Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

[American Dream]

"Bioethics" as a funded part of big universities and others who are part of the feeding frenzy around all these sorts of dangerous emerging technologies are rather alike to Josef Stalin sponsoring institutes of Freedom and Human Rights!

[tapitsbo]

Agree with you on that 100 percent, AD!

[Luther Blissett]

I had a long conversation with some friends of mine on this subject yesterday with one interesting insight.

While we probably have very little hope of blocking the threats to social disruption and equality with human enhancement projects, and since most people seem rather unaware of this looming explosion, maybe there's a different possibility. Both choices, and really there will be only two, are horrifying. Staying seems horrifying, willingly subjecting oneself to a lifetime of pain and sacrifice and an inability to cope with an already changing world. Going is equally frightening for all the myriad reasons covered on this thread and elsewhere. Going represents an unforeseen philosophical conundrum.

If we can't stop the advanced schism that will present itself between the haves and the have-nots with transhumanism, maybe there's a way to embed human enhancement projects with "service". Those who wish to depart humanity might know that part of what they are signing up for, if they will now have untold advantages (in not only capitalist competitive terms, but in social, sexual, interpersonal, genetic and historical ones as well) over us, will be to serve humanity (part time, in small terms, wherever needed). To lift all boats if they're going to so unnaturally raise the tides.

I don't know how to spread this idea, but it seems at least feasible.

[JackRiddler]

Met an Apple Watch wearer today. He was talking into it, like Dick Tracy. I ask, is it a walkie-talkie? No, it converts his talk into text messages and shares these with his phone. But a walkie-talke app is available, he tells me. Of course it also monitors heart rate so you don't drop dead when you jog. (This is a huge problem nowadays. No one can run without a heart monitor to make sure they don't drop dead.) Four-fifty for this gadget, which probably costs $20 to produce. Anyway, so I tell him, you know what's next, pointing to my temple where the chip will presumably be inserted. He recognized the gesture. "I'll be the first to sign up for that," he says. This is at least the 20th time I've heard someone say that. It's a routine story. I'm boring you, no doubt. I see no way that this market is not going to satisfy itself. I see very little reason to believe people will resist adopting it.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

A pal of mine queued up day-one for the Apple watch, but at least he had the excuse that he'd soon be designing apps and such for it. He'll make some money out of the deal eventually. It's an investment, theoretically.

He conceded that many of his fellow queuers would've happily stood there just as long and as readily if the Apple corporation had pledged to shower them all with calcified flakes of Steve Jobs' cryogenically-frozen spunk from an open window many floors above (a scenario I proposed).

When it comes to the unavoidable superiority and inevitable physical and intellectual dominance of these modified transhumans, who will have the latest technological and informational hubs built into their bodies, I don't worry much. I console myself with the fact that everybody is still always way ahead of themselves when it comes to technology - even streaming old video-games over the net reliably is too much work for insanely-wealthy global corporations, never mind indviduals. The first generation of tanshumans will be GameCubes. More likely, Jaguars. Edsels.

So sayeth Bob Page.

[Luther Blissett]

Even Transhumanist Elites Are Worried Only the Rich Will Be Able to Hack Death

The story of Z was supposed to be about how biohacking had allowed her to become immortal.

She lived in the year 2040, and by most measures her life was happy. Her mother’s body had died five years prior, but her consciousness was uploaded to the global grid and they still spoke frequently. An implanted chip allowed her to order a driverless Uber car on demand. She lived in a bubble that protected her from the dangerous post-global warming environment. She had lots of friends at a community biohacking center where she hung out.

Yet, every time someone tried to talk about Z’s happy ending where she lives forever, one problem kept coming up again and again: Z was poor, and inequality prevented her from accessing many of the technologies of the future.

Z’s story is the creation of transhumanist Zoltan Istvan (who writes an occasional column for Motherboard), writer Sydette Harry, performer Fem Appeal, bio-hacker Conor Russomanno, and founder of Genspace, Ellen Joregensen. It was told last night, at a talk hosted by The Standard, High Line in NYC, called “Live Forever: Hacking Death.” Her story, and the conversation that followed, focused not on whether it’s really possible to avoid death, but instead on who would be able to, given that the technology became available. Everyone was concerned that it would only be available to the elite.

