Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

13

amongstclouds wrote

Implying their children can consent to this prior to altering their genes.

10

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.

5

amongstclouds wrote

I agree with you. 'Voluntary' is just an illusion 99.999999999% of the time.

0

________deleted wrote

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

4

________deleted wrote

How would they suffer?

9

amongstclouds wrote

How would someone who is NOT modified be able to compete with those genetically enhanced?

8

________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.

5

amongstclouds wrote

Do you really think that the day worldwide communism is implanted it will be a permanent fixture and that it will somehow 'work'?

9

________deleted wrote

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

7

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

amongstclouds wrote

I'm talking about the material conditions as they stand right now. This technology is already on the rise and it looks to only be concentrated in the hands of those who would abuse it.

5

________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.

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

________deleted wrote

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

4

amongstclouds wrote

Yes, so let's not be critical of our own faults and imperfections and allow history to continue it cycles on and on and on.

2

_ziq_ wrote (edited )

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

4

ConquestOfToast wrote

Gene alteration is actually embarrassingly easy to get your hands on.

-3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

ConquestOfToast wrote

Ok I'm setting a boundary now. Do not engage with me further.

-2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

ConquestOfToast wrote

You don't disagree with my ideology because you're too fucking dense to know what it is. And you're not pointing out my privilege because I'm fairly certain you don't understand that either. What I have seen however is you act in wildly toxic and abusive ways towards not only myself but others as well. You ignoring the boundary I just set to take another shot at me is further proof of you being an absolutely garbage human being. You are not my comrade, not anyone else's. So in short. Go fuck yourself, absolutely completely, unequivocally, go fuck yourself you arrogant petty little shit.

4

________deleted wrote

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

3

_ziq_ wrote

everyone gets access to the technology

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

7

________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.

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.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Oh, you're making this about 'political purity' because you want me to agree with you. Okay. This was fun!

4

________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

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

________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.

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

7

ziq_postcivver wrote

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

-4

________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.

9

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Yeah, I've thought about this quite a lot and you're way too optimistic about dealing with the divide this would create -- not to mention 'outlawing discrimination' is a LOT easier said than done. Also, who get's to enforce these laws? The genetically modified?

I also find it rather gross you think the only problem this would cause is 'being picked last for baseball'. Way to underplay something very important.

7

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.

4

BlackFlagged wrote

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

5

amongstclouds wrote

Still ultimately giving consent to the body of individuals to anyone but the individual themselves.

4

________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.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

________deleted wrote (edited )

So literally:

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

5

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