Transhumanism, the Left, and Shared Consciousness

[Mr. Gorilla]

Let's look at the possibility that as capitalism is abolished and human bodily augmentation kicks in, in order to increase the speed, transfer and processing of information within the human mind, our bodies are injected with a number of nano-machines that interface with our brains and allow our minds to wirelessly "link up," forming a global telepathic communications network. It would not be unreasonable to assume that as the technology is used and grows more sophisticated (And as it spreads swiftly; as social/economic hierarchy would have died with capitalism, this technology would be easily available to all those who desire it), people would grow more dependent on it (The internet, for example, is already an invaluable tool for many people today). It would also not be unreasonable to assume that as people grow more dependent on it, what is seen as "personal information," now, would no longer be viewed as such.

Personal memories, thoughts, and experiences would begin to be shared across the network; eventually, everything that is to be known about a given individual will be out there on the network, with every other individual, with those individuals likewise having access to information pertaining to other individuals. If we define a person as their personal memories and experiences, this would render everyone connected to the network effectively immortal (Even if the physical bodies of those individuals were to be destroyed); everyone connected to this network would also have nigh-infinite knowledge, knowing everything humanity has ever known (With whatever humanity discovers in the future being added to that knowledge base).

This would essentially make human society some sort of hive mind or collective consciousness (In other words, many minds would compose one mind); there would be no hierarchy or state, for why would this massive superorganism/entity need one when all of the individuals of its state collectively compose it? There would be no private ownership of the means of production, either. Current notions of "individuality" would also not exist in this society as it is described (But this raises another question; is individuality valuable in the grand scheme of things?).

(On a side note, I assume, given this potential future, that our society would interface with non-human machines and computers as well; man and machine would exist across one global (Or, perhaps, universal?) network (And further along the line, we may feel that we have outlived the usefulness of biological forms, abandoning them entirely for artificial ones))

I, personally, find this society desirable; I believe the rate of growth of knowledge and science would especially benefit from this society, and I believe it would allow for far greater human happiness, as it would remove the potential for pain, death, and fear. Furthermore, I view it as the ultimate form of stateless communism, achieved through the transhumanist and anarchist movements. There may be the problem with such a society requiring a great deal of resources (Of course, I'd assume efficiency would increase with time) with this posing a threat to the natural world (And to our own existence), but I'd assume we'd colonize other worlds, and we'd also have the genetic and molecular knowledge of every living thing within this world; we'd be able to simulate realities on our network down to subatomic levels, and there wouldn't be a noticeable difference between the virtual reality and the real world (And for the simulated organisms within; think of a "zoo in cyberspace").

I know that not all who identify themselves as leftists would agree with this society, though, which is why I'm curious as to what the people here would think of such a future. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? Is it feasible? I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know that not all who identify themselves as leftists would agree with this society, though, which is why I'm curious as to what the people here would think of such a future. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? Is it feasible? I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter. :)

I too would like to see something like that to come about, but as a Singularitarian I also recognise that some would not want such a future for themselves. It is only fair to accommodate them.

I think there is enough room on the surface of the Earth for all kinds of lifestyles, but only if we rebuild our cities to serve humans not cars, expand our collective resource base beyond Earth and move as much manufacuring into space as we can, among other things. Those of us who favour advanced technological lifestyles should also be more prepared to build our cities in the less hospitable parts of the Earth, where there is less of an ecosystem to damage or displace.

[Mr. Gorilla]

There is a problem, however. Seeing as the more technologically advanced, transhuman/posthuman society will eventually become so different from those who elect to live a more primitive/"natural" lifestyle that compatibility would be lost (Think biological humans and a giant, hive mind swarm of posthuman nano-machines occupying the same world and trying to communicate and work with eachother; their motivations and necessities would likely be incredibly different), though, what would happen when the earth inevitably becomes uninhabitable, either due to consumption of resources or a more cosmic threat (Such as the sun going supernova)?

