/z/ - zaibatsu — finance and economics

Sounds like an euphemism for TERFs.

>>463
Good point. Hadn't noticed that before. This seems more expansive in its viewpoints though.
>If you are seeing a similarity between transgenderism and transhumanism, that’s not coincidental. Some of the most influential figures in H+ are M2T, including Martine Rothblatt and Amara Angelica. These two movements, transgenderism and transhumanism, are extensions of the same philosophy of throwing off all constraints imposed by your mother’s gift of embodiment

It seems like the feminist spin on anti-progress (technological progress ≠ social progress!). Workers opposed automation. Truckers oppose autonomous driving. (Some?) femminists oppose the "female replacement" described. And I think that, just like with the wave of automation, you can't stop it. You can fight it to slow it down.
Young men currently face a harsh dating life. Pic related shows how the disparity between mens' and womens sex life is developing. And this (https://i.imgur.com/2MstAzl.gif) shows how women rate men. It looks like men are having a hard time finding partners and alternatives are being developed to fill the void in the life of those who fall short. Opposition to these developments will spread, but I don't think they will ultimately be successfull.

>>465
What do you think the long term effects will be? Probably lower birth rates. Maybe smarter men will be more drawn to robots, and have enough money for them. I don't think women will be as interested in robotic men, but who knows.

>>465
If you look at studies on how people choose their partners, women don't care about attractiveness (looks) as much as men. The problem is that dating sites work like webshops, you have to choose the perfect commodity based on carefully set up pictures and marketing bullsoykaf descriptions and then negotiate about the price.

They're against artificial wombs/ectogenesis
That's weird. All this stuff were actually a political agenda of radical feminists (see "Dialetics of Sex" for reference)

>>466
>What do you think the long term effects will be?
Definitely birth rates, though they have been plummeting for years. I also think the incel movement or something similar will gain a lot of followers as a result, they feed off lonlieness and the resulting isolation/frustration.

>>467
That is true though it doesn't invalidate my point about young men facing a harsh dating life. By presenting pictures first online dating makes it hard for unattractive looking men to find a partner and 80% of men get rated as unattractive.

>>469
>lonlieness and the resulting isolation/frustration
Why? Wont technological progress be the solution to inadequate fulfillment of emotional needs?The way I see it, technology first met people's physical needs, making their lives easier, but it wasn't sophisticated enough to meet their emotional needs. Soon, that wont be the case anymore. Emotional needs are no different; the need for emotional connections are a primitive aspect of humans that once served a necessary purpose, but are becoming more of a hindrance as our life style shifts away from what's natural to us.

>>470
I don't see how technology will reach a level within the next 10 years that makes fulfilling the emotional desires of most people possible. Technology will improve and it might fit some people but defenitely not most.
We are biologically hardwired to seek sexual and romantic partners. And just like social media produced more social interaction along with more lonlieness and isolation, these replacements for partners will not fill the void. Think about all the things that make a relationship what it is: from emotional support, motivation and mutual learning to sex and intimacy. A human is way too complex to replace, let alone a human you would know so well. You are right in that we will artificially fulfill emotional needs at some point but I don't see it being ready for mass-adoption any time soon.

>>469
> By presenting pictures first online dating makes it hard for unattractive looking men to find a partner
Compared to 30% of women getting like 90% of male attention in those apps.

We as a society need to move outside of relying on soykafty techbro apps to make meaningful relationships. The focus on arbitrary traits cuts both way and it makes both sides have a harder time settling for people that may be a great match.

>>468
This is not about feminism, this is about entitled mombies who believe they deserve to be worshiped for soykafting out some unfortunate kids into this wretched world. It's an ideologized version of the common "you should uncritically love 💌 me and act 🎭 🅰️as🅰️ my 💻personal 💻 slave because I gave you the gift 🎁 of life💝💕💝💕💝!" bullsoykaf.

>>472
The prevalence of dating apps is just an extension of everything else that's changed in this century. I can't get a menial job by walking down a commercial street and hitting up managers in 2019, nor do people seem to want to talk to random strangers when looking for a romantic or sexual connection. I can't remember the last time a woman I didn't know chatted me up unless she was too inebriated to converse with but not too long ago, my social life was quite different.

>>470
If you're talking about technology meeting our emotional needs as in replacing human contact with waifus or SIRIs or whatever, count me out.

>>475
>the prevelance of dataing apps

is this actually that prevelant ? I admit I've known a lot of friends who have used them, with varying degrees of seriousness, but if I'm to count the fraction of my friends in serious relationships that arose out of these, I find that I cant actually think of any who met via tinder/what have you.

Met in school ? sure. Met at work, yeah, several. Met at random parties/by mutual friends ? Definitly. I'm here so its no surprise that I know a couple who met online, but I dont think I know anyone who found a serious relationship via dating apps.

Hookups, now. That's what online dating seems to get you it seems. The only people I see getting much out of tinder and its ilk are pretty much just successful at finding people willing to have sex with them.

