soylentbomb wrote

industrialism was, is, and will be oppressing, starving and killing billions of people worldwide.

When in service to the state, capitalism, etc, yes. I don't consider them inseparable.

What use is it advocating for egalitarian reform when all the science shows us we've gone far past the point of no return and no amount of reform is going to save us now?

You've read what you wanted to hear into the scientific consensus - go re-familiarize yourself with it. Also, that's terrible abuse of the word "reform."

Good job arguing against anarchism in general, though.

I've read a lot of antranshumanist lit

There isn't a lot of "antranshumanist" lit to read yet. Were you reading general transhumanist lit? How were you determing what bits were or were not relevant to anarchotranshumanism?

it's very apparent that the goal is to evolve humanity through technology.

Many would consider that a goal. The goal is a better world. There's a reason so much transhumanist discussion is about things other than modifying the human body and mind - e.g. existential risk analysis, nonhuman animal personhood, bioethical abolitionism, etc.

I don't like when people use such vague definitions of their ideologies so that discussion about goals becomes impossible.

The trick to anarchotranshumanism being less vague is to stop ignoring the anarchism part, and stop focusing exclusively on the speculative part of transhumanism.


soylentbomb wrote

The point (for green anarchists) is to reject lifestyles that increase hierarchy and exploitation.

I would sincerely hope that any anarchist would be attentive to how their conceptualization of anarchism interacts with the world beyond society. See also my reply to u/Pop.

Resuse and repurpose rather than extracting more resources to attain a disnonnected and fleeting luxury at the expense of life.

Agreed. I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be a counterpoint.

Building an ideology around perpetual technological advancement is ground that's been well travelled under capitalism.

Not necessarily essential to transhumanism, nor is any 'perpetual' ground well-travelled. The rhetoric of capitalism may try to conflate perpetual increases in returns on investment with technoprogressivism, but that doesn't quite make it so.

Maintaining any kind of anarchy under a system based on industrial advancenent would be an uphill battle to say the least.

Well worth the effort, in my opinion, considering the alternative is orders of magnitude less populous, shorter lived, and less diverse.


soylentbomb wrote (edited )

I meant that my reasons for rejecting it:

  • that exploitation is a condition that exists between conscious things and thus "the environment" need not be exploited as an ethically meaningful consequence of resource gathering,
  • that effective scarcity is not inescapable, and
  • that resources exist beyond where people already live

are out of scope, not the question itself.

I was attempting to not tangent too far off the "eugenics" topic.


soylentbomb wrote

Publishing the data doesn't stop it from being a hierarchy, the hierarchy is created by people with access to the resources to build the technologies gaining advantages over those without access to the resources for whatever reason.

Is this disparity in access to resources not what we, as anarchists (transhumanist or otherwise), already oppose?


soylentbomb wrote

Genetically engineering supposedly 'superior' humans, that's just eugenics with a new delivery system, right?

It would be - 'positive eugenics.' It's also not an essential feature of transhumanism, and especially not transhumanist perspectives compatible with anarchism. Most of which would reject monolithic ideals of how one 'should' be, and all of which would reject the narrative of some being 'superior.'

There are transhumanists that think so, and they are not anarchists, and thus not anarchotranshumanists.


soylentbomb wrote

Reply to comment by zod in We've rebranded to by ziq

Ironically, people stealing reddits source to make a clone is probably exactly why they decided not to be open source anymore.

I really wonder what they think open source is.