Ending of Natural Selection Could Result in Runaway Sexual Selection

Homo Sapiens is on tbe brink of becoming master of its own biology, and perhaps therefore of controlling its own evolution. Natural selection, the process that drives evolution, may be about to come to an end. However, one important mode of natural selection – sexual selection – might prove more enduring. Over the course of the next century humans might conquer aging, disease, and become Gods – ‘Homo Deus’. But while man might master his biology, it remains to be seen whether he can ever master his cock. The future of Humanity+ will not be shaped by natural selection, but it might still be determined largely by its core remnant – sexual selection.

In the last couple of years or so, two historically important individuals have become the first human beings to attempt to genetically modify themselves. One of them is male, and the other female. These progenitors of a new kind of human are not named Adam and Eve, but Josiah and Liz.

This year Josiah Zayner, a scrawny geek tech nerd used a home CRISPR gene editing kit to inject himself with DNA viruses that potentially will give him bigger muscles (no doubt if there had been a gene that could have given him a bigger penis he would have started with that).

Before him, Liz Parrish had already become the first ‘bio-hacker’ we know of when she publicly used gene editing therapy to lengthen her telomeres. Although Liz has the truly noble goal of ending aging, and ostensibly underwent the treatment to promote her own company which hopes to open up the use of such treatments, it cannot be denied that the first attempt in history by a human to alter its own DNA was made by a female entering middle-age hoping to be turned back into a young sexually attractive woman.

Humans will never ‘control’ evolution. They can end natural selection and ensure that evolution becomes human guided through the direct manipulation of our biology, but the fundamental processes determining the outcomes are likely to be even more primitive and animalistic. Sexual selection has always been limited by natural selection, that’s why phenomenon such as the peacocks tail have been so difficult to explain in evolutionary terms. Sex needs to be at the heart of the transhumanist discussion, because like it or not, sex is more than ever going to determine the future of our species.

Is Objection to Radical Life Extension a Crime against Humanity?

Every year around the world something like 50 million men and women die from ‘old age’. Each one of these ‘natural deaths’ is accompanied by the heartbreak and tears of relatives and loved ones, a scene played out over 100,000 times day after day. And if the death is lonely and marked not by tears but only by the professional duties of nurses or coroners, the human tragedy is arguably even greater. Each death represents not only the dying of another light, the extinguishing of subjective hopes, wants, feelings, and pleasures, but the deletion of a lifetime of knowledge, experience, and memories, vanished from the universe even more completely than the corpse that will turn to dust. If a library containing 100,000 unique and irreplaceable books was being burnt to the ground every single day we would be outraged, yet the extinguishing of countless thousands of unique individual selves that were forged through the joys and pains of decades of subjective experiences is seen as ‘natural’. It is, in fact, nothing less than a biological holocaust.

When technology might exist that can prevent a death, but is not used, that death is not ‘natural’. If a doctor decided to arbitarily switch off a patient’s life support machine, that doctor would be guilty not simply of professional misconduct, but of murder. If I marched into the critical care ward of a hospital and started brutally pulling off drips from the arms of patients, tearing away oxygen masks and the like, whilst screaming that artificially extending a person’s life was ‘unnatural’, my only legal defence against a conviction for murder or attempted murder might be that I was clinically insane. Yet opponents of radical life extension appear to use the ‘death is natural’ objection almost as a form of personal virtue signalling, even if the apparently desired consequence of their argument – that research into curing aging, and funding for that research, be treated as unimportant or even banned – would result in billions of human deaths that might have been avoided by life extension technology.

Europe now has strict ‘hate speech’ laws that leave many of us looking over our shoulder every time we go on Twitter or express a view on immigration or the like on any social media. The ostensible well meaning intention of these laws is to avoid another stain upon humanity that was the Jewish holocaust. The obvious chilling effect upon free speech that results from them is considered justified by that noble goal. Yet any causal relationship between racist or ‘Islamophobic’ tweets and future racial or religious genocides is highly speculative and hypothetical. Incitement to murder or to violence against individuals or groups was already illegal. What’s changed by these hate speech laws it that merely offensive or insulting words on the subject of race or even religion are now potentially criminal. On the other hand, firm objections to longevity research have a clear and explicit aim, and an equally clear consequence if others are persuaded or influenced by them – the future avoidable deaths of billions.

