Current opinions on transhumanism?

[ChangeAndChance]

Threads have been done about this in previous years but I thought it might be good to give the topic a good push again. So, how do you feel about transhumanism and why do you feel the way you do about it? Is it a method for humans to transcend all illness and death or is it redefining what it is to be human? Are we perpetuating humanity through it or destroying it?

[Redistribute the Rep]

I imagine it will start out with vast advances in synthetic biology, in which we are able to genetically engineer ourselves for desirable phenotypes. At that stage we will still be perpetuating humanity. Eventually though, it will be more efficient to just download our conciousness onto computers. Then, Homo sapiens will no longer be the dominant species on Earth.

[Palmares]

Ewwwww..! :eek:

Besides some minor adjustments like microchip implants, etc, the ideology of transhumanism is pretty much purely theoretical. Seems more like an academic theoretical experiment than anything necessarily tangible.

We already live in a world that is unbelievably unsustainable, in where this is the logical (in the mindset of infinite technological growth) conclusion of the personal computer (which is now in the form of the smart phone) becoming ubiquitous. I'm pretty sure a working class miner in the Congo, who is mining the materials for such cyborgs, won't be reaping the perceived rewards from thus. Likely working in life-threatening conditions, that will eventually kill them. And likely destroying an ecosystem for local indigenous and local flora and fauna.

But you know, sustainable robots (us!) for all! Who wouldn't wanna be the terminator?!

[Slavic]

Ewwwww..! :eek:

Besides some minor adjustments like microchip implants, etc, the ideology of transhumanism is pretty much purely theoretical. Seems more like an academic theoretical experiment than anything necessarily tangible.

We already live in a world that is unbelievably unsustainable, in where this is the logical (in the mindset of infinite technological growth) conclusion of the personal computer (which is now in the form of the smart phone) becoming ubiquitous. I'm pretty sure a working class miner in the Congo, who is mining the materials for such cyborgs, won't be reaping the perceived rewards from thus. Likely working in life-threatening conditions, that will eventually kill them. And likely destroying an ecosystem for local indigenous and local flora and fauna.

But you know, sustainable robots (us!) for all! Who wouldn't wanna be the terminator?!

Within a Capitalist system, then yes those things will happen. The rich will be able to utilize the advances of altered genomes and bionics while the poor produce the resources for such developments.

But the question is, within a communist system, how would you see transhumanism in our society? Your prejedices only seem grounded in social inequality which will surely not be an issue if capital is eliminated. If that is the case, then what sort of negative draw backs can you envision such technology producing.

[BIXX]

Within a Capitalist system, then yes those things will happen. The rich will be able to utilize the advances of altered genomes and bionics while the poor produce the resources for such developments.

But the question is, within a communist system, how would you see transhumanism in our society? Your prejedices only seem grounded in social inequality which will surely not be an issue if capital is eliminated. If that is the case, then what sort of negative draw backs can you envision such technology producing.

I see many problems. For one, it'd be unable to sustain itself without destroying the environment, which, despite how much tech we have, we will need to survive. And I don't buy the cop out of "green technology", as I don't buy the myth that green tech is actually sustainable.

Also, whether in communism or capitalism, it will be used to increase human productivity, and I am certain it will contribute to reducing human value to what they can or can't produce.

Also, like palmares said above, its just theoretical masturbation normally, nothing that has any real substance to it for the most part.

[consuming negativity]

i don't think that "transcending death" is a desirable or even feasible goal but i'm all about science fiction-esque gadgets and technology

blah blah theoretical, blah blah [nerd shit], we've come a long way but we still have a long way to go

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think many of the problems transhumanists want to solve will not be problems in the socialist society. Just as there is, for example, no real reason to eradicate the genes for myopia in the present society, I expect social advancement and material abundance will make many conditions that are painful and debilitating today a matter of minor annoyance, just like glasses.

Would I object to being cured of death? Hell no. I am quite attached to myself. But a lot of transhumanism is quite wooly when it comes to the science behind their proposals.

As for the usual green scare-mongering, that is quite similar to transhumanism a la Kurtzweil, in that it too is quite vague and on questionable scientific grounds. Yes, obviously environmental problems exist. But there is no good reason to suppose the socialist society would mismanage environment as a resource. Yes, that might mean a reduction in the remaining "untouched nature" areas, so what?

[RedKobra]

I have profound concerns about life extension. First of all the most obvious "limit" is that we live on a finite planet both in terms of resources and habitable zones. The extension of life would necessitate either a break from the agricultural to the synthetic provision of needs or having substantially less children.
Secondly we should always be cautious with these things because they tend to privilege the generation at the ground zero. If we, for example, become super human then aren't we denying future generations the right to a life without us? Infantilising our children in perpetuity? The idea of my parents generation living forever is depressing indeed.

Also these things within the capitalist system would be as destructive and stratifying as any other development.

In general, call me a transhumanphobe if you will, I think mortality is an essential part of being human, as is the divisions inherent in generation. Shit or get off the pot, as they say and make way for the young.

[Palmares]

green scare-mongering

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Dont-Panic-Again.jpg

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Whether a socialist society will mismanage the environment is sort of beside the point, because if nothing else is sure they will absolutely 100% inherit an environment that has already been grossly mismanaged. Pretending that this won't have an effect on future societies and innovation in those societies is sort of like plugging one's ears and stamping up and down instead of facing facts. On top of that I have seen very little in the way of an intelligible socialist environmental plan, most groups put better resource management as part of their manifesto or whatever, but what the nuts and bolts of that plan is, is rarely detailed. I don't think there's any reason to suspect that a socialist revolution is a cure-all for environmental collapse.

I think transhumanism is kind of a joke. A delusional fantasy for a species that knows the game is up but can't come to grips with it.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

i don't think that "transcending death" is a desirable

well, sure, if you want to die, I won't keep you, but seriously, fuck you.

[RedKobra]

well, sure, if you want to die, I won't keep you, but seriously, fuck you.

Its a social and moral question. You may want to live forever but that has implications for the rest of humanity. Emerging fully from our parent's shadow is a vital stage of development. The older generation living forever is tyranny.

[consuming negativity]

well, sure, if you want to die, I won't keep you, but seriously, fuck you.

http://i.imgur.com/MR5zWDa.gif

[BIXX]

Its a social and moral question. You may want to live forever but that has implications for the rest of humanity. Emerging fully from our parent's shadow is a vital stage of development. The older generation living forever is tyranny.
Yeah, no. While I'm not really into the life forever thing, calling it tyranny is a bit ridiculous.

[RedKobra]

Yeah, no. While I'm not really into the life forever thing, calling it tyranny is a bit ridiculous.

No, it really isn't. There is a process of evolution that occurs when new thinkers supplant old thinkers. When new actors replace old actors. The never ending accumulation of experience and knowledge would create an insufferable log jam of conservatism at the top. The old guard would be there forever. The one light at the end of the tunnel that the oppressed peoples of Russia had was that Stalin couldn't live forever. That some day he would have to die. Now imagine Stalin. Forever. And ever.

