rigorousintuition.ca

Anarcho-Primitivism:

http://www.primitivism.com/

Transhumanism:

http://www.transhumanism.org/

False dichotomy... but if forced to choose between the two, I'd prefer the former to the latter. Ultimately, it may be totally recursive (i.e., we are living in a simulation, a fact that our "primitive" forbears were aware of in their own way) but I don't have any faith that the limited teratoid consciousness of today's human technic can lead to anything approximating nirvana.

.

Transhumanism.

As an anarcho, I have to go against what the obvious skew will be on this board.

.

JackRiddler wrote:.

Transhumanism.

As an anarcho, I have to go against what the obvious skew will be on this board.

.

Unsurprisingly, the Primitives seem to have a slightly better grasp of web usability and design then the Transhumanists, but both home pages are looking decidedly circa 2003. But let's face it, the Trannies would wipe out the Primitives in a war of cultures, as has been demonstrated time and again, though the Primmies could probably kick ass in the UFC. I'll go with the "neither" group, though. I enjoy being primitive enough to rock out with gusto, but wired enough to access dlisted.com.

I don't really require enlightenment. Whatever will stop the fucking wars is what I favor. That would be singularity enough for me.

Neither and/or both?

How 'bout one from Column A and two from Column B?

Transprimitivist. Intellectually, anyway.

Anarcho-humanist when the chips are down, I suppose.

Neither at heart.

Transhumanism. Although I'd wait for version 2.0 before filling my body with nanomachines.

Really, really, really strained binary trap. Absurd question.

well huh. as a lifelong sympathizer of the anarcho cynicalists, i have to guess that both choices are too retro even to read about, and since we could not start an anarchist society on here because we would not even be able to agree on a time or a meeting place, everyone who thinks they are qualified to be an anarchist could go read john sayles's classic short story, 'at the anarchists' convention,' in which everyone is about 90 years old and every time some old guy walks in another even older guy says, 'what's he doing here! he's no anarchist!' if that aint cynicalist i dont know what is. what? did someone say syndicalist? no. not them. they're extinct.

.

How about straight-up unvarnished mass deathwish?

.

slomo wrote:False dichotomy... but if forced to choose between the two, I'd prefer the former to the latter. Ultimately, it may be totally recursive (i.e., we are living in a simulation, a fact that our "primitive" forbears were aware of in their own way) but I don't have any faith that the limited teratoid consciousness of today's human technic can lead to anything approximating nirvana.

Huh? Can you say that in English, please?

freemason9 wrote:

slomo wrote:False dichotomy... but if forced to choose between the two, I'd prefer the former to the latter. Ultimately, it may be totally recursive (i.e., we are living in a simulation, a fact that our "primitive" forbears were aware of in their own way) but I don't have any faith that the limited teratoid consciousness of today's human technic can lead to anything approximating nirvana.

Huh? Can you say that in English, please?

Sure: transhumanism is based up on the totally insane idea that 21st Century human beings have any fucking clue what we're doing to ourselves, our environment, and the cosmos in general. We can't even manage the world we actually live in, let alone create new ones that match it in richness and complexity (sorry, English: virtual reality is pretty fucking boring compared to the real world). Anarcho-primitivism, for all of its romantic idealism (sorry, English again: crunchy-granola-hippy-dippiness), is at least based on something that actually worked for 100s of 1000s of years.

Better?

slomo wrote:

freemason9 wrote:

slomo wrote:False dichotomy... but if forced to choose between the two, I'd prefer the former to the latter. Ultimately, it may be totally recursive (i.e., we are living in a simulation, a fact that our "primitive" forbears were aware of in their own way) but I don't have any faith that the limited teratoid consciousness of today's human technic can lead to anything approximating nirvana.

Huh? Can you say that in English, please?

Sure: transhumanism is based up on the totally insane idea that 21st Century human beings have any fucking clue what we're doing to ourselves, our environment, and the cosmos in general. We can't even manage the world we actually live in, let alone create new ones that match it in richness and complexity (sorry, English: virtual reality is pretty fucking boring compared to the real world). Anarcho-primitivism, for all of its romantic idealism (sorry, English again: crunchy-granola-hippy-dippiness), is at least based on something that actually worked for 100s of 1000s of years.

Better?

Nicely put, both times. You're one of those butterfly people, aren't you?

Perelandra wrote:Nicely put, both times. You're one of those butterfly people, aren't you?

Thanks... I get crotchety when people blame me for their own vocabulary deficits. Although I'll admit that threw in "teratoid" because it's my new favorite word , it really applies to so much that goes on these days.

Butterfly people? You mean like complexity theory? Kinda... My professional work is on the boundary of biology and mathematics, but I actually have little faith in the ability of math to solve our real problems. Complexity theory is valuable only in its ability to prove that we don't really understand shit.