The conversation reflected what may prove a problem for the growing transhumanism movement: Its inherent optimism overlooks the fact that technology is often capable of exacerbating inequality.

The story of Z came out of a prompt by host Sunny Bates, who asked the five speakers to tell the improvised story of Z, a girl living in North America in 2040, with each person telling part of the story before handing it off.

While most of the panelists told jokes or highlighted technological advancements that improved Z’s life, Harry changed the course of the narrative to introduce the idea of inequality in this transhumanist paradise.

“Z was born in Detroit, or Flint, or New Orleans, or the South Bronx,” Harry said. “Z was exposed to lead or asbestos or a low standard of living from the moment they were born. Z’s mother died of hypertension...she worked 60 hours a week at two minimum wage jobs to make sure that Z could be enrolled in the best schools to access this beautiful tech...Z owes somebody about $125,000 for an undergrad degree that she has yet to use. Z’s mother was uploaded to the global grid on the lowest tier plan,” she finished.

“Who wants to live forever in a place that was trying to kill you before you were born?” she asked the crowd. Before the audience could finish clapping and cheering, they were interrupted by the most well known speaker of the night: Istvan.

“No no no, the world is trying to kill us all, of course,” he granted. But “there’s still opportunity to rise up and become something.”

Biohacking technology will allow humans to greatly extend their lives and it will be available to everyone, Istvan said.

But it wasn’t clear by the end of Z’s story whether that would really be the case.

When inequality came up again during a question and answer session, Istvan tried to brush it aside. “The good news is that we don’t have the robber barons of the 20th century,” he started but was interrupted by protests from the crowd.

“We don’t have child labor and stuff like that in America anymore, we have a lot of better rules, and I know it’s not perfect but it’s very hard for the Bill Gates or the Mark Zuckerberg to do anything that is so against the people,” he finished. The crowd grumbled again.

Harry then shifted the conversation instead not to the individuals working in tech, but instead to the systems that support them. “How are we going to look at and examine the systems that are filtering down this technology, how are we looking at the systems that allow us to check people when they go wrong?” she asked.

When it came to discussing who will own the rights to life extension technology, Zoltan again was incredibly optimistic. “I think 100 percent it is going to be with the individual. There’s no question that within the next three to five years something like the Transhumanist Bill of Rights is going to enter into the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,” he said. He did not think that government or corporations would play a role. The audience of around 50 people protested again.

“I think money drives everything. Corporations pretty much own our government,” Russomanno said. “I think if Facebook wanted to sway the presidential election, it could.”

Throughout the night, the anxiety felt by the crowd about immortality didn’t concern things like the logistics of becoming a cyborg or overpopulation of the planet. It concerned inequality, and the idea that these amazing technologies might fail to reach the masses before it’s too late. Everyone is afraid of being Z, and never having access to the kinds of advancements that the likes of Zuckerberg will.

[Luther Blissett]

On a related note, here's Don Hertzfeldt's Oscar-nominated animated short sic-fi film about transhumanism, called World of Tomorrow. Highly recommended.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/worldoftomorrow

[American Dream]

Short joke break:


from http://zinelibrary.info/files/mgs%20zine%203.0.pdf

Q: How does a Green Anarchist change a light bulb?
A: With a sling shot.

Q: How does a Primitivist change a light bulb?
A: With an atlatl.

[brekin]

Looks like there is a Transhumanist political party getting some press lately. Has this been posted before? They have a candidate for 2016. It all sounds and looks like the exposition of a bottom tier Netflix sci-fi film. Make America Immortal!:

ABOUT

Welcome to the official site of the Transhumanist Party, an American political organization dedicated to putting science,
health, and technology at the forefront of United States politics.

We aim to uphold the energy and political might of millions of transhumanist advocates out there who desire to use
science and technology to significantly improve their lives.
The Transhumanist Party is politically-centric and aims to support its candidates and voters with future-inspired policies
that will enrich America and the world. We believe science and technology can solve most of the world's problems. Many of
the party's core ideas and goals can be found in the Platform page and in the founding party article in The Huffington Post.

