Submitted by watermelon in Anarchism (edited )
Genetically engineering supposedly 'superior' humans, that's just eugenics with a new delivery system, right? I don't see how that won't create more hierarchy. Am I missing something here?
Comments
Sails wrote
ableism:
That's crazy.
watermelon OP wrote (edited )
No, I don't think I'm doing that. Publishing the data doesn't stop it from being a hierarchy, the hierarchy is created by people with access to the resources to build the technologies gaining advantages over those without access to the resources for whatever reason.
soylentbomb wrote
Publishing the data doesn't stop it from being a hierarchy, the hierarchy is created by people with access to the resources to build the technologies gaining advantages over those without access to the resources for whatever reason.
Is this disparity in access to resources not what we, as anarchists (transhumanist or otherwise), already oppose?
watermelon OP wrote
Oppose it all you want, it won't change the fact that the resources are scarce and extracting them exploits the environment and the people living there.
soylentbomb wrote
I don't accept that as fact, but I think that's a bit outside the scope of conversation.
Taking that as true, then, how is any anarchism possible if such a pervasive hierarchy is insurmountable?
ziq_lite wrote
The point (for green anarchists) is to reject lifestyles that increase hierarchy and exploitation. Resuse and repurpose rather than extracting more resources to attain a disnonnected and fleeting luxury at the expense of life.
Building an ideology around perpetual technological advancement is ground that's been well travelled under capitalism. Maintaining any kind of anarchy under a system based on industrial advancenent would be an uphill battle to say the least.
soylentbomb wrote
The point (for green anarchists) is to reject lifestyles that increase hierarchy and exploitation.
I would sincerely hope that any anarchist would be attentive to how their conceptualization of anarchism interacts with the world beyond society. See also my reply to u/Pop.
Resuse and repurpose rather than extracting more resources to attain a disnonnected and fleeting luxury at the expense of life.
Agreed. I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be a counterpoint.
Building an ideology around perpetual technological advancement is ground that's been well travelled under capitalism.
Not necessarily essential to transhumanism, nor is any 'perpetual' ground well-travelled. The rhetoric of capitalism may try to conflate perpetual increases in returns on investment with technoprogressivism, but that doesn't quite make it so.
Maintaining any kind of anarchy under a system based on industrial advancenent would be an uphill battle to say the least.
Well worth the effort, in my opinion, considering the alternative is orders of magnitude less populous, shorter lived, and less diverse.
ziq_lite wrote (edited )
I would sincerely hope that any anarchist would be attentive to how their conceptualization of anarchism interacts with the world beyond society.
However much anarcho-transhumanists want these things to be non exploitative, words are meaningless when you realize industrialism was, is, and will be oppressing, starving and killing billions of people worldwide.
What does anarcho-transhumanism offer in way of action? How will your small group; that for all intents and purposes only exists on obscure internet forums, stand up to capitalist industrialism as it continues to lead the way to apocalypse?
What use is it advocating for egalitarian reform when all the science shows us we've gone far past the point of no return and no amount of reform is going to save us now? If we don't abolish industrialism, our children won't have a planet left. Reforming industrialism at this point is like trying to reform capitalism. It's too late. Mass-scale industry is a brutal dead end. Most of the technologies anarcho-transhumanists envision require mass-scale industry.
Not necessarily essential to transhumanism, nor is any 'perpetual' ground well-travelled. The rhetoric of capitalism may try to conflate perpetual increases in returns on investment with technoprogressivism, but that doesn't quite make it so.
I honestly don't understand this. I've read a lot of antranshumanist lit and it's very apparent that the goal is to evolve humanity through technology. That means the technology needs to keep advacing. I don't like when people use such vague definitions of their ideologies so that discussion about goals becomes impossible. Praxis is all that matters. Words are cheap.
soylentbomb wrote
industrialism was, is, and will be oppressing, starving and killing billions of people worldwide.
When in service to the state, capitalism, etc, yes. I don't consider them inseparable.
What use is it advocating for egalitarian reform when all the science shows us we've gone far past the point of no return and no amount of reform is going to save us now?
You've read what you wanted to hear into the scientific consensus - go re-familiarize yourself with it. Also, that's terrible abuse of the word "reform."
Good job arguing against anarchism in general, though.
I've read a lot of antranshumanist lit
There isn't a lot of "antranshumanist" lit to read yet. Were you reading general transhumanist lit? How were you determing what bits were or were not relevant to anarchotranshumanism?
it's very apparent that the goal is to evolve humanity through technology.
Many would consider that a goal. The goal is a better world. There's a reason so much transhumanist discussion is about things other than modifying the human body and mind - e.g. existential risk analysis, nonhuman animal personhood, bioethical abolitionism, etc.
I don't like when people use such vague definitions of their ideologies so that discussion about goals becomes impossible.
The trick to anarchotranshumanism being less vague is to stop ignoring the anarchism part, and stop focusing exclusively on the speculative part of transhumanism.
Pop wrote
I think that's a bit outside the scope of conversation.
For (green) anarchists, this is the conversation (among other things), so to assume that it isn't is to ignore the critique being made in the first place
soylentbomb wrote (edited )
I meant that my reasons for rejecting it:
- that exploitation is a condition that exists between conscious things and thus "the environment" need not be exploited as an ethically meaningful consequence of resource gathering,
- that effective scarcity is not inescapable, and
- that resources exist beyond where people already live
are out of scope, not the question itself.
