I’ve been reading “Futureproofing Humanity” (2026), by Robert Geraci. Despite some minor (or perhaps not so minor) disagreements, I highly recommend reading this book.
Geraci is a religious studies scholar whose works have been published by traditional academic publishers such as Oxford University Press. But he decided to self-publish this work, because he felt traditional academic publishers priced books out of reach, including electronic editions that should be much cheaper. I totally agree. I know how to find pirated e-books (but doesn’t everyone?), so I have almost all of his previous books on my Kindle readers. But I very much prefer to pay for reasonably priced e-books, and I was happy to pay for this one. I’m not able (or willing) to enrich traditional publishers, but I’m able and very willing to buy good independently published books.
In his previous books, the author described cultural and social trends without taking sides. But here he wants to be more involved.
He argues that 21st-century futurism has become a secular religion. A tech elite has transferred humanity's oldest religious longings - immortality, resurrection, cosmic purpose - into a transcendent myth built around science and technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence (AI), urban design, and spaceflight.
Geraci’s position can be summarized as “yes, but…” He neither fully debunks nor fully celebrates this vision. Instead, he asks: is this transcendent myth the right one for our present and future? And if not, how to make it right?
The new (actually not so new) belief system, also described in the author’s first book “Apocalyptic AI” (2010), is being embraced by more and more people as a response to the growing awareness of “existential risks.” It is the fear of extinction, Geraci argues, that makes these ideas mainstream. Technologies that were considered “fringe” for decades (e.g. genetic enhancement, AI, mind uploading) gained cultural traction once "existential risk" became the organizing frame. We are faced with genuine extinction-level threats (e.g. climate change, AI, asteroids, pandemics, etc.), and we need "futureproofing" humanity to ensure we never go extinct.
The new transcendent myth
Geraci frames the whole book as a modern fairy tale. But the happy ending typical of most fairy tales is not guaranteed, and this one risks becoming a ghost story. Geraci argues that our transcendent myth, to which he now refers as “futureproofing,” must also be a responsible one.
Tracing the intellectual roots and history of transhumanism from the 19th century through the Russian Cosmists (Nikolai Fedorov's "Common Task" of resurrecting the dead and expanding to the stars) to J.B.S. Haldane, Julian Huxley, Robert Ettinger, and Ray Kurzweil, Geraci shows how science gradually displaced traditional religion while inheriting its deepest aspirations. The Extropian movement - the earliest form of contemporary transhumanism - was informed by a staunch individualist spirit and hard libertarian politics, but Geraci argues that the transhumanist project needs collective values.
Genetic engineering is one of the pillars of futureproofing — "geneticproofing." From alchemical dreams of immortality to CRISPR, Geraci traces our desire to reprogram life. He covers longevity research, biohacking, de-extinction projects like Pleistocene Park, and the ethical minefield of genetic enhancement. He argues these biotechnological dreams are genuinely useful but dangerously narrow in scope - often focused on elite salvation rather than collective flourishing.
Coming to artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics - "AIproofing" - Geraci elaborates on the "intelligence explosion" hypothesis (by e.g. Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge) and Moore's Law extrapolations. He argues that today’s large language models (LLMs) are definitely not conscious, but he is more open-minded about the possibility that future AI systems could be. However, he thinks artificial general intelligence (AGI) claims are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Geraci covers brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) such as Neuralink, the possibility of mind uploading, pattern identity theory, the concept of digital resurrection, and the simulation hypothesis - which seems to have been first suggested (as a joke) by space advocate Keith Henson. Overall, Geraci is kind of skeptical but not dismissive: the technologies are real, the possibilities are real, and also the dangers are real, but the philosophy is confused.
“Urbanproofing" is the tech elite's vision of redesigning cities and governance. From futuristic city projects to seasteading, Geraci examines attempts to build libertarian tech utopias free from existing laws and taxes. He uses Calvino's “Invisible Cities” as a literary anchor, arguing that cities are defined not just by buildings but by human relationships - something urbanproofers often ignore. Virtual worlds like Second Life offer cautionary lessons about sustainability.
Spaceflight is the convergence and the culmination of all futureproofing - "spaceproofing." Geraci traces the dream of humanity’s expansion into outer space from Fedorov's cosmic resurrection program (collecting ancestors' dust from space) through mid-20th century American frontier mythology to today's NewSpace entrepreneurs (e.g. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson). He covers O'Neill's rotating space habitats, Mars colonization plans, and the vision of "laser-porting" human consciousness across the galaxy (the idea of “human telegraph transmission” was first formulated by Norbert Wiener). Space expansion is where genetic engineering, AI, and urban design all converge: it is both the practical insurance policy for humanity and the ultimate religious transcendence.
In a chapter titled “Ghastly Potential,” Geraci examines the dark underside of futureproofing: bioterrorism risks from democratized CRISPR; AI surveillance and oligarchic control; the environmental cost of data centers and resource extraction; the social injustice of technologies reserved for the wealthy; and the risk that chasing transcendence blinds us to present suffering.
