Sign In

Remember Me

Valkyrie Ice Review of Hank Hyena’s “Inventing Utopia” E-Book

Hank and I have had a complicated relationship, which anyone who has read his articles here on H+ and over on IEET might be familiar with. I started out being an avid supporter of his in such early articles such as in-vitro meat, and sex-bots, and a regular commenter on his many others. Since then, our relationship has at times seemed to be openly antagonistic as I’ve disputed some of his articles, such as the “Value of Israel to Transhumanism.” But while I might disagree with many things Hank has had to say over the years, one thing I cannot say about him is that he is afraid to look at the world as it is, and talk about how we should change to make it a better place. In this regard, Hank is the kind of transhumanist supporter we need more of. He’s not someone who’s only willing to make a prediction that I would view as “safe”, i.e. one which is non-threatening, or offensive, or which sugar-coats reality to make a pretty picture. As such, he’s a futurist I respect, despite our differences of opinion.

But those differences do exist, and in some ways, Hank’s visions of the future strike me as being as far fetched and ignorant of the realities of human nature as the dreams of a child. I love Hank’s visions of the future, I just don’t see them coming to pass in the ways he envisions, and indeed, some of them I would say are as dystopian as the worst visions of Gibson. We’ve had some rather heated arguments in the discussions of many of his articles, many of which were recently published in his new e-Book “Inventing Utopia”. That’s why I was surprised when Hank asked me to write a review for it. Hank could have asked someone who’s only going to sing his praises, but he’s not interested in simple agreement. He wanted my analysis as “one of his regular opinioned readers,” even after I warned him to be careful what he wished for.

The book is divided into four sections, each section covering a selection of his many articles, and which offer a view into Hank’s belief systems. The first section – “Estrogen Rising” – covers his radical support of feminism. I am in agreement with Hank that equality offers enormous benefits to society, and his article on the “Social Benefits of Feminism” is one of those rare pro-feminism arguments which present hard facts in the form of statistics. It’s about as simple and straightforward as it’s possible to get, EQUALITY BENEFITS EVERYONE. The problems arise when Hank goes beyond equality to female domination.

Which is pretty much what “Ova-Fusion”, the next essay is about. It discusses the fusion of two female eggs to produce a normal female mouse. It’s a fantastic development, one which will eventually allow two women to reproduce, and which could also eventually lead to a means to allow two men to reproduce as well, though that will likely take a much longer time to research. It’s a development which will eventually lead to any two people being able to reproduce regardless of gender, something which in my view promotes equality for all. But Hank instead used it to launch a tirade against men, and how with this development, we could eliminate the male entirely from society. While he’s not specifically calling for a war to eliminate men, his article indicates his deep dislike of the male gender. He continues in this vein in the next article “Women only leadership” in which he paints men as solely being warlike, and woman solely as peaceful. While I cannot disagree with his contention that we should seek leaders who think with their heads and not with their hormones, the behaviors he condemns exist in both genders, and as such are not “male specific”, the same goes for his article on rape prevention, which again, overlooks entirely the existence of female-female rape, female-male rape, and male-male rape. We both agree that rape needs to stop, period, but Hank seems blind to the fact that rape is not solely perpetrated by men on women, but is a domination tactic used to prove “superiority” over another.

This is where Hank and I have our greatest areas of disagreement. Like too many other “partisan” supporters of an “ism”, he’s blinded himself to the “evils” perpetrated by the “side” he supports, and as such, has passed beyond supporting equality, and into supporting “exceptionalism.” Exceptionalism is a far too common excuse used by one group or another to explain why everyone else should play by one set of rules, and they should be allowed to play by entirely different ones. You see it happening every day, with wealthy people rarely going to jail for crimes a poor person would spend years imprisoned for. You see it with various minorities demanding “privileges” that only “they” should be allowed, or corporations demanding laws which will prevent small businesses from competing with them, or prevent the public from using technologies which bypass their chokehold on particular products. It’s one of the true great evils of our world, and one which we MUST overcome to create a world of true equality, but Hank has never seemed to understand that equality cannot exist so long as one group is allowed to be “more equal” than everyone else. We both agree that women need equality, and that equality is beneficial to the world, Hank just can’t seem to understand that equality doesn’t mean a reversal of gender power structures, but the creation of a world in which neither side is “in power.”