No thanks. I think its actually a relief knowing that no matter how fixed things seem (even if ideas and institutions survive human lifetimes) the masters of those institutions have to die at some point and in those periods of transition change can happen. Old orthodoxy's can be challenged. Bulwarks of power can be undermined.

[BIXX]

No, it really isn't. There is a process of evolution that occurs when new thinkers supplant old thinkers. When new actors replace old actors. The never ending accumulation of experience and knowledge would create an insufferable log jam of conservatism at the top. The old guard would be there forever. The one light at the end of the tunnel that the oppressed peoples of Russia had was that Stalin couldn't live forever. That some day he would have to die. Now imagine Stalin. Forever. And ever.

No thanks. I think its actually a relief knowing that no matter how fixed things seem (even if ideas and institutions survive human lifetimes) the masters of those institutions have to die at some point and in those periods of transition change can happen. Old orthodoxy's can be challenged. Bulwarks of power can be undermined.
There is a difference between old people existing and tyranny, though. Just cause their ideas still exist it isn't really useful to call their living tyranny.

You're argument isn't that eternal life would be tyranny, but that it opens up the possibility. And I suspect young people rebel against their parents enough to where old folks wouldn't have too much power as it is.

Though again, not really interested in immortality.

[Creative Destruction]

this create an avatar and upload yourself into the cloud that people like Kurzweil promote is complete nonsense. like, they mistook the Matrix for some kind of utopia. but life extension to live "forever" is absurd, as well, not the least of which overpopulation would actually become a thing, rather than it being an economic and political restriction at the moment. i don't want to be around for, if that happens, the moment in which we all realize "Hey, we all kind of fucked ourselves now!" and if we got past that moment, i do not want to be around when the sun actually explodes and incinerates Earth in a firey hell. i think we also overestimate our ability to get off the Earth en masse.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have profound concerns about life extension. First of all the most obvious "limit" is that we live on a finite planet both in terms of resources and habitable zones. The extension of life would necessitate either a break from the agricultural to the synthetic provision of needs or having substantially less children.
Secondly we should always be cautious with these things because they tend to privilege the generation at the ground zero. If we, for example, become super human then aren't we denying future generations the right to a life without us? Infantilising our children in perpetuity? The idea of my parents generation living forever is depressing indeed.

Also these things within the capitalist system would be as destructive and stratifying as any other development.

In general, call me a transhumanphobe if you will, I think mortality is an essential part of being human, as is the divisions inherent in generation. Shit or get off the pot, as they say and make way for the young.

I imagine people are going to have substantially less children anyway. Call me cynical, but I don't imagine biological females are going to be lining up to give birth, when the oppression against women has ceased.

As for the rest, there is a simpler solution: move away from your parents.

Pretty easy.


Whether a socialist society will mismanage the environment is sort of beside the point, because if nothing else is sure they will absolutely 100% inherit an environment that has already been grossly mismanaged. Pretending that this won't have an effect on future societies and innovation in those societies is sort of like plugging one's ears and stamping up and down instead of facing facts. On top of that I have seen very little in the way of an intelligible socialist environmental plan, most groups put better resource management as part of their manifesto or whatever, but what the nuts and bolts of that plan is, is rarely detailed. I don't think there's any reason to suspect that a socialist revolution is a cure-all for environmental collapse.

Of course a fighting propaganda group (which is what these groups are at their best) isn't going to present a detailed environmental plan, they're not think-tanks. And it's not a matter of "innovation", the solutions for a lot of these problems already exist, but they're not profitable. Socialism doesn't have that problem; obviously nothing is profitable in socialism.

[Slavic]

I see many problems. For one, it'd be unable to sustain itself without destroying the environment, which, despite how much tech we have, we will need to survive. And I don't buy the cop out of "green technology", as I don't buy the myth that green tech is actually sustainable.


This is based on nothing. I don't understand how "transhumanism in socialism" = destroying the environment. There is no sound reasoning for this besides scare mongering.

And "green technology", more scare mongering. Green tech is much more efficient and leaves a smaller environmental impact then current energy production. How is this a myth now?


Also, whether in communism or capitalism, it will be used to increase human productivity, and I am certain it will contribute to reducing human value to what they can or can't produce.I'm not going to touch capitalism because transhumanism will not be beneficial under such a system.

A human's value within a communist society isn't determined by what they can or cannot produce. Henceforth, a technology that can help increase our standard of living will also not tarnish our "human value" what ever that is.


Also, like palmares said above, its just theoretical masturbation normally, nothing that has any real substance to it for the most part.Everything is theoretical masturbation until it becomes practice. If you masturbate long enough, eventually you will cum and then you'll be happy you've been masturbating the whole time. Masturbation is quite healthy.

[BIXX]

This is based on nothing. I don't understand how "transhumanism in socialism" = destroying the environment. There is no sound reasoning for this besides scare mongering.
There is even less sound reasoning to assuming that the production of technology will take on an inherently more earth friendly direction under socialism.


And "green technology", more scare mongering. Green tech is much more efficient and leaves a smaller environmental impact then current energy production. How is this a myth now?
Green tech is a myth because it still requires the mining of precious metals (which is disastrous for the environment) and the use of plastics, even recycling those things is bad for the environment. Even if the product itself doesn't use metals or plastics somehow, its production does. I could go on but you obviously haven't though this through much.

Hell, we can't even recycle at 100% efficiency, eventually we deplete everything.

Green technology is a myth, to think otherwise is to decieve yourself.


I'm not going to touch capitalism because transhumanism will not be beneficial under such a system.
Yet it will magically become beneficial under communism. Makes total sense.


A human's value within a communist society isn't determined by what they can or cannot produce. Henceforth, a technology that can help increase our standard of living will also not tarnish our "human value" what ever that is.
Excuse me, every socioeconomic system in history has valued people based on what they can produce, you think suddenly communism will change this?

Explain to me how you can possible believe that communism will change the logic inherent to civilization.


Everything is theoretical masturbation until it becomes practice. If you masturbate long enough, eventually you will cum and then you'll be happy you've been masturbating the whole time. Masturbation is quite healthy.

I'm sorry, I should rephrase that: transhumanism is not masturbation, but wanting something you can't possibly have.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

as it currently stands/is generally talked about i really just see it as another way of saying 'in the future it will be even more awesome to be rich and white!'

[RedKobra]

As for the rest, there is a simpler solution: move away from your parents.

Pretty easy.

As a matter of fact I don't have anything to do with my family. I would never say it was easy but it was definitely the best thing I ever did. Its not about my relationship with my parents. Its about the dynamism that comes with the phasing out of the old and the seizing of power by the new. I think the passing of the old guard is fundamental to freedom and liberty. Societally future generations will inevitably be infantilised.

Its all pretty academic anyway. I don't see major breakthrough's in this regard in the near future, at least not accessible to folks like us. Like any valuable commodity, especially one that changes social dynamics it will be protected from the riff raff.

[Lord Testicles]

There is even less sound reasoning to assuming that the production of technology will take on an inherently more earth friendly direction under socialism.


Green tech is a myth because it still requires the mining of precious metals (which is disastrous for the environment) and the use of plastics, even recycling those things is bad for the environment. Even if the product itself doesn't use metals or plastics somehow, its production does. I could go on but you obviously haven't though this through much.

