Libertarian Transhumanist Futurism

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-01-27 08:58pm

I found Transtopia from Something Awful. They seem more arrogant than Orion's Arm.

What do you guys think about transhumanist philosophy and their movements?[/url]

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-01-27 09:39pm

Well, I have seen different forms of Transhumanism; not all seem the same. Some have some interesting ideas, some seem too fantastical and utopian. Although, there is some nifty stuff with the bad.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2006-01-28 02:12am

I just took the test at the above linked site. It had me laughing at some questions. Like for instance the test considered sex and love as a bad thing to be avoided. If the transhumanists really believe this crap they must a bunch of losers. It is no wonder why they are so few in numbers because they are wiping themselves out by not breeding. Either that or they are bored 14 year olds with a failed love life.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-01-28 02:29am

I was not familiar with that site. Across where did you come it? I have seen another site that is unrelated, but it doesn't seem to have the same aesthetic to it or information. Perhaps there are different groups?

Basically, I think the main idea is they support safely authorized technology to enhance people. On the site I saw, I didn't remember seeing anything about sex and relationships being bad. Supposedly, they want to improve human happiness. It's almost like a techno fantasy branch of humanism.

It's cute, but some things are unrealistic. I kinda like their technological optimism, even though it seems fruity at times. They are really into mechanical or technological enhancements or the use of biotechnologoy to make peoples' lives better. At least they don't seem an obstical to scientific progress.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-01-28 02:36am

Edit: This branch seems to be a libertarian group, but not all transhumanists are libertarian. Only some. It has a wide variety of real life poltical beliefs.'

I think that one is a bit better, although, you might be getting this link. When I click on the above link, I get a different site. They are big into genetic engineering, gene thearapy, and designer babies, I think.

Now that I think of it, they remind me of borgaephiles. It can get wanky, but it's not mostly 14 year olds. It's a nifty little optimism. Much better than half the depressing stuff I hear from religions.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2006-01-28 03:16am

Basically, I think the main idea is they support safely authorized technology to enhance people. On the site I saw, I didn't remember seeing anything about sex and relationships being bad. Supposedly, they want to improve human happiness. It's almost like a techno fantasy branch of humanism.

Go to the site linked in the first post. Then select the E-Test. One of the sections of the test says.

XXII. Love really is (just) a (highly addictive) drug, sex a rather cumbersome way of getting off, and marriage an archaic pseudo-religious bonding ritual. They tend to cause (a lot) more trouble than they're worth, which is why smart people will generally (try to) avoid them. Better use your imagination and lend yourself a hand.

In this test the more you agree with each point the more points you get.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-01-28 06:21am

Sarevok wrote:XXII. Love really is (just) a (highly addictive) drug, sex a rather cumbersome way of getting off, and marriage an archaic pseudo-religious bonding ritual. They tend to cause (a lot) more trouble than they're worth, which is why smart people will generally (try to) avoid them. Better use your imagination and lend yourself a hand.

Another statement goes:

XV. There is no reason to remain forever stuck on Earth; space exploration and colonization are the wave of the future. In fact, off-planet colonies could be our only hope if some future (nano-)accident or conflict makes the Earth uninhabitable, or if the global socio-political climate becomes too oppressive.

So what is it: avoidance of sex and childlesness, or space colonization? You can't colonize anything if the colonists won't breed

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-28 07:04am

I love that, nano-accident... Grey goo, aaaah!

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-01-28 07:16am

NecronLord wrote:I love that, nano-accident... Grey goo, aaaah!

Grey goo is stupidly easily to handle. It is called UV light, aka sunlight.

Or drop a nuke on top of it and EMP it to death.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-01-28 07:57am

ggs wrote:Grey goo is stupidly easily to handle.

I know this! Pass 'round the neutron bombs, and praise Oppenheimer.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-28 12:02pm

ggs wrote: Grey goo is stupidly easily to handle. It is called UV light, aka sunlight.

Or drop a nuke on top of it and EMP it to death.

I know something better: bacteria. But the risk of GM bacteria is far bigger than grey goo. If you release a bacterium that bitchslaps all other environmental microbes, you're fucked unless you nuke that area. There are no recalls.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-01-28 01:36pm

Sarevoke Wrote:

In this test the more you agree with each point the more points you get.

[

Yes. That does seem quite weird. Some of the other questions are trippy too. It is a high slant to the Libertarian side, but I think this is an affiliated group. This seems like one of the more fringy extremes--the wank.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2006-01-28 08:27pm

Okay, so we have love as a drug (maybe, but I hardly consider it harmful), sex as a way of getting off (who'da thunk?) and marriage as an "archaic pseudo-religious bonding ritual" (that one I almost kind of agree with).

I think that's about all I need to know, thanks.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-01-29 07:03am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I know something better: bacteria. But the risk of GM bacteria is far bigger than grey goo. If you release a bacterium that bitchslaps all other environmental microbes, you're fucked unless you nuke that area. There are no recalls.

The difference between nanotechnology and bacteria & the like, assuming laws of physics as we understand them, as the nanotech advances approaches zero.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-01-29 03:59pm

I love that, nano-accident... Grey goo, aaaah!

So many ways to deal with nano. Use a blow torch, any chemicly reactive species will be flogged six ways to sunday if you heat it up to those temperatures. Alternatively you could just freeze the crap and slow down all the required chemical reactions to a managable rate (nano cannot be insulated).

There are no recalls.

Sure there are. You just need an even more badass bacteriophage with variable burn rates. Given the relative rates of reproduction and quantities of bacteria vs bacteriophage you could even give the phage a more plastic genome which can out adapt the bacteria. Of course such an uberphage will pose its own problems.