TSE on 4 April: "I AM NOT WRITING A THREAD ON THAT "
TSE on 5 April: "As a regular user of the Grindr app of many years I didn’t think anything could shock me when it came to that app but the behaviour of William Wragg, the Tory MP for Hazel Grove, has managed to leave me shocked and speechless. [click bait follows]"
When I reflected on the story overnight I realised there were some betting implications so was obliged to cover the story.
Unfortunately you forgot to mention the betting implications in your header.
Don't get me wrong. I think the antics of our betters are always interesting and entertaining to discuss. In this case, as he was an openly gay man, apparently single, not even planning to stand for election to Parliament again, it's interesting to speculate what he could have done that was so bad as to force him to deliver up his friends into the hands of these blackmailers and possible enemy agents.
The @Cleitophon Criterion "A PB header should have a betting implication"
It's met less often than you'd think.
Hahaha have I got a criterion named after me 😃😃😃 I love it.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling God's in this somewhere)?
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Oh, God's definitely in it. She's an Anglican married to a Catholic[1] and it informs her work. "Imago Dei"[2] refers to humanity being made in the image of God[2]
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
One recounted the moment the prime minister railed against the prospect of leading his party into its worst general election defeat by complaining about voters and his MPs: “Why do people not realise that I’m right?
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
Thanks @Viewcode, enjoyed this article, as politics coverage doesn't ascend into the overarching ideas as much as in days past to provide context for the bittier lower level debates we have day to day rarely raising our eyes. The terminology may come from NatCons, but I'd be happy to debate things on this framework (but will probably forget by next week and will fail to do so!)
I think what this tells us is that the right continues to adopt positions that lack all moderation, The point is that they insist on adopting a maximalist and ideologically driven approach to some of the most personal and sensitive issues.
They may think that they are humanist but they lack humanity. Their approach is intrusive and potentially highly authoritarian. A touch of the attitude to mutants in the marvel universe.
The first attempt at globalisation has suffered a knock back, but the ultimate destiny of our species will surely be globalist... or we will face extinction.
We've got divisions in our society in so many ways: left and right, indy and Unionist, Brexiteer and Remain, religious and atheist. Do we really need another one? I think not.
Very few of these divisions have improved things. Almost none of them have improved coherence, collectivism, nationhood or a sense of belonging. I really cannot see how seeking to divide ourselves between humanists and transhuminists will help us in coming together, showing compassion for one another or addressing our problems, quite the reverse in fact.
As War Games once correctly observed sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
Interesting article. Viewcode is to be commended on a thought-provoking post.
Ultimately I'm a classical liberal in the sense that we have primarily self-regarding actions and primarily other-regarding actions. And it's nobody's bloody business what self-regarding actions I do.
So if I want to take HRT to become more feminine, that's really nobody's business but my own. Ditto, if I want to take testosterone and get swole, that's my business. It only really becomes somebody else's business if I decide to enter a weightlifting competition, the tour de france, etc.
The same goes for drugs like cocaine. If I decide to ingest it, that's my business, not the state's. Yes, other people are impacted - but those are largely a consequence of the effects of prohibition creating a black market cornered by gangsters, not the act of taking the drug itself. If I get coked up and go to the footy and get in a fight, that's different.
My point is that I do think this is a stance that should be covered by libertarian or classically liberal principles, which is why it strikes me as so odd that "the right" seems to come down on the humanist rather than transhumanist side. Does this mean it should be treated as a separate political axis? I'm not sure. I find it hard to separate my transhumanist position from my classically liberal position, the two are intertwined to the point they are the same thing. However, it's clear from the general discourse that this isn't the case in society at large - there are a lot of people who are very keen on a small state and lower taxes, but still happy to police other people's bodies. I find their position logically incoherent. "Biopolitics" shouldn't be conducted at the national level, they should be conducted at the individual level. A human being should be sovereign over their own body.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
Douglas Adams probably had it right. Anything from our childhood is the natural order, anything developed in our youth is an exciting enhancement that might give us a job, anything invented after that is an abomination.
It shouldn't matter, except that British politics is so age-polarised right now.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
Dyed hair, wigs, make up, artificial limbs, nail extension, nail polish, transplants, dental work?
Cutting your hair and beard are against Sikh teaching. The idea being that our bodies were created by God and we should not interfere with them.
Of course, many folks who look down on those who have short hair or are clean shaven are very happy to have holes put through their ear lobes, forgetting that God designed them to be holeless.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
But why? Go back a generation or so and amateur vs. professional absolutely was a live debate. See the Olympics until really quite recently.
