Anemone Armchair by Giancarlo
trying on a metaphor

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
noise dept.
Cosmic Funnies
Mike Driver
untitled
$LAYYYTER
No title available

Andulka

tannertan36

blake kathryn
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

★

Kiana Khansmith

No title available
cherry valley forever
Cosimo Galluzzi

@theartofmadeline
Fai_Ryy

seen from Malaysia
seen from Brazil
seen from United States

seen from Ukraine
seen from Serbia
seen from Türkiye

seen from Brazil

seen from Kuwait
seen from Iraq
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Singapore

seen from Nigeria
seen from United States

seen from Canada
@radmaenad
Anemone Armchair by Giancarlo
Genuine question. What's so bad about transhumanism? I think immortality would be pretty cool for those who want an extended life span
I think if immortality becomes within human reach, it will suddenly be starkly apparent who is and isn’t considered human. People on tumblr were celebrating David Koch’s death recently—rooting for transhumanism means rooting for a world in which David Koch lives forever, while a poor Mexican immigrant woman doesn’t. It is naive to think that the millions of people around the world who are barred access to proper medical care today will get a fair share of the spoils of transhumanism tomorrow, and it seems more realistic that a transhumanist society will mainly give us immortal Trump, and immortal dictators, oil barons, rich war criminals, and immortal Silicon Valley white males, and immortal first world elites.
You might say “But all advances in medicine are more readily accessible to first world elites and are out of reach for millions of people, so does that make medical research bad too?” but the ‘advances’ favoured by transhumanists are on a whole other level of hubris that would have different implications and consequences. (I mean, eugenics was the subtext of every transhumanist manifesto I’ve come across.) I am reminded of this quote from Sapiens that starts with: “Suppose science comes up with cures for all diseases, effective anti-ageing therapies and regenerative treatments that keep people indefinitely young. In all likelihood, the immediate result will be an unprecedented epidemic of anger and anxiety.”
I wrote a post about this last year in which I mentioned that transhumanist rhetoric also pushes us further along the Cartesian dualism slippery slope. Promises to improve our subpar bodies or plug our consciousness onto better receptacles means you don’t think of your body as your self; it feeds into the same “I am not my body, I own my body” mindset that enables the ever-increasing capitalist commodification of human bodies (as a sum of parts up for sale) that harms women disproportionately (as women have historically been the Body so that men could arrogate the right to be the Mind). Disregarding the body and reducing your personhood to nothing but your mind or intellect is the first step to denying some people personhood because they do not have the right kind of intellect, or not enough of it. This glorification of the human mind and contempt for the human body in its current, un-enhanced state, also translates into contempt for people whose bodies are seen as even more intolerably deficient—hence all the distasteful rhetoric about how transhumanism will finally rid us of disability / the disabled.
This contempt for the human body is also linked to a very male contempt for boundaries, to men’s obsession with unchecked growth and their disdain for the inescapable limitations of the natural world, which is destroying our planet. Buying into the Cartesian idea that you are a mind “driving” a body (rather than being a body, with your mind as a physical body part among others) leads to perceiving the body as a boundary standing between your consciousness /your self, and the outside world. A very frustrating boundary at that, limited in many ways, prone to illness and ageing. I remember reading a quote by a prominent transhumanist (CEO of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation) that went “We seek to void all limits tolife, intelligence, freedom, knowledge, and happiness.” Imagine how much better we would all feel about ourselves if, rather than perceiving our body as limiting our lifespan and freedom and capacity for happiness, we acknowledged it for what it is—our only source of happiness and freedom to explore the world, our incredibly complex and beautiful way of experiencing the universe, of creating sensations of pleasure and wonder, of remembering them and anticipating more. If we thought of our body not as an unsatisfactory flesh prison for our consciousness in need of video game-like enhancements but as a mind-boggingly refined organism, a delicately balanced whole that is more than the sum of its parts, we wouldn’t be so eager to risk destroying this balance by attempting to “void all limits” that make it viable.