Would the posthumans aid the "regular humans" in colonizing new worlds, building artificial ecosystems for them to inhabit? Would the posthumans offer them entry into their own simulated reality (As described earlier)? If so, though, would this not be a form of social hierarchy (The posthumans would be acting as "caretakers"); would this manner of "helping them," no matter how benevolent the intent was, conflict with an anarchist, communist vision of the future?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is a problem, however. Seeing as the more technologically advanced, transhuman/posthuman society will eventually become so different from those who elect to live a more primitive/"natural" lifestyle that compatibility would be lost (Think biological humans and a giant, hive mind swarm of posthuman nano-machines occupying the same world and trying to communicate and work with eachother; their motivations and necessities would likely be incredibly different),

Remember that all sides will have had a history of sharing the same planet ever since their inception, so they will have had plenty of time and opportunity (as well as motive) to develop mutually intelligible communicative and social protocols.


though, what would happen when the earth inevitably becomes uninhabitable, either due to consumption of resources or a more cosmic threat (Such as the sun going supernova)?

Well, I did say that we should be expanding our resource base beyond Earth. As for when the sun swells into a red giant (it won't go supernova, it isn't massive enough), well the technological types can simply move away. The non-techs can either leave with the techs when they leave or stay where they are, it's their choice.


Would the posthumans aid the "regular humans" in colonizing new worlds, building artificial ecosystems for them to inhabit? Would the posthumans offer them entry into their own simulated reality (As described earlier)?

I would hope that baseline humans are free to join or leave technological society as they see fit.


If so, though, would this not be a form of social hierarchy (The posthumans would be acting as "caretakers"); would this manner of "helping them," no matter how benevolent the intent was, conflict with an anarchist, communist vision of the future?

If I have trouble moving my furniture around, and enlist the aid of a stronger friend to help me, does that conflict with my ideals?

[CommunityBeliever]

This would essentially make human society some sort of hive mind or collective consciousness (In other words, many minds would compose one mind); there would be no hierarchy or state, for why would this massive superorganism/entity need one when all of the individuals of its state collectively compose it? There would be no private ownership of the means of production, either. Current notions of "individuality" would also not exist in this society as it is described (But this raises another question; is individuality valuable in the grand scheme of things?).

I have entertained such notions myself for quite a while (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1861154&postcount=460) and I created a detailed outline of how such a hive mind may emerge. There is a high degree of probability that this may take place, but that is not set in stone because we can determine our of future. Nothing will happen without the guidance of humanity.


I know that not all who identify themselves as leftists would agree with this society, though, which is why I'm curious as to what the people here would think of such a future. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? Is it feasible? I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.

I consider all forms of sci-fi escapism (something I was guilty of until recently) to be despicable. We need to build socialism now because there are people out there suffering and capitalism is destroying all of our wealth and our accomplishments.

Partaking in singulatarianism and transhumanism well capitalism is still around is like participating in bourgeoisie politics, no good will come out of it, it won't help the poor, and it diverts our attention from the target. We should dedicate ourselves to eliminating capitalism not pointless speculation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I consider all forms of sci-fi escapism (something I was guilty of until recently) to be despicable. We need to build socialism now because there are people out there suffering and capitalism is destroying all of our wealth and our accomplishments.

Helloooo false dichotomy! The struggles for socialism and transhumanism/Singularitarianism are not mutually exclusive. Everyone on this planet should be have the opportunity to become transhuman/posthuman if they so wish.


Partaking in singulatarianism and transhumanism well capitalism is still around is like participating in bourgeoisie politics, no good will come out of it, it won't help the poor, and it diverts our attention from the target. We should dedicate ourselves to eliminating capitalism not pointless speculation.

Participating is borgeouis politics is pointless because it's a system that has developed over time to prevent the very things that we struggle for. This is not the case for transhumanism or Singularitarianism - there is no "ultimate authority" that dictates what is right or wrong, because ultimately those things are not about the infallibility of a single person or tradition, but about our abilities and how they may enable us to get better at them with the aid of technology.

[CommunityBeliever]

Helloooo false dichotomy! The struggles for socialism and transhumanism/Singularitarianism are not mutually exclusive. Everyone on this planet should be have the opportunity to become transhuman/posthuman if they so wish.They are not mutually exclusive but the bourgeoisie politics and sci-fi escapism that dominate these movements are indeed reactionary.

Techno-capitalists like Ray Kurzweil that are in the leading position in these movements are in no small part responsible for the reactionary nature of them. We must take steps to separate ourselves from the bourgeoisie elements in these movements.


This is not the case for transhumanism or Singularitarianism - there is no "ultimate authority" that dictates what is right or wrong, because ultimately those things are not about the infallibility of a single person or tradition, but about our abilities and how they may enable us to get better at them with the aid of technology. The capitalist system dictates that these movements will not be effective and they unfortunately all to often lead to escapism. We must focus on the class enemy.

