Comment on this entry
My Socio-Political Disagreements with Transhumanism
In general, I have affection for the goals of H+. However, when I compare my socio-political stances with transhumanism, I discover numerous points of contention. Here’s a brief list of platform issues and my positions that are occasionally in synch with H+ majority but often contrast sharply.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/02 at 12:31 PM
Interesting reading. I share some of these perspectives, but on the basis of recent exchanges the author would probably be inclined to put me in the category of “technoprogressive liberals who adore the state”.
And, to be honest, there is a lot that I DO adore about the state. It feeds me, it keep me warm, it gives me SO many options and possibilities. Sometimes it really pisses me off, but I guess that’s the case for just about any object of adoration, no?
That’s not to say that the current concept of state is what we should be aiming for. I would say in fact that it most certainly isn’t. The question is: where DO we want to go, and what is most likely to get us there?
For the author, freedom and equality now trump the uncertainty of fantastic futures, and I agree that there’s a lot to be said for that view. But there are also drawbacks. For a start, freedom and equality are not bedfellows. You have to ask yourself: freedom to what? And what guarantee is that this is what people will use that freedom to do? I believe that Intomorrow was right when ey said on another thread that real anarchism is red in tooth and claw.
Perhaps the key to understanding the author’s view here is in the statements, “I detest both the political and psychological effects of hierarchy and bureaucracy,” and “Civilization entails the internalized violence of self-discipline and self-repression.” The first is an aesthetic judgement, and one which I share to some (but only some) extent; the second hinges on a definition of “violence” which many will find stretched, but with which I also have some sympathy. Yet what is the alternative, really? Is this an argument against government, or a rebellion against reality itself? After all, self-discipline (which necessarily involves some self-repression) would be necessary, as a means of achieving anything worth achieving, even in the absence of bosses. Governments did not create this. Of we are looks for something to blame, we had better blame nature itself.
In summary: the urge to lash out against constraints imposed by others, and even reality itself, is part of what makes us human, and is something we need. But the solution is not to immediately dismantle all such constraints (evenif we could). Transcending them is an ongoing process, in which governments, at their best, can play a valuable and positive role.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/02 at 02:41 PM
“the United States government considered the health of Native American populations expendable in the context of Cold War politics.”
Quite true, what America did to natives was genocide from the 17th to 20th centuries.
But please keep in mind what Francis Fukuyama writes on oppressed peoples being culturally conservative, don’t think of natives as being latent-progressives. They want casinos and cigarettes, alcohol and all the rest of what consumer life has to offer.. the proportion of progressive natives is small, the number of technoprogressive natives is smaller, ‘negligible’ is a word coming to mind. Too often we project our own worldviews on others. What little Native American activism there’s been has been native nostalgia tinged with Marxist blarney.
The only political hope I can see at this moment is Obamaism, Obama has shown in the last 3.5 years how he wants to do more but is constrained by an old-fashioned electorate. Fickle as well: they want the past but they want the benefits of de novo—which is IMO having their cake and eating it too. James Reston’s quote is worth reviewing,
“Americans are a funny people, they change things with their hands, they admire those who ‘live modern’, yet they are very conservative.”
Same goes for most other peoples.
Posted by Thomas Watts on 07/02 at 06:08 PM
I found Abbott’s essay startling. He obviously has some intelligence, but focuses it in ways that leave me grasping for an explanation as to how he could possibly reach some of the conclusions he does. Nowhere is this more apparent to me than in his discussion of economics. He constantly mistakes corporatism for capitalism, attributing the evils of the state to “capitalism.” Perhaps he simply doesn’t understand the meaning of the word, or has adopted some perverse definition of it from some subcultural or academic context.
I also believe he tragically understates the capacity of improved technology for bioremediation, and reduction of harm from mining and industrial processes. I am reminded of a recent local struggle in my community. There was an attempt to build a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant here. I pointed out to the hard greens who were fighting it, that the ability to reprocess fuel would greatly reduce the need for mining, and thus, would reduce the harm done to the residents of the reservations. No answer was forthcoming.
In complaining that our technologies use fuel and minerals, he ignores that our technologies also allow us to use those things far more efficiently.
