I write this to perhaps pose a question or thought exercise for the individuals on the forum. As anarchists, we often view the goal of the movement to abolish the state thus bringing to an end monopolized force against us and the rights we hold. However, where are we to go from there? Are we to simply stop? I would like to propose to you a march towards egalitarianism of the voluntary nature and to do this I will bring up two paths that can be taken either together or separately for society. First to answer the question or perhaps statement that is going through your mind of the concept of egalitarianism. Are we not all born different? To true, our bodies are different by the nature of our birth. This is where my proposals come into play. It is here that I propose that egalitarianism can be achieve through digitalization of the mind in either the form of digital transcendence [ uploading yourself into a massive institution such as the internet ] or cybernetic brains in which you can change your mind at will into a new body. Thus one can be male/female, young/old, immune to disease, cancer, genetic defects, and ever-lasting. For any animation fans out there, I point you to Ghost in the Shell as a descriptive tool. Given this ability we can be any race, any gender, any age, with no defects except that which is in an individuall’s mind. By breaking down the inability to be anything we desire, we can achieve anything we wish to be and I propose that such a state will lead to an egalitarian one.
Could you clarify what you mean by egalitarianism?
Treating others as equals and being treated as such.
Basically the “let’s make man mechanical, so he will no longer be imperfect” idea.
But if you make man imperfect, he will no longer be man. Man is an analog creature that passes gas, sobs uncontrollably, competes out of jealousy, destroys out of rage, loves out of compassion etc.
You may be able to correct the body, but “correcting” the soul is another matter altogether.
Is man his body or is man his mind?
I propose no change to the consciouness of man apart from the effects that cyberization will have on him or her.
I believe he is the synthesis of the two. Changing one, will change the other. And you will not be left with “man”.
Every socialist and egalitarian (not used as a pejorative, not used against you per se) seeks to change man as a means of freeing him from what is considered undesirable (see Wombatron, universal values/flourishing).
What is desirable and undesirable in man, can be reflected in your free market, voluntary relationships with other men. It is completely subjective.
Our body is merely a vassal. Our mind, our consciousness is what truly devises us. If we were to leave this vassal and be in another, our consciousness would be affected no doubt because our actions will have effects. However, will we still retain humanistic qualities if we retain a humanistic consciousness?
We dismiss legal inequality and propose a egalitarian theory of rights that are imbued in all men. Why should we be so ambivalent in social inequality?
I think we are getting into utilitarian ethics and departing from natural law [ it is not a travesty to do such but I thought you were against utilitarianism so I thought it wise to inform you ] If we are to be natural rights theorists that believe in an objective right then we must propose that following that right is desirable and beneficial to the individual. I forget what the dilemma is called but individuals are not obligated to follow a moral if they can’t achieve such status. If desirability is completely subjective then there will be no achievement towards objective natural law/rights.
a mind is an emergent property of your body (brain). you are wishing to have a mind be the emergent property of a silicone based system (i.e. computer/robot) rather than a carbon one (organic computer). whats the big deal here?
anarchistcain have you read Transmetropolitan ?
Or is the body merely property of the mind? Does the mind not control the body? Does not use imply ownership?
I’m wishing for a society in which egalitarianism is a result due to ability to change our natural body at will. Any mind could be in any body therefore the individual cannot be judged by superficial means which is really what xenophobia, racism, sexism, ageism etc really is.
No I haven’t.
there are characters in transmetropolitan that have migrated to machine form etc. its also great fiction.
the body is an object with or without an emergent mind. any dead body will reveal this secret :-).
there is feedback between the base system and the emergent system this is not disputed.
i only meant to draw your attention to the fact that the mind is necessarily emergent, but emergent from material. in our case organic brain matter, in future robot case on inorganic computer matter. don’t kid yourself that when you are divorcing yourself from your ‘body’, you aren’t attaching yourself to another kind of body.
Utilitarianism is just a particular expression of value preferences.
Right now, I’m not in the n/r camp. I need to do a lot more thinking about it.
I don’t know this.
*sorry slow to reply, the website won’t load for me 75% of the time.
As a wouldbe AI theorist I will state that which makes a man a man is the fact that he exists imperfect both in space (of want of things/values) and time (of want/need to acquire things/values). Making him out of silica won’t change that fact. All it will do is shift the value scale away from cheeseburgers to electricity (in terms of the concept of hunger for sustenance).
Species evolve. What “man” is need not be completely fixed …
A worthy goal, then. But, I’m not sure that transhumanism solves the problem, for 2 reasons.
First, you specifically say that you are assuming no changes in psychology, only physiology. However, the root of the social problems that you want to solve is ultimately psychological; people seeing some other class of people as inferior. The change that is needed is the change in widely-held values that lead to the various forms of oppression and authority (including statism, I would argue).
Second, you assume that everyone will become a transhumanist, something that I find unlikely. Thus, even assuming that uploading and body modification erases social inequality, those who don’t engage in such behavior haven’t changed; all you’ve done is given the bioconservatives a new class of people to hate.
Overall, I am skeptical of purely technological solutions to social problems. Technology definitely has a role in social change (just look at what the Internet is doing for inforrmation distribution, and what 3D printers may do for some kinds of manufacturing), but I would argue that it is a secondary one.
This is is highly speculative…
Anyways … if software is more important than hardware somehow, then migrating to a hardware that doesn’t self-destruct (like human bodies do) seems to be a radical change …
Assuming machines can have minds … An interesting question is … what happens when individual minds/machines are networked ? Do the individuals dissapear ? Would that be real communism/collectivism ? =P
Wouldn’t the elimination of unique qualities eliminate the division of labour?
Equal results is not what I’m aiming for; in fact, I like that some people are more capable than others.
The goal of socialists world wide. Economic chaos. Interchangeable people.