It makes sense I think to focus on building socialism. Focusing on singulatarianism won't do us any good until after the revolution, but it may be a worthwhile consideration as an entirely secondary thing as long as it doesn't lead to escapism or a disconnection from reality.

[CommunityBeliever]

I think there should be a new ideology "singularatarian-communism" that separates us from reactionary elements and the idea that the singularity can or should happen well capitalism is around.

An ideology that focuses on what we can do after the revolution when we know that these new technologies won't be used to suppress the working class.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They are not mutually exclusive but the bourgeoisie politics and sci-fi escapism that dominate these movements are indeed reactionary.

That's a tragedy, but what do you think should be done about it? I want to improve the transhumanist and singularitarian movements so they can be fit for the purpose of realising dreams.


Techno-capitalists like Ray Kurzweil that are in the leading position in these movements are in no small part responsible for the reactionary nature of them. We must take steps to separate ourselves from the bourgeoisie elements in these movements.

What is needed is criticism, not seperation. The left has endured enough political ghettoisation, it postively does not need any more. Other transhumanists and Singularitarians need to realise that their current and potential memberships may be more diverse in their economic opinions than they first realised.


The capitalist system dictates that these movements will not be effective and they unfortunately all to often lead to escapism. We must focus on the class enemy.

Good grief, give them some more time. It's not like communists should be throwing such stones from their glass houses.


It makes sense I think to focus on building socialism. Focusing on singulatarianism won't do us any good until after the revolution, but it may be a worthwhile consideration as an entirely secondary thing as long as it doesn't lead to escapism or a disconnection from reality.

People can "focus" on more than one thing at different times. Sure, some people may find that transhumanism holds their interest more, but I fail to see how screeching at them for not following one's own political idiosyncrasies is going to help. We should be giving such people more reasons to promote the left approach to transhumanism and Singularitarianism, not more reasons to ignore the left.

[CommunityBeliever]

That's a tragedy, but what do you think should be done about it? I want to improve the transhumanist and singularitarian movements so they can be fit for the purpose of realising dreams.I agree, I think we should propagate "singulatarian-communism" or "techno-communism" or something like that.


Other transhumanists and Singularitarians need to realise that their current and potential memberships may be more diverse in their economic opinions than they first realised.I really think we ought to separate ourselves from the capitalists though, because who is paying lots for robots and AI? The military. The capitalist war machine wants better killing tools, we can't associate ourselves with that sort of people.

This is why I think building AI before socialism is so dangerous the military or some other group will use it to benefit an elite. I firmly believe that friendly AI can only come about in a socialist society and that is why I now focus on building socialism.


Sure, some people may find that transhumanism holds their interest more, but I fail to see how screeching at them for not following one's own political idiosyncrasies is going to help.What I am most concerned with is not people like you, but others that believe that don't have a belief in social movements like communism and that think that building AI and free-market solutions will fix everything.

For example, I used to cynically believe that humans were beasts (see the human nature argument) and that they weren't capable of social progress and that AI should come on to the scene to fix everything. That sort of reactionary tendency is despicable I think.

[OhYesIdid]

I'm personally very excited at the idea of Transhumanism, and agree that the left should work to get Transhumanists-Singulitarians on our side. Going back to the OP, a popular argument against trans-humanism is the fear that humanity would be replaced (think an Asimovian* "Frankenstein Syndrome", although the term "Chronnos Syndrome" might be better here). Although the idea of an all-out space war between the technological Hive Mind and regular humanity might make for some cool sci-fi stories, I would hope that such conservative primitivism would have dissappeared by the time communism rolls around.
However, it seems a bit naive to think that singularity=communism: there might very well be a need for cybernetical socialist revolt (although I fear the proletariat in this case would be the "Real Life" workers and technicians that work on keeping the machines running, and that the relation between the digital world and the bourgeois might give rise to furious luddism).

Maybe we should work against AI research for the time being, arguing that it can only come about responsily and properly once the Revolution is triumphant.

*Big Science-fiction nut over here.

[CommunityBeliever]

Maybe we should work against AI research for the time being, arguing that it can only come about responsily and properly once the Revolution is triumphant.My thoughts exactly comrade :thumbup:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree, I think we should propagate "singulatarian-communism" or "techno-communism" or something like that.

Walk before you run. The general public needs to become more familiar and comfortable with transhumanist ideas before they can decide how their politics relates to them.