I was attempting to not tangent too far off the "eugenics" topic.
BlackFlagged wrote
I think most of them would support altering their children's genes to give them desirable traits, yeah. But they'd argue there's nothing wrong with this form of eugenics as long as it's voluntary.
[deleted] wrote
ziq_lite wrote
I'd be more worried about the non-GMO children than those who are modified to be enhanced. They're the ones who would likely suffer... And at some point everyone would feel pressured into adjusting their kids traits and abilities to keep up with the rest of society.
..So I don't think it can truly be 'voluntary' any more than capitalism is voluntary.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
Yes. So let's not impede progress by clinging to impossible political purity.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
Everyone saying that anarcho-transhumanism is bad because it's not 100% voluntary when nothing is 100%.
________deleted wrote
How would they suffer?
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
Why would we need to compete with each other under communism?
And they can always have their DNA recoded after the fact. No reason it needs to be restricted to the unborn.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
As far as I understand, anarcho-transhumanism would only exist if communism existed. So within this scenario being presented, yes.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote (edited )
But those wouldn't be anarcho-transhumanists, they'd be capitalist-imperialists. A big reason to support anarcho-transhumanism is to provide a non-oppressive alternative to capitalist-imperialist-transhumanism.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
________deleted wrote
If a political theory doesn't evolve with the times, it will be left behind.
watermelon OP wrote (edited )
Honestly, that sounds a lot like what would happen to people too poor to afford gene alteration.
________deleted wrote
Then you should support communist / anarchist transhumanism so that everyone gets access to the technology.
watermelon OP wrote
everyone gets access to the technology
That would only be possible in a world with unlimited resources.
________deleted wrote
Communism and post-scarcity go hand in hand, so that's not really an issue. There's more than enough for everyone, but capitalists keep it restricted to only the wealthy.
soylentbomb wrote
It doesn't already have a coherent model of interacting with the larger world, nor with the material conditions of our selves.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
I mean, I didn't decide what 'anarcho-transhumanism' is, it's been pre-defined as a communist, hierarchy-less ideology.
Pop wrote
I think part of what's being questioned is whether the definition is even coherent in the first place
like how 'anarcho'-capitalism is also incoherent
since it's not clear that technology of this kind is compatible with anarchy
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote
You could say the same about all communists.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
________deleted wrote (edited )
You just disproved your own point. If us communists can own iphones under capitalism and still be communists, then anarcho-transhumanists can modify themselves under capitalist-transhumanism and still be anarcho-transhumanists. As long as you support the equal distribution of technology, then you still qualify as an anarcho-transhumanist. Capitalism giving you more than others because you were born middle class in the West doesn't change that.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
________deleted wrote
You're an anarchist in a non-anarchist society. So I guess you're not really an anarchist...
ziq_lite wrote
They'd be rendered an inferior species and face the repercussions of that all their lives.
________deleted wrote
What repurcussions? Getting picked last for baseball? If that's really a big deal then just outlaw discrimination. But there are plenty of kids getting picked last for baseball already, this would mean less of us would suffer that shame. It brings more of us into equal footing and paves the road to true equality. Think about it.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
BlackFlagged wrote
Genetically modified supercops... ohboy.
ziq_lite wrote
Widening the gap between the weak and the powerful even further isn't going to create equality. And 'outlawing' discrimination is easier said than done. Social dynamics are a lot more complicated than that.
christobal wrote
implying children can even consent to being born in the first place.
BlackFlagged wrote
I meant voluntary as in no one forces the parents to alter the genes before/during/after impregnation.
[deleted] wrote
________deleted wrote (edited )
You could say the same thing about us giving birth at all. The kids didn't choose to be born, so what right do we have to create any new life..?
See, if you get this pedantic, you can label anything 'involuntary', even down to the formation of the universe way back when.
[deleted] wrote (edited )
________deleted wrote (edited )
So literally:
progress is bad, we should stay the same forever and never evolve or strive to reach new heights
MrPotatoeHead wrote
I think the most viable way to alter genes is at the zygote stage, where it's not excessively complex and fewer errors can be made. That means consent is given solely by the parent(s).
soylentbomb wrote
Genetically engineering supposedly 'superior' humans, that's just eugenics with a new delivery system, right?
It would be - 'positive eugenics.' It's also not an essential feature of transhumanism, and especially not transhumanist perspectives compatible with anarchism. Most of which would reject monolithic ideals of how one 'should' be, and all of which would reject the narrative of some being 'superior.'
There are transhumanists that think so, and they are not anarchists, and thus not anarchotranshumanists.
alqm wrote (edited )
I think you're not picturing transhumanism outside of the capitalist spectrum. If I build something to make my body stronger, my only obligation would be to publish everything I learned, so anyone interested could try and improve. I'm not going to stop studying the subject I have curiosity for because someone wants to put limits on how much we can know. That's crazy.
In the world most of us envision, you wouldn't see ads telling people they should have this immediately 'because it's cool and we ship it ready to use'. No one is selling products. All I did was to make the 'raw' data public, and I wrote a wiki to get them started. No companies would exist, perhaps only independent media organized by volunteers in many areas of the world to broadcast information. They wouldn't promote anything. There's no money to buy them. There's no leader to persuade them. No products to have desire for.