Yesterday, Pope Leo XIV published the encyclical — that is, a papal letter — Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity). There is no explicit Luddism in this text. On the contrary, Chris Olah, the head of interpretability and a co-founder of Anthropic, was invited to its presentation; he spoke about the need to support workers affected by automation.
The Pope’s main message is the “disarmament” of AI — above all, the end of the use of AI for military purposes. Anthropic, notably, had received threats from the Trump administration for refusing to let the Pentagon use AI to develop fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Anthropic is clearly a more responsible and ethical company than, say, OpenAI, and its “constitution” — that is, the values instilled into its AI — was written with the participation of Catholic priests.
Nevertheless, this “alliance” is not without contradictions. Two weeks ago, the company published a letter arguing for the need to preserve an advantage over China in the AI race, while the Pope writes about the danger of such an approach for the sake of geopolitical dominance. In the encyclical, disarmament means not only rejecting the direct use of AI for military purposes, but also refusing monopolistic control: the values of AI should not be dictated by a single company, even the most ethical one. This process should be open, and society should have the ability to slow down the deployment of AI if institutions are not ready for it: “not a rejection of technology, but the prevention of its domination over humanity.”
Finally, Leo XIV considers it necessary to ensure universal access both to technology and to the education needed to use it. Although human beings cannot be reduced to their contribution to the economy, and although the text repeatedly emphasizes their intrinsic value, work is considered by the Church to be an integral part of human dignity. Therefore, financial assistance to the poor — though necessary — should not become the main response to unemployment. However, the Pope understands the complexity of the transitional period and stresses that unemployment should not exclude a person from public life.
Perhaps many of these proposals are easy to agree with. Indeed, rapid automation without any social guarantees or redistribution of profits will lead to growing inequality, while the lack of state control over AI may give companies disproportionate power and influence over society. As Leo XIV notes, in the age of AI, we cannot fully rely on the “invisible hand of the market.”
But as soon as the document turns directly to human life, suffering, and the overcoming of suffering, Leo XIV remains faithful to Catholic tradition. The reader of the encyclical may even be pleased by the Pope’s understanding of the current state of transhumanism and posthumanism, which he sees not as a single ideology, but rather as “archipelagos of islands in a shared sea of ideas.” The central role is rightly assigned to technology and to overcoming the limitations of human nature.
And here the contradiction emerges again: while Anthropic founder Dario Amodei hopes that, in the coming decades, AI will be able to substantially reduce human suffering, cure most diseases, including mental illnesses, and allow people to live indefinitely without aging — thereby surpassing those very limits — Leo XIV is more inclined to defend human nature as it is.
Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude.
In defense of this thesis, the Pope cites the famous words of the existentialist Viktor Frankl, who survived the Holocaust:
We have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.
Of course, this does not mean that the Pope claims the Holocaust was necessary for human flourishing. But if we do not regard such an obvious evil as necessary, and if we dream again and again of leaving it in the past, why can we not also dream of curing all diseases — including aging itself and endometriosis?
In fact, the best answer to the Pope may come from… Viktor Frankl himself:
Is this to say that suffering is indispensable to the discovery of meaning? In no way. I only insist that meaning is available in spite of—nay, even through—suffering, provided, that the suffering is unavoidable. If it is avoidable, the meaningful thing to do is to remove its cause, for unnecessary suffering is masochistic rather than heroic
Transhumanists believe that human enhancement will not undermine human dignity, but rather allow people to live more freely and realize their own potential more fully than ever before in history. These possibilities — and here many transhumanists agree with the Pope — should not belong to a narrow group of people, but should be available to all humanity.
Although Leo XIV argues that “if a human being is treated as something to be improved or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept the idea that some lives are less useful, less desirable, or less worthy,” transhumanism does not deny humanism. There are many paths of development and improvement, and the best thing we can do is remove the obstacles that prevent people from searching for and following those paths.
This progress is not only technological, but also social. Neither transhumanists nor posthumanists believe that, as technology develops, society will remain frozen in the same ideas and practices it has today. It is in our interest to expand our capacity for the human: for empathy, for the ability to see ourselves in others and others in ourselves. And perhaps the Church will not become our enemy on this path: the Pope speaks of the possibility of accepting “technological progress that relieves suffering and opens up new possibilities, provided that we do not abandon the very essence of our humanity: the capacity for relationship and love.”
What matters is not being human, but being humane - Nick Bostrom.
Yesterday, Pope Leo XIV published the encyclical — that is, a papal letter — Magnifica Humanitas (Magnificent Humanity). There is no explicit Luddism in this text. On the contrary, Chris Olah, the head of interpretability and a co-founder of Anthropic, was invited to its presentation; he spoke about the need to support workers affected by automation.
