Modern transhumanism seems to have been entirely coopted by the extreme right, the fascist right.
The Elon Musks, Peter Thiels, Alex Carps, Sam Altmans, Mark Zuckerbergs, Nick Lands, Curtis Yarvins of the world.
These are people who hate humanity. Hate. Hate. Hate. Nothing but hate for the human condition.
These are people who see capitalism as both inescapable and worth accelerating to its maximum hostility, just to line their own pockets and see how many they can kill in the process, which they take pleasure in.
They want the working classes as a living dead, as digitised servitors, as brains hooked into a corporate matrix, hopeless and powerless to do anything but work.
They watch at Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, and read Neuromancer and decided the hellish dystopia is what they want, at any cost.
Why? For the aesthetics alone? Because they expect to be the corpolords on top of the dogpile for a brief moment? Due to pure psychopathological sadism?
If you listen to them they've stated their aims:
They want city states, owned and ran by megacorps, ruled by CEO kings, when millions of serfs toil for the 0.0001% to live in a synthetic cyberutopia.
Is it any wonder then, that the modern left reacts today with a total hatred to transhumanism?
Recently there's been a whole spate of videos from leftist content creators outlining how they believe transhumanism is an ontological evil, conceptually and entirely with no distinction between various ideological forms it may take.
But it didn't use to be that way.
There used to be a prevalent current of left wing, socialist transhumanism, and of anarcho-transhumanism.
UBI for humanity's sake. Cybernetics to treat injuries and disability. Full bodily autonomy. Computer driven economies to equalise wealth and prioritize well-being. Robots to clean our streets.
It was not about life extension via designer peptides and child-blood transfusions for the elites. Not AI taking the job of the artist. Post-humanism as an enhancement of capabilities, not as a tool of nihilistic self-extinction.
So can we, and should we revive left transhumanism? Can the left at last de-demonise the term?
Because, personally, the way I see it technology is advancing whether we like it or not.
In that case I think we're morally obligated to bend the direction of the incoming technocrisis towards leftist goals, to promote a socialist transhumanism as an alternative.
If the tech like a meteor crashing into a city can't be stopped we must direct it so that we can minimise casualties.
Left transhumanists should raise public consciousness of their ideology as much as possible and if capable eventually launch cyber attacks on the Palantirs and OpenAIs of this world, physically disrupt their murder tech, burn their data centres, steal their data to repurpose it and openly reveal their secrets, again and again and again until there's no alternative but for people begin to take seriously the need for technology to serve the goal of benefiting humanity, not ending it.
Anyway that's just something that I ended up think about today.
I'm not the most knowledgeable on this matter, so please tell me what you think should be done to prevent these sick freaks from forming their cyberpunk Hitler society.
Please let me know if you think it's possible to construct a real movement out of left transhumanism!
>>2795765Brother please don't bring up this topic here on this viper pit. 42Chan will have a transhumanism board, I'm on the dev team.
Also fuck leftism, left wing of capital.
Brother please delete your thread they will ruin it, save it for 42chan
>>2795765>Please let me know if you think it's possible to construct a real movement out of left transhumanism!It already exists, PTA / HTH
https://www.anarchy.bg/english/people-for-technological-advancement-who-are-we/ >>2795766How will it "ruin it"? And I don't know anything about your personal pet imageboard project.
If it's a success then good for you, we can browse both imageboards and discuss it there too.
But there's no reason we can't discuss it here and now. If it's important then discussing it should be spoken about as widely as is possible.
>>2795775Your choice to put this in the viper pit. Feel welcome to visit the transhumanism board /tra/ on 42chan once its up.
>>2795766>>2795768I will repost it if it gets deleted because we honestly do need a transhumanism thread.
Also, OP
>>2795765>anarcho-transhumanism>UBI for humanity's sake>That god awful flagBinned, holy shit.
>>2795766Some of you guys are so weird for no reason. As if I can't immediately tell what your politics were 10 years ago.
>>2795792It’s a very ugly shade of blue
Transhumanism has be deprecated by l/acc r/acc e/acc and u/acc
>>2795808Accelerationism has no specific relationship it, you're muddying the waters with your nonsense
>>2795811What I'm saying is transhumanism is no longer relevant now that accelerationism has taken the mantle
Don't forget William Gillis coming in and crowning himself as the father of it to push his market liberal grift, then claiming he never did after being called out, yet he still protects the wikipedia page on the topic from being edited
>>2795813Relevancy is nonsense, transhumanism exists as a timeless concept as long as people want to become immortal, modify themselves (in every conceivable way) and use technological / scientific means for improvement.