If he believes pollution is the result of “industrial capitalism” I would recommend he undertake an assay of pollution in the former Warsaw pact. It is precisely in the West, where we have “industrial capitalism” that there has been the most improvement in environmental standards.
Posted by OverTheMoon on 07/02 at 07:32 PM
Great article. You put into words many points I’ve been struggling to communicate over the last year or so.
I couldn’t commiserate more with your unease over the economic worldview of many transhumanist libertarians. I personally worry we are spiraling into a technocratic corporatocracy, in which access to life extension will define the power of your citizenship.
I also find the typical transhumanist approach to environmentalism insufficient, as the general approach seems to be ‘wait until nanotechnology can fix our problems’ instead of abridging our destructive behaviors now.
-Jake Anderson
Over The Moon
Posted by Facilitator DaNee on 07/02 at 08:11 PM
How exactly is self-discipline internalized violence? It sounds like you are saying that self-discipline and restraint are bad things. If so then I definitely don’t agree.
The fascist problem I see is the tendency of people in these kinds of movements to think they can change the world and make things better for everyone. You can’t. Most people don’t want to make the kinds of change that would make the world a better place for everyone. I spent a lot of time trying to bring people around before I figured out that it was doing nothing and wearing me out.
The one area I agree with is the singularity versus environment. The sum total of environmental damage, overpopulation, resource depletion and related issues is going to hit hard before the predicted date of the Singularity. I have studied that problem and struggled with trying to enlighten people for years. Most people either don’t care enough to make changes in time or simply refuse to accept that there is a problem.
This is why I don’t deal with the masses anymore. I am more interested in getting together with people who understand and try to create something to preserve instead of spreading it out to everyone.
Posted by Facilitator DaNee on 07/02 at 08:16 PM
@ Intomorrow
I feel you. A prime example is the state of the environmental movement. 99% are just back to the woods hippies longing for the mythical “noble savage” times. The Native Americans did a lot of environmental damage all on their own. It’s one of the reasons that the forests in America were so easy to get through. The Native Americans weren’t some highly evolved society living in harmony with raw nature and each other.
Posted by Summerspeaker on 07/03 at 02:52 PM
Intomorrow and Facilitator DaNee: Why do y’all feel compelled to denigrate Native culture and society in response to my description of colonialist designation of the Four Corners region as a national sacrifice zone? I suspect this stems from the settler mentality. The stereotypical invocation of casinos, cigarettes, and alcohol screams racism and classism. Like any other group, Native folks of course hold a wide variety of political stances. I personally know and organize with a number of indigenous radicals; at least one tech-savvy hacktivist comes to mind. Transhumanists need to take decolonization seriously.
Thomas: I understand capitalism well enough. I’m not a fan. (Market anarchism, maybe, though I favor a gift economy.) So far, promises of greater efficiency haven’t change the basic equation of the industrial system. Natural resource extraction remains a painful process. I don’t think it has to be that way, but I’m super skeptical techno-fixes. When I say no victims, I mean it. Command communism indeed devastates landscapes and communities in similar fashion, but remember that the model originated in England and was refined in the United States. The early Soviet regime adored U.S. engineers and paid them lavishly to design the industrialization of Russia.
As a side note, I prefer gender-neutral pronouns.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/03 at 03:37 PM
“The stereotypical invocation of casinos, cigarettes, and alcohol screams racism and classism. Like any other group, Native folks of course hold a wide variety of political stances. I personally know and organize with a number of indigenous radicals; at least one tech-savvy hacktivist comes to mind. Transhumanists need to take decolonization seriously.”
Stereotypes are naturally erroneous- yet not entirely in error; you write that you know ‘a number of indigenous radicals’, not ‘many’, not ‘numerous’—but rather ‘a number’. A few.. several.
When the number reaches into the thousands, then let us know.
Native appreciation is proper; hagiography is not.
And though settlers did undeniably commit genocide against natives, they did the same to each others’ tribes for centuries before the white man ever did.
Posted by Summerspeaker on 07/03 at 08:48 PM
I’ll be sure to notify you as soon as I know thousands radicals from any background, but I doubt that will happen before the Singularity. I don’t think I could name a single thousand acquaintances even with effort.