The word that comes to my mind to describe transhumanism is ungrateful, both towards nature and towards women. The latter is a no-brainer; women created every human body that ever walked on this Earth and the (overwhelmingly male) transhumanist pioneers, who scorn human bodies in their current state and seek to improve them, really scorn women’s work as inadequate and reveal the same obvious womb envy that led to male-created religions in which male gods are the creators of all life. And this lack of gratitude, respect, and, I want to say, loyalty towards the human body—seeing it as disposable once we find a better, more durable way to store our consciousness—very much mirrors a lack of gratitude, respect and loyalty towards nature in general (which our bodies are a part of), seeing natural resources as disposable, deciding against all evidence to the contrary that the natural world needs to be tinkered with and improved by humans rather than cared for and valued as it is—what Paul Kingsnorth calls “human imperialism” seems to be at the core of the transhumanist mindset.
Adopting Indigenous practices could help improve traditional conservation efforts.
As human activities such as deforestation, overfishing, and emitting greenhouse gases continue to devastate the planet, the forecast is bleak for its species. More than one million types of plants and animals worldwide are currently facing extinction: a number that is between 1,000 and 10,000 times greater than the natural rate.
A new UBC-led study suggests that Indigenous-managed lands may play a critical role in helping species survive.
Researchers sampled land and species data from three of the world’s biggest countries—Canada, Australia, and Brazil. The study was the first to compare biodiversity and land management on such a broad geographic scale.
The scientists discovered that the total numbers of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles were all greatest on lands managed or co-managed by Indigenous communities.
Continue Reading.
Tagging: @ontarionewsnow @abpoli @politicsofcanada @torontopoli
water and air signs be like if you like my post i will daydream about us getting married and not tell you
i am surrounded on all sides by people who say words to me and well ive had it
? (Spanish? Miranda Makaroff?)
my ideal backyard garden
Bro why is being perceived such an ordeal
Isn’t it crazy how humans need stories to survive like it’s not just for fun or whatever we literally have to gather information and understand stories to like be alive
wig
“Girls know they are losing themselves… Girls become fragmented, their selves spilt into mysterious contradictions. They are sensitive and tenderhearted, mean and competitive, superficial and idealistic. They are confident in the morning and overwhelmed with anxiety by nightfall. They rush through their days with wild energy and then collapse into lethargy. They try on new roles every week: this week the good student, next week the delinquent and the next, the artist.”
— Mary Pipher, Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls (via fyp-psychology)
It’s just not as simple as “just don’t commit crimes”. Minorities, people with disabilities, people who don’t speak English, etc. are statistically far more likely to be the victims of police violence than neurotypical whites (although of course that does not make them completely exempt). In a world where people are calling the police on little black girls for selling water, or little black boys for bumping into them, or families for having a barbecue, or disabled homeless men for acting erratic, or immigrant grandmothers who don’t speak English, or people who are just walking to work, or people who are just existing in the “wrong” neighborhood, or people trying to get into their own apartments, the solution becomes a whole lot more complicated than “just don’t do anything wrong and the police won’t kill you, probably.”
women, in general, are misogynistic. this applies to radical feminists as much as the rest of women. i am not talking about internalized misogyny (i’m a dumb bitch, stupid, ugly, etc.), i’m talking about externalized misogyny (she’s a dumb bitch, stupid, ugly, etc.). i’m not saying there are no women who haven’t wrestled with the misogyny embedded in their psyche and somehow fully eradicated it, but i don’t know any, i’m certainly not one, and other women’s misogyny is easily identifiable on a day to day basis.
i believe strongly we need to face the reality that we have misogynistic thoughts about other women. we live in an ugly, misogynistic society. female people are trained since birth to feel pleasure and self-worth in cutting other women down. oftentimes, when this is brought up, the defensive response is “you’re saying i have to never criticize women! you’re saying i have to think all women are perfect! you’re saying i can’t disagree with women!” you’ll notice how this is the same defensive response as when misogyny is brought up to men.
you can be angry with a woman without expressing it in a misogynist way. you can be angry with a woman and examine both the range of emotions you feel because of her choices, actions and words and the emotions contained within that range that have misogynistic roots. examine the timbre of your response - could the words and sentiments you’re expressing be easily replaced with “you stupid bitch” or “you fucking cunt?”
dismissing the reality that we have been trained since birth to focus our female rage on the relatively safer targets of other female people and to gain disproportionate relief/satisfaction when the arrow hits its mark as sappy sisterhood bullshit is a rejection of fully understanding and therefore being able to address the gendered socialization we have undergone.
Tilda Swinton in ‘Orlando’ (1992).
Helen Mirren in ‘Catherine the Great’ (2019).