Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

amongstclouds wrote

The complete dissolving of material existence. Hello void. <3

5

bromeo wrote

perpetual exstasy

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

No-thing at all. Almost like an orgasm except the climax is a candle being blown out.

5

dele_ted wrote (edited )

If i had to describe a concrete blueprint for utopia (i don't think that'll actually accomplish much, but it's a fun idea), it'd be bolo'bolo by P. M. It works roughly like this (there's much more to it, and it's not easy to explain in a short reply, but I'll give it a try):

Civilisation is split into groups of 500 called bolo's. In each bolo, people are further grouped in small groups called kana. bolo's are united around bigger issues requiring more manpower, such as hospitals, and work together to accomplish these.

There is no money. There is no government, no laws (except for the basic ideas of bolo'bolo and the universal language associated with it, asa'pili), no nations, no private property and no borders. There is only the rules that each bolo decide on, and there's enough bolo's for all types of people. In these bolo's, all are welcome, although they must sustain an amount of just about 500 ibu's (individuals) in each bolo.

Any ibu is welcome in any bolo at any time, as a guest. bolo's work together with their neighbor bolo's, and all other bolo's, because they know that if they help their neighbor, then they will help them too. This concept is called sila, most of us call it mutual aid.

As i said, there's more to it, but i can't squeeze much more into this reply. You can read bolo'bolo by P. M. on The Anarchist Library, here.

2

[deleted] wrote

3

dele_ted wrote

Who is the big boss who decides who gets put in which bolo and which kana?

The ibu is free to choose which bolo they want to live in. Thisis part of a concept called sila, and is described in-depth in bolo'bolo.

If I carve a really useful tool out of some driftwood, can I really not keep it as my own property?

There's a difference between personal property and private property. Personal property is things such as your toothbrush, computer or your fancy driftwood tool. Private property is things that cannot and should not be owned, such as a piece of land, or something that enables exploitation of others, such as a factory or a business. In bolo'bolo, every ibu is given a taku, which is a medium-sized box with a lock on. The ibu can store whatever they want in this, be it drugs, weapons, or their driftwood tool. The taku is the most personal of all property.

How can anything be not allowed (like private property) if there are no laws?

Just like with anarchism, there can be rules without laws. The rules that the community agrees on. In this case, the vast majority of the community has chosen to respect the taku, the rules of hospitality that is sila (mutual aid, basically), and so on.

What if some bolo decides collectively to create a border around its territory and keep other people out?

bolo's are to some degree dependent upon each other (the driving force behind sila, because every ibu is in its core egoistic). An abusive bolo wouldn't last long, and even if it did, the ibu's of that bolo would not live a very enjoyable life.

I tried reading that essay and found it really really hard to get through

The first few pages are tough, but it gets easier once you get about 1/5'th into it. Reading on a screen sucks, too. You can buy a copy at AK Press if you want, or just print it and tie it together with some string.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

dele_ted wrote (edited )

What if more than 500 people choose to live in the same one? Who stops the 501st person?

The community does, because they know that a bolo bigger than ~500 is unsustainable. It wouldn't stop at exactly 500, but as the member count started rising, the bolo would become less attractive to newcomers, and existing members would be tempted to leave. It's a self-balancing system.

What about the best farming tools? What about the only farming tools? What if you built those tools yourself? Are they personal or public?

That's a good question, but generally not related to bolo'bolo. Private and personal property is a core concept in anarchism, too. There's plenty of reading materials on this topic on AK Press and The Anarchist Library.

There can't be rules in anarchism unless you mean personal rules than an individual keeps for the individual's own sake. Anything else is force/hierarchy.

That's exactly what i mean. This is a whole new discussion, though.

There can't be rules in anarchism unless you mean personal rules than an individual keeps for the individual's own sake. Anything else is force/hierarchy.

The bolo is dependent on mutual aid, and cooperation with other bolos. P. M. has a little section about exploitative and abusive bolos, where he explains how the bolo'bolo system protects itself against abuse.