While many Native groups engaged in warfare before the European invasion, I haven’t encountered any evidence that they practiced genocide in the dedicated Anglo fashion. (At the turn of the twentieth century, intellectuals in the United States primarily argued about whether elimination of the Indian should be bodily or cultural.) If some Natives did attempt extermination, they apparently had much less success or much more limited targets!
Decolonization means going beyond appreciation and actually transforming existing power relationships between Natives and settlers.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/04 at 03:23 AM
@Summerspeaker
Yes, but I think the issue goes deeper than “decolonisation”. Samuel Huntingdon put it well when he said (admittedly somewhat hyperbolically) that Western civilisation has been superior to other civilisations “only in its capacity to organise violence”. The real problem is that now we - and by “we” I mean the human species - have a capacity to organise violence that exceeds that even of those charming intellectuals of the turn of the twentieth century. This is the really urgent challenge, along with things like environmental change, emerging diseases, technology shock. Once we’ve figured out how to deal with them, which I think is humanity’s most urgent priority currently, we will probably find that the remedies also help us deal with lesser problems such as our tendency to be beastly to each other as soon as we stumble upon the means with which to do so. And then we can get round to focusing on low-frequency high-impact risks such as asteroid strikes and uncomfortable brushes with dark matter.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 07/04 at 11:20 AM
@peter re “And, to be honest, there is a lot that I DO adore about the state. It feeds me, it keep me warm, it gives me SO many options and possibilities.”
None of these things is given to you by “the state,” which either is an abstract concept, or means the party/group in power. All of these things are given to you by the people, the community.
You may reply that you are using the term “state” to indicate the people and the community. But, as you know, I consider “the state” as an enemy of the people.
Two words: bankers and bureaucrats.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/prisco20120206
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 07/04 at 11:26 AM
I would like to pick up on your comment about our present democracies being inadequate. I agree that what me mostly have is one form or other of a temporary dictatorship. Occasionally we switch dictators, but we give little input into what we want our governments to do and do even less to hold them accountable.
If we are going to progress past the government paid for by corporate interests than each of us is going to have to step up and make it clear what we want and do want. Oddly, I think a properly functioning democracy might look a little like political anarchy until we realize that it isn’t necessary for us to be cookie cutter copies of each other to live together and function well in society.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/04 at 03:45 PM
“If some Natives did attempt extermination, they apparently had much less success or much more limited targets!”
Not for lack of trying: they simply did not possess the weaponry to commit 20th century-type genocide, they could only do primitive genocide—genocide isn’t wiping the Other out, but rather severely reducing them.
What it all comes back to IMO is Fukuyama’s truism that the oppressed are too culturally conservative to interest in progressivism- let alone technoprogressivism; perhaps esp. Native Americans, they may be some of the most backward-looking of all the oppressed. Fukuyama also wrote of the “motley crew” of progressives, e.g. the futility of what is tantamount to attempting being all things to all progressives, We can’t please Native Americans, libertopians, communists, anarchists, tree-huggers, and countless others, can we?
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/04 at 04:27 PM
@Giulio
Bankers and bureaucrats are not “the state” any more than anyone else is “the state”. The state is an emergent phenomenon of social organisation, which clearly emerged in the 19th century, though obviously built on previous models of organisation. Even the most enlightened nation states are to some extent oppressive, we can all agree on that, but considering them to be “the enemy of the people ” is nonsensical unless (i) there is some clarity about what that means, and (ii) there is some credible evidence to back up such a claim. Assuming, that is, that we are aiming to uncover arrive at accurate beliefs here, rather than “useful fictions”. And even if the latter, we would need to have some reason to believe that such a fiction was “useful”. Somewhere along the line we have to have, if we are to avoid nonsensical speech (maybe that should be a fifth category), a reason for believing what we believe, or professing what we profess.
In this case, one interpretation or a statement such as “the state is the enemy of the people” could be, “We would be better off without it.” Then we might unpick the word “better”: for summerspeaker, for example, the watchwords seem to be freedom and equality. Others might have different values - such as having food to eat. (It depends to some extent on where you happen to be on the Maslow pyramid.)
