Humanity is not ‘general intelligence’. Intelligence is best defined as the ability to mentally model the future, debate these models for accuity, come to many solutions for problems and choose the best solution. So if we live in a village in a deep valley, the hills above us is all loose soil covered with thick trees and foliage, we have heavy rainfalls every autumn, we can reasonably anticipate that if we cut down the trees our habitation will be seasonally flooded with torrents of mud. If we are intelligent, we have sufficient information of past events, we are allowed to debate, organize and apply centralized policy, we should be good. We might build our houses on solid stilts, and or stop cutting down those trees, and we may decide to plant new ones were we already have soil washing downhill. Not having intelligence as a species, means we are for one reason or another incapable of making such decisions and acting upon them.
The world is improving in many ways as many transhumanists in my peer community “who tactictly serve vested interests” keep reminding me. I agree. My concern is the optimists among us exist in some sort of splendid isolation and close their eyes for negatives. One such negative is the impact of industrial development in terms of increasing molecules in the atmosphere that trap heat. This isn’t just CO2. More water vapour, methane, Chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide are the same kind of atoms in this regard. The motion of linked atoms in the molecule has heat carrying capacity, sort of like the atoms in a battery have electricity carrying capacity. It’s like a heat-trapping blanket in summer.
Enough with the explanations already.
I read about it in the 1980s, in considerable detail. We knew back in the 1970s. The scientific community was fairly certain this was becoming an issue. I read science fiction from Larry Niven in that era (ringworld) that described planetary heating, and it’s consequences. In science fiction people tend to come up with solutions, some better than others. Sadly right now we have very limited solutions, and most are very bad.
We as a species lack the ability to accept the conclusions of climate science. We now see a majority of climate scientists suffer from severe depression. We keep getting shrill whining from imbeciles that deny climate change, much like a Judas who whines his shrill accusations about his boss – for paltry monetary rewards. There is a second cordon of these species traitors that whine that to fully address climate change is more ‘expensive’ than to not to do. There’s even such idiots in the transhumanist community who go as far as cheerlead president trump for dismantling previously signed climate change treaties. Treaties that were half-measures to begin with.
Listen, I am a statist. I’d rather have oppressive far left nanny state government than none. Right now there’s a big world with way too many really rich people, who consume far more than anyone else in climate damage. Much as we are all insipid clowns as human beings in that we all refuse to eat less meat, while we know how we treat animals, how animal industries affect the planet and how bad excess meat consumption is for us. People say, “i am all for care for the environment, but I gotta have my spicy meatballs a few times a week”. I include myself in this gallery of royal assholes, as I still eat meat. I am no different than the total cunts I alluded to above, the ones that emit by far the most greenhouse gases.
This is all boring fact.
Those who experience the most consequences right now would be the lower echelons of wealth and income on the planet. Meanwhile rich cunts are in a crazy scramble to irrationally insulate themselves from all this. They got the memo and are acting upon it. They know nothing. Quote:
It’s like, look at these techie douche-bag assholes, who helped destroy entire industries, and destroy our democratic political process… And now, when the shit hits the fan, they’re all gonna bail?!
The problem is that as long as rich cunts believe they can insulate themselves, as long as they believe taking active measures that will have real impact costs more to them in the short to median long run, the more the species won’t act. Most people who stand to suffer loss of revenue and prosperity as a result of active policy are over 40. Climate change will start generating impacts in 30 years – by then most of these cunts will be dead.
But that won’t stay the case. Fairly soon we will see a confluence of several changes in global society that will allow us to more leeway in terms of solving this.
1 – estimated consequences of effects of climate change are becoming worse. It looks way badder than we anticipated so far.
2 – as the world has more rich people, each one having fingers in the political pie, each year consequences will loom closer and they will grow more ‘incentivized’ to demand from their elected officials to get on it…
3 – those same rich people may anticipate being blamed for all this, and they (or their children) facing the consequences as a result…
4 – there may actually be major profit to helping fighting climate change for rich people to get richer…
5 – climate change is almost certain to trigger poor brown people migrations easily ten or a hundred times bigger than you have already seen and there is no way to stop such quantities of extremely desperate people…
6 – with all compound effects of climate change is almost certain to lead to use of nuclear other other mass destructive weapons. With nukes rich folks die as well, and we can’t have that ….
7 – There are likely to be some major medical technology advances soon in that people may soon anticipate living substantially longer, through life extension.
Of course we as a planetary species are imbeciles and we will drag our feet. We will dilly-dally for a few more years. So when we finally wake up we will completely change the prevailing paradigm and switch gears, much like a lazy student who starts cramming for exams days before the exam.
Now try and visualise a world where leading figures decide they want to be absolutely certain the climate change consequences are completely minimal, and are willing to throw all resources at the problem. That means – international treaties that are enforced with collective state violence on violators. It means – people everywhere being force to consume resources in a manner that massively contributes to climate change (gas powered vehicles become illegal, meat products costs ten times as much as it does today, etc. etc.) and most poignantly of all; – we start taking science substantially more seriously.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds a lot like a total planetary dictatorship the likes of which we have never seen. It effectively means the end of Libertarian delusions of grandeur (and libertarian thinking becoming just as maligned an ideology as today is active hitlerism) and it means we’ll have a plush yummy big nanny state world government.
Me likey that.
OF COURSE I end up substantially poorer as a result of this. But so will everyone else be. And we as a species will become finally unified by a single purpose that forces everyone, in a deliciously tyrannical manner to dedicate all their efforts in to a single unified purpose. It’ll mean war economy. It’ll mean massive unemployment as all manner of energy wasting jobs will end overnight. It’ll mean people living in very closekit, highly sustainable, highly communal structures, many of which near extremely green inner cities. And these happen to be things I really like.
Rich motherfuckers living in garish estates, flying several times a year around the planet – not so much. And frankly, I don’t give a damn. These cunts should count their blessings if they get lucky they don’t end up lynched.
So, I regard myself as optimistic. Very optimistic in fact – because having children will substantially decrease and politically there will be major gains in having more people who have very good reasons to expect they will live substantially longer. If you want something done about climate change, make sure people have the expectation they will live 200 years. They will enter a mad scramble to do something about these problems now.
This has so far been a very very angry article, and I hope you understand full well why. And it has been an article that will terrify the living daylights out of rich libertarian assholes that contribute so much to the problem. Because guys – you are leading the community of human beings directly to a highly socialized, super green one word single government, single policy species.
Queue awesome music.
* The next five years will be ‘anomalously warm,’ scientists predict
* U.S. $23 trillion will be lost if temperatures rise four degrees by 2100
* This summer’s extreme heat may just be the start of a super-hot stretch
There is a pervasive climate of distrust and resentment of some (not all) working people towards people who for some reason do not work, can not find work or can not work. Depending on the overton window in your particular geographic area, there is variation on how much resentment there is, or what type of resentment. Also, in some cases people who do not at a particular time have some kind of paid employment, for whatever reason, do not get anything like approximating a welfare payment, or don’t qualify. But then we see that people who don’t have access to money are distrusted for being more likely to be “degenerate” (alcohol, drugs come to mind of common prejudices) or themselves somehow “to blame” for their insolvency. Another factor is that people who can not somehow generate sufficient means to live a somewhat acceptable life may in fact resort to activities that range from nuisance (begging, homelessness) to outright crime, ‘socialist’ political activism (which in this case I wrote down here as a form of slander), revolt-type thinking, sabotage or other categories of active nuisance.
Working people have of course a stake in perpetuating and repeating negative stories about people who don’t work. Summarizing, this is because allegedly people without meaningful activities don’t pay in to the system, do not have ‘skin in the game‘ or are somehow compelled to become a nuisance. I am not arguing against or in favour of this opinion, I am just stating as somewhat self-evident fact that employed people clearly have vested interest in blaming or scapegoating jobless people.
As a result the electorate in most developed countries has somewhat excessively used negative narratives, possibly even a degree of slander against the unemployed. This has resulted in the electorate voting accordingly, and as such the legal and judicial systems taken rather extreme and often downright punitive measures against people the unemployed. It varies from country to country how the elderly, retired, disabled, otherwise unemployable are treated but there’s a steadily sliding scale of abuse from people in general, there’s obvious undertones of sexism and racism at work, and I’d qualify the treatment of various sorts of currently or permanently unemployed ranging from resentful to downright sadistic, depending on how well the political system has become weaponized against the “blamed” classes.
I’d argue that most developed countries generate some sort of welfare income for the unemployed. In some countries this is adequate to survive, in some countries there’s even some potential for human dignity but in most developed countries there’s no hint of dignity. Purely as anecdotal personal observation – I’d regard how welfare agencies here in my home country of the Netherlands treat people who file for welfare as intensely and consistently ruthless. There is an active and obvious prejudice here. People who work here consistently act to distrust and if they can somehow chase the person filing for unemployment benefits away from making the claim, they will, more so if the person making the claim has corresponding darker skin pigmentation and/or immigrant backgrounds. I am not putting this up to debate here, it is so obvious that I regard it as factual statement.