This is like saying "life is no longer relevant because nihilistic suicides are the new hip thing"
>>2795814At least he doesn't fuck with the simple wiki page for now, which is decent btw
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-transhumanism >>2795813You're just saying the direct opposite of my OP post here.
The unstoppable tide of tech advancement must be redirected by force away from it's current direction of fascistic accelerationism, which is maximum growth at the cost of human extinction.
Accelerationism is inherently nihilistic and anti-human, while transhumanism can be used for beneficial or harmful purposes depending on the ideology driving it and it's up to us to create a beneficial transhumanism rather than one that transforms the proletariat into a slave caste or dead which is what the Thiels etc of the world want.
>>2795826Not all strains of accelerationism are nihilistic and anti-human, but even so transhumanists have a right to subscribe to a nihilistic strain of thought and be critical of humanity and its flaws.
>>2795827There's a distinction between personal philosophical nihilism "life has no inherent meaning and it's meaningless to create my own purpose, boohoo I'm so edgy and/or depressed" which while not beneficial to humanity is largely harmless on an individual scale;
Versus the accelerationist billionaire nihilism "I hate existence and want civilisation to collapse into the worst possible dystopia for all except the top 0.001% of richest people" which in many ways is more akin to the Russian nihilists of the 1800s who committed crime and chaos just because, although at least the Russian nihilists had the excuse of suffering extreme poverty under Tsarist serfdom.
>>2795827I mean ultimately it boils down to individual interest vs what humanity is doing. And since the individual depends on the rest of civilization they are forced to compromise unless everyone takes on their outlook or allows them to become (in the literal material sense, not affirming their psyche) what they want.
Like if humanity's gone unreasonably luddic but the individual wants technology, then the rest of humanity becomes an enemy. Of course it would be best to look in the interest of all of humanity and try to bring collective betterment but when they trample on you it becomes a matter of survival.
How is any common person now supposed to reach for longevity let-alone immortality when the concept is being demonized by religions and most of the world population is religious? And only billionaires are seeking it for themselves so when they speak of it they are being ostracized by workers who think they share the greed of the billionaires.
>>2795836>Versus the accelerationist billionaire nihilism "I hate existence Again not in contradiction, a transhumanist might hate existence and want another existence.
>want civilisation to collapse into the worst possible dystopiaA transhumanist might think its best to start all over, its not in contradiction, although it is retarded, its not like anyone can force that to happen, civilization will either live or fall apart on its own accord, so believing civilization will fall is also not in contradiction with transhumanism. Some transhumanists are trying to reconcile with post-civ strains of thought.
I feel like you just disagree with Nechayev on the last part. I adore Nechayev but his approach was ultimately most destructive to himself and is idealistic to try to implement on a wide-scale.
The biggest enemy of transhumanism is reactionaries who wish to "return" or stagnate (prevent growth, development and generally stand behind anti-intellectualism).
>>2795844 (Me)
Btw I know why you hate nihilism, William Gillis brainwashed you, please be more open minded. Your mortal enemy are the bourgeois and reactionaries.
The worst reactionaries to ever exist will always be primmies and neo-luddites (if you don't believe the original luddites were shit, see Marx's condemnation of the luddites though).
And yet we still don't have to sweat over primmies, they mostly end up killing themselves in adventurism or random people (like MOVE and other religious doomsday cults) or are simply LARPing disgruntled online retards.
Also a correction on my error
>Versus the accelerationist billionaire nihilism "I hate existence <Again not in contradiction,Scratch the billionaire part though I didn't read it on accident.
Billionaires are obviously in contradiction because capital is a death drive and this mode of production is not sustainable, its self-destructive.
>>2795847
Posthumanism cannot come to be without transhumanism first. It's in the name - transitioning, transcending. It is the transitional phase between the present and posthumanism.
Until humanity utilizes the environment to evolve into something else and bring an end to humanity, it will have to follow transhumanism.
>>2795852Its an ultimatum at that, either death or evolution, and with evolution ends the species which becomes something else. We have sapience and should be able to control our own evolutionary path through transhumanism accordingly.