Then we need to look at evidence. Too often, in this kind of debate one finds oneself up against a belief that one’s interlocutor simply doesn’t want to question, which gets kind of boring. I’m willing to consider, also, that the state might be the enemy of the people, but then I need two things: clarification of what that means, and evidence of its accuracy (not usefulness: accuracy).
In any case, bankers and bureaucrats are not the state.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/04 at 06:46 PM
Meant to write 19th-20th century genocide, the Civil War was the first modern war. After the war America with its new weapons, strategies, tactics, had less difficulty in committing genocide against Native Americans; hypothetically if pre-Columbian natives had had such advanced weaponry they could have committed genocide against each others’ tribes.
What is encouraging is Dick’s h+ predictions for post-2020 in ‘Modified Humans: the Most Cost-Efficient Way to Colonize Space’.. however it does appear we might have to tolerate how non-technical progress may continue to lag far behind tech advances. The past two decades have demonstrated to me that if people are determined to live in the past—albeit often utilising modern devices—there’s little one can say to change their minds. Or nothing…
Posted by Summerspeaker on 07/04 at 11:52 PM
Intomorrow: If technoprogressivism involves repeating colonialist tropes, I don’t want any part in it. As I’ve said before, I desire revolution not progress. I find your description of Native Americans as “culturally conservative” and “some of the most backward-looking of all the oppressed” both dubious and harmful. I’m not really sure what you mean - aside from the negative implications - but denigrating Native people in the midst of ongoing colonialism isn’t remotely cool. My indigenous comrades have as much revolutionary spirit as anyone I know, but that’s hardly the point. Any movement for social justice must support decolonization even if doing so somehow interferes the technoprogressive agenda.
Accusing Natives of genocidal ambitions akin to the colonists continues to strike me as bizarre and runs counter to everything I’ve ever read about conflicts between whites and Natives. They had neither the conceptual frameworks nor political structures for the task. Genocide isn’t an inherent part of human life.
Peter: Cops and soldiers are the state, along with their masters. As Mao famously noted, political power grows from the barrel of a gun. Language and all generalizations indeed fail at some level, but when I encounter a police officer, one of us exercises state power and one of us doesn’t. Far from being unambiguous, the distinction is stark.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/05 at 12:51 AM
So if a pre-Columbian tribe killed say 70 percent of another tribe’s members, if there had been 1000 natives in the tribe before the other tribe attacked, and 300 survivors after the attack, you would call it.., what? what would you term it? a massacre? Isn’t a massacre a form of genocide?
“Any movement for social justice must support decolonization even if doing so somehow interferes the technoprogressive agenda.”
Seems as if you’ve perhaps been reading too much Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Trotsky and Mao. You may possibly be blogging at the wrong website.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/05 at 02:40 AM
“when I encounter a police officer, one of us exercises state power and one of us doesn’t. Far from being unambiguous, the distinction is stark.”
In an immediate sense, yes. In a less immediate sense, of course you also wield state power of the officer. If he steps outside the bounds of his mandate, you can at least in principle (and to some extent also in practice) seek redress in the courts, or other functions of the state. You wouldn’t be able to do this when confronted with the thuggish leaders of the gangs that automatically fill the spaces left vacant by failed states. It’s just soooo easy to speak out against the state, while enjoying its benefits.
Giulio is wrong. It’s not “people and the community” that feed me and keep me warm. It’s the fact that we have a level of social organisation that permits this. And a key component of that social organisation is what we commonly call “the state”.
#occupypolice #policy3.0
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 07/05 at 04:10 AM
@Peter re “If he steps outside the bounds of his mandate, you can at least in principle (and to some extent also in practice) seek redress in the courts, or other functions of the state.”
There is a better strategy, with higher probability of success. Go to a cemetery at midnight, light a candle, sacrifice a chicken, say the appropriate words, and summon Baron Samedi, who will come to avenge you.
Come on Peter. We live in real world.
Re social organization and gangs.