The Transhumanist Party was founded by futurist and philosopher Zoltan Istvan on October 7, 2014 as a nonprofit
organization. Istvan is its 2016 US Presidential candidate, per a vote of the party's officers. Check out his Op-Ed in
Gizmodo, his interview in Popular Science, and his video interview with the Financial Times. Istvan's Presidential
campaign site is: http://www.zoltanistvan.com.

The Transhumanist Party is operated and managed by the Transhumanist National Committee LLC.
Even though the Transhumanist Party is young, it's already inspired many people, most who are ready for a major change
in the landscape of American politics.
Check out the calendar for a list of upcoming events, and please consider volunteering for the party or making a donation.
Together we can vastly improve America and create the future we always wanted.

http://www.transhumanistparty.org/About.html

PLATFORM

The Transhumanist Party and Zoltan Istvan's US Presidential campaign is politically-centric. It aims to support
voters with future-inspired policies that will enrich America and the world. We believe science and technology
can solve most of the world's problems. Many of the party's core ideas and goals—as well as those of Zoltan
Istvan's—campaign can be read in the founding party article in The Huffington Post or this Op-Ed in Gizmodo.

Here's the more detailed platform below:

1) Implement a Transhumanist Bill of Rights advocating for government support of longer lifespans via science
and technology. Lay groundwork for rights for other future advanced sapient beings like conscious robots and
cyborgs.

2) Spread a pro-science culture by emphasizing reason and secular values

3) Create stronger government awareness and policies to protect against existential risk (including artificial
intelligence, plagues, asteroids, climate change, and nuclear warfare and disaster)

4) Reduce the size and cost of the government by streamlining operations with new technology

5) Implement policy for the phasing out of all individual taxes based on robots taking most jobs in the next 25
years. Advocate for a flat tax until we reach that point.

6) Advocate for morphological freedom (the right to do anything to your body so long as it doesn't harm
others). Defend genetic editing and other radical science that can transform healthcare.

7) Advocate for partial direct digital democracy using available new technologies.

End costly drug war and legalize recreational drugs

9) Create government where all politician’s original professions are represented equally (the government
should not be run by 40% lawyers when lawyers represent less than 10% of the country’s jobs)

10) Significantly lessen massive incarcerated population in America by using innovative technologies to
monitor criminals outside of prison. Spend saved money on education.

11) Strongly emphasize radical green tech solutions to make planet healthier

12) Because most jobs will be lost to robots and software in the next 30 years, support and draft logistics for a
Universal Basic Income for every American (taking care to devise a plan that does not enlarge the
government). A properly set up UBI could eliminate welfare, social security, and dozens of other major
government programs.

13) Dramatically enlarge US space exploration agenda with increased government and private resources

14) Develop international consortium to create a "Transhumanist Olympics"

15) Encourage private industry to develop and support usage of a cranial trauma alert chip that notifies
emergency crews of extreme trauma (this will significantly reduce domestic violence, crime, and tragedy in
America)

16) Work to use science and technology to be able to eliminate all disabilities in humans who have them

17) Insist on campaign finance reform, limit lobbyist’s power, and include 3rd political parties in government

18) Provide free public education at every level; advocate for mandatory college education in the age of far
longer lifespans

19) Advocate for a more open and fair immigration policy

20) Create a scientific and educational industrial complex in America instead of a military industrial complex.
Spend money on wars against cancer, heart disease, and diabetes—not on wars in far-off countries

http://www.transhumanistparty.org/Platform.html

[divideandconquer]

Human being's vision is, as far as I know, and always has been limited to a certain level of visual acuity: 20/20 vision. So, wearing glasses or contact lenses to reach that level of visual acuity is still very human, therefore not transhuman, right? In other words ,if transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology what's simply using science and technology to correct deficiencies such as a pacemaker, contact lenses, etc.?

