As evidenced in various religions and myths throughout history, societies have yearned for improvements in the human condition and the obtainment of immortality. This longing has recently taken on new forms as modern technology has made advances in enhancing health and extending life. This is most clearly demonstrated in the transhumanist movement whose stated goal is a human flourishing understood as the elimination of aging and increased human capabilities through biotechnologies guided by “life-promoting principles and values”. While these principles and values are not explicitly laid out, a close reading of the leading transhumanist organization’s writings reveals four primary principles and values: 1) life imbued with pleasure and the absence of suffering is the ultimate good to be sought after, 2) humans have great capabilities to transcend current limitations and altering our nature for good is a noble and glorious act, 3) “bodily autonomy” should be promoted and 4) humans are not essentially embodied, bodies may in fact prove dispensable. This paper seeks to compare this perspective on life with that developed by Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics III/4 under “Respect for Life”. In this section, Barth lays out his understanding of life as a loan which is to be given respect. Barth’s working out of this concept develops a view of life that 1) is a good but not absolute good, 2) includes creaturely independence and power, but in such a way that is used not for self-glorification but in gratitude, 3) is lived not in isolation but in freedom for God and others and 4) is understood as a unity of soul and body, an embodied existence. I argue that Barth offers a constructive approach towards technology that promotes human flourishing based on life as a gift, but within limits and as a qualified good.