But analysing situations and rendering them into statistical formats gives me transferable skills that apply to many professions, and political analysis is one of them. In this specific case I thought Harrington's work on creating a new axis is a new tool in the box and wished to bring it to other's attention.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
I oppose performance-enhancing drugs in sport because if we introduced them then what we'd then have wouldn't be sport - it would arguably be some sort of competitive event and might even be entertaining in some ways, but it wouldn't be sport.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
I oppose performance-enhancing drugs in sport because if we introduced them then what we'd then have wouldn't be sport - it would arguably be some sort of competitive event and might even be entertaining in some ways, but it wouldn't be sport.
It might be something akin to watching a musical performance?
Very interesting article, @viewcode, and I'm intrigued about the philosophical basis she's propounding - but I think you needf to find another term instead of 'humanist'. Humanist has a very clear existing meaning, and I'd argue strongly that not only is there potential confusion between using it in two different contexts, but also that people who are humanists in the existing usage would largely not be at what you call the 'humanist' end of the transhuman axis.
Very interesting article, @viewcode, and I'm intrigued about the philosophical basis she's propounding - but I think you needf to find another term instead of 'humanist'. Humanist has a very clear existing meaning, and I'd argue strongly that not only is there potential confusion between using it in two different contexts, but also that people who are humanists in the existing usage would largely not be at what you call the 'humanist' end of the transhuman axis.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
I oppose performance-enhancing drugs in sport because if we introduced them then what we'd then have wouldn't be sport - it would arguably be some sort of competitive event and might even be entertaining in some ways, but it wouldn't be sport.
It might be something akin to watching a musical performance?
It would be more like watching some sort of trade fair I'd have thought. Imagine if all conversations about 'sport' were dominated by 'X has signed a new deal to take the drugs developed by company Y and company Z has developed a new drug that will out-enhance all those produced by the competition'. It would be a grisly affair.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
I oppose performance-enhancing drugs in sport because if we introduced them then what we'd then have wouldn't be sport - it would arguably be some sort of competitive event and might even be entertaining in some ways, but it wouldn't be sport.
It might be something akin to watching a musical performance?
It would be more like watching some sort of trade fair I'd have thought. Imagine if all conversations about 'sport' were dominated by 'X has signed a new deal to take the drugs developed by company Y and company Z has developed a new drug that will out-enhance all those produced by the competition'. It would be a grisly affair.
What do you think about sponsorship? 'X has signed a new deal to wear the trainers developed by company Y and company Z has developed a fabric that will out-enhance all those produced by the competition'.
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
Very interesting article, @viewcode, and I'm intrigued about the philosophical basis she's propounding - but I think you needf to find another term instead of 'humanist'. Humanist has a very clear existing meaning, and I'd argue strongly that not only is there potential confusion between using it in two different contexts, but also that people who are humanists in the existing usage would largely not be at what you call the 'humanist' end of the transhuman axis.
This sort of thing has been kicking around parts of the American Right for some time, normally as a way of discrediting Obamacare etc.: control of your own body is the most fundamental freedom you have; if you have to rely on the state to fix it then that's tantamount to slavery.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
I don't have the answers to those questions, apologies. I imagine she would allow vaccines to bring the body back to its normative (nominal?) state, but not injections to (say) give you an IQ of 300. She's not antimedicine, just arguing that it should have bounds.
From my POV, the advantage of a theory is not just whether it is true or false, but whether it can be used to predict events. She gave her speech in 2023, but only now in 2024 has assisted dying become a political issue: see Parris's awful awful article in the Times. Using this axis to interpret past and future events is (for me at least) useful.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
But why? Go back a generation or so and amateur vs. professional absolutely was a live debate. See the Olympics until really quite recently.
IIRC the Ancient Greeks found the idea of people who trained to become professional sportsmen wrong. The Olympic ideal was about peaceful competition in the military related arts.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling God's in this somewhere)?
To people from even the 1950s, the results of modern gym work would be considered massive body modification.
Consider that Sean Connery was consider a pro-bodybuilder before going into acting.
and yes, "yclept" is a real word. I've wanted to use it for ages.
Used in John Buchan's Huntingtower, no less.
And also in EE Smith's "Grey Lensman". I am not as well read as I pretend...
I read the Lensman series around 50 years ago when I was 12. It says something of them that I can still remember a fair bit about them (even if not the word yclept). A lot of books have come and gone in that time.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
Reading that article, then looking briefly into the speaker, and it’s clear she’s just giving a pseudo-philosophical veneer to very old, religious, conservative and highly American opinions.
American religious conservatives don’t like abortion, contraception, vaccines, queers, and a variety of other things that challenge traditional society and morals. That’s all.
