As opposed to your desire to have kings and nobles usurp power and control the masses for their own ends? How is YOUR fantasy any different, Mark?

Straightforward questions—Are YOU yourself a member of this aristocracy, the neo-elitists, that you proudly champion? Why ought people willingly give up their liberties to this particular group (again, who exactly are these leaders again? You know, their names and attributes)? How do YOU know what is best for ME and US?

“He seeks that which is stable, sure, just, and in accordance with nature and nature’s God.”

Patently false. You are no different than any other huckster who claims their political ideology will “save the world from extinction”.

“And it doesn’t matter if your dreams get smashed along the way”

Exactly why the liberty of the human race is directly threatened by this abomination known as the “Dark Enlightenment”.

No, I don’t believe the world is a videogame. It’s a game though.

Even Christians see it as a game. Do the correct things and you get eternal life, do the wrong things and you get eternal torture.

Look, you are anti-Traditional. Your utopian liberal fantasies of genetically altered supermen who colonize the galaxy reads like a bad science fiction novel

Did I say it was utopian? No.

Though you must have some kind of cognitive deficit. If you really believe your kind of people, that is, standard h.sapiens is going to have any say in a world where everyone else is about twice as smart.

You probably don’t know that the Chinese are sequencing genomes of various mathematically gifted individuals right now. It’s very much possible that in forty years time the science and engineering is going to be mature enough so that first seriously genetically modified children are born.

This is all possible and it is going to happen, because whoever pioneers it is going to enjoy great advantages.

And you can’t do a thing about it.

You have no moral axis and so you are lost in space, rambling through the utopian mindset.

Just because I don’t subscribe to your particular kind of biblical morality does not mean I don’t have any moral standards.

But I don’t expect you to understand, nor am I going to waste our time explaining.

However, as I wrote, the majority of the posthuman project is simply the alienation of civilization from any moral axis (specifically in regards to technology) and the gradual obsolescence of much of the human race and human activities such as building families, enforcing sexual standards, raising children, etc

I don’t think it’s the majority.
Sure, there are people who may think that is a good idea, however, there are many who don’t.

Furthermore, the fundamental nature of intelligent life requires family, or family-like structures, so getting rid of it would be stupid, as it has worked fine so far.

There might be other alternatives that can work, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying those out. Nothing wrong with experimentation.

The majority of people enamored with transhumanism are just window-licking wankers who are of no real use to it. Personally, I don’t expect much out of it for precisely the same reason, and because people are by nature overly-optimistic, and anyone unfamiliar with technology is bound to underestimate the complexity of it.

Whatever actually happens will be up to the financial backers of the various research projects, and to the engineers and scientists involved.

“That’s impossible because ‘God’ is an incoherent and self-contradictory concept. Furthermore, the powers traditionally ascribed to God are (mostly) a physical impossibility, and thus cannot be achieved.”

*sigh* Similar idiocy was being spouted on Radish recently. Unfortunately, the Reddit-level internet infidel community sometimes swarms over to the Reactionary right and typically ends up trolling with some oft-quoting of Richard Dawkins and other such clownish snakeoil salesmen.

Look, you are anti-Traditional. Your utopian liberal fantasies of genetically altered supermen who colonize the galaxy reads like a bad science fiction novel, and its cute and all, but they are no different from the usual liberal fantasies of equality and universal suffrage and ending poverty and all of the nations of the earth coming together to hold hands and be one global collective.

“the posthuman project is simply the alienation of civilization from any moral axis (specifically in regards to technology) and the gradual obsolescence of much of the human race and human activities such as building families, enforcing sexual standards, raising children, etc. Those things are as human as breathing in my opinion.”

Precisely. And abolishing humanity has been the liberal end-game from day one, whatever guise you wrap it up in. You have no moral axis and so you are lost in space, rambling through the utopian mindset. I’m sorry to break it to you, but you are going to die one day. No scientist is going to save you from that. Best to start living in the real world before you wake up to find your entire life was wasted dreaming of a human-built paradise. The Reactionary does not dream of paradise. He doesn’t seek to make everyone happy. He seeks that which is stable, sure, just, and in accordance with nature and nature’s God. And it doesn’t matter if your dreams get smashed along the way

Now, I’m sure you’d love to ‘fill me with lead’ or make another reference to Wotan (… seriously… Wotan?). But much like other commenters of such infantile demeanor, you’re just not in the right place. There is a place for your commentary perhaps on the official Star Trek forum, but this is Reactionary politics and philosophy. Wise up.

That’s an interesting question. Right now I’m going to apply it to your comment, which was really damn long for someone who “doesn’t care.” A little piece of Internet – communication advice… people will take you much more seriously if the first thing you write to them doesn’t involve something about wanting to “fill them with lead.

Oh, you misunderstood me. Firstly, I’d have liked to invite that Citadel guy to a duel. Was not that irked with you.

And yeah, by ‘why care’ I meant not that I don’t care (well, I don’t, as the stuff you’re worried about is mostly BS) but that I was expressing an opinion that you, Reed Perry, are worried about all the wrong things. Except for the gov’t by protocol and supercomputing dictatorship of course. The other scenarios you are worried about presuppose the existence of unlimited resources and political will to do or allow stuff that is just too icky for the average person to contemplate for reasons of basic human biology. So, not gonna happen unless some utter psycho somehow becomes permanent planetary overlord. That’s likely, no?

Also, yeah, you’re pretty much wrong. Posthumanism isn’t an attempt to ‘make a god’. That’s impossible because ‘God’ is an incoherent and self-contradictory concept. Furthermore, the powers traditionally ascribed to God are (mostly) a physical impossibility, and thus cannot be achieved.

It’s merely an attempt to obtain more capabilites for mankind. Same as starting to use iron, or taming the horse or instituting laws, or developing the steam engine. All of these were violations of the natural order of things.

Sure, trannies and BM freaks and whatever are disgusting*, but there’s a very easy solution for that: don’t watch news and don’t consume media. Both very healthy choices. I wish I was strong enough never to read another news headline in my life.
But really, it’s like a non-problem to me. There’s much bigger problems, like what the fuck are we going to do with the 1.5 billion Africans in 2090 or so?

*though, to me, trannies, unless they’re hateful like say, that Wu creature, ones just seem sad, most often. Maybe the ones that end up looking passably good can have decent lives, but the others, it seems to they made a huge mistake. So, yeah, they make me sad, mostly.

The BM freaks though. Those are really something. Fucking your own body into something unnatural for weird reasons is just .. perverse.

What are you trying to ‘achieve’?

Me, personally, not much, but there’s a lot of people who’d like for humanity to achieve stuff like, I dunno, indefinite lifespan and consequent possibility of galactic exploration and colonization, fully automated manufacturing, much greater access to energy and so on. All of which require smarter people, and as nature has not seen it fit to provision us with enough smart people, well, why, we’ll just have to make sure there’s more.

Basically what we humans have been doing on Earth except on a bigger scale. And that requires some changes, at the very least much longer lifespans, no cancer and less stupid.

Of course, best to hedge one’s bets and that’s where luddites like you come in.

Man is fine for earthly existence as he is, were he uncorrupted by anti-Traditional forces and governments.

You’re one of those types who during mankind’s early sojourns on the savannah argued with great fervor that we should’ve stayed in the trees.

Basically, I think you’re wrong. You’re arguing for societal and technological stasis. Which, in the context of life is a death sentence. Unless you’re going up you’re going down, and staying in place is going down as it just ensures something’s gonna get you.

Revolutions and all that crap are mistakes, sure, but as a Manhattan project scientist observed : if you’re not making mistakes you are not doing your work.

Also: mankind has a problem and that problem is Peter principle. Each higher stage of social organisation and technological development is more demanding on the base population. As societies and technology become more complex people who evolve way slower become less and less suited for these new developments.

And that’s why it’s all so shitty now, and why it’d be a good idea to use genetic engineering to raise the average intelligence up way up.