Geraci calls for a responsible myth - one that takes seriously our unstoppable aspiration to cosmic transcendence and its actual possibility, but also the genuine dangers of existential risk and the present suffering of living people. Inspired by figures like Julian Huxley (who emphasized collective fulfillment, not just individual transcendence) and African transhumanist thinkers, he argues that technological salvation must be inclusive or it is no salvation at all.
A central argument throughout the book is that futurism inherits the structure of religion (linear history, imminent salvation, resurrection, immortality) without acknowledging it. This makes it simultaneously powerful and dangerous - it mobilizes real energy but resists rational critique. Geraci argues that we need less soft, wishful thinking and more hard, rigorous thinking. Another central point, which Geraci repeatedly makes, is that "saving humanity" is often taken to mean saving only a small, very specific, wealthy subset of humanity.
Geraci is not a pessimist or a technophobe. He believes technology can help us survive, but notes that some of the technologies that could help us overcome existential risks could, if we are not careful enough, become existential risks themselves. He doesn’t dismiss our wildest technological transcendence dreams. On the contrary, he concedes that those dreams might come true and this could be a good thing. But he insists we need a myth that is genuinely inclusive, ecologically responsible, and honest about its religious character - a civilization-wide myth, not one restricted to a technological elite. In fact, he is very critical (to say the least) of tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Jef Bezos, or Sam Altman.
I loved the book after reading it the first time, and then I read it again. I’m more or less on the
same page, but with some differences (see my 2021 book “Futurist spaceflight meditations”).
The main difference is that I'm more forgiving of the tech billionaires and their followers: flawed as their personality, actions, and visions may be, I think they are nonetheless pushing toward important advances that would otherwise stagnate or never start. We all love nice people, but sometimes we need less nice people to get important things moving. Or as Robert Pirsig points out (in “Lila” and other works), it is not the nice guys who move things forward. It is the bad guys. It seems to me that the bad guys are doing just what the universe wants from them - preparing the way to the cognitive and physical explosion of humanity (in an extended sense that includes future conscious machines) toward the stars. It’s up to us nice guys (yes, I think I’m essentially a nice guy) to repair the things they break, correct the course and make it more inclusive and responsible.
Elon Musk works for me
I told Geraci that I loved the book but I had the impression that he was always pushing the gas pedal and the brake pedal at the same time. A car goes nowhere if the driver does that, I said.
He replied that there were two cars. One must keep moving, but the other must be slowed down because it's driven by bad guys that want to “move fast and break things” to accumulate more money and power.
I countered that the two cars can’t be disentangled - they are really one and the same, and we can’t just keep what is good and discard what is bad. Or in other words, the good implies the bad and the bad is the price to pay for the good, as is very often the case. And the fact of the matter is that yes, the bad guys are driving too fast and yes, they are too reckless, but… they are the ones who can drive!
As I see things, Elon Musk & Jef Bezos & Sam Altman work for me. They are much smarter than me, much more energetic, and of course way more resourceful, and yet they are pushing things in the direction I want. OK, they are not too nice. OK, perhaps they are bad guys. But so what? I admit that a society where Elon Musk (now the world’s first trillionaire after the SpaceX IPO) is so rich while too many other people are really poor doesn’t seem healthy to me. But they are driving us to the stars!
If we kick the bad guys out, then the car stays where it is and doesn't go anywhere. What we can do, I said, is to let the bad guys drive (and perhaps try and persuade them to go a bit slower and more carefully) until the next gas station (of course the next gas station represents some important milestones that we must reach fast enough, like a Moon/Mars outpost and real AI and all that). Then when the car is fueled and ready to go we can maybe learn how to drive it ourselves.
He answered that the hypercapitalist and self-aggrandizing nature of most people driving the tech agenda will, he thinks, absolutely prevent good outcomes. Terrible leaders have never produced good outcomes for either their followers or anyone those people encounter, and aren’t likely to bring us into a bright and good future. “I think the story emergent from 21st century Silicon Valley is really unhelpful,” he told me. “I don't know if we can get something better out in front of that, but failure to do so is not going to bring about a particularly good future.”
Another difference is that I don’t attribute the growing popularity of these ideas to existential risks, or at least not entirely. I don't spend any time worrying about existential risks. Instead, I spend a lot of time contemplating beautiful possible futures.
Fear sells, so I guess part of the rising popularity of what Geraci calls futureproofing must be due to the media emphasis on existential risks and doomism. But many people come from a different place, including young people - if anything, the young have always been more daring and less cautious than their elders.
In other words, I'm not motivated by fear but by hope, and I think many people are.
Despite his emphasis on futureproofing against existential risks, Geraci admits that our transcendent myth should be "architecturally built on hope." Failure is always a possibility, but success can follow from rigorous thinking, good planning, and of course some luck. “To have faith in one’s plans is inherently optimistic,” he says. “More curiously, so is having faith in throwing the dice. Despite the fact that randomness rules, success is always possible. Chancing success is a statement of hope, a testament to dreams come true. Perhaps with good planning and a little luck, we will find ours among the stars.”