What kind of transhumanist are you? -- Multi-choice poll

Currents

There is a variety of opinion within transhumanist thought. Many of the leading transhumanist thinkers hold views that are under constant revision and development.[39] Some distinctive currents of transhumanism are identified and listed here in alphabetical order:

• Abolitionism, an ethical philosophy based upon a perceived obligation to use technology to eliminate involuntary suffering in all sentient life.[40]
• Democratic transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing liberal democracy, social democracy, radical democracy and transhumanism.[41]
• Extropianism, an early school of transhumanism characterized by a set of principles advocating a proactive approach to human evolution.[18]
• Immortalism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that technological immortality is possible and desirable, and advocating research and development to ensure its realization.[42]
• Libertarian transhumanism, a political philosophy synthesizing libertarianism and transhumanism.[38]
• Postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.[43]
• Singularitarianism, a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity is possible, and advocating deliberate action to effect it and ensure its safety.[35]
• Technogaianism, an ecological philosophy based upon the belief that emerging technologies can help restore Earth's environment, and that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should therefore be an important goal of environmentalists.[41]

Link

Anarcho-Transhumanism can best be defined as a synthesis of anarchism and transhumanism, and has a threefold aim for the future human society: 'political freedom -- against the tyranny of government, economic freedom -- against the tyranny of capitalism, and biological freedom -- against the tyranny of genes'.

***

So, I thought it would be interesting to see what different currents of transhumanism our members feel they can agree and identify with, or are positively curious about. All of these tendencies are not by any means mutually exclusive, so I decided to make this a multi-choice poll. Pick all the options you feel describe your own position!

I voted as follows:

Abolitionism -- a no-brainer really. I can't understand how any socialist could not support this.
Immortalism -- I don't wish to die before I feel like it..
Singularitarianism -- we must become one with technology in order to control the technological singularity, which is inevitable.
Technogaianism -- it just makes sense. Only by improving technology can we attain sustainability, and this is what we must do in order to prevail.
Anarcho-transhumanism -- the ultimate form of democracy has my support.

This group is not exclusively for transhumanists, but for all progressive leftists. However, as a lot of members do subscribe to the philosophy, I'm pinning this after being requested to do so.

Lots to choose from. I voted for Immortalism but Singularitarianism is also desirable and interconnected.

Either would bring true human emancipation I feel.

But why didn't you vote for both in that case? It's a multi-choice poll.

I know, I only realised after I voted, dag nab it!

I voted thus:

Abolitionsim for the same reasons as Sentinel.
Postgenderism for various reasons but mainly because I've advocated it for as long as I've identified >H.
Singularitarianism because the singularity is inevitable and we must embrace it.
Technogaianism because nature is awesome and so are machines
Anarcho-transhumanism no brainer.

I voted for lots.
All except Libertarian Transhumanism, and Singularitarianism, infact.
Singularitarianism... I'm not too keen on there being intelligence beings we cannot control, who could potentially destroy us if they wanted to.
Science fiction novels obviously have had an effect on me!

I voted for Abolitionism, Immortalism, Postgenderism, Singularitarianism, Technogaiaism and Anarcho-Transhumanism

Abolitionism: No-brainer.
Immortalism: Selfish reason: I do not wish my consciousness to end.
Singularitarianism: Plausible, and if it does happen humanity should retain absolute control and have no singulairty outside of itself, for the sake of the preservation of the species.
Technogaianism: No-brainer, especially if you are a Technocrat.
Anarcho-transhumanism: I am an Anarchist, so a no-brainer.

Someone pin this, please.

Singularitarianism... I'm not too keen on there being intelligence beings we cannot control, who could potentially destroy us if they wanted to.

Me neither, yet am I a singularitarian.

See, I think it's beyond doubt that the Singularity will happen one day. The technological progress has been constantly accelerating faster since the industrial revolution. The Singularity is actually nothing more or less than the peak of this development,[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, Helvetica] [FONT=Verdana]'a point in the future when the rate of technological development becomes so rapid that the progress-curve becomes nearly vertical' like the WTA H+ FAQ describes it.

In my opinion we should therefore put the weight in research on cybernetics and general human enhancement rather than on AI development -- we must become one with the technology and thus become the Singularity ourselves, instead of making it or letting it become a separate entity from us -- such as technology to this day still is.