Given enough research into curing aging, technology will eventually radically extend lifespans. Even the most strident sceptics of near term life extension cannot deny this. Considering the numbers of deaths from ‘natural’ age related diseases quoted at the beginning of this article, each day we delay in solving the aging problem and reaching ‘longevity escape velocity’ will result in the ending of tens of thousands of lives that may otherwise enjoy decades or even centuries of further life. If the date that aging can effectively be brought under control is postponed by just a decade through lack of funding, it would result in well over half a billion deaths that could have been prevented. This number is around 100 times greater than the Jewish holocaust, and dwarfs any genocide or holocaust in history, or any ‘natural’ cataclysm. The number of preventable deaths is comparable to what we might expect from a global nuclear holocaust. And this only from one decade of delaying the ending of aging!

One might object that these numbers are misleading because, for example, the victims of the Jewish holocaust were as likely (or more likely) to be young and healthy, full of future hopes and incompleted lives, than be old and sick, whereas the ‘victims’ of the preventable biological holocaust are solely the old and suffering. But, of course, we are not talking about extending old and suffering lives, but rejuvenating and restoring the old to a younger, healthier state. So, rather than misleading, these numbers are even more horrific. For not only does the biological holocaust dwarf any in history in terms of sheer numbers of lives lost, if you consider that these lives could be extended in a healthy state for decades or centuries, then the amount of ‘lost life’ is almost beyond belief. If we say that a Jewish victim of the holocaust may have expected to live for 30 more years (on average) that would equate to 30 x 6 million = 180 million years of lost life. If we use the example of a decade of delayed longevity escape velocity and give a conservative estimate that a person who dies of age related deaths during that decade might have enjoyed 100 years of further life, then this equates to 100 x half a billion = 50 billion years of lost life.

When somebody makes an argument online that all mosques should be closed in order to prevent Islamic terrorism or to protect native culture, what he or she has said may be offensive, and closing mosques may be deeply discriminatory, but the supposition that such ‘hate speech’ could lead to another holocaust (this time against Muslims) and therefore ought to be (or is) illegal, is very hypothetical and tenuous and seems rather to be an example of reaching to justify a police thought controlled state. However, when somebody makes an argument online that death (from aging) is ‘natural’ and that we should not play God in trying to cure it, or that we can never justify funding research to end aging when millions are starving or living in poverty in Africa, the intention behind that speech (at least its outcome if it influences funding and research) is the preventable deaths of billions – a true biological holocaust, and a true crime against humanity.

Aubrey De Grey recently claimed that, given some assumptions on how much funding the necessary (SENS) research would need in order to cure aging, the cost of each life saved from death by aging works out at something like $1. Even a nobody on Facebook, making a trite objection to life extension research read only by a few dozen friends, might influence just one person enough to not make a small donation they might otherwise make at some point. Lets say an average donation is $20. That equals 20 lives lost. Of course, I’m stretching things here a little myself, and establishing a direct causal connection between somebody’s words online and resulting deaths down the line due to the longevity escape velocity being delayed by a fraction isn’t very plausible or scientific. However, it’s considerably more plausible and objective than claiming that even a ‘far right’ individual with thousands of Twitter followers could possibly be held responsible for any hypothetical deaths in a hypothetical genocide that his words might play a part in inspiring in an imaginary future. And yet we are arresting such individuals, and even when we don’t, we are reminded of the dangers that such speech can potentially lead to.

As somebody who believes in free speech, I’m not seriously suggesting that hate speech laws be extended to cover objections to longevity research. I oppose the very concept of hate speech laws and policing thoughts online. But I do think we need to make clear that words have consequences, and that the (usually left-wing) virtue signalers who make these cliched and knee-jerk objections online are actually promoting and aiding the preventable deaths of billions of the most vulnerable people in the world – the aged. A real biological holocaust inflicted by one generation upon another.

