>>181>increase of entropy is nigh inevitable>nigh>physical things are subject to time and will stop being, sooner or later
wow that's fresh>>456>Trans-humanism, as in becoming less of material-biological and more of material-electronic>Utopia in physical world, which is inherently subject to scarcity, competition, cruelty, despair, loneliness, among many other things
How about you give up on mistakenly treating these aesthetic dreams, technicalities, unimportant details, as something fundamentally important, and think of transcending from the material to the eternal, instead?
As Jesus has once said, this system is about to be purged.no, seriously, for example, Mk 1:15
Sorry if someone feels like I'm derailing, but so many issues have been touched that this topic is pretty much all-encompassing. The presumption that trans-humanism somehow eliminates the human condition, or, that human condition is inherent purely to the biological nature, not to life, the physical, and consciousness itself, is really weird. As >>463
has said, utopia is self-contradictory.
Bad things are an indispensable part of reality.
Now, most of the other stuff mentioned in the OP and by >>463
is simply a question of what structure of society is most efficient and inevitable, or where does dynamic equilibrium of society lie.
>the arkhe of the oligos is always a volatile one>when it is not, it either dies along with the body it failed to rule sanely, or gets chopped off and replaced with a more sane one
Every power is volatile, order is volatile, more complex things are inherently unstable and sooner or later reach a state of equality, i.e. chaos, staying on top of the food chain just makes everyone else trying to get in your place, and ecosystems are tumultuous. The same rule spans from thermodynamics, through physical chemistry, ecology, to sociology and history. That is not a fresh thought, either.
A very significant one, though.
>I believe mass deaths are inevitable and necessary as to remind the next two or three generations that mass deaths are in fact not funny
That I agree with. I would not classify it in terms of necessity or memory, though; we are about to undergo a market correction of sorts.>>456>can a trans-humanist world be achieved without corporate oligarchs dominating the world?
Can we have no one at the top of the food chain?
Unfortunately, I don't think that there is such an option present.
There is, however, an option of you not being dominated by corporate oligarchs, and that is subject to your personal choice, which is re-made every day, and every day it requires struggle to back it up, and does not guarantee success,
You may say that it is very little choice left in the matter, or a whole world of difference to choose. That's subjective.
>Can the mass death of that process also be justified? Let's debate!
Can mass deaths, presumably violent, be justified? That is not a question up for a public debate, but an internal one. It is a question of your humanity.
Can they be avoided? I don't think there is such an option on the table.
There is, however, an option of you not taking part in it, or maybe even preventing one or two of them.
It may be a lot, or statistically insignificant. That's subjective.