Saving money by not having to pay welfare, or conspiring to chase filers away is one thing, but there is also forced work. People who receive welfare benefits are by dutch laws required to make a counter-effort in contributing to society. This kind of forced labour can only be categorized is designed to be unpleasant. Essentially, the municipality involved decides that the “blameworthy” need to become motivated and empowered to work, ‘learn to get out of bed every morning’ and go to work. If welfare recipients selected for this work refuse, or fail in facilitating this regimen they lose benefits, and quite often the mechanism is such designed to make welfare recipients fail, so municipalities can summarily apply punitive measures. However the municipality is cautious not to in that manner end up with large sections of the population becoming homeless, which would in effect worsen the real or suspected nuisance these people would incur on working or “not blameworthy” or “blameless” people.
There is clearly a mechanism that the outrage and resentment of the working section of the population “hydraulically” translates in to votes, and this causally translates in to said punitive measures. And then to consider than in many or most countries beyond the Netherlands welfare is lower (i.e., less dignified) the back to work programs are decidedly more callous, and the hatred of working people is even more acidic or even organized in racist or hate lobbies.
It bears mentioning that forced labour programs (some may go as far as call these slavery) cost society and the community a lot of money. Consequently, there is a factual and verifiable causal chain that connects anger towards the unemployed to the degree the municipality of government is willing to generate apparatuses of “encouragement” of the unemployed. I place the word encouragement between euphemistic brackets, because I do not believe there’s encouragement here – there’s just a political overton spectrum of what is regarded as normative or even acceptable to inflict on the unemployed. In the US that most certainly entails the use of the prison industrial complex to purposefully make the unemployed do something that’s meticulously designed to grab them from the streets, or some activity that has been weaponized by labeling it as a crime (such as the war on drugs, which is universally racist) and then sniping off the habitually or systemically unemployed and then carting them off to prison. Essentially, the state gets a carte blanche by the working (or otherwise having an income) electorate where the electorate votes in a manner that creates laws or judicial contraptions to cart people of to prison, so ‘they are out of everybody’s hair’ so to speak. And this denuisansing of society is costly, arguably significantly more costly than giving each of these people a dignified welfare. Locking up someone in the US costs more than all costs a person makes studying at a good business school or university. But we do not do that. We do not seek to somehow -both- increase the universal well-being of the unemployed person as well as doing whatever it takes to make that person a meaningful member of society. Instead we make them do horrible jobs, either as “reactivation” or we lock em up in a seriously dangerous and violent environment. And then we go around making (in the US specifically) that such person now faces a risk of extreme sexual abuse, but let’s not get in to that.
It is very hard to decouple the willingness of the state to become an instrument of vindictiveness. I have dealt with people who do this vindictiveness work at municipalities and I believe we are clearly seeing severe signs of “stanford prison experiment psychopathy“, as well as a severe state of what I’d label milgram psychopathy with these civil servants. I thus state it as fact that in most developed countries people paid for by tax dollars are routinely subjected to work where cruelty is so baked in to the assigned tasks these people become in mere weeks subject to a diagnosis of abusive disorders such as lack of empathy, sadism, delegation of perceived responsibility for mechanisms that are clearly meant to inculcate suffering. I will refrain from degenerating in to Godwin’s law territory.
The point of this article is the assertion that after a certain number of months or years, someone who for some reason (which can be due to personal responsibility in some cases, yes yes) needs welfare benefits nearly irreversibly damaged. I’ll stick to analyzing this for my country, and yes my perceived narratives are mostly anecdotal, but I can only state that the subjects involved were of a consistent nature, thus perceived over many cases if not universal. Reasons why people do not work for long times tend to be wayyy to often attributable to how society responds to specific individuals to begin with. Personal appearance, gender, race, family backgrounds, unacknowledged disability, undiagnosed diseases, mental states, history of abuse, etc. etc. all contribute to people either not working, not being able to work (and still having to qualify for welfare as opposed to disability) or downright giving up on work.
So we can safely say that we have a society wide instrument fueled by electoral resentment, which is completely useless in getting people back to work (unless we include slave labour in US prisons in the equation, but I hardly regard slavery as a government policy worth debating) and as a side effect worsens the state of the welfare recipient as to become even more unable to work. I have not met people who were on welfare longer than five years (out of thousands) who did not have at least occasionally suicidal ideation, or needed and received psychiatric care, or needed and received antidepressants. Or, to complete the list of pathologies, who didn’t end up self-medicating in some manner, either with alcoholism or other types of drug use.
Can society politely request of people who receive welfare benefits to take some sort of reciprocal activity (meaningful volunteer work comes to mind) but what if this for some reason does not happen or simply isn’t possible? How far do you go exacting sanctioned state retribution to publicly validate that we need some form of welfare to begin with, and that “if we do not give them welfare we’ll probably end up paying more money through prisons, law enforcement and judicial apparatuses”. We can agree we rather not live in a society where the state lets vulnerable people just die, such as happened several times in the UK, rather than offer them disability or welfare. Societies that cruel are clearly losing appeal to the golden rule and maybe its citizens are within their rights to actively resist such regimens.
The question before me then is, does the right have a duty to varying degrees of easing discomfort in some unconsolable members of its citizenry. And I believe, yes the state has that duty, universally. Yes the state must pick up people with sickness and return them to health, in varying degrees. If someone is dying of tuberculosis in the street it isn’t only the risk of infection spreading that makes the modern state institutionally care for such a person – it’s also that we as human beings are elevated by a sense of empathy. We are moral beings who are bound to care for vulnerability, regardless of what negative stereotypes or caricatures we can foist upon such people.
In the past I concluded such polemics with a polite and reasoned argument for basic income, but I won’t go there for now.
What I will however conclude with is the statement that (a) there’s clear scientific evidence that people over the equivalent income of “about” 15000 euro purchase value, become more outspoken in their political and societal beliefs. One might say, if a person suddenly generates or receives money to the degree of 15 thousand euro purchase power they “get an ego”, “they start actively defending their interests”, or their “emancipate”.
It is no surprise than that welfare hovers decidedly below the mean empowerment level. Consequently, those in welfare are likelier to succumb to despair, get sick, degrade to habitual self-harm, gravitate to mental disease. They can’t help it. Nearly every human being would exhibit the same pathologies if subjected to similar and similarly inescapable ordeals. We can vomit paternalisms, accusations, negative stereotypes, thinly veiled racism, self-validating criticism or outright threats of violence over the people enmeshed in lifelong welfare but that is not going to solve the mess we have created.
Yes, as a civilized society we HAVE to give people at least some income, or they pathologize in a range of manners. And yes, if we end up cultivating a large contingent of people in welfare (disability, pension, etc) traps, we are cultivating a subsection of the populace we will find very difficult to reintegrate again in to meaning, self love, productivity, a sense of belonging, self-respect or ability to contribute. Not having welfare is scandalous and unacceptable. But leaving people on welfare for years on end is probably just as senseless. But then additionally tormenting those people in all sorts of additional and a quite expensive state vindictiveness industrial complex is tantamount to society actively damaging itself.
So what you might so, it’s only 5% of the employable population at most, or even “only” one tenth of the population in times of economic downturn. You might argue “omelette and eggs” with regards to the precious fruits of capitalism, or you might argue, “that’s the cost of how this system works and works so well”, some win, some lose.
But then I politely invite you to entertain the notion that in coming few decades we will see a fast worsening of the quality of available jobs, as well as a fast decrease in available jobs, as well as an ultra-fast increase of divisions in society. This is the moment I feel at easy using metaphors of titanics and icebergs. We no longer need to have all these people do often nonsensical work. We as a society waste resources and the future is set for society to have more and more resources and human potential actively sabotaged by this system as technological unemployment progresses. Jobs will pay less, they will become increasingly dull and unpleasant, work stress will increase and availability of jobs will be likely to be substantially more difficult. So more people will be competing for unpleasant jobs, and hey will go on in this insane bidding war of academic degrees contrivances. No your local barrista does not need a university degree in people servicing to do her job, she needs a humane income, dammit.
And it’s dangerous. Ask yourself, what would a society look like where over the years the cohort of precariat and the outcast hordes of welfare recipients has swelled. It’s already far worse out there than most employed people dare to acknowledge in anything but hushed whispers. It has begun folks.
So what do we do? No I won’t repeat my basic income mantra, because basic income as an instrument is not implementable in the current political ambiance, and even less so in the resulting dystopian, oligrachical mess we may wander in to.
No, what I am saying is this – if you are currently ’employed’ in the industrial complex of exacting state revenge on these people I’d say watch your back. Yes these are fighting words. Because you will be hard on your way already to the twin of respective milgram and stanford prison experiments sway. You may have been thrust in to a mission that’s set to become the most universally hated one in developed western society. Because if this flips due to technological unemployment, and if the overton window slides in to a format that would have large cohorts of the unemployed to start voting in a manner congruent with their actual needs and feelings, you may be in for a rough ride and it’s debatable if that future society will treat you with anything approximating the lack of mercy you have been led to inflict on your clients.
