’s law challenging the projections for machine super intelligence. He also questioned the possibility of brain uploading, cryonics and even whether life prolongation was desirable.
At points, he delivered heart-felt reflections on how one could live out a Christian faith in the midst of so much technological change. He affirmed the bodily shape of our humanity asserting that mind uploading was simply confusing people with brains on a stick. He also encouraged us to re-think our relationship with technology as a separate entity from nature. As an example, he said we should look at Manhattan as an island filled with human nests. In making these points, he offered some provocative insights to help us move forward in a time of great confusion.
Unfortunately, his talk ended in a very pessimistic tone. Mike was weary of Silicon Valley and American Christianity, claiming that both were built on a foundation of white supremacy. Because of that, he lost faith in them and instead was looking for ways to live a Christian life that resisted these forces. Hence, he saw little hope on technology or the church in effecting positive change in the world.
While partially agreeing with his assessment, I was disappointed that he could not also see the potential and opportunity for Christianity and technology in our time. That is what attracted me the XH+ in the first place. I saw it as an alternative to the prevailing luddite narrative that focuses on the negative impact of technology in the world. While he left a grave reminder of our current reality, he overlooked the potentiality of technology and faith. These issues are not mutually exclusive, we can dismantle oppressive systems while building an alternative equitable-techno-natural-spiritual future. In fact, accomplishing the first is only possible by pursuing the second.
I would like to hear more about this hopeful vision in the 2020 CTA conference.