I think I already answered my own question, but I want to make sure because I was arguing with someone who is pro-transhumanism, who said we're already transhuman because we've used technology--pacemakers, artificial limbs, etc, to enhance our quality of life for decades, even centuries, however, isn't there a difference between using technology to reach our human potential and that of reaching beyond? His response was: we can't fly, so we created the airplane to give us that ability...form of transhumanism? I don't think so. People have always found ways to transcend their limitations without changing their essential nature. Can't run 30 mph...jump on a horse.

I mean, isn't there a big difference between using technology to enhance our quality of life by allowing us to reach our human potential, versus using technology to evolve beyond our physical and mental limitations, especially when the goal is immortality, or to surpass the human race--essentially to become god-like--especially when that ability will be limited to a few with the resources to do so?

[brekin]

Human being's vision is, as far as I know, and always has been limited to a certain level of visual acuity: 20/20 vision. So, wearing glasses or contact lenses to reach that level of visual acuity is still very human, therefore not transhuman, right? In other words ,if transhumanism is the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology what's simply using science and technology to correct deficiencies such as a pacemaker, contact lenses, etc.?

I think I already answered my own question, but I want to make sure because I was arguing with someone who is pro-transhumanism, who said we're already transhuman because we've used technology--pacemakers, artificial limbs, etc, to enhance our quality of life for decades, even centuries, however, isn't there a difference between using technology to reach our human potential and that of reaching beyond? His response was: we can't fly, so we created the airplane to give us that ability...form of transhumanism? I don't think so. People have always found ways to transcend their limitations without changing their essential nature. Can't run 30 mph...jump on a horse.

I mean, isn't there a big difference between using technology to enhance our quality of life by allowing us to reach our human potential, versus using technology to evolve beyond our physical and mental limitations, especially when the goal is immortality, or to surpass the human race--essentially to become god-like--especially when that ability will be limited to a few with the resources to do so?

I don't know. Who decides what the physical and mental limitations are, and who is to say that enhancing quality of life to reach our potential doesn't equal evolving beyond our physical and mental limitations? Potentials are what something is capable of becoming, not necessarily should or shouldn't become, even if that is implied obliquely in the process moralistically. I think even the root of potential alludes to "power" being the crux of the matter. Numerous critics have pointed out that technology already has outstripped our mental and physical limitations. Is Man's essential nature unchanged if they hop on a horse, jump on a lear jet, or orbit the earth for a year in a space capsule? I think some would argue, yes, he's becoming more god-like compared to previous millennia of human existence, and others will say no, that is man's essential nature, to constantly be seeking new limits and transcending them.

I think ultimately it probably just comes down to aesthetics and placement. People have basically melded with their smart phones and coexist with them. But, whoah, whoah!, if you are the guy who wants to surgically implant the device in your inner ear. But think about it, what if the guy who has the smart phone internalized in his inner ear, only makes one call a month with it, but the person who is functionally tied to it and is on it all the time and can't live without it, still has it externalized? Who is to say which one is more "transhuman"?

Also, people seem to be fine with anything as long as it is device that is separate and not under just one persons direct control. We have thermonuclear missiles which can destroy the entire world. But the responsibility is defused, and not localized in one location or person. The president can make the call but a series of people and steps are involved. But if the president had the sole power for the decision of launching and the launch device was localized in his body, well then that would bring cries of, "Oh, the trans-inhumanity!"

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Elon Musk: Humans must merge with machines or become irrelevant in AI age
Arjun Kharpal

February 13, 2017



Billionaire Elon Musk is known for his futuristic ideas and his latest suggestion might just save us from being irrelevant as artificial intelligence (AI) grows more prominent.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said on Monday that humans need to merge with machines to become a sort of cyborg.

"Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence," Musk told an audience at the World Government Summit in Dubai, where he also launched Tesla in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

"It's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output."



Musk explained what he meant by saying that computers can communicate at "a trillion bits per second", while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second.

In an age when AI threatens to become widespread, humans would be useless, so there's a need to merge with machines, according to Musk.

"Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem," Musk explained.