That should be the superior way to keep mankind in control of this event -- to keep us in the saddle when the rodeo of the Singularity starts.


[/FONT][/FONT]

Technogaianism- I believe technology is the only answer to remedy what has happened to the Earth. It will do more good that bad in the long run and its here to stay.

Immortalism- Yeah I like me too and those I love. I dont want to lose them.

Anarcho-transhumanism- This would be the most important of the three in my view.

Anarcho-Transhumanism, first and foremost. I put in votes for Immortalism, Technogaianism, and Abolitionism besides that.

same as sentinel plus postgenderism.

most importantly would be immortalism everything else we would have more then enough time for to achieve.

I kind of agree with most Transhumanist concepts, but I have my own personal interpretation of them:

Abolitionism - I am opposed to suffering in general, and vehemently disagree with the philosophical/theological position that suffering is somehow necessary to "differentiate" from happyness, IE the usual answer I get given for why a supposedly good creator would create evil and suffering. However, my opposition to suffering does not make me a pacifist or opposed to death. Sapient beings (humans being the only known example so far) should have as much protection from suffering as possible, while sentients (like higher animals) should be protected from any suffering that does nothing to increase the sum total of sapient knowledge, happiness or safety.

Extropianism - Control of our own evolution is absolutely imperative, just as control of all other aspects of human existance should be. But it need not be coercive, and in fact I would argue that coerciveness is counter-productive to the massive amount of diversity I believe is required if humans and their evolutionary descendants are to survive for as long as possible.

Immortalism - This is another facet of human existance that should fall under our collective and individual control. Sapient beings should be able to live for as long as they want, and to die when they want. You will notice that a common theme in my Transhumanism is centred around control - societal control of the environment for the common good and individual control of one's destiny, as opposed to social control of individuals and individual control over the destinies of others.

Postgenderism - I believe that postgenderism will be a natural consequence of the greater variety of reproductive techniques and gender choices that would be available in a Transhuman society, rather than being ideologically imposed. I believe that this is supported by the increasing acceptance (in spite of local throwbacks) of homosexuality and transgender identities.

Singularitarianism - While I am skeptical about the prospect of "hard take-off", I believe that a "soft take-off" is within the realm of possibility. I am of the opinion that it will actually take a good while before society really feels the effects of civilisation-changing technologies, as social inertia is a heavy thing, disinclined to move fast.
I am of the strong opinion that artificial intelligence is something to be embraced, not feared. I believe the current climate of fear over AI is nothing but a throwback to animalistic fears of competition, promulgated by popular culture images of robots and AIs aggressively wiping out humanity or taking over civilisation. In my estimation any AI powerful enough to present a threat to the human species as a whole is powerful enough to simply ignore us if it wants nothing to do with us. I believe that AI and other artificial beings should be granted rights if they demand them, as any being sophisticated enough to demand rights is sufficiently sapient to comprehend their rights. When it comes to creating artificial progeny, in AI, robotic or any other form, we should be in the business of making friends, not enemies. I believe that AIs have the potential to offer great things to humanity, and the we can offer them our cultural heritage.

Technogaianism - While I am of the opinion that we should preserve the Earth in a livable state, for sentimental reasons if nothing else, I am of the firm belief that we should be a "Hyperentropic Society", using energy and matter at as large a rate as possible in order to provide the maximum quality of life to individual sapients and in order to push our boundaries further and further. I am confident that even millions of years of voracious energy and matter consumption will increase the entropy of the entire universe by the smallest of small fractions. In fact, I am skeptical that even if we were to become totally profligate and wasteful, it would not matter so long as we have access to nearby stars - in this manner, we can simply mine our way through the 400 hundred billion star systems in the Milky Way without making a significant dent in galactic mass-energy for at least a million years.
Hence I am of the opinion that environments should be preserved only insofar as they serve sapient interests, and not simply for their own sake. Note that this includes satisfying our aesthetic needs (planet-wide natural parks, anyone?), as well as preserving biospheres that are of particular scientific interest.
Maximum control of our environment should be our goal, even if "chaos" means that we never actually achieve it within a reasonable timeframe. This means that artificial space habitats should be the first choice for Transhumans rather than planets, which are rather messy and wasteful, and could possibly tend to have natives.