Of course, bolo'bolo has its flaws, and it is not an anarchist system at its core (it would of course allow anarcho-bolo's though) - but i think there's a lot we can learn from P. M.'s ideas.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Private and personal property is a core concept in anarchism

Private property - no. Personal - yes.

1

dele_ted wrote

I meant the idea of distinguishing between these two types of property.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

dele_ted wrote

Why or how would this magically be the case? Are you assuming that individuals are going to make intelligent, healthy and well thought out choices? If the system is based on people being rational then it is doomed.

The living standards would start to fall drastically when the bolo reached a member count of around 600, and the community members would want to either leave and join another bolo, or start a new bolo together with the unsatisfied community members. Most arriving ibus most certainly would not want to stay.

I was a little tired when i replied yesterday, should have cleared things up better. P. M. has a page or two dedicated to explaining how a bolo would keep its member count stable, as well as how exploitative and abusive bolos would wither away due to their own dysfunction and their relations to sorrounding communities.

4

qazruciso wrote

Anarchy = the decentralization of wealth and power to provide the people with a gift economy guaranteeing the necessities of life for all people as agreed upon by the people themselves via a federalist system of direct and delegative democracy in coordination with individual workplace and industrial unions, creating a money-less, classless, stateless society where all are freely and fully supported in pursuing their own individual dreams so long they allow others to do same

4

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

post singularity bio-digital hive consciousness.

"we have computers smarter than humans, we have wires in our brains, and all of us and our environment are connected via wifi"

My utopia is some other raddlers dystopia

2

happy wrote

I have a hard time seeing how trans-humanism isn't going to lead a lot of wrongs. Alienation of those that choose not to put wire in their brains, increased depression due to having infinite knowledge and ability, the possible authoritarian reign that robots would have over our actions and ideas, and is going to lead to more environmental devastation from the production and maintenance of the tech.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

yeah I'm scared of the same things, that's why I'm anarcho-transhumanist and not elon-musk-worshiping-liberal-transhumanist.

the "anarchist" part should let people choose what they do with their body. depression and knowledge vs happiness and ignorance is an interesting question, to wich I do not have an answer. Hopefully knowledge doesn't imply depression. I do not believe in robots having more power than we explicitly give them or becoming autonomous superstrong beigns.

As for the environment, I believe today we need to preserve the environment because not doing so will cause suffering, but I have a very utilitarian view of "Mother earth" and am not emotionally attached to "Nature" or "The Environment". Plus nothing proves that environmental destruction is implied by transhumanism, we could for example live have cellphone-sized brain implants powered by kynetic energy.

3

happy wrote

Regardless if the transhumanism is anarchist or not I think there will be alienation for those that abstain. Brain implants would bring about a new ableism, or ableism towards people that don't have the internet in their heads. Also, look at how people treat and call out people against vaccines. I can see the discourse being very similar.

I think a part of the human condition is a desire for knowledge and new challenges. A cyborg with a computer brain will have no mental or physical challenges. They would be able to achieve practically anything they want to do. Without challenges I think people will get very bored and depressed.

It takes more than preserving the environment to actually save it though. A utilitarian view is going to give the mindset that the world is not a living thing and things can be taken from it freely without giving anything back.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

but it's our main struggle as anarchists to fight against all hierarchies. Even if transhumanism brings new hierarchies, it will also get rid of others such as physical inability or lack of empathy or even incurable illnesses. I think creating a separation between augmented and regular humans is a price worth paying. Vaccine analogy: It's better to have a vaccine and be able to refuse it than to not have a vaccine at all and have 50% world population die of chickenpox.

I disagree, we're quite good at creating challenges.

yup, I personally do not care about "saving" "The Environment". We need to take care of it now because we need it today to avoid human suffering. I do not value non-sentient life, "the world" is not a living thing.

