Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.