Extropianism transhumanism

[ComradeMan]

I don't know about you guys but there is something I find sinister about extropian transhumanism and so on.

It has a very arrogant and "Brave New World" feel to it and it just makes me envisage a techo-fascist state ruled by an elite of Dr. Strangeloves.

Is it just me?
:D

[Havet]

Yeah just you

[Skooma Addict]

I don't know about you guys but there is something I find sinister about extropian transhumanism and so on.

It has a very arrogant and "Brave New World" feel to it and it just makes me envisage a techo-fascist state ruled by an elite of Dr. Strangeloves.

Is it just me?
:D

I don't really see anything sinister in it. I do think it is a little weird though.

[Demogorgon]

It is just fantasy really. People believing that there will be all these scientific advances down the line that there is no evidence will be achieved thus far. If you go back a hundred years or so and see where people thought we would be now, they had utterly different expectations of where technology would go from where it actually did. The same thing applies to those fantasising about the future now, their predictions will almost certainly be widely off base.

[Dimentio]

Really, libertarian transhumanism is one of the most scary ideologies ever envisioned. I have talked with transhumanists who actually want to surpass their humanity so they just could "experience sex as different genders, or species".

Most transhumanists seem to be existing in university environments in North America for some reason.

[ComradeMan]

Really, libertarian transhumanism is one of the most scary ideologies ever envisioned. I have talked with transhumanists who actually want to surpass their humanity so they just could "experience sex as different genders, or species".

Most transhumanists seem to be existing in university environments in North America for some reason.

I came across this stuff when I was researching futurism- whilst reading through their various statements and manifestos, which seemed okay at first, something very Hitlerian came across. These ideas of a technological master race etc and the friendly face of eugenics and so on.

I don't know, but although they attack religion as being entropic they seem in a way to be creating a religion out of their science, almost as if it were that whereas religion of old promised eternal life, not to worry, now the extropian future will provide instead.:confused:

I have to agree with you Dimentio!

[Demogorgon]

I don't know, but although they attack religion as being entropic they seem in a way to be creating a religion out of their science, almost as if it were that whereas religion of old promised eternal life, not to worry, now the extropian future will provide instead.:confused:

That is pretty common amongst cults. They claim to be "different" from all the old faiths, but any neutral observer immediately sees that they are anything but. Indeed in some cases, this one included they might not even realise they are forming a new-and rather creepy-religion, but that is precisely what is happening.

It comes down to making a fetish out of science. Always be very wary of anyone who tells you they are "rational" and interested in being scientific but have a view of science that is totally different from what it actually is and have theories that are highly unscientific.

[ComradeMan]

That is pretty common amongst cults. They claim to be "different" from all the old faiths, but any neutral observer immediately sees that they are anything but. Indeed in some cases, this one included they might not even realise they are forming a new-and rather creepy-religion, but that is precisely what is happening.

It comes down to making a fetish out of science. Always be very wary of anyone who tells you they are "rational" and interested in being scientific but have a view of science that is totally different from what it actually is and have theories that are highly unscientific.


What's the matter tonight? I'm agreeing with everyone... LOL!!!:D

Yeah, I think there is something a bit creepy- you took the words out of my mouth so to speak- about this lot.

Transhumanism is both a reason-based philosophy and a cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology. Transhumanists seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.
http://www.maxmore.com/

My issues...

reason-based philosophy
According to whom? I am from the old-school of continental existentialists, I'm not sure about what reason-based philosophy means. :crying:

that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology.
So who doesn't?:D

that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology.
Evolution is a natual process. Should we be really tampering with evolution when we haven't stopped evolving ourselves?

life-promoting principles and values
What exactly are these and who decides? The Brave New World scientists?

I think there is a fine line between improving the human condition and negating humanity and as far as extropianism goes it seems to step over the mark.

Although this is refuted it does strike me, ironically, as the reverse of intelligent design in a way, in that humans are now to become the intelligent designers! :D

[WhitemageofDOOM]

reason-based philosophy
According to whom? I am from the old-school of continental existentialists, I'm not sure about what reason-based philosophy means. :crying:

It's a logical progression of the human condition.


that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology
So who doesn't?:DWell apparently you.


that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and technology
Evolution is a natual process. Should we be really tampering with evolution when we haven't stopped evolving ourselves?

Yes of course, just because something is natural doesn't make it good.
Evolution is slow, stupid, and inefficient. If we left life only to natural selection we would not have wide scale agriculture, we would not have dogs.

It's the same thing we've always done, just more efficient.


life-promoting principles and values
What exactly are these and who decides? The Brave New World scientists? Happiness, intelligence, power, not wanting to die.
Really whatever you want.


I think there is a fine line between improving the human condition and negating humanity and as far as extropianism goes it seems to step over the mark. Fine we cease to be human, so what.
Why should we care? The world has always been in flux, it will always be in flux, there is no end to history.