Humanity needs planet-wide maximum incomes and maximum levels of permissible private wealth. Above that, tax them at 100%.
I respond to this article by Zoltan Itsvan with a blanket rejection. Frankly, I am offended by Zoltan’s consistent lying.
Transhumanism—the social movement of merging people with machines & synthetic parts—is turning dangerously hard left.
We have inhabited a century of hard post WW2 repression originating from the US against anything reeking of socialism, communism, et.al. The US has always been a country of staunch capitalism, and it has always allowed the establishment of a neo-feudal billionaire class. This is a fact. Also a fact is that the billionaire class has always had a remarkably influence on US politics. The conjecture (or accusation) I make is that after WW2 the billionaire elites were actively terrified of an international take-over of the political spectrum towards socialism. As you may or may not know, before WW2 socialism was normal in the US. There were major socialist and communist parties and movements, and large sections of US political and union overton window had no issues labelling themselves either. Between the late 19th century and up to the new deal the biggest danger in the US for socialist, communist, social-democrat and democratic-socialist (what’s in a name) movements in US politics were originating from Pinkerton analogue billionaire funded private militia.
Here’s what a contemporary political commentator has to say about it:
Let’s look at the facts will we? In the 1950s this was the tax rate, as compared with current tax brackets.
The current percentile tax rates for the US are less than half of what they were in the WW2 and post war era, back when the US had, allegedly, the biggest economic growth ever. Around that time far right elements in US politics started actively asserting themselves, along stick&carrot lines – the high tax brackets were used, deliberately, to showcase the success of capitalism, by handing out redistributive efforts to the lower and middle classes, while at the same time McCarthyism went after those that had strong left ideologies, and destroyed them. So – when communism became part of the proverbial dustbin of history, the habit of beating up and imprisoning didn’t end much, and the PR efforts that alleged “capitalism is a pretty awesome system” where aborted. See the results before you.
Ever since then US politics has been, by any standard, rabidly far right capitalist – to the point of self harm. We can now see the results in US society and they are abysmal by any standard.
In the 1980s, when transhumanism first got started in California by libertarian-minded philosophers
So first Zoltan starts off with a lie. Transhumanism was established by people of many english speaking nationalities. I wrote strongly transhumanism centered articles when I was attending Philosophy at the RUL university in 1991, I didn’t use the name “transhumanism” yet, but it was already a very consistent ideology in my mind. I got familiar with other transhumanists and as far as I am concerned these people occupy the whole gammut of political viewpoints, from far left to far right. The original founder of the word, FM2030 wasn’t even English speaking – was was of Belgian born of Iranian descent and nowhere near right wing. In fact he assertively steered away from the right-left dualistic doctrine by establishing “upwing” politics, as alternative to the previous.
In the mind of many USians, especially those that inherited large sums of money from their parents and didn’t have to work particularly hard for all that money, the US is under constant siege from “far left” elements who want to appropriate a large amount of their money. In Libertarian thinking socialism is an ideology that “steals” what they have, no matter how they got it, and seeks to “redistribute” that money to “the undeserving”. Zoltan Istvan is no exception this rule as he actively runs for office as a Libertarian, and constantly hammers Libertarian viewpoints. Anything that detracts from his values (and property), such (as he calls it) “leftist climate change”, is rejected off hand, even if it veers in mass denial of science, fact, reality or truth. In certain insular right wing circles this kind of tonedeaf pearl clutching outrage is all fashionable these days.
Whether a social movement is embraced by the left or right can ultimately determine its course. Take environmentalism, for example, which has over a billion adherents. It’s decidedly a movement associated with leftist political tendencies. In fact, many leaders in the GOP outright deny climate change despite much scientific evidence, and our President has recently rolled back environmental regulations—all in a bid to push back against leftists gaining traction in this ever increasing hot-button political and social issue.
As you can clearly see from his own words – Zoltan supports climate change denial, and he actively supports “his president”, Donald J. Trump. Good graces indeed. That’s one way of doing PR.
Zoltan constantly affirms Transhumanism as a right wing originated, strongly Libertarian influenced ideology, by mentioning right wing or far right wing donors and ideologues, such as Peter Thiel (Who is actively funding efforts to rescind “democracy”, and return to a previous political order) or Mark Zuckerberg, who has been off recently constantly involved with attempts to actively sabotage democracy through the spread of ‘fake news’ and supression of leftist voices in the fakebook platform.
The truth is rather different. Transhumanism was actively and decisively founded through the World Transhumanist Association in the 1990s, and it’s key founder can not by any stretch of the definition be called someone of right wing persuasions. To suggest otherwise is worse than “lying by omission” – it is intentional misrepresentation of facts.
Occasionally Zoltan gets it right though
Most of the recent growth in transhumanism seems to be coming from the youth. Over a third of Americans are under the age of 35, and a large majority that are voting age identify as independent or Democrats. It’s for this reason, that transhumanism is turning left after years of being known as a libertarian-minded movement.
Yes, for many years throughout the early years of this century Transhumanism has been strongly influenced by US Libertarianism, which is contrary to historical Libertarianism a far right, and specifically property centric ideology. But yes that is changing, because the majority of transhumanists -as he states it- are now left leaning.
Transhumanism should be a dialogue, of course, and should comprise a mix of all ideologies, whether centrist, from the left wing, from the right wing or (as it happens) from blue sky or “upwing”. I myself abhor staunchness in right-left matters, and have taken from both but most of all identify as upwing.
I do not believe, at all, that a societal model based on billionaires making donations to key initiatives can maintain a functioning society. I strongly believe a state is indispensable to maintain a rule of law, provide environmental protections, establish a commercial presence in space industrialization, unlock new technological advances, protect from hostile enemies abroad, and (as it happens) to provide a somewhat dignified existence for all of its citizens. And that’s why I am for a traditionally Libertarian idea such as a basic income, and that’s why I believe the current welfare system mess needs to be replaced with such as fast as humanly possible. And yes, such endeavours must be paid for by money exacted from the rich elites world wide. I am certain people “who made their money by receiving handsome inheritances” or “who made minor fortunes in real estate” frown upon such ideological viewpoints, as it affects their ability to travel across the planet in luxury and espouse their Libertarian, or Propertarian viewpoints.
The idea that we may experience a return to a “cold war”, where we have right minded american capitalists in favor of freedom facing off against sinister authoritarians in russia is complete and utter drivel. The cold war has ended a generation ago and to rekindle its false duality is about as productive as the effort to artificially laud the historical relevance of civil war statues. Communism failed because it wasn’t socialism, and it actively cultivated rich and completely unaccountable elites in the soviet union and china. The US was so successful in the 1950s and 60s as it actively cultivated democracy, societal transparency, progress, science, engineering, prosperity in all parts of its society, and social progress and the cultivation of a middle class. Consequently the US currently is so much of a failure as it does nothing of these things and has returned to this archaic and woefully outdated maximum of again “cultivating rich and completely unaccountable elites” … like the soviet union did.
In doing so he closes his mind that the US ranks substantially worse in literally every metric that matters, up to child mortality, with dozens of other countries. The US isn’t as successful (except for Zoltan, and his vinyards) as the insular and isolated elites of the US might have you believe. Well, it is, for them, but not for most other americans these days.
If we are to spread transhumanist values, which in my mind are largely congruent with progress-loving values, we should immediately stop alienating people of a leftist bent (Because “Venezuela”). I really like Zoltan Istvan as a PR spokesperson, even though I am not at all happy with his outlandish political stance, and I recently shook his hand at Future Flux Festival in Amsterdam. I think he’d make a great spokesperson of Transhumanism if he’d get over his irrational fears that some “leftists” are plotting to take his Vinyards from him. The future should comprize as rich and diverse a tapestry of political opinions and persuasions as possible and by actively alienating and othering socialists as some kind of foreign enemy is not productive. We have seen where that leads historically and it is nowhere near pretty.
Just read his article, and make up your own mind. I can only state I believe he’s dead wrong in this.
This title seems totally off, given the endless years I've now spent supporting #transhumanism! Still, it's another passionate response 2 an article I recently wrote, & I do believe in considering all angles for our future whether I agree with it or not: https://t.co/9VgWA3uQhm pic.twitter.com/8G011Bc0oc
— Zoltan Istvan (@zoltan_istvan) August 1, 2018
Amanda Stoel is the inventor of the term DIY.
Judge for yourself.
Please donate to SENS. We need to free society of the scourge of aging.
First I need to establish what ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ are. I may have to say something about Libertarianism, which leans more to the right in the US, and I need to formulate what would entail the hypothetical (straw man) position of “downwing”. I also need to add that “liberals” in my country are pretty far to the right of center, whereas in the absurdly corporatized duopoly of the US liberals are mostly market liberals or neoliberals, and somewhat to the right of the center over there. That condemns me to mention “socialism” and “postmodernism” and “modernism”.
