New bottles for old wine

[Jazzratt]

Reopening the Eugenics debate? You can bet your ass we are!

So what does the Transhumanist project entail? Well, there are a lot of currents of thought within the transhumanist movement but at it's most basic it is an ideal that strives for an egalitarian society based on the use of advanced technology to help humanity to advance and also strives to create post humans - people the next step up from simple homo sapiens sapiens and created through genengineering. A lot of discussion abound then about eugenics, the bogeyman of the 20th century which is often misunderstood. Naturally coercive or racial eugenics should be avoided at all costs, as well as unscientific nonsense about only letting smart/strong people breed. Instead we should focus on engineering the genome to create humans far superior to the baseline - stronger, more empathetic and/or with a greater capacity for learning (as examples).

Of course none of this is possible, given capitalism and the way our world is currently structured, such a long term project as posthumans would require the kind of resources only available in a post scarcity society.

So to summarise
Transhumanism is: Post humans: People genengineered to be better than the previous generation.
A post-scarcity ideology: A leftist system is required for this to be feasible
Within reach: We already have transgenic animals and plants, our advances will not be that far off

and is not Coercive: We are not attempting to force people into creating posthumans, we are instead recognising that those that want to must have the freedom to do so.
Racist: No, we don't think one race is better than any other.
The same as the old eugenics movement: See the other two points and remember we don't subscribe to psuedoscience

[Sentinel]

A modern, farsighted, inheritly progressive, because of it's very nature secular and humanistic philosophy; I really hope transhumanism is read into by more comrades worldwide. It's the one philosophy which when I first studied it made me think hey, wait a minute, that's me! I fail to see any objections to transhumanism, and particularly transhumanism applied from an anarchist/communist perspective, hold water. Why? Because they are mere futile, moral objections stemming from either bioconservatist or superstitious/semi-superstitious reactionary anti-progress mindsets.

But a true communist is free from the limitation of morals, and can with ease spot the moral guardians when they launch their pseudo-rational attacks on progress. I fully agree with the H+ Declaration when it states: It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. It is the duty of progressives to try and reduce technophobia, and undermine and crush prohibitions on technological progress -- and to fight for the equal right to harvest it's fruits. We must let nothing remain standing between us and the posthuman future we are entitled to!

I thought I'd provide a few links to transhumanist sites and authors here, as those contain information which may clear a lot confusion about transhumanism I've sensed in some of our members. Firstly, World Transhumanist Association (WTA). I'm not a member, neither do I unconditionally support everything this org stands for, but rather view everything through my red and black glasses like with everything. There's no denying however, that they do have some solid, perhaps the most solid, info on H+ ideas, values, and actions worldwide.

World Transhumanist Association (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/)
The H+ Declaration (http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/declaration/)
H+ Values (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/transhumanist-values/)
Transhumanist FAQ (http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq/)

Also, read the essay Transhumanism (http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/huxley), written by Julian Huxley (yeah, brother of Alduous), one of the greatest transhumanist thinkers, back in 1957.

There has also been several assertions that transhumanism seen and applied from an anarchist/autonomist perspective might be an 'internet thing'. Well, as far as I know the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) for one is a loose network of real life activist cells. One of it's affiliates who used to post here had in his signature a link which I found very inspiring. Ok, the link is to an internet page of course -- but one would quite naturally presume the Raanista(s) of that particular cell apply these thoughts in their everyday lives and actions. Perhaps chimx can correct me here if I'm dead wrong, and they infact are pure 'keyboard commandos'. Anyway, here it is:

Anarcho-Transhumanism -- the ultimate synthesis (http://www.anarcho-transhumanism.com/)

[Fawkes]

Though I've never read anything up until now on transhumanism, from what I know about it, my views are pretty much those of a transhumanist. I'm interested in hearing arguments against transhumanism and hopefully a debate can be started.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Was the old school Marxists a little bit pro Transhumanism?

Because, Trotsky talks about his conception of the "new communist man" quite vigorously.

Does anyone know at all?

[Delirium]

I believe the new communist man was just one created of communist socialization.

I have no objections to transhumanism if it is noncoercive, i would not participate though.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:40 am
I have no objections to transhumanism if it is noncoercive, i would not participate though.
But of course it is coercive.

You choose not to participate. Your neighbour choose to do so. Then you both have children. His children are "better" (whatever this means) because they have been genetically engineered to be "better". Do you believe your own children will not suffer discriminatio at school? Or at the streets, for what is worth? And would you allow yourself to put your children in such situation?

It cannot be done without entailing discrimination of the worst kind. Unless it is mandatory. In which case it cannot be done without a dictatorship of the worst kind.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

Luis, you might not be entirely wrong, but what you're describing is how progress affects a society -- in an unstoppable and all-embracing way, like a tidal wave. It's quite hard to just ignore development, and remain an ordinary member of society.

Who knows, those who do not wish to 'optimise' their children may well be considered child abusers when genetical engineering, nanotech etc have become the norm. After all, maybe not all but most of the betterments which will become available will likely be about preventing illnesses, ailments and the disadvantages of caused by aging, and it will propably be too late on many occasions after birth.

Likely will it be considered the responsibility of parents to see to that the children get the proper enhancements, much like with vaccinations and similar today. Perhaps the ones who refuse will be looked upon like religious fundamentalists opposed to modern medicine today, such as Jehovas witnesses refusing blood transfusions..?

None of us has a crystal ball which shows the future, but no doubt will this be an issue of some controversy, especially in a system where all actually have access or even are provided their rightful share of the benefits of technology, like communism.

It might very well come to be the final conflict between moral and rational, conservative and radical, as well as religious and secular thinking.