[ExI] A Transhumanist Terrorist Manifesto

[Samantha Atkins]

kevin.osborne wrote:
> Not genuinely trying to be dystopic/cataclysic here, but:
>
> Surely the thought that the political/academic/cultural transhumanism
> of today may one day be adjuncted with a military/security wing has
> been posited previously?
>
>   
Sure.  But not in a way that advocates burning down anything and 
everything perceived as being in the way or opposed to transhumanist 
goals. 


> And If not, why not? As altruistic and peace-loving as we may be, we
> seem ripe for xenophobic suppression as a minority. It may well be
> that the majority of H+ are pacifists, but do not count all of us
> among your number. None of us like war and bloodshed. All of us know
> that it will mean children dead by the sword. But surely a posthuman
> holocaust is a real and cognizable risk?
>
>   
If you have been around for very long you know that a great number of us 
are not pacifists although we love peace.     Of course various violent 
conflicts are possible, even reasonably likely.  This does not mean that 
it is a good idea to strut around  beating one's chest and bellowing a 
challenge to all who may at all oppose you.   That is juvenile and 
counter-productive. 

> The defacement of public works and monuments is a time-honored
> tradition of civil disobedience, political unrest and revolution.
> Blowing up a statue - as long as no-one dies - doesn't seem beyond the
> pale to me. It just doesn't. Yes it is a slippery slope, but exactly
> what kind of slope did you think this H+ thing was on?
>
>   
Well, if they put up a statue to Jerry Falwell I might consider it.  
Although I wouldn't be attempting a supportive action for transhumanism 
by demolishing such an atrocity.  :-8 But this level of action is a far 
cry from the level of mayhem advocated by the "manisfesto". 
> It seems like some were just hoping to squeak through the uplift door
> without anyone noticing. And if so, why?
Because one cannot be uplifted if killed in violent opposition.  Not 
fighting when it is possible to avoid a fight while remaining true to 
your values is a sign of wise prudence. 


>  What the heck does that say
> about who you are, or who you are going to be? I'd rather die now for
> a cause I'm prepared to stand up for than live on as a someone who had
> to pretend their way into being something more than human.
What do you mean by "pretending"?   Why is standing up for the cause 
only valid seemingly to you if it involves actual violence or at least 
civil disobedience.  I have no trouble with such actually in service of 
a cause.  But to make such the measure of being serious or a real 
transhumanist does not seem justified at this juncture.
>  Is that the
> humanity you are wanting to preserve? Is that the future you are
> promising? This is your preferred mode of operation that finds other
> methods so distasteful?
>
>   
I think you are getting a bit carried away with your argument again. You 
state assumptions with some emotional prejudice and then go on as if 
your assumptions, your rhetoric is fact.

> I'm sure it would be better for all of us if there were no need to
> fight in order to attain our future. I just don't think we should bank
> on it. 
That I agree with.

> I think the cultural, academic and political wings of
> transhumanism are its lifeblood, engine room and conscience
> respectively. But I think we are going to need more than that. I think
> in your heart of hearts some of you do also.
>
>   
I agree in principle  but it is not time to raise an army and I 
certainly see no reasons to be engaged in terrorism purportedly in 
support of transhumanist goals.

> I don't want to stand by while some of out greatest minds whither and
> die of old age. I'm a young man, and can fight for their cause. I can
> breathe with forthright vigor and impetus while they count down to the
> last breath they may take.  I don't think they want to go, and yet
> with our dawdling and bumbling we tacitly accept their demise.
>
>   
I do agree that many of us tend to spend too much time, precious time 
this side of radical life extension, in unproductive activities to our 
goals.    I sure know that I do.

> Fighting for the future doesn't have to mean violence. But we should
> be fighting, yearning, reaching. Transcendence should be a blaze of
> glory upon a pyre of our achievement, not a pained and delayed excuse
> carried over the line only by its own momentum and apologized for
> throughout.
>
>   
Yes!  Well said.

> Posthumanity and the singularity will be the pinnacle of human
> achievement. We should achieve it in a manner of 'arete', not in a
> manner of conflict avoidance and procrastination.
>
> It is -our- future. We should fight for it. We should protect those
> who matter to us from harm. We should resist suppression and
> persecution.
>
>   
I agree we should do everything we can to achieve the future we desire.  
But I don't see how a "Terrorist Manifesto" does any good.

- samantha