(Links: 1, 2, 3, 4), 5)
There is an objective difference between good and bad and society defines itself by “good”, so antisocial would be “bad”. There’s an unknown transcendant influence at work here, possible a divine influence that steers humanity to this absolute good. People who state good is “debatable” and can be “determined” are bad people. Good is almost always congruent with monotheist values.
In society there are things, systems and values that have been tested and have an eternal quality. Many things were more or less good as they were in the past, and change tends to not be good. We have inherited a rich body of societal structures that should be cherished, as they are evolved and tested by centuries of trial and error. Society is by definition based on continuity, with a strong spiritual and eternal component. In that community it can be said people have “souls”. Society is not something than be arbitrarily engineered. Change should be very very gradual and organic. Revolutionary thinking is really really bad, potentially lethal to society.
Conservatism has an obligatory component of humility, when it comes to the sacred inheritance of the past. That means – modern humans are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. Our forebears had good qualities many modern people do not have. Most modern achievements are only impressive because of the legacy of the past. There is nothing new under the sun. All things of meaning have already been invented. Secular or private judgement tends to be bad. The individual is foolish. The community is wise. The innovator therefore tends to be a clueless barbarian.
Restraint, Chastity, Prudence
One needs to be cautious and deliberated in important matters. Important matters can not be left to just anyone – wise and educated people must make decisions and they must do so with prudence. “Fools rush in”. We must always keep long term consequences in mind, and resist fads, populism or short term gains. Liberals and radicals are rules by their loins and hence, imprudent. Sometimes there’s injustices for a reason – some people have it bad because of their own moral failings. Fixing things needs to be of sound, welltested design and caution. The march of providence is slow; it is the devil who always hurries.
Society is a diverse mix
Yes there are a mix of rich and poor people, wise and stupid people, superficial and erudite people. Such is the natural state and that is how things are supposed to be. These variations have resulted in intricate allegiances, bonds, traditions and societal structures of great importance. Uniformity is not good. Uniformity is banale. Radicalism tends to be “lowest common denominator”. Society needs orders and classes, rich and poor, effectively -inequality. Society needs poor and stupid people, because who’d pick up the garbage without them? The only equality exists in the law, and hence the lawful equity is divine. Proactive attempts to instill justice, equality and positive discrimination are bad. Striving for social equality is downright evil and leads to social stagnation and strife. Society hungers for leadership of great men. Without greatness, tyrants or squalid oligarchs rise up and society will need untold generations to re-establish order. One important feature of this prudence in conservatism is the rock solid respect for property rights.
Things are as they are, and in this world things can not be perfect. All things are flawed. Humanity is deeply flawed, and utopia is not possible. Human restlessness needs variety as well as stabilizing tradition. Boredom is always looming. Best not have to high aspirations. The best we can anticipate in society is tolerable order, functioning justice and personal freedom. There will always be evils, it is not possible otherwise. Only slowly can we adapt to the natural world changing. If traditions break the bestial nature of mankind comes to the forefront.
Personal freedom means personal Responsibility
Society should allow people to fail, and many will fail. People are by and large capable of moral betterment and much betterment is generated by failure, crisis and challenge. Failures should be poor, it is what they deserve. It is the bed they made for themselves. The Successful should be exemplary, and they deserve to be rich.
Note that I find myself by and large in agreement with all above points. By that token one may label me “conservative friendly”.
Links: 1, 2, 3
The “left” is painfully aware of teeming injustice in the world, in nature, in society and outside society and finds this injustice needs to be actively resisted. Things are simply too broken to continue this way. Much injustice has been inflicted upon the world, on mankind, on society by evil powerful men. Some people have been so wronged they deserve special treatment and kindness. To do that we must start by resisting the evils done by evil men, and generally that’s people with too much money. To do that we must get of our couch and start working towards a better future, and that may mean revolutionary, radical approaches. The left is secular, freethinking, liberated, experimental. The left has great hope for the future. Yes we can means – yes we can dream of and create a better society. Sadly religious often works to protect the interests of archaic religious institutions that govern by top-down decree. Religions have always protected the interests of the elites. The left has learned from the monstrous excesses of the elites for the French Revolution and it looks upon similar excesses today in a similar light. The left is for civil rights. The left favors female empowerment, emancipation and total suffrage. The left strongly disfavors wars because it’s always rich people that end up not doing most of the fighting (or so they allege). The left is concerned with the climate, pollution, the environment, animal protection and similar busywork based on pity and kindness. The left believes that if you empower all individuals, keep them healthy, give them a good education nearly anyone can do great things. The reason people are poor and downtrodden is largely caused by the evils of the past.
The Right Wing
Right Wing and Conservative mostly means the same thing. Libertarians insist more on personal responsibility, poverty for the inept and rewards for the competent. Neoconservatives staunchly insist on market economies, capitalism and protection of property rights (propertarianism). Paleoconservatives dwell on past traditions as being important. Many paleoconservatives are primarily religion-driven. In the United States conservatives is assumed to additionally emphasize social conservatism, i.e. make the government as small as possible and let people figure out their own lives; fiscal conservative – again emphasis on small government, limited centralized spending and goddammit, low taxes. And lastly, ‘right wing’ in the US means a fanatical support of law, law enforcement and the military, and the active use of the military to serve US interests.
Sadly it can also be argued that the right wing also leans heavily towards thinking good of your own race, primarily the white race, and assuming the worst of other races, i.e. racism. A difference between right wing conservatism is that US conservatives are horrified by the broad social safety nets European Conservatives take for granted and actively support. In Europe and the US conservatism increasingly means active policies against immigration.
Liberals in my own country squared against liberals in the US showcase the glaring difference between Liberals on respective sides of the atlantic. Traditionally Liberals were very close to libertarians – it is a freedom of emphasis on equality and liberty. Liberals insist on what they understand as a solid but minimally required state apparatus, and that tends to be a lot more state than conservatives or right wingers are willing to put up with, if you don’t count conservative adoration of large bloated police forces, large bloated immigrations and border protections and large and even more bloated military infrastructures. Traditionally, liberals tend to be fairly conservative though, with the insistent difference on that they do not take other people interfering in what they believe (generally faith, or lack of religious persuasions or dogma), liberals also insisting that people decide for themselves what they do in the bedroom. Liberals are also particularly keen in accepting (ceremonially or actually) other races, alternative genders, particularly radical modes of thinking (to each their own), equality, international collaboration, development aid, the press, freedom of speech. In the US this makes Liberals center or left of center but in Europe this creates for a much more right or right of center emphasis.
Liberalism stems by and large from the historical enlightenment and is a philsophical, intellectual enterprise. Liberalism rejected the stifling yoke of classical religions, nobility, state religions, monarchs, divine right of kings and obligatory conservatism. Originally liberals cancelled rights of guilds and trade blocks. Liberals do not like rich people being too rich and too powerful, because “arguably” extreme affluence in the hands of the few actively and severely impinges on the freedoms of the rest of society.
Liberals believe every human has natural rights and Liberalism emphasizes a lot more indivdual rights than the right. Liberals are always looking at the French revolution, primarily, and thus emphasize “the social contract”, with the implied threat – if you make things too bad, here’s what’ll happen. The american revolution was, contrary to current public thinking by and large a classical liberal affair. Liberals were originally the people critiquing the establishment and insisting on “verifiability”, modernity and science. Science! Liberals natural enemy is definitely not fascism. Liberals first and foremost consider Fascism as well as Authoriarian Communism as its sworn concceptual enemies. Liberals have found that the cultivation of a “minimal degree of dignity” state and society to be more or less a complete necessity. That means taking money from people with more and giving it, often in a paternalist and condescending (you ought to be grateful with what we did for you) attitude. Liberals are behind human rights, international treaties, modern diplomacy, constitutional governmment, transparency, personal freedoms and general social progress. Liberals tend to have an attitude of “lets discuss it, and if it sounds reasonable, why not” which is starkly at odds with conservatism whicj reflexively abhors such attempts to interfere in the natural order.
Socialism isn’t just liberalism on steroids. It breaks with Liberals on many points. The problem is that socialism is used in one breath with communism and it needs be emphasized that by no stretch of the definitions should the two be confused.
Socialism by and large completely wants to do away with excesses of wealth, or the existence of something like capital altogether. It isn’t even that socialism wants to tax rich people in to poverty, it wants to intervene well before to organize society in a manner no “rich people” emerge, and when they do socialism generally assumed rich peopel got rich by breaking the law. In essence that means that socialism assumes a simple thing – all things in the world are collectively owned by all people, traditions and previous (immoral) property rights be damned. Oil isn’t “owned” by some rich bastards, it’s owned by the people, with as little central bureaucracy involved to maximize the gains from this collaborative, collective ownership, and distribute the gains thereoff.