Though the one thing that’s much more British than American - simply because it suits the right in this milieu - is to insist decisions should be made at national level. That’s because they suspect devolved administrations and supranational organisations of being woke. But transport this discussion to America and hey presto, suddenly deciding things at state level is fine and federal decisions like Roe vs Wade are anathema.
I am a researcher at Bayes Business School and am currently working on time, technology and market legitimacy. But it has applications way beyond technology. All I can say is that, between AI and AR, I have grave grave reservations about perpetual human embedding in marketised technological environments. Posthumanism is just another way of saying capitalism - the total, perpetual and enveloping cocooning in capitalistic market provisioning. And given that digital services have a tendency towards total shittification, there are serious problems in basing our total life worlds in such environments.
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying that she didn't say anything about vaccination or suicide.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
Pretty simple: because in the British context that’s the level at which the right think they have a chance of imposing their will. That’s the level at which the Mail, Sun and GB News operate. Because regional and supranational organisations are woke.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
Many performance enhancing drugs are allowed in sport. There are just some that are banned.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
I don't have the answers to those questions, apologies. I imagine she would allow vaccines to bring the body back to its normative (nominal?) state, but not injections to (say) give you an IQ of 300. She's not antimedicine, just arguing that it should have bounds.
From my POV, the advantage of a theory is not just whether it is true or false, but whether it can be used to predict events. She gave her speech in 2023, but only now in 2024 has assisted dying become a political issue: see Parris's awful awful article in the Times. Using this axis to interpret past and future events is (for me at least) useful.
Being infected by a virus means the immune system learns to recognise that virus and will react much more quickly if the person is exposed to that virus again. This is the same as a vaccine and the body has been changed by an outide agent (the virus). Does this mean that "Humanists"* consider that being infected by a virus is also something to be prohibited?
I thought that the notion of humanist was already taken: meaning people with Christian ethics but neither believe in God nor active in a Christian church.
The trouble with this is you want a tattoo or a body piercing we quite rightly say you have to wait till you are 18 to consent. You are however 16 and confused about your sexuality and someone comes to you and tells you that you are not actually gay just born as the wrong sex a certain percentage will believe and sign up for puberty blockers etc.
Some absolutely will be dysphoric and need treatment, however they can still wait to be an adult and choose that. Some however aren't and once on the path find it hard to backout they need protection from ideoligically driven idiots
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying that she didn't say anything about vaccination or suicide.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
Oh I'm sorry. To explain further.
Her speech was not just about the use of technology to enhance the body. It was also and mostly about who has the authority over the body for such uses. In her argument it is the nation state.
She did not mention suicide explicitly, but she did mention "Big Death". "Big Death" is a right-wing(?) term for companies and organisations proposing "assisted dying". "Assisted dying" is an a euphemism for assisted suicide, with the assistance being the provision of drugs and services meant to make suicide easier.
So suicide was relevant to this article because
* It fits into the framework on who has authority over the body * She mentioned "Big Death"
You highlight an interesting political axis @viewcode. Humanism identified with a strong conservatism that regards all modification of the human body as automatically morally suspect.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
No, this is the amateurism vs professionalism argument which is something quite different.
No, the same argument could be applied to amateurs and professions alike: why should one artificial intervention to improve the body be allowed in sport while another be disallowed? But here's a thought. Suppose a classical violist received heaps of praise and loads of awards for a series of wonderful performances they'd given. It then transpired they'd been taking a new drug that actually enhanced musicality. Would or should we feel betrayed? Should he hand all the awards back?
If you think it's the same argument, why are you opposed to performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
I oppose performance-enhancing drugs in sport because if we introduced them then what we'd then have wouldn't be sport - it would arguably be some sort of competitive event and might even be entertaining in some ways, but it wouldn't be sport.
It seems like you would consider it to be not a sport, but I think most people would consider it to be sport.
An interesting article, but I’m not convinced, Commentators may view several related issues as connected and proclaim a transhumanist axis, but do everyday people think in those terms? Are there correlations between views on contraception, abortion, trans rights and performance-enhancing drugs?
And, if there are, do we need a new axis or do existing ones (libertarianism/authoritarianism or religiosity or feminism) suffice?
In practice, I think there’s a big difference between things that people have gotten used to and have clearly worked well (contraception, abortion) and things that are still, for many, novel and, for some, scary (trans rights).
And do people care? There are no signs that any of these issues are seen as key in UK issues polling, although of course the US is different.
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
Many performance enhancing drugs are allowed in sport. There are just some that are banned.