Which is why I am surprised the last article in this section – “Artificial wombs” – was not yet another attack against men, but a fairly straightforward discussion of the advantages that could be possible with artificial wombs in freeing society from the hardships of child birthing. Like ova fusion, this is a technology which offers great promise to males and females alike, giving gay men the ability to reproduce with their partners without the need of a surrogate mother. After the extreme anti-male tone of his previous articles, I can only assume Nikki Olson, his co-author, toned him down a bit, making this a fairly egalitarian article.

Moving on to his next section “Future Friendly Nations” Hank does a pretty good job of researching his facts and figures, with his article on Korea showing how possible it could be that Korea could become an economic superpower as a technology friendly nation which is far ahead of most others in embracing the future. He also illustrates the value of Brazil and the role it could play in replacing America as the “food basket of the world”. His article on Denmark is also well researched and illustrates why it should be a model to inspire the rest of the world in equality and freedom. All in all, they are good examples of how America is not “the only place that matters” as too many other futurists seem to think. They provide good examples of how the Singularity is something being worked towards worldwide. In fact, of all the articles in this section, there’s only one I have an issue with. The one which started my and Hank’s “disagreements.”

Understand, I think his article on Israel is just as well written and just as valuable as the others. He did a fine job illustrating the technological achievements of the nation, it scientists, and its contributions to the world. But, once again, Hank’s inability to understand the concept of exceptionalism shows all too clearly. How? Because Hank pins all these achievements solely on the religion of the nation, and he makes a case for the religious “superiority” for Judaism. As such, I cannot condone his statements, because religions are among the worst of the “exceptionalists” who demand “special consideration” and “greater equality” for “true believers” than they will tolerate for “non-believers.” Like his stance on feminism, I cannot support a “greater than equal” exception for one religion over another.

Which finally brings us to my favorite section, “Lifestyle Tomorrow.” Why is this my favorite? Because these are the articles which made me one of Hank’s fans. As a succubus to be, I can’t help but love Hank’s hedonistic worldview. “Eight ways In-vitro Meat will Change Our Lives” is the very first article by Hank I ever read, and you will find I wrote probably half of all the comments made on it at H+ magazine. His willingness to even cover such “silliness” as “dinoburgers” made of cloned dinosaur tissue, or “self cannibalism” through cloning your own tissues for meat showed his willingness to step out of the bounds of conventionality and include the exotic, and even weird, in his view of the future. His straight forward defense of “recreational robots” in “Sexbots Will Give Us Longevity Orgasms” through showing the health benefits of daily sexual exercise follows many of my own views about the ridiculous hang ups various social ideologies have left the human race crippled with. While we disagree with the acceptableness of “loving” a sex-bot, mainly on my side due to the possible therapeutic effects such a relationship could have on the emotionally traumatized victims of those social ideologies, we both agree that sex-bots will both be inevitable, and valuable to the future of humanity.

Then there’s “Hey Kids! Don’t forget to Take My Brain Out of the Freezer,” a humorous look at the difficulty of explaining Cryogenics and Life extension technology to children who are inundated with the “deathist” memes that permeate our current world. As a member of the Immortality Institute, I’ve had similar conversations with adults who simply cannot wrap their heads around the concept that death is a disease, not an inevitability. My favorite line is about him wanting his next body to be a “young gymnastic Icelandic woman who can have 15 orgasms per night.” (Yes, I know. I’m a succubus, of course it made me lick my lips in anticipation. Get over it. XPPPPP )

His next article is another of my fav’s, though I can’t seem to find it on the H+ site anymore. “Get Naked: It’s Good for Your Brain” was a fun look at why being naked has health benefits. I’m sad to say that the majority of objections to the article had almost no actual merit, but were mainly about not wanting to see ugly people naked, or religious objections based on concepts like “nakedness is a sin”. While I disagree with Hank that nakedness could become normal, it’s not because of any factual errors on his part, merely that I think human nature will keep clothes around for decoration long after we’ve rendered the human body immune to all environmental harm and overcome the idiotic notions that sex is a “sin” or that the human body is “shameful.”

“Happy Morning in Hedonista” is simply a fun read that puts all these pieces together into a future scenario that is fairly plausible, though it’s also rather limited as it merely covers things Hank had talked about previously. Several clever commentaries in the discussions added immensely to the fun. It’s a pity that the book can’t include them.

And now we come to the last section: “Predictions and Proposals.” In this section, Hank discusses some of his ideas about what we can do to improve the world, as well as some events he thinks are likely to occur. In “State by State Gay Marriage Acceptance” he covers the statistics that support the likely legalization of gay-marriage over the next few decades. Considering the recent events in NY, it seems overly pessimistic. In “Human GPS and Microchipping” he discusses the pros and cons of human RFID tags and their likely inevitability. In “Tax the Churches and Give the Revenue to Hungry Children” he confronts the hypocrisy of “religious tax exemption” and makes a strong case for eliminating one enormous example of “exceptionalism” which gives me hope that eventually he’ll realize that no group can be allowed to “be an exception” to the laws which govern society.

And in “Egalitarian Planet: Five Proposals to Elevate Society by Ending Disparity” he asks the question “Is inequality the primary cause of human suffering? Does disparity in wealth, power, opportunity, and education inevitably lead to despair and social discontent?” which is something I believe he should consider himself given the criticisms I have given to the articles above. Exceptionalism is ALL ABOUT creating these very disparities which he shows quite well ARE detrimental to the future of the human race. In the cases I discussed above, Hank has overlooked the fact that he has advocated creating exactly these kinds of disparities by placing certain groups and ideologies into the roles of “exceptions” to everything else he stands for. As much as I’d love to expand on my own contribution to this article, I’m going to content myself with merely recommending you read this article carefully, and then go the IEET and read the full range of commentary.

Which brings us to the last article, and undoubtedly, the most controversial: “Ban Baby Making Unless Parents are Licensed.”

I’m adopted. I was an unwanted child. I was one of the lucky ones who actually WAS adopted. I have worked in convenience stores where I have watched parents put the milk for their kids back so they could buy their alcohol. I have watched parents ignore their child’s screaming hysterics because they simply couldn’t be bothered. I have seen parents set their kids in front of the TV and ignore them. I have seen case after case of abuse, or simple neglect by people who did not want kids, don’t know how to be a parent, and who had one simply because they failed to use a contraceptive.

I freely admit to being biased. I agree 100% with Hank. I think couples who have children that they can’t or won’t take care of should be involuntarily sterilized. I have no illusions about the seething raw hatred I have of people who condemn an innocent child to a life of hell just because they wanted to fuck. It’s one of the worst travesties we’ve allowed to happen on this planet, the allowance of childhood suffering simply because we’re too afraid to insist that someone has at least a minimum level of training to raise a child, or a minimum level of ability to support a child. We NEED licensing and education.

But we’re not going to ever see it happen, because of idiotic religious ideas and even stupider people who think that a baby is a “ticket to happiness.” As good an idea as licensing is, we will never see it occur because there is no way to enforce it that does not violate people’s free will to do with themselves as they wish.

And in the end, I have to satisfy myself that it will become a moot issue in the near future when we create the ability to reversibly sterilize ourselves to prevent any possible accidental pregnancies unless BOTH PARTIES voluntarily chose to deliberately create a child. It’s not going to stop all of the problems Hank outlined so well, but it will certainly eliminate the “accidents,” and as we move into a world of unlimited choice, in which our bodies become merely another “decoration” and our gender becomes a matter of personal preference, maybe we’ll finally see a day in which every child is wanted, and human life is considered too precious to leave in the hands of untrained and incompetent morons.

So, in conclusion, while flawed, there is much to value in Hank’s writings. I highly recommend reading them, and support Hank’s future contributions to transhumanism by purchasing your own copy of this entertaining, and usefully infuriating, book.

28 Comments

  1. Hi Valkyrie

    I have never read the book but reading Hank’s articles online I really don’t need to. I do agree that yes the male human gender could use some improvements but in no way do I advocate the elimination of the male human gender from society. I think its arrogant and unethical to even suggest such a thing men are not perfect but who is men are still human beings and have just as much right to exist as any other group of human beings.

    Also I would like to ask you if its OK is there someone I can talk to in more detail about these particular topics I am new to transhumanism and would like to talk to more people who are active in it and know more about it.

  2. On the subject of licensed parenthood; while I agree with the idea of basic training for parents-to-be and possibly the evaluation of their competence for the job, licensing leads to a lot of problems. Control over who gets to breed inevitably raises the question of who doesn’t get to have kids? People who don’t pass the course? People below a certain economic threshold? People with mental or physical disabilities? People of a certain race or belief? It’s a good concept, but there would have to be a greater limit to the power such a licensing organism could have.
    As for involuntary sterilization… not only does it not respect the rights and dignities of the individual, but it smacks a bit too much of the nazi regime.

  3. By the way, I should note that I suffer no delusions about women being more charitable and essentially being the better humans. They are less violent for sure, but that doesn’t make them benign creatures under the sun.