Socialism comes in two main categories – market and non-market. Non-Market socialism wants to do away with free trade altogether, even if that means less societal progress. For these socialists equality is far far more important that society progressing in something as duplicitous as “economic growth”, period. Non-market socialisms are actively thinking of ways of doing away with the damn money altogether but sadly these tend to be impractical and utopian and largely counter-initiatives or -sentiments of people who are (were) left traumatized by extremes of poverty and the pervasive ruthlessness of 19th century capitalism. These people are all for “social dividents”, that sort of thing.
Market socialism does not abandon markets, trade and money. Hence it also embraces the state as being fairly indispensable. These socialists want to do away with “corporations” first and foremost and through a system of “competent co-ownership” want to empower the people to take care of themselves. To them corporations based on paid wage are unacceptable.
Socialists argue over things like revolutionary versus reformist; state socialism versus libertarian socialism; collectivism versus community-driven; uniformist versus individual freedoms and rights; Unions yes or unions no; nationalist versus internationalist; formal democratic versus “otherwise”. The problem is that a large number of these definitional quibbles in socialism and among socialists is that functionally a large section of socialism tends to overlap, in practice, with what we understand to be “fascism”.
It generally comes as a traumatic shock to US americans is when they understand that what they consider Libertarianism is something completely different of the original, historic Libertarianism. Essentially Libertarianism is viciously centered about personal liberty and personal responsibility. In the US that tends to imply “propertarianism” (get off my lawn or I’ll shoot you) or “extreme secularism” (if some civil servants comes to take my census I’ll shoot the goddamn bastard). The crisis therein lies that slave owners in the US south can claim totally Libertarian ideas, likewise pedosexuals raping their own kids by insisting everyone should be free to do as they please “sink or swim”. Libertarians thus functionally are left debating what kind of state, and to what degree the state should have any relevance, authority or power.
Left Libertarians, and yes there is such a thing, share much ideological kinship with socialists and tend to not like corporations with “share holders”. left Libertarians view (excessive?) private poverty (or monopolies) as a barrier to (other people’s) rights and freedoms. hence it is ironic its modern (USian) right-libertarian branch insists on things like absolute rights to property, absolute rights over your own land (autonomy, autarky, sovereignty and yes that means total rights to use drugs and have sex with children, “theoretically”). Right Libertarians insist on “figuring out what’s unacceptable among themselves, which sort of ironically implies that Right Libertarians share a lot with decentralized, insular tribal societies in africa or the middle east. To right wing Libertarians amassing capital is sort of inescapable for the competent and they would go as far as letting the incompetent die somewhere conveniently out of sight (not near my lawn).
Modernism and Post-Modern
Aha! A great opportunity to be a fan girl and haul in one of my idols. I can’t say much more about this than this hilarious video. Of course I may add some text about Progressive politics and where it branches away from all of the above later on.
What would be Upwing?
Upwing politics is not an established or mass adopted ideology, but it is a consistent one by virtue of the uniform nature of fast technological developments. I for one insist it breaks sharply with existing “Right” (dominionist christian, [neo-/paleo-]conservative or liberal) or “Left” (liberal, social democratic, social-libertarian, anarchist or “communal” socialist). The first who came up with this Upwing body of ideas was FM2030, a guy was ahead of his time.
Yeah we can do this. Not yet but soon.
Upwing core ideology takes a mortgage from some argued to be plausible future and starts actively preparing for said future. Upwing knows certain precursor technologies do not insist yet to create the ideal ‘acceptable’ upwing pluriformity, but wants to get ready for them as soon as possible. These preparations tend to be colorblind when it comes to traditional left versus right.
Minimal State to do the following things (long list)
As a point of self-criticism or self-depreciation, upwing politics makes some assumptions not everyone may agree with. Most Upwingers tend to be wholly embracing of respectively “technoprogressive”, “technogaianist”, “pandorist”, “transhumanist”, “extropian” or “venusprojecters”, “singularitarian” core beliefs and assumptions. The point of calling it upwing is to provide an ideological and conceptual framework to actively reject the suffocating archaic conceptions of Left and Right. In the ideal consensual world of the (hopefully near) future there’s so much technological advance that all bad things in existence today can be fixed or dealt with comfortably. Upwing politics, again depreciating (or postulating them in a falsifiable manner) my own core beliefs has a bucket lists of what’s necessary to guarantee happiness. That’s the strong legacy of David Pearce in current Upwing thinking – “nature is a bitch and we can fix all the horror she has wrought on the world”. This is exemplified in technogaianism and (to a lesser degree) in what Jaques Fresco postulated in his venus project, or similar thinkers in modernday “technocracy”. Outsiders may label it “a Star Trek Future’ and then invariably start whining about where their flying car is. Upwing makes bold claims and those stem from a highly and assertively (some would say proactive) modernist view that a damn lot more progress is certain. Cryonicists, who can be argued to have ideological overlap with Upwing, again take that mortgage and upon death have some key components of their biological connectome “vitrified” (turned to an epoxy or glass like material) under cryogenic temperatures to at least allow for the potential to live in said future. That’s a conceptual mortgage that costs as much as a house, since cryonic suspension isn’t cheap. This makes upwing politics a highly disparate (and growing very quickly) faction of people largely unified by massive techno-optimism.
They then have the bucket lists of what’s minimum. Expanding existing human rights. The right for cognitive freedom and bodily selfdetermination. The right to experiment. “Something like” a basic income (which esentially means – yes a basic income and not “something like”). The freedom to travel. Reasonable property rights, so yes, that may mean a maximum income in certain sovereignties. A reasonable ability to create new judicial, legal and government entities that formulate their own constitutionality, and are free to boldly compete with existing governments. But it also means – solid expansion of access to medical care and a government that is strong enough to kick the medical corporations hard in the balls and enforce both a working and affordable infrastructure for universal health care.
Quintessentially Upwing ideologies abhor the old, the tried and failed, the outdated and the proven useless artefacts of the past. In that sense it is hostile to conservatism and traditional thinking, and tends to effectively very very contrary to old and conservative religious modes of thinking. Upwing is open to spirituality, welcomes spirituality and faith, as long as you don’t go around bothering other people “with your hobbies”. Upwing looks at problems in a new manner and postulates it is possible to take emerging tools and completely dismantle and re-engineer the bullshit of the past and the emerging (new) problems of today. There is a very strong case to be made that Upwing politics is in very large part correct in this assessment that “by being revolutionary, lateral-thinking, iconoclastic and determined” (the legendary/alleged silicon valley mindset) we can solve most current day problems. This extreme laterality and optimism is actively espoused by Peter Diamandis, Ray Kurzweil, et.al. and is made manifest by the relative success of The Singularity University.
Science, Truth, Facts, Reality
Upwing goes hard against the right and the left by insisting ruthlessly on provable facts, what can be argued to be a statement grounded in verifiable reality, the scientific method (more like popper than kuhn though), dissemination of truth (wikileaks is a deeply Upwing compatible concept) and some sort of testable reality. Politics becomes an engineering challenge. Climate change becomes an engineering challenges. Resource depletion on the planet becomes an engineering challenge. Population growth, aging, diseases, infirmaty, people born with the indignity of congenital defects, you can’t make it up and Upwing politics always asks “what is this thing really” and analysis, potentially with a 160 page PDF on how to solve it, “in the near future”. etc.
A critical part of Upwing is the “up” component, i.e. going in to space, extensively exploring it, then prospecting it in detail, then start colonizing and industrializing it. Space has potential, without any doubt, to exponentially grow in all the good things that humans happy and to a great extent wipe out all the things that make humans miserable. Upwing politics places an extremely high faith in the ability of robotics, humans, transhumans, and eventually posthumans (and probably a lot more besides) to literally live in space in larger numbers than ever humans lived on earth. Literally – hundreds of billions of unique, smart, beautiful, very intelligent, very wise, very resilient beings. Easily, within a few centuries. A critical component of emerging Upwing ideology is the urge to start mining asteroids as soon as possible and hence, off late Elon Musk is sort of an upwing thinking saint.
Freedom? You haven’t seen nothing yet.
An extremely important aspect of Upwing ideology is its active embrace of concepts taken from hard science fiction and (at least some) humans, transhumans and post-humans colonizing, well space and pretty much everything. You see this expression of an “explosion of emerging freedoms, affordances, options, consumer choices, drugs, forms of sexual expression, what-e-ver, upwingers can almost taste it and they want it now. That’s pandorism, the belief we are very close to an explosion of human potential in to realms of progress that more or less will end up making the current human state a non-enviable mode of grotesque limitations. Basically, Upwingers are right in this, and very very very hopeful. The twentieth century has been one interrupted sequence of people saying things can’t possible happen, then they happen, then people say, well it might be possible but I’ll never want it, then it becomes massproduction, cheap and works great and before you know it my 70+ age mom is mucking about with her smartphone video whatsapping to people in australia, posting on craigslist, buying bitcoin and playing candycrush. In an airplane. sending me crazy Hentai memes. This is established fact, yes there has been insane progress, yes people today have more easily tapped personal power than kings used to have one or two generations ago and yes yes yes there will be a lot more progress very soon. The core people in this insistence again are Pearce, Kurzweil, Bostrom, Diamandis, de Grey, More, Stoel, Giulio Prisco, Sandberg, who all insist, in subtle and nuanced shades of dayglo colors “you ain’t seen nothin yet”. And they are no doubt correct.