What is the transhumanist’s plan for climate change?
>>2795943Transhumanism and environmentalism are distinct topics so you could find a full range of differing opinions. It's not an organised cohesive singular entity with a manifesto and outlines for each topic.
That said I would expect amongst basically all left and anarcho transhumanists, there is a full recognition of the deep shit we're in and support for efforts to reduce climate change. Technology brought us solar, wind turbines, biofuel. Utilise them to replace oil and gas. Maximal clean energy and development of new technologies to improve the environment and reduce emissions.
>>2795943Personally (and I can only write for myself, transhumanists don't have a united opinion on the matter) regrowth and scaling down of certain industries and adopting a utilitarian style of economic planning to figure out how to be most productive in accordance to scarcity, that is to encourage scientific study on overcoming scarcity and imposing certain limits for society.
If we can figure out how to terraform we should clean up our shit here first on Earth.
Also anti-civ types say that civilization is inherently unsustainable, if they're right we gotta like stop the breeding and become smaller ASAP, half life 2 Dr. Breen type shit. But that's just their thesis from their analysis.
>>2795960Another form of energy that isn't electricity would be nice, we're depleting our resources to produce electricity, the Dyson sphere ambition is a literal pie in the sky for now.
Good post but
>UBI for humanity's sake.
>the elites
>Not AI taking the job of the artist.
>we're morally obligated
Lmao
>physically disrupt their murder tech, burn their data centres, steal their data to repurpose it and openly reveal their secrets
Adventurism + won't happen + wouldn't do shit anyways
>>2796002Yea OP is still a bit of a libtard lmao
I didn't read tbh, but I was glad someone else identifies with transhumanism as well
>>2795826>unstoppable tide of techthen whats the point of being a "transhumanist" if its unstoppable
>fascistic accelerationism<calling your competitor fascist because you're madlmao
>Accelerationism is inherently nihilistic and anti-humanmaybe r/acc but not e/acc
> transhumanism can be used for beneficial or harmful purposes depending on the ideology driving it and it's up to us to create a beneficial transhumanism rather than one that transforms the proletariat into a slave caste or dead which is what the Thiels etc of the world want.this is just e/acc but you've added some weird "beyond humanity" concept ripped right from a sci fi
>>2796074 I'm not the anon but
>then whats the point of being a "transhumanist" if its unstoppableIts keeping it unstoppable, he just wrote that because it sounds cool and we gotta kill everyone against it.
>>2796077Also if primmies and neo-luddites win we're gonna burn all the forests down in revenge. Humanity could have always destroyed itself at any point in time after the discovery of fire. If they make us "go back" we take torches and start burning everything.
>>2796080Luddites weren't against technology they were for worker's rights and against machines replacing human livelihoods and against handcrafted goods being replaced with low quality mass produced slop.
If anything Ludditism is entirely necessary for technological progress to prove beneficial rather than harmful to humanity.
Are you forgetting like all of China
>>2796080Lay off the Dwarf Fortress
>>2796128Marx went on to imply the Luddites did not distinguish between the machinery and its utilization by capitalists. In fact, the Luddites, from the outset, were against the power behind the machines.
>against handcrafted goods being replaced with low quality mass produced slopArtisans were wrong.
>>2795765Don't use that symbol, it was made by a literal redditor and submitted onto wikipedia, use the h+
>>2796777Thanks I'm going to use it precisely because you told me not to
>>2796953Ok contrarian redditor
>>2795765>Is it any wonder then, that the modern left reacts today with a total hatred to transhumanism?>Recently there's been a whole spate of videos from leftist content creators outlining how they believe transhumanism is an ontological evil, conceptually and entirely with no distinction between various ideological forms it may take.Like where is this a thing? Literally every leftie nowadays is big into transhumanism.
>>2797471ackhuallly its the left who hates AI, and the right who supports it out of contrarianism
which is odd, because to be a true conservative means to be pro human, so right wingers should be anti ai
Sissy transhumanists
Transhumanism is Nietzschean nonsense
Man must learn to embrace his limits, not fight them
>>2797807Die of cancer luddic retard
>>2797918*takes out your batteries*
>>2797920You're not getting any when you get a bad heart
>>2797921That's fine; I will return to the earth and give my body to nature.
Your denial of death is your denial of life.
>>2797923You're a suicidal retard and you don't determine how long other people live
>>2797923Go back to christian science
>>2797926>>2797927You are both bags of meat which will rot and die…
I'm sorry I'm the one who has to tell you this.
>>2797930Such profound insight, too bad you're good for nothing else
>>2797807>NietzscheanI have no idea why you associate him with transhumanism but I'm pretty sure it precedes him by a few centuries.
>man (arbitrary in-group)>must (ideal to abide by)>limits (assumption)Can't enforce that.
>>2797936You genuinely seem offended.
Do you really think you will live forever..?
>>2797945But you do know that its impossible, right?
I want to make sure you're not living in delusion.
>>2797973I win nothing for arguing with you, history is full of confident “that’s impossible” claims that didn’t age well, and yet we never get to punish the morons who prevented development.
>>2798026I wosh you sanity in the future, my friend.
>>2798026>and yet we never get to punish the morons who prevented development.Then again they didn't prevent it, at worst they stalled it. Such is the life of reactionary vermin, civilization would be better if they were done away with quicker than wasting time satisfying anyone's oligophrenia.
>>2797973It's just as impossible to know that for certain, and medicine keeps finding ways to keep making the high scores go up.
>>2798030I.e. everyone can thank christcucks for nearly erasing the Archimedes Palimpsest writing bullshit prayer text over it and keeping its contents obscured for millennium when we could've had its knowledge at about 950 CE instead of 1906 bringing the understanding of: Method of mechanical theorems, Infinitesimals, Method of exhaustion, Areas under curves, Volumes of curved solids, Centers of mass, Infinite series, Combinatorics, Heuristic vs. formal proof methods, Proto-concept of limits, an understanding of X-ray imaging and others put to use.
>>2798047We can't even fill in potholes; what do you think is going to happen in the next 60 years?
>>2798057We can fit potholes and we do? Mismanagement existing in the present doesn't mean it will remain the same in the next 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 years. There is no accurate methodology that predicts the future accurately. If you could predict the future you wouldn't be in the position you are right now.
>>2798065>4,000 yearsEither humanity will be extinct or civilization will have been self-destroyed. There are no other options.
>>2798057If medicine works why come my tv remote is broken?
I can't even get a blowjob from the old hooker yet you expect me to believe people send satelltes to space?
>>2798070Humanity will inevitably go extinct, that's why it should use its sapience to either plan its evolution or create a successor.
>>2798071Will people gain immortality in the next 60 years?
That is the only gamble you can invest in.
>>2798074Successor to what? The rape of the earth?
>>2798076No they probably won't, it is currently improbable unless something unexpected occurs like a sudden breakthrough or discovery.
>>2798078>improbableYou mean impossible
You will be insane until you lose your doubt
>>2798077Malthusian schizophrenia, you prioritize the inanimate and other organic matter more than sapience.
>>2798081Not at all; I value humanity - you value inhumanity.
>>2798080Its improbable not impossible, you can't predict discoveries moron.
>>2798083You value extinction not humanity.
>>2798086You sound like Peter Thiel
>>2798084Silly me, I suppose in 2090 you can swallow a pill to live for a trillion years; anything's possible, I suppose.
>>2798090You don't want to survive, you want to become a rock: a piece of metal.
>>2798092Consciousness is what makes you yourself, ship of Theseus fallacy.
And you're afraid of the idea of metal existing even when humanity does not? Metal forms of existence being somehow worse than nothing existing at all after humanity?
>>2798095Sentience is not always living.
You want to be dead. Undead.
I want to be alive.
>>2798095We already established that humanity will eventually go extinct, species traitors go ahead and write "nothing should exist after us, we should not create something" insulting sapience and parading anti-intellectualism.
>>2798092>you want to become a rock, a piece of metalYou want the same but worse, your body decomposes and you become mud, buried in a metal coffin and mixing in with the rocks, while we want to preserve consciousness.
>>2798100You don't want to live you want to die and decompose. That is dying, not living.
>>2798100Sentience is not the same as sapience moron.
>>2798101>>2798103Is a computer alive?
You are insane.
>>2798105You're a moron, you contradicted yourself several times by this point.
>you want to become a piece of metal, a rockAnd yet you will end up the same way decomposing as organic matter into inorganic matter of the ground. You contradicted yourself.
>>2798107>there is no difference between living tissue and dead metalYou are insane
>>2798105>Is a computer alive?Its inorganic and has no consciousness, if you can translate organic consciousness into inorganic matter or vice versa then you can make it so.
We have organic computers already retard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computereverything organic is alive by definition.
>>2798110>there is no difference between living tissue and dead metalYou're misquoting me on purpose because its not what I wrote. You have no arguments left.
>>2798111So you agree that only organisms are alive, and a metal creature is dead?
>>2798112You are insane. You will not live forever.
>>2798115>So you agree that only organisms are alive, and a metal creature is dead?Organic matter is alive, if you can convert organic matter into inorganic matter to hold the same function then it will be alive as well, since it will function the exact same way made up of different matter.
>>2798117Functions are not the same as living processes, you understand?
A mind in a compurer is dead.
>>27981192 more weeks until they invent the immortality pill
>>2798120Functions rely on processes, it doesn't matter what the processes are if they lead to the same function.
It doesn't matter if you light a candle with matches or a lighter, it doesn't make the fire any less or more "authentic".
>>2798122One week left until you end up on the sanctioned suicide forums
>>2798125Right, so you would rather be dead than alive, if it lasts longer.
>>2798128Wrong, so your subjective view of life is reductive and you thrive in the expiration of organic life rather than seeking to prolong it.
>>2798131You cannot prolong life beyond its limit; thats the point
I live in reality, you live in terrible delusion
>>2798133>You cannot prolong life beyond its limit; thats the pointThat's simply wrong, we have literally extended our life expectancy. You're so stuck up on some "natural limit" that you forget we have sapience to research our limitations and overcome them in the first place, that is pure anti-intellectualism.
I don't believe in the Many Worlds interpretation of physics. Neither do most professional physicists. A poll of professional physicists at a conference for physicists in Austria in 2011 found 18% believe in the Many Worlds interpretation.
But if it is true, then because an observer can't observe their own death a consciousness must persist in timeline in which they live the longest until their chance of survival across all timelines hits 0%.
Note you will still die from other people's perspectives, and there will be many versions of you who will die. But your consciousness will be in the world line where you don't die.
If Many Worlds is true it stands to reason that at least from your own subjective perspective you will live to see and experience using some form of life extension technology, that is if the chance of it being developed in your lifetime isn't 0%.
This does of course all rest on the aforementioned many worlds theory, which I find highly unlikely to be true, but it makes for am interesting thought experiment while getting drunk or high at least.
>>2798135Life expectancy is currently declining
But in 50 years im sure it will spike to a trillion years
>>2798133>You cannot prolong life beyond its limit; thats the pointYou're the type of idiot to tell people in the middle ages that infant mortality cannot be resolved and therefore they shouldn't try to solve it.
>>2798139>Life expectancy is currently decliningSo we shouldn't be trying to solve our own issues and die out? Yet you claim you're for life and humanity.
>>2798141The industrial revolution lowered life expectancy
>>2798144The disease is spread by the same people selling a cure
>>2798077You are 12 years old
>>2798133>You cannot prolong life beyond its limit; thats the pointWhat is the limit?
20,000 years ago, 20-30 was the typical "limit" of a human life span.
500 years ago it was about 40-50.
300 years ago it was 50-60.
100 years ago it was 60-70.
Today it's about 70-90. With a rare few living to 100+.
Some people suggest 120 is the "hard limit" of a natural lifespan. But who knows what changes may yet come?
>>2798145>The disease is spread by the same people selling a cureOnly because its the capitalist mode of production, not because people aren't trying to do away with it.
>>2798145>The industrial revolution lowered life expectancyNore neo-luddite kaczynski drivel. You can make the argument that its not sustainable in the long-run, but not that it lowered life expectancy in the present.
>>2798153
>The problem far precedes capitalism
Yeah you have a problem with humanity and civilization, you're a species traitor.
>>2798153
>Right, so its good to come to terms with our own limits, instead of living in delusions of immortality.
Come to terms with extinction rather than opposing extinction.
>>2798155Its not sustainable in the short-run either.
>>2798157Humanity existed over 100,000 years before civilization, and will only persist after the written word is extinguished.
>>2798160I only hope you will find peace with death, eventually.
>>2798166The industrial sludge people call food is equivalent to shit
>>2798171>Its not sustainable in the short-run either.276 years is short. Okay. We don't need mass-industry to conduct research.