Green technology is a myth, to think otherwise is to decieve yourself.


Why this fetish for the environment and being "earth friendly"?

The environment is only as valuable as it's ability to sustain us. If we "damage" the earth for our (collective) gain then what's the problem if we can still comfortably live on it?


Hell, we can't even recycle at 100% efficiency, eventually we deplete everything.

We are more likely to experience the heat death of the universe before we deplete anything.


I'm sorry, I should rephrase that: transhumanism is not masturbation, but wanting something you can't possibly have.

Transhumanism (or rather the tech that gave rise to such thinking) is something that is happening whether we talk about it or not. We already augment our bodies with technology such as pacemakers or insulin pumps when they are failing, so it's not a massive jump to think that people might start swapping perfectly functioning body parts with artificial ones which perform better in the future and I don't see the trouble in talking about what consequences that might have.

[BIXX]

Why this fetish for the environment and being "earth friendly"?

The environment is only as valuable as it's ability to sustain us. If we "damage" the earth for our (collective) gain then what's the problem if we can still comfortably survive on it?
Sure, I can get behind that, but the way we produce EVERYTHING is a direct impediment to that.



We are more likely to experience the heat death of the universe before we deplete anything.

This is obviously untrue.

[Lord Testicles]

Sure, I can get behind that, but the way we produce EVERYTHING is a direct impediment to that.


The way we produce anything is a matter of organisation or the lack of it. I think it's possible for humanity to produce things whilst considering and trying to mitigate any damage that might threaten the sustainability of life on this planet. Although the one thing that might be the biggest threat to life on this planet is ...life itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis)


This is obviously untrue.

It quite clearly isn't. It's total human hubris to think that we could run out of any material that can be found naturally in the universe.

[RedKobra]

It quite clearly isn't. It's total human hubris to think that we could run out of any material that can be found naturally in the universe.

Its not a case of running out of carbon and such things as much as depleting the stuff we can afford get to. Masses of coal elsewhere in the galaxy is sod all use to us if we've got no oil left to power the rockets to launch us into space. There is a finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet and species of flora and fauna don't come back once they've gone. As of yet, we also don't have a way to put the global warming genie in the bottle, which is going to be even more land and resources lost to flooding and drought.

[Lord Testicles]

Its not a case of running out of carbon and such things as much as depleting the stuff we can afford get to. Masses of coal elsewhere in the galaxy is sod all use to us if we've got no oil left to power the rockets to launch us into space. There is a finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet and species of flora and fauna don't come back once they've gone. As of yet, we also don't have a way to put the global warming genie in the bottle, which is going to be even more land and resources lost to flooding and drought.

If we have to travel to some other part of the galaxy for coal then we are already fucked.

[BIXX]

The way we produce anything is a matter of organisation or the lack of it. I think it's possible for humanity to produce things whilst considering and trying to mitigate any damage that might threaten the sustainability of life on this planet.
Yet no matter what we organize, the production processes are inherently opposed to sustaining life on this planet.


It quite clearly isn't. It's total human hubris to think that we could run out of any material that can be found naturally in the universe.

Yeah, I'm not concerned with harvesting the universe as we aren't there yet. I'm concerned with what we are actively able to harvest here. And so while we chops down trees, we also kill sea algae, so then we have more global warming due to the increase in our atmosphere. Our production processes produce free radicals that rip holes in the ozone layer so more UV radiation can get through and give us cancer. I could go on but I think it should also be sufficient to mention that we are beginning to run out of oil, who is one of our biggest used resources. We are going to deplete shit. You're a fucking idiot.

It is hubris to think that we can simply continue to use plastics and metals and trees and fossil fuels without any real consequence, as we are using them faster than they are being replenished.

[Lord Testicles]

Yet no matter what we organize, the production processes are inherently opposed to sustaining life on this planet.

Life might be opposed to sustaining life on this planet. The only thing that will sustain life as we know is an intelligent application of technology.


Yeah, I'm not concerned with harvesting the universe as we aren't there yet.

Neither am I nor do I think it's possible.


I'm concerned with what we are actively able to harvest here.

Which is quite a lot.


And so while we chops down trees, we also kill sea algae, so then we have more global warming due to the increase in our atmosphere. Our production processes produce free radicals that rip holes in the ozone layer so more UV radiation can get through and give us cancer.

Well no shit, the way we organise ourselves at the moment is fucked, nobody is saying any different.


I could go on but I think it should also be sufficient to mention that we are beginning to run out of oil, who is one of our biggest used resources. We are going to deplete shit. You're a fucking idiot.

Only if you presuppose that we are standing still and there isn't going to be any new scientific or technological innovations, or that we aren't going to find new ways of using what we currently have or find something that supplants what we're currently using.

"We're running out of whale oil! How will we read at night!?"


It is hubris to think that we can simply continue to use plastics and metals and trees and fossil fuels without any real consequence,as we are using them faster than they are being replenished.

I don't think anyone thinks you can do anything without any real consequence. Our myopia regarding how we currently use resources is more down to the inherent disorganisation and mismanagement of capitalism not the fact that we use resources.

[BIXX]

Life might be opposed to sustaining life on this planet. The only thing that will sustain life as we know is an intelligent application of technology.



Neither am I nor do I think it's possible.



Which is quite a lot.



Well no shit, the way we organise ourselves at the moment is fucked, nobody is saying any different.



Only if you presuppose that we are standing still and there isn't going to be any new scientific or technological innovations, or that we aren't going to find new ways of using what we currently have or find something that supplants what we're currently using.

"We're running out of whale oil! How will we read at night!?"



I don't think anyone thinks you can do anything without any real consequence. Our myopia regarding how we currently use resources is more down to the inherent disorganisation and mismanagement of capitalism not the fact that we use resources.
Then give me a model, any model, that would actually be more efficient. I'm not asking you to predict communism, I'm asking you to propose a possibility. Something that isn't "communism magically will make it better".

Tell me how socialism can actually change the fact that metals and plastics are heavily used within all production processes, and that most products themselves have metals and plastics in them. Tell me, how are you gonna solve that problem in socialism? That's not just a problem of organization, that's a problem inherent to production. How will socialism change that?

To your first statement, that isn't true at all- and its a ridiculous statement. Civilized life, yeah, but life in general doesn't utilize resources faster than they are produced.

[Slavic]

Then give me a model, any model, that would actually be more efficient. I'm not asking you to predict communism, I'm asking you to propose a possibility. Something that isn't "communism magically will make it better".

Tell me how socialism can actually change the fact that metals and plastics are heavily used within all production processes, and that most products themselves have metals and plastics in them. Tell me, how are you gonna solve that problem in socialism? That's not just a problem of organization, that's a problem inherent to production. How will socialism change that?

To your first statement, that isn't true at all- and its a ridiculous statement. Civilized life, yeah, but life in general doesn't utilize resources faster than they are produced.

3D Printing.

