Our Transhumanist, Sci-Fi Future Has Arrived. But You’re Not Going To Like It 89%

By John Daniel Davidson96%

7/23/2026, 11:31:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.3% saturation with 354 hits. Analysis detected 2,819 faulty-reasoning hits from 974 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.8% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,408 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.30% of the article peer group.

It doesn’t take a prophet or a philosopher to see that technological progress isn’t leading us into some futuristic utopia. 
Quite the opposite: it’s amplifying and instrumentalizing the worst aspects of human nature  for domination, for power, for the indulgence of our appetites, above all for mastery over the created order, including over death itself. 
The desire for immortality is of course what’s behind the transhumanist movement. 
For as much as our cultural discourse these days focuses on transgenderism, that’s a relatively minor aspect of the larger ideology of transhumanism, to which many of our tech elites in Silicon Valley, the people who are building out artificial intelligence, openly subscribe. 
That being the case, one of the things we need to wrap our heads around as we march further into the era of AI and mass digital technology, is that everything that can be done with technology will be done. 
That doesn’t just mean we might find a cure for cancer, or invent a source of renewable clean energy. 
It also means the transhumanist dream of immortality will turn into a demonic, inhuman nightmare. 
Forget about transgender medical mutilation, as evil as that is. 
I’m talking about things like the development of artificial wombs, human-animal chimeras, and clones grown in a lab for the purpose of harvesting organs and blood. 
These aren’t things that might happen in some sci-fi future, they’re beginning to happen now. 
Bryan Johnson, the Silicon Valley tycoon who believes he can reverse the aging process through technology  and is experimenting on himself, in a very public way, to prove it  announced this week that he has cloned himself for the purpose of growing replacement organs and harvesting blood. 
“I just cloned myself… as a newborn,” Johnson wrote on X. 
“This baby-bryan lives in a petri dish for now. 
This may be scary to some people  a dystopian future. 
But, for others, they will see it as the inevitable future of health.” 
While Johnson might not have a full-grown body double he’s keeping in a lab somewhere, what he’s done looks forward to a future where that might be possible  indeed, is likely inevitable (note that he says his clone is in a petri dish “for now”). 
Johnson had his blood drawn, cells extracted, and then reprogrammed as stem cells. 
With these cells, he can in theory grow spare body parts, organs for transplantation, inject “young cells,” and, as Johnson puts it, “become my own blood boy.” 
He intends to do all of that, and possibly more. 
Johnson, who often appears in public wearing a “don’t die” T-shirt, believes these technologies can reduce what he calls his “biological age.” 
This will be accomplished, he believes, in part by turning over all his choices to specially-created AIs that dictate what he eats, when he sleeps, what he does. 
Almost every aspect of his life is determined by what this technology tells him to do. 
It is, for him, a kind of god that he serves. 
Johnson first became widely known a few years ago when TIME Magazine featured him in a puff profile. 
I wrote about him in my book, Pagan America, as an example of how the transhumanist movement is a form of neopaganism that will treat AI like a new form of deity, veritably worshipping it in exchange for powers and abilities that would otherwise be out of reach  like prolonged life. 
The desire for prolonged life is of course a perennial aspect of the human condition. 
In ages past, a witch or a pagan priest would consume the blood of a sacrificial victim for this purpose. 
Not much has changed. 
In Johnson’s case, early on in his experiment, he injected himself with the blood plasma of his 18-year-old son in hopes it would reverse his own aging process. 
He abandoned the practice only because it didn’t produce results. 
What we have here is a form of paganism, enhanced and to some extent hidden by the wonders of modern technology. 
But the basic worldview is unmistakably pagan: in exchange for fealty and sacrifice, a person will be given power. 
That’s the bargain Johnson is making, whether he fully realizes it or not. 
All pagan systems, for example, rely on some form of human sacrifice. 
In the emerging neopagan future, amid the decline of Christian civilization, human sacrifice will return in new forms. 
Indeed, new technologies will bring new forms of human sacrifice, like the creation of clones by the ultrawealthy for the purpose of harvesting organs and blood. 
Critics will dismiss this argument as irrational fearmongering, the objections of Luddites and fundamentalists. 
The benefits that come with the progress of science and technology, they’ll say, cannot be denied. 
But there is no point in counting the benefits without counting the cost. 
The cost, in this case, is our humanity. 
We see this is the practice of abortion, IVF, even surrogacy. 
In each of these cases, the dignity of the unborn child is violated. 
It is the same with euthanasia, which in countries like Canada is quickly becoming mainstream, offered to the elderly and infirm by a medical establishment that would rather administer death than cure disease. 
These things are always euphemistically presented as a form of “health care,” which is exactly what Johnson does, calling it “the future of health.” 
It’s important, then, to call these things by their true names. 
In the case of technology that allows us to create clones for the purpose of harvesting organs and blood and cells, it’s nothing more than slavery and human sacrifice. 
As such, it’s also a great crime, a wicked and demonic practice that should, in a civilized society, be strictly outlawed. 
All the tech jargon in the world won’t change that. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.9%John Daniel Davidson: 12.6%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias17.9%This article: 4.1%John Daniel Davidson: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 5.9%John Daniel Davidson: 5.6%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 2.8%John Daniel Davidson: 3.3%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.4%John Daniel Davidson: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.4%This article: 4.7%John Daniel Davidson: 4.0%The Federalist: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 4.8%John Daniel Davidson: 5.2%The Federalist: 10.2%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.8%John Daniel Davidson: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.8%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 1.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%John Daniel Davidson: 6.7%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias17.5%This article: 35.2%John Daniel Davidson: 13.6%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias35.2%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%John Daniel Davidson: 4.7%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error1.6%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%John Daniel Davidson: 3.2%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 1.2%John Daniel Davidson: 5.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.2%This article: 2.3%John Daniel Davidson: 0.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 1.9%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%John Daniel Davidson: 2.5%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 5.3%John Daniel Davidson: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%John Daniel Davidson: 3.9%The Federalist: 5.2%Ad Hominem1.4%This article: 5.9%John Daniel Davidson: 5.2%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man5.9%This article: 9.8%John Daniel Davidson: 5.9%The Federalist: 5.2%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 12.5%John Daniel Davidson: 3.4%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma12.5%This article: 17.9%John Daniel Davidson: 15.5%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope17.9%This article: 7.3%John Daniel Davidson: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning7.3%This article: 11.3%John Daniel Davidson: 20.8%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization11.3%This article: 2.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring2.0%This article: 1.6%John Daniel Davidson: 1.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 13.3%John Daniel Davidson: 8.3%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 8.2%John Daniel Davidson: 4.4%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 1.0%John Daniel Davidson: 3.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.2%John Daniel Davidson: 2.4%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof2.2%This article: 2.1%John Daniel Davidson: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature2.1%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.1%John Daniel Davidson: 2.4%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal9.1%This article: 0.4%John Daniel Davidson: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.4%This article: 3.5%John Daniel Davidson: 3.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%John Daniel Davidson: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.8%John Daniel Davidson: 1.4%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote7.8%This article: 2.1%John Daniel Davidson: 0.9%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 36.3%John Daniel Davidson: 22.7%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice36.3%This article: 14.0%John Daniel Davidson: 6.7%The Federalist: 5.4%Indoctrination14.0%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%John Daniel Davidson: 20.8%The Federalist: 15.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%John Daniel Davidson: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

974 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.0%attributed speech925writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBryan Johnson • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bryan Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+97.1 ptsWriter: 2.9%Bryan Johnson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.3 ptsWriter: 38.3%Bryan Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Bryan Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Bryan Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Bryan Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.