kaiakerno

4

kaiakerno wrote

Really the only serious reason for me now is games. That, and having to maintain two separate systems for different things. I can't (won't) limit myself to smaller selection of games, and it's just uncomfortable switching between systems whenever I need to switch activity.

There was a period of time when I was disappointed in Linux because it was harder to set up than it should be and easy to break. I think it's passing now, and I'm considering to give Linux another shot and install a dual-boot, even despite the nuisance of rebooting often.

1

kaiakerno wrote (edited )

We're obviously facing a near future where rich people get superpowers, so how do anarcho-transhumanists expect to face that > dystopian nightmare?

I would rather suggest stealing, copying and improving the technology and, of course, inventing some of our own. That includes hacking, but hacking machines, not people.

Same way we grant 8 billion people equal medical access.

So destroying the environment?

There's a lot of improvement we can do to the environment without cutting on medical access and technology in general. First step would be to move away from fossil fuels.

A start to justifying your argument would be explaining how it doesn't make sense. The only possible way that a transhumanist future would not be absolutely devastating on the environment is if countless technological feats were made, adding on even more layers of speculation and fiction onto the entire idea. Transhumanism is a dangerous thing to pursue, one which counters the entire green movement and relies on a future based on dreams and fantasies which have a much greater chance of destructive outcomes than anything else

"90% of the planet would be rendered uninhabitable in a matter of weeks" is a kind of overestimation, don't you think? Especially considering the TH technologies are not different from our current medical and computing technologies in any way that would be more ecologically taxing on the planet, and they would aim to replace much of the old technology, thus there won't be any noticeable increase in environmental damage because of them. Meanwhile reliance on better energy sources (solar, wind and, yes, nuclear) and carbon negative technologies should help us slow down and eventually stop/reverse global warming. Some of these technologies exist, some are in development but already deemed feasible.

We're past the point when we can fix environment with less technology. We have already created a problem, now we have to solve it. Like when you have broken a window, you can't just say "I won't throw any rocks at it again" and expect it to go back to normal.

6

kaiakerno wrote (edited )

If only-only one, immortality, period. As in "never to age, never to be sick and regenerate whatever is lost".

  • But beside that, I can't wait for neural interfaces to interact with computers.
  • For better conscious control over body functions, including hormone production (like drug glands from Iain Banks' Culture series).
  • And, if that ever becomes possible, for cognitive enhancements.
  • Higher survivability against external threats, including in hostile environments (vacuum, pressure, cold, hot, poison) would also be nice. (Different from "immortality" as this is an upgrade that would prevent the user from dying outright by stupidity, misfortune or malicious intent.)

I don't think I would go for offensive upgrades. Unless I'm living in a hostile environment, that is.

3

kaiakerno wrote (edited )

Besides, there are all kinds of potential augmentations. Some augmentations, those that enhance physical strength, are likely to be considered weapons and be treated as such. (I honestly haven't made up my mind on weapons yet: I used to consider gun control a necessity, and now that I noticed many anarchists to be against it, I'd like to examine that other point of view before I form a strong opinion on this.)

But these are unlikely to be very popular in a healthy society. I was thinking more in line of upgrades that allow you to interface with computers to control them and receive their output by thought. Or those that restore vision to vision-impaired or fix any other kind of disability.

3

kaiakerno wrote

There's a long way to that kind of future, and maybe it will never come.

And yes, it will unlikely happen with one sudden revolution. I personally think it will be cooperatives and small communities providing for themselves, then cooperating with each other and uniting together to provide for themselves better. Until they reach critical mass.

But that is beside the point. How exactly does TH create hierarchy by design?

2

kaiakerno wrote

Well, we are right now mining their land to make our current tech upgrades: a new iPhone -- or three -- every year. You'd expect people to be at least a little bit more reluctant to undergo surgery often than to buy a new brick. From an ecological perspective I am not educated enough, but my general impression was that we don't need to urgently stop mining. We need to do it cleaner, and eventually mine from space. Mining is a contribution to the climate change, but not the biggest one. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

An anarchist quasi-state (in the meaning that it is a significant piece of land not under control by another state, sufficiently organized to build complex production lines) could mine from its own land, if it has the necessary resources. If that is not feasible, I don't think there's a reason why an anarchist community cannot trade with others, even with corporations, i.e., we could buy resources.

And if provider of resources is also an anarcho-communist community with compatible values, we could, hypothetically, propose to ally or merge with them, share the resources and produce some of the technology there, and some here, benefiting everyone, including them.

4

kaiakerno wrote (edited )

We are anarchists. We are, by definition, against the concept of inferiority of one being to another. This can be said for all branches of anarchism, even anarcho-capitalism subscribes to this in principle. So, in principle, the answer is "No".

In practice I can speak only from the anarcho-communist perspective, and the answer is still "No".

Even with the current level of production, our civilization can already provide necessities (water, food, shelter, safety, medicine, education, technology, communication and complete access to culture) to all persons on Earth, and demand much less of their time than now -- as soon as we transform competition of enterprises into cooperation of workers and direct democratic control by both workers and consumers, eliminating a lot of useless and harmful jobs in the process. With the rise of transhumans (and don't forget AIs), productive capacity will increase further, but the demand on worker time will (unlike under capitalism) shrink, not increase. Pretty soon we'll reach a point where all the work that needs doing is performed either by passionate humans that genuinely want to do it or by AIs that are either also self-determined passionate persons or enjoy it by definition in their programming, or simply don't care. Probably that is the moment when we can finally let go of money and whatever remained of economic inequality will be gone.

Of course, by choosing to pass augmentation, you are limiting your ability to contribute to the society to a degree. But this won't reduce your worth as a human being and won't impede your access to goods and services. Except, of course, there might also be forms of leisure requiring augmentation, but this future society will probably deeply care about accessibility as well.

So, you choose to remain a pure human? Your loss. IMHO, you'll miss out on a lot of good stuff. But things that are valuable to you won't be taken away. You will not be looked down upon, and will not be at an economic nor social disadvantage.

Besides, it's never too late to change your mind.