Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

13

ziq_postcivver 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.

10

[deleted] wrote

5

________deleted wrote

Yes. So let's not impede progress by clinging to impossible political purity.

0

[deleted] wrote

5

________deleted wrote

Everyone saying that anarcho-transhumanism is bad because it's not 100% voluntary when nothing is 100%.

2

________deleted wrote

How would they suffer?

4

[deleted] wrote

9

________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.

8

[deleted] wrote

5

________deleted wrote

As far as I understand, anarcho-transhumanism would only exist if communism existed. So within this scenario being presented, yes.

9

Dumai wrote

saying "well MY politics only make sense with reference to this idealised social model that must be reified into existence first" doesn't actually make your case look any stronger

7

________deleted wrote

You could say the same about all communists.

7

Dumai wrote

well i wouldn't say all of them but that does seem to be a dominant trend on the internet yes

7

[deleted] wrote

7

________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.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

________deleted wrote

If a political theory doesn't evolve with the times, it will be left behind.

4

watermelon OP wrote (edited )

Honestly, that sounds a lot like what would happen to people too poor to afford gene alteration.

1

________deleted wrote

Then you should support communist / anarchist transhumanism so that everyone gets access to the technology.

4

watermelon OP wrote

everyone gets access to the technology

That would only be possible in a world with unlimited resources.

2

________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.

7

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−2

[deleted] 0 wrote

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

−1

soylentbomb wrote

It doesn't already have a coherent model of interacting with the larger world, nor with the material conditions of our selves.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

________deleted wrote

I mean, I didn't decide what 'anarcho-transhumanism' is, it's been pre-defined as a communist, hierarchy-less ideology.

4

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

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

________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.

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

________deleted wrote

You're an anarchist in a non-anarchist society. So I guess you're not really an anarchist...

4

ziq_postcivver wrote

They'd be rendered an inferior species and face the repercussions of that all their lives.

7

________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.

−5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

9

ziq_postcivver 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.

7

christobal wrote

implying children can even consent to being born in the first place.

6

BlackFlagged wrote

I meant voluntary as in no one forces the parents to alter the genes before/during/after impregnation.

4

[deleted] wrote

5

________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.

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

________deleted wrote (edited )

So literally:

progress is bad, we should stay the same forever and never evolve or strive to reach new heights

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

i don't consider defasher's issues with eugenics to be the problem with anarcho-transhumanism - it certainly is an issue but even if your egalitarian transhumanist utopia were possible it would still be fucking terrifying to me - but maybe consider that the bourgeois industrialists of the 19th century would have said exactly the same thing about the technological developments of their day and realise the flaw in your argument that technology is inherently emancipatory

5