2. Speaking of God in the Post-Human Era: An Examination of Radical Life Extension in Relation to Key Theological Concepts and Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid advancements in radical life extension technologies contribute to humanity’s ever-changing world. The normalization of radical life extension technologies would signify that the present era in which biology and evolution act as dictators of human life and health would come to an end, thereby ushering in the age of the post-human. The purpose of this paper is to engage in a theological analysis of how and to what degree the ways in which humanity speaks about God could be changed or influenced if radical life extension becomes normative within society. . It is likely that this powerful technology would have a significant impact on many facets of culture, including the way in which humanity engages with religion, in particular Christianity. To accomplish this, the technology that could potentially support radical life extension, namely nanotechnology and cybernetic immortality, will be explained in terms of their relevance and function. Subsequently, the affects of radical life extension for human life will be addressed. Specifically, the implications of the partial or full eradication of human biological and psychological suffering and death through the use of cybernetic immortality and nanotechnology and will be considered. From there, the core theological concepts and narratives will be analyzed in the context of the potential actualization of radical life extension technology. A focus will be placed on the ethic of loving thy neighbour, Christ’s suffering on the cross, the hope of salvation and the Christian hope of entrance into heaven after death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".