“Youth was the time for happiness, its only season; young people, leading a lazy, carefree life, partially occupied by scarcely absorbing studies, were able to devote themselves unlimitedly to the liberated exultation of their bodies. They could play, dance, love, and multiply their pleasures. They could leave a party, in the early hours of the morning, in the company of sexual partners they had chosen, and contemplate the dreary line of employees going to work. They were the salt of the earth, and everything was given to them, everything was permitted for them, everything was possible. Later on, having started a family, having entered the adult world, they would be introduced to worry, work, responsibility, and the difficulties of existence; they would have to pay taxes, submit themselves to administrative formalities while ceaselessly bearing witness–powerless and shame-filled–to the irreversible degradation of their own bodies, which would be slow at first, then increasingly rapid; above all, they would have to look after children, mortal enemies, in their own homes, they would have to pamper them, feed them, worry about their illnesses, provide the means for their education and their pleasure, and unlike in the world of animals, this would last not just for a season, they would remain slaves of their offspring always, the time of joy was well and truly over for them, they would have to continue to suffer until the end, in pain and with increasing health problems, until they were no longer good for anything and were definitively thrown into the rubbish heap, cumbersome and useless. In return, their children would not be at all grateful, on the contrary their efforts, however strenuous, would never be considered enough, they would, until the bitter end, be considered guilty because of the simple fact of being parents. From this sad life, marked by shame, all joy would be pitilessly banished. When they wanted to draw near to young people’s bodies, they would be chased away, rejected, ridiculed, insulted, and, more and more often nowadays, imprisoned. The physical bodies of young people, the only desirable possession the world has ever produced, were reserved for the exclusive use of the young, and the fate of the old was to work and to suffer. This was the true meaning of solidarity between generations; it was a pure and simple holocaust of each generation in favor of the one that replaced it, a cruel, prolonged holocaust that brought with it no consolation, no comfort, nor any material or emotional compensation.”

― Michel Houellebecq, The Possibility of an Island

Sexual Witch Hunts in a Very Long Life

What should transhumanists think about the current storm over sexual harassment allegations that started with the Harvey Weinstein scandel and the #MeToo hashtag? No doubt, the typical response is that this is another sign that we are living in ever increasingly ‘progressive’ and enlightened times. Sexual harassment in industries such as music and film are a throwback to times in which the powerful were able to take advantage of the weak, and in particular men in a male dominated culture prey on young vulnerable women. Thankfully, the times they are a changing.

However, a few prominent voices are raising their concern that this is not something progressive, but in fact a witch hunt – a throwback to medieval standards of justice and prejudice. And indeed, the very recognition from all sides that at the heart of this is a fundamental change in (sexual) morality over the decades should raise important questions for any intelligent transhumanist who, literally, hopes to live a very long life, along with his or her fellow humans and post-humans.

Consider the following clip from popular 1970’s British TV sitcom ‘On The Buses’. The comedy centered on a group of bus conductors and their long suffering inspector. In this episode, they have agreed to play a football (soccer) match against another depot (a female group of bus conductors) :

This type of humor was typical for the time, and it’s fair to say that such antics displayed by the lecherous conductors would be considered funny, and rather normal male behaviour. Today, such behaviour would be condemned as sexual harassment without question. The conductors would not only be sacked, but they would likely be imprisoned for sexual assault. And most transhumanists would say this is a good thing, on the whole. But what about condemning and imprisoning men today for such behaviour back then, when it was more or less socially acceptable?

There might be a view amongst transhumanists that we are progressing to ever more ‘rightful’ and permanent moral certitude. As humans become better educated and enlightened, of course we can now see that crude, lecherous behaviour on the part of males is wrong. This will only become more certain and universally accepted as humans become transhuman and through technology become ever more intelligent and educated. From this point of view, there might not be anything particularly disturbing about judging unenlightened behaviour harshly from decades ago, as from a true and objective measure, such behaviour was wrong, and just as importantly, from this point on will always be considered wrong by future generations.