A study referenced in this article shows that local 3D printing can reduce energy and material consumption, cradle to grave, between 41% and 74% for certain manufactured goods.

http://www.techthefuture.com/technology/3d-printing-beats-mass-production-in-energy-efficiency/

This is a technology that exists today, not off into the future. With the profit incentive mode of organization and research and development, its not far-fetched to think that better novel technologies can make production even more efficient.

[RedKobra]

3D Printing.

A study referenced in this article shows that local 3D printing can reduce energy and material consumption, cradle to grave, between 41% and 74% for certain manufactured goods.

http://www.techthefuture.com/technology/3d-printing-beats-mass-production-in-energy-efficiency/

This is a technology that exists today, not off into the future. With the profit incentive mode of organization and research and development, its not far-fetched to think that better novel technologies can make production even more efficient.

Can we 3D print fuel? Is it energy neutral or better with the resources needed to make it? Can we print the crops that will become ungrowable as climate change dries out or floods our agricultural land? Can we 3D print species that have gone extinct? Can we 3D print ozone? Can we 3D print something that converts Co2 to something more benign, can we print polar ice caps?...You get my point.

[Slavic]

Jesus Christ.


Can we 3D print fuel?
Fuel what? Fossil fuel? Why would we be using fossil fuel if I can use wind, solar, thermal, and nuclear?


Is it energy neutral or better with the resources needed to make it?Nothing is energy neutral since free energy is physically impossible.


Can we print the crops that will become ungrowable as climate change dries out or floods our agricultural land?You made this a loaded question. Why would we "print" crops if there is plenty of food available right now. And to the loaded part; the whole point of using these technologies is to mitigate climate change.


Can we 3D print species that have gone extinct? Who cares? Zoos?


Can we 3D print ozone?See answer to previous loaded question.


Can we 3D print something that converts Co2 to something more benign, can we print polar ice caps?...Convert CO2 to something more benign? I have no clue what you are getting at. In the materials production sense, if we can reduce waste and increase efficiency, then why would anyone care about CO2? CO2 was, is, and will be made all the time. Its only become an issue with inefficient production. That is the whole problem I am trying to produce and an to.



You get my point.What point? You literally just listed the causes of inefficient industrial production as the reason for why a technology that reduces said inefficiencies won't work.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As a matter of fact I don't have anything to do with my family. I would never say it was easy but it was definitely the best thing I ever did. Its not about my relationship with my parents. Its about the dynamism that comes with the phasing out of the old and the seizing of power by the new. I think the passing of the old guard is fundamental to freedom and liberty. Societally future generations will inevitably be infantilised.

Its all pretty academic anyway. I don't see major breakthrough's in this regard in the near future, at least not accessible to folks like us. Like any valuable commodity, especially one that changes social dynamics it will be protected from the riff raff.

Oh, so it's not about your relationship to your parents, it's actually about some idealist model where the power relations in society are determined not by the mode of production, but "infantilisation", "dynamism" and so on. I see.

It still doesn't make any sense, and is in fact offensive toward older people.


Nothing is energy neutral since free energy is physically impossible.

The entire question is also irrelevant; the Earth is not a thermodynamically isolated system. We orbit a giant self-sustained reaction, god's sake. It never ceases to amaze me how the eco-faddists are willing to ignore basic science and just chant "finite planet, infinite needs".

(The second part isn't true at all and in fact the decline of the birth rate and the decline in demand for most goods per capita, already noticed by Mandel back in the dark times of the seventies, makes this a really bad period to be a doomsday prophet.)


Can we 3D print something that converts Co2 to something more benign

We don't need to print anything, photosynthetic organisms have existed since cyanobacteria nearly killed all life on Earth. In fact, with current technology we can have stacks of the little oxygen-producing bastards with little need for soil. Something Mother Nature can't do, bless'er, as she is literally mindless.


Can we print the crops that will become ungrowable as climate change dries out or floods our agricultural land?

Current food production methods produce, I think, about 3000 kcal per day per person; more than you can actually eat without becoming violently ill. And this is in capitalism, before socialism and the mechanised, large-scale agriculture of socialism. That's one of the beauties of technological advancement; as technology develops we can do more with less.


Then give me a model, any model, that would actually be more efficient. I'm not asking you to predict communism, I'm asking you to propose a possibility. Something that isn't "communism magically will make it better".

Tell me how socialism can actually change the fact that metals and plastics are heavily used within all production processes, and that most products themselves have metals and plastics in them. Tell me, how are you gonna solve that problem in socialism? That's not just a problem of organization, that's a problem inherent to production. How will socialism change that?

It won't. We aren't going to abandon metals and plastics as in fact they're quite useful. What the socialist society will not do is pollute to make a profit, as in fact there won't be profit in socialism, and most workers have a vested interest in not being poisoned. (It's curious how people here almost never talk about environmental problems of a lesser scope, like how workers and minorities get poisoned in order for their bosses to make more profit, but always talk about these grand doomsday prophecies.)

At this point, I originally had the usual sarcastic response about how salmon can go fuck themselves (in honour of our dearly banned Jensenite creep, whose name escapes me at the moment). But my abject hatred for salmon aside, consider this:

Planning production means assessing aggregate demand, deciding on how this demand is to be met, then distributing targets to the various production units. We can keep track of pollution in this process. It's a simple matter of calculating some coefficients - e.g. process A produces H units of dioxin and X units of good n. 1, process B produces H' units of dioxin and X' units of good n. 1 and so on. In capitalism, any firm that did not choose the most profitable process, no matter what its environmental impact is, would be ejected from the market. In socialism, there is no need to keep track of profitability, not even in terms of labour-hour calculations some people like so much. We choose the processes that appeal - that use less scarce resources and produce less pollution, if nothing else then because this planet is where we sleep and where we keep all of our stuff. It doesn't even have to be a more technologically advanced solution. Perhaps we switch to producing alizarin from madder again, and Engels starts turning in his grave.

It's not a magic solution. It's not going to automatically preserve natural habitats, for example, particularly since people are going to want to expand industrial areas etc. But if you think humans are just too damn stupid to organise social life effectively, then all you can do is stand on the side of the road with a big "THE END IS NIGH" sign or advocate some sort of fucking garrison state, and both mean you aren't a socialist.

[BIXX]

3D Printing.

A study referenced in this article shows that local 3D printing can reduce energy and material consumption, cradle to grave, between 41% and 74% for certain manufactured goods.

http://www.techthefuture.com/technology/3d-printing-beats-mass-production-in-energy-efficiency/

This is a technology that exists today, not off into the future. With the profit incentive mode of organization and research and development, its not far-fetched to think that better novel technologies can make production even more efficient.

And yet 3D printing still requires huge environmental sacrifice despite the fact that it uses far less energy. Because unless the population decreases drastically, 41%-74% is still likely not going to be anywhere close to enough. However I will concede that it might buy us a little time to cut down the human population, or abolish civilization.