3

happy wrote

I think creating a separation between augmented and regular humans is a price worth paying

This is literally creating hierarchy and I would not consider it to be anarchism at all.

we're quite good at creating challenges

Please expand on this? :)

Spend some time reading /r/ or /f/collapse. Saving the environment is not something we can just take care of now. It requires a lot of future planning.

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

Liar its not creating a fukin hiearchy. Vaccines are not a hierarchy, wooden legs are not a hiearachy, glasses are not a hierarchy. Giving possibilities to people is never going to create hieararchies. On the other hand leaving people live with shit body, shit minds, and shit living envrionment (and activiely choosing so) is keeping alive existing hierarchies. Of coures since im talking about hypothetical perfect ANARCHO-transhumainsm EVERYBODY has access to those augmentations.

idk games are artificial challenges for example, or how we've never solved science and imo will never perfectly engineer stuff. Also hopefully we'll encounter thoughts that can only be fleshed out with higher level consciousnesses.

I study energy production, I've had classes focused on global warming. I know what's needed to "save the envrionment".

tbh your answer was low effort and condescending

3

zod wrote

leaving people live with shit body, shit minds, and shit living envrionment

Comrade, you're coming off as either ableist or misanthropist depending on what you mean by this. Our minds and bodies aren't shit, and Earth isn't a shit living environment.

3

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

I meant that in the sence of the general dissatisfaction we can have with our own shortcomings and "flaws". I value all people the same, no matter their own own quirks and percieved problems.

my wording was kinda bad thought, thanks for calling me out

2

happy wrote

tbh your answer was low effort and condescending

You're not wrong, but thanks for the heated vocab in your first sentence.

Anything that creates social stratification is going to to create hierarchy, inevitably. This is a very common critique on various technologies. Am I for the abolishment of all forms of technology? Definitely not. Am I being critical of the technologies that are actively being created and maintained? Yes.

Proponents of capitalism argue that it gives possibilities to people and we both know how wrong that is in creating hierarchy. We currently have the choice to eschew technology but if someone wants to have a place in society they are coerced into using those technologies. Anarcho-transhumanism won't be any different. Just because it's under the guise of choice doesn't mean its actually free.

Being critical of technology is not actively choosing to letting people live with shit lifes. Anarchism should have absolute egalitarianism as a goal and creating technology that is going to create more social stratification is not egalitarian.

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

but there are social stratification that cant be abolished such as sexual preference, biological sex, ects. Do you mean we should reduce the amount of them in order to concentrate on fighting the hieararchies that stem from unavoidable causes? sorry this sounds like a strawman it inst meant to be one. I dont really believe diversity is the cause of hiearchies but rather uneducation so it's hard to see your point.

we both know capitalism is a zero sum game and that the possibilities of the one come from the oppression of the other so its not quite the same definition of possibilities.

I dont really see the problem in using the same tools other people use in order to interact with them. If you dont want to use theire tools you just dont interact with them. As I'm talking about anarchism, non-teched-up could split and have theire own community.

yes we agree, but I dont think technology itself is inherently the cause of hiearachies.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

Vaccines are not a hierarchy, wooden legs are not a hiearachy, glasses are not a hierarchy. Giving possibilities to people is never going to create hieararchies

listen. "technologies of production wholly structure class society" is not a good thing to believe by any means but it's better than... whatever the hell this is. it's a little weird you're not even on that level, i do not know how you have been an anarchist for at least half a year without seeing the obvious problem with "giving possibilities to people is never going to create hierarchies", it's one thing to have no theoretical framework for the medicalisation of society but it's quite another to have never meaningfully engaged with the industrial revolution. like where have you been all this time?

Of coures since im talking about hypothetical perfect ANARCHO-transhumainsm EVERYBODY has access to those augmentations.

that doesn't actually change the reality of the situation, admitting your ideology is a shallow utopian mentality is admirable i guess but it doesn't actually fix the problem of... your ideology being shallow and utopian

2

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

I didnt really understand much of what you said, there is a bit too much jargon. can you explain what "engaging with the industrial revolution" or "theoretical framework for the medicalisation of society" means?