[Bud Struggle]

Fine we cease to be human, so what?

And at that point I begin to mow you down as the vermin you are. Call me picayune, but that's just the kind of guy I am.

I respect human life dearly. Non human life may be another story.

See the problem?

[Yazman]

We won't always be "human" anyway. In our current form (modern man) we have existed for a maximum of 1-200,000 years. We have only had what we call "civilization" for ~10,000. We've only had capitalism for ~3-400.

Things change. A lot. Society changes. WE change. Our species is unlikely to remain for any notable length of time - I guarantee that in time we will become something else, whether its of our own doing or simply a natural process. But "humans" will not last forever as we know them.

If, in 200,000 years time, we have become a different species, why are you so afraid of that? I am talking from an anthropological perspective here and not a transhumanist one.

[ComradeMan]

We won't always be "human" anyway. In our current form (modern man) we have existed for a maximum of 1-200,000 years. We have only had what we call "civilization" for ~10,000. We've only had capitalism for ~3-400.

Things change. A lot. Society changes. WE change. Our species is unlikely to remain for any notable length of time - I guarantee that in time we will become something else, whether its of our own doing or simply a natural process. But "humans" will not last forever as we know them.

If, in 200,000 years time, we have become a different species, why are you so afraid of that? I am talking from an anthropological perspective here and not a transhumanist one.

I agree with you here, but from the biological point of view.

My problems.

Science does not know everything yet, will it ever know everything? Unless we are in a position to evalutate fully the consequences how can we tamper with nature's machinery? I'm not a luddite but I think there are limits and every time humans interfere with nature it causes a problem.

What gives scientists the right to take a moral highground or position as leaders of the Brave New World? Science serves humamnity but the transhumanists seem to want humanity to serve science- that's where I think lies the rub.

70 years ago the Nazis were trying to create a master race of ubermen based on genetics etc and 70 years later people are proposing the same thing, albeit dolled up in modern science and terminology.

From a philosophical point of view I also see their fear of death as immature. They attack religion yet they subsitute it- like I said before, don't worry about death because we will give you eternal life.:)
They seem to fear death and aging and thus show know respect or love for life, no humanity.

Who wants to live forever anyway?

[Havet]

Who wants to live forever anyway?

I do, but I would not do anything to achieve this.

[ComradeMan]

I do, but I would not do anything to achieve this.

Why would you want to live forever? Do you really understand what that would entail? Anyway, everyone living forever- what would happen to children? They would cease to exist and what damage would that cause to the human psyche?

Apart from that it makes me laugh that these so-called scientists are sating nothing more than that which has been speculated since the times of the Ancient Greeks.

[Havet]

Why would you want to live forever? Do you really understand what that would entail?

Why do I want to leave forever? To have more time to change the world, to experience more things, to be free from nature's biological death clock. Like I said, I would only want this if nobody was sacrificed, either directly or indirectly.


Anyway, everyone living forever- what would happen to children? They would cease to exist and what damage would that cause to the human psyche?

Whoa there, we were speaking about ME, not EVERYONE. There's a difference, it seems.

One of the pros of one being able to live forever is to take on space journeys that last for centuries. I don't really care about having children, other people may have them for me. I don't fancy the thought of replicating my genes; i'd rather adopt a children who has been neglected or is an orphan. Aren't we overpopulated?

As for the human psyche, what is the human psyche anyway?

[ComradeMan]

Why do I want to leave forever? To have more time to change the world, to experience more things, to be free from nature's biological death clock. Like I said, I would only want this if nobody was sacrificed, either directly or indirectly.



Whoa there, we were speaking about ME, not EVERYONE. There's a difference, it seems.

One of the pros of one being able to live forever is to take on space journeys that last for centuries. I don't really care about having children, other people may have them for me. I don't fancy the thought of replicating my genes; i'd rather adopt a children who has been neglected or is an orphan. Aren't we overpopulated?

As for the human psyche, what is the human psyche anyway?


Whoa there to you! :) Don't you think that is a bit arrogant and self-centred? Just playing devil's advocate here but that is exactly what I think is ominous about these movements- just who exactly do they include in their grand schemes?

Why should my children, or other people's children do anything for you if you have chosen not to contribute to society because you want to live forever and go on a space journey?:)

Overpopulation is a complete load of shit promulgated by capitalists and far-our green-nazis to scare people into their point of view. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone four times over the last time I heard. Don't fall for rightwing politics under the guise of science and ecology.

I am an ecologist in a sense but I have big issues with a lot of them and also the bullshit they spew in the name of an elite few.

[Havet]

Whoa there to you! :) Don't you think that is a bit arrogant and self-centred? Just playing devil's advocate here but that is exactly what I think is ominous about these movements- just who exactly do they include in their grand schemes?

I expect anyone with the resources (aka money) to be able to afford entering these grand schemes.


Why should my children, or other people's children do anything for you if you have chosen not to contribute to society because you want to live forever and go on a space journey?:)

I dont' expect your children or other people's children to contribute anything to me.


Overpopulation is a complete load of shit...

Is it? Perhaps it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the concept of ecological footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint).

[ComradeMan]

I expect anyone with the resources (aka money) to be able to afford entering these grand schemes.


Is it? Perhaps it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the concept of ecological footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint).


That is not a very socialist attitude is it? Comrade....:confused:

Re overpopulation I refer to you to:-

The ecological footprint is a measure of the resources necessary to produce the goods that an individual or population consumes. It is also used as a measure of sustainability, though evidence suggests that it falls short. The assumptions behind footprint calculations have been extensively criticized; I present here further evidence that it fails to satisfy simple economic principles because the basic assumptions are contradicted by both theory and historical data. Specifically, I argue that the footprint arbitrarily assumes both zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be ex ante optimal, and national boundaries, which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic. The footprint also cannot take into account intensive production, and so comparisons to biocapacity are erroneous. Using only the assumptions of the footprint then, one could argue that the Earth can sustain greatly increased production, though there are important limitations that the footprint cannot address, such as land degradation. Finally, the lack of correlation between land degradation and the ecological footprint obscures the effects of a larger sustainability problem. Better measures of sustainability would address these issues directly.
Taken from http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Fiala, N. (2008). "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science" (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376). Ecological Economics 67 (4): 519–525. doi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2008.07.023). http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376).

[Havet]

That is not a very socialist attitude is it? Comrade....:confused:

Well i think its unlikely to expect a socialist organization when such technology is available.


The ecological footprint is a measure of the resources necessary to produce the goods that an individual or population consumes. It is also used as a measure of sustainability, though evidence suggests that it falls short. The assumptions behind footprint calculations have been extensively criticized; I present here further evidence that it fails to satisfy simple economic principles because the basic assumptions are contradicted by both theory and historical data. Specifically, I argue that the footprint arbitrarily assumes both zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be ex ante optimal, and national boundaries, which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic. The footprint also cannot take into account intensive production, and so comparisons to biocapacity are erroneous. Using only the assumptions of the footprint then, one could argue that the Earth can sustain greatly increased production, though there are important limitations that the footprint cannot address, such as land degradation. Finally, the lack of correlation between land degradation and the ecological footprint obscures the effects of a larger sustainability problem. Better measures of sustainability would address these issues directly.
Taken from http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Fiala, N. (2008). "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science" (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376). Ecological Economics 67 (4): 519–525. doi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecolecon.2008.07.023). http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800908003376).

Thank for these resources. I will read them attentively. Its good to see someone who FINALLY understands that in order to convince me he has to present facts.

[ComradeMan]

Well i think its unlikely to expect a socialist organization when such technology is available.



Thank for these resources. I will read them attentively. Its good to see someone who FINALLY understands that in order to convince me he has to present facts.


That's fine, you're welcome. I was quite taken with some of their ideas but when I read more and more I got put off.

[Dimentio]

I came across this stuff when I was researching futurism- whilst reading through their various statements and manifestos, which seemed okay at first, something very Hitlerian came across. These ideas of a technological master race etc and the friendly face of eugenics and so on.

I don't know, but although they attack religion as being entropic they seem in a way to be creating a religion out of their science, almost as if it were that whereas religion of old promised eternal life, not to worry, now the extropian future will provide instead.:confused:

I have to agree with you Dimentio!

I guess you talked with a group of transhumanists who are using a three-wheeled swastika as symbol? They are quite scary and misanthropist. It seems like rather than being a genuine transhumanist organisation, they are some kind of front organisation for ANUS or LNSGP.

[ComradeMan]

I guess you talked with a group of transhumanists who are using a three-wheeled swastika as symbol? They are quite scary and misanthropist. It seems like rather than being a genuine transhumanist organisation, they are some kind of front organisation for ANUS or LNSGP.

Dimentio- no, I haven't had the (mis-)fortune to come across those people you mention, however this revelation of yours does confirm what I was thinking as I read through the blurb. Just goes to show doesn't it.....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like the dynamism and optimism of Extropianism, but it would be a hell of a lot better without the free market bullshit - if one espouses a situation of abundance, then promoting scarcity systems such as markets (free or otherwise) is sheer perversity!

[Dimentio]

I like the dynamism and optimism of Extropianism, but it would be a hell of a lot better without the free market bullshit - if one espouses a situation of abundance, then promoting scarcity systems such as markets (free or otherwise) is sheer perversity!

Its actually probably the intention of those groups to act as front organisations for larger organisations, whether libertarian, national socialist or national anarchist.

The organisation I've forgotten the name of is probably an off-shot of ANUS. The prometheists are probably under the control of one of the objectivist organisations, while the cosmotheists are nazis.

They are using a system developed by the political left, namely to try to increase the support of their ideologies by creating front organisations advocating special issues.