Indeed. Caffeine (for example) can be taken freely
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
Why?
The previous one, of Great Britain and Ireland, was evidently not worth saving.
An interesting article, but I’m not convinced, Commentators may view several related issues as connected and proclaim a transhumanist axis, but do everyday people think in those terms? Are there correlations between views on contraception, abortion, trans rights and performance-enhancing drugs?
And, if there are, do we need a new axis or do existing ones (libertarianism/authoritarianism or religiosity or feminism) suffice?
In practice, I think there’s a big difference between things that people have gotten used to and have clearly worked well (contraception, abortion) and things that are still, for many, novel and, for some, scary (trans rights).
And do people care? There are no signs that any of these issues are seen as key in UK issues polling, although of course the US is different.
All issues are linked indeed because they all require consent...not just from the person undergoing them but society to agree.
As a fairly right wing person (though I admit moved leftwards as I grow older)
Abortion yes with term limits or later if there is a threat to the mothers life or the baby is likely to be signifigantly non viable
Contraception always a big yes
Trans rights, dont care about people cross dressing, or identifying as a female as long as they don't invade women only spaces. For those unfortunate enough to be genuinely dysphoric then they need evaluating and then treating appropriately which may well include gender reassignement at which point I am happy for them to be accessing gender specific places like prisons or refuges
As to sports, given the number of enhancing drug scandals we have had in sports I doubt most of our sports records are not suspect. the only reason I hesitate to advocate for free use of them tbh is that I don't think non adults should be taking them as they are not in a place where they can see the downsides
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
It is amusing to consider that for every individual who retorts “no the U.K. is already in the dustbin of history”,, each has a political unit they worship.
Pronounce that “X will pass” and you’ll get shouting, pearl clutching and declarations of kiloyear permanence.
It's unusual to be 20 minutes into the article and nobody commentating. I hope I haven't scared anybody off.
No, I was writing something myself (not for PB) but have stopped for some of Mrs C's mum's banana cake and a cup of tea, now I have the piece sorted out as to argument etc.
Interesting piece. Everything from wearing spectacles and earring piercings to chopping off and frying one's own bits for a dinner party.
Though I'm not sure humanist is the right root word to use. Too many meanings, e.g. it tends to be used as an opposite to sectarian authoritarian. Is it too late for some other word to be found?
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
Why?
The previous one, of Great Britain and Ireland, was evidently not worth saving.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the state of England [and Wales].
Because, after much fussing and shouting and killing, we seem to have arrived at something that works. Despite all the arguments NI and Scotland are still in the UK, and Wales solved the problem by leaving but never telling anybody. It would cost too much money and time to change, so let's not. NI can leave when it wants but provided we don't force it out we should be OK.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
No, you work for the things that make the UK great.
It is the ability of the UK to deliver those things that makes the UK a great entity.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
So you’re looking forward to a Labour government, given the unholy damage the Tories have made to unionism?
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
Why?
The previous one, of Great Britain and Ireland, was evidently not worth saving.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the state of England [and Wales].
Because, after much fussing and shouting and killing, we seem to have arrived at something that works. Despite all the arguments NI and Scotland are still in the UK, and Wales solved the problem by leaving but never telling anybody. It would cost too much money and time to change, so let's not. NI can leave when it wants but provided we don't force it out we should be OK.
But on precisely that argument, CR would insist on using whatever measures he saw necessary to preserve UKGBNI just because it was the current state. He wouldn't dream of letting [edit] NI leave, any more than our Tories would permit an indyref again.
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying that she didn't say anything about vaccination or suicide.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
Oh I'm sorry. To explain further.
Her speech was not just about the use of technology to enhance the body. It was also and mostly about who has the authority over the body for such uses. In her argument it is the nation state.
She did not mention suicide explicitly, but she did mention "Big Death". "Big Death" is a right-wing(?) term for companies and organisations proposing "assisted dying". "Assisted dying" is an a euphemism for assisted suicide, with the assistance being the provision of drugs and services meant to make suicide easier.
So suicide was relevant to this article because
* It fits into the framework on who has authority over the body * She mentioned "Big Death"
Does that answer your question?
If she did mention suicide after all - albeit using right-wing American code - yes, it does in a way.
But I think the question you're talking about now - whether the state or the individual should control what can be done to our bodies - is very different from the question a lot of people would have got from your article - whether or not technological bodily enhancements beyond the norm should be allowed.
Because if you're trying to apply it to vaccines, if the answer to the former question is "the state", then any likely change would be towards more compulsory vaccinations, rather than the state banning vaccination altogether. And thus more technological enhancement, not less.