    Women have their own selfish and evolutionary preprogrammed agendas, which just happen to not include violent competition over reproductive rights. This is not about condoning and condemning either gender, we are what we are and we have to go from there.

  4. – Rape is not primarily a tactic of dominance or showing superiority, but a means for forced reproduction.

    Not every victim of rape is a woman in her reproductive age, but the statistics clearly show that that is what rape is most usually aimed at. Exceptions exists, but quantitatively they are well… the exception.

    Despite being male myself, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint that males are in essence obsolete – not because of some ideology but simply because it’s true based on what I know of biology.

    Do you know why there are two different genders in the first place? Basically it amounts to simple game theory: Either your reproductive cells are good at nourishing (eggs) or good at finding other reproductive cells (sperm). Anything in between is less efficient than either specialization, so you end up with immobile eggs and fast sperm.

    In most species that have two different genders the males are a complete waste of resources – their only accomplishment in life is to out-compete their rivals and inject their genetic material into a willing (or sometimes unwilling) female. Male humans aren’t that much of a waste fortunately and a strong case could be made that not having to care for children was an absolute necessity to build up a civilization in the first place – but males have to be evaluated for their usefulness in the present and future, not our sentimental gratitude for their accomplishments in the past.

    On the other hand I would also suggest doing away with females and dropping the gender business altogether. If someday we aren’t based on organic biology, then reproduction will be completely trivial and the concept of being female wouldn’t make any more sense than being male.

    • Sorry, but the overwhelming number of rape cases are not about forced reproduction. It’s used world wide to enforce male dominance. Most rapists don’t desire children, they want SEX, and the violence is part of the thrill.

      You might wish to recheck those “statistics” since they seem to contradict the overwhelming majority of statements made from rapists themselves.

      • What rapists say is irrelevant. Not because they are rapists, but simply because people usually don’t understand their own motivations – people want something first and if asked why, they simply rationalize and dream up plausible explanations for their desires or their behavior. Most rapists wouldn’t realize that their vile desire has reproductive reasons, just like couples usually don’t think about babies when having sex.

        I got my statistics from a book titled “Rape” and there were plenty of different statistics that drove home the point that rape is primarily an attempt at forced reproduction.
        I can’t recount all of them, but one example I clearly remember would be a pretty disgusting statistic that went something like this: “comparing the times rapists came inside women of reproductive age vs. came inside women/others that can’t reproduce” – the result of the analysis clearly indicated an underlying reproductive agenda.

        By the way I don’t know if you consider yourself a feminist, but interestingly I had this very same discussion before with a self-identifying feminist, and I was just amazed at the insane monkey logic she tried to employ to stay her course that “rape has nothing to do with reproduction and is solely a strategy of sadists to display their dominance over others”.

        Come on, you’re an intelligent person, you should clearly be able to see how rape is a reproductive strategy permeating the entire animal kingdom -including all of our closest primate relatives (with the possible exception of gorillas). Of course male rapists wouldn’t realize that consciously – but we should.

        I’m not saying every kind of rape (prison, girl vs. girl) has reproductive underpinnings, but usually male-vs-female rape clearly does.

        • PS: By the way, the reason why I ask if you’re a feminist is because she used pretty much exactly the same sentence:

          “Rape is used to enforce male dominance”.

          What the hell does that even mean, I can’t even wrap my head around it?! Do you really believe a rapist thinks something like “yeah, all those goddamn snooty women, I’ll show this one who’s boss” instead of presumably something like “damn she’s hot, I want to have sex with her…”.

          Rape as a means to enforce male dominance? That does not make any sense. At all.

          • Again, it seems we shall have to disagree. I can only base my statements on evidence, not beliefs I project onto people.

            Which is pretty much what you did the moment you chose to dismiss the anecdotal evidence from rapists. The motivations expressed are almost universally about “empowerment” and “superiority”, not reproduction. I strongly recommend you actually look into the psychological literature, in which enormous amounts of data support this conclusion.

            • I explained already why self-reported motivation is so low on the hierarchy of “evidence” that it hardly even registers. People often don’t know why they do things, they just think they do. If you ask them, they’ll just rationalize answers out of thin air – people are clueless and insights from introspection are useless for basing a theory on them.

              Personally, I never ever think about reproduction either when having sex with my girlfriend, yet I realize that reproduction is precisely the reason why I’m so driven to have sex. I’m not having sex because I want to reproduce, I want sex because I want sex. For sex to be about reproduction, that does not require me (or any other animal) to realize on any level that I do it for blatantly procreative reasons.

              In the same vein, rapists want sex because they want sex. Of course they don’t report doing it for reproductive reasons… if you asked any (non-religiously-indoctrinated) couple why they have sex, they’d come up with some answer that is probably not about reproduction either. If someone approached me and asked why I have sex, I’d reply “because it is fun”, not because I want to make a bazillion little toddlers.

              The sick mind of a rapist may very well get a kick out of the power he has over his victim and enjoy the feeling of dominance in the process… but that is not the fundamental reason why the rapist is raping people.

              • Sorry Oro. I’ll go with the professional psychologist’s reports over your opinion.

                • There’s psychologists and there’s psychologists. Do you have any particular studies in mind right now that warrant your view? If so please share.

                  I believe your interest in this topic won’t be strong enough to warrant reading a whole book on this topic, but you may want to check out the following link and just thumb through a few pages that seem like they may interest you.

                  http://books.google.com/books?id=xH6v-nB6EegC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

                  (Don’t pay attention to the ambiguous reviews, the bad ones are mostly people who make the natural fallacy of confusing a description of how the world is for a description for how it should be – and so they rant as a consequence. It’s not a perfect book and has some holes, but some time ago when I read roughly half of it, I judged it to be “solid research”. I used that book as a complement to an earlier edition of this one: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-New-Science-Mind/dp/020501562X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311511670&sr=1-2

                  I remember we had an argument about climate change, when I vented my frustration that people love to talk endlessly about things they have no bloody clue about. I also accused you of being one of those people based on the sense I got from the way you expressed your views on climate change. I remember you were aggravated that most people to whom you mention your own stance on this issue (“CC is partially man-made and partially natural”) dismiss it and go ape-shit via claiming “it’s our fault all the way!”. And I believe in the course of that argument you also mistook me for some kind of denialist, although I thought I made clear that my opinion is that I’m too ignorant of climate change to have an opinion, which is why I put my trust into whichever position the majority of reputable climate researchers agrees on. And right now you are making the same mistake you accuse people of, who criticize your “partially natural” position on CC – namely by denying that rape has a (at least some!) component that is about reproduction. From the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, the position that rape has nothing to do with reproduction is just flat-out mental.

                  I should also mention that I study psychology at a university myself and I am painfully aware that “what people self-report about their motivations” isn’t evidence but poo on a stick. If there is any psychologist out there who ever mistakes “he said that’s why he did it” for “the underlying complex reasons why he actually did it”, then that’s just one stupendously incompetent psychologist.

                  • Then, Oro, explain to me why normally hetero-sexual males in prison become home-sexual rapists. There has been significant studies done of this reality, and not one single bit of has to do with reproduction.

                    However, while I do admit my psychology courses were almost 20 years ago, my statements are taken directly from the textbooks, and not a single study.

              • my opinion, which is controversial enough – is that rape is generally about sexual desire. That’s what I think. I don’t think it is about Dominance or Reproduction. I believe the entire notion that rape is about Dominance was advanced, for the first time, by feminist theorists about 30-40 years ago. Before that, it was overwhelmingly regarded to be about Lust.

  5. Cannot say that I have read the book, but I feel I must, seeing as how
    Valkyrie Ice has reviewed it.

    • Yes, you must read it – the book is actually called “Invent Utopia Now” and the author’s name for this publication) is Hank Pellissier

  6. You’re wrong that we’re not going to ever see involuntary sterilzation because of religious ideas and stupidity. Here in the United States we have a long and deplorable history with the practice. Maybe you should look that up.

    You seriously need to rethink the idea of “licenscing” parents. Its an atrocious idea. You cannot foresee unintended consequences of having some bureaucratic agency overseeing your decision to have a child? Maybe one day they decide your decision to raise your child as an atheist makes you an unfit mother and tie your tubes. The possibilities are terrifying. Look at history. Freedom is what we need not totalitarianism.

    • If you’ll note, I DID say I couldn’t see a way of licensing which did not violate the individuals free will.

      As much as I wish we could insure that parents knew what the fuck they were doing before condemning a child to a life of misery, it’s opposed to the exercise of free will. The reason I advocate “Personal choice, reversible sterility” (i.e. you have control over your OWN fertility) is because it will prevent any single person from making a child without the willing consent of an informed partner. No, “hey, you knocked me up, now cough up the cash sucker”, no “I can’t be bothered to wear a condom, and I don’t care that I’ve left 12 kids in misery”

      This prevents “accidental” procreation, while maintaining individual freedom.

    • I just talked to a midwife last night about this topic — she recently helped a drug addict give birth to her 5th child. She didn’t keep any of the babies and doesn’t know where they are now and doesn’t care. I suggest you re-think your strong stance on this topic.

  7. the less worse program (nothing will be changed for big companies) but not so good on TV it seems, too old in my opinion (oh god, jospin lost his last election for sayong something like that, how could i do ?) même si je l’aime pas je veux la croire sur parole, elle est magistrate financière (par contre josé bové dont je connais pas les idées en ce moment était excellent la dernière fois que je l’ai vu à la télé, pas du tout comme au début)

    Des lunettes rouges, évidemment. Et en forme de cœurs. C’est ce qu’a choisi de chausser Cécile Duflot pour saluer la victoire d’Eva Joly à la primaire de l’écologie.

    L’ex-magistrate l’a emportée avec 13 223 voix (58,16%) face à Nicolas Hulot (41,34%), qui a réuni moins de voix qu’au premier tour. Les résultats ont été proclamés ce mardi après-midi à la Bellevilloise (Paris XXe).

    Pour son premier discours de candidate désignée, l’ex-magistrate a fait l’impasse sur le rituel « Vive la République, vive la France ! »

    Parce que son « Vive l’écologie ! » contient déjà tout cela ? Sans doute aussi parce qu’elle ne fera pas applaudir n’importe qu’elle République, n’importe quelle France.

    Sa République, ce sera la VIe :

    scrutin proportionnel (like in brasil if i’m not wrong, which is good for rightists here)

    parité,

    droit d’initiative populaire,

    droit de vote pour les étrangers.

    « La France des accents et du sang mêlé »
    Quant à la France, elle entend l’incarner. Son accent a suscité des railleries ? Elle veut croire qu’il sera « la marque du rayonnement de la France », un atout pour comprendre et représenter :

    « la France des accents et du sang mêlé »,

    « la France des banlieues, des chômeurs, des petits salaires »,

    « la France qui n’accepte pas les discriminations et les ghettos »…

    L’identité de ce pays, articule-t-elle, n’est pas définie par la « nostalgie d’un âge imaginaire » mais par « un projet ».

    On dirait Renan revisité par Diam’s. On dirait Sarko récitant du Guaino.

    Elle poursuit :

    « C’est la première fois que se présente à l’élection présidentielle une Française qui est née et a grandi à l’étranger. Ce pays était pour moi un rêve. Je suis française par choix et par conviction. »

    Face à « la droite libérale » et « la gauche productiviste », elle veut hisser EELV, « moteur de la gauche », au rang de deuxième parti du pays. Comme en Allemagne. Entrevoit-elle déjà une Europe où le « noyau » franco-allemand serait piloté par des Verts et des Grünen ?

    Pour proclamer ses certitudes, elle brandit une double légitimité : son « combat contre la criminalité financière » et son statut de première candidate choisie par une aussi large base dans l’histoire de l’écologie politique en France. (Voir la vidéo)

    « Plus d’affaire Tapie, plus d’affaire Karachi »
    Elle déroule son programme et enfile les slogans :

    « Passer d’une société jetable à une société durable », parce que la croissance n’est « pas une réponse au chômage et à la pauvreté », mais fait partie d’une logique qui « maltraite les hommes » et « la planète » ;

    « Retrouver l’esprit de la République » et démontrer que « l’éthique est possible même à la tête de l’Etat ». Avec elle à l’Elysée, « il n’y aurait plus d’affaires, plus d’affaire Tapie, plus d’affaire Karachi » ;

    « Relever la tête face à impunité de la finance » et faire de la France « le fer de lance de la lutte contre les paradis fiscaux et la corruption » ;

    « Rendre aux Français le pouvoir » et refuser « que les grandes décisions soient tranchées en catimini avec grandes entreprises et les grandes banques ».

    La candidate parle d’Europe et de nucléaire. Salue la mémoire de René Dumont et l’engagement Nicolas Hulot. Et envoie ses électeurs évangéliser :

    « Allons dire que la couleur verte est celle de l’espoir ! »

    Elle descend du podium.

    Stéphane Hessel, l’homme qui a cru qu’Hulot pourrait transformer en voix les indignations populaires et l’avait « convaincu de se présenter », adresse à la championne du jour un joyeux bravo.

    Sur le bout de son nez : les lunettes rouges qu’il vient d’emprunter à « Eva ». (Voir la vidéo du clip de campagne)

  8. de toute façon j peux dire ce que je veux, comme dit mon père, avant trente cinq ans on est pas crédibles.

    Hello Michael,

    Do you wish to publish this with the picture attached ?

    French Politics and Transhumanism

    As all of you know, presidential elections will be running in 2012 in the US, which is not the subject of this article, but also in France. As a transhumanist, I’m wondering how our interests might be best served in the process of this competition. Although it seems highly improbable that any of the French candidates will try to win this election on the basis of Kurzweilian expectations from the future, and honestly, that this election would have any real bias over the historical tendencies struggling in the “extropian-distopyan-cosmist-turing-churchist” perspective, it’s still funny to imagine what are those folks losing their time for.

    Of course, even irrelevant, the political subject is a hot topic among transhumanist hard working futurist community. Some think that Ray Kurzweil is about to take the control of a post-deïstic empire in the middle east (he doesn’t have much choice) while some others think Chinese might already have found the magic formula for building an AGI and many other weird stuff is going under the lines of all those commenting here (some say that Larry Page already uploaded).

    Our concern here will be the French political agenda, and for those who think cheese lovers can’t think you’ll find some international extrapolations at the end of the article that you can understand without having read the whole block.

    Hey, don’t be afraid, I won’t talk about Dupont Aignan or Boutin, just the main ones ! So we have Sarkozy, the right wing leader, in front of a bunch of socio-democrats who according to the last polls might win, which is quite unexpected since they didn’t propose anything yet. Sarkozy is famous even out of France I guess, so I won’t repeat things that you already know. Three facts that are enough to describe him : when he saved those children taken in hostage, when he married Carla Bruni, when he asked the French Doctor to be his foreign affairs minister. As you see, I like the man (I will give my opinion here if you don’t mind). Just another fact to describe the political family he belongs to : he tried to make his son President of one of the biggest public real estate institution of Paris whereas this son did not even completed his first year of law university : yes, neo-bourgeois rightists are not afraid of shame. (Take it as a joke, if I were his son, I would change my name, haircut and find a job in a Chinese factory).

    In front of him what do we have ? According to this last poll (which was funded by yahoo!). First we have Ségolène Royal, famous for being the happiest loser in the last election and trying to become some kind of American-style leader at the moment, with a lot of show and a so-called “direct-democracy” stance through her internet site “désirs d’avenir”. Not mentioning that I’m a leftist (my transhumanist goals are the only point of view of this analyze) I think I would not like the girl, as she appears to be afraid of journalists, but she is so pretty you know, and she has the same power as Sarkozy that she has already blurred the frontiers between right and left, to speak simply, she is a Lamarckian and that’s a strong advantage as you will see. Another candidate that we must mention is her ex-husband François Hollande (he wins 60/40 in the last poll against Sarkozy my god !). Very strange that he is back on the political panorama since many would have said that his lack of nerves in the media was too visible for him to compete the french hard party jokers. In my opinion he has no chance. Why ? In the Assemblée Nationale he is one of my preferred, he is strong, smart, clear, direct and so on. But, in the media, he speaks in a strange “gay” manner (in the bad sense of it – I came into transhumanism hoping to be the first travelot deputy by the way, but dressed by Christian Dior !) which in my opinion is not only a bad strategy (not everyone can pretend to be a feminine boy) but reveals something very deep : he thinks children are stupid. Of course I’m biased about this since my father told me since I’m six years old that I’m an “adult” (he was laughing of it already at the time and I already understood at the time that he was just amused not being able to get to any other conclusion !)

    Ok, so here we are, which candidate or party will serve best our interests ? To answer this, even if its highly improbable, let’s see which one would/could defend a transhumanist program. A priori, both, as we know transhumanism is going far beyond political or religious agenda with imperatives such as post-scarcity, absolute freedom or elite-control. But let me give you the insight of the marketing pioneer that I claim to be (ahah). The question about transhumanism is : how fast will we become biologically immortals ? This is the only question that many of you have in mind of course. Face it : the world will not change all of a sudden and the right has the advantage (which seems to me to be enough to say : Sarkozy will win the 2012 election) of not lying to people. Oh, of course they do, but it’s their only philosophy, so it’s like if they don’t. So, for example, if they say “We will give Aubrey de Grey this amount of money” people won’t say “you should give more instead of buying stupid cars” because they know that rightists are so ashamed that they “want” to die somehow. Whereas leftists, in the “End of the World” scenario of an official proposal to Aubrey de Grey to become Minister of Health if they win, will be confronted to their past.