Let me be generous, and assume that humans reached the point of being unsustainable on earth when the industrial revolution happened. In the very beginning of the industrial revolution, there was ~795,000,000 people. Currently there are about 7,243,000,000 people. Assuming that the maximum reduction of harm with the mass introduction of 3D printers, we would be producing the equivalent of 1,932,320,000 people in the modern era (who produce a lot more environmental damage that the average person living in the 1760s), which is still 2.431 times the amount of people alive in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, let me list the ways in which I was giving you an advantage: I didn't take into account how horribly the way we produce food destroys the environment (which 3D printer will not change), the fact that we now have things like cars etc... That pollute to a massive degree and take a disturbing amount of resources. Essentially... I gave the more dishonest. Balanced in your favor scenario, and yet we still would be producing more that 2 times the amount of environmental damage than we did when we reached the point of in sustainability. Basically... You're wrong.


It won't. We aren't going to abandon metals and plastics as in fact they're quite useful. What the socialist society will not do is pollute to make a profit, as in fact there won't be profit in socialism, and most workers have a vested interest in not being poisoned. (It's curious how people here almost never talk about environmental problems of a lesser scope, like how workers and minorities get poisoned in order for their bosses to make more profit, but always talk about these grand doomsday prophecies.)
Yeah, we do have a vested interest in not being poisoned. However I think you're overestimating the force of individuals who say fuck being poisoned, rather than a society that says we need to meet this or that production demand. Furthermore there will always be reasons to use the less environmentally safe methods. I'm not convinced that communism will fix that.


Planning production means assessing aggregate demand, deciding on how this demand is to be met, then distributing targets to the various production units. We can keep track of pollution in this process. It's a simple matter of calculating some coefficients - e.g. process A produces H units of dioxin and X units of good n. 1, process B produces H' units of dioxin and X' units of good n. 1 and so on. In capitalism, any firm that did not choose the most profitable process, no matter what its environmental impact is, would be ejected from the market. In socialism, there is no need to keep track of profitability, not even in terms of labour-hour calculations some people like so much. We choose the processes that appeal - that use less scarce resources and produce less pollution, if nothing else then because this planet is where we sleep and where we keep all of our stuff. It doesn't even have to be a more technologically advanced solution. Perhaps we switch to producing alizarin from madder again, and Engels starts turning in his grave.
Yet this fails to answer the question of a specific model that shows precisely how we can support over 7 billion people and be environmentally stable.


It's not a magic solution. It's not going to automatically preserve natural habitats, for example, particularly since people are going to want to expand industrial areas etc. But if you think humans are just too damn stupid to organise social life effectively, then all you can do is stand on the side of the road with a big "THE END IS NIGH" sign or advocate some sort of fucking garrison state, and both mean you aren't a socialist.
Its not even that I think we are too stupid, I think we are incapable within a civilized context.

[Lord Testicles]

Then give me a model, any model, that would actually be more efficient. I'm not asking you to predict communism, I'm asking you to propose a possibility. Something that isn't "communism magically will make it better".

What do you mean give you a model? I'm not entirely sure what you want here...


Tell me how socialism can actually change the fact that metals and plastics are heavily used within all production processes, and that most products themselves have metals and plastics in them. Tell me, how are you gonna solve that problem in socialism? That's not just a problem of organization, that's a problem inherent to production. How will socialism change that?

What's wrong with the use of metal and plastics? Are we running out of metal? Are we incapable of synthesising plastics?



To your first statement, that isn't true at all- and its a ridiculous statement. Civilized life, yeah, but life in general doesn't utilize resources faster than they are produced.

No, it really isn't. There is a good chance that life itself is unsustainable, not just civilised life, if you want a previous example of life nearly snuffing itself as a by-product of it merely existing then look no further than the Oxygen Crisis. So yeah, considering how stupid life is and it's overwhelming preference for dying, I think it's safe to say that intelligence and the technology it produces is probably our safest bet for keeping this planet habitable.

[BIXX]

What do you mean give you a model? I'm not entirely sure what you want here...
A plan, something. An example of a sustainable society.



What's wrong with the use of metal and plastics? Are we running out of metal? Are we incapable of synthesising plastics?
We aren't running out of metal, but the way we get it is extremely harmful the the earth. Same with plastics.



No, it really isn't. There is a good chance that life itself is unsustainable, not just civilised life, if you want a previous example of life nearly snuffing itself as a by-product of it merely existing then look no further than the Oxygen Crisis. So yeah, considering how stupid life is and it's overwhelming preference for dying, I think it's safe to say that intelligence and the technology it produces is probably our safest bet for keeping this planet habitable.

Except with the continual production of goods we are actively making this planet less habitable. Regarding the oxygen crisis, that is a fluke that I don't think technology would have saved us from.

And the continual production of goods and tech will just lead to greater and greater environmental destruction.

[Rafiq]

The false dichotomy being established here whether or not it would be desirable to create an ecological catastrophe in the name of "production". This is utterly ridiculous, this pseudo-debate is completely framed not in terms of what our real possibilities are regarding mastery over nature (such a debate is ridiculous - because any idiot should know it is infinite), or how possible geo-engineering is - but the expression of reactionary petty-sentiments regarding the mastery of man over nature, the triumph of conscious will over processes which have existed for innumerable years, a crypto-superstitious innate ideological fear not only of man corrupting and conforming nature - but to man's consciousness triumphing the eternal harmony and balance of life in general. The center piece of contemporary dystopian fiction representing a larger ideological pathology gives us the story of humans "corrupting" mother Earth, nature only to suffer grave consequences - ecology is understood not in terms of a series of agentless accidents but a religious-like metaphysical force to which we should respect by regulating our own possibilities as far as conscious will goes. The pathology exists independently of genuine concerns over the grave consequences of careless ecological impositions, i.e. it was not formed by merit of reason - it is ideological. Think about it - despite whatever the author's intention, what is the ultimate lesson we could possibly draw from literary fiction like Animal Farm? That all attempts at the aim toward building a society at will inevitably will be obstructed by some kind of metaphysical force which regulates our social existence - our "human nature" and so on - with the end result ultimately being much worse than what now appears to be the petty problems faced before. This sais nothing about a future possible society, but the legitimization of our society through claims to ecology and nature. "But wait!" many of you will say - "Our society, this SAME society is the problem in the first place ecologically!" Which is precisely why environmentalism in its less pragmatic forms, or ecology-fetishism, and much of the green politics which arose during the latter part of the 20th century were formally forces of reaction. This sounds strange indeed - after all, with the reputation of anti-capitalism and progressive politics. But ecology-fetishism has a long precedent of reaction to the explosive developments of capital - from Tolkein to German Fascism. As pointed out already by 870 the problem is not that we shouldn't be playing with mother nature - it's that these attempts are themselves too ecological, too devoid of imposed will in that they result not from an organized, centralized conscious effort to alter nature but from indrect processes of capital accumulation.

Not only would trans-humanism be a logical result of Communism (one only need look at the phenomena of biocosmism during the early years of the Soviet Union's existence), trans-humanism is inherently Communist. Communism embodies history as henceforth being willed by men and women - it represents a radical destruction to the constrains on freedom given to us by a big other, by unknowable forces of great power which make this appear impossible. Hegel tells us that to be aware of our limitations is already to be beyond them - Communism represents the suppression of these metaphysically constructed limitations. Aversion towards trans-humanism represents a wider aversion towards the possibility of emancipatory freedom in general. The notion that there is some kind of secret, something innate that is worth keeping about either our biological constitution or nature represents the innate superstition that there is something worth keeping about present relations of power which are "beyond" us. All too ironic for the petty bourgeois nihilistic left with their edginess and declared vehement opposition to power in general - what they do not realize is that such edginess is a nice supplement to these same relations of exploitation and power, of which they parasitically rely on in order to exist. What drives them is not the righteous rage of the damned, but being content with their identities in capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Except with the continual production of goods we are actively making this planet less habitable. Regarding the oxygen crisis, that is a fluke that I don't think technology would have saved us from.