We'll see what actual long term effects these things have, if any. Birth rates were already declining in a lot of the interneted world, the effects of this should be at least interesting.

>>478
> dataing apps

What you did there, I see it. I do know some couples like that, including some that are married now. Well, mostly not from "apps" but they met on conventional www matching sites like OKStupid. There's also a whole generation growing up with screens in their hands and we can only speculate what their dating customs will be. For instance I keep reading that young people aren't having sex like they used to and are putting it off until they are older.

G/Acc has a more accurate grasp on what it means to be woman.

https://www.e-flux.com/journal/80/100016/black-circuit-code-for-the-numbers-to-come/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL9mRMEUGw

>>475
>If you're talking about technology meeting our emotional needs as in replacing human contact with waifus or SIRIs or whatever, count me out.
Why? You're saying this now, but when AI becomes capale of having real conversations, and even being complex enough to call into question whether they're concious or not, you might change your tune. Even more so when they have a body indistinguishable from a human's. You could either invest time and energy on the unreliable, and increasingly self-centered people around you, or you could have a perfectly compatible, no stings-attacthed companion.

They'll be intelligent enough to read books and understand them. They could share your interests and want to talk about them with you. They'll always be available and willing to listen to whatever you want to say, without you having any reason to fear judgment. There isn't anything speical about people and there's no reason why something better can't be created. Sticking to humans 1.0 will make as much sense as using vinyls.

>>482
Look bud, I hate vapid uninteresting conversation from humans, AI vapid uninteresting conversation? Count me out. In our lifetimes it is very unlikely that they will be more intelligent than your local barfly who you wish you hadn't started a conversation with.

>>483
Is itelligence even the point? I always thought the point of replacing humans with A.I. n stuff like that is so you get company without baggage or effort. Plus aren't A.I. meant to be able to learn your preferences and stuff so conversation should stay interesting.
although, on the other hand if your robo gf is only learning what you like then it'd eventually feel like talking to yourself i imagine.

>>484
>>482
Wow. Part of the appeal of humans is that they are unpredictable and surprise you, and a downside of that is they disappoint you sometimes. There's also evidence that being disappointed and having disagreements and then overcoming them is part of what bonds people. I don't want an idealized toy based on a fairy tale, sitcom or romance novel projection of what a companion should be. If I need that, I can aways have imaginary friends.

>>485
>>483
I get what you guys are saying, and it'll definitely be a long time before what i'm invisioning will be realized, but I think you're limiting what you think is possible out of fear. Do you really think the natural order of things is so precious? Is the way people function now really the ideal? Maybe I haven't had any "real relationships", but every friendship i've had has been temporary and conflict free. You just hang out and give favors once in a while. It's only another biogical need to have relationships with others. If you don't see someone for a long time, that relationship inevitably fades. Life moves on. How close you can get to another human being is limited since we're all seperate individuals with our own interests. The future could yield compnaions that are more like extensions of the same being. Humans may even choose to become more machine like out of want or necessity. We may even "turn off" our need for companionship. Be more open-minded.

This transhumanist trend is already present and guides our lives.

Everytime we have "enhanced" ourselves with technology, we have put something that was inside of us, outside. And because this "outside" thing is necessarily a lower tech than our body, we end up losing the inside thing, and so, quality of life.

We were rich of organic bodies of an extraordinary complexity and are now poor of little toys. We were ruled, like every other species, by forces greater than us, natural forces, we are now the king of this world, and all must subdue to our needs.

It's childish. Egocentric and childish.

This thriving for erasing the body and living "outside" of ourselves, outside nature and our bodies, which are nature (and that could be seen as pretty akin to suicide), is also forcefully misogynistic because the body is something that is born within women.

To replicate the body with objects is to have control over it. "You" (and this "you" is the extent of a patriarchal society) can grasp it in your hand, you can explain it with your words, and play with your little toys and what not. You won't lose it. It won't go away. It will never die and stay the same. Like those words, blissful immortals dressing the page.

What technology has brought us is: a warm closed place, low air quality, warm bath, prepared food, little wombs that carry us from one place to the next without having to walk, reductive sensory environment where everything is simple and minimalist (because it's inorganic), machines that do to our biding, … So it's inherently regressive. And we gain a better understanding of why it's egocentric and childish.

We have sought progress out of the body, out of the act of birth, so it's also inherently un-feministic. We want the accelerating and exhilarating evolution, not the slow "in body" evolution that lasts for eons … but maybe so does also for some strength and endurance. Maybe it's time to give value as to why so many oral tradition where seeing writing as something dead and taboo, and to simply gain a better understanding of how what we create affect us and the world around us.

I'm a male and I was traumatized by birth. I won't judge the movement of this world or the existence of any lifeforms.

>>487
There's no basis for what you're saying. I like nature. I like to hike and I like animals, but nature is overrated. Humanity is nature's greatest creation because humanity can fully conqueor nature. If humans are successful in the future, they'll have to abandon Earth's nature and maybe even replicate it elsewhere. What we consider "natural" and nature is also artifical. Giving man's perception of what nature is so much importance is it's own form of hubris.