I really think we ought to separate ourselves from the capitalists though, because who is paying lots for robots and AI? The military. The capitalist war machine wants better killing tools, we can't associate ourselves with that sort of people.

I think that sort of thing is out of our hands for the moment. The US military's interest in AI and robotics is being driven by factors other than the relatively recent appearance of transhumanism and singularitarianism in the public discourse.


This is why I think building AI before socialism is so dangerous the military or some other group will use it to benefit an elite. I firmly believe that friendly AI can only come about in a socialist society and that is why I now focus on building socialism.

My beliefs about the future are considerably more pliable, because it has yet to be made.


What I am most concerned with is not people like you, but others that believe that don't have a belief in social movements like communism and that think that building AI and free-market solutions will fix everything.

Yes, Libertarian transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism) is something that can and should be criticised, but I fear you may be conflating that element with the whole movement.


For example, I used to cynically believe that humans were beasts (see the human nature argument) and that they weren't capable of social progress and that AI should come on to the scene to fix everything. That sort of reactionary tendency is despicable I think.

Well, you were only partially incorrect. Humans are indeed beasts with all that implies, but it does not follow that we are incapable of social progress, since history tells us otherwise. AIs would be a major boon (and thus worth pursuing in my estimation), but we're capable of finding our own way as well.

[Desperado]

Partaking in singulatarianism and transhumanism well capitalism is still around is like participating in bourgeoisie politics, no good will come out of it, it won't help the poor, and it diverts our attention from the target. We should dedicate ourselves to eliminating capitalism not pointless speculation.

Please.

Does advocating transhumanism/singulatarianism whilst recognising that revolutionary socialism is the first step perpetuate capitalism? No.

Does participating in bourgeois politics perpetuate capitalism? Yes.

Does advocating transhumanism/singulatarianism whilst recognising that revolutionary socialism is the first step deduct from revolutionary socialist actions? No.

Does participating in bourgeois politics deduct from revolutionary socialist actions? Yes.

[CommunityBeliever]

My beliefs about the future are considerably more pliable, because it has yet to be made.The capitalist system just isn't going to produce friendly AI because it is always going to be used to benefit the ruling class. We need socialist leadership to build friendly AI.

Besides this, building AI often seems pointless, as it often becomes proprietary software to aid someone like the military in their operations, and then it gets forgotten about after a while, or it is open to the world and it is too small to consider or gets forgotten to history like the things in the AI winter. So it just seems pointless to develop AI, it will ethier fail or just go to help the military in their operations.

We must focus on building socialism, and save AI for when working class leadership will be around to ensure that it is friendly and not some hive mind destroy humanity wicked-shit.


Yes, Libertarian transhumanism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism) is something that can and should be criticised, but I fear you may be conflating that element with the whole movement.Yet the libertarian transhumanism ideology gets all the media attention because they aren't going to present a communist ideology.

For this reason I think we must make it absolutely clear that we are distinct from them and that we support building AI that is friendly to the working class, which is basically only possible with working class rule.


The general public needs to become more familiar and comfortable with transhumanist ideas before they can decide how their politics relates to them.Thats the thing though. The "general public" is the group we are trying to organise and liberate, and I fear that the singularitarian movement is all too often dominated not by the general public but by pro-military bourgeoisie.


Well, you were only partially incorrect. Humans are indeed beasts with all that implies, but it does not follow that we are incapable of social progress, since history tells us otherwise. I think the term "beast" has negative connotations. Humans should be good working people but imperialism gets in the way of that and it produces murderers and criminals.

[CommunityBeliever]

Does participating in bourgeois politics perpetuate capitalism? Yes.Building AI for the military perpetuates capitalism. Friendly AI that we can develop after socialism won't.


Does participating in bourgeois politics deduct from revolutionary socialist actions? Yes. Participating in sci-fi escapism also deducts from revolutionary actions.


Does advocating transhumanism/singulatarianism whilst recognising that revolutionary socialism is the first step perpetuate capitalism?True, but that is my point we must demarcate ourselves from all those people that think that building socialism is not the first step.

[Desperado]

To be fair, you said:


Partaking in singulatarianism and transhumanism well capitalism is still around is like participating in bourgeoisie politics, no good will come out of it, it won't help the poor, and it diverts our attention from the target. We should dedicate ourselves to eliminating capitalism not pointless speculation.