So, is transhumanism a subculture of “applied aspirational Star Trek enthusiasts”? No, it is significantly more. It’s born of the sense of outrage looking at the world today, it’s endemic stupidity, it’s pervasive despair and lack of imagination. It’s taking Obama’s words “Yes we can” far in to the real of exponential growth.
Please please please write me with comments, suggestions for adding sections, polite criticism. Hence, this article may evolve in the foreseeable future.
Hypothetical 1 – If tomorrow there’d be a major war between, say, pakistan, india and china, and several nukes would detonate over major cities the consequences would have global effects. Even small nuclear detonations and ensuing firestorms trigger nuclear winter / heat wave cycles lasting years. World wide harvests would fail and there would be major famines within months.
The next day after the first nuke detonates there would be an major international collaboration to stop this war, by all means possible. Countries would be forced to collaborate, resources would be pooled for the consequences of this event.
Hypothetical 2 – if tomorrow a terrorist cell would use information freely available on the internet and compile, with freely available medical tools, and trigger a major global pandemic, there would be an immediate global state of emergency. There would be immediate coordinated action to make sure this doesn’t happen again and we’d experience major rollback of internet access, private freedoms, et.al. In effect the next day we’d find ourselves in a perpetual state of emergency far more draconian than the one we entered in after september 11. Countries would be forced to collaborate, resources would be pooled for the consequences of this event.
Hypothetical 3 – if tomorrow we’d discover a large asteroid, say a mostly metallic NEA came hurtling in from the outer solar system, and be very certain to impact the planet within about 2 years then there would be a major response by all world governments. Everyone would chip in. There would be international bunker building, with significant redundancy (we don’t immediately know where the asteroid might strike). There would be a state of emergency with strong military and police presence everywhere. There would be laws against “frivolous” production and we’d find ourselves in a war economy. Military resources world wide would be instantaneously directed towards building several (again, redundant) projects to deflect or obliterate the object. There would be internationally coordinated space initiatives started up in weeks. Countries would be forced to collaborate, resources would be pooled for the consequences of this event.
I can go on and on with examples. In all cases it is glaringly obvious that there would be a forced collaboration, collective resources would instantaneously be nationalized, citizens would be immediately forced in to new jobs, there would be bigh-unlimited money available for this project. In effect we would enter an era of complete centralized economic control, carte blanche for some international (possibly UN) apparatus, most countries on the planet would have blue helmet activity, and ordinary citizens would no doubt see a substantial personal financial burden implemented on their lifestyle, with no possibility of appeal.
Good thing there are no terrorists with access to biological pandemic inducing pathogens, good thing international relations are relatively secure, and we have found no such asteroid yet. All is well.
Well it isn’t. Things are not well. Of course first sign of making the consequences of global emissions and heat capture, climate becoming more volatile and sea levels rising significantly and you’s paid shills, lobbyists and political radicals (especially of a freedom loving and libertarian bent) come out and protest there’s a thing such as climate change, It’s all a Chinese hoax, and even if it were, taking action would be worse and more expensive than taking the minimum required action. Why? Why is there a community of people that scream murder any time there’s the slightest hint of a discussion even starting that “we may have to do something”.
And therein lies the cruxus. The problems stems with there being no consensus possible on serious climate change action and major climate change denial is closely related to a twofold problem in the human cognitive ability…
1. we are not evolved to deal with problems beyond the next few harvest cycles (say, 5 years) and anything beyond that arouses no sense of urgency in large groups of people. People adopt a “wait and see” attitude.
2. Individual humans have very little reason to give a damn about the planet a few decades from now. By and large decisions on the planet are made by rich people or career bureaucrats. Both rich people and bureaucrats tend to be older. Consequently they don’t care much about the world 20-30 years from now. They all realize that major action on climate change would cost a lot of money and resources, and they know that if the rich and otherwise powerful would dump the bill with the lower half of society, the lower half of society would ask themselves ‘why do we need these rich people exactly?’, nationalize half or more of the money and resources owned by rich people. Rich people don’t play that.
I believe climate change is real and will be significant. I would vehemently vote for taking the required action, but since I won’t be paying for said action (I am poor) I understand my vote would mean that essentially I’d be effectively demanding that we as a global society start nationalizing the resources we need to fight climate change. And that would signify that these rich people would jump through all sorts of hysterical loops to shield their privilege from tax authorities. But, as I have made abundantly clear in above three examples, in case of a proven and universally acknowledged looming disaster of existential proportions all resources will be mobilized and no dissent will be allowed, period. And hopefully by the time the asteroid threat is abundantly evident we won’t have to hack ourselves through a generation of paid asteroid impact deniers. Hopefully we can skip that stage then.
But we are far from skipping anything right now. So we will wait, and we will wait, and we will wait, until, say Greenland slides in the ocean and global sea levels shoot up 5 meters – and half a billion people start migrating left and right (more like north and south). That’s when all hell will break loose, and a lot of people will be really angry and demand we hold the assholes accountable who got us in that mess. I believe stage one of that moment is about 50 years away at most. But it could be 20 years away. Literally speaking – twenty odd years from now Amsterdam, the city I so adore, could be all flooded and effectively uninhabitable.
There will be a conversational overton flipping point where you see climate change deniers change their tune very suddenly. At some point in the future you will see the public’s attention shift and start looking angrily at “the people getting us in this mess”. And it could get very ugly.
But what concerns me more is that the longer we wait, the more emotionally volatile the response will be. There may be immediate action required, and some countries would go through the roof (Switzerland – OF COURSE WE CAN’T RESETTLE 30 MILLION CLIMATE REFUGEES FROM WESTERN EUROPE, that sort of thing. )
So there will be extremely harsh and unforgiven top-town decissions, “do what we say, or else”. And that may friends is called “Tyranny” in laymans terms. It doesn’t matter if you are forced to take up 5 shellshocked climate change refugees of some developing nation -say, Bangladesh- in to your house on pain of immediate execution, trust me, you’ll also label it a tyranny. “Or something to that effect”.
And there you have it my friends. I think this world wide central authority, central government, dictatorship is all but certain somewhere between 2030 and 2075. That means there’s about an “optimistic” 50% chance I’ll get to enjoy the starting phase of all this – and about 75% chance I’ll see the first climate change denier hanging from some street lamp somewhere, somewhen. Let’s hope it’ll be Ben Shapiro as opposed to someone useful that could actually help solve the problems. Pardon my french here.
I have been looking at the new memetic complex of ideas, passions and affinities of people who are involved in MRA, Alt Right and MGTOW – and in particular Incels, i.e. “Involuntary Celibate” guys.
So what is Incel? Here is a good Vox Populi article. As it turns out these people have been put in the limelight by a Canadian shooter by the name of Alek Minassian, who was so hurting he decided to kill some people. His hurt centered around insufficient numbers of women being accessible or willing to have sex with, and his looks and general charm being so underwhelming he didn’t stand a chance in the sexual supply&demand marketplace. It turns out guys like Alek are not unique – they have experienced many years of ostracism, loneliness, humiliation and aching longing.
Do I have empathy for this position? Yeah a little. Incels are guys (and occasionally women, but women tend to not take up assault rifles) who find society and nature has capriciously disfavored them. These emotions of despair and rage are real. we see these urges culminate in hysterical religious fervor, in particularly of late in Islam (Boko Haram, Daesh spring to mind) where a new apparatus of sectarian and political violence is enacted in significant part to secure access to pussy, “by whatever means”. Incel seems an extension of these behavioral pathologies – the decission that women are some kind of “other”, that life is more or less pointless without some basic quotum of intimacy and sexual activity.
We can laugh at these widely perceived ‘losers’, but all this is not so strange. I am completely convinced that modernity, access to an exponentially expanding source of information, meticulously concocted lies and mass hysteria (the internets) and people more easily decide ‘I have had it with this shit’. I believe that radicalization (an unwillingness to compromise and consequently demand heavy compromise from others) tends to be bad, but for every human (and that includes all sexually/relation ally successful men) there are lower limits to existence where life simply isn’t worth living.
All my life I have been angry, recalcitrant, frustrated and alienated. In my case that was largely because I hated my own masculinity and laughable attempts at being a guy, I adored my own femininity and was left uncomfortable with my own desire to affirm my softer, nicer, kinder gentler side. I am transgender, and the problem with this whole biological framework is that you can’t unbake the cookies of your core bedrock OS identity. This is biological spaghetti legacy code that can’t be untangled. Once identity forms, it is almost impossible to exorcise or remove. In my case that was clear when I was under ten, and all my life I have suffered the conflict of what I desperately hungered for and what I or society permitted me.
The first urge people would feel when facing the concept of Incel is scorn and contempt, but I urge society to take note here what people are willing to do when they decide that for them life isn’t worth living. It invariably ends real badly.