And the continual production of goods and tech will just lead to greater and greater environmental destruction.

If we are speaking of possibilities alone - who cares if we make the planet less habitable under present biological standards of habitability when we can alter our very biological constitution? Who cares about environmental destruction if we pre-supposes we possess such great freedom of will in the first place in such a society? Sorry, but the destruction of something aesthetically or metaphysically beautiful isn't a reason. Why is it, strictly speaking, impossible for man to master nature? You can profess the name of this big other to us all, or you can admit that it is nameless.


We aren't running out of metal, but the way we get it is extremely harmful the the earth. Same with plastics.


Does the Earth care about being 'harmed'? How and why does it harm the Earth?

[contracycle]

The first generation of humans who will live forever has already been born.

One can dicker about the details, but the essence of transhumanist thought is correct: even if we were to CHOOSE to stay completely human, that will be a CHOICE, and it will essentially be an aesthetic one.

It's not blood and bone that makes us, but brain. And now we know that an information system can be incarnated in any number of physical substrates.

[Palmares]

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }
trans-humanism is inherently Communist.

Interesting you say that:


... the goal of transhumanism is precisely to supplant the natural with the planned, replacing chance with design. The key to transhumanism is faith in reason, not in nature.


http://changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm


Nick Bostrom[/SIZE]]Taking control of our evolution . . . would require the development of a “singleton,” a world order in which at the highest level of organization there is only one independent decision-making power (which may be, but need not be, a world government).


http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html

So for me, such a quote by Hughes embodies the sentiment of, support such as your's, for transhumanism. Obviously anthropocentric, probably futurist (hopefully you've been reading some good sci-fi), but undoubtedly based on (centralised) planning. Perhaps this is what communism means to you. Something very controlled, ruled by supreme scientism and infallible logic.


Transhumanism (or similar) is simply the opposite of the nature fallacy – same dogma. So this is certainly just as ideological as some superstitious nature-worship.


So certainly any... “answer” (lack of a better word), to the multitude of impediments to our liberation, is neither dropping everything and running away into the forest (or the Marxist section of a library for that matter – whatever floats your escapist boat), nor is it to pick up all capitalist inventions and build the Tower of Babel to some commie paradise. A clear false dichotomy. I see the potential for happiness, for the destruction of capital, in us, in the here and now. For the liberation of ourselves, for humans and non-humans (those pesky plants and animals!) alike. Fetishizing either past or future, is mere bourgeois intellectualism distracting us from our real life struggles today.




The real fiction is science fiction. There are plenty of books on it. It's great entertainment when you want to take your mind off reality.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, we do have a vested interest in not being poisoned. However I think you're overestimating the force of individuals who say fuck being poisoned, rather than a society that says we need to meet this or that production demand. Furthermore there will always be reasons to use the less environmentally safe methods. I'm not convinced that communism will fix that.

You're not making any sense; in fact you make it sound as if there was some sort of malevolent spectral person named Society that hovers over people as they make decisions. And that is simply not true, Perlman's Leviathan is no less a myth than the Hobbesian or Hebrew Leviathan. In socialism, there is no reason to suppose, barring some truly extraordinary circumstances (for example, if the Martian cloud-consciousness is attacking and the global society on Earth has used up all its missiles in a fireworks show), that environmental policy would not be dictated by the basic and overriding material interest of the members of said society to live in health and comfort.


Yet this fails to answer the question of a specific model that shows precisely how we can support over 7 billion people and be environmentally stable.

Nothing can answer the question, because the question is vague. What does "being environmentally stable" mean? That human life on Earth isn't going to die out in some kind of apocalyptic collapse? We already produce enough to feed seven billion people. More than enough in fact. Or that your favourite spot of "untouched nature" is going to survive? As if.

Generally, quite a lot of the foundational texts on "sustainability" are vague as all arseholes, and quite obviously presuppose capitalism. Socialists should think twice before simply mechanically accepting everything in these texts because it was written by someone with a "Dr." in front of their name.


So for me, such a quote by Hughes embodies the sentiment of, support such as your's, for transhumanism. Obviously anthropocentric, probably futurist (hopefully you've been reading some good sci-fi), but undoubtedly based on (centralised) planning. Perhaps this is what communism means to you. Something very controlled, ruled by supreme scientism and infallible logic.

"Supreme scientism and infallible logic"? What does that even mean? But yes, a major part of socialism is the transition from haphazard, "I want to believe it will work" methods, including the market, to conscious organisation and planning of social life. I would go so far as to say this is one of the conditions without which no society can be called socialist.

[Rafiq]

So for me, such a quote by Hughes embodies the sentiment of, support such as your's, for transhumanism. Obviously anthropocentric, probably futurist (hopefully you've been reading some good sci-fi), but undoubtedly based on (centralised) planning. Perhaps this is what communism means to you. Something very controlled, ruled by supreme scientism and infallible logic.

To speak of anthropocentricism could only ever be ironic - the real anthropocentrism is attributing qualities and characteristics inherent to humans to "plants and animals". Anthropocentricism is essentially a false word - one cannot BUT be anthropocentric. What we are equipped with avoiding is anthropomorphism, a capability you have obviously not made good on. You are mistaken, however. Centralized authority and planning would only ever be consequential of Communism as a movement. Certainly if Communism entails history henceforth as being willed by men and women, then this could only ever be a logical result. Meanwhile, petty-bourgeois intellectual masturbation, dreams of isolated local autonomous communities is reactionary. The globalized economy - the emergence of a global community is an achievement of human civilization, Communists seek its supersession, not a return to the conditions from which lack of consciousness alone was responsible. Reactionaries can only ever operate in this way - to return to previous conditions, a conscious act, can only ever be paradoxical for them as the qualities of previous conditions or circumstances necessarily relied on a lack of consciousness of its supersession - i.e. they did not 'know the future' - 'back then'.

What you fail to understand is that a plethora of futurist science fiction was inspired and only made possible under the backdrop of the failure of Soviet cosmism - a real aesthetic and intellectual trend before the imaginative futurism of science fiction. Communism does not entail a "future society" but present conditions and circumstances of struggle - the 'ideal' of a Communist society is wholly dependent and wholly derivative of the conditions of the present struggle. When I claim that transhumanism is inherently Communist, no one is talking about utilitarian-fetishism but a proposed magnitude of freedom presently constrained not only by the conditions of capitalist production but bourgeois ideological sentimentality. Transhumanism represents the possible freedom not from "nature as such" but the nature as a form of bourgeois ideological mysticism - ecological mysticism if you will - not formally as a rational response to what any idiot knows is not empirically true (Ecology as divine) but the triumph over nature as a form of legitimization for the conditions of the present order. We do not say we want to fight nature - we say that nature as such does not even exist - it is an illusion.

