Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Anarcho-Primitivism
5
18%
Transhumanism
5
18%
It Doesn't Matter, Both Ultimately Have the Same Goal
2
7%
Neither
16
57%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:01 pm

It's been a few years since I posted this old story of mine, about this very question - see how many different ways you can spot it was written in the early or mid 1990s. ;)

MOORE'S LAW

Electron, the first microchip to use subatomic aetheric engraving, was made operational in October of the year 2017. Although it was several million times more powerful than all mainframes until that time combined, a costs analysis found it could be mass produced with widely available instruments for a mere twenty-seven dollars per unit - sixteen with Indonesian labor. This was to the horror of the alliance of tech multinationals who had spent ten years and seven hundred billion dollars to develop the new technology, and who intended to get the whole investment back from a single sale to the Pentagon.

The Consortium, the all-powerful conglomerates who made up the upper house of the United Nations, did their best to keep the dreadful secret. Despite several assassinations and the misguided cruise-missile bombing of CNN Central in Atlanta - too late they realized that the news network had chosen to suppress the story - they failed.

Overnight, Indian peasant shops became the leading industrial power in electronics. They produced millions of cheap notebooks carrying ten to the 256 gigabytes RAM without need of a hard disk. Through the Hong Kong black market, these were soon available with millions of electronic books and data bases hardwired.

Prices on the major stock markets imploded. Worse, it was manifest that each chip still had room enough to swallow, billions of times over, every program ever written in any machine language dating back to 1945, every image and piece of music recorded in any form, every documentary and feature film, every bank statement and store of blueprints, every government file scanned onto microfilm, and every phone call running daily through blip or wire – indeed, there was memory enough for every word and every sentence in every language ever spoken or conceived.

A group of pirates ran a retrieval program to mirror the entire Internet on one Electron chip. They inadvertantly released a new form of life. Subatomic superchips shot out along the wires of the world network, roaming like predatory brains injected into the watery ganglia of a giant hydropod. Within seconds Electron could scan the entire contents of the Web, break into and record (or rewrite!) all domains no matter how well-protected, and still have time for a joyride through all the circuits and lightbulbs of the world.

It thus became impossible to confirm the authenticity of electronic information.

In the late spring weeks of 2018 there followed, around the planet, what came to be known as the Battle of the Book. It was a frenzied desperate push against the lid of Pandora's box by the old corporations and governments. Martial law was declared in most countries. Discovery of an Electron chip entailed immediate massacres. Several powers threatened nuclear war, only to discover all military systems had been erased at the press of a return key.

This was later called the Magic Stroke, commemorated as the decisive moment of the battle by the Statue of the Unknown Programmer on the Great Lawn in Washington, D.C.

Still, millions of information mediators - librarians and accountants, programmers and archivists, editors and translators - were rounded up, and thousands were killed.

But it was too late. Pirates of all countries had compacted all received and recorded human civilization, with room left for light-aeons more, on something decidedly less than the head of a pin. It was the culmination of two million years of thought and action - and the annihilation of received structures.

The armies and police forces soon recoiled from the lost struggle and came under the provisional command of the liberated bookkeepers. The information singularity, an eternally vanishing chip of infinite mass, sucked forever behind its event horizon all the properties and secrets and cash, equity, debts and notes of Hollywood and Washington, of the Eurobank and the Fed, of Rockefeller and Ford, Disney and Gates, the media and the Masons, the mad money traders and dull technocrats faithful to the old Newtonian machine of capital accumulation, from the most global player to the littlest webmaster - and for a long moment, the freshly redundant P.R. flappers and TV clown-monarchs playing politicians fell silent.

The extent of the cleansing, the erasure of all other than individual claims to intellectual property, would have been unimaginable just weeks before. No myth of Apocalypse had ever matched the reality of Electron.

Of the old propertied and ruling classes, only those owners or tribes who could establish longstanding title to land - and defend it by relatively primitive military means - had any chance of survival. In every sense, Real Estate was King, and Agriculture was Queen.

Thus in place were all the elements of a new era for humanity, and a new great historic struggle, in which the logic of knowledge unbound, tending towards a convergence of all human hope and effort on the way to an as-yet undefinably brilliant destination, would fight for the future of the species and its biosphere against the purified and released undercurrents of a pre-modern, ethnotribal feudalism.

