Anarcho-Primitivism or Transhumanism?

[FourthBase]

Anyone else feel that Mary Shelley was, very likely, the first explicit statement of the Transhuman dream, and it's possible consequences, while also creating a sublime metaphor for the idea of the composite psyche?

She's long been credited as the first appearance of science fiction as a distinct literary phenomenon, but perhaps should also be credited with the birth of a genuinely new idea, technological transcendence.

http://utopiaordystopia.com/2015/06/21/ ... -of-gloom/

Apparently some dude named Kleist got there 8 years before Shelley, in a short story about puppets. (Trigger warning: The blog is written by someone whose pro-transhumanism is vomit-inducing.)

[Harvey]

A couple of months back in the Guardian there was an interesting discussion between Will Self and John Gray on Gray's book "The Soul of the Marionette," based on Kleists essay.

gnl.150403.Self_Gray_Live_Event.ek.books_podcast.mp3

I don't know if their conclusions are the same, (Kleist and Shelley) even if they were describing the same thing.

[Luther Blissett]

Because it hasn't actually been breached yet, and because it will be helpful to the conversation, the "Human Advancement" wikipedia page "technologies" section lays out in explicit detail the elements of transhumanism. For the most part, I agree with this list, and it's easy to see how close we really are as a species. I also see some of the existing technologies as capable of producing feedback loops that precipitate the other, more exotic ones.

Existing technologies
Reproductive technology

• Embryo selection by preimplantation genetic diagnosis
• Cytoplasmic transfer
• In vitro generated gametes

Physically

• Cosmetic enhancement: plastic surgery and orthodontics
• Drug-induced: doping and performance-enhancing drugs
• Functional: Prosthetics and powered exoskeletons
• Medical: implant (medicine) (e.g. pacemaker, magnetic implants) and organ replacement

Mentally

• Nootropics, drugs, neurostimulation devices, supplements, nutraceuticals, and functional foods that improve mental functions such as cognition, memory, intelligence, motivation, attention, and concentration.[8][9]
• Computers, cell phones, Internet, and any pieces of technology that enhance the human condition in ways that make it more efficient. For example, making schedules, keeping a list of phone numbers, communication with others, general information storage, etc.[10]

Emerging technologies

• Human genetic engineering
• Neural implants
• Nanomedicine
• Brain–computer interface
• Neurotechnology
• Cyberware
• Gene therapy

Speculative technologies

• Mind uploading, the hypothetical process of "transferring"/"uploading" or copying a conscious mind from a brain to a non-biological substrate by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail and copying its state into a computer system or another computational device.
• Exocortex, a theoretical artificial external information processing system that would augment a brain's biological high-level cognitive processes.
• Endogenous artificial nutrition, such as having a radioisotope generator that resynthesizes glucose (similarly to photosynthesis), amino acids and vitamins from their degradation products, theoretically availing for weeks without food if necessary.

Is there any doubt that all the above, when combined, would split humanity?

[FourthBase]

Orthodontics, lol?

I reject the transhumanist line of argument that simple restorative technologies like eyeglasses already make us transhuman. Even complex restorative technology is fine. The line has to be draw at enhancement. Straightening crooked teeth ain't enhancement. Dentures and crowns aren't enhancement. Plastic surgery? Now we're getting warm. Pacemakers? Eh...just that? Prosthetic? As long as it doesn't give you superhuman powers, aside from its own durability. Hawking gets to walk up stairs again in an exoskeleton, not leap over buildings? Sure. But the line really starts getting crossed when it comes to central nervous system upgrades, brain enhancement, AI implants, etc. The printing press did not make us transhuman, our smartphones don't, the alphabet didn't. What definitely will, is invasively fucking with our brains to make us smarter.

Up to a point the categorization is subjective and slippery. The trick is determining what that point is long in advance, some patently abhorrent shift, making it a cannot-ever-be-misinterpreted-sign-of-disconnecting-from-humanity, and then crushing any attempt to trespass. Legally crushing. But honestly, somewhere way down the line, much later this century, I expect lethal violence. Hopefully just not on the scale De Garis imagines. An infinitesimal fraction of that. But, yeah, somewhere, someday, some person is probably going to wind up being killed and society is then going to have to make the judgment call that, no, that wasn't actually a person anymore, carry on, and hopefully that will set a permanent precedent or something, and even more hopefully there'd be a retreat into the past...not necessarily a primitive past, but maybe, like, five minutes ago, technologically-speaking, but with free energy, etc. On the other hand, the fear is that that'll just be the opening act of the Worst War Ever.

