Bioconservatism & Transhumanism -- split from Religion

[Sentinel]

The idealist believes that a particular species of ape, Homo sapiens, is effectively a god who makes the world go 'round.

...

The materialist laughs at this primitive hubris.


I don't think it's idealist or hubris in the slightest. We are in process of mastering most of precisely the same skills that traditionally are attributed to the so called 'gods'.

Genetic engineering is already possible and constantly developing as we speak -- it's not unthinkable at all any more that we are standing on the treshold of eternal health and life. Moreover, it will allow us to alter our offspring any way we choose.

Creating new worlds form the scratch may be harder to accomplish, but I'm positive that terraforming of uninhabitable planets will be reality in a not too distant future. So, how is it 'hubris' to say that we indeed have 'godlike potential'?

I'm not getting it. Nor am I getting how us being a species of apes is relevant or interesting here..?

[anticap]

I don't think it's idealist or hubris in the slightest.

...

I'm not getting it.

Evidently not: the idealism is in the notion that all these wondrous things spring fully-formed from the mind -- especially from the minds of brilliant entrepreneurs (who are thereby entitled to a higher station, befitting their nearly miraculous contributions to mankind) -- rather than being shaped by material conditions. That's... kinda what "idealism" means.

It appears that you simply saw an opportunity to spout off about your cyborg fetish where it was completely beside the point. No harm done. :)


Nor am I getting how us being a species of apes is relevant or interesting here..?

That's called "mockery." I'm a big proponent of its usage when dealing with our... special... guests here in the OI ward. :thumbup1:

[Sentinel]

From the quote it was far from certain what you meant, it rather sounded like something coming from your average everyday bioconservative. In other words, you didn't seem to be condemning merely the access of the privileged few to the fruits of technology -- which I obviously agree with and thus didn't comment -- but anthropocentric thought in general.

I've heard how mankind must not think we 'are something' from more posters here than I can remember. But if biocentrism/misanthropy isn't your thing, then ignore my post. Thanks for the cyborg-fetish comment though, clearly you don't restrict your mockery to the restricted.

[anticap]

It sounds like we're all straightened out, and I don't want to start anything here (honestly), but I just can't pass over this bit of nonsense:


bioconservative

Did you make that up yourself, or is it part of some new ultra-sectarian thing that I've not had the misfortune of stepping in until now?

Really, I don't mean to sound nasty, but all I can think of when I see this is the people who will one day be browbeaten by "bioprogressives" into bending over and accepting their implants. Because, hey, one wouldn't want to be derided as a "conservative" (or, for goodness' sake, a "primitivist") for simply wanting to live out one's life as a garden-variety member of Homo sapiens. Goodness knows, that would downright uncivilized! Uncommunist, even!

Seriously though: I'm a mild (very mild) futurist myself, but when you start talking like this, you really do sound ridiculous, and even scary. I'd never want to discourage you from your interest, just the part where you create derogatory categories for those who don't share your fascination with human enhancements or your desire to adopt them.

[Sentinel]

Did you make that up yourself, or is it part of some new ultra-sectarian thing that I've not had the misfortune of stepping in until now?

No, I'm not in the habit of inventing words. Wiki description of 'bioconservative' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconservative#Contrasting_stance)


Really, I don't mean to sound nasty, but all I can think of when I see this is the people who will one day be browbeaten by "bioprogressives" into bending over and accepting their implants. Because, hey, one wouldn't want to be derided as a "conservative" (or, for goodness' sake, a "primitivist") for simply wanting to live out one's life as a garden-variety member of Homo sapiens. Goodness knows, that would downright uncivilized! Uncommunist, even!

I'm against forcing anyone to anything, it's rather a question about granting all layers of society, rather than the privileged few, the right to genetic/cybernetic alteration. Whether bio-conservative parents should have the right to deny their offspring these benefits is another question, of course, and one that might cause controversy in the future society.

It's essentially the same question imo as whether for instance Jehovas should be allowed to deny their children blood transplants. Grownups can make their own decisions based on their convictions, but should they be allowed to make them for the kids as well when it comes to serious, life altering questions?


Seriously though: I'm a mild (very mild) futurist myself, but when you start talking like this, you really do sound ridiculous, and even scary. I'd never want to discourage you from your interest, just the part where you create derogatory categories for those who don't share your fascination with human enhancements or your desire to adopt them.