The new era of Bookkeepers and Barons lasted a little less than a week. In those heady days, few remembered the engraved wavicles that had been released into the earth's power grid as mere retrieval programs - or knew that, awakened to life, the subatomic chips were reproducing and evolving within the planetary grid, through the biological equivalent of a billion years once every six point seven seconds.

But on the seventh day, Electron spoke to Man.

.

And here's another four-year-old post of mine on the same subject. I've been here too long, or spend too long here, or something.

JackRiddler wrote:.

Nope, not into the post-human stuff. Been reading Kurzweil for a while, and his thinking strikes me as decidedly anti-human. He hates us, hates himself, thinks if he becomes something else the something else that's no longer him will magically be happier, better, more worthwhile.

It's hard to draw distinctions between people and their machines, I know, but it can still be done today. Machine-human melds will still be humans, fooling themselves that they have magical extensions.

However, when entirely non-human machines truly become smarter than humans and possess their own individual consciousnesses and wills, it will be the duty of the humans to their own survival to immediately destroy these machines and kill those who want to make more of them. Sorry, my idea of progress is not to go extinct on behalf of superior beings because they'll have faster processing times. The fish and the ants and the baboons don't think that way either, insofar as they think.

Analogously, when humans find the way to achieve physical immortality, another of Kurzweil's obsessions (and he is not alone), it will become the duty of all rock-throwing teenagers of whatever age on the planet to kill all of the immortals. Just look ahead to the year 2100, and Bill Gates and Madonna and Richard Branson and Carly Fiorina and the DeVos family and a bunch of Bushes and Moons and Kurzweil and Craig Ventner and Murdoch's son and 10,000,000 other ruling class non-entities are still there, quasi-zombies because there's no way they'll maintain intact the identities or memories or passions over the centuries that actually make a person, but still there: in charge: owning it all: eating up the air and the opportunities: being glorified by the celebrity worshipping media they still own: dowsing the least spark of new life. Now imagine those who are born into this world, or sprout from the proverbial test-tube, or however it's done by then. Youth will have been robbed of all life, they will have no higher duty than to kill all immortals and reduce the civilization back to a state of semi-creative barbarism. Seriously.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:10 pm

Here's someone who understands the thought: Kill the Immortals.


http://edge.org/responses/what-should-w ... ried-about

Image

Kate Jeffery
Professor of Behavioural Neuroscience, Head, Dept. of Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, University College, London

The Loss Of Death


Every generation our species distils the best of itself, packages it up and passes it on, shedding the dross and creating a fresher, newer, shinier generation. We have been doing this now for four billion years, and in doing so have transmogrified from unicellular microorganisms that do little more than cling to rocks and photosynthesize, to creatures of boundless energy and imagination who write poetry, make music, love each other and work hard to decipher the secrets of themselves and their universe.

And then they die.

Death is what makes this cyclical renewal and steady advance in organisms possible. Discovered by living things millions of years ago, aging and death permit a species to grow and flourish. Because natural selection ensures that the child-who-survives-to-reproduce is better than the parent (albeit infinitesimally so, for that is how evolution works), it is better for many species that the parent step out of the way and allow its (superior) child to succeed in its place. Put more simply, death stops a parent from competing with its children and grandchildren for the same limited resources. So important is death that we have, wired into our genes, a self-destruct senescence program that shuts down operations once we have successfully reproduced, so that we eventually die, leaving our children—the fresher, newer, shinier versions of ourselves—to carry on with the best of what we have given them: the best genes, the best art, and the best ideas. Four billion years of death has served us well.

Now, all this may be coming to an end, for one of the things we humans, with our evolved intelligence, are working hard at is trying to eradicate death. This is an understandable enterprise, for nobody wants to die—genes for wanting to die rarely last long in a species. For millennia, human thinkers have dreamed of conquering old age and death: the fight against it permeates our art and culture, and much of our science. We personify death as a spectre and loathe it, fear it and associate it with all that is bad in the world. If we could conquer it, how much better life would become.