These ideas seem rather incoherent, at least as summarised by you.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
All forms of human organisation are artificial.
Indeed: there will come a time when the last human to ever utter the words "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will pass.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
Or to work to ensure it never does - because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a project worth saving.
Why?
The previous one, of Great Britain and Ireland, was evidently not worth saving.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the state of England [and Wales].
Because, after much fussing and shouting and killing, we seem to have arrived at something that works. Despite all the arguments NI and Scotland are still in the UK, and Wales solved the problem by leaving but never telling anybody. It would cost too much money and time to change, so let's not. NI can leave when it wants but provided we don't force it out we should be OK.
But on precisely that argument, CR would insist on using whatever measures he saw necessary to preserve UKGBNI just because it was the current state. He wouldn't dream of letting [edit] NI leave, any more than our Tories would permit an indyref again.
Another Indyref should happen again if there is a nationalist Scottish administration that is elected on such a manifesto, and if a generation (reasonably defined as 25 years) has passed since the last one.
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying that she didn't say anything about vaccination or suicide.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
Oh I'm sorry. To explain further.
Her speech was not just about the use of technology to enhance the body. It was also and mostly about who has the authority over the body for such uses. In her argument it is the nation state.
She did not mention suicide explicitly, but she did mention "Big Death". "Big Death" is a right-wing(?) term for companies and organisations proposing "assisted dying". "Assisted dying" is an a euphemism for assisted suicide, with the assistance being the provision of drugs and services meant to make suicide easier.
So suicide was relevant to this article because
* It fits into the framework on who has authority over the body * She mentioned "Big Death"
Does that answer your question?
If she did mention suicide after all - albeit using right-wing American code - yes, it does in a way.
But I think the question you're talking about now - whether the state or the individual should control what can be done to our bodies - is very different from the question a lot of people would have got from your article - whether or not technological bodily enhancements beyond the norm should be allowed.
Because if you're trying to apply it to vaccines, if the answer to the former question is "the state", then any likely change would be towards more compulsory vaccinations, rather than the state banning vaccination altogether. And thus more technological enhancement, not less.
These ideas seem rather incoherent, at least as summarised by you.
I can only apologise, as I genuinely don't know which incoherentisms were introduced by me and which by her. I did give a link to her speech: you can use it if you want her full unmediated version.
It's not very clear what these philosophical ideas are supposed to produce in terms of policy.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
In Leninist terms: "who, whom". Who has to the power to do what to whom.
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying that she didn't say anything about vaccination or suicide.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
Oh I'm sorry. To explain further.
Her speech was not just about the use of technology to enhance the body. It was also and mostly about who has the authority over the body for such uses. In her argument it is the nation state.
She did not mention suicide explicitly, but she did mention "Big Death". "Big Death" is a right-wing(?) term for companies and organisations proposing "assisted dying". "Assisted dying" is an a euphemism for assisted suicide, with the assistance being the provision of drugs and services meant to make suicide easier.
So suicide was relevant to this article because
* It fits into the framework on who has authority over the body * She mentioned "Big Death"
Does that answer your question?
If she did mention suicide after all - albeit using right-wing American code - yes, it does in a way.
But I think the question you're talking about now - whether the state or the individual should control what can be done to our bodies - is very different from the question a lot of people would have got from your article - whether or not technological bodily enhancements beyond the norm should be allowed.
Because if you're trying to apply it to vaccines, if the answer to the former question is "the state", then any likely change would be towards more compulsory vaccinations, rather than the state banning vaccination altogether. And thus more technological enhancement, not less.
These ideas seem rather incoherent, at least as summarised by you.
I can only apologise, as I genuinely don't know which incoherentisms were introduced by me and which by her. I did give a link to her speech: you can use it if you want her full unmediated version.
Simple answer is our bodies we should be able to choose what happens within a few societal limits.
Choose to be vaccinated.....personal choice Choose to abort....personal choice before society choices are exceeded. etc
It's unusual to be 20 minutes into the article and nobody commentating. I hope I haven't scared anybody off.
No, I was writing something myself (not for PB) but have stopped for some of Mrs C's mum's banana cake and a cup of tea, now I have the piece sorted out as to argument etc.
Interesting piece. Everything from wearing spectacles and earring piercings to chopping off and frying one's own bits for a dinner party.
Though I'm not sure humanist is the right root word to use. Too many meanings, e.g. it tends to be used as an opposite to sectarian authoritarian. Is it too late for some other word to be found?
Probably. I don't know if the mods would permit a post facto change.
I am busy tonight and will not have time to rewrite. However there's usually an extended cut of the articles I write and a backstage discussion. If people can suggest alternates to "humanist" I'm happy to include them in the later version.
