What is to you the worst/most terrifying ideology?

[Conscentia]

The thing I hate most about "transhumanism" is its NAME.

Augmentation, cyborgs, living forever yeah yeah bla bla bla
Some of these things may be ethical and others might not be, but that's to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
But don't DARE think that just because you installed an iphone into your brain that makes you somehow "more than human!"

You're just a human with an iphone in your brain.

You could do whatever you wanted to your body and it wouldn't change your blood. You can't be born one species and become another. According to the biological definition of "species," you're not a new "species" until it becomes genetically impossible for you to conceive a fertile child with a member of the human race. Until that day comes, CALL YOURSELVES HUMAN!

"a human with an iphone in your brain" is by definition more than human. It's a human+iphone. The iphone part is an addition which adds more.
Perhaps in the future it may be possible to grow a new body and transfer your mind to it. That new body needn't be another human body.
Also I doubt that any transhumanist claims that human cyborgs aren't human.

[The USOT]

The thing I hate most about "transhumanism" is its NAME.

Augmentation, cyborgs, living forever yeah yeah bla bla bla
Some of these things may be ethical and others might not be, but that's to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
But don't DARE think that just because you installed an iphone into your brain that makes you somehow "more than human!"

You're just a human with an iphone in your brain.

You could do whatever you wanted to your body and it wouldn't change your blood. You can't be born one species and become another. According to the biological definition of "species," you're not a new "species" until it becomes genetically impossible for you to conceive a fertile child with a member of the human race. Until that day comes, CALL YOURSELVES HUMAN!

I am kinda neutral on that position, but there are trends for both the "no longer human" and "still human" camp. It isnt a position I take either way due to my own beleif that the multiple ways of defenition in these cases makes the issue to a full conclusion virtually impossible (IMO). Hell personhood and questions of identity are incredibly common fields of debate within transhumanist advocates.

[Xeng He]

i disagree fundamentally with the principles of radical equality

Would you mean by that "everyone gets the same thing, no matter his labor"?

Because that isn't Zaras' stance.

and abolition of monetary incentives. In terms of the ideal, yes, it's not as horrific as Stalinism. But I think that wholesale revolution of economy, society and government would inevitably lead to the collapse of all three and throw us into an almost Hobbesian state of nature from which it may take many generations to emerge. At least in Stalinism and National Socialism there was some kind of order, as perverted and brutal as the governance of those states was.

You're assuming that the revolution must be wholesale, and not something to be gradually transitioned into.
(Say--for the U.S.--by inceasing the power of local as opposed to federal agencies, allowing workers to elect their bosses, reducing the power availiable to heads of corporations...etc.)

[Augarundus]

Wait... an Objectivist that actually admits objectivism is tyrannical in nature?

ScannersGuy.gif

I assume he's using the "Markets, not capitalism" approach.

[Augarundus]

Works better than Randian bullshit would, at least.

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread, (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism advocates a state.

[Death Metal]

Works better than Randian bullshit would, at least.

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread, (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism advocates a state.

One so ineffectual that it may as well not exist, but yes.

[Meryuma]

Any sort of "I can mistreat you because I am better than you" philosophy flies in the face of every compassionate nerve that makes us human. It's sociopathic narcissism codified.

That's not egoism, though, that's just being a dick. Just because one is pursuing their self-interest doesn't mean that humans suddenly aren't social animals.

-snip-

I wasn't talking about being against theocracy, I'm talking about the old cliche of calling theists adults with imaginary friends or whatever.

[New Rogernomics]

Works better than Randian bullshit would, at least.

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread, (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism advocates a state.

And dry, black and white cake; not very tasty.

[Augarundus]

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread, (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism advocates a state.

One so ineffectual that it may as well not exist, but yes.

Wait, what?

Are you saying that the state is ineffective at accomplishing it's goals or something?

Rand advocates a state with a monopoly on dispute resolution, police, the military, and the ability (at least in the short term) to tax the populace. She was also an advocate of some sort of constitutionally-limited democratic model.

It's not academically responsible to claim that Rand was an anarchist and toss the Objectivist state in with Rothbardian anarcho-liberals.

Just an FYI for everyone in the thread, (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism advocates a state.

And dry, black and white cake; not very tasty.

Hmm?

[Veladio]

Im gonna add to mine: Any ideology that mixes religion with politics.

[Death Metal]

Rand advocates a state with a monopoly on dispute resolution, police, the military, and the ability (at least in the short term) to tax the populace. She was also an advocate of some sort of constitutionally-limited democratic model.

Ah, but when you look at the rest of the Rand mentality; one that promotes a non-altruistic mindset, these things are of no use to anyone. Why be public servant if the good of the public is not something worth serving?

Of course now that I think about it further, the state would either be ineffectual or extremely domineering and driven towards the sole self-gain of those in authority. Neither scenario a pleasant one.