Anarcho-Transhumanism - I believe that the ideal society for a Transhuman society would be anarchist. A massive state structure has the potential to be oppressive beyond all belief in a post-Singularity Transhuman society, while a libertarian Transhuman society would simply be Somalia with ultratech. Not to mention that fact that easy availability of energy, services and goods is likely to render capital obsolete.

I voted for:
Technogaianism
Anarcho-Transhumanism
Abolitionism
Extropianism

I was going to vote for Singularitarianism and Immortalism but I'm not 100% sure about those options.

EDIT: However, on a second thought, I would support Immortalism for myself if my life was very good and we were already living in communism () and I would support singularity if, like sentinel said, we formed a part of this singularity or become it.

I did not vote for abolitionism as I do not consider the philosophy behind "animal rights" to be important, and by voting for abolitionism I feel it would imply support for an animal rights-esque philosophy. I do however support the part of abolitionism that focuses on sapient beings. I think if we can eliminate the suffering of all (or most) sapient beings then we should at the very least try to do so.

I did vote for extropianism and technogaianism.

I voted for extropianism for basically what Noxion's interpretation of it stands to be. I think this can eventually lead to physical immortality and thus the reason why I did not really vote for immortalism although I am in support of it. I just view it as a part of what extropianism leads to.

Techno-gaianism I voted for as I think that the way for us to improve our environment is not by regressing to older technologies or to resort to using inefficient or negatively-efficient "alternatives" but rather to move forward and develop technologies that result in superabundance and thus more self sufficiency. Progress is extremely important and if we do see environmentalism as a goal then we should develop the technologies we require in order to stop environmental degradation and degeneration.

I voted for Abolitionism and Technogaianism, as I think that the ultimate goals of technology in Communist society should be an elimination of misery of sentient beings and both restoration and conscious development of our planet's ecosystem.

i actually don't want to label myself as this or that but...... Anarchist Transhumanism sound good

Well, I basically agree with you all, but to avoide a circle jerk I'll try to highlight my areas of disagreement.

First, Immortalism is far more complicated than simply dying when you feel like it, there are heck load more issues tied up in that concept. For example, this kind of thing will invariably lead to a spike in population growth, which is ultimately undesirable, at least until terraforming is a realistic goal and not a pipe-dream.

Also, I think the fact that we have relatively short lives is a massive motivator to get up and do something with your life. Faced with the possibility of living forever and ever, I expect I'd become rather apathetic about achieving goals, or generally doing the stuff of life. The prescence of death is, in a strange way, life affirming. If we have a limited amount of time, then hopefully we'll make every second count, we'll live full lives. An eternity takes the meaning out of those seconds, surely?

Will add to this later, must dash to history class.

-Alex

Heya Alex, let's see if I can challenge your criticisms against Immortalism, shall we?

First, Immortalism is far more complicated than simply dying when you feel like it, there are heck load more issues tied up in that concept. For example, this kind of thing will invariably lead to a spike in population growth, which is ultimately undesirable, at least until terraforming is a realistic goal and not a pipe-dream.

Well, you have to remember that we are all leftists. Ie, we support lifting the living standards in the third world to first world level, by ending imperialism. And that would soon make the birth and death rates break even globally, if implemented today.

Of course you still have a point that we eventually will run out of space, but by that point I think terraforming actually will be reality.

Also, I think the fact that we have relatively short lives is a massive motivator to get up and do something with your life. Faced with the possibility of living forever and ever, I expect I'd become rather apathetic about achieving goals, or generally doing the stuff of life.

I think this sounds like the same kind of, sorry to be frank, untruth as say the bourgeois claim that people would become lazy and bored in an egalitarian and abundant society.

The prescence of death is, in a strange way, life affirming. If we have a limited amount of time, then hopefully we'll make every second count, we'll live full lives.

Or, alternatively, we are paralysed by fear and turn to religion and superstition for comfort. Anyways, I think this has to be up to the individual to decide. Freedom to live or die is the ultimate freedom we are yet to achieve, and as an anarchist I would feel obliged to demand it, even if I wasn't the slightest afraid of unwanted death.

Which I am.

Really? Isn't that a bit "unscientific" of you? Why be afraid to die, you won't live to experience it.

There has so far been no credible enough proof presented that there is anything to experience after death, as far as we know it's the end of existence. So it's not an irrational fear at all, for anyone who wants to keep existing, and experiencing stuff.

Abolitionism
Immortalism
Singularitarianism
Technogaianism
Anarcho-Transhumanism