TSE on 4 April: "I AM NOT WRITING A THREAD ON THAT "
TSE on 5 April: "As a regular user of the Grindr app of many years I didn’t think anything could shock me when it came to that app but the behaviour of William Wragg, the Tory MP for Hazel Grove, has managed to leave me shocked and speechless. [click bait follows]"
When I reflected on the story overnight I realised there were some betting implications so was obliged to cover the story.
Unfortunately you forgot to mention the betting implications in your header.
Don't get me wrong. I think the antics of our betters are always interesting and entertaining to discuss. In this case, as he was an openly gay man, apparently single, not even planning to stand for election to Parliament again, it's interesting to speculate what he could have done that was so bad as to force him to deliver up his friends into the hands of these blackmailers and possible enemy agents.
The @Cleitophon Criterion "A PB header should have a betting implication"
It's met less often than you'd think.
Hahaha have I got a criterion named after me 😃😃😃 I love it.
I would say an addendum could be added to it too, because there may be a large-ish group like myself that lean closer toward the sanctity of the body on a spiritual basis, but who are also anti-authoritarian. In this case there is a secular/spiritual conflict rather than a state/libertarian one, with my group not necessarily trusting the state to observe that sanctity in the correct form, either.
Very interesting piece. I find the 'nation state' emphasis rather odd. Why as a matter of principle should something as fundamental as this be handled at the level of something that is at heart an artificial construct?
Interesting article but I suspect the speaker you quote has taken a whole lot of personal prejudices and constructed a philosophy out of it.
She's keen on these things being decided at the UK level because it is for the moment run by a morally conservative government while Scotland and internationally to some extent are more progressive and not to her liking .
Seems a silly idea to me. By her 'reasoning' wouldn't making yourself stronger by going to the gym be 'posthumanist' (and, presumably, sinful as I get the feeling Gods in this somewhere)?
Do you think performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports?
No.
Then you understand why 'natural' training doesn't fit in that category.
Not at all. Gym work could be regarded as just as much a technological intervention as taking performance-enhancing drugs. Indeed, you could make the case that the purest from of sport would involve people who've never done any training whatsoever - they're judged simply on how they turned out (isn't going to a school where they have the top coaches and equipment intrinsically unfair?), but training is something we do allow, perhaps by a historical quirk.
But not allowing "training" would give certain occupations an advantage. Baggage handlers would be good hammer throwers, I reckon.
Interesting article but I suspect the speaker you quote has taken a whole lot of personal prejudices and constructed a philosophy out of it.
She's keen on these things being decided at the UK level because it is for the moment run by a morally conservative government while Scotland and internationally to some extent are more progressive and not to her liking .
Exactly. People should ask her whether she also thinks moral questions should be ruled on at federal level in the US.
Interesting article but I suspect the speaker you quote has taken a whole lot of personal prejudices and constructed a philosophy out of it.
She's keen on these things being decided at the UK level because it is for the moment run by a morally conservative government while Scotland and internationally to some extent are more progressive and not to her liking .
Well yes, but I'm perfectly willing to take her framework and run with it. I don't agree with her position on the axis and mine would be at the other end to hers, but I can use the concept of a humanist-posthumanist axis and use it for statistical purposes. For example "Party X scores 9 on the suthoritarian axis and 1 on the transhuman axis, so person Y who wants abortion to be banned will vote for Party X". From my POV it's another tool in the box
Comments
14:00 https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/04/07/transhumanism/
Five minutes into the future, me...
I googled it when I saw you post about the article !
[1] https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1229421166596689922
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-election-poll-tories-jdwpqxszb
They may think that they are humanist but they lack humanity. Their approach is intrusive and potentially highly authoritarian. A touch of the attitude to mutants in the marvel universe.
The first attempt at globalisation has suffered a knock back, but the ultimate destiny of our species will surely be globalist... or we will face extinction.
I notice she wears glasses.
Does that make me a Humanist?
(It is a given that I am an Authoritarian.)
Very few of these divisions have improved things. Almost none of them have improved coherence, collectivism, nationhood or a sense of belonging. I really cannot see how seeking to divide ourselves between humanists and transhuminists will help us in coming together, showing compassion for one another or addressing our problems, quite the reverse in fact.
As War Games once correctly observed sometimes the only way to win is not to play.
Ultimately I'm a classical liberal in the sense that we have primarily self-regarding actions and primarily other-regarding actions. And it's nobody's bloody business what self-regarding actions I do.