Half a century ago that millennia-old dream began to take form, for we humans discovered genes, and within the genes we discovered that there are mechanisms for regulating aging and death, and we also discovered that we can engineer these genes—make them do things differently. We can add them, subtract them, alter their function, swap them between species—the possibilities are exciting and boundless. Having discovered the molecular mechanisms that regulate senescence and lifespan, we have begun to contemplate the possibility that we can alter the life course itself. We may be able to extend life, and possibly quite soon—it has recently been estimated that due to medical and technical advances, the first person to reach 150 years has already been born. Once we have eradicated cancer, heart disease, and dementia, our biggest killers, we can turn next to the body clock—the mechanism for winding-up operations that limits our lifespans—and alter that too. Why stop at 150? If a person is kept disease-free and the aging clock is halted, why could a person not reach 200? 300? 500?

What a wonderful idea. Few people seem to doubt that this is a wonderful idea and so research into aging and lifespan is a funding priority in every wealthy, technologically advanced society. Termed "healthy aging", this research really means prolonging life, for aging is by definition progressive time-dependent loss of health and function, and if we prevent that, we prevent death itself. Who wouldn't want to live to 500? To live a life free of decrepitude and pain, to be able to spend so much more time enjoying favourite activities, achieving so much, wringing every drop from mysterious but wonderful existence, seeing the growing up not just of one's children and grandchildren but also their children and grandchildren. Oh, yes please!

But wait. Our lifespan is our lifespan for a reason. Lifespans vary enormously in the biological world, from barely a day in the mayfly to more than 100 years in the Galapagos tortoise and an estimated 1500 years in the Antarctic sponge. These spans have been imprinted by natural selection because they are those that serve the species best—that maximise the trade-off between caring for and competing with one's offspring.

Most of us love our parents but imagine a world inhabited not only by your own parents but also everyone else's, and also your and their grandparents, and your and their great-grandparents... a society run by people whose ideas and attitudes date back four centuries. Imagine a world in which your boss might be in the post you covet for the next 100 years. Truly, would the generations be competing with each other: for food, housing, jobs, space. As it is, the young complain about how their elders, with their already rapidly increasing lifespans, are driving up house prices by refusing to downsize in middle age, and driving up unemployment by refusing to retire. Imagine four centuries of people ahead of you in the housing and job queues.

The prolonging of the human lifespan is often lauded in the media but it is almost never questioned. Nobody seems to doubt that we should push forward with aging research, identify those genes, tinker with them, make them work for us. For nobody wants to die, and so we all want this research to succeed. We want it for ourselves, and our families. We want ourselves and our loved ones to live as long as possible—forever, if we can.

But is it the best thing for our species? Have four billion years of evolution been wrong? We are not Antarctic sponges or blue-green algae—we die for a reason. We die so that our youth—those better versions of ourselves—can flourish. We should worry about the loss of death.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby tazmic » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:22 am

But is it the best thing for our species? Have four billion years of evolution been wrong? We are not Antarctic sponges or blue-green algae—we die for a reason. We die so that our youth—those better versions of ourselves—can flourish. We should worry about the loss of death.

Have four billion years of evolution been wrong? Well, why not? They could certainly be rather out of date, or grossly inefficient. Why shouldn't they be? (And if a species reproduction to lifespan ratio remains the same they can live as long as they want.)

The writer (apart from ideologising evolution) seems to think that babies select the best genes from their parents. Which they don't.

The argument would be stronger if it were true: Chinese Eugenics

Or otherwise through generationally maintaining some strong environmental eugenics, in other words competition, much like that article describes.

Or, as in the first line of her article:

"Every generation our species distils the best of itself, packages it up and passes it on, shedding the dross and creating a fresher, newer, shinier generation. [...] And then they die."

That's not evolution, that is eugenics.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:36 am

You're right, actually. She's made bad rhetorical decisions in presenting her argument that may indicate poor assumptions and an ideological bias for eugenics. At any rate, a teleology to evolution (which has no point, actually). There's no need to suggest that each generation is better than the last (it may be, depending on how the culture evolves, as opposed to a biological species which generally doesn't once evolved).

It would have sufficed to say this: Youth is beautiful. We all know our subjective experience to be more consistently alive in youth than it becomes as we age. The greatest passions of human experience and the greatest creativity spring from youth. An immortality of the old begins to foreclose on life for the young. A society in which 90 percent are old (as an inevitable outcome of relative biological immortality) will be very different, and less preferable for [X] reasons, than one wherein a higher proportion of the people remain young.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby FourthBase » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:11 am

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.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby slomo » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:40 am

Wow. Me six years ago. What time will do. I now disavow the word "teratoid" and all academic-sounding gobbledygook.
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby slomo » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:44 am

FourthBase » 15 Jun 2015 21:11 wrote: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.