Partaking is awfully vague, but the "pointless speculation" seemed to clarify and suggest that both Noxion and Mr. Gorilla were guilty of this counter-revolutionary transhumanist activity. If your gona criticise people for spending some time speculating about transhumanism instead of making revolution then be consistent and stop posting on an internet forum.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The capitalist system just isn't going to produce friendly AI because it is always going to be used to benefit the ruling class. We need socialist leadership to build friendly AI.

Besides this, building AI often seems pointless, as it often becomes proprietary software to aid someone like the military in their operations, and then it gets forgotten about after a while, or it is open to the world and it is too small to consider or gets forgotten to history like the things in the AI winter. So it just seems pointless to develop AI, it will ethier fail or just go to help the military in their operations.

One might as well ask why we should be supporting advances in medicine, since they will be used by the capitalists as well, and would benefit only them if not for a push to make them available to all.


Yet the libertarian transhumanism ideology gets all the media attention because they aren't going to present a communist ideology.

For this reason I think we must make it absolutely clear that we are distinct from them and that we support building AI that is friendly to the working class, which is basically only possible with working class rule.

No. A truly Friendly AI must consider humans as a single category, otherwise we risk imposing our values onto future generations. Even Yudkowsky realises this.


Thats the thing though. The "general public" is the group we are trying to organise and liberate, and I fear that the singularitarian movement is all too often dominated not by the general public but by pro-military bourgeoisie.

The military does not need the support or the approval of the public to do what it does.


I think the term "beast" has negative connotations. Humans should be good working people but imperialism gets in the way of that and it produces murderers and criminals.

The negative connotations of such words have a lot to do with the concept of humans as special creations rather than products of evolution by natural selection.


Building AI for the military perpetuates capitalism. Friendly AI that we can develop after socialism won't.

So don't build AIs for the military, and encourage others not to as well.


Participating in sci-fi escapism also deducts from revolutionary actions.

So does smoking, drinking, and posting on this website. Every minute spent doing those and other things is a minute not spent in "revolutionary action" whatever that means.

I don't think it's necessary for all of us to spread ourselves out on the altar of revolution and cut out our still-beating hearts in the process. There are more than enough of us to do what is necessary.


True, but that is my point we must demarcate ourselves from all those people that think that building socialism is not the first step.

Why? I'm not just a communist. While my political views do influence how I think about things, I do not see what is to be gained by cutting myself off from people who I share some major goals with. If they advocate something that I believe to be incorrect then I will criticise that.

[CommunityBeliever]

Here are my main arguments against the libertarian transhuman phenomenon:



Most super-computers, robots, drones and other machines are owned by the capitalists. The machines should be owned by the workers first so that AI is in their interests.
Since the capitalists are the ruling class and they control the funding they most certainly will direct AI to work in their own interests. This will prevent AI from being truly friendly. Working class leadership is a prerequisite to friendly AI.
Capitalism is preventing progress towards AI and in other fields of science in technology, leading to what some have referred to as a technological dark age. This indicates that revolution is what we should focus on if we really want AI to arise.
This phenomenon too often leads to sci-fi escapists and cultists who believe some quasi-religious rapture is going to come along and change everything. This is totally irrational since nothing will happen without the direction of the working class.



No. A truly Friendly AI must consider humans as a single category, otherwise we risk imposing our values onto future generations. Even Yudkowsky realises this.I don't even know what you mean by this. Organising things into categories is essential for understanding.

The AI should understand the category of the working class so it can work towards its benefit.


The negative connotations of such words have a lot to do with the concept of humans as special creations rather than products of evolution by natural selection.Humans aren't bacteria they are intelligent and social beings. As such, natural selection isn't the only thing at work anymore.

Military


One might as well ask why we should be supporting advances in medicine, since they will be used by the capitalists as well, and would benefit only them if not for a push to make them available to all.The military doesn't usually attack people with medicine, but that is besides the point.


The military does not need the support or the approval of the public to do what it does.But it does need the support of developers. As such, we shouldn't build AI for the military and we should encourage others not to as well.


So don't build AIs for the military, and encourage others not to as well.Precisely.

Libertarian Transhumanism


While my political views do influence how I think about things, I do not see what is to be gained by cutting myself off from people who I share some major goals with.

Those people that believe in developing AI and other technologies for the military and the for the sake of the ruling class are advocating something contradictory to the ideals of the revolutionary left. Therefore, I think we should have our own ideology such as techno-communism that takes the interests of the "general public" into account, this will allows us to distinguish ourselves from the reactionaries and the cultists.