I think this view is wholly mistaken and gives credence to the opinion that much of present transhumanism is a mystical religion rather than a product of rationality.

Human morality has never been static on almost any issue, in any time or place for any length of time, particularly in relation to sexual matters. Perhaps there have been some near universal taboos and moral constraints, such as the incest taboo, but even here at times they have been challenged, most recently in the period of the ‘sexual revolution’ of the late 60’s and early 70’s. And why not? If the rational basis for the incest taboo is that it can lead to harmful genetic mutations, then that basis was at least undermined with the seperation of sex and reproduction that the invention of the contraceptive pill triggered (and which resulted in that ‘sexual revolution’), as well as the legalization of abortion. Yet fifty years later and five decades of more ‘progress’ and the incest taboo is arguably stronger than it has ever been in human history.

Certainly, powerful men exchanging material resources for sex with young women is a very recent taboo. It doesn’t seem to have any grounding in nature or even human anthropology, unlike the incest taboo. Can we be sure it will survive any longer than other sexual moral perogatives that seem to us today antiquated, such as laws against sodomy, or interracial sex?

Human morality is the result of a chaotic mix of conflicting human needs in transient social conditions, tempered by the near universal human capacity for compassion, and disfigured by the equally universal human talent for self-deceit and hypocricy. With regards to sexual morality, it is in particular shaped by the warring conflux of male and female sexual needs, an eternal battleground historically only kept under control by the shared desire (and social imperative) to raise children and the agreement to divide labour and responsibilities between male and female. The idea that we can predict what the society of the 23rd century will say about Harvey Weinstein from what is happening today on Twitter is like claiming to be able to predict the weather on Jupiter from looking up at the sky and observing a cloud above. Even a super post-singularity AI will likely not be able to determine a ‘correct morality’, or at least not a clear and exhaustive set of universal permanent moral rules that would be acceptable to a large group of even enhanced humans.

The past is a foreign country, they do things differently over there. Similarly, the future will be even more foreign, with moral codes we can’t even guess at. 200 years ago, Casanova was considered one of the legends of the age. He loved to seduce women, men, boys, and girls. One hundred years later, we were hanging homosexuals as baying mobs watched, spat, and threw obscenities (and other things) at the soon to be hanged condemned man. Another hundred years later, and being overly critical of homosexuality can land you in prison in many nations, whereas we do retain our disgust at those who attempt to have sex with minors, as Kevin Spacey has discovered.

A minimum hope of any transhumanist is to experience an extended lifespan. As the pace of technological progress increases, it is likely that morality will continue to change, ever faster. It is an unwarrented assumption to believe that moral progress will always be in one direction, or even that our present sense of moral progress is the correct one. In particular, it ought to deeply worry a transhumanist that people are being judged today for what they allegedly did in decades previously when society had very different morals. If you live a long enough life, even the most saintly transhumanist wil inevitably transgress some moral code of the day, especially if moral codes can not only change but flip flop so readily and frequently. Perhaps a transhumanist response might be that a stretch in prison, even a decade or two, would be insignificant in a life measured in centuries. But especially in the coming decades, as we approach longevity escape velocity and we note that prisoners generally are unlikely to recieve life extension therapy (especially sex offenders1), being judged by a baying ‘enlightened’ mob may mean the difference between an all too human death, and eternal life.

Of course, not only will society and moral norms change over the course of a radically extended lifespan, the individual himself will undergo huge changes and transformations. Thus, another transhumanist reflection upon the subject of crime and punishment in a very long life is the question of personal identity and hence responsibility over time. Naturally, most transhumanists want to remain the same subjective self over time, even over centuries. And yet the very definition of transhumanism is change, the fundamental change of one’s core (human) nature. Many intelligent people can recognize that people can change over a normal human lifetime, and hence it is or might be wrong, for example, to punish an old man for the crimes of his youth. It would surely thus be yet more unfair, or even absurd, to punish or hold responsible a transhumanist for behaviour when he had a very different mind and personality, or for deeds committed centuries ago, even if he is or feels himself to be the same person.

