Come again? I'm fairly positive that you have always gotten very upset by vivisection (even though I do know that you aren't for banning it completely) etc.
But however the case, are you seriously telling me that you think that you would fit into the group?
Haven't you always disagreed with everything Jazzratt, NoXion, Serpent or other members of our group have posted?
Most importantly, have you read out introduction and do you agree with it -- especially the
underlined parts:
What is the Human Progress Group of RevLeft?
A discussion group for all progressive comrades on RevLeft, CC-members or not, who firmly take the anthropocentric position against capitalism/the price system, religious superstition, bioconservatism in any of it's forms, neo-luddism, primitivism and any other attempts/tendencies to halt or regress development.
We are leftists of the variety that always puts the well being, pleasure and freedom of the human being in the center in a rational, socialistic, anthropocentric fashion and shuns technophobia as madness -- whether they otherwise be anarchists, marxists of any variety, or technocrats. A wish to combat reactionary forms of bioconservative or 'green' influence within the left is a uniting trait for the group though.
We are a group of comrades who recognise human progress, material abundance and technological development, but also a society dominated by a completely rational mindset, as essential requirements for the building of a truly equal, classless society. This means atheists only.
The group is not meant to be exclusively for transhumanists, even though a great part of the membership may end up being H+ -- after all, our goal is the total liberation of mankind from both material, biological and moralistic limitations. All the 'old crap', like one of my favorite authors used to call it, must go if mankind is to reach it's full potential!
Oh boy, lets go over this. . .
This has nothing to do with my politics, but personally I get very upset by pointless vivisection. Like I have always said on the forum, I am in favor of getting rid of unnecessary animal testing, which people from the John Hopkins university puts at as high as 80%. We have developed technology, such as cell cultures, that allows for testing to be done without subjecting animals to disease. So long as technology is advancing, I don't see the point in needlessly holding onto anachronistic practices. (interestingly enough, my mother is a vivisector. have I ever mentioned that?)
bioconservatism in any of it's forms, neo-luddism, primitivism and any other attempts/tendencies to halt or regress development.
I am not a luddite. I am a strong advocate of technology. I used to study computer science for that reason (pity I'm bad at math as it turns out). I think communisms greatest chance of success lays in a society where scarcity is minimized, and developing technology is the best way to ensure this.
I am opposed to primitivist praxis of halting and regressing any development for this reason. Like I have always said, I think primitivism is ultimately a flawed and genocidal cause, but I like it for its critiques of capitalism and industrialism as it exists today, and I think it is worth reading for this facet and this facet alone.
I do not think that environmentalism is inherently antithetical to your ideas of anthropocentricism. My work with environmentalism in the past had nothing to do with mysticism or worshiping "gaia" or some hippie shit like that. It is my opinion that maintenance of the planet is important for human survival and future human development. I think that it is wise to be careful of pushing underdeveloped technologies (especially within the context of capitalism) before we have a firm understanding of any potential consequences to
human habitat.
I would like to reiterate, cause it is a pretty central line in what I do believe political, that I think further developing human technology is the best chance for dismantling capitalism as it often destroys scarcity.