I see very little difference between the state and the gangs. In the recent bank bailout scams, the corrupted admins of “the states” have robbed more money from the people than all gangs together, and given them to their buddies who will pay them back in due course.
A real state would nationalize the failed banks, at least for a time, and force them to keep lending money to people in difficulty. When a company fails and new investors step in, the first thing they do is to fire the asses of incompetent and/or corrupted execs. Why didn’t this happen? The incompetent and/or corrupted execs are still there, and richer than before.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/05 at 06:39 AM
Giulio, Using the word “scam” and putting it in bold typeface doesn’t strengthen your argument. Before citing bank bailouts as evidence of corruption and state-sanctioned robbery, you at least need to consider what would have happened if those bailouts hadn’t happened…and what will happen if they don’t continue. Clue: Lehman Brothers, but on a larger scale. Are you seriously saying that Monti and Rajoy were wrong to insist on their banks being bailed out directly by the EFSF? Have you done a serious analysis of the pros and cons?
I’m going to be blunt now, blunter than I have been before. We are trying to implement a policy of Right Speech on these comment threads for reasons that have been discussed extensively. It does not help us when an IEET Board member makes unfounded and offensive accusations against real people, even if they are directed against broad categories of people rather than specific individuals.
Meanwhile, if you or anyone else feels that either Alex or I come even close to overstepping the Right Speech guidelines ourselves then please let us know (by e-mail), because in order to be credible we need to be meticulous not only in being even-handed (which is the main purpose of this comment) but also in practising what we have agreed to help enforce. Thanks.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 07/05 at 06:53 AM
@Peter re “unfounded and offensive accusations against real people, even if they are directed against broad categories of people rather than specific individuals.”
Unfounded? You say “unfounded”? (yes, in bold typeface).
I can provide as many pieces of evidence as you like, from very reputable sources, and you know that.
I support the Right Speech guidelines, and I appreciate your implementation thereof, but I don’t see anything there prohibiting founded opinions directed against broad categories of people.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/05 at 09:44 AM
Giulio, The distinction I am looks for is between, “Some bureaucrats are venal and corrupt,” which is indisputably true, and statements of the type, “Bureaucrats in general are venal and corrupt, and consequently we would be better off without them, bankers, and other instruments of the state”. (Not that bankers are for the most part public officials, but I’m assuming you would regard this as beside the point.)
There are two issues here. One is what we say about categories of people. Another is whether we think the state is an enemy of the people, and something we would be better off without. The latter is an opinion, and in my view a dangerously naïve one, but I don’t regard it as “offensive” in the sense of Right Speech, and as long as it is sincerely (as opposed to rhetorically) stated I don’t regard it as “false” in that sense either. Neither is it obviously divisive, at least not unnecessarily so (for someone who genuinely believes it), nor (with the same caveat) is it idle.
What we say about categories of people is another matter, however. I am sure that there are ways to phrase your beliefs regarding professionals in the public and financial services that avoid unnecessarily offensive or divisive language, without skirting the issue or ignoring clear evidence. I will probably agree with them, for the most part, though doubtless there will be a difference in emphasis. And all that can be done comfortably within the constraints of Right Speech, hopefully to everyone’s benefit.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 07/05 at 10:10 AM
It is my sincere and motivated belief, supported by evidence and experts’ opinions that I will be pleased to provide if required, that some elements of the administration of the State, as well as (semi-)private entities such as major banks and large corporations, and in particular some specific professionals in in the public and financial services, may not be uniquely motivated by ethical guidelines relevant to their line of duty, and at times may engage in questionable practices covered by the civil and/or criminal law of their respective countries, with the caveat that this statement should by no means be interpreted as a general critique to professional sectors of paramount importance to the construction of a fair and equitable society.
Better?
Peter, I have been writing in this language for years, and so have you.
We are supposed to use language to communicate.
Isn’t it simpler, clearer and better to call a cat a cat?
Posted by Summerspeaker on 07/05 at 10:49 AM
Violence, hierarchy, and bureaucracy make the state the state. Without those elements, you’d just have people and voluntary organizations. I don’t hate government officials and employees. I’m technically one myself as a graduate student who teaches. Many do solid work, or would do solid work if they stopped lording over people (the latter applies to almost all teachers in my experience). I believe the positive aspects of existing state organization can continue without the coercion and without the ruling class on top.
