Submitted by watermelon in Anarchism (edited )
Reply to comment by watermelon in So do anarcho transhumanists support eugenics? by watermelon
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.
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.
ziq_TNG 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.
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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments