Posthumanity and weapons research

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Posthumanity and weapons research
Printer-friendly version



I think transhumanism is a really DANGEROUS development, and research into posthumans AGI etc. should be thought of as akin to the development of new weapons of war. So, would the ICC or anyone here be willing to work with me to try to raise awareness of the dangers of posthumanism, etc.?


If not I'm gonna try finding some green anarchists, locally ! ?


found these guys but they are so reactionary / bourgeoise that i despair :/

deceleration communist :) !

1st draft yo ! P {

1st draft yo !

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }P.western { }

Toward a manifesto of deceleration


“Poetry is not instruments... poetry's part of yourself”


The bourgeoisie is now ruined, a pyrrhic victory of immense significance for the working classes.


The future, or anything worthy of that name, can only be created with a decelerated segmentality. First, we address point by point the brutal end of humanity, acceleration.




On postponement


  1. "All satire is blind to the forces liberated by decay. Which is why total decay has absorbed the forces of satire."


  1. We can no longer speak of crises of capitalism: capitalism is a human crisis.

  2. The future is not a party but working class power, or a catastrophe that dwarfs both the holocaust and the world wars.


  1. "… on the eve of the revolution all the forces of reaction will be against us under the banner of 'pure democracy".

  2. The left wing of capital only works for capital's ruling class.


  1. The future belongs first to the working class, and then humanity. Without that movement, all is lost.


On deceleration


  1. “At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution”


  1. Without an uprising similar to the beginning of the October revolution, acceleration can only bring us closer to hell.


  1. Lines of flight are now static lines of segmentation. How can this be reterritorialised?


  1. We fear not some cataclysmic failure of the economy, but an irreversibly defeated working class. Post-humanity is the most likely agent of this.


  1. The point is to change the world, not modernity.


  2. “Left wing” communists are the proletarian response to the failure of the Russian revolution, Marxists, and the rightful heir of Lenin.


  3. Until capitalism has been overthrown, Communists MUST be decelerationists.


On the future


“All power to the worker's councils”




Decelerationism points to some changes that signify the collapse of the bourgeoisie.


The economy is now a truly global phenomena; capital cannot continue to economically divide the working class along national lines, along with war. But at the same time, our lives under capitalism have been given their highest liberal expression - labour power in itself, in the abstract, the life of any labourer, has an exchange value.


With the concurrent technological changes, ever more socially invasive technology, the “promise” of transhumanism, and so on, a specific form of alienation is being eroded. Existential thinking is not just philosophy but opened up to anyone, and the inauthentic expectation of our own death has currency. The last man is upon us!


Hope lies only in the antagonisms of society returning, as our class alone, the working class, recognizes itself in capital's reaction to the new valuation of life. The terrain of the final class struggle will be resistance to a kind of cyber dystopia, in which technology can penetrate labour power in itself – the objectification of life and species being shared in by all genuinely working people.




The transhumanist movement, assuming enough consciousness to be called anything more than a charge, is a curious mixture of bourgeois politics and radically passive schadenfreude – the expectation of being physically and neurologically better than the Jonses. There is the overwhelming sense of dishonesty, probably due to fear of dying.


Decelerationists believe that the ruin of the bourgeoisie means all that is missing from their historical course is a working class that wholeheartedly believes in the illusion of equality, both now and during the crucial years before the singularity. For this reason the bourgeoisie, contra the equality of the soviets, are losing the capacity to experience feminine jouissance, when the subject merges with the missing object of the Other and becomes one with them. It is indeed schadenfreude that is the mode proper of a ruling class that can no longer actively reproduce its own ideology.


“Schadenfreude originates in the fact that, in certain respects of which he is well aware, everyone feels unwell - is oppressed by care or envy or sorrow: the harm that befalls another man makes him our equal; it appeases our envy. If, on the other hand, he happens to feel perfectly well, he nonetheless gathers up his neighbour's misfortune in his consciousness as a capital upon which to draw when he himself faces misfortune: thus he too experiences schadenfreude.”




On the impossibility of posthuman art


Accelerationists proper believe we are also entering the final phase of art, resistance to post-humanism.


"If the utopia of art was fulfilled, it would be art's temporal end"


Deleuze claims that the last man does not return, in the eternal return of the same, and that reignites the promise of art.. Because that promise, is now a guarantee – that the exchange value of our deaths will collapse. Be that the collapse of civilization itself, or the rupture of communism.


That shift in aesthetics runs parallel to the art-form that technology has revolutionized the most, poetry. But conceptual poetry does not do away with poetry. Despite the wholesale evolution of technique it is purely negative – aside from those terms which are not unique to it but can exist in all art, automatism, non interference, emphasis on the intellect over emotion. What conceptual poetry achieves is the progressive negation not of any of the arts, but art itself, or the possibility of one of the arts being art hithertofore conceived, thereby dissolving the autonomous happiness of poetry.


If that spiritualisation is now impossible, so its gaze can no longer be met. It is an intrusion, like noise. This suggests a new form which is deformed unless it is noise like – unformed; writing that is only writing as writing, justified for the sake of writing. This will dissolve the open form in the same way conceptual poetry does prosody – with its interiority, which is a failure of its own exteriority.


Perhaps Adorno was right that poetry should not be written after Auschwitz, but was 60 years too early. In writing The Waste Land Eliot has his revenge. He fulfils his poetic impulse of fertility, and shores the ruins of his world, in securing poetry even with the failure of religion. Eliot found value, by writing poetry that is modern, perhaps even poetry that reflects the crisis of our time, of the false freedom of the worker and workerism as praxis rather that fetish. Itsexpression in The Waste Land is not only definitive but final: the subversion of metrical form is over – as complete as it ever can be. This makes the spectre of meter in itself subversive, decoupling EAR and BREATH, so that new poetry can be syntactically open but logically coherent. Verse cannot be great art but nevertheless I hope the effort might help the history of poetry articulate with what is always new – noise – in its temporal unfolding.


Now there is no going back for the working class, rhizomatic segments (“school says you're not at home anymore”) are the only way a plane of consistency can appear.


I would not live this life again, unless without you.



sorry lem but what exactly is

sorry my original post was done without really reading anything about it. after having a quick check up on wikipedia i would say that although it may have some applicability to communism it seems to share the bourgeois attitude of disregard for  and hatred of nature and a worship of technology. obviously any attempt to alter human nature with technology under capitalim should be opossed; in communism this wouldn't be a danger because it would be a society in which human nature was no longer the problem it is now, i.e. because communism is a society in tune with human nature and nature generally and not like capitalism a society based on subjegation and repression of human nature/nature. 

yerr sorry if i seem crazy,

yerr sorry if i seem crazy, but it's pretty real... it's not global warming real, but it's real.


it would be a HUGE disaster!

i would've thought SOMEONE

i would've thought SOMEONE would have SOMETHING to say on this