Peter, do you get harassed by the cops regular basis? Do your friends get arrested and beat up every month if not every week? Do you have a close relationship with anybody in depths of the prison-industrial complex? Do you have friends would’ve been tortured? Do you scrape by with sub-poverty income and debt while surrounded by untouchable abundance? If not, I suggest that it’s so easy to speak up in favor of the state while removed from its horrors.
The complaint process at local police department functions about as well as Giulio’s method.
Finally, if anyone has gone beyond the bounds of Right Speech in these comments, it’s Intomorrow. Denigrating Native Americans as a group strikes me as much worse than doing the same to bankers and bureaucrats.
Posted by Pastor_Alex on 07/05 at 12:08 PM
The problem with making general comments about any group of people is that they prevent us from facing the complexity of reality. When we refuse to deal with complexity we find that the consequences of our actions aren’t what we expected.
An example is the Residential Schools in Canada. The government of the day wanted to “solve the indian problem”. The most popular method of doing so was to just let them die out, then take over their land. A group of people, including the churches, said that genocide, even a passive genocide was wrong and that the native peoples should be integrated into society. Thus the Residential Schools were created to educate the children of the native peoples to live in the colonial society.
Looking back now we see this as a huge mistake and itself a form of cultural genocide. Complicating attitudes about the Residential School system is the reality that in the midst of the abuse and trauma there were people for whom the schools were a positive experience.
We are still in the place where we want simple solutions to complex situations. There is no such thing. In my mind Right Speech isn’t just about being nice, but about disciplining ourselves to see and take into account the complexity of our world so what we say doesn’t take any short cuts that reduces our ability to resolve issues.
That sounds like a lot of work, and it is. But the extra effort is worth it if we are able to bring that thought to bear on the complex issues and ethical questions of our modern existence.
I agree that denigration of any group, whether it is by ethnicity, race, job or class is not useful. It isn’t a matter of better or worse. It is a matter of stereotyping creates lazy thinking; and lazy thinking isn’t going to help move us forward.
Posted by Intomorrow on 07/05 at 01:56 PM
Perhaps you are right, Alex, for instance maybe Native Americans are a bit more progressive than has been publicized. But, again n’ again, it goes back IMO to what Fukuyama (who wants to make amends for his “End of History” folly) writes: if we encourage a motley coalition of culturally conservative oppressed—and they are in fact v. oppressed—we go nowhere fast. You can communicate with them as you please, however for me to be honest with them it would be the proper thing to say to them their culture only interests me i.e. artistically/anthropologically/archaeologically—otherwise such contains little or nothing of a progressive nature. I feel quite strongly that we go nowhere by attempting to be all things to all progressives—assuming they are even progressive as we define progressive in the first place. To put in plain language, what do ‘Indians’ have to do with technoprogressivism or even progressivism as conventions define technoprogressivism? Besides, re Native Americans, it has gone way past colonialism- you are many decades too late; we are not discussing India under the British.
White nationalists are often oppressed poor as well; what would reaching out to them accomplish? they have told me they fear the effects of transhumanism on their families, thus it doesn’t take Cheiro to foresee we would have a similar difficulty with reaching out to other oppressed primitives. Wasted motion. College students, yes, and many others who are receptive; Native Americans?: I see it as simply a waste of time in proving we are caring (or smarmy) towards minorities.
Unless any of you you possess evidence they are willing to listen.
Posted by Peter Wicks on 07/05 at 02:24 PM
@Summerspeaker
Point taken, and I did say from the start that I “adore” the state (picking up on the word you used in your article) because it feeds ME and keeps ME warm. I quite understand that people with different experiences will feel very differently. And as I’ve also said before I like your vision of achieving “the positive aspects of existing state organisation…without the coercion and without [any] ruling class on top”. The question, of course, is how to get there from here, taking into account Alex’s point about avoiding ineffective short cuts based on over-simplistic thinking.
@Giulio
I also like to call cats cats. I just don’t go around telling everyone they are all lions.
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog