Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

"Four political futures: which will you choose?" on the IEET

6 posts / 0 new

Last post

Thu, 2015-07-30 05:24

Chrontius

"Four political futures: which will you choose?" on the IEET

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/wood20150724 Given the discussions about bioconservatives versus transhumans that go on frequently, it struck me that this might be appreciated by some others here. For what it's worth, the four factions are:

Technoskeptical
Technoconservative
Technolibertarian
Technoprogressive

Thu, 2015-07-30 08:27

Panoptic

I'm not impressed by any of

I'm not impressed by any of those options as presented. Technoskeptical - They could be correct. But I don't see any scope for technoskeptical policies. The technology will either be possible or it won't. They're irrelevant either way. Technoconservative - I don't see any advocates for the position listed in the article. The position would be near-impossible to maintain, a permanent losing battle against non-technoconservative factions who will grab technology to benefit themselves or their ideology. Technolibertarian - A free market is a great tool for improving human standards of living and technological advancement. But it is not the universal cure for all problems. Variously naive or reckless. Technoprogressive - Naive in a different fashion. Whose ideologies get promoted when "improving society?". Trying to remove inequality and social ills with a vague idea of improvement but no plan could lead to even worse, unforseen problems. Still, at least it mentions the idea. I maintain that the best a political movement can strive for is a balance between individual freedoms and societal stability. Technology is but another tool, not the end goal.

—

On 'IC Talk': Seyit Karga, Ultimate [url=http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46317#comment-46317]Character Profile[/url]

Fri, 2015-07-31 17:53

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

I have to agree with panoptic

I have to agree with panoptic, these are all rather, stiff and to encompassing. for example I tend to be highly social liberal while economically i tend toward the conservative, fuck trickle down economics and deregulation though. combine that with transhumanism and i will not fall into those categories.

Sun, 2015-08-23 18:27

consumerdestroyer consumerdestroyer's picture

TransChairman PostMao says,

TransChairman PostMao says, "This too is a form of liberalism." Seriously though, conservative and reactionary ideologies are either liberal (from Burke down, the conservative tradition is trying to "conserve" the proper form of liberalism), or illiberal in a fascist direction (i.e. opposing liberalism from the point of view of more efficient top-down control, altho modern neoliberal ideology is all about control of the masses by intellectual, financial and cultural elites so there's some overlap between liberalism and fascism qua conservatism). What about radical transhumanists? Like, Marxism-Leninism-Transhumanism would look [b]way[/b] different from Italian Autonomist Marxist traditions mapped onto transhumanism would look [b]way[/b] different from a Deleuze/Guattari-inspired rhizomatic swarm approach to transhumanism would look [b]way[/b] different from transhumanism enacted by anarcho-syndicalists or ancoms/libsocs, etc, etc. All 4 of these options are either liberal as hell or avoiding liberalism via fascism. This is why I can't take white dude political imaginations seriously, IEET can't think outside of protomodernity's political constraints just like the bland and stagnant economic, socio-cultural and political discourse they grew up immersed in and hence think encompasses even future possibilities. Boooorrriiiiiiing, and who they exclude says more about the possibilities and diversity of a transhuman/posthuman future than the limited options they include. Like, yeah, we're all gonna crave having top-down, unelected, authoritarian economics a la contemporary/historical capitalism in a transhuman future, and we'll just disagree on the flavour of it. Right. Not like participatory, bottom-up, democratic, horizontal and leaderless forms of economics won't be made way more possible when people ignore the laws and illegally spread these advances in various technologies as is inevitable, no no no, no way that'd happen.

Mon, 2015-11-23 14:43

ringring

These terms are mutable

and not at all universal in their definition. Most political ideologies are simply too abstract to claim there is any one, concrete definition, the best you can ever hope for is a general consensus as to what a term means.

Thu, 2015-11-26 16:57

ringring

Adjective Cohesion

I think that we can agree that adding a prefix to a economic system, philosophy or form of government does not change its inherent meaning. Anarcho-Capitalist is still basically just "capitalist". All it really does it change the flavor and add an anti-authority clause. Its fine for adding a little variety to an entrenched landscape, but it should be used judiciously.