Conclusion : Transhumanists and longevity advocates ought to be in favour of a statute of limitations on sexual offences, and for that matter, all offences. Transhumanists should be very wary of judging the behaviour of individuals today for their behaviour in previous decades that had different moral climates. Transhumanists should recognize that witch hunts are not progressive, even if they have purportedly progressive goals, but are rather a reminder of a darker age.

1 https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20171211/281492161658105

Kim Jong-Un & The Immortal Dictators Objection to Radical Life Extension

A top CIA official called North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un a “very rational actor” who doesn’t want a war with the United States, despite a string of provocations that has sent tensions soaring across East Asia.
“The last person who wants conflict on the [Korean peninsula] is Kim Jong-un,” Yong Suk Lee, the deputy assistant director of the CIA’s newly created Korea Mission Center, told a Washington audience Wednesday.
In rare public remarks that appeared to contrast President Trump’s assertion that Mr. Kim is a “madman,” Mr. Lee said the 35-year-old dictator actually “wants what all authoritarian rulers want … to rule for a very long time and die peacefully in his own bed.”


Kim Jong Un Eternal Dictator ObjectionOne of the most common objections (or rather knee-jerk reactions) to the goal of radical life extension is the ‘immortal dictators’ argument. If humans can become practically immortal, then surely that will lead to evil dictatorships existing in perpetuity, as the dictators wont die off?

Reading the article quoted above gave me a couple of ideas. Like any sane person, all Kim Jong Un wants to do is apparently live happily and healthily for as long as possible and then to die peacefully in his bed. He therefore would only use nuclear weapons as a last resort, when it was clear he and his regime were not going to live happily ever after.

So if we assume that is a fundamental rational motivation underpinning his actions, what effect would the knowledge that he could ‘live forever’ with advances in life extension research, have on his behaviour and that of his regime?

First of all, one presumes it would make him even more rationally inclined not to risk the premature end of his regime and his own death. That would certainly make any casual use of nuclear weapons on his part even more unlikely.

But would it make his regime even worse, in clamping down on the freedoms of its citizens in order to preserve its survival? Perhaps Kim would be wise to link his own personal survival and his desire to live forever with the continued existence of his brutal dictatorship.

On the other hand, perhaps such regimes would be less likely to get off the ground in the first place if the dictator knows that one day, however distant, he is likely to be deposed through revolution or external war, violently leading to either his imprisonment or ‘premature’ death. What would be the point of Kim Jong living the fine life for even a few decades, enjoying the best food, adoration (at gunpoint), limitless sex etc if he knew that even the poorest North Korean peasants that he currently ruled over would have a chance, unlike him, of living for centuries, as well as possibly benefiting from all the advancements in technology that will arise, barring global catastrophe, in the next centuries? The experience of the last one hundred years would certainly suggest that the life expectancy of brutal dictators is even less than that of a peasant. The disparity might be even more acute in the long run, in an era of radical life extension. To stand the best chance of ‘living forever’, you likely should aim to be wealthy (but not rich enough to stand out), healthy, and to make as few enemies as possible. Kim Jong Un might have the best health care in North Korea, but being contantantly on the edge of nuclear war with the USA is hardly likely to help lhim ead an age defying stress free lifestyle. And being the brutal dictator of the most isolated country on Earth and threatening the total destruction of the most powerful country in the world, is hardly the way to avoid standing out or making enemies. We cannot even be sure perhaps that any radical life extension breakthroughs in the next 20 years would reach Kim. It’s not as if he could simply jet off to a Swiss or Venezuelan clinic for some senescent cell clearance therapy when such clinics start popping up very soon. I also doubt if the North Korean budget has much left over to invent their own life extension therapies after the costs of building a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire American nation.