[Faolinn]

[snip] To be honest I don't fear death.Not because my religion offers me heaven, no.It is merely another state of being to me.One that keeps everything balanced and if my death will serve that balance, then I am content with it. I will go to great lengths to preserve my life, but when my time finally comes when I can no longer resist, I will accept my fate.The elders must never hold the new generations back.My death would help to keep the collective consciousness youthful rather than making it to stagnate because my desires and outdated thinking by pressing my desires onto new generations who truly live another world that I cannot really come to know.My death will be proper and necessary. Part of strength is accepting that you not almighty and accepting that you are weak in some way.You cannot hope to truly surpass them if you do not learn to live with and master them in your own way first. [snip]

Ideologies can become really dangerous based on their approach to death.
I take an epicurean view that death is nothing because an end of consciousness is an end of experience, for both good and bad.
So on one hand I don't fear death at all. On the other hand I dislike death because death is non-experiencable and so inherently devoid of all value. A longer life is more chance for me to cram value into my existence. As long as it's possible for me to live more, I WANT to live more. If there's something I can do to live longer, I will do it. On the other hand, If there's nothing I can do, I'll accept my fate quickly because it's not worth wasting one second of my life on anxiety and misery. This ideology grants me a deep reverence for life because I appreciate that it's our only one and we shouldn't squander it.

The way I see it though, if a person has afterlife beliefs this whole harmonious system gets thrown out of whack. A portion of your REAL life is going to get wasted because you think you can put off valuable experiences until the afterlife. That's why puritans especially are so mean and miserable. I've had religious girlfriends tell me that they couldn't value our relationship because they knew they wouldn't meet me in heaven. wtf?

Not for me.I only have one life and if I screw up here I may go to hell, but nothing would be worse for me than knowing that so dishonored myself and betrayed those close to me that I deserve such a fate.The true hell would to be stuck with yourself and your actions for an eternity. A good deed is a reward in and of itself and a pleasant afterlife is more like a badge. A symbol of what you have accomplished.My life is a prayer in the form of actions. I do not follow the ways of the divine because of the promise of reward, but because I believe in the ways, and because I believe they help to guide me in this time on earth.When I die I shall never return to this earth, so the greatest hell I could imagine would be to spend an eternity of knowing I failed in my convictions grievously. That I had failed to create a better life for those who come after me. Heaven would merely be a degree or certificate hanging on the wall to me if I had honored my beliefs here.

[Trollgaard]

Radical transhumanism.

I don't think I can trust people who think humans aren't good enough.

Anti-transhumanism. It is an understatement to say that I don't trust people who would force me to remain in a state where I can be felled by diseases and eventually die because their poor widdle feelings can't handle the fact that humans really aren't good enough.

If you think it's "good enough" to live for an average of less than 100 puny years and die because some part failed on its fucking own with no violence or disaster required to cause that failure, and you do anything to interfere with any technology that could make it so that failure won't happen, that's tantamount to planned murder as far as I'm coming from. Needless to say I find that the absolute worst ideology because its very basis is the perpetuation of human misery and death.

Ha! You need to come to terms with life and accept it.

Humans are good enough.

[Disserbia]

Communism

[The Emerald Legion]

Primitivism.

That and Preservationism.

[Trollgaard]

Primitivism.

That and Preservationism.

Funny, those are two of the better isms out there!

[The Emerald Legion]

Primitivism.

That and Preservationism.

Funny, those are two of the better isms out there!

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

[Faolinn]

Funny, those are two of the better isms out there!

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

Why fuck up the planet so greatly that it will cause terrible problems for future generations?

[Meryuma]

Funny, those are two of the better isms out there!

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

I'll take primitivism's past over your future any day. It's not ideal, but at least it won't destroy itself.

[Xathranaar]

Surely Sadism...?

Beyond that the most terrifying aspect of any and all extreme political ideologies is their tendency to enforce their political agenda as morality.

[The Emerald Legion]

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

Why fuck up the planet so greatly that it will cause terrible problems for future generations?

And how does this relate to either of the two ideologies?

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

I'll take primitivism's past over your future any day. It's not ideal, but at least it won't destroy itself.

Neither will mine. It will simply destroy what came before.

[Death Metal]

Being so stuck in the past you are blind to the future is a good thing now?

I'll take primitivism's past over your future any day. It's not ideal, but at least it won't destroy itself.

You'll understand if people don't want to go to the days of a life expectancy of 30 and bloodletting as a medical practice.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I'll take primitivism's past over your future any day. It's not ideal, but at least it won't destroy itself.

You'll understand if people don't want to go to the days of a life expectancy of 30 and bloodletting as a medical practice.

Actually, you have a life expectancy of around 50 but a 50/50 chance of dying when you are under 5.

Just being pedantic.

[Trollgaard]

You'll understand if people don't want to go to the days of a life expectancy of 30 and bloodletting as a medical practice.

Actually, you have a life expectancy of around 50 but a 50/50 chance of dying when you are under 5.

Just being pedantic.

True dat.

I'll take that over becoming the borg.

[Zaras]

I disagree fundamentally with the principles of radical equality and abolition of monetary incentives. In terms of the ideal, yes, it's not as horrific as Stalinism. But I think that wholesale revolution of economy, society and government would inevitably lead to the collapse of all three and throw us into an almost Hobbesian state of nature from which it may take many generations to emerge. At least in Stalinism and National Socialism there was some kind of order, as perverted and brutal as the governance of those states was.

And you have the fucking nerve to call me politically immature while dragging out the tired Hobbesian bullshit. Yeah, right.