I do however have a message for the Incel community.
Guys (and I assume you are primarily guys here) I urge you to pause and reflect on what kind of solutions may be available for your ills, and who can deliver on these promises – and subsidiary to that I’ll first list people who won’t give a shit about you and your pain, and who will never deliver. These being (*) conservative populists, (*) religions, (*) the state, (*) normies. Let me break it down for you.
A guy that has made his career from speaking down to “people more likely to have Incel sympathies” is this guy Jordan Peterson. He makes a lot of money doing so, and it stands to reason that large part of his zeal, fervor and charisma is a money driven act. This concept is called soothsaying – you make up a consolatory story about how bad you got it, and propose some halfhearted suggestions (Go clean your room. Bathe more frequently. Make more money. Learn the chachacha.) that won’t make much dent in the existential terror most Incels experience. The guy is nothing but styling. When I look at him I see a TV dad “who mostly says the right thing”, has people nodding, and then precious little happens. Soothsaying has a long tradition of people using rhetorics, folk wisdom, vague allegories, even more vague allusions to some kind of evil enemy being out to get you, and all of us. But in terms of real solutions Jordan Peterson offers zilch. He even closed down his hundreds of dollars per 15 minutes counselling service because it didn’t compare, revenue wise, with his crowdfunding (10.000 a month, dear people). Plus world tours and speaking fees, plus wild adoration of devoted fans, some who will eagerly have him fuck their brains out. Jocularity aside, Peterson has it good, and all I hear when I hear him speak is “life is bad, there are people out to get you, be tougher, there there, pat on your poor little head”. In the meantime messages such as espoused by Peterson do it real good in terms of corporate, far right ideological, hyper-conservative, hyper-capitalist sponsors. No doubt there is a causal line between this kind of pundit (and there are many others these days) and sponsors such as the Koch family.
The second major disappointment your Incel guys can look forward to is the domain of spirituality and religion. The Catholics always realized early on there were incels likely to cause trouble, and that’s why they invented these eunuch factories called Monasteries, and “Clergy” and vowed of voluntary celibacy. Like, the excuse “I won’t fuck women or jerk off because skydaddy wants me not to”. As a dispassionate observer – religions have little to offer to the typical Incel, other than vague excuses and promises, and religions generally take more. A life as a monk is bad, but wait till you see the life of a Daesh up close. Raping women at your leisure in the duct tape calliphate is barely sufficient reward squared against the risk of being tortured to death by really pissed off Peshmerga teenage girls.
Do you have a hope for reprieve from the state, or from populism, from ‘normies’ or from ideologies? I guarantee you, feminism and minority empowerment is here to stay, despite your gnashing of teeth and feeble snowflaking. You can’t roll back progress in this area. A really good friend of mine is on a non-stop quest to yell at SJW’s, and the tide of leftist anti-free speech climate and so far he’s only ended up making a fool of himself, give people the impression “he’s now some kind of racist”. No there is no conspiracy of libruls to take your women and let black guys and mooslims rape em, and make halfbrown babies. ‘Because Soros’ or whatever. You can whine and bitch and make meaningful 👌 hand signs, and as you can plainly see, a progressive counter-movement arousing widespread socialist sentiments has arisen that will sweep aside this deeper conservative cultural connection you now feel. Frankly, the pendulum swings back and forth between contrived right and contrived left these days so fast I could use it as a vibrator.
Politics will not reinstitute monogamy, female docility or Primae Noctis. There will not be a Handmaids tale future and even if you Incels will be the ones strung up by the river.
Only one thing has changed life for the better and that’s the convolution of Progress, Science and Engineering. With advancing technologies life has universally become better. And therein lies the opportunity for you people to find, in this life, realization, exaltation and a lot of eager pussy.
Essentially you are right, guys. Incel has it correct – healthy beautiful people fuck each others brains out. Monogamy is largely bullshit given incentive and opportunity. Women may smile demurely when you mansplain their ass off, the moment you step out of the room they will deepthroat off your Chad best friend’s dick and store his ejaculate in their warm bellies. I am a bisexual transgender and I go to swinger clubs and fetish parties and trust me, healthy young women have just the same sex drive and ability to deceive as you have. I have seen this. I have felt this. I know. It is written.
Technology is advancing exponentially. Change is on the horizon. Aubrey de Grey, who is a pretty sexually active guy in his own right, incidentally (why not? he’s famous) suggests that for people in their forties there is at least 50% chance they will live centuries. And as we let people live longer and rejuvenate their bodies there is massive opportunity to actually using advancing technologies, nanotechnology for everyone to become what they want to me. Don’t believe me? I used to have a dick, now I have a pussy. This year I am subjected to breast augmentation and no less than three facial feminisation surgeries and frankly, these are treatments scarcely more painful or intimidating than going to the dentist. I am already
extremely am attractive interesting to guys and girls, and to put it frankly I am a bit older no spring chicken.I can get different quality dick and pussy half my age (my two previous girlfriends were trans girls aged 24 and 25) every single day, if I wanted to. Sex isn’t even particularly high on my radar these days, netflix, reddit, eve online, dancing, thai food and Melbourne shuffle is.
I am not advocating incels go and cut off their dick. That would be a waste, in most cases, as far as I am concerned. But the potential of technology to change bodies is advancing exponentially. The ‘biogerontological’ ability to live to the historical era in a young, extremely healthy, remarkably slender body, where science can make you an extremely sexually enticing playmate is approaching fast.
Religions, Jordan Peterson, Daesh, Fox News, Conservatism, Trump – these people offer you zilch, nada. These are motherfucking liars whose only interest is to take your money and then go and fuck porn stars with your money. Yes it is that simple.
I have nothing to sell you. I am just describing advances in technology, science, progress that are there for you to read on this blog, courtesy of progress, science, technology. It’s staring you in the face boy.
If I were you, I’d bet on this unabating progress. Support science. Support the scientific method. Support facts, truth and objective reality. Consequently you should not support (or fight) vulgar populists, people who want to go back to some glorious age in the past, lying-ass trump, lying-ass skydaddy people, and lying ass radical mooslims. Progress may not always be comfortable and quite often progress leaves you confused, but arguably less so than what the above detractors to progress have to offer you.
But whatever you do, do not waste a second sucking up or catering to rich people. Rich people have only one thing they want, and that’s more money. They don’t care about you. Rich people only want things stable, and they want everyone that’s not rich to be humble and docile. They play the “divide and rule” on you over and over. Politics will not make poor people less poor, only fast technological progress will.
So here is a solution for you. It is up to you to bet on the best horse.
So, don’t give me your money. Give it to Aubrey. The guy is working 80 hour workweeks, spending every cent he has, travels all over the world and is fighting this fight nonstop. If he succeeds, imagine where you’d be a century from now. I bet you it ain’t gona be in Catholic Monastry.
display: none !important;
If you have any images you wish me to include email me
1,0 Degrees average global heating
1,5 Degrees average global heating
2,0 Degrees average global heating
2,5 Degrees average global heating
3,0 Degrees average global warming
3,5 Degrees average global warming
4,0 Degrees average global heating
5,0 Degrees average global heating
6,0 Degrees average global heating
Ceres was first permanently settled in 2151 by standard-issue 16228 ton parochial automated pioneer, establishing the Californian Parish Liberty, with a “reduced” crew of five, after a voyage of under 14 months or 35923520 seconds from exit to entry burns. The crew entered a 250km equatorial orbit on 6 march 2051, and set down its 2-person 3 days later along the Kerwan rim of the Planitia region. UN central registration affirmed the wildcatter claim almost immediately. The two crew consisted of the reduced remains of astronauts Alexei Wilforst and Bruno Ithaqua, who were declared legally deceased shortly thereafter. (Quaint mid 21st century law required a living human to be able to establish a permanent base – the practice meant that an almost dead human, with most its body removed, kept alive in stasis was legally an acceptable vessel for establishing a claim).
The first “meatsack” colonists arrived eight months later with a standard Connestoga vessel, after a 38 months voyage, originating from Earth Archipellago (L4), with a crew of 28. The first conscious human to land on Ceres was Draghira Stebanov, registered Californian.
By any metric the Ceres city Kerwanorth was a highly successful colony, a critical main belt trade, ideological, cultural hub. Although not as brutally libertarian as most other Belt asteroids, the capitalism here is still regarded as extremely devout and unregulated. In 2150 Ceres spots 16 steel core equatorial elevators, with an equatorial cabled habitat ring. Population numbers of citizens in the surface-orbital system (Ceres maintains a strict Census) increased quickly – E2(100) in 2156, E3 in 2164, E4 in 2170, E5 in 2179, E6 in 2207, E7 in 2219 and current stabilizing at over 31 million. Most its citizens are cyborgs and partial (hybrid) uploads.