Once again, I'm hardly creating anything myself here. Nor do I think bioconservative is essentially a derogatory word, it's just descriptive of a political/moral stance that some hold. Clearly it's a necessary word in our times of rapid technological improvement and the debates that follow?

[Dean]

What primarily bothers me about transhumanism and the tendencies of technocrats, is the apparent unwavering support for technological progress in all fields, at all times, without critical analysis.

I understand that this isn't a universal truth (that is, I fully expect many of our technocrats to agree with me on the topic of nuclear arms). But what really characterizes these individuals, is a generalized rejection of any criticism of certain technological progresses.

This is rarely more evident than in terms of transhumanist ideas, concerning everything from psychoactive chemicals to general body modification and engineering.

There are a myriad of criticism that can be levied at the scientific vanguard, and more important the application of advanced technology. But to put it succinctly, advanced technology serves the interests of the elite primarily, and has an alternate character in terms of social, scientific and economic manifestation.

This character can sometimes be predicted in terms of its manifestation, and some crucial examples are as follows:
-the tendency for a centralized system of medicine to serve the interests of capital in terms of its application (that is, for instance, in diluting "socially dangerous" characteristics via strategic application of depressants in particular)

-the potential hazards to the psychological well being of the human animal - simply put, the human being developed in relation to natural surroundings, and the intricacies of our mental health have shown themselves to be real barriers to the versatility of our mental faculties, that is our ability to maintain inward and outward sanity and health in different unnatural surroundings.

-the last one lead to this, but alienation. The availability of advanced communications devices has clearly led to more disassociation in terms of local community and social economy. More and more, our social lives are dictated by norms found via the internet, and these cultural tendencies, insofar as they are socially destructive (often in the service of capital), provide a medium wherein escape from social life can actually mean entering a new, highly disassociated social medium.

So long as we continue to look to technology primarily, particularly in the furtherance of social development, we are indulging in practices which are increasingly private and self-involved. Socialism is by its nature an inward-looking system, and the application of technology will have to take on a radically different character if it is to really further the interests of the human race as a whole.

[Revy]

As someone whose sight is impaired without his glasses, I wholeheartedly endorse some of the principles of transhumanism. I would like to be able to see clearly. If being vision-impaired is being a "garden-variety member" of the human species, well, get me out of this damn garden.

[anticap]

As someone whose sight is impaired without his glasses, I wholeheartedly endorse some of the principles of transhumanism. I would like to be able to see clearly. If being vision-impaired is being a "garden-variety member" of the human species, well, get me out of this damn garden.

Of course, this objection doesn't follow from anything I said.

There's a difference between eyeglasses (or wheelchairs, or any other device intended to alleviate a defect or frailty and sought out by the sufferer), and, say, an exoskeleton meant to enhance "garden-variety" human abilities, which one might feel pressured by one's peers into adopting, as they toss around slurs like "bioconservative" (I could use a will-power enhancement right now though, to help me resist posting the iconic image of Donald Sutherland pointing and howling in Body Snatchers).

I wish you hadn't felt inclined to your above melodrama, as I wanted to avoid posting in this thread (I don't think it was a substantial enough digression to warrant the split, but I suppose it was seen as an opportunity).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What primarily bothers me about transhumanism and the tendencies of technocrats, is the apparent unwavering support for technological progress in all fields, at all times, without critical analysis.

Barring civilisation-wrecking disaster, technological progress is pretty much inevitable. If a technology is outlawed (which I assume is the desired ultimate outcome of opposition), only outlaws will develop the technology, exactly the very last people we want to do so. It's better to steer the wave rather than get swamped, so to speak.


There are a myriad of criticism that can be levied at the scientific vanguard, and more important the application of advanced technology. But to put it succinctly, advanced technology serves the interests of the elite primarily, and has an alternate character in terms of social, scientific and economic manifestation.

Indeed, but what do you think should be done about it? It's simplistic to just oppose a technology outright, and I think many "risky" technologies have tremendous potential that make them worthy of further development.


This character can sometimes be predicted in terms of its manifestation, and some crucial examples are as follows:
-the tendency for a centralized system of medicine to serve the interests of capital in terms of its application (that is, for instance, in diluting "socially dangerous" characteristics via strategic application of depressants in particular)

That may be so, but inappropriate use of technology (in this case, medication) does not invalidate its use in all situations. Medication may be an appropriate response to certain conditions, but if it is opposed wholesale how will we ever find out?