I don't think it's necessary for all of us to spread ourselves out on the altar of revolution and cut out our still-beating hearts in the process. There are more than enough of us to do what is necessary.Who said anything about "cutting out our still-beating hearts"? I merely want to make sure the ideals of the revolutionary left are being achieved rather then having sci-fi escapists deter progress.

[CommunityBeliever]

AI that allows the ruling classes to further their own control is contrary to the goals of everyone who considers themselves a revolutionary leftist and they should be dealt with as such.

[OhYesIdid]

The military doesn't usually attack people with medicine, but that is besides the point.

Dude, that statement is besides all points.


AI that allows the ruling classes to further their own control is contrary to the goals of everyone who considers themselves a revolutionary leftist and they should be dealt with as such.
Well, yeah, but the same can be said of any piece of technology, really, or capital for that matter, yet this does not mean we should all become luddites and wait until after the revolution to develop our society? Also, shouldn't the new socialist order emerge from within capitalist society? Is technological advancement not a clear expression of this?

[CommunityBeliever]

Well, yeah, but the same can be said of any piece of technology, really, or capital for that matterIndeed, which means as long as capitalism is around, basically any technology may even make things worse.


yet this does not mean we should all become luddites and wait until after the revolutionYou don't have to become outright luddite, you just shouldn't go to the other extreme and become an unrealistically optimistic singulatarian like Ray Kurzweil with a belief in an upcoming techno-rapture. Be pragmatic about the relation between socialism and technology.

The most important thing is that you recognise that socialist revolution is primary priority today not technology or AI, well those are important I definitely think they should take a "back-seat" until after the revolution.


Also, shouldn't the new socialist order emerge from within capitalist society? I think everyone conscious about the capitalist society should immediately take up arms and revolt.

[OhYesIdid]

I think everyone conscious about the capitalist society should immediately take up arms and revolt.

Wait, what? Revolution is an art, and a good revolutionary is the one who can detect the Kairos during a particularily tense period of a capialist crisis and seize it in the form of direct action. Sure, building class conciousness here and now is vital for it to work, but direct action against capitalism must be directed at a very specific place in time where it might triumph.

[Ingraham Effingham]

I remember reading from a futurist that predicted that the last war humans will wage will between those who accept the transhuman conversion, and those that choose not to.

Anyone of you technophiles know the guy's name? I can't remember for the life of me (damn this simple brain)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Bah, I think Dune was right, people will reject transhumanism and AIs for cool intergalactic spacedrugs and quantum mysticism.

http://www.moviehole.net/wp-content/uploads/dunemovie.jpg

[OhYesIdid]

Anyone of you technophiles know the guy's name?

dunno. It's kind of a common trope, though

[CommunityBeliever]

Wait, what? Revolution is an art, and a good revolutionary is the one who can detect the Kairos during a particularily tense period of a capialist crisis and seize it in the form of direct action. Sure, building class conciousness here and now is vital for it to work, but direct action against capitalism must be directed at a very specific place in time where it might triumph. The place and time is right now, which is what I have been saying. We have crises all over the place, the Arab Spring, Greece, Nepal, India, China, even the United States in places like Wisconsin. There is a global financial meltdown caused by the excesses of capitalism and all the while the gap between the rich and the poor keeps increasing.

There is climate change, loss of biodiversity, habitat loss, pollution, dwindling supplies of resources (especially oil), resource wars, over-population, etc.

And we are in the middle of a sort of "technological dark age", so I doubt innovation from the free-market is going to save us. Now is as good a time as any to revolt. Things are only going to get worse as time goes on.

All I ask though is that people analyse the conditions down here on Earth where we are rife with problems rather then partaking in escapism and pretending that we live in a futuristic science-fiction universe without any of these problems.

Ray Kurzweil is one such person who I would call an escapist and an over optimist. He apparently doesn't see any of these problems and believes the Singularity will fix capitalism and everything else. The reality is we need socialism now as much as ever.

[OhYesIdid]

I'm totally with ya, except on the Take Action part (which is kind of your point). I don't think the conditions are right for revolution just yet. However, we are getting there. Give the people a few years under Tea Party rule and you'll see communes popping up everywhere.:)

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't think the conditions are right for revolution just yet. However, we are getting there. Give the people a few years under Tea Party rule and you'll see communes popping up everywhere.:)

That is probably true of the more reactionary places in the U.S...,

But even if you are living there, there are still other revolutionary things to be done like building class consciousness and posting on teh revlefts.