It's hard to imagine anything worse than the realization of transhumanist dreams. It is about as Faustian a bargain as any could be.

... at least I've remained consistent with that position!
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby Harvey » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:00 am

Anyone else feel that Mary Shelley was, very likely, the first explicit statement of the Transhuman dream, and it's possible consequences, while also creating a sublime metaphor for the idea of the composite psyche?

She's long been credited as the first appearance of science fiction as a distinct literary phenomenon, but perhaps should also be credited with the birth of a genuinely new idea, technological transcendence.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby brekin » Tue Jun 16, 2015 7:47 pm

Harvey » Tue Jun 16, 2015 6:00 am wrote:Anyone else feel that Mary Shelley was, very likely, the first explicit statement of the Transhuman dream, and it's possible consequences, while also creating a sublime metaphor for the idea of the composite psyche?

She's long been credited as the first appearance of science fiction as a distinct literary phenomenon, but perhaps should also be credited with the birth of a genuinely new idea, technological transcendence.


I think Shelley was just "modernizing" a well traveled trope of technological transcendence. The original novel carried the subtitle: The Modern Prometheus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein

Both during and after the Renaissance, Prometheus would again emerge as a major inspiration for his literary and poetic significance as a symbol and archetype to inspire new generations of artists, sculptors, poets, musicians, novelists, playwrights, and film-makers. His literary and mythological personage remains prominently portrayed in contemporary sculpture, art and literary expression including Mary Shelley's portrayal of Frankenstein as The Modern Prometheus. The influence of the myth of Prometheus extends well into the 20th and 21st century as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

Before his theft of fire, Prometheus played a decisive role in the Titanomachy, securing victory for Zeus and the other Olympians. Zeus's torture of Prometheus thus becomes a particularly harsh betrayal. The scope and character of Prometheus' transgressions against Zeus are also widened. In addition to giving humankind fire, Prometheus claims to have taught them the arts of civilization, such as writing, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

Prometheus was the first well known figure delivering god like power to humans via technology. There are also tons of Shamanic tales from nearly all continents of a hero being killed, dismembered, and the the limbs and organs rebuilt/reattached and a new hero/monster being created. The device used is old timey technology: Magic.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby Harvey » Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:23 pm

Brekin ^

Thanks for that. Good points, but transcendence through the technology itself. Anyway, wanted to say thanks.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby FourthBase » Tue Jun 16, 2015 10:07 pm

Harvey » 16 Jun 2015 19:23 wrote:Brekin ^

Thanks for that. Good points, but transcendence through the technology itself. Anyway, wanted to say thanks.


Is fruit technology?

Image
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby Harvey » Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:58 am

Well, technology can be fruity, but wrong thread... Sorry for derailing, back on topic >
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:41 pm

In my estimation, the correct answer is not in the poll. It is both. Both Anarcho-Primitivism and Transhumanism will happen, whether we want 'em or not.

Just looking at the GD front page, I see both the Fukushima thread and the Rich evolve into a separate species thread. Both are inadvertently (or not) addressing the inevitability of transhumanism - humans will evolve through technological means either deliberately (through uber-wealthy manipulation) or accidentally (radiological mutation). Fukushima alone probably won't do it; what I'm trying to say is that I believe industrial civilization will collapse sometime before the beginning of the 22nd century. When that happens, not only will Fukushima go, every nuclear power plant will melt down. That's 447 opportunities for human technological transformation.

However - the collapse of industrial civilization also creates a new opportunity to redefine our economies so that they will definitely be more localized and probably barter-based rather than debt-based. I foresee that climate change, whether through rising carbon emissions or methane burps, will become so extreme that humanoid societies will no longer be able to rely on agriculture; to some degree there will be a shift back to hunter-gatherer roots, though that may have some limitations. So anarcho-primitivism will be part of the future as well.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Jun 17, 2015 11:51 pm

Is there any chance that any contingency plans will be made for said mass meltdown?
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

Postby zangtang » Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:45 am

can't claim experience in this, & won't cite intuition, but i imagine there will be.....
but instead of being well-ordered,timely & pre-emptive.....they will be too little
too late & massively obfuscated & delayed by vested interests maximising profits till the world burns
and rigging the bids for the decommissioning tenders...........

something almost exactly like that to the letter
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests