Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Transhumanism vs. Libertarianism

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The very notion of being able to transform ones self into something like a cyborg inherently appeals to concepts of individual liberty. Misguided transhumanists typically attempt to utilize Libertarian philosophy to justify their goals, but in actuality they instead engage in rationalization with false notions of liberty.

Libertarian philosophy is arguably the height of understanding of freedom and liberty. Naturally, most transhumanists openly embrace Libertarianism and typically use its concepts as the argument for their ambitions to become living gods. It would seem to make sense, on the surface.

If you want to augment yourself into a 'something better' than ordinary humans, shouldn't that be ones right? Not if you truly understand the core of libertarian philosophy. The primary principle is that you can do what you want with yourself or your own property... just so long as it doesn't harm other persons or their property.

That's libertarianism in a nutshell. The problem with transhumanists, in a nutshell, is that it seems inherent that either they haven't thought their ambitions all the way through, or they simply don't care what happens to others as a result of their agenda. For celebrities such as Ray Kurzweil (who attempt to champion Libertarianism), they know full well the implications.

Kurzweil, and many others such as Kevin Warwick (the "first human cyborg") openly admit that when their goals of AGI come become reality, the only option will be to merge with the technology both to have any chance of participating with the new society and as the only insurance to not be eventually terminated by the machine. (Why would it kill you if you were part of it?)

Few prominent transhumanists openly lament the idea of Strong AI (AGI), as its the ultimate mechanism to kickstart the NBIC utopia. The only example I can think of is I saw Max Moore talk about it being bad if machine AGI a hard take-off and reduced humans to the significance of ants. But you can bet Moore will be one of the first in line to get the brain implants and the rest involved in the merging with the machine.

It's a matter of join us, change yourself, or face elimination in one shape or another. The new society wouldn't even have to kill you outright. When the new society of transhumans (and eventually posthumans) are both physically and mentally superior than the mere humans, one would have little chance in competing with these superhumans economically or academically. If we're given no choice other than to assimilate or live in poverty, then it should be obvious that that harm is being done to people and even their property when they can no longer afford a home they might have gotten a loan for several years ago before the Great Unleveling event.

This new frontier of "freedom" is hardly anything new in human history. It's akin to imperialism, and is deeply Social Darwinistic. Years ago I wrote a lengthy piece on the freedom we hear politicians and other talking heads discuss on TV. Like on 9/11, when Bush said "Freedom itself was attacked", in reference to the "freedom" to dominate the world and occupy the Middle East (which its proven to be what motivates suicide terrorism). Naturally, elitists love 'freedom'. The more 'freedom' the better, and what better way to maximize your own 'freedom' than to interfere with and soak up the prosperity of others.

The perversion of freedom is the freedom to do what you want, despite the consequences that might occur to others freedoms. This is in gross conflict with libertarian philosophy. Don't believe me, take it from Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, who repeats this concept over and over in his "Constitution Class".


Google Video Link


Before we shift gears, another key facet of transhumanism is radical life extension. It might be worthwhile in this narrative to mention the fact that the world cannot handle billions of humans getting indefinite lifespans, whom will bear children who will then have indefinite lifespans, ad infinitum. Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch critic of Malthusian philosophy, but the earth inherently must have a limit to its actual carrying capacity. Whatever that might be, which is always under-exaggerated by the sorts of elitist / Social Darwinist types who trumpet Malthusian theory, human population would in this case explode beyond belief if there were open access to life extension.

Therefore, by extension, this facet of transhumanism promises to harm potential future generations of the human experience as the smartest immediate solution to a true population crisis would be to drastically limit population growth (Zero Population Growth). It's no wonder we see all the hysteria propagated by the Big 5 Media about overpopulation and the environment. Looking back, this isn't about humanity. It's about transhumanity, which doesn't much appear to care about current humans, therefore why would it care about future humans?

Moving on, another staunch element of libertarianism is the idea of small government. Libertarians generally prefer the smallest government possible, often with its role being reduced as much as possible other than just enough to enforce the Rule of Law (which would be mostly concerned with keeping people from hurting others). Kurzweil and friends, such as Ben Goertzal, are strong advocates of government coordinated initiatives bent on rapid technological progress in pursuit of their efforts. So in truth, they want maximum government, not limited government.

Then we have the Privacy Crisis. Libertarians consider privacy a basic right (i.e. the freedom of privacy). Trannys scoff at privacy. Many even argue that we should all have our personal DNA code openly available on the Internet, searchable on Google, with little software applets that allow people to pull up others DNA and search thru it for unfavorable characteristics (that may be based on pseudoscience). In general, in the utopian vision of future earth would have billions upon billions of 'ubitquitous' computers (i.e. smart dust) blanketed all over the earth monitoring every aspect of earths resources and humans private lives, by Strong AI computers and anyone whose minds are plugged into the system, forever. This transhumanist ideal of 'heaven on earth' is akin to a libertarians 'hell on earth'.

Libertarians are about the staunchest critics of taxes you could ever hope to find. You couldn't hope to find a libertarian type who wasn't opposed to taxes. Wealth (income) represents property, and taxes means having your property taken away from you and potentially being put towards things you don't wish to take part in. For instance, as a libertarian minded person, they are currently taxing me and using the money for transhumanist related projects that I don't agree with. They're stealing peoples property in pursuit of everything this commentary is against. The contradiction between libertarianism and transhumanism drips from this paragraph. It's sloppy wet, as in promoting the idea of the government stepping in to advance technological progress (which apparently isn't good enough as it is), you're also promoting the idea of the government stealing property in order to do it.

Pursue your own selfish desires if you want, as I am in writing this piece. But don't think about harming myself or my property, as all I've stolen from you is your time. Though I personally consider time as more valuable than Federal Reserve Notes, you've had the choice of whether or not to read this far. Isn't libertarianism grand? It would if we had enough of it in this system. We'd all be more wealthy for one thing, but if you had transhumanism we all wouldn't be which means many of us would be less free to do the things we want while having less property. Never mind the "third world" (the vast majority of Earth's population). Since most of us wouldn't even be able to afford the higher degrees of transhumanism as it is, this wouldn't harm them would it?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Watched a video from the TED conference on Transhumanist technology. This was being touted as the next industrial revolution, but it seemed to me it was just "a big lie being spoon fed" to the masses of technogeeks.

Transhumanism = cyborg = enslavement for the next century. Are people so afraid of death that they will willingly submit themselves to technology they do not understand ?

Look at the phone system, it is one giant listening device for the NSA.
Do people really not understand that Nortel, Cisco, Microsoft build back-doors for the feds right in the firmware/software ?

What makes anyone think that this cyborg crap won't contain secret backdoors listening to your every thought ??



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Well, true libertarianism cannot exist in our world. Simply , there is no way the action of a person will not impact another person. The only solution is collaboration and debate in order to establish the common accepted rules of the society / group.
In regards to transhumanism - we cannot stop progress just because we - humans are incapable of using the technology for the good . Since we lived in caves we kept on fighting each-other, with sticks , then swards then guns and planes. It is not the fault of the technology , but the fault of the users. The only way to bring peace is to change the users not to stop the technology.
About the fear of overpopulation - there is no reason to fear . The truth is that the population of Europe for example is definitely decreasing as number. The population is gradually replaced by Islamic immigration in the west of Europe, and by gypsy populations in the East. If we carry on like this , the population of Europe will become minority by 2070 and will disappear by 2200. Extending life expectancy will only reduce the need to allow immigration in the country so the demographics will still be sustainable . Then, for 2200 and beyond , post-humans will be fully able to live and colonize the extraterrestrial world. And this is WAY safer than just staying down-here and waiting for tomorrow , hoping no asteroid or super-volcano will destroy our tinny civilisation..


Someone from Romania.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 


Welcome back, although I'm quite surprised to see you citing Kaczynski after the topics of our last exchange...


Originally posted by Romanian
Well, true libertarianism cannot exist in our world. Simply , there is no way the action of a person will not impact another person. The only solution is collaboration and debate in order to establish the common accepted rules of the society / group.


That would be a quite extremely pure interpretation you're suggesting. And in context of the discussion, the idea that if you have a strong work ethic opposed to a lazy social loafer, is nowhere near the same idea where ordinary humans wont be able to get any type of job considered even relevant if they lack augmentations.

Following libertarian ideas, ability and motivation coupled with social mobility that rewards such should lead to prosperity even without a masters degree at some major university. Following transhumanism, if you cant afford the education AND the augmentations you're totally screwed.

Further, if you're concerned about the extreme vision of capitalism, wait and watch it come about under any sort of monolithic system where people who wish to remain humans can't have their own large communities / cities where they can maintain their own usefulness in large groups. Some propose Pure Communism to try to thwart this, which is monolithic, but even the 'capitalist' system as we currently find it in the US is tuned to prevent such escape. Anyways, the first ones in get the huge advantage, both the first societies to jump in, and the first individuals within the societies, will briogn about the darkest vision of the pitfalls of 'capitalism' (i.e. speration of the haves and have-nots).


In regards to transhumanism - we cannot stop progress just because we - humans are incapable of using the technology for the good . Since we lived in caves we kept on fighting each-other, with sticks , then swards then guns and planes. It is not the fault of the technology , but the fault of the users.


Will you still be saying that when the tyrants who run this world can spike the water supply with brain invasive nanobot implants to effectively turn you into a robot slave / soldier?


The only way to bring peace is to change the users not to stop the technology.


If that's the only way then we are all screwed, as no matter how much propaganda you perpetuate there will still be major scores of humans who wont augment. Conversely, it would potentially take a global dictatorship to try and stop it. Humanity is screwed one way or another, it would appear, or the only way to have any degree of peace would allow the humans to make their own way where they can lead fulfilling useful lives. This would include nations of refuge. Unless you have a better idea, because if normal humans dont have a way out then prepare for 'class' (species at this point) warfare like never before imagined.


About the fear of overpopulation - there is no reason to fear . The truth is that the population of Europe for example is definitely decreasing as number. The population is gradually replaced by Islamic immigration in the west of Europe, and by gypsy populations in the East.


So you're saying that technology leads to negative population growth? Minus immigration, many 'states' within the EU are experiencing ZPG or NPG. Much of that can be contributed to propaganda, toxins in plastics and the water supply, economic reasons, and so on. Besides, the argument for modern societies producing less reproduction is more based on wealth and education than it is technology itself. Going from people living past 90 to living past 350 is dramatic beyond your insinuation.

What technology does have the potential to do is make energy production cheap, meaning more water desalination that could supply the Middle East with more water for irrigation. It's too bad people would still flee from there until the tyrants in power in those nations were overcome.


If we carry on like this , the population of Europe will become minority by 2070 and will disappear by 2200.


Doubtful. That sounds an awful lot like Neocon / Zionist / Eugenicist / Racist propaganda. There would be a cut off peak to how many arabs could move there.

Lets get real here. Islam is a religion, not a 'race'.


Extending life expectancy will only reduce the need to allow immigration in the country so the demographics will still be sustainable.


Wealth, prosperity and LIBERTY are what would stabilize global societies. People can handle different climates.


Then, for 2200 and beyond , post-humans will be fully able to live and colonize the extraterrestrial world. And this is WAY safer than just staying down-here and waiting for tomorrow , hoping no asteroid or super-volcano will destroy our tinny civilisation..


Would only posthumans be able to colonize the universe, or could ordinary humans do it just the same given the right technologies to deploy with??????



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Sort of sounds like you subscribe to this transhumanist line of lies.

Do Forced Micro Chip implants sound good to you ? Are you sure your not really a transhumanist posing as a libertarian ?

Nature is the best designer of all, transhumanism seems like is an excuse to arrest humanities spiritual development & enslave them with technology.

We don't need any more new technology. Most people have no idea how much technology already been sequestered. People need to learn how to get along, stop being slaves, and stop being mislead in the dept of spiritual development.

I don't believe we are screwed no matter what. I don't know how but somehow humanity will get through it without becoming cyborgs.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 


I'm not sure where you'd get the idea I support transhumanism...

But as I've been saying for years the "microchip" should be the least of our concerns. If 'they' want to force us all to take verichip tracker implants get ready for total, and I mean total rebellion. The true threat is the advent of nanobot implants that can invade your brain via your bloodstream. These could be 'implanted' with forced 'vaccinations', or even distributed thru municipal water supplies.

Another trend is already non-invasive brain-computer neural interfaces. To have a society WANT what your trying to control them with is better, especially if its actually based on fun instead of FEAR. The catch with these is it wont be long before people get sick of wires dangling, and then they'll get sick of this yamacah cap device that looks funny and messes up your hair, so the 'natural' thing would be to have it integrated directly into your brain. I can provide you many functional examples of these if you're interested...

What I just described WOULD be 'affordable' for all compared to many of the other things transhumanist promote, minus 'society' decending into a Mad Max-Road Warrior state of anarchy.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Anybody who promotes/considers transhumanism (it even sounds wrong) should understand that their "grand-grand-kids" will be nothing more then highly advanced computers. Cyborgs will not be there for long. There is no need for biological component if measures of success are intelligence and physical strength/durability. So - why would any Human consider making their own species obsolete? Beats me,really.



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The new humans will not just happen over the night, it will be a gradual process we already see. We ALREADY are cyborgs. A cyborg, is an organism that is using artificial means in order to correct or enhance the biological capacities.

Don't we all wear glasses when we cant see well? We should not , cos it is not natural, right? Dont we all enhance our communication capacity using the Internet in order to post that technology is wrong?


In regards to overpopulation fear.. o, let us take a more particular situation: If your mother or father is old and ill, WOULD you deny them access to health care on the basis that they are already old enough ? can you tell them they have to die as the Earth is overpopulated? of course you would not say that to your parents, only to mines , right? This is indeed a dilemma !

About the microchip implants.. o, i hope i will not see them around any time soon. Why would we need a microchip other than tracking and abusing people? I believe our biological mental capabilities can be greatly enhanced without the need of any brain implant. Also , the DNA can be programmed to generate computing tissues in order to help processing speed and memory. Those people will not be less human than our contemporary humans are just because they happen to wear glasses or go to the dentist to have their teeth fixed.

I believe that technology is good and we should take advantage on what we can achieve. However, I agree with IgnoranceIsntBlisss when he is concerned about this technology going to the wrong hands: YES- we humans can be quite nasty when we have the opportunity to take control over other people. The survival of the fittest is still the leading force in our civilization, and we can see that while counting the number of people that went to bed with empty stomachs just last 24 hours.

As someone said here - we have enough technology for the moment, now it is time to clean up our political and social system before going on with the next big thing. And thanks God we have the Internet!


Someone from Romania.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romanian
The new humans will not just happen over the night, it will be a gradual process we already see. We ALREADY are cyborgs. A cyborg, is an organism that is using artificial means in order to correct or enhance the biological capacities.


There are lots of people who have various technologies implemented to correct legitimate medical problems, whom you can refer to as "cyborgs". But they're just trying to get normal. Transhumanists intend to better themselves over everyone else by exploiting technologies that were sought out to help people try to live a normal life.


Don't we all wear glasses when we cant see well? We should not , cos it is not natural, right? Dont we all enhance our communication capacity using the Internet in order to post that technology is wrong?


And gradually most everyone will get to use the Internet just the same as telephones. You might argue that everyone would one day be able to afford to get brain implants upgrades, but with your brave new world those who wont will be left behind. Flimsy comparison, I am afraid.


In regards to overpopulation fear.. o, let us take a more particular situation: If your mother or father is old and ill, WOULD you deny them access to health care on the basis that they are already old enough ? can you tell them they have to die as the Earth is overpopulated? of course you would not say that to your parents, only to mines , right? This is indeed a dilemma !


Any more Straw Men and we'll be overpopulated at this juncture.


Emotional pandering in this regard doesn't negate the overpopulation issue.

This calls into question the ideas of "ill" and "health care"? Also, the idea of the "cycle of life". Eventually we all die... at what point do we NOT consider the body's design to break down and die natural? How many surgeries are we to go thru during life in order to maintain our own selfish existence? Where does it end; how slippery the slope? How many new lives do we have to prevent in order to maintain our own aged existence?


As someone said here - we have enough technology for the moment, now it is time to clean up our political and social system before going on with the next big thing. And thanks God we have the Internet!


Roger. What I argue is that the looming technologies we face are potentially extremely dangerous, and that TPTB are pushing full speed ahead on them. Therefore, these issues need to be front and center for scores of reasons.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I support transhumanism, but i do not think it is going to happen soon, by the time we have this happening to the first people, the ability to travel around the galaxy hopefully will have been discovered, and we will be populating the neighboring stars. So that would solve the population problem, you could have trillions of people if you are around long enough and if you have the territory to house those people.

Hopefully I'm around when this is open to the public.






top topics



 
3

log in

join