[RED DAVE]

I know that not all who identify themselves as leftists would agree with this society, though, which is why I'm curious as to what the people here would think of such a future. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? Is it feasible? I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter. :)I find this kind of speculation ridiculous when taken seriously. What we do when we've had a few joints or a few brewskies is another story.

We are, on another thread, having a very heavy discussion of the whether or not there are contradictions within socialism. That is a difficult subject. The very nature of socialism and the forms of workers control are often debated. So to jump from here to sci-fi-ville is not for me a serious topic for debate.

I suggest that it be continued after midnight, when participants are in a proper, chemically enhanced, state of mind.

RED DAVE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I find this kind of speculation ridiculous when taken seriously. What we do when we've had a few joints or a few brewskies is another story.

We are, on another thread, having a very heavy discussion of the whether or not there are contradictions within socialism. That is a difficult subject. The very nature of socialism and the forms of workers control are often debated. So to jump from here to sci-fi-ville is not for me a serious topic for debate.

I suggest that it be continued after midnight, when participants are in a proper, chemically enhanced, state of mind.

RED DAVE

An argument or proposition doesn't have to be advanced by someone sober in order to be sound or relevant. Marx was fond of drinking, but that has fuck-all to do with the validity of Marxism.

[Desperado]

I think everyone conscious about the capitalist society should immediately take up arms and revolt.

So it's fair to assume you're doing that now?

[RED DAVE]

An argument or proposition doesn't have to be advanced by someone sober in order to be sound or relevant. Marx was fond of drinking, but that has fuck-all to do with the validity of Marxism.Okay, then transhumanism strikes me as one more idea emanating from a drug trip with no more validity than any other weird-ass notion fucked up people, myself included, can come up with under the influence of various chemicals.

RED DAVE

[The Vegan Marxist]

"It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage."

-Sam Harris, neurological scientist

[CommunityBeliever]

So it's fair to assume you're doing that now?

Yes, I am taking my arms up to my keyboard in revolt.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Okay, then transhumanism strikes me as one more idea emanating from a drug trip with no more validity than any other weird-ass notion fucked up people, myself included, can come up with under the influence of various chemicals.

RED DAVE

Technology can be a powerful force multiplier. Why not apply that to humans? Don't you think we should be improving and adapting ourselves physically as well as socially?

[CommunityBeliever]

Okay, then transhumanism strikes me as one more idea emanating from a drug trip with no more validity than any other weird-ass notionThe problem is not with transhumanism it is with some of the reactionary fucks who believe in it.

There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't use technology to eliminate involuntary suffering, aging, disease, and death or to augment ourselves. On the other hand, I wouldn't want technology to be used to make a bunch of super-soldiers to oppress the masses, which is what might happen if capitalism is around.

[Mr. Gorilla]

Okay, then transhumanism strikes me as one more idea emanating from a drug trip with no more validity than any other weird-ass notion fucked up people, myself included, can come up with under the influence of various chemicals.

Which aspects of transhumanism do you consider not feasible? Do you consider human augmentation through technology an impossibility (If you do, note that we've been augmenting ourselves throughout history (Reading glasses, vaccines, etc.); indeed, we are in a perpetual state of transhumanism, and it is reasonable to assume that the technological state of our society down the road will be very different from the one that exists now (Note that the rate of technological growth by year is exponential, as well, so we're moving along pretty fast))? If not, do you believe everyone will be perfectly happy with such technology and there won't be any debate over it?

Transhumanism is a perfectly valid topic, and has as much complexity and as many issues as anything else. Sure, for someone not interested in science and/or uninformed about the matter, it's easy to write off transhumanism as drug-induced silliness. But that wouldn't be any better than the right-wingers who complain about "those durn commie scum," even though they probably have little idea as to what a communist actually is.

As for not focusing on transhumanism and focusing on the revolution first instead, well, that's silly. You can't stop the growth of technology (Suggesting we should "stop," temporarily or otherwise, would be an unrealistic (And worse, primitivist) notion), and it is not as if you can't focus on both. In fact, there is the possibility that a post-capitalist global society would require humanity "moving past" its current biological state and augmenting itself for there to be lasting stability (In other words, the technological revolution and the socioeconomic revolution would go hand-in-hand).