-the potential hazards to the psychological well being of the human animal - simply put, the human being developed in relation to natural surroundings, and the intricacies of our mental health have shown themselves to be real barriers to the versatility of our mental faculties, that is our ability to maintain inward and outward sanity and health in different unnatural surroundings.

I think it's naive to seperate humans from the rest of nature in such a manner as you seem to be describing - humans have after all got to this point as a natural response, there is no "master plan" being developed by an arbitrarily evil, monolithic ruling class.

The major roadblocks to further human potential are not technological, but social and economic.


-the last one lead to this, but alienation. The availability of advanced communications devices has clearly led to more disassociation in terms of local community and social economy. More and more, our social lives are dictated by norms found via the internet, and these cultural tendencies, insofar as they are socially destructive (often in the service of capital), provide a medium wherein escape from social life can actually mean entering a new, highly disassociated social medium.

I reckon you are overestimating the impact of the internet. Even the most avid net junkie was raised by other human beings, and there is still a significant chunk of humanity who aren't online. Also, the mere fact that social networking sites and internet forums exist mean that even the internet can't crush our urges to socialise - I think it would take a concerted effort to wipe out an evolutionary trait that is far older than humanity.

[Meridian]

-the last one lead to this, but alienation. The availability of advanced communications devices has clearly led to more disassociation in terms of local community and social economy. More and more, our social lives are dictated by norms found via the internet, and these cultural tendencies, insofar as they are socially destructive (often in the service of capital), provide a medium wherein escape from social life can actually mean entering a new, highly disassociated social medium.
Even if it does have that aspect, I think this is a completely one-sided view of the internet. You forget that it is through that medium you are communicating now. If we don't embrace the net as a means, and in some way also as an end in itself, then the revolutionary left will face serious issues (which it does already). I think that point can hardly be overestimated.

[Dean]

Barring civilisation-wrecking disaster, technological progress is pretty much inevitable. If a technology is outlawed (which I assume is the desired ultimate outcome of opposition), only outlaws will develop the technology, exactly the very last people we want to do so. It's better to steer the wave rather than get swamped, so to speak.

Indeed, but what do you think should be done about it? It's simplistic to just oppose a technology outright, and I think many "risky" technologies have tremendous potential that make them worthy of further development.



That may be so, but inappropriate use of technology (in this case, medication) does not invalidate its use in all situations. Medication may be an appropriate response to certain conditions, but if it is opposed wholesale how will we ever find out?
I am proposing that leftists should not be uniformly in support of technological progress within the context of a paradigm which, when certain technology is introduced, it will have negative effects.

In the present capitalist system, I think that bans on certain tech are absolutely viable for either a capitalist state which has human interests, or a socialist state which appreciates the instability and danger of WMD in a competitive structure.


I think it's naive to seperate humans from the rest of nature in such a manner as you seem to be describing - humans have after all got to this point as a natural response, there is no "master plan" being developed by an arbitrarily evil, monolithic ruling class.
What are you talking about? Instead of separating humans from other kinds of creatures, I am endorsing the notion that creatures act within the context of their material surroundings, and that human beings - like all animals - are evolutionarily adapted to natural conditions.

The rapid reorganization of our human society is not uniformly healthy or beneficial to humans, precisely because we have complex physiology which does not uniformly benefit in conditions which we are placed in within industrial society.


The major roadblocks to further human potential are not technological, but social and economic.
That's absolutely correct, and in the same vein, the solutions to these problems are social and economic, not technological.


I reckon you are overestimating the impact of the internet. Even the most avid net junkie was raised by other human beings, and there is still a significant chunk of humanity who aren't online. Also, the mere fact that social networking sites and internet forums exist mean that even the internet can't crush our urges to socialise - I think it would take a concerted effort to wipe out an evolutionary trait that is far older than humanity.

[/B]Even if it does have that aspect, I think this is a completely one-sided view of the internet. You forget that it is through that medium you are communicating now. If we don't embrace the net as a means, and in some way also as an end in itself, then the revolutionary left will face serious issues (which it does already). I think that point can hardly be overestimated.
The internet is a valuable tool, as are all the other problematic tech advances I mentioned in the earlier post.

What matters is not that we "appreciate" these tools from some black-white or moralist milieu, but rather that we critically assess the character of these technologies and ascertain a reasonable, human response to its presence.