Personally, I hope the ghouls intent on transcending their humanity get to the point of believing they've achieved the ability to upload themselves in as rapid and unanimous a fashion as possible, and all at once kill themselves off in an Applewhite-esque worldwide Great Uploading. Poof, problem takes care of itself. (As if the Nazis had bought all that Zyklon and built all their gas chambers for themselves, so that they could line up and walk in and enjoy the experience before everyone else got the chance. "First!", lol.) Except perhaps for the ensuing worldwide cleanup process, just to make sure, of smashing-whatever-devices-they-were-supposedly-downloaded-to-into-millions-of-pieces, or frying-it-all-in-saltwater-or-acid-or-whatever-will-permanently-destroy-their-supposed-souls. I imagine one of the more low-tech safeguards considered to discourage such a thing might be a program to emit sounds of pain and distress, like that toy robot someone posted here some years ago. I recommend getting over that shit, and getting used to the sound of wailing, dying robots.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Robert wrote,
These teams would have to have proverbial balls of steel.

No, not really. All 'they' have to do is to offer shelter to his wife and offspring, with the promise to feed and care for them.

Although we have many who would sacrifice their life for their country, I tend to believe far more are willing to sacrifice their life for their families than they are for country.

Family would be cared for until they could be disposed of once their usefulness had been exhausted after their 'scout' had died. I could think of other reasons to keep them alive, but I don't want to - gets creepy way too fast.

Just to clarify, in the scenario I presented in response to tapitsbo's question, in order for the rich to infiltrate the anarcho-prims, it would have to occur at the outset of cataclysm. Who among the elite would willingly give up the security of the underground bunker/cities for the astronomical crapshoot of surviving a collapsing civilization amidst overwhelming climatological destruction in the hopes that as radiological mutants they would be chief liaison to the god-transhumans when/if they rise from their bunkers transformed? I don't think that would happen willingly, and if forced, why would they maintain loyalty? Wouldn't they instead be spearheading the revolution against these phony-upstart gods?

[Iamwhomiam]

^^^^ I understood that Robert. Here's tapitsbo's question to which you refer:

what if the anarchoprims were infiltrated from the get go

The scenario I presented also was an answer to that question that conflicted with yours, that's all. All I posed was also assumed to occur prior to the "get go."

Continuity of one's genetic line is what death is all about, as someone mentioned, perhaps slomo. Perhaps if one had no progeny to carry forward their line or was sterile, rich as they were they would volunteer to take on such a role.

Throughout time the rich have been known to take great pleasure in the economic crushing of a rich competitor. I cannot see such a scenario playing out wherein one rich individual voluntary gives his life of comfort away so his peers will thrive. Pardon me, ladies, but you know the saying, "It's a dog eat dog world." Have we forgotten how very psychopathic so many of our rich are? No fucking way is one gonna volunteer to die for another, the selfish jackasses are the one's who caused the overall situation, right?

But perchance if they did, they would surely "be spearheading the revolution against these phony-upstart gods" because they would have needs no longer common to those who sent him, but more similar to those with whom he now "lived."

Finding one among the masses to serve their needs is probable, though, imo. Bribery's quite effective, I'm told.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

But perchance if they did, they would surely "be spearheading the revolution against these phony-upstart gods" because they would have needs no longer common to those who sent him, but more similar to those with whom he now "lived."

My thoughts exactly. I'm reminded of the movie Avatar, where Jake is initially a spy for military intelligence reporting back to the villain Quaritch. But when he gets to know and understand the Na'Vi on a personal level, he identifies with their struggle and joins them in fighting the military trying to plunder their resources.

As far as bribery goes, you are correct. It's romantic to look at anarcho-prims as some kind of noble savages that would be above such crassness, but the reality is that even in a society where money is not predicated on the infinite growth debt machine we currently have, living creatures still covet. And where creatures covet, there will always be clever, unscrupulous creatures crafty enough to turn that desire to their advantage. Even if material possessions aren't the anarcho-prims weak point, there is always food, sex, or something else. There are no utopias as long as there is greed.

[DrEvil]

But perchance if they did, they would surely "be spearheading the revolution against these phony-upstart gods" because they would have needs no longer common to those who sent him, but more similar to those with whom he now "lived."