Communists recognize innately that nature quite simply does not exist - you cannot be "beyond" the relative coordinates of present society, you cannot take refuge in the 'neutrality' of nature, you cannot look "inside yourself" for salvation - unlike animals, humans are incapable of having a direct relationship between perception and the natural world - there is always the filter in between. To reduce the present struggle as an eternal struggle between mankind and "civilization" or any such Absolute idea is to already legitimize capitalism and cede its monopoly over nature to breath the conditions relative to our present epoch as fresh air. It is inherently postmodern. The point is that all attempts to claim nature is the hallmark of an old world devoid of self-consciousness.


Transhumanism (or similar) is simply the opposite of the nature fallacy – same dogma. So this is certainly just as ideological as some superstitious nature-worship.


Unique to bourgeois ideologies is the notion of the two extremes to which we simply need to find a middle ground. As an abstract form of reasoning this works - as trans-humanism and 'the nature fallacy' can be interchangable with any two false dichotomies. The fact of the matter is that transhumanism is not an imposed dogma but emancipation from already prevailing ideas of ecological fetishism. It is as though one would say that bourgeois rationalism was the "same dogma" as religion. Magnitudes of possibility triumphing over constrained and imposed limitations on freedom is not the "same" as those some constriains on freedom.

What is pathetically hilarious is how ecology-fetishists somehow think that their garbage mysticism is somehow "rebellious" or threatening to the existing order. What people don't realize is that ecology has already replaced religion as the spiritual soul of capitalism. What is certainly true is pseudo-futuristic technocratic logic of some Leftists is a masturbation of conditions unique to capitalism - that real struggle can be replaced with science, that the artificial standards of want within capitalism will simply be "heightened" in Communism wherein reason (our present standards of reason, that is) is consciously sovereign. Substantiation of capitalism is not the same as supersession of capitalism. Bourgeois technocraticism exists not as a violent attack on ecology fetishism but an elaboration of it - a means of dulling the violence struggle and the inevitable terror of the revolution. Communists are inherently opposed to utilitarianism and positivism - that does not mean we seek to 'revert' to nature or find salvation 'in ourselves'. Indeed trans-humanism as inherently Communist will not be the triumph of our present standards of reason or positivist filth but an integral part of the struggle against the previous order - as an ideological monstrosity (for them), part of the terror against the defenders of the old world. The emancipatory egalitarianism of not only Communism but every revolutionary upheaval is alone a form of terror, the imposed notion that we can and will do it and reduce to ash the idols of the present order alone inspires fear in the enemy.


I see the potential for happiness, for the destruction of capital, in us, in the here and now. For the liberation of ourselves, for humans and non-humans (those pesky plants and animals!) alike. Fetishizing either past or future, is mere bourgeois intellectualism distracting us from our real life struggles today.


What you fail to understand is that trans-humanism is precisely not a form of fertilization of the future - it is inherently Communist presently. And now we see more of this same cliche archetype - the "here and now". To talk of the "here and now" necessarily entails not that the conditions of emancipation are derived from present circumstances but that present circumstances alone suffice for our "liberation" - that processes of violent transformation need not occur, that our false-identities which ideologically reproduce the conditions of capitalism suffice as a means of abolishing capitalism. Our notion of ourselves, and of "plants and animals" is necessarily dependent on the place it has in our present ruling ideological totality - we ourselves are nothing but what our circumstances make them. This petty bourgeois fantasy does not present itself as an actual possibility but an abstract fetishization wholly dependent on the conditions of present society. What are our 'real life struggles' today? Is it the fight against the achievements of civilization? Of the systemic 'exploitation' of mother nature, of the deprivation of rights for those poor animals who clearly can articulate their own oppression and act upon it?

What is especially sickening about this logic is that it conforms perfectly to postmodern identity-politics. For the pseudo-leftist, the objects of human liberation are essentially too treated like animals - the "indigenous" human species in remote geographic areas that need to be protected culturally, the whole dichotomy they operate under is essentially between the pre-supposed "mighty" who can apparently thrive independently of the "weaker, endangered" humans defended by benevolent western liberals. It is not, therefore, that the logic of human liberation is extended to animals (contradictory) but that the logic of animal liberation and aesthetic conservation is extended to humans. An absolutely revolting and despicable form of reasoning.


The real fiction is science fiction. There are plenty of books on it. It's great entertainment when you want to take your mind off reality.

Evidently you're mistaken - no one criticized ecology fetishism because "it is fiction" - I simply used fiction as an exemplary form of how ruling ideas pervade and how ecology fetishism manifests itself in our society. The point is that hardly any science fiction books will ever involve real struggles unless they are dystopian. Think about it. We either have a utilitarian-scientist society or hell itself. Never is class struggle expressed through science fiction unless it's dystopian fiction whereby the underdogs want to return to some long-gone old world.

[Lord Testicles]

A plan, something. An example of a sustainable society.

I would be surprised if there has ever been an example of a sustainable society. What is clear though is that we've never had a greater chance of creating sustainability until now because we didn't understand the world to the extent that we do now (It's been just over a hundred years since people stopped believing that "rain follows the plow") and no doubt in a couple of decades we will know more than we presently do.

The more we understand about the world the more successful we would be in keeping it in it's current habitable state.


We aren't running out of metal, but the way we get it is extremely harmful the the earth. Same with plastics.

To echo Rafiq, how is it extremely harmful to the earth? Is it harmful to the point of making the planet uninhabitable? Is it totally unreasonable that some of that harm could be reduced to an acceptable level?


Except with the continual production of goods we are actively making this planet less habitable.

As I've already said this is because the way we currently organise ourselves and our resources is literally chaos. It's not something intrinsic to production.


Regarding the oxygen crisis, that is a fluke that I don't think technology would have saved us from.

Well technology didn't exist then so it's kind of a moot point. I was only bringing it up to show that life, being the stupid, unconscious process that it is can be more than capable of bringing about planet-wide environmental "destruction", without mankind, civilisation or a coal power-plant in sight.


And the continual production of goods and tech will just lead to greater and greater environmental destruction.

Whilst simultaneously being the only thing that can protect us and reverse the effects of environmental destruction.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's not true at all, look at the latest figures and you can see that the environment has become less habitable as our knowledge of it has increased. Scientific knowledge and practice is influenced by the ideology that employs it. Perhaps communist technology could create something really wonderful that could allow us to surpass our biological limitations in a way that would be wholly beneficial. But we don't live in a communist world, we live in a capitalist world. Transhumanism is a capitalist idea, tied to a very specific idea of social control; cybernetics. Transhumanism will only lead to greater control of populations under capitalism, not liberation from capital.

[Lord Testicles]

That's not true at all, look at the latest figures and you can see that the environment has become less habitable as our knowledge of it has increased.

I didn't say that the environment has become more habitable as our knowledge of it has increased. I said we have a greater chance of creating sustainability with the better understanding of the world we have now. How would you even identify a problem with the way that we currently operate if you had no knowledge of climate change, how it happens and what it would entail?