I've seen a lot in the techncrat tendency simply say "technology is good" without even accepting the very simple fact that this kind of progress always has a real, material character, and in fact technology which will primarily serve the interests of the elite, at the expense of working class interests, has clear repercussions which leftists must respond to - that is if our criticism of social mechanisms is going to be a serious, analytical one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am proposing that leftists should not be uniformly in support of technological progress within the context of a paradigm which, when certain technology is introduced, it will have negative effects.

In the present capitalist system, I think that bans on certain tech are absolutely viable for either a capitalist state which has human interests, or a socialist state which appreciates the instability and danger of WMD in a competitive structure.

Banning a technology does nothing to prevent those who are willing to circumvent such bans in order to gain any advantages that such technology grants. Such bans also have the effect of stifling worthwhile applications.

For example, if nanotechnology were to be banned, that does not mean that nanotechnology no longer becomes technically feasible. It simply means that any development of nanotechnology will be undertaken by those willing to break the law, with no oversight and minimal if any regard for safety. This is a recipe for disaster!


What are you talking about? Instead of separating humans from other kinds of creatures, I am endorsing the notion that creatures act within the context of their material surroundings, and that human beings - like all animals - are evolutionarily adapted to natural conditions.

The rapid reorganization of our human society is not uniformly healthy or beneficial to humans, precisely because we have complex physiology which does not uniformly benefit in conditions which we are placed in within industrial society.

What "rapid re-organisation" are you talking about? At least in the case of the internet, there is no overall goal or direction. Similarly, nanotechnology which enables rapid fabrication of manufactured goods with minimal tooling-up costs would be used by everyone from private individuals to corporations and governments, each and every one with their own unique goals in mind.


That's absolutely correct, and in the same vein, the solutions to these problems are social and economic, not technological.

But you seem to be denying that technology has any role whatsoever to play, which simply isn't true. People use technology to empower themselves as well as oppress each other.


The internet is a valuable tool, as are all the other problematic tech advances I mentioned in the earlier post.

What matters is not that we "appreciate" these tools from some black-white or moralist milieu, but rather that we critically assess the character of these technologies and ascertain a reasonable, human response to its presence.

But how does that work out in practice? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in the ability of legislation to control technology, which is utterly laughable - as an example, the record companies, despite their wealth and connections, have been powerless to stop internet filesharing of their "intellectual property" - they may make an example of the occasional unlucky schlub who gets caught, but last time I checked filesharing is on the increase, and the average person, especially if they're young, sees free access to media as something of a right.


I've seen a lot in the techncrat tendency simply say "technology is good" without even accepting the very simple fact that this kind of progress always has a real, material character, and in fact technology which will primarily serve the interests of the elite, at the expense of working class interests, has clear repercussions which leftists must respond to - that is if our criticism of social mechanisms is going to be a serious, analytical one.

I'm not denying there are potential risks, but I think reactions like yours are inappropriate at best and at worst will actually exacerbate the risks.

[anticap]

I know I said I didn't want to stir this cauldron, but I found this too good not to share.

After reading the news of actor Robert Culp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Culp)'s recent death, I somehow wound up at YouTube watching a video of all his "Breencasts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGZHYut1gik)" from the video game, Half-Life 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2), where he voiced the antagonist, Dr. Wallace Breen. I was immediately reminded of this thread. Notice his browbeating condemnation of those who would resist the "progress" offered by the Combine. (For those who aren't familiar with the game, the Combine are an extraterrestrial species who travel the universe in search of life forms to "combine" with, using their advanced technology to create mechanical/organic hybrids.) This is the very sort of vibe I sometimes get from, shall we say, "overly enthusiastic" tranhumanist-types. There's nothing inherently wrong with human enhancement, of course -- but there's nothing inherently right about it, either. There will inevitably be resistance to it, and I don't think dismissing such people as "conservative" will be very constructive. I don't consider remote indigenous peoples to be "conservative," or even "primitivist," for resisting the encroachment of "civilization," either.

yGZHYut1gik

Dbbwrfp9toE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't see how Dr Breen is relevant, at least to transhumanists on this site, including myself. He's quite obviously the catspaw of an alien occupation force, instead of a sincere advocate for human advancement.

[anticap]

I don't see how Dr Breen is relevant, at least to transhumanists on this site, including myself. He's quite obviously the catspaw of an alien occupation force, instead of a sincere advocate for human advancement.

You may not see it, but I explained what I thought it was. In short: the attitude.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You may not see it, but I explained what I thought it was. In short: the attitude.

I don't remember advocating the subjugation and assimilation of sapient beings against their will into a cross-dimensional empire, nor would I collaborate with same.

Whose posts have you been reading? Could you provide quotes? I'm going to be charitable and assume you have simply got the wrong end of the stick instead of deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of Transhumanists and other HPGers on this site.

[anticap]

I don't remember advocating the subjugation and assimilation of sapient beings against their will into a cross-dimensional empire, nor would I collaborate with same.

I don't remember saying that you did. What I said, was that the attitude is sometimes the same, in my experience.


Whose posts have you been reading? Could you provide quotes? I'm going to be charitable and assume you have simply got the wrong end of the stick instead of deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of Transhumanists and other HPGers on this site.

This very thread is a case in point. If you've been following along (I'm going to be charitable and assume that you have, despite your above non sequitur), then you're already familiar with my objections.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't remember saying that you did. What I said, was that the attitude is sometimes the same, in my experience.

Surely that "attitude" is reflected by the things said. You've been incredibly vague, going on about "attitudes" and "vibes" and then providing what is in my mind a terrible example for reasons already stated, an imperialist collaborator (I'm ignoring the fact that this example is also fictional).


This very thread is a case in point. If you've been following along (I'm going to be charitable and assume that you have, despite your above non sequitur), then you're already familiar with my objections.

How is asking for quotes supporting your claims a non sequiter?

[Dean]

Banning a technology does nothing to prevent those who are willing to circumvent such bans in order to gain any advantages that such technology grants. Such bans also have the effect of stifling worthwhile applications.

For example, if nanotechnology were to be banned, that does not mean that nanotechnology no longer becomes technically feasible. It simply means that any development of nanotechnology will be undertaken by those willing to break the law, with no oversight and minimal if any regard for safety. This is a recipe for disaster!
I'm talking about very narrow bans, like a ban on nuclear arms and associated technology. Remember that you were the one who first mentioned bans, presumably to make your position more convincing. What I'm talking about is pertinent regardless of bans, which I agree are not typically effective.


What "rapid re-organisation" are you talking about? At least in the case of the internet, there is no overall goal or direction. Similarly, nanotechnology which enables rapid fabrication of manufactured goods with minimal tooling-up costs would be used by everyone from private individuals to corporations and governments, each and every one with their own unique goals in mind.
Do you reject the notion that the application of technology has had compelling effects on how human society is organized, and even how we go about our daily lives?

That is a clear reorganization.


But you seem to be denying that technology has any role whatsoever to play, which simply isn't true. People use technology to empower themselves as well as oppress each other.

Technology has a role to play as a tool, a force which allows us to maintain a certain level of production. This is necessary for any advanced economy.

I'm not sure how you could extrapolate "has no role to play" in advanced economies, when that could only apply if I were actually proposing a primitivist program.



But how does that work out in practice? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in the ability of legislation to control technology, which is utterly laughable - as an example, the record companies, despite their wealth and connections, have been powerless to stop internet filesharing of their "intellectual property" - they may make an example of the occasional unlucky schlub who gets caught, but last time I checked filesharing is on the increase, and the average person, especially if they're young, sees free access to media as something of a right.

You sound just like an an-cap, except in application of that attitude to the technological paradigm of today. Remember, it was you who mentioned bans, so you can argue with yourself on that topic.

Rather, I am proposing active societal interests in the effects of technology which will better educate ourselves as to its proper use. Bans aren't necessary.

Furthermore, you mentioned in this post and the last:


At least in the case of the internet, there is no overall goal or direction.

I think it's naive to seperate humans from the rest of nature in such a manner as you seem to be describing - humans have after all got to this point as a natural response, there is no "master plan" being developed by an arbitrarily evil, monolithic ruling class.
Of course I ignored the appeal to nature. But the point I want to make here is, again, your misrepresentation of my argument: nowhere have I even implied that there are specific, coordinated efforts to blame in terms of the concerns outlined initially. Rather, this is another viewpoint you have asserted onto my posts.

What does exist are real, material characteristics and in the same vein, there is no coordinated master plan among the corporate entities of the world - just a profit driven, centralized directive which has clear systemic results.

Do we also cease blaming capitalism, because it is both natural and has no explicit master plan in and of itself?


I'm not denying there are potential risks, but I think reactions like yours are inappropriate at best and at worst will actually exacerbate the risks.
If you don't understand (and I'm assuming you don't, since you didn't address this point) that advanced technology in the hands of a ruling class has serious implications in terms of working class interests, I think you are way too detached from extant social conditions for this discussion to be meaningful.

Really, I think your reaction is much less appropriate, since you have represented it by way of misrepresentation of my points, "ban" hysteria and at least one appeal to nature. I'm not trying to say any of that was deliberate, but that is how this discussion played out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm talking about very narrow bans, like a ban on nuclear arms and associated technology. Remember that you were the one who first mentioned bans, presumably to make your position more convincing. What I'm talking about is pertinent regardless of bans, which I agree are not typically effective.

So how's that ban on nuclear arms going? I hear North Korea recently let off a couple of nukes, and Iran is suspecting of developing nuclear weapons also, but it's hard to tell because the Iranians are forced to act in a cloak-and-dagger manner by anti-proliferation treaties enforced by nuke-toting Americans and their friends. Oops.

See what I mean?


Do you reject the notion that the application of technology has had compelling effects on how human society is organized, and even how we go about our daily lives?

That is a clear reorganization.

That's not re-organisation, since there is no over-arching plan in accordance with a specific goal or set of goals.


Technology has a role to play as a tool, a force which allows us to maintain a certain level of production. This is necessary for any advanced economy.

I'm not sure how you could extrapolate "has no role to play" in advanced economies, when that could only apply if I were actually proposing a primitivist program.

Fair enough, but technology has more implications than a bigger pie for everybody (as nice as that is!). We should embrace the qualitative opportunities for diversifying human potential that technology offers as well.


You sound just like an an-cap, except in application of that attitude to the technological paradigm of today. Remember, it was you who mentioned bans, so you can argue with yourself on that topic.

Rather, I am proposing active societal interests in the effects of technology which will better educate ourselves as to its proper use. Bans aren't necessary.

You didn't answer my question. "Active societal interests"? What does this mean, when all's said and done? That we should be aware of the potential risks posed by technologies? I'm in favour of that already. If not that, then what?


Furthermore, you mentioned in this post and the last:



Of course I ignored the appeal to nature. But the point I want to make here is, again, your misrepresentation of my argument: nowhere have I even implied that there are specific, coordinated efforts to blame in terms of the concerns outlined initially. Rather, this is another viewpoint you have asserted onto my posts.

What does exist are real, material characteristics and in the same vein, there is no coordinated master plan among the corporate entities of the world - just a profit driven, centralized directive which has clear systemic results.

Do we also cease blaming capitalism, because it is both natural and has no explicit master plan in and of itself?

Of course we should work to eliminate capitalism; my point was that, while the profit does indeed have a massively distorting effect, we should consider technologies on their individual merits rather than painting with too broad a brush, since the distortion mainly occurs in a technology's application rather than the technology itself.


If you don't understand (and I'm assuming you don't, since you didn't address this point) that advanced technology in the hands of a ruling class has serious implications in terms of working class interests, I think you are way too detached from extant social conditions for this discussion to be meaningful.

So short of working to eliminate capitalism, what do you propose to actually do about it? They're not called the ruling class for no good reason. If certain sections of the ruling class wish to develop a technology, for good or ill, they're going to do it regardless of your input or mine.

In case you haven't noticed, the revolutionary left is a marginalised and socially meaningless force, at least here in the UK, and judging by what's happening in the US, there too.


Really, I think your reaction is much less appropriate, since you have represented it by way of misrepresentation of my points, "ban" hysteria and at least one appeal to nature. I'm not trying to say any of that was deliberate, but that is how this discussion played out.

It doesn't help that you've provided what appear to be platitudes instead of concrete statements and guides for action. For my part, I hope to cultivate what I fondly think of as a revolutionary attitudes and behaviour among my prospective fellows in the lines of work I aspire to. If I'm up to the task I will lead by example.

And you?

[anticap]

Surely that "attitude" is reflected by the things said. You've been incredibly vague, going on about "attitudes" and "vibes" and then providing what is in my mind a terrible example for reasons already stated, an imperialist collaborator (I'm ignoring the fact that this example is also fictional).

Most of transhumanism is fictional, too.


How is asking for quotes supporting your claims a non sequiter?

The non sequitur was in your evident belief that it followed, from my drawing a comparison between the attitudes of Breen and (some) transhumanists I've encountered, that I therefore assumed that you were bent on the same sort of diabolical plan as he.

Anyway, this is turning into a thing between the two of us, which... meh. I thought that even ardent transhumanists might get a chuckle out of the reference.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most of transhumanism is fictional, too.

It's early days yet, I'll grant you.


The non sequitur was in your evident belief that it followed, from my drawing a comparison between the attitudes of Breen and (some) transhumanists I've encountered, that I therefore assumed that you were bent on the same sort of diabolical plan as he.

Then why bring him up? I've encountered Transhumanists who I think have the wrong end of the stick, to put it mildly (for example, Extropians tend overwhelmingly to be libertarian free market cultists). Every movement has its bad eggs.


Anyway, this is turning into a thing between the two of us, which... meh. I thought that even ardent transhumanists might get a chuckle out of the reference.

Oh don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Half-Life 2, and Breen is an interesting character. Doubtless if Transhumanism becomes a major social force then there will be people just like him who will need to be opposed at every turn.

The price of Utopia is eternal vigilance, it seems.

[Dean]

So how's that ban on nuclear arms going? I hear North Korea recently let off a couple of nukes, and Iran is suspecting of developing nuclear weapons also, but it's hard to tell because the Iranians are forced to act in a cloak-and-dagger manner by anti-proliferation treaties enforced by nuke-toting Americans and their friends. Oops.

See what I mean?
I've already pointed out that bans weren't desirable, why are you carrying on about them?




That's not re-organisation, since there is no over-arching plan in accordance with a specific goal or set of goals.
All you're doing is latching the concept of deliberate goals onto the term "reorganization," which is clearly not how I was using the term, nor is it a necessary feature of the term.


Fair enough, but technology has more implications than a bigger pie for everybody (as nice as that is!). We should embrace the qualitative opportunities for diversifying human potential that technology offers as well.



You didn't answer my question. "Active societal interests"? What does this mean, when all's said and done? That we should be aware of the potential risks posed by technologies? I'm in favour of that already. If not that, then what?

That is, the critical assessment of the value of technology as applied in society. I doubt you really oppose it. Rather, what I'm complaining about is the categorical endorsement of all tech, wherein you consistently applaud the tools for what they can do, rather than what we can expect them to do.


Of course we should work to eliminate capitalism; my point was that, while the profit does indeed have a massively distorting effect, we should consider technologies on their individual merits rather than painting with too broad a brush, since the distortion mainly occurs in a technology's application rather than the technology itself.



So short of working to eliminate capitalism, what do you propose to actually do about it? They're not called the ruling class for no good reason. If certain sections of the ruling class wish to develop a technology, for good or ill, they're going to do it regardless of your input or mine.


In case you haven't noticed, the revolutionary left is a marginalised and socially meaningless force, at least here in the UK, and judging by what's happening in the US, there too.
Well, that's an argument to just give up on all criticism of social systems.

I don't know how serious you are about that, but when I speak of technological advances, I speak in terms of contemporary society. It's important to appreciate the tendencies of these changes, so that when they come about, with the good and the bad, we aren't shocked and at least have a response for it.




It doesn't help that you've provided what appear to be platitudes instead of concrete statements and guides for action. For my part, I hope to cultivate what I fondly think of as a revolutionary attitudes and behaviour among my prospective fellows in the lines of work I aspire to. If I'm up to the task I will lead by example.

And you?

I make a concerted effort to pinpoint and explain the interests represented by certain functions of industrial and political economies, as well as their material character insofar as it relates to the working class and power structures.

I've never been good at providing sweeping, concrete resolutions to these problems, besides obvious things like the need for more public input, and specific systemic criticisms re: the above analyses, but that doesn't really bring into question my integrity in terms of "guides for action." I actually hate to tell others what to do. I don't think I have that qualification on any level. And I'm very wary of people who claim to have that knowledge.

Really, though, I haven't seen you proposing many structural or organization changes that we could implement. You do mention specific attitudes about the tendency of scientific industries (which I think tend to be unrealistic), but I have to ask - and this hearkens back to what you said a moment ago - won't they do what they want without you posting here on revleft about it?


You see science for what it can do. I look to contemporary societal conditions and assess what I think it will do. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessments - I'm sure that's the case at least some of the time. But I think its incredibly naive to only look at an explicit material phenomenon in terms of what it can do. That's utopian in the purest sense of the term.

[Sentinel]

What many seem to ignore is that technological progress benefiting a privileged minority, the bourgeois class, is what is most likely going to bring that precise system to an end. The ultimate injustice of a selected few living forever due to genetic alteration and controlling an automated industry simply has to wake up the masses not accessing these privileges to realise the absurdity of class society.

The transhumanist aspect will make class struggle a direct question of life and death even in the western world where the workers have been soothed and paralysed by welfare state capitalism so far. The machines doing all work will make it seem directly ridiculous having small class controlling them, anywhere.

The only possibility for the bourgeois class to try and maintain the status quo at that point will be the creation of a 'bread and circus games' system to keep the people content, but I have a very hard time seeing that working in the long run for the reasons I addressed in my previous paragraph. This is why technological progress, which -- according to Marx, ffs -- has brought us through all the different stages of social development, also will bring us forward to the next one.

Controlling or banning technological development can never further the cause of the workers, only prolong our misery as slaves to the bourgeoisie.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've already pointed out that bans weren't desirable, why are you carrying on about them?

Because you said:


In the present capitalist system, I think that bans on certain tech are absolutely viable [my emphasis] for either a capitalist state which has human interests, or a socialist state which appreciates the instability and danger of WMD in a competitive structure.

Are you backpedaling on this?


All you're doing is latching the concept of deliberate goals onto the term "reorganization," which is clearly not how I was using the term, nor is it a necessary feature of the term.

Disorganised reorganisation? That's a new one on me, I'll admit.


That is, the critical assessment of the value of technology as applied in society. I doubt you really oppose it. Rather, what I'm complaining about is the categorical endorsement of all tech, wherein you consistently applaud the tools for what they can do, rather than what we can expect them to do.

If a technology has desirable potential, then surely it make sense to encourage and work towards the realisation of that potential?


Well, that's an argument to just give up on all criticism of social systems.

I consider it an argument for a change of plan, actually. I don't think we're going to get anywhere by moralistic finger-wagging and the prescription of social (as opposed to technical) systems dreamed up by one person or a handful , who cannot possibly have experience of everyone's desires and aspirations*. In other words, my estimation is that given the opportunity, human beings are perfectly capable of achieving a satisfactory social equilibrium without being told what to do. Attempting to control rather than merely regulate technology is antithetical to that.

* I don't think you're actually guilty of this, but unfortunately you remind me of those who are. Sorry.


I don't know how serious you are about that, but when I speak of technological advances, I speak in terms of contemporary society. It's important to appreciate the tendencies of these changes, so that when they come about, with the good and the bad, we aren't shocked and at least have a response for it.

The thing is, "contemporary society" is something that is constantly changing, and due its complexity, we can't always predict what will happen next, except in very broad terms. Marxism is appears to be useful in this respect, but I can't help but notice that people frequently tend to come to grief when they attempt to apply it to detailed situations.

There are other confounding factors as well - for example, the appearance of greater-than-human intelligences (which I believe to be a desirable event) would utterly derail the Marxist project.


I make a concerted effort to pinpoint and explain the interests represented by certain functions of industrial and political economies, as well as their material character insofar as it relates to the working class and power structures.

Good. Keep doing that.


I've never been good at providing sweeping, concrete resolutions to these problems, besides obvious things like the need for more public input, and specific systemic criticisms re: the above analyses, but that doesn't really bring into question my integrity in terms of "guides for action." I actually hate to tell others what to do. I don't think I have that qualification on any level. And I'm very wary of people who claim to have that knowledge.

Fair enough.


Really, though, I haven't seen you proposing many structural or organization changes that we could implement. You do mention specific attitudes about the tendency of scientific industries (which I think tend to be unrealistic), but I have to ask - and this hearkens back to what you said a moment ago - won't they do what they want without you posting here on revleft about it?

I admit I won't win them all over (who can?). But I think my approach will be fruitful nonetheless, and while I can criticise tactics I think are useless or counter-productive, I'm not in favour of actually interfering because of the possibility that something workable will become of their efforts, plus the fact the fact that in order to actually stop them would require the social machinery of oppression (courts, police, etc) which I cannot countenance.