This essay is in response to this video by which found itself on my homepage. I am aware that the original video is partially satirical in nature, (his channel seems dedicated to the promotion of a certain kind of autism). However, the issue is a crucial one so I’ll be using it nonsatirically anyways.
Background
The three most important events to the trajectory of technocapital thus far are as follows:
The introduction of the numeral 0 and double-entry bookkeeping to the European commercial sector
The death of Louis XVI and the immediate aftermath
World War One
All three of these events were fundamentally altering to the trajectory of human social systems in ways which have yet to be reversed to any degree of significance. Technocapital as the reader and I know it relies upon very weak structures of more traditional, (written without bias), authority, without which it would not be allowed such freedom of maneuver. Of course Capital Escape is still a prevalent and real problem but to what degree is a bit unclear considering that technocapital has only been dominant in the Democratic age.
Without the introduction of 0 into the European mathematic lexicon, capital as such would be reduced even in terms of simple capability. The explosion of free market enterprise resulting from this and a combination of other factors, (I’m overemphasizing 0 to simplify things), permanently shifted where the seat of power for European states sat: from large agricultural land plots to urban commercial centers. Predictably, this made European states reliant upon not only mercantile activity but also usury. Most of this was pretty inevitable.
The death of Louis XVI is the beginning of the end for the traditional monarchies of Europe, (the only ones which are relevant because Europe birthed technocapital). This weakened the traditional basis for sovereignty across the continent: for the first time the people had spoken bla bla. In terms of our subject, it opened the world up for free enterprise without concern for the power of any state to act against it; the remainder of Europe was far too busy in competition with their own populace.
Lastly, World War One places multiple European states in such a catastrophic state of financial ruin and exacerbates the crisis of legitimacy to a point which forces the massive growth of the state apparatus worldwide. World War Two, (ignoring moral sensibilities which surround it), can be viewed as the sequel which leaned too heavily on the CGI explosions.
I know the reader is already aware of all this, but it’s important to remember just how we got here.
Technocapital and Democracy
Modernity is characterized by means-ends reversal.
To answer the video’s question: no one asked for this beyond a small group of autistic tech bros. That much is apparent. Of course, this framing already lends itself to be politicized in readily apparent ways; the question itself is biased towards democratic sensibility with the implication that someone must seriously be demanding it, which intrinsically implies that if more demanded it it must be more worthwhile.
Fortunately for us, Elon possesses a type of autism which is immune to knowing when to shut up. His little post with the robot was cool to approximately thirty five people, of which thirty are living in Mumbai. However, while that post itself was revealing, it was functionally just the quiet part out loud. The vast majority of people are already getting served by clankers, just not in fast food…
By framing the issue as one of “us vs. them” or “the people vs tech overlords”, human replacement with artificial systems will quickly become one tied to the Democratic issue at large. Democracy across the West, (or what we’ve been calling Democracy anyways), is very much battling for its survival, it doesn’t even poll well anymore. Among the reasons for this perhaps the largest is that it has routinely failed to deliver us anything we’ve asked for since at least the end of World War Two, and given us quite a few things which no one asked for like Iraq. The other largest contributor is that “Our Democracy™” has aligned itself against blatantly observable scientific truth often enough that its supporters have to unironically watch MSNBC to sleep, (I just abuse downers, you guys are maniacs).
Because of the failures of “Our Democracy™”, the antidemocratic standpoint, (within which there is a great deal of variety), has found itself in a much stronger position that it never really had to make a move to create. Curtis Yarvin has actually convinced very few people, and most of them he probably did shrooms with, but he did articulate a preexisting standpoint resulting from the obvious weakness of “Our Democracy™”. Similar things can be said about the Fuentes crowd or even parts of the Old Left/Post Left.
This leaves us in a bit of a bind. It seems pretty clearly observable that so far the Democratic methods of producing change are not successful outside of the immediate aftermath of a very violent time, (A.V.V.T. T-shirts on my website). In addition, the entirety of the modern state apparatus is designed around preventing either the rise of funny mustached Corporals or large scale violent events. On the other hand, it’s pretty obvious that transhumanist techbros have positioned themselves to be the inheritors of sovereignty in the event of democratic collapse and are already in bed with democratic states in the event of a lack of democratic collapse. History since 0 has empowered exactly these types of men every time that there is a collapse in sovereignty so I don’t see a good reason why this would not occur again.
Of course, one could argue that “Our Democracy™” represents a corruption of the Democratic process, and that if we could only restore this process than we would be able to prevent large scale human replacement in that way. This argument is so weak on its face that I’ll only counter it by reminding the reader that, as things stand, the United States is the longest running “Democracy” in history, so unless you think that things there are going great then your politics are no less experimental than true communism.
So, on the assumption that the current trajectory does not change, you’re kind of at a crossroads between A.V.V.T. Trotskyism or coup staging. I have no advice for the reader in this regard because I believe in “Our Democracy™” and am a loyal subject to the crown.
The Future of the Politicization of Transhumanism
As “Our Democracy™” becomes less popular, populism in the raw will continue to be on the rise. The Trump phenomenon has recently exposed this as much less of a return to Democracy itself than a nontraditional way to enter the frame of “Our Democracy™”, but it’s just the beginning. Economic markers of well-being are one of the largest scientific lies of the regime; no one in the West thinks that the economy is healthy yet it’s reflecting all the right signs. Combined with an aging hold on the housing market, there’s a lot of room for a bright young man with a beret and convenient last name to make a name for himself here.
Peter Thiel’s criticisms of Democracy, (as well as Yarvin’s), on the other hand, have become quite popular on much of the New Right. These criticisms hold a lot of weight with a variety bunch of quirked up white boys, even while opposition to the goals of Thiel and his ilk increases in those same circles.
There’s a very natural element of the traditional Left/Right divide between egalitarianism and hierarchy here as well, placing the Right as the side indifferent to the economic effects of transhumanism on the lower class. This is probably how it’s going to be sold to Charlie Kirk and all those faggo awesome people, but I think the pool of disaffected is large enough that the New Right will remain critical of the transhumanist cause in its A.I. form. I’m not so sure about the Bionic Horizon and genome editing though…
In short: I suspect that soon the issue of clanker supremacy will be sold to the populace in terms of the traditional Left/Right divide.
The unfortunate reality of this is that unless one is a legitimate Trotskeyist, (the only respectable left-wing position), the only possible answer is to the Right, (written with bias). Either one can endure a series of A.V.V.T. events in the hopes that this can stave off the rise of the tech bros, or one can emplace a system which tells them no with a heavy hand. The problem with A.V.V.T. is that it has to A) be international at a scale which so far only technocapital itself has achieved B) occur very often and C) propagandize the people enough that they don’t just hand over sovereignty to whoever can feed them. In order to maintain an infinite cycle of A.V.V.T. with the aim of preventing Singularity, we’ll probably need some sort of governing or advisory body over A.V.V.T., which in many ways looks exactly the same as the Right-leaning answer. Of course one could argue that human spontaneous action is possible, but I’ve seen enough that I wouldn’t.
I’m leaving three very important possibilities out of this framework. The first is that Capital Escape or Exit is fully inevitable in all respects, in which case we’re doomed. The second is that A.G.I., (or something the layman would perceive as A.G.I.), is metaphysically impossible, a position which is nauseatingly optimistic but if it’s correct then at least we only have to worry about the genetic front. Lastly, if you haven’t had your lithium, the techbros could already be in communion with their GNON, (Jreg’s IT), in which case we’re probably doomed.
On I.Q. as Positive Measure
The point that I found the most interesting about Jreg’s framing is on the idea of raw intelligence as a grossly over valued metric. I think that this is probably the largest philosophical issue of our time irrespective of the transhumanist issue, (with respect to this it is arguably the only issue).
Through the framework of I.Q. as the currency of value, one can justify almost any horrendous act ranging from Ancapistan to genocide to Singularity. Not to get too far into moralfaggotry, but I think that most of my readers can understand why there are some problems here.
That is not to say that intelligence as a measure of value is an inherently negative one, but its overvaluation is blatant to anyone who scores at my level or below on the ol’ checklist. Please don’t self administer.
The truth is that rejecting this is, (philosophically speaking), simple. Virtue ethics have existed within the Western canon since its inception and have always been granted consideration by its thinkers. Even Machiavelli is no exception here. Ironically, these don’t disappear from the framework societies are based on until after the French Revolution, an inconvenient aspect of it for the Democratist.
Of course, just because a Greek guy said it doesn’t make it true. Virtue ethics and their exact consistency are obviously a matter for serious debate. However, one important aspect that can be found readily agreeable is the idea that the promotion of human flourishing is an inherent good. Human flourishing remains to be precisely defined.
On the Right, the argument would resemble one for the highest possible human flourishing, whether this is at the expense of the masses or not.
On the Left, the argument would resemble one for the largest amount of possible human flourishing, at the expense of possible heights.
Leaving a stance out of this for now, it must be stated that human flourishing has yet to be defined precisely because the word flourishing is somewhat vague. The word human is not. This is pretty non-negotiable and obvious. Of course, the transhumanist will ask some retarded question along the lines of “are people with casts human?”, but that is a word game you aren’t required to play.
So we have a fairly clear philosophical framework to base resistance to clankers upon. Obviously I brushed over some pretty apparent linguistic issues which we’ll need to hash out, but this is a 4:00 AM schizo piece and I’m a bit more focused on the political. Perhaps I’ll revisit virtue ethics at a later date.
The last problem remaining, (and we must solve the philisophic ones first), is how to implement virtue. We’ve pretty clearly demonstrated that Liberal Democracy has thus far failed to even encourage virtue among its most powerful men, so that’s out in my book. Absolutism also failed to do this at times, although it did have a bit more success. I suspect that Gay Race Communism won’t get us very far, but maybe someone else can make the argument.
In all seriousness, political system is actually a bit of a secondary concern. It’s really more of an economic question. If wealth is the easiest route to power, (and always pulls its levers), then what must happen is the creation of a system which rewards virtue with wealth. Free-market Capitalism has demonstrated its ability to do the exact opposite of this, so that’s out. So far Communism hasn’t given us much better, (albeit possibly with some revisionism involved). Landed aristocracy? Well that was okay in some regards, but it seems like it can’t survive the introduction of the 0 numeral.
P.S., remember than when hiding from thermal sensors, the cloak must be off of the body or the heat will soak through.
I feel like my most recent post is at least tangentially related to this. I'm interested in your take.
Cool if I post it here or no?