Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

selver wrote (edited )

They aren't fantastic prophecies. You can go buy some tits right now if you want.

Also, I think the anticiv critique in this case is absolutely about the future. The whole two-spirit thing is simply not relevant to people who've grown up in our culture. The possible radical shifts in gender norms that might be possible in a primitivist society aren't really relevant to people who feel they desperately want surgeries right now. The permanent war against domination includes the limits set for us by nature.

7

feralive OP wrote (edited )

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you, as I feel you're misrepresenting what transhumanism is.

Being transgender isn't the same as transhumanism - and that's actually the fallacious argument that creates the "anticiv is transphobic" slander because it allows the cult to present any argument against civilization as an argument against being trans.

Transhumanism ultimately isn’t about augmenting humanity - That's just entry level - The literature overwhelmingly promotes creating a new species that transcends humanity - in order to replace it. Discarding our humanity in favor of digital immortality has nothing to do with being trans.

We don't need transhumanism to tell us to alter our bodies, we've been doing it forever and transhumanism can't claim ownership over body modification. Anticivs are fully in support of body modification and most primitive tribes practiced it long before civilization existed.

2

selver wrote (edited )

Which anarcho-transhumanists are you referring to here? Because all of the ones I have read just believe in morphological freedom & in increasing the positive freedom to use technology to fulfill one's needs/desires. And in this thread specifically we're talking about a pro-tech approach to gender, not the singularity or whatever it is you're alluding to. Transhumanists don't have ownership over body modification, but the question is whether anticiv people support drugs & surgeries or not.

5

feralive OP wrote (edited )

All of them - It's a basic tenant of their ideology - It's even spelled out multiple times in their manifesto:

Transhumanists hope that by responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman, beings with vastly greater capacities than present human beings have.

They always refute any concerns about the inevitable hierarchy that post-humans will bring simply by insisting "this time it'll be different because we're anarchists", which is an incredible lapse in logic which assumes they'll somehow control the progression of planet-altering technology:

The anxiety about tyranny and domination of the post/transhuman over the human is grounded in a perception of life and society in terms of power, dominance, and hierarchical relations, which is exactly what Anarchism wants to abolish.

So "tyranny and hierarchy won't be a problem because we like anarchism, we swear, even though we don't make up even 1% of the transhumanist movement".

You can't honestly expect to abolish the system's violence by advocating for tools that would give the system even more power to do violence.

the question is whether anticiv people support drugs & surgeries or not.

Anticivs are anarchists so we don't tell people what to do with their bodies or make up moral rules for what is and isn't kosher. Anarcho-Transhumanism isn't about subverting gender - it's about subverting life itself - that's where it shows how incompatible it is with anarchism. Wanting to live forever because you fear death - that is a profoundly destructive basis for a political movement in a world that's dying because of the staggering destruction civilized humans do.

The convergence of Anarchism and Socialism with Cosmism and Futurism that took place in the years leading up to the Russian Revolution remains a profound source of inspiration for the modern movements combining Anarchism and Transhumanism. [...] The radical extension of human life, the conquest of immortality through scientific means, the merging of human and machine.

1

selver wrote

I don't see anything fantastical in what you just quoted, it's exactly what I said, freedom to use technology & morphological freedom. We can already do tons of that with current tech.

"This time it'll be different because we're anarchists" is literally the entire anarchist project so I don't understand the objection. Of course everything about society has to change for it to work.

"Life itself" is nature fallacy bullshit. Spooky af. Death to Nature!

1

feralive OP wrote

"Life itself" is nature fallacy bullshit. Spooky af. Death to Nature!

If replacing life with silicon and circuits is nature fallacy bullshit, then I have no qualms accepting that label and will wear it proudly. We've replaced much of the life that was on the planet with our petrochemical-machinations already, and being cognizant to the dangers of further environmental destruction in the name of human "progress" isn't something to shame, imo.

is literally the entire anarchist project

I disagree. Anarchists will always fail when appropriating inherently hierarchical tools and institutions and attempting to "de-hierarchy" them.

I don't see anything fantastical in what you just quoted

"Posthumans could be completely synthetic artificial intelligences, or a symbiosis of human and artificial intelligence, or uploaded consciousnesses, or the result of making many smaller but cumulatively profound technological augmentations to a biological human, i.e. a cyborg. Some examples of the latter are redesigning the human organism using advanced nanotechnology or radical enhancement using some combination of technologies such as genetic engineering, psychopharmacology, life extension therapies, neural interfaces, advanced information management tools, memory enhancing drugs, wearable or implanted computers, and cognitive techniques."

Fantastical or not, this is not a world I want to live in. I feel enough alienation as it is.

2

selver wrote

Concerns about environmental destruction is completely different than defending nature as some sacred ideal.

I disagree. Anarchists will always fail when appropriating inherently hierarchical tools and institutions and attempting to "de-hierarchy" them.

If they are inherently hierarchical than by definition of course that's true, but tech isn't inherently hierarchical, it's just potentially hierarchical.

I don't consider having more control over my body & life to be alienating.

3