Transhumanism will only lead to greater control of populations under capitalism, not liberation from capital.

I agree. I would even go further and say that not only transhumanism, but technological progress as a whole will lead to greater control of populations under capitalism.

[Rafiq]

But this assumes that capitalism's contradictions can be solved through trans-humanism. If they can, Communism is impossible. As I have said before, the stronger, more advanced the instruments of production are within capitalism, the stronger capitalism becomes, the more exponentially stronger a potential Communist movement is - being that Communism derives from present circumstances of life.

That being said, while "trans-humanism" might often present itself as a science fiction fantasy confined by present circumstances, within capitalism trans-humanism is impossible. With the implementation of trans-humanist technology en masse capitalist social relations would be rendered obsolete. Transhumanism's possibility has become apparent to us, but its implementation has been rendered impossible within present circumstances of life. If the rate of technological growth exceeds the present conditions of production, i.e. to the point where it is no longer an instrument of class rule but simply solving problems - then this would already be Communism. The truth is that present relations to production constrain the implementation of these technologies as it cannot keep up with their development.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The advancement of automation tied with the simultaneous advancement of ecological collapse presents the possibility for a new barbarism. Is it really impossible to envision a future where the ruling class liquidates the proletariat wholesale or nearly so? Not necessarily through direct action but through the continued enclosure of public spaces? Similar to how NAFTA and the so-called 'new economy' presented a simple new opportunity for accumulation and increased control over the workforce while being billed as progress of some kind, I think augmented reality and transhumanism is ultimately a wolf in sheeps clothing. I don't think its possible under capitalism either and said as much in my first post. But perhaps the goal of transhumanism isn't really transhumanism at all, but something else entirely. That's not to ascribe a conspiracy to it's supporters, just a certain kind of ignorance borne of inexperience and an outlook which is not quite suspicious enough of this civilization we've inherited.

[VCrakeV]

Threads have been done about this in previous years but I thought it might be good to give the topic a good push again. So, how do you feel about transhumanism and why do you feel the way you do about it? Is it a method for humans to transcend all illness and death or is it redefining what it is to be human? Are we perpetuating humanity through it or destroying it?

I'm new to this thread, so I figured I'd restore it by bringing back the original post, and simply starting fresh.

How do I feel about it, and why? Well, I would consider myself a transhumanist, so that implies that I feel optimistic about the idea. The whole idea of transhumanism is to transform humanity into a sort of "meta-human" or "human 2.0" so that we are better relative to the problems our current models have. These problems include, but are not limited to disease, hunger/malnutrition, (relatively) low life-expectancies, and general limitations of our bodies.

As it has been discussed throughout the thread, I feel the need to touch death. As it has been said, death is something we need. Without it, fresh minds will never come into the world, meaning we'd come to stagnation--the very opposite of what transhumanism would promote. That said, death isn't something that transhumanism needs to "fix". We can postpone death, but going beyond that is counter-productive. Sure, we could have something like Logan's Run, but I feel that is not an attractive solution...

Are we perpetuating humanity, or are we destroying it? Well, we are, the way I look at it, going from Homo sapiens to Homo superior if you'd call it that. Transhumanism involves a sort of unnatural evolution, so we are indeed becoming something other than the species we are today, but we'll still be sort of human.

In short, the idea of transhumanism is to simply transcend what keeps us back--and nothing else.

[Monkeyboy]

I am skeptic of this transhumanist movement. In its worst form I see it as the love child of monotheism and humanism into a form of human supremacy. It is a sort of salvation for the control-freak, who believes in a world were we'll be finally saved from the darwanist nightmare that is plaguing us - to end all suffering. Which I think is a fantasy.

I do not like polarizing but this movement is the opposite of what I believe in.

The supporters of this movement tend to have the idea that nature only exist for us to control and exploit, nature as a product. Let it be clear I am not someone who believes that man is only a burden for earth. We actually see that new species are evolving (contemporary evolution) because of human influences, Chernobyl and the Plastisphere show that nature can adapt to environmental disasters. Species extinction doesn't result, if only rarely, in ecosystem collapse, and I wonder if extinction is actually that bad - it merely paves the way for something new.

I have a problem with the full domestication of both human and natural life. I fear that transhumanists and their kin want such a world, a sterile, programmed world, where everything is planned and nothing is creative or spontanous.

[AdLeft]

Transhumanism is a scary concept.

It allows for extreme mind control and new avenues for psychological hell. Sorry if I sound so negative, but the whole idea of being able to control the brain to the fullest extent is horrifying. Imagine if your quantum computer brain got hacked and got exposed to a horrible virus.

It will also introduce new problems of competition. People who become transhuman will automatically create inequality in society.

The only good side to it is that it may allow the deaf to hear and the blind to see.

But for now, it's nothing to worry about. Maybe in a century we will have it. Who knows?

[Delusional Kid]

Those who advocate transhumanism typically come off to me as people who are just obsessed with science-fiction and think more technology will fix every problem.

As others have said there would be just be new forms of hierarchy to form, especially when still under capitalism it would make no sense for trans humanism to somehow usher in communism.

[James_Connolly]

Transhumanism is a scary concept.

It allows for extreme mind control and new avenues for psychological hell. Sorry if I sound so negative, but the whole idea of being able to control the brain to the fullest extent is horrifying.

Well, that's already happening through marketing.

I think the key on this subject is who will be in control of this kind of technologic advance and therefore if society as a whole will benefit from it or just the current dominant class.

We should never be afraid of scientific advancement, if we make sure everyone benefits from it


Imagine if your quantum computer brain got hacked and got exposed to a horrible virus.

It will also introduce new problems of competition. People who become transhuman will automatically create inequality in society.

The only good side to it is that it may allow the deaf to hear and the blind to see.

But for now, it's nothing to worry about. Maybe in a century we will have it. Who knows?

It would be the equivalent of suffering an illness, so actually there's nothing new there, I think.


What is especially sickening about this logic is that it conforms perfectly to postmodern identity-politics. For the pseudo-leftist, the objects of human liberation are essentially too treated like animals - the "indigenous" human species in remote geographic areas that need to be protected culturally, the whole dichotomy they operate under is essentially between the pre-supposed "mighty" who can apparently thrive independently of the "weaker, endangered" humans defended by benevolent western liberals. It is not, therefore, that the logic of human liberation is extended to animals (contradictory) but that the logic of animal liberation and aesthetic conservation is extended to humans. An absolutely revolting and despicable form of reasoning.

I fully agree with this.
The links between fascism (especially nazism) and postmodern ideology are self evident.

[BIXX]

The links between fascism (especially nazism) and postmodern ideology are self evident.

I find this statement strange. Postmodernity in terms of identity seems to me to be about creating a number of identities matching the number of indoviduals- lines about being yourself and such flood us. We create and infinite amount of identities to fill an infinite amount of single-cell prisons.

On the other hand fascism seems to be inclined towards eliminating all identities save for the national identity.

I am not a fan of postmodernism but to say it is fascist seems strange.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Transhumanism and "the singularity" used to be somewhat popular topics of discussion around this site, but not so much lately it seems.