The technologists proposal would see a new layer of a brain able to access information quickly and tap into artificial intelligence. It's not the first time Musk has spoken about the need for humans to evolve, but it's a constant theme of his talks on how society can deal with the disruptive threat of AI.

'Very quick' disruption

During his talk, Musk touched upon his fear of "deep AI" which goes beyond driverless cars to what he called "artificial general intelligence". This he described as AI that is "smarter than the smartest human on earth" and called it a "dangerous situation".

While this might be some way off, the Tesla boss said the more immediate threat is how AI, particularly autonomous cars, which his own firm is developing, will displace jobs. He said the disruption to people whose job it is to drive will take place over the next 20 years, after which 12 to 15 percent of the global workforce will be unemployed.

"The most near term impact from a technology standpoint is autonomous cars … That is going to happen much faster than people realize and it's going to be a great convenience," Musk said.

"But there are many people whose jobs are to drive. In fact I think it might be the single largest employer of people ... Driving in various forms. So we need to figure out new roles for what do those people do, but it will be very disruptive and very quick."

[FourthBase]

The only proper answer is: Absolutely Anything But Transhumanism. The poll could be "Totalitarian Communism or Transhumanism?", "Third Reich or Transhumanism?", "Wahhabi Caliphate or Transhumanism?", and the answer still ought to be Not Transhumanism. Transhumanism is Posthumanism is Extinction. Even a Strangelove WWIII scenario where a cadre of Satanic Bilderbergers constitute an evolutionary bottleneck for all future mankind should be preferable as long as it were guaranteed not to involve transhumanism. I am not joking. I am not exaggerating.

p.s. Has anyone anywhere founded a non-hypothetical real-life Terrans organization yet? I would love to get in on the ground floor of that inevitability, to instill an ethic to win the war nonviolently while there's still the chance to prevent gigadeaths.

I told a transhumanist friend on Facebook last year that he should pray, even as an atheist, for at least two things: One, that he doesn't become a globally important transhumanist. Two, that I don't get diagnosed with terminal cancer.

I've always been curious whether it'd be legal to publicly recommend to terrorist organizations that they stop killing people altogether and especially random innocent people but if they absolutely feel the need to kill people then they should at least target [list of transhumanists]. Probably not, especially if it's specific, but if it's generalized? I don't know. Also probably not. I'll have to consult a lawyer.

Perhaps I'll ask that same lawyer whether it'd be a crime to send prominent transhumanists greeting cards that ask for them to pray that I don't ever get terminal cancer, lol. I have no intention of actually ever doing anything, I don't want to be a Kaczynski (however much he was intellectually on the mark), but I would like to know how close one can get to flirting with the boundary between a vague conditional bluff and a criminal threat, in order to begin scaring the shit out of these anthropicidal maniacs before they genuinely necessitate a war someday.

Ah, but dammit, the unintentional consequences could be disastrous. It would probably just result in transhumanists hiding themselves better, taking better precautionary measures to guard against an uprising, only becoming more motivated to accelerate their technological progress, turning anti-transhumanism into a socially deplorable category, generating only more empathy and legitimacy for transhumanism.

Hmm. On second thought, maybe I'll just write a novel. A kind of blueprint for an anti-transhumanist revolution. If it's legal for despicable trash like the Turner Diaries to be published, then surely I could write something less offensive but which would still send a shiver of life-questioning dread up the rectum of every transhumanist reader.

[Sounder]

This is from the Epstein thread and a response to an article posted by kelly around pg. 42
I dropped it because the only response was confused about the difference between a general category and the specific faction being pointed to by the word factionalism. I see only one faction with the juice to impose their 'vision' on the whole community. (The concern of the original article.)

Later in passing trans-humanists were identified as the worrisome party, to a collective yawn.



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28969&start=615

from the counterpunch article that kelly posted.

Never has the dark evil that is factionalism and Neopatrimonialism been on such stark display.

'factionalism

Sounder wrote....
Stark display? Yet the article can not provide a name for this dark evil?

There is a name for this faction, it is very large and easy to see.

"Faction: a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

[JackRiddler]

.

Oh. His. God. He's real.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAb-mSq615g