So if I want to take HRT to become more feminine, that's really nobody's business but my own. Ditto, if I want to take testosterone and get swole, that's my business. It only really becomes somebody else's business if I decide to enter a weightlifting competition, the tour de france, etc.
The same goes for drugs like cocaine. If I decide to ingest it, that's my business, not the state's. Yes, other people are impacted - but those are largely a consequence of the effects of prohibition creating a black market cornered by gangsters, not the act of taking the drug itself. If I get coked up and go to the footy and get in a fight, that's different.
My point is that I do think this is a stance that should be covered by libertarian or classically liberal principles, which is why it strikes me as so odd that "the right" seems to come down on the humanist rather than transhumanist side. Does this mean it should be treated as a separate political axis? I'm not sure. I find it hard to separate my transhumanist position from my classically liberal position, the two are intertwined to the point they are the same thing. However, it's clear from the general discourse that this isn't the case in society at large - there are a lot of people who are very keen on a small state and lower taxes, but still happy to police other people's bodies. I find their position logically incoherent. "Biopolitics" shouldn't be conducted at the national level, they should be conducted at the individual level. A human being should be sovereign over their own body.
Good effort and I feel like you made me read all of it; I had to work quite hard to work out what your point was.
It could have been 1/3rd to 1/2th shorter and cut to a stronger conclusion, IMHO.
What do you do at the moment?
It shouldn't matter, except that British politics is so age-polarised right now.
Maybe I should get another pair, because mine aren't any better when I take them off.
Of course, many folks who look down on those who have short hair or are clean shaven are very happy to have holes put through their ear lobes, forgetting that God designed them to be holeless.
Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.
You can't eliminate training without very perverse rules. Would it be regarded as cheating for a runner to take a job 10 miles from their home so their training could be disguised as a commute? What about someone who deliberately sought out a job in a high-rise building so they could run up the stairs each morning?
But analysing situations and rendering them into statistical formats gives me transferable skills that apply to many professions, and political analysis is one of them. In this specific case I thought Harrington's work on creating a new axis is a new tool in the box and wished to bring it to other's attention.
Let's take the idea of vaccines. Are vaccines a post humanist/trans humanist improvement of the body? I think that if you regard contraception as trans humanist then they must be. Is she seriously arguing that conservatives should be opposed to vaccines? Because if she is, and we have heard some of this nonsense in the US, not least from RFK, she's lost me and, I hope, most rational people.
Is genetic medicine treating hereditary disorders something we are supposed to oppose? I mean, really?
Or is this supposed axis just not very useful in making sensible decisions about the complicated questions we actually face? That's where I am heading.
Let's take the issue of transgender (hang in there, this will be brief). The issue there is surely not whether some people want to dress as the opposite sex. Good luck to them. Who cares? The State, and anybody even vaguely sane, only shows an interest when the rights that they are asserting interfere with the rights of others or puts them at unacceptable risk. That is the battlefield, not some deontological analysis of what we "ought" to be.
Presumably "humanists" are against vaccination, as it enhances the body's resistance to disease beyond its "normative" state (assuming that means normal).
Quite how suicide enhances the body's functioning is beyond me, though.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oSWISed59Dk
(Good afternoon, everyone. Gloves off by the Lincoln Project.)
Bear in mind that suicide used to be a crime: anybody who failed to complete a suicide was imprisoned as committing a crime against God. It was me who introduced the Suicide Act into it (as I point out) and I don't think she mentioned it. But it's yet another Xmas bauble to hang (ouch!) from the branches of this new umbrella arm and an example of its flexibility.
IIRC she did not discuss vaccination qua vaccination, but did point out that in Covid we removed the power of choice from people, and I assume she meant that.
From my POV, the advantage of a theory is not just whether it is true or false, but whether it can be used to predict events. She gave her speech in 2023, but only now in 2024 has assisted dying become a political issue: see Parris's awful awful article in the Times. Using this axis to interpret past and future events is (for me at least) useful.
It isn't often I get to cite the Wrexham Leader in relation to a discussion here, but...
https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/24232216.rob-mcelhenney-make-documentary-enhanced-games/
The games will not follow the rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that athletes will be able to take performance-enhancing drugs.
The founders hope that it will eventually become a competitor to the Olympics.
And to anyone who responds 'Is that Tuesday's Leader or Friday's?', hello.
Consider that Sean Connery was consider a pro-bodybuilder before going into acting.
American religious conservatives don’t like abortion, contraception, vaccines, queers, and a variety of other things that challenge traditional society and morals. That’s all.
