[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 2629

File: 1478679785626.png (40.34 KB, 128x128, Black Confederate.jpg)


Not to be that guy, but if you're upset with the election outcome, there are governmental alternatives - https://snerx.com/snov

The transhumanist party gained traction in some democratic countries this last year, but a non-automated government won't help advance us much. The choice seems clear.


What are the transhumanist party's policies?


Afaik, they're focused on automation of industry (but like way more than anything we currently have), education and STEM research, and AI research, as well as globalization and other tech stuff.
Afaik, they're very similar to the philosophical movement.


>as well as globalization
fucking wow.
what in the world is wrong with you?
no sane individual ever rationally endorse the idea of further destabilization, conflicts and unrest just because you think the rest of the world wants muh democracy.


What about anything in the OP entails destabilization, conflicts, and unrest? Also it says you can make your own government with the software, it doesn't have to be a democracy.


None of what he said implies disarray or destabilization. And what's wrong with globalization?


File: 1478715450872.png (21.81 MB, 200x150, 1999 Battle of Seattle.webm)

The United Kingdom's Transhumanist Party's policies are equally as vague; these are just a bunch of feel-good talking points that give no real indication of the actual politics that drive their adherents. I've read elsewhere that there was a burgeoning transhumanist party in Germany but I don't think it has received as much traction as its american or british counterparts. As a burger, Zoltan Istvan has been the head of the TPUSA since he "founded" it in 2014; he did a recent AMA on reddit last week that can be viewed here: https://archive.fo/hPeRc

We can conclude that he's a staunch libertarian that openly endorsed Gary Johnson for president the closer we got to Election Day; Zoltan's book, "The Transhumanist Wager" is often referred to as an apt summation of his political philosophy. It's basically Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" but with seasteads and übermenschen; an utter self-insert fantasy novel where he advocates the genocide of anything that doesn't believe in what he believes in. In his AMA he's opted to taking the revisionist route so much to the point where it seems like he regrets even publishing it in the first place; the guy comes off as an accelerationist, but I'm still finding that hard to believe.
>Afaik, they're very similar to the philosophical movement.
So apolitical and culturally illiterate? Got it.
>And what's wrong with globalization?
Globalization is the reason for much of the West's contemporary ills; the neoliberal economic policies enacted by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations during the 80s had deregulated ALL the things and gave corporations a dose of extraterritoriality. Before Occupy Wall Street and #BlackLivesMatter there was Anti-Globalization in the 90s as many saw that the post-Cold War economic boom they were experiencing wasn't going to last the decade.

And it didn't.



File: 1478715633291.png (19.26 KB, 200x80, thankyou.png)

I'm just glad Zoltan is stepping down from his position.


>these are just a bunch of feel-good talking points that give no real indication of the actual politics that drive their adherents.
I mean, all party websites are like that...


And like all party websites, that doesn't necessarily imply that they're worthy of our support. I haven't supported Zoltan's foray into politics based on what convictions for doing so he's revealed to the public and will continue to do so until proven otherwise.

The TPUSA isn't even a legitimate party; Zoltan thinks getting invited to speak at conventions somehow gives semblance of legitimacy, but it doesn't. His blatant disregard for FEC regulations just goes to show how myopic and insular certain portions of the transhumanist community really are.

>..while his efforts gives him a unique opportunity to “brand” Transhumanism for a wider audience as he personally sees fit, he does not have any moral authority to do so. His implicit claim to moral authority comes from his claim to be founder of the Transhumanist Party, but the fact is that he is no such thing. He created and popularised the idea, to be sure, but he deliberately chose not to build a real party.

>Zoltan is very frank about how fast and loose he's playing with FEC rules — "I am breaking various laws with campaign finance. I'm willing to admit that" — and so it's not too unexpected that he'd be game to put some Super PAC millions to good use.


>that doesn't necessarily imply that they're worthy of our support.
It doesn't imply anything at all, and I think that's the main point, that saying the party's website is hollow amounts to nothing since they all are.


>It doesn't imply anything at all,
Well no, it does; party websites aren't THAT hollow. If you were to compare the GOP or DNC's proposed policies for next year with that of the TPUSA's then you'll see a vast difference in forethought or planning that went into distinguishing themselves from the elusive "other." That planning is typically grounded with a sense of immediacy that is to some extent identifiable to the common individual. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians or even the Greens, Zoltan's politics reflect the hollowness of his platform; that insularity has done jack-shit for promoting transhumanist concepts in such away that will be deemed appealing .


Wait, so by bringing up the Transhumanist Party in America because the OP referenced foreign Transhumanist Parties, that's supposed to invalidate what OP is saying about automated government? Idk man, sounds like a red herring.


Not what I was implying; I'm saying afaik, contemporary transhumanist parties are ill-equipped for even discussing the prospect of automating government. The TPUK is just as bad; they see transhumanism as yet another chance to reconcile capitalism with socialism, so it's safe to conclude that they have no intention in taking the "human" part of governance out of the equation. I remember the founder of the TPUK was advocating an organizational model called "Holacracy" over a year ago.


But lately, not many people have been talking about technological solutions to governance outside of anarchist circles; https://roarmag.org/essays/cybernetics-occupy-anarchism-stafford-beer/


tl;dr I was agreeing with OP and was providing context for fellow lainons


Oh, well then they're trash, but in the OP I'm proposing a way in which we can automate government and remove humans from creating gridlock.


That's what what I assumed; the concept is interesting to say the least.


Zoltan and the "Transhumanist" party are an utter joke. Nothing about them is based in reality.


You're late to the party, we've moved past that lol


Not to necro a dead thread, but I posted this same OP in another tech forum and they had a very different reaction. They all seemed to be vehemently against the notion altogether and believe automating governmental processes would be terrible (I didn't expect a tech group to be against tech in government).

What do you guys think about automation of the social sphere in general? I didn't understand their outrage.