In an age of radical life extension, the lives of brutal dictators will give a new meaning to the phrase ‘nasty, brutal, and short’. What is the point of a few years of (reputed) teenage sex slaves when every Dick and Harry (and Kim) could hope to live into the 23rd century and into an era of abundance, both sexual and economic, with countless adoring sex robots servicing his every need?

Still, even if dictatorships might be less likely to arise, it is conceivable that in 20 years or so, Kim Jong Un is still defying their odds and securely in place as the dear leader of North Korea, and that furthermore life extension technology has become so simple and routine that he himself is benefiting from it and is no longer aging. In such a case, we might also consider what the effects would be on the population, supposing they are allowed or prevented access to the same technologies? If they are allowed them, it would be likely that the populace would be less likely to risk everything in attempting the overthrow of Kim (or any dictatorship). Life extension for all could become the most powerful opium of the masses ever invented. If they were denied, and saw Kim looking forever young year after year, then perhaps they would finally be prompted to start a revolution. Or perhaps the brainwashing of the North Korean state could actually convince the population that the eternal youth of Kim was proof that he is indeed a God.

Another possibility is that the children of dictators might get restless waiting for decades, if not centuries, for their turn at the head of the table. Or perhaps dictatorships are simply not viable over very long periods, at least not with the same dictator, meaning that dictators, instead of continuing in perpetuity, will be more likely to be internally overthrown rather than simply smoothly handing over the reigns to their sons or chosen successors. Not many dictators have relinquished power voluntarily, and not many dictators can avoid repeated assassination attempts or at least plots – something difficult to pull off over the course of several (present) lifetimes.

Another objection to radical life extension often heard is that it will be harder for societal renewal.  Society needs the constant generational changes.  If this is true, it would surely at least count against the ‘immortal dictators’ objection.  Perhaps if Lenin were immortal, it would only have meant that he would have lived to see  the economic collapse of the Soviet Union – and a lot sooner than the late 1980s.

In short, no-one could possibly know what impact radical life extension will have on the existence, whether present or future, of brutal dictatorships.  I called this objection a ‘knee-jerk reaction’ because it is, like every other so-called ‘objection’ to longevity goals.  To be honest, nobody is seriously arguing these points outside of the transhumanist community.  Yes, you will read these objects floated about casually in comments underneath news articles or have to listen to friends or acquaintances make them when you mention anything about life extension technology, but we are the only ones currently considering them.  They are knee-jerk reactions rather than considered objections, and to be truthful, I suspect merely forms of virtue signalling from people who will be scrambling to take advantage of these technologies when they arrive in the next few years, just as eagerly as you or me.  It would take a dictator to stop them. 😉

*Update – I didn’t read any of the following articles before scribbling down my own incoherent thoughts, but the following websites probably did it far better than me :




Advances in CGI Point the Way Forward

Sexbots are attracting a lot of attention recently, but it’s likely virtual reality will be the avenue in which men’s fantasies finally reach the point of being better than the real thing. Sexbots will be bulky, wildly expensive, and relatively crude for a long time to come. Even when they finally reach the market, they will likely remain the preserve of the wealthy few, just as luxury sex dolls are now. Not only will they demand a big bank balance to purchase, they will also require a big home to keep them in – as well as the owner to be single. Virtual reality requires only a headset, eventually only glasses and ultimately nothing at all (images will be beamed directly into the viewer’s eyes). For haptic sensations and real virtual sex, not much more than a sophisticated ‘sex suit’ will be required.

And virtual reality is coming along quickly. Although shot currently with real actresses/actors in 3D stereo, the future is likely to be CGI and/or lightfield technology, combined with Aritifical Intelligence. The following (non-erotic) Japanese video highlights the advances made in CGI and gives a glimpse of what is coming.

This schoolgirl is not real, she is CGI

CGI is getting better and better!

Posted by Hashem Al-Ghaili on Thursday, August 10, 2017

Why Are Transhumanists Such Lefties?