...

As far as bribery goes, you are correct. It's romantic to look at anarcho-prims as some kind of noble savages that would be above such crassness, but the reality is that even in a society where money is not predicated on the infinite growth debt machine we currently have, living creatures still covet. And where creatures covet, there will always be clever, unscrupulous creatures crafty enough to turn that desire to their advantage. Even if material possessions aren't the anarcho-prims weak point, there is always food, sex, or something else. There are no utopias as long as there is greed.

That's the problem with human nature; deep down we're just selfish animals. We won't be able to create any kind of utopian society without also radically altering ourselves in the process or having an authoritarian government that keeps everyone in line (and then it won't really be a utopia).

Regardless of what labels we apply we're still humans, and humans can be pretty shitty creatures.

[FourthBase]

I imagine one of the more low-tech safeguards considered to discourage such a thing might be a program to emit sounds of pain and distress, like that toy robot someone posted here some years ago. I recommend getting over that shit, and getting used to the sound of wailing, dying robots.

viewtopic.php?p=151495#p151495

We need to desensitize ourselves to "murdering" robots, or the robots will murder our fucking humanity by exploiting precisely those sensitivities.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013112 ... er-a-robot

[FourthBase]

Forget a copout "neither" or "both" or fantastical bypass of question: If it's anarcho-primitivism OR transhumanism, with NOTHING in between or outside that choice, what do you choose?

[brekin]

Forget a copout "neither" or "both" or fantastical bypass of question: If it's anarcho-primitivism OR transhumanism, with NOTHING in between or outside that choice, what do you choose?

I kind of feel people have already made this choice, unwittingly perhaps. I'd even say by default most of us are on the road of transhumanism. If you own a smart phone, are online often, use a computer for work and play, if you are basically reading this right now, etc then you've already opted in for transhumanism, grudingly or not. Anarcho-Primitivism and Transhumanism are less what you believe- but what you do.

If you are using a website to promote Anarcho-Primitivism then sorry, come right in, welcome to the machine. Right now with the acceleration of technology, the day you bought a cell phone (maybe even that pager) you opted in to have your brain rewired and your priorities and behavior (how you eat, commute, work, date, recreate, exercise, communicate, travel, etc) steered and hacked by anonymous and often artificial intelligences. Using technologies change what and how you think. And in for a penny, in for a pound because you are basically unemployable if you don't have an email account and cell phone number now which is the gateway drug to everything else. No one told you your life was basically going to be gazing into a series of screens from here on out and if they phrased it like that you might have gone full bore Anarcho-primitive, but you didn't and now your on the transhumanism train baby.

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Isn't this happening, happened? Cars, planes, computers, etc all greatly enhance human capacities. They also greatly diminish them also. So does Primitivism no doubt in its own way. But with that:

Primitivism is the pursuit of ways of life running counter to the development of technology, its alienating antecedents, and the ensemble of changes wrought by both. This site is an exploration into primitivist theory, as well as various works that contribute to an understanding of the tendency.

http://www.primitivism.com/index.html

It seems it is the pursuit of such a life and not the practice. Most of us are practicing proto-transhumanist with possibly at most anarchy-primitivist sympathies and day trips.

I went to the beach recently and was surprised how many people walked or shallow waded while they scrolled on their phones. But I thought that is going to not seem out of place at all in 2-3 years.

[FourthBase]

I get what you're saying, but by that measure we were proto-transhumanists the day we invented the wheel, opted in the day we learned the alphabet, etc. And that's absurd. Please try again.

[brekin]

I get what you're saying, but by that measure we were proto-transhumanists the day we invented the wheel, opted in the day we learned the alphabet, etc.

Bingo.

And that's absurd.

Yes, that is why civilization and society are absurd. Truly, as in often being isolated from real meaning and futile.

Please try again.

No thanks, I'm good. I'll hold.

[FourthBase]

Ah, I see. You're a useless nihilist.
Yeah, on second thought, please don't try again.

[brekin]

Ah, I see. You're a useless nihilist.
Yeah, on second thought, please don't try again.

Baby, you misread and try to binarize me. I'm just a romantico-old hippie-mystical-pragmatic-realist with dashes of cyber-folk-punk accents and soul engineering shamanic tendencies. Me thinks you need to diversify and grow your categorical holdings.