There's no real difference between something man made and something made by nature. Crows also make tools, yet many people would still call that part of nature. Cats, dogs, tress and the sun all couldn't give less of a soykaf what humans do in the long term. As far as we know, only humans have the capacity to worry about things that abstract. This hippie mindset exists because of human's innate fear of change. We haven't lost anything and people with access to technology are living better than ever.

>>488
> Humanity is nature's greatest creation because humanity can fully conqueor nature

Are you the Alice that makes the climate change denying posts?

That's funny, thinking only one gender will suffer from this kind of technological advancements. If anything releasing women from the pain of procreation will enhance their freedom even more

>>489
I don't remember there being any alice who denied climate change.
>>490
Maybe freedom isn't what these people actually want? What they say and what they mean are different. They want control.

>>491
> What they say and what they mean are different. They want control.

You know they are lying based on one article? I never heard of this movement before.

>>492
I don't think they're even aware of their own lying. They're ideologues, so they believe they're in the right. Reading the article and their reasoning though, I'm pretty sure I understand what they actually want.. They say they're against "female replacement" as if reproductive and sexual roles rightfully belong to "women". Making it possible to do those things without women is what they have a problem with. Freedom as individuals isn't good enough for them, so I don't know what other way you could interpret it.

>>493

Strangely, nobody was worrying, when the man was replaced with arificial insemination, government welfares, etc. I'm maximally against replacing women with machines, and single parenthood, but governments and influental banks/corporations worry about this only because women are easily manipulated to their needs, and manipulating a man is the easiest through a woman. Feminism is about this, keeping men in sexual hunger, therefore making them obey better, give up their principles easier, and of course crushing families. Now men are fed up, and want to replace women, because they think women are the cause of this unholy situation, but (no disrespect ladies, but really:) women are more like a resource men fight over, and now governments, banker dynasties and megacorps are more powerful than all of the general population, so they grab women, just like when in war, the winner army grabs women and rape them or take them home.

>>494
>I'm maximally against replacing women with machines, and single parenthood
Why? Parents are already selfish for bringing people into the world without even thinking of the kind of live they might live and having expectations of them on top of that. That's how it's always been though, so I can't blame them. How is being even more selfish by choosing to be a single parent so much worse? Kids are just a means to an end. Maybe even one capable parent is better than two incompetent ones. You're just clinging to traditions.

Also, what are the conspiracy theories for? What's happening right now was inevitable. It can't be blamed on some group of schemers. When people feel their role and significance is threatened, they lash out, especially if they have nothing else to offer the world. Men were at no point dependent on being fathers or care takers. They always had the option to choose not to do those things and find other meaning in life. Some women are just incapable of catching up mentally. Maybe more women than men aren't suited for the modern world.

>>495

Though wouldn't you say this allowance to go and have experience precisely takes meaning because you then return and share with the woman what you have learned and a new life is birthed ?

This is the process that "out of body" evolution has made obsolete and what separate us from all other organic life. Isn't it extremely hazardous and misleaded to try to end a billion old tradition (I'm not saying the discovered model shouldn't exist)

Imo, a defyning trait of man psyche is that we are borned out of a body unlike our own. We have experienced both and so are enclined to experience but wereas woman find back this unity that happens before birth in carrying a child, man feels disconnected from the process, a vulgar tool on a bad day, and may try to find this unity through other mean. And you end up with an idea of future born out of a desire to find back a past state, a past state which only exist as a faint and illusory memory within your psyche.

Shaky foundation to say the least.

And most important, man, he cannot recognize himself in his "creator" - aka, through woman, nature (if he does not go beyond "duality", which some spiritual tradition have greatly worked upon). We have no control over our birth. No freackin' control.

Wouldn't every need of control take root in this primordial moment then ? WOuldn't be seeking to control birth be akin to controlling woman, the body that sees us born, and isn't that body that sees us born akin to nature … ?

Modern time see such issues as man trying to assert control over nature. Maybe he feels weak when swallowed by vaginas and that is why. It's always funny and sexual cartoon in the end. THE END.

>>495

You have to distinguish between a thing that is possible, and a thing that is probable. It is possible to be raised well by a single parent but highly unlikely, hundreds of researchs prove this. Having kids is not selfish at all (if raised well), only nihilists think this. First of all, most people don't think about life as suffering, so giving life to children isn't a punishment, but a gift in most cases. Second of all: expectations are there for two reasons: 1: a (good) parent literally gives 20 years of his/her life (time, energy, etc) and a soykafton of money to a child, so maybe he/she is entitled to some exceptions without being called selfish, 2: most exceptions are meant to be guidance to the kid to better the kid's life and make him/her more successfull in the adult life. (i'm not talking about selfish mofos sending kids to medical school when he clearly wants to be an engineer, or sending him to football training when he clearly hates it just because papa wants to live out his own fuarked up life through his child, those are really selfish scum)

I'm clinging to traditions? Yes i am. Traditions can be good and bad, and the tradition of a family of a man and woman and children living together, is clearly one of the best traditions. The ideology of crushing every tradition is called futurism and i hate that very much. Conspiracy theories? Yes. You know, if a theory is a conspiracy theory, that doesn't imply it's false, just that it's a theory about a conspiracy. You people talk like it's an impossible nonsense thing that people sometimes conspire.