Why are Transhumanists such lefties? The deeper I dig into this movement, which I so want to be part of and contribute to, the more bemused I’m left feeling at the sheer blind idiocy of their left-wing politics (I will not use the word ‘liberal’ to describe people who are this minute openly supporting tech giants to clamp down on free speech – whatever verboten emotion you want to attach to that speech).

Transhumanism, as most outsiders can see, and a few of the more self-aware followers of it can grasp, is resembling in many ways a secular faith. It is a faith in the future of technology to change the human in positive ways. Some of the beliefs that many transhumanists share, although not necessary to be a transhumanist, such as the belief in a coming ‘Singularity’, are clearly the latest in a line of millenia old primal beliefs in some kind of ‘End Time’ or day of salvation – in this case a ‘rapture of the nerds’. The more core belief that humans are imperfect, and can be brought to a closer state of perfection through technology, is akin to the idea found in religions from Christianity to Buddhism that describe man as a kind of fallen God, who can only reach his former state through following the chosen path of enlightenment.

Of course, the argument that transhumanism is a religous cult has been done to death, and as a transhumanist myself, the only point I’m making is that transhumanists – especially the lazy ones – inevitably share certain psychological traits with followers of religious faiths. We live in a largely secular age, where the ethical framework and moral consensus formerly provided by state religion has now largely been assumed by state government, media, and academia that pushes a politically correct set of left-wing ‘progressive’ ideas and values. Transhumanism does not provide an alternative secular faith to the dominant narrative, it complements it. It provides the salvation aspect that political correctness lacks and that all true religions need.

There was of course a time when the Left had a goal of salvation in the form of the perfect communist state, but now the Left (in First World countries) has largely given up on the goal of true economic equality, and replaced it with moral equality in the form of ‘diversity’ and absolute faith in multi-culturalism and an overriding obsession with ‘anti-racism’ (or anti-whiteness, with whiteness being the ‘original sin’). We no longer progress to an economic end state of perfect equality, but rather racial, sexual, and gender equality.

Thus I’m writing this the day after the Islamist attack in Barcelona that killed at least 13 innocent tourists – elderly couples and parents with their children left with their entrails strewn across Las Ramblas. Also a few days after the violence in Charlottesville that left an Anti-Fa activisit dead, also hit by a rampaging vehicle, a young woman part of a group who were engaging in violence themselves (as they habitually do). The transhumanists on my Twitter feed have little to say about the attack in Barcelona, other than the usual trite #prayforbarcelona hashtags. These now regular Islamist outrages are, after all, becoming something of a secular human sacrifice to the Gods of multi-culturalism and diversity, occasions for us all to indulge in collective appeasement to those unpredictable and wrathful powers who may strike us all down if we are not sufficiently pious to recognize that #diversityisstrength.

But they are having a lot to say about Charlottesville. In particular, supporting the efforts of tech giants such as Google to clamp down on freedom of speech, or rather ‘hate speech’. Unfortunately for these ‘liberal’ transhumanists, we will have to wait a little closer to the Singularity before Google can literally ‘peer into the souls of men’ and correct – through nanobots connected to A.I. servers –
hateful neurons from firing and forming hate thoughts that might lead to hate speech and even hate acts.

Another reason for my surprise at the near blanket left-wing bias of transhumanists is a false assumption I originally made that the community is composed of a geeky male demographic – the same autistic demographic that spawned the decidedly politically incorrect 4Chan and perhaps a lot of the momentum for the alt-right movement itself. But this appears to be far from the truth. It is indeed male and white, but transhumanists are not science-fiction geeks. Science-fiction tends to look to science to change society, but the (human) characters in sci-fi works are invariably the same as us, often placed in dystopias that say as much about our own society as an imagined future one. But transhumanists understand that the future will no longer be about tech changing society, it will be about tech changing humans.

Geeks feel themselves to be different and excluded, but love themselves and want to live in a different society that accepts them. They are therefore inclined to want to change society. Transhumanists are all too normal it seems, but hate themselves and yearn to be different. As most transhumanists are white and middle-class, and these things represent the original sin in modern secular faith, this may indeed be where their self-hatred comes from. Now they seek to bring technology to the progressive project, and seek to turn themselves into virtual signallers made Gods.