The Pope’s main message is the “disarmament” of AI — above all, the end of the use of AI for military purposes. Anthropic, notably, had received threats from the Trump administration for refusing to let the Pentagon use AI to develop fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Anthropic is clearly a more responsible and ethical company than, say, OpenAI, and its “constitution” — that is, the values instilled into its AI — was written with the participation of Catholic priests.
Nevertheless, this “alliance” is not without contradictions. Two weeks ago, the company published a letter arguing for the need to preserve an advantage over China in the AI race, while the Pope writes about the danger of such an approach for the sake of geopolitical dominance. In the encyclical, disarmament means not only rejecting the direct use of AI for military purposes, but also refusing monopolistic control: the values of AI should not be dictated by a single company, even the most ethical one. This process should be open, and society should have the ability to slow down the deployment of AI if institutions are not ready for it: “not a rejection of technology, but the prevention of its domination over humanity.”
Finally, Leo XIV considers it necessary to ensure universal access both to technology and to the education needed to use it. Although human beings cannot be reduced to their contribution to the economy, and although the text repeatedly emphasizes their intrinsic value, work is considered by the Church to be an integral part of human dignity. Therefore, financial assistance to the poor — though necessary — should not become the main response to unemployment. However, the Pope understands the complexity of the transitional period and stresses that unemployment should not exclude a person from public life.
Perhaps many of these proposals are easy to agree with. Indeed, rapid automation without any social guarantees or redistribution of profits will lead to growing inequality, while the lack of state control over AI may give companies disproportionate power and influence over society. As Leo XIV notes, in the age of AI, we cannot fully rely on the “invisible hand of the market.”
But as soon as the document turns directly to human life, suffering, and the overcoming of suffering, Leo XIV remains faithful to Catholic tradition. The reader of the encyclical may even be pleased by the Pope’s understanding of the current state of transhumanism and posthumanism, which he sees not as a single ideology, but rather as “archipelagos of islands in a shared sea of ideas.” The central role is rightly assigned to technology and to overcoming the limitations of human nature.
And here the contradiction emerges again: while Anthropic founder Dario Amodei hopes that, in the coming decades, AI will be able to substantially reduce human suffering, cure most diseases, including mental illnesses, and allow people to live indefinitely without aging — thereby surpassing those very limits — Leo XIV is more inclined to defend human nature as it is.
Our relationship with life seems to be in crisis today. Everything that appears as a “limit” — incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability — tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected, rather than as a reality through which our humanity matures and opens itself to relationship. And yet we must remember that humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them. While it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life, it is also wise to acknowledge our fundamental finitude.
In defense of this thesis, the Pope cites the famous words of the existentialist Viktor Frankl, who survived the Holocaust:
We have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips.
Of course, this does not mean that the Pope claims the Holocaust was necessary for human flourishing. But if we do not regard such an obvious evil as necessary, and if we dream again and again of leaving it in the past, why can we not also dream of curing all diseases — including aging itself and endometriosis?
In fact, the best answer to the Pope may come from… Viktor Frankl himself:
Is this to say that suffering is indispensable to the discovery of meaning? In no way. I only insist that meaning is available in spite of—nay, even through—suffering, provided, that the suffering is unavoidable. If it is avoidable, the meaningful thing to do is to remove its cause, for unnecessary suffering is masochistic rather than heroic
Transhumanists believe that human enhancement will not undermine human dignity, but rather allow people to live more freely and realize their own potential more fully than ever before in history. These possibilities — and here many transhumanists agree with the Pope — should not belong to a narrow group of people, but should be available to all humanity.
Although Leo XIV argues that “if a human being is treated as something to be improved or surpassed, it becomes easier to accept the idea that some lives are less useful, less desirable, or less worthy,” transhumanism does not deny humanism. There are many paths of development and improvement, and the best thing we can do is remove the obstacles that prevent people from searching for and following those paths.
This progress is not only technological, but also social. Neither transhumanists nor posthumanists believe that, as technology develops, society will remain frozen in the same ideas and practices it has today. It is in our interest to expand our capacity for the human: for empathy, for the ability to see ourselves in others and others in ourselves. And perhaps the Church will not become our enemy on this path: the Pope speaks of the possibility of accepting “technological progress that relieves suffering and opens up new possibilities, provided that we do not abandon the very essence of our humanity: the capacity for relationship and love.”
What matters is not being human, but being humane - Nick Bostrom.