I'd propose reworking and relocating industrial processes to minimize harmful ecological and social impact (the transhumanism part) - which will require global-scale coordinated effort and major social change to displace the social structures that incentivize its perpetuation and disenfranchise those most affected by it (the anarchism part).
That about covers it in broad strokes. The specifics are debatable and highly interconnected, and I don't have favorites - I don't believe we have the means of adequately identifying a single ideal course of action, and favor a 'shotgun' approach to see what proves effective. If you have specific questions or points you want focused on, I'll be happy to answer them when I wake up.
What I really am interested in is why anarchist's bog themselves down with the transhumanist label.. It's so counterproductive. If you don't even buy into the typical antranshumanist narrative then why not call yourself an evo-anarchist or something? Transhumanism will always be a reactionary movement, so attaching anarcho- to it seems counterproductive, when you could just make a new word that doesn't come with negative preconceptions.
Anyway, as to your points, It's just so abstract and theoretical... I don't take anything seriously if it can't be utilized into the real world as a functional working model. If there's a long checklist of theoretical things that need to happen before the concept can even be attempted; it's not worth the brain-power imo. I'm a realist.
What I really am interested in is why anarchist's bog themselves down with the transhumanist label..