I don't agree with your theory about inevitablity and the need to catch up. Modern life =/= dystopic low-life cattle life. Well, seems like it equals at the moment, but this isn't necessary. People have to develop wisdom. You know in the 50's it was the normal that people took amps and barbs just because they felt a bit happier for a short time and they didn't feel like vacuuming and washing the dishes. Until the 80's it was normal that factories made everything from PVC if possible, because it's cheap, modern, requires less energy than metals and wood. Until the 80's it was normal that arable soil was treated with extreme amounts of chemical fertilizer, very posionous long lasting pesticides, and exhaust the soil, because it yielded more crop. Until the 60's the most powerful countries developed more and more powerful thermonuclear warheads, because they thought the most power is in having county-destroyer hydrogen bombs. Now people know the things above are bad practice and wreck up things in the long run. Technology and science advances much faster than wisdom, but i really hope wisdom doesn't stop and keeps up with 2-3 decade disadvantage to the scientific development.

>>497

i meant to say expectations instead of exceptions, sorry. Also in my opinion, being able to born without parents, (if woman can be replaced with artificial wombs and man can be replaced with artificial insemination, what stops anybody from combining the two and leave out both parents) is the perfect way to create slaves. That will be the selfish thing. You know at least in the first few decades, governments and megacorps will use this to create "perfect soldiers", "perfect workers", etc, "perfect" as in most profitable. If one thinks life in a family is suffering, then what life in a corporate hive without anything in life aside from working like a slave is? Greedy mofos already try to do this to children, forcing them to go to public schools (or forcing private schools to change their teaching material), and take away them from parents if they disobey propaganda. But it's still a bit harder and they can only do it slowly to not be overrun by millions of angry parents. If there's no parent, the child is defenseless, just like when there's no husband, the woman is defenseless. All in all, without a family, people are defenseless against the evil.

>>496
>>497
>>498
To me this is all mysticism. Male energies, female energies, genesis of life, it's doesn't mean anything to me. Even if these changes will negatively effect most people, as long as a few adapt in the end, it's fine by me. I'd prefer a world where men and women were more similar to each other. Right now they're different, and therefore incapable of completely being judged outside of their sex, but if sex really did become only an aesthetic difference, I would like that. This is just preferable to me. Whatever consequences you think are likely doesn't justify stopping development. These are things that could become possible for humans to do, so they're things I want them to achieve. Humans will probably be replaced in the kind of jobs slaves are given before the government can manufacture people, and become willing to. Unless you think they'll do it in secret or something.

The author admits being a Mormon, of course it is nothing but cheap mysticism.

>>500
I didn't notice that before.
https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/valerie-hudson-cassler
>In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.
>To have children, to be able to fully give the gift of Eve, is one of the most soul-satisfying parts of a woman’s life that she will either experience here or in the hereafter if circumstances have prohibited it here.
>So the LDS alone among all Christian religions assert that not only did Eve not sin, but she was rewarded for her courage and wisdom, and God was assuring her that, just as she fulfilled her role in the Great Plan of Happiness, Adam would step up to the plate, and he would perform his role in the Great Plan of Happiness, and that would entitle him to rule with her. This is absolutely revolutionary and astounding doctrine among all the Christianities!
Bizarre. The Mormon "church" is really disgusting.

>>499

What do I have to do with the mysticism ?

>>502
You keep talking about man's psyche, nature, creators and wisdom.

>>503

Those are very palpable things that we experience all the time.

Unlike dreams and phantasm about days of future past which are only a product of our imagination.

And though we are very efficient at bringing our delusion to reality, and convincing ourselves of their necessity or relevance in the process, wouldn't you say it can be interesting to dissolve time and relate the psyche to the body, and so nature ? Get rid a tiny bit of this cultural grid ?

I have no qualms with outsourcing reproduction, or even life itself to machines.
For the same reason I have no qualms with AI that is capable of emotion, love, and intelligence.
Of course, the down sides of all that too.
I'd much rather have an option where the essence of humanity can go on, even if it is machine in nature, rather than risk a total collapse of life, and more importantly, soul, in total. (biological catastrophe would be one reason)

>>505
>For the same reason
What is that reason?
>the essence of humanity
What is the essense of humanity? I don't remember if I said this already or not, but human beings are maladapted to our current surroundings. Society and technology has advanced, but the primitive parts of our brain remain unchanged(for the most part), and those parts guide us in ways we can't always perceive. Maybe the next step is changing humans to better fit modern society? It's a scary thought, but I can see it happening.
Loneliness caused by our growing disconnect with each other and lessening emphasis on real world interaction, could be turned off. A world where humans don't need to stay in packs could have humans who don't feel the emotional need to belong to a group. Laziness caused by our drive to conserve energy and not expend energy on what we percieve as fruitless pursuits gets in a lot of people's way now, so that could be turned off too. We don't need to conserve as much energy as energy is readily available.
We're built to lead a physically active life style, yet we are becoming more and more sedentary, so maybe even our bodies will be changed to better fit that. Space travel opens up a whole other can of worms. I asked people in real life about this and they seem either in denial or apathetic about it. On a psychological level, people might still be evolving right now in ways we aren't sure about.

>>505
Do you think that humans (or "soul") are the same as life itself? Human extinction is not necessarily the end of all life.

>>508
I think that many people do see things that way, especially people who were raised with a specific judeo-christian mindset.

>>508
There's something beneath the veneer of flesh, we all know it instinctively, but can't seem to perceive it.
So yes, I would argue that humans and soul are the same as life itself.
I'm talking about something a bit more large scale that could result in wiping even microscopic life.
To clarify, I'm not saying that humans are the only life.

>>510
>we know it instinctively
Why do you assume our instincts can be trusted? That's man's hubris. I don't know what you mean by the extinction of all life. You're being very vague about it.

>>509

Amusing to say this by computer, which is the crux of neo-christian engineering.

A paradise untouched by time. A light, a little sun, only here for us. Only looking at us. Where man can put everything, all other life forms in boxes and letters.

A world devoid of body.

>>511

So the body inherent programming - because instinct are the result of eons of experience - can't be trusted ? And this isn't hubris ? To rely more on though - expressed and understood through language - which is a tool created by man and very recent, rather than the body, so much more complex in design.

Think with your feet, that's what touching the ground. That is, if you're not one of those cosmonauts always wearing shoes and masks.

>>512
I really dislike this idea of computers or the Internet being pure Spirit, autonomous of material reality. Have you ever found a dead link? Ever had a bad sector on your disk that corrupted a file? An old CD that couldn't be read anymore? How about a failing power supply? Your favourite warez site's server being seized by the authorities? The technology around us are a lot more fragile than we are caring to admit. There's nothing that could escape our material constraints.

>>513

Obviously. What it opens up as alley for the mind to explore, it constrain the body - the consequence of this is the strive for making a full on/full absorb censorial digital experience. That would connect the body fully to digital space but disconnect it fully from our surounding.

In this definition, the body is already seen as separated from the environment.

Trends of scifi already have explored the merging of the digital world and the "natural" one. Which would transcend this constraint or choice.

>>512
>So the body inherent programming - because instinct are the result of eons of experience - can't be trusted

Not when it comes to reality outside of ourselves. The human brain is totally unique in certain ways, so there really is a clear divide between us and animals. Our ability to construct language and put it into written form however is still something "nature gave us" too. Distinguishing between "untouched thinking", and human thought which wasn't built into us, is arbitrary. Crows are capable of transferring their unique knowledge between each other and through generations as well. They even have regional dialects which they can readily change when put in a different environment.

Our eons of experience came about by people doing what helped them survive. That's it. Our instincts are very complex, but they came about the same way none the less. Although animals have no way of expressing it, some may also innately believe in something like a soul. Instincts created out of trial and error/who got to breed aren't a reliable source of information about the world. What we believe that helped us pass on genes might not be the truth.

I only take off my socks in bed.

>>514
There's no need of merging the "digital world" and the material one as everything digital is already embedded in material reality.

>>515

I will try to express my point more clearly and precisely.

Crows will not evolve beyond their body. While Man's ability to do so is a natural extension of his ability, the effect it has on him is that of separating him from the rest of the living, from his senses.

If we might take animals as examples, lots of them, if they grow ill or are about to die, will isolate themselves. So maybe, amusingly, this thrive of Man to seclude himself in his progress and see it as a liberation from previous conditioning, is precisely still guided by an instinct. One instinct to end all instinct ?

You can see it in child, the desire to go "be friends" with nature and animals. And when the little children does not get the response he is used to from those other beings, when they do not show him the kind of attention he is used to, when they do not answer him; he starts to yell, get sad or angry. Maybe then, the child very naturally ends up feeling alone and creating a world that answers them. Where everything cares about them.

The downfall of language is that it is very distinct. A little world of our own making we carry with us. But looking too much at this inner world, we forget the language, more universal, of the body. And so end up feeling alone. A bit like cell phones, those tools we carry with us all the time, those tools of our own making that only us can understand.

The body has evolved for eons in a "natural" environment - let us just call it rich and infinitely diverse. And so, the distinction you are making of "outside" and "inside" is itself arbitrary. Why would nature not be able to know itself?

In this rich and infinitely diverse nature that is ourselves, we were so, rich of our bodies. Everything was mirror of us. One hell of a family.

Then, someone made a box. And he said : "I possess this, I am rich".

Then he had people carry him so he had not to walk. People sit for him so he could sit on them and not touch the ground. People bring warm water to him so he had not to go in the mountain to reach this water. And he spend all his time in this box, this warm box where he feels safe. In all his "richness", separated from the ill and the poor and the "not so well" ordered natural world that doesn't give soykaf about him precisely.

Boxes where the place of the dead so go figure.

But, this man was a king and nowadays he walks the Earth. Well, walks … He has replaced the "people" that carried him with machines.They do everything for him, and him, he works hard for the right to deserve this heaven on Earth his fathers created for him.

But, slavery started to weight on his consciousness, the suffering of his fellow kind. Yet, exploiting nature is alright, it doesn't scream, it doesn't protest, it doesn't tear up. It has no face and it does not care precisely about you, so why care about it ?

If you want to kill a conditioning, please kill the one that makes human not see himself in the living around him. There is a value to animism and it has been discussed objectively and with great astuteness countless times - through (say) Japanese animation (arisu doko wa?).

Then, sometime maybe, will your feet kiss the ground.

Feet are like child, they love always being outside. Even when it rains (all need a shower don't we ?). They are spontaneous and full of life, very sensitive, they experience everything, through so many angles. Such diversity.

Is it hard to see that Man dreamed up an omniscient and omnipotent personage in a reality far far away and now strives to know and control everything from his Ivory tower ? Or do you think and still want to assert, you are free of all conditioning ?

You may go the route of the Buddha and peal away some of that ego on top of your skin. What made man "man" was to see the form beyond all form. This is breaking conditioning. It happens in the mind and is not something you can control or put in a box, neither hold in your hand or even understand or comprehend. It just is.

You speak of truth that are know without the body, without being experienced physically - and so, absolutely. Without being one with what you experience. This has created a world of people speaking about things they've read on Wikipedia and news article. It's not integrated to them, it's shallow knowledge. It's devoid of Bodhi.

If you have not break the wall inside your head you may not understand this.

>>517
I don't see much actual truth in this. The way we percieve the world, sight, smell, touch, hearing, what all of that external stimuli gets translated to in our brain, they're all filters. Whatever we perceive about the world is only what was naturally selected because it is condusive to survival. We're actually still stumbling the dark, but we've deluded ourselves into thinking that's not the case. The difference between how humans and bacteria experience the world is how complex our mirage is.

I don't believe there is any way to "truly" experience reality. That doesn't exist. One method of filtration isn't any more valid than another and you don't need to go to another planet to see other ways. Most obviously, human eyes can't perceive wavelengths of light that other animals can. Humans have a relatively low range. Some humans can "see" and tell the difference between light and dark because their eyes are fully functioning, but the "image" doesn't get processed by the brain. Mushrooms, plants and even some animals have a far stronger perception of chemical informatiom than humans do. We can't smell somebody's piss and tell what their age, sex and health is. If the way humans filtered the world became closer to a mushroom, I wouldn't consider is any more or less valid that how we do now. We like what we're used to though. Two arms, two legs, that's all most of us know.

Written language is so great because it allows us to filter more infromation about the world than through our organs alone, and even create information that does not exist in the real world. Our perception is the same, but we utilize it in a way that allows us to transcend the natural limits of our filtration. An animal can see words, but it cannot fully absorb their information. Is it any wonder that written language started as pictograms? Even completely blind people can read through touch. They gain the same information, but through different means. Is it any less valid because it is seperate from our own limited bodies? How is growth the same thing as death?

Basically, whatever kind of "truth" you think can be received by our imperfect filtration system is just smoke and mirrors. It's all an illusion.

>>518

I don't think you understood my message, neither its goal nor its subtleties. Please read again and see I'm coming to the same conclusion as you but how I get there is what's important.

>>519
I don't understand what you consider valuable. I don't believe there is anything inherently better about experiencing the world through our bodies because what we experience through our bodies is illusory to begin with.

>>520

This is just the result of thoughts. If you would be stripped away for an instant of all conceptions, only the body would be left, the senses. It is neither truth nor illusion, it simply is.

Desires to live outisde the body I have deep experience with too, it is suicidal fantasy. Depression is a direct consequences of that wall of language before our our minds, before our eyes.

Through Man, nature explores all possibilities. But imho, we need to maintain strong roots if we want more branches and them to have those wonderful fruits we foresee. Otherwise it just breaks.

>>521
>>518

I see truth in the thoughts of both of you. "pure perception" can be a help, when our conditionings are counterproductive. It really helps to get a pause in depression or mania to go out into the nature alone, forget about computer and other people. And doing phisical work sometimes feel better and less exhausting than intellectual work. But living through only this "pure perception" is sub-optimal in my opinion, everything we achieved as a species that is more advanced than a chimpanze's achievements, is the result of logic and language. You could name millions of things that looks like something but we can logically prove that it's something else. Of course this requires people to raise up the next generation with the achievements available they made. Instincts are of evolutional nature, a new instinct needs at the very least 10k years to develop. Knowledge on the other hand can be developed in a few years. If somebody grows up without conditionings, he/she will be way less susceptible to knowledge, and if somebody lives his/her entire life without conditionings, he/she will have no knowledge. Even apes and dolphins have conditionings. Conditionings can be productive, counter-productive, or it can depend on the situation, and i beleive most conditionings belong to this latter group. We can never be free from them, and we can never reach optimum in their productiveness, but we can always be a bit better by having more experience (including both "pure perception" and intellectual experience) and applying more advanced logic. Harmony with nature is very important, and we can reach it through multiple ways. One way of course is spirituality, but correct logic (if the goal is higher life quality) also points in the direction of harmony with nature.

So all in all imo the best is balance between the two "lifestyles", through two interactions: one is "intraperson": having two conditionings inside a personality, the other is "interperson": multiple people having different conditionings and each interacts with the other through society(be it a small or a large society).

xenofeminism is quite interesting, yes

>>480
just gonna leave this here…

https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/

Oh for fucks sake. Saying that "woman can be replaced" is quite literally an objectification of woman. Even if it is ever possible to make babies without women, most people would still absolutely prefer to get a wife/gf! There's more to love than just making babies, y'know. Most people want to find a partner because they want to spend their time with someone they love, not to have kids. And no, sex bots or holograms won't replace woman either. Even I, someone with an unironic waifu, can tell you that an object could never replace real woman.

>>550
Did you read anybody's posts? Nobody said woman would be "replaced", except the crazies on that site. What will become possible is for technology to fill the role which is currently unique to woman. Woman will always be there, but machines will provide an "alternative" to them. There is no reason to believe that this alternative will not eventually become preferable in every way, except being overly sentimental. Calling an intelligent being just a sexbot seems narrow minded to me.
>>549
This is a pretty interesting and equally crazy interpretation of technology's progress. Thanks for sharing.

>>550
Women won't be replaced, they will just become normalized into normal people without a specific function-set for society. Without the pressure to have kids, they will be able to live a normal life identically to how a man lives theirs without crazy hangups about many things that women normally have to deal with. It will be either liberating for them or it will show their true colors. Either way, it will be neat.

>>471
>A human is way too complex to replace, let alone a human you would know so well.
You over-estimate the depth of modern sexual relationships.

>>462
>http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerAEROWManifesto.html
>seventh wave feminism
It's kind of interesting that this is called "feminism" at all, since it seems deeply anti-feminist. It seems like a very Aristotelian, "your worth is in filling the role your were made for" philosophy. I'm kind of surprised that no-one in this thread has pointed out how incredibly religious and regressive it actually is - look at this:
>While the work of women as mothers has been readily acknowledged by many faiths as divine, it is also true that the wellspring of life, mortal or divine, is the embodied, sexuate sacrament of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. God is not an old bachelor, but a married couple, and the fullest expression of our own divine destiny lies in marriage. With each spouse acknowledging that he/she is insufficient in themselves, the choice to commit one’s sexed and embodied being to the other spouse in faithful, loving equal partnership and become “one flesh” is the very symbol of divinity and a massive repudiation of all sources of alienation. True marriage is the foundation of all turning of hearts—the hearts of men to women, women to men, children to parents, parents to children . . . and humankind to God, and God to humankind.
>Thus, among its many other profound meanings, sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage is an admission that self-love, or love of only what one is, is sterile. Thus French philosopher Sylviane Agacinski (2001) calls sexual difference the foundation of ethics: to realize that one cannot produce offspring without the Other, to realize that one is not infinite of oneself, to realize one is limited by oneself but unlimited with the Other.

There's parts of I agree with, but they seem to be the parts which were adopted fully from "regular" feminism:
>Women are missing from history, in particular heroic history. Lerner, again, is the best commentator: “[Because] the record of the past has been written and interpreted by men and has primarily focused on the deeds, actions, and intentions of males . . . [this] myth that women are marginal to the creation of history and civilization has profoundly affected the psychology of women and men.
But those parts are then assembled into rather horrible structures: Gay people are an attempt to drive women from relationships. Surrogate pregnancies and artificial wombs are attempts to break the connection between mothers and the children, and transwomen (transmen are never mentioned, of course) are an attempt to destroy the existence of women altogether. These are all arguments build from the language of feminism, but it's pretty obvious that feminism isn't the goal here: they're not trying to help women, they're trying to push women back into "biblical" roles. This is described as the "gift" of women:
>Any force attempting to impose an alienation of sex and love, of body and spirit, of man and woman, of parent and child, must be opposed. We thus oppose: […] All means that destroy the gift women have given, including the quest for immortality, genetic engineering of humans, embodiment of human spirit in machine, creation of artificial life, cross-organism genetic engineering, cross-species gestation, and all the many variants of these things.
>We call upon women to embrace the power of embodied reproduction they possess and value it.
>We argue for a re-understanding of heterosexual marriage, which was meant to be the sacrament of peace between the two halves of humankind who together are responsible for bringing forth its future—our children.

Ultimately, this is a strongly religious manifesto, with feminism serving mainly as window dressing. TERFs might adopt some of the language here to try and make their opposition to transgender people seem "natural", but it's very difficult to imagine any significant adoption of these ideas into mainstream feminism. This is definitely a fringe thing.

>>568
Maybe you missed this: >>500

>>568
Disagree. I think the reliogus aspect is the window dressing. The article even states people don't have to be religous to be part of the new "movement". Grouping all women together and arm-twisting for the "collective rights" of women is the same regardless of religous subtext or not. All of that stuff about independence of the individual in feminism is a diversion.

>>462
I'm no expert, but such technologies would actually liberate women and make women equal with men when following Simone de Beauvior's line of reasoning. Women that oppose said technologies would therefore really be more like femme supremacists. "A Cyborg Manifesto" (1985) by Donna Haraway is a major essay in feminist literature that falls much more in line with the philosophy of this chan, and presents something rather different from the totally fucking psychotic feminism that is currently extremely vogue. Although I have not read yet myself, I recommend reading it. I believe it is somewhat relevant to your topic. I am going to read it myself

https://monoskop.org/images/4/4c/Haraway_Donna_1985_A_Manifesto_for_Cyborgs_Science_Technology_and_Socialist_Feminism_in_the_1980s.pdf

>>482
(am not >###)
You seem to be missing an important detail about real human connections. Namely that they can only feel real if you _do_ have that baggage and those strings attached.

People walk down this pattern all the time: they do something (sport, game, activity, profession, field) on a regular basis, eventually identify and name the values of that something, and then start trying to optimize, clean, purify it. They remove aspects that don't directly serve or revolve around those values. Perhaps the thing is reformed, parts that historically came with it are now entirely skipped. It becomes a synthetic mix of its values, nothing more than the sum of its parts. Those who are doing the reform feel good about this because they have "I am reforming" as baggage. Once it is done, the end result suddenly feels empty, plastic, streamlined, a product. It is, they just removed all the noise, color and texture. They turned that tasty fruit into pure alcohol.

Humans are more similar to you than anything. Even if you have some narrative or image of yourself being more similar to something else, it is other humans who have these same delusions. They can potentially fulfill any sort of need you might have, but they are not designed to - they just happen to be able, and maybe willing. Unpredictable, beyond your understanding, uncannily suited to you through similarity, all in one package, but most of which is "baggage" or "strings attached". Trying to optimize this out in any way will make that person feel less human, and the connection you have with them will feel less real. People without flaws (to you) or people who say you have no flaws don't feel real, as they lack the baggage that makes most other humans insufferable. The AI companion thing you describe would induce the same hollow feeling, right until it attains its own "baggage" that you don't want - defeating the whole purpose of trying to replace/purify human companions.

The male-female distinction is on a pretty high level of abstraction (as identities, as bodies, even as chromosomes). It cannot account for the lower level foundations it stands on. It also isn't a significant difference, it's just pretty easy to notice. It's the 10% difference that accounts for little, while the 90% similarity accounts for most things - like how its harder to notice the minute details of texture on a blank white paper than reading the meme printed on it in black.

Thought heavily centered around any such male-female duality, sex, gender etc is bound to provide little insight to anything important.

>>572
>I believe it is somewhat relevant to your topic.
Maybe tangentially. This is about cyborgs, cyborgs with no "gender". I'm thinking more androids. Not a hybrid of man and machine that lacks our biological identifiers, but a man replacement. Defending women's rights by ceasing to be woman doesn't make sense to me. It's interesting though.
>>574
How do you know any of this? You're making the assumption that something like tennis or fencing was affected by "purification" in the same that human connections will be. While modern fencing is a watered down, hollow version of itself, the whole point of fencing has changed. Tennis may be different from how it started, but it's still entertaining none the less. If anything, even if old tennis values don't exist anymore, new values may have taken their place. Same for chess. Transformation and change doesn't necesarily lead to a hollow, plastic product.

What is human baggage? Why is that baggage necessary? We have never had the chance to form a mutually understanding relationship with something that is dissimilar to us. There's no talking birds or squids that can write, so we have no clue.
>They can potentially fulfill any sort of need you might have
Why do you assume so? There's nothing perfect about our design. A car from 1905 doesn't have any value or character that justifies using it over a new one. Same goes for hunting. I'll stick to my farm grown food. Even if an android is missing something that a human has, it's still an improvement. Do you mean unpredictability? Well of course it's boring if I know everything it's going to do. A predictable game is also boring. But I wont. Unpredictability is part of intelligence. Current relationships aren't perfect and humans aren't perfectly made for each other. We have dumb, base desires which we are smart enough to fufill in a convenient manner. Trying to comfort ourselves by making stuff up is pointless.

>>577>…doesn’t make sense to me.
Ectogenesis and the other tech would liberate women’s bodies, thereby liberating women

>>578 >>577
*liberate, not liberating

>>578
>Ectogenesis

Do you talk about breeding with an aritficial uterus? I don't know a single woman that would like to strip that out of her pregnancy phase.

>>580
That's basicallly what ectogenesis is. Not just taking a fetus out and maintaing it, but accomplishing fertilization and everything else completely independent of the human body.