Google Diversity Row Raises Problem of ‘Thought Crime’ Ignored by Transhumanists

Google engineer James Damore was dismissed from the company for penning a paper on ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’. The paper complained about the left-leaning and politically correct bias of the company culture of Google, and infamously highlighted the ‘gender gap’, and efforts to redress it, as an example of this.

“When it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removed any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.”

While the MSM such as CNN has gloated over the dismissal of the ‘sexist’ employee, contrarians have pointed out the alarming freedom of speech issues the matter has raised. If a Google employee can be dismissed and publicly branded in this way for speaking ‘wrong’ thoughts, how can we trust the search engine to be a neutral portal of online information and ideas? And further, how can we trust it with the knowledge it has about our thoughts and beliefs?

But most of the participants in this debate are only vaguely aware that these issues are going to e magnified a hundredfold in the coming decades, as A.I., led perhaps primarily by Google, advances alongside with the continual blurring of the separation between the individual and the net, the offline and the online, and private thought and public expression. Of any segment of society, transhumanists are and should be aware of these issues.

I suspect that perhaps the majority of Google’s male employees silently sympathise with or outright share the views of James Damore. Male nerd online culture has spawned 4Chan, the Manosphere, the alt-right etc. I doubt if the demographic of Google employees could be so at odds with this. The political correctness of Google comes from the management culture, financially motivated by the need to keep on good terms with the global political establishment, as well as presenting a politically correct face to the mainstream media that Google has done so much to disrupt.

However, this male nerd un-pc culture is evidently not widespread in the transhumanist community. I’ll explore why this is many times on this blog, but I suspect it’s due to the quasi-religious element of (lazy) transhumanism, and political correctness being the dominant secular quasi religion of the day. But the important point is that it’s imperative that transhumanism does not become an even more rabidly politically correct echo chamber shouting down and ostracizing any voices that challenge the dominant social orthodoxy. This is because transhumanists above all recognize the technological revolutions that are happening and the impact they will have upon the private and public realms, with companies like Google having almost (or actual) God like powers to peer into the souls of men.

A Libertarian Conservatism is the Natural Outlook of Transhumanism

It is my belief that a libertarian form of conservatism should be the natural outlook of a transhumanist. Why?

Libertarianism because physical and mental modification through the choices of the individual requires a libertarian society.

Conservatism because transhumanism is dependent upon the continuation of scientific progress, which itself is dependent upon the survival of a relatively stable civilization.

I will be expanding upon these ideas in the coming weeks. It’s also necessary for me to defend again the title of this blog – alt-transhumanism. Since I chose the title last year, the loose, amorphous online movement termed ‘the alt-right’ has been thrust into the media spotlight with the election of Donald Trump. That movement has also, rightly or wrongly, been given a lot of negative attention, particularly with its alleged association with some ‘extreme’ right wing groups and thinkers. Although I have myself taken part in the wider ‘manosphere’ over the last decade, my thinking at the time of choosing the ‘alt-transhumanism’ label was simply that the current transhumanist community is far too biased towards the left, and this has never made much sense to me for the brief reasons outlined above. I may choose a different title at some point, but for now, why I try to be more active here and attract my first readers, I’ll stick with it.

Modern Educayshun

I was recently leafing through one of the most up-to-date GCSE Biology guides. In the section devoted to nutrition it outlines brief reasons for the obesity epidemic in the UK. Along with a poorly balanced diet with too much fat and insufficient exercise, the guide lists ‘poor body image – especially amongst girls’. This piece of feminist dogma, the result of advocacy research, is presented as a hard scientific fact in a revision guide for the national biology exam taken by 16 year olds in the UK.

The same day I saw the following YouTube video in my Facebook feed – a short satirical take on the politically correct culture that has taken over Academia and increasingly the school system. It was created by a young Australian comedian over a year ago but seems to have only recently gone viral on Facebook. It’s quite brilliant.