    Let me be clear, those considerations are only interesting in the French context. For example in Brasil it’s completely different, instead of killing Lula they elected him (in France leftists never made the truth about Pierre Bérégovoy) so I guess they could easily push-up a moderate cosmist-communist program and win (about rightists there, I guess they are less abstract theory oriented than French people but for sure I’d rather marry a girl from their family than a French rightist one, for the human culture especially – although I suspect being born in Brasil requires much more strength than I do have as a French).

    So what ? My only suggestion for Ségolène Royal is that she just labels her movement as rightist in a half-joke manner, and I swear she may have a chance then to beat Sarkozy. But, as things are today, Sarkozy keeps being my best bet. How can I say this as a leftist ? For the goal of a world-government, which is something I personally support, rightists of France are still leftist compared to American, Chinese, Russians and so on, so it’s better to reduce the gap.

    You might still be wondering : but what the hell this man thinks that we care about his opinions ? Well, I don’t have a clue either, that’s why I wanna transcend myself, even through death if it’s the only option available !

    2011/7/11 Michael Anissimov
    – Afficher le texte des messages précédents –

    kym.jpg
    37 Ko Afficher Télécharger

  9. Hi Valkyrie — thanks for the review. I am glad to get your opinion – It is valuable because I might restructure the book — the “feminist” info is presently located in the first chapter, where it should not be since it is the most controversial material. It should be at the end, so readers can digest other topics I cover before getting enraged about my ideas about gender and perhaps… slamming the book shut?

    It has been odd for me to hear the enraged comments on my feminist essays because I am just a very normal man who likes being a man and likes masculinity and men. However, I also do believe the gender is guilty of much poor behavior that can be improved or curtailed. I don’t see what is so shocking about that assertion; but most men have been wildly defensive and antagonistic about my views on that. Really, if transhumanists are so eager for “enhancements” why can’t they be open to discussing improvements in their gender behavior?

    I am studying a bit of neuroscience now and there are significant differences in male and female brains. Men in general – IMHO – should be more humble, and not regard themselves as perfectly-contructed creatures who don’t need a bit.. well maybe a lot of tweaking.

    • The problem isn’t that your view is invalid, Hank. I can agree with most of your stance without condoning an utter reversal of the gender power structure which will not balance anything, merely switch who is dominant and thus, abusive.

      You don’t “balance the scales” by shifting 100% of the weight from one side to the other.

    • As it is often the case, I completely agree with Valkyrie.

      Hank, we have discussed your articles on the IEET website a lot, and I am also about to get them in ebook format from smashwords. I think they are well written, centered on real problems of our society, and discuss real big issues which can only become more and more pressing and relevant in the year and decades to come.

      My only problem (and you know that I am your friend, so I hope you will forgive me some very blunt words) is that your proposed solutions tend to be coercive, authoritarian, totalitarian and fascist.

      Ensuring that nobody harms others is easy: just kill everyone, and nobody will be able to harm others ever again. Ensuring that nobody harms others while respecting everyone’s civil rights and autonomy is of course much more difficult, but we should keep trying.

    • @Hank Re “Really, if transhumanists are so eager for “enhancements” why can’t they be open to discussing improvements in their gender behavior?

      Discussing voluntary improvements in one’s behavior is one thing. A fascist society enforcing citizen’s party-line behavior with coercive and authoritarian measures, like those you propose, is another thing.

  10. And Arnaud M. is such a disgusting sophist if you want my opinion

  11. oh yes, and from a Neuro linguistic Prog point of view, Judaïsm is the best, obviously, if you’re interested about i also could tell you, but honestly i doubt you’ll believe me if I don’t explain you face to face.

  12. An other “has already been done’ comment :

    I agree with you about licensing, but do never do this to some living under the french “seuil de pauvreté” or you’ll get killed, or it is for sure useless debate. you know what i mean

    About rape, don’t you think commercial rape my natural highly flavored sense of beauty ????? Comon, all the very pretty girls i had (yes, i had some), and i selected only smart ones, were all pain in the ass of a control-freak behaviors, you couldn’t even imagine ; of course i look like the guy that will not fight back (i do in fact), who won’t “rape” but for sure i know what i mean, and (another yet been done comment) I saw even some of my family “supposed to be smart” very nice high science po paris profiles and so on getting married just for the money of the guy, and believe me those guys don’t care, they buy here the face god hasn’t gave to them. Shame on those stupid girls.

    Nonetheless I’m in favor of girls domination, if you’re interested I can explain you why.

    etienne.thillaye@gmail.com

Leave a Reply