>>2798171>I only hope you will find peace with death, eventually.Come to terms to life before fantasizing about death.
>>2798175276 years compared to 100,000 is very short.
>>2798178I am alive; I don't want to become a rock which can think.
>>2798181>I am alive; I don't want to become a rock which can think.You want to become a rock which cannot think, got it. Just decompose and you'll get there, you're wasting sapience anyway.
>>2798183Why should thinking last forever, anyway?
Thinking is not living, and you prove that point.
>>2798174276 years of accommodating to all of humanity, obviously a massive waste of resources, we don't need to waste resources and produce for religious and reactionary retards.
>>2798189The futility of industry is that the whole operation is burning to coal to burn more coal, like how capitalism is spending money to make more money. It is not productive, but inherently destructive, since it is a vicious circle, which also requires global human enslavement.
>>2798187>Why should thinking last forever, anyway?If something is transcendental to thought then it should come. If thought is the limit then controlling its duration is a path of desire.
>>2798194When you become a rock, will you ever sleep or get tired, or will you be in a permanent undead hell of relentless thinking?
>>2798191That's why we should be more utilitarian with our approach to scarce resources, if a resource is used to produce more than it takes then obviously that is productive. Like growing plants.
>>2798198I will do what I can for as long as I desire regardless of becoming.
>>2798199Why would we grow plants when we can just hunt animals?
A single cow in beef can feed a family for a year with its meat.
The reason agriculture became so popular is because grains feeds slaves who tend the fields.
>>2798204Sleep ends the day for an animal; it is the pleasure of unbecoming.
>>2798208>Why would we grow plants when we can just hunt animals?By the same logic, why do we hunt animals when we can just cannibalize each-other?
>>2798211Cannibalism is a pattern across various tribes, so its not out of the question; the same way the incest taboo only occurs at a certain stage of development. I would say that hunting other animals probably builds trust in a tribe rather than building suspicion.
The only thing i like about transhumanism is extending human life span and thats it
>>2798215I suppose you prefer atomic bombs
>>2798217Humanity truly was best when you could grow up to the age of 5 and then have your mother tear you limb to limb to eat you.
>>2798218If this was the case, how did humanity last so long?
You are projecting the horrors of civilization onto savagery.
>>2798220>If this was the case, how did humanity last so long?Because they didn't listen to morons like you, they killed them.
>>2798220>You are projecting the horrors of civilization onto savagery.Savagery literally embodies cannibalism from prior to civilization.
The worst product of civilization is primitivism.
>>2798221>listenWere the mothers giving ideological defenses?
>>2798222And civilization means torture, slavery and war
Cannibalism is perfectly tame compared to the rest
You can get the best of an anprim life via transhumanism.
Walk into the holodeck, plug your brain into the virtual world, and got live in a virtual mudhut, get impaled by a digital wild boar and die of cyber-dysentery safely as many times over as you want.
>>2798233Why would i put my brain into a rock to touch grass, when i can jjst touch grass?
>>2798235Because then you can touch grass for 1 million years
>>2798231No those mothers and their bastard sons like you got killed off by the rest of the tribes, which eventually civilized.
>>2798231>And civilization means torture, slavery and warTorture, slavery and war existed prior to civilization.
>>2798241>bastardMarriage is a civilizational concept
>>2798242No they didnt.
>>2798245>No they didnt.They did, we can even see those exhibited in apes.
Every human that has lived before civilization (the growth of cities) has been able to confine another person enslaving them, torture them by physical damage and tribes have waged wars against each-other.
>>2798245>Marriage is a civilizational conceptThat's one way to call your mother a whore.
>>2798249Yes, my mother was promiscuous, which is not a disagreeable thing.
>>2798247Not all conflicts are wars
Wars are conflicts between states for the acquisition of resources; e.g. rape of women, theft of property and conquest of territory.
Torture can only come from malice, which is a result of repression and resentment, which don't exist before civilization. And enslavement is not exhibited anywhere in the animal kingdom.
>>2798250>Yes, my mother was promiscuous, which is not a disagreeable thing.Yes and you are an unwanted pregnancy, very apparent from the way you turned out.
>>2798253Of course, since my mother was young when she had me
>>2798250>Wars are conflicts between statesThat's semantics to narrow down the definition in order to idealize the reactionary primitive life utopia. A war between tribes is for the acquisition of resources the same way: rape of women, theft of belongings and contest of territory.
>which is a result of repression and resentment, which don't exist before civilization. That's also wrong, repression and resentment existed for as long as humanity did.
>>2798258>the reactionary primitive life utopiaAs opposed to the progress of nuclear war, i presume
>A war between tribesWhich only really begins during the neolithic era.
>repression and resentment existed for as long as humanity did.No they havent. Hatred is a uniquely civilized emotion.
>>2798255Life would be better for you without civilization, unwanted pregnancies were either left in the wild to die or terminated after birth. Embrace your limits, embrace death and kill yourself.
>>2798267>No they havent. Hatred is a uniquely civilized emotion.Hatred exists as an emotion in all sentient animals.
>>2798268>embrace deathThat seems to be your theme.
>>2798270No it doesnt.
Hatred is the impotence of will; it grows from fantasies of retribution, which dont fester in the minds of the innocent.
>>2798267>As opposed to the progress of nuclear war, i presumeAt the very least it will give you what you're looking for - coming to terms with death.
>>2798271My theme? That's your theme, come to terms with your limit.
>>2798277I have come to terms with my limits, which is the source of my sanity.
>>2798273Even animals other than humans are capable of retribution.
>>2798278Your sanity consists of self-loathing and waiting to die. That's less functional than most insane people.
>>2798279I've never seen it.
Yet almost every civilized man is full of ugly emotions, like shame, fear, hatred, envy, etc.
>>2798281>self-loathingSelf-loathing is more befitting a civilized creature, which must learn to domesticate itself.
>>2798283>Yet almost every civilized man is full of ugly emotions, like shame, fear, hatred, envy, etc.All of those have existed as long as humanity and sapience itself.
>>2798283>Self-loathing is more befitting a civilized creature, which must learn to domesticate itself.Yeah like yourself, you are the worst product of civilization.
>>2798289No they havent.
Only enslaved animals can learn to feel shame.
Slavery is the hallmark of civilization.
>>2798290>no uI guess you're at the end of your tether.
Anyway, like I say - Accept reality, and be sane, my friend.
We don't need civilization as long as we get to exterminate the religious and the primitivists who go against development and glorify the poverty of regress. Civilization protects the primitivists and enables them to use the fruits of production to express their abhorrent views without facing consequences, in wild nature the strongest wins and the strongest is always the smarter.
Primmies have a crony view of anthropology idealizing non-existent pasts and only exist to sabotage any people trying to resolve present problems, the useful idiots of competing rulers.
Civilization is characterized by the growth of cities, we don't need cities to conduct science, let us form migratory habits to go around the world and rid it of species traitors impairing the prolonging of life and the possibilities of interacting with the environment.
>>2798299>Slavery is the hallmark of civilization.Slavery has existed prior to civilization, as long as humanity has existed people have confined others against their wishes.
>>2798299>Anyway, like I say - Accept reality, and be sane, my friend.Sanity as a word did not exist prior to civilization.
>>2795765OP you see what I told you? Viper pit, full of reactionaries.
>>2798305>as long as humanity has existed people have confined others against their wishes.Wrong. Read Origin of the Family. In hunter-gatherer society there was a time before slavery when captives of enemy peoples were simply killed or, if there was room, integrated.
>>2798319Read common sense, if people wanted to confine each-other they always could.
>>2798319Were native americans civilized to practice slavery?
>>2798322I.e. before colonizers even arrived - Tlingit, Haida, and Kwakwaka’wakw where war captives were enslaved, slaves could be bought, sold, or inherited, slaves performed labor and had very low status all the while the tribes were still hunter-gatherers as small mobile bands with no permanent settlements.
>>2798174Eat shit then primmie
I'm sure humans in the far future, after being genetically modified and riddled with cybernetic implants, would disgust most modern people, but I'm not sure how you could oppose it without going against industrial, instrumental logic. Might as well throw away your glasses and computers and heart transplants. I wonder if the sex instinct will be destroyed as a redundant waste of time, or maybe used as a psychological carrot. Do X labor, receive Y pleasure. Or we might be desexualized, but the reward would be a bit of wire head euphoria.
>>2795765>Modern transhumanism seems to have been entirely coopted by the extreme right, the fascist right. bc leftist transhuminism is predicated on popular ownership of the means of production
Unique IPs: 28