Ceres is still predominantly mixed Californian anglo, obligatory English language. 93% are effectively prolized (not economical agents, i.e. living of colony civilian dividends) even they would vehemently claim otherwise. It has 6 major (E5+)and 16 major (E6) surface cities. The biggest city in 2150 is still Kerwanorth, with approximately 551000 citizens.
The Ceres government is strongly aligned with Lunar Bank, and co-signatory to the inner system treaties, much to the chagrin of Main Belt radicals. Nonetheless its kanton-based government structure actively resists inner system refugee streams, having established an immigrant quotum of 10 thousand per 30mS (under a terrestrial year). Transgressors are housed in temporary refugee camps along the orbital, do not receive civilian status and are deported routinely to other main belt asteroids designated refugee resettlement areas. There have been illegal landing incidents which are dealt with harshly (forced involuntary remigration in a hatchetcan to the Terrestrial Archipellago).
The Ceres system maintains 5 large O Neil Habitats, in 250 sixth under construction. These are not popular, with most The “Cereals” preferring median Ceres gravity – and used primarily for refugee processing. All these structures orbit at 150.000 kilometers.
Ceres has six Tyson Spiral orbital launchers sharply reducing travel time across the belt.
There’s a chance the world’s elites will create the most irreversible and disparate future imaginable. One against which protest and revolt is impossible, one that’ll last forever, one where the rich are immortal and beneficiaries of transhuman technology – and where the rest of 99% or so humanity have to worry about getting their daily caloric intake. With advances in robotic security technology such a future is inescapable.
I find even the plausible prospect of such a future categorically unacceptable.
Here’s what I propose – we should create something we may call the “Irreversible HyperPlutocracy Instutute”. Such a body should work largely in secret. I am 100% certain as soon as the elites are getting close to the end goal, crowd-sourced funding should not be a problem – even from hysterical judgement day evangelicals.
This institute should have as its goal the creation of the most malevolent, ruthless, methodically genocidal Superhuman Artificial Intelligence thinkable. It literally should compri2e the most evil thinkable seed A.I. One that places expansion as its top priority and will meticulously and expediently (and – if possible, with maximum sadism) humanity. I am positive creating such a sees SAI is substantially easier than creating either a friendly SAI, or a SAI that serves the interests of these hyper-rich. Our side would be having a major advantage.
If the elites win, this is what I think they deserve. If they do not hold back, and will steam right ahead substantially beyond even the ridiculous disparity we see world-wide, i.e. if the world ends up completely “Kochified”, then I’d say – fuck it. We are taking you assholes with us in to the mass-grave of all of humanity.
I believe this post here should be interpreted threefold ;
1. a message to all the Friendly A.I. researchers to hurry if I don’t succeed in putting this together, someone else may, and the reasons may be even less savory than mine – say “you atheists made god abandon the world, let’s burn it all down”, etc. ; …
2. a message to the run-away elites that the above is at the very least a risk ; …
3. literally an ultimatum. A shot across the bow, if you will.
Yes, I would regard a world where democracy is rescinded by these terrifying “Dark Enlightenment” people a specific kind of future where the above scenario should come in to play.
Email me your replies at Khannea.firstname.lastname@example.org. This should be interesting.
This is not working. We need rational boundaries. And yes, those who do not to pay 100% taxes above a certain level should feel encouraged to go live somewhere else.
How much would be enough, for everyone? That’s the simple question that so far lies outside the Overton Window. Few people have given this simple question any reflection – What level of monetary income, and what level of private wealth should be enough? This question is relative to your country. My personal preference is, relative to the entire European Union:
As you can clearly see, this makes me tolerant of quintessential capitalism. I accept capitalism, but I insist on delineating sane boundaries. At some level private wealth and income becomes insane and therefore unacceptable. Please leave comments where you decide what your boundaries are.
There’s an easy way to make me stop.
Want my bank account? Pay me 2000 euro a month*, you pay worker taxes and insurances, and I’ll stop doing it.
Until then, fuck you. I can outlast and out-overton you motherfuckers.
* inflation adjusted, indefinitely.
Politics and democracy is broken and under assault. But what can we do? How can we make a difference. Individual citizens feel overwhelmed and intimidated and are likely to just give up. But what if we could change that?
Listen, the idea I am putting forward is un-formed, vague and may in some instances be contradictory, and I leave it up to others to make sense of it and if it has merit, develop it. The concept involves a management suite that helps constituents in any modern democracy to start press for desired change and help them to objectify what’s urgent and what must be done, in what particular sequence of steps, to end up in a better world.
So how does it look? Well, this “app” should be both a desktop environment (or software package) as it should be a mobile phone extension as it should be a comprehensive web site. Ideally the whole infrastructure should allow for inconsistency and political opposition and resulting from that (hopefully dialogue). So let me describe the process to you.
1. You create an inalienable and unique registration somewhere, preferably linked to social media accounts such as Google, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter (and there are many others). The software environment gives “you” a system weight (i.e. credibility) depending on your online activity and general believability of your online presence. As you act, and your existence in the real world is affirmed by other people and events, the system starts elevating your “credibility”. You can choose whether or not you make that credibility and your personal data accessible to other people, corporations, governments, police and such, and the system takes steps to make sure this data is not breached, stolen, abused, farmed, falsified, etc. Yes I know that is a tall order these days, but we gotta try, right?
2. The software environment now starts asking you questions about where you stand ideologically. From your answers the software starts charting what you believe, what you desire, where your ambitions lay, what you expect of your country, what you expect of your politicians, how much time you have to act (vote, protest, organize, rally, provide support, anything as long as it’s legal in your country). The software does not judge however and will objectively make suggestions to different registered users that are contradictory. For example, it may provide suggestions how to take action against climate change, life extension, birth control, atheist values, andsoforth as it just as easily helps people do respective opposites. The software doesn’t care what you want, it only exists to facilitate you being able to do what it is you need to do to affect as much change in the world as possible.
3. As the respective “credibility” levels of people in general, and the respective credibility of these people in respective fields starts coming in to focus, the software can always be consulted by its users why it makes the recommendations it does, but however intricate algorithms it applies, the software environment starts using geospatial data collected by your mobile phone, your previously established choices, preferences, skills, general levels of commitment (etc.) to provide recommendations, in a specific order. At any time the user can decide to scale back recommendations (“I am tired today”. “I feel depressed”. “I am not in the mood”, “I have a flu” etc.) and the app makes as much as possible objective suggestions on how to overcome certain personal constraints as to become more motivated, provided that is what you want. These software recommendations are always legal in the jurisdiction you are in, the software helps streamline what action you can take and actively tried to reduce “bullshitting” as to stop people waste their time when they made absolutely clear they want something. The suggestions provided are color coded, with RED (=critical) suggestions at the top and BLUE (=if you get around to it, sure, go ahead) suggestions listed at the bottom.
Let me provide you with an example.
Let’s say you are really concerned about climate change, and you enter a whole bunch of answers why you are concerned about climate change. The software establishes a profile based on your personal take and beliefs on climate change. The software also tries to get a feel for how open you are to debate and organizing yourself. The software establishes a detailed as much a profile as it can and then starts recommending, based on absolutely unambiguous terms, what you can do, and in what order or urgency. The software determines urgency strictly on what statements you provide the software with in the first place. So if you make clear in unambiguous terms that you regard climate change as an absolute existential risk, and you are social, gregarious, somewhat smart and able to walk some distances the software starts listing a whole bunch of rallies, write-ins, clicktivism, protests, organizations, fellow-organizers and actions you take take in everyday life.
And an important feature is the software works towards hard casual relationships. Right now someone really miffed about climate change might have been led to think that sorting your municipal garbage is a good thing to do. But depending on your geographic location this may not actually be the case. So the software makes a series of judgement calls, based on hard programming algorithms and objective, falsifiable science, established prejudices, statistical heuristics, and mountains of data – and whatnot – what you can do, what you want to do, what kind of thing you want to do, where to do it, and in what order.
An important feature of the software would be to constantly and carefully confront users with hypocrisy, inconsistency, incorrect assumptions, your core values and why you might have them – while all the time actively avoiding alienating the user.
Concluding – all this may seem almost magical to most people in the real world, but I guarantee you, big (data) corporations are right now working hard to use all these technologies to confuse and manipulate you and to spend money benefiting other corporations that pay facebook (et.al.) for such (arguably corrupt) services. So in essence I can guarantee you this technology is very much alive today, and it’s used AGAINST you.
Making the above software would be fucking expensive, but I believe the effort and investment would be worth it a million times over, and the situation on this planet can be argued to be so dire we seriously start thinking about how to get people off their couch and start doing what they can. And in an ideal world such software would bring together categories of people in parallel causes who wouldn’t have met one another in a thousand years otherwise. And it may even make you grow to be a more educated, more gentle, more patient, more socially aware and more effective citizen in an increasingly complex world.
So, I have only one thing to add
I demand my politicians do something about this, and soon. Remember – these technologies can easily be used against politicians and civil servants by non state actors. A well-run campaign can easily murder 90% of all politicians in a country, just a decade from now. At negligible cost, compared to existing military assets.