Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

23i wrote

Transhumanism is not a strain of anarchism; it is impossible to have anarcho-transhumanism.

Transhumanists are a cancer in the anarchist milieu that can only be excised entirely, leaving no memory of its existence.

If I find someone I previously thought was a comrade is a transhumanist, I never work with them again, and consider everything I shared with them compromised.

0

Chomskyist wrote

"No, you" isn't a valid retort.

Anarcho-transhumanism is about saving humanity and taking us to the next level in consciousness. Primitivism is about saving a stupid rock by removing or greatly minimizing humanity from it.

7

ziq_postcivver wrote

You of course realize that if you kill the 'stupid rock', we all die, right?

-2

Chomskyist wrote

Space colonization...

6

23i wrote

a transhumanist Noah's Ark will be about as viable as the mythological one...i.e not at all.

-2

Chomskyist wrote

Except that we're already sending people to Mars to colonize that rock.

7

23i wrote

except for the fact that that's

a. very close to a pie-in-the-sky possibility
b. is probably never going to scale well enough to allow a large portion of the planet's ecosystem to travel, or even most of the world's population + livestock to travel, so there's a lot of people and things it won't help save.

8

Emeryael wrote

And of course, the "Find another planet" solution ignores the fact that if we don't learn how to properly live, stop with this whole idea of constant expansion/production, we'll eventually use up whatever new planets we discover and have to move on again. Do I need to explain how damn inefficient that short-term solution is?

And as always in all these scenarios, it will be the rich who will be able to buy their way out, while the poor are left behind to clean up the mess.

-2

Chomskyist wrote (edited )

Why would we bring livestock? We can grow proteins in a lab. And we won't even need to consume food once we've evolved further.

2

23i wrote

Why would we bring livestock? We can grow proteins in a lab.

Given the fact that the way livestock is raised, diet, etc, can affect the taste of the meat, and replicating that with lab-grown meat might be rather laborious, perhaps taste? perhaps by-products like wool? perhaps to preserve the ecosystem to some extent? religious response to the existence of lab-grown meat? setting up large scale protein-growing labs being impractical on planets? considering the pie-in-the-sky nature of this entire scenario, there's so many hypothetical reasons you can dream up.

And we won't even need to consume food once we've evolved further.

how do you know that? and what about eating for pleasure?

-4

Chomskyist wrote

None of your arguments for keeping food animals around are logical. We can already make it taste better than the real thing using simple flavoring.

Transhumanists wish to transcend their natural state and limitations through the use of technology. We wish to do away with the parts of us that are inefficient - requiring food to survive is a big limitation that will easily be overcome with science. As will our limited lifespans.

3

23i wrote

None of your arguments for keeping food animals around are logical.

humans aren't entirely rational beings?

2

23i wrote

We can already make it taste better than the real thing using simple flavoring.

that is subjective, and there might be people who prefer real meat for the authenticity of it.

-1

Chomskyist wrote

What they prefer is unimportant when we're discussing the survival of humanity by colonizing space and upgrading ourselves to overcome our biological limitations (like needing to eat cow carcasses).

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

Chomskyist wrote

We can already build artificial organs and limbs...

0

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Chomskyist wrote

Upload our brains to the cloud so they don't depend on a fragile mound of flesh to exist.

-1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-2

Chomskyist wrote

Overcoming our physical limitations is evolution. We must leave the rock as well as our physical forms to take our rightful place on a higher plane of consciousness. We can still take physical form when we want to, inside artificial bodies.

6

23i wrote

and why is "humanity" worth saving and a "rock" not?

-3

Chomskyist wrote

This rock only exists to nurture humanity until we've evolved enough to get off it.

6

23i wrote

and if there isn't any inherent purpose to this rock and the existence of the human species on it?