Though the one thing that’s much more British than American - simply because it suits the right in this milieu - is to insist decisions should be made at national level. That’s because they suspect devolved administrations and supranational organisations of being woke. But transport this discussion to America and hey presto, suddenly deciding things at state level is fine and federal decisions like Roe vs Wade are anathema.
I am a researcher at Bayes Business School and am currently working on time, technology and market legitimacy. But it has applications way beyond technology. All I can say is that, between AI and AR, I have grave grave reservations about perpetual human embedding in marketised technological environments. Posthumanism is just another way of saying capitalism - the total, perpetual and enveloping cocooning in capitalistic market provisioning. And given that digital services have a tendency towards total shittification, there are serious problems in basing our total life worlds in such environments.
I'm afraid your pointing out that suicide used to be a crime does nothing to explain why you thought it was relevant to a discussion of the use of technology to enhance the body. But never mind.
It's a reminder to spend our time working for what matters, what brings joy and happiness.
I thought that the notion of humanist was already taken: meaning people with Christian ethics but neither believe in God nor active in a Christian church.
Some absolutely will be dysphoric and need treatment, however they can still wait to be an adult and choose that. Some however aren't and once on the path find it hard to backout they need protection from ideoligically driven idiots
Her speech was not just about the use of technology to enhance the body. It was also and mostly about who has the authority over the body for such uses. In her argument it is the nation state.
She did not mention suicide explicitly, but she did mention "Big Death". "Big Death" is a right-wing(?) term for companies and organisations proposing "assisted dying". "Assisted dying" is an a euphemism for assisted suicide, with the assistance being the provision of drugs and services meant to make suicide easier.
So suicide was relevant to this article because
* It fits into the framework on who has authority over the body
* She mentioned "Big Death"
Does that answer your question?
I look forward to your next article!
https://enhanced.org/our-team/
And, if there are, do we need a new axis or do existing ones (libertarianism/authoritarianism or religiosity or feminism) suffice?
In practice, I think there’s a big difference between things that people have gotten used to and have clearly worked well (contraception, abortion) and things that are still, for many, novel and, for some, scary (trans rights).
And do people care? There are no signs that any of these issues are seen as key in UK issues polling, although of course the US is different.
The previous one, of Great Britain and Ireland, was evidently not worth saving.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the previous one.
Nor was the state of England [and Wales].
As a fairly right wing person (though I admit moved leftwards as I grow older)
Abortion yes with term limits or later if there is a threat to the mothers life or the baby is likely to be signifigantly non viable
Contraception always a big yes
Trans rights, dont care about people cross dressing, or identifying as a female as long as they don't invade women only spaces. For those unfortunate enough to be genuinely dysphoric then they need evaluating and then treating appropriately which may well include gender reassignement at which point I am happy for them to be accessing gender specific places like prisons or refuges
As to sports, given the number of enhancing drug scandals we have had in sports I doubt most of our sports records are not suspect. the only reason I hesitate to advocate for free use of them tbh is that I don't think non adults should be taking them as they are not in a place where they can see the downsides
Pronounce that “X will pass” and you’ll get shouting, pearl clutching and declarations of kiloyear permanence.
Interesting piece. Everything from wearing spectacles and earring piercings to chopping off and frying one's own bits for a dinner party.
Though I'm not sure humanist is the right root word to use. Too many meanings, e.g. it tends to be used as an opposite to sectarian authoritarian. Is it too late for some other word to be found?
It is the ability of the UK to deliver those things that makes the UK a great entity.
But I think the question you're talking about now - whether the state or the individual should control what can be done to our bodies - is very different from the question a lot of people would have got from your article - whether or not technological bodily enhancements beyond the norm should be allowed.
Because if you're trying to apply it to vaccines, if the answer to the former question is "the state", then any likely change would be towards more compulsory vaccinations, rather than the state banning vaccination altogether. And thus more technological enhancement, not less.
These ideas seem rather incoherent, at least as summarised by you.
Choose to be vaccinated.....personal choice
Choose to abort....personal choice before society choices are exceeded.
etc
I am busy tonight and will not have time to rewrite. However there's usually an extended cut of the articles I write and a backstage discussion. If people can suggest alternates to "humanist" I'm happy to include them in the later version.
I would say an addendum could be added to it too, because there may be a large-ish group like myself that lean closer toward the sanctity of the body on a spiritual basis, but who are also anti-authoritarian. In this case there is a secular/spiritual conflict rather than a state/libertarian one, with my group not necessarily trusting the state to observe that sanctity in the correct form, either.
As many teams have experienced previously, Liverpool are learning that you must take your chances
She's keen on these things being decided at the UK level because it is for the moment run by a morally conservative government while Scotland and internationally to some extent are more progressive and not to her liking .