I mean I've read anticiv and primmie critiques of civilization an technology and didnt find them relevant or as "smart" as people claim they are.

Even if it's shadow and utopian I'm doing all I can to make it real :)

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

can you explain what "engaging with the industrial revolution"

the industrial revolution represented the first significant leap in human productive output since the neolithic age, more dramatic than any before or since - at the same time, capitalist wage labour exploitation was brought into existence! new class systems were created (this is where the sense of the word "bourgeoisie" as a capitalist class starts becoming relevant)! so yes, new technological possibilities were created along with new forms of hierarchy, and these developments contributed to each other. you'll know this, or at least have some way of understanding it, if you've read the communist manifesto. so i don't know what you've been missing in your leftism 101.

"theoretical framework for the medicalisation of society" means?

medicalisation refers to the creation of new scientific categories to describe and treat problems not previously considered medical, or perhaps not considered problems at all. "the medicalisation of society" refers to the impact of these processes on a societal scale. so a classical example might be that whereas same-gender sexual activity might have been considered in medieval european society simply sinful or immoral behaviour, or in certain cases not much of an issue at all, by the end of the 19th century it had become evidence of "sexual inversion", a psychological disorder involving the reversal of natural gender norms that was often portrayed as congenital.

now i brought this up because the medicalisation of society has a lot to do with the dominance of professional medical classes in asserting their right to scrutinise and regulate the human body, which actually interrupts a lot of cultural and social norms important for human autonomy. you seem to think medical practices such as vaccination have absolutely no connection to power relations, but the relationship between doctor and patient is something of a power relation in itself, and the technological means available to medical professionals plays a huge role in this! and it does cause problems! now obviously that doesn't mean the obvious benefits of medical science for human life expectancy and long-term health aren't a good thing!!! but it does mean medical technology presents us with more problems than you've been led to believe.

1

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

yeah well exploitation and hierarchies existed before the industrial revolution. heck even anprims need to use complicated descriptions of their tribe's structure in order of having no hiearchy in an idealised pre-farming society. "Industrial Revolution" is not an argument for the dangers of transhumanism in itself, you'll need to flesh out a bit more for me to get your point across.

Isnt the power relation between a doctor and his patient the same as the ones in bakunin's quote underneath: Theire authority in the medical field is justified by expertise, but they do not have more value as a person. Again, I dont really get your point: Technology is bad because technobabble can be used to manipulate people?

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person."

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

yeah well exploitation and hierarchies existed before the industrial revolution.

naturally. but in the process of the industrial revolution new forms of hierarchy were created, which rather puts a damper on your argument that technological progress never does this.

Isnt the power relation between a doctor and his patient the same as the ones in bakunin's quote underneath

god i hate how internet anarchists read that fucking quote lmao, believe it or not forms of power exist outside formal political authority, read foucault

Theire authority in the medical field is justified by expertise, but they do not have more value as a person.

considering they have to power to determine sickness and health, which is necessarily a power they had to monopolise by displacing more communal cultural practices, and given that the medicalisation of society can't be separated from many forms of oppression we live with today (namely, modern homophobia! which i explained and you seemed to ignore!), i'm guessing this is... not true

doesn't mean their expertise hasn't been helpful in maintaining health, but in other ways it's actually been damaging to health! so that leaves us with a problem without a clear answer.

Technology is bad because technobabble can be used to manipulate people?

technology isn't "bad", it has benefits obviously, but technologies operate within regime of social control. you can't argue that the maximalisation of technological choice necessarily leads to greater liberty or else you'd basically be arguing techno-consumerism is a good thing, which would make you a neoliberal, not an anarchist.

2

Emery wrote

A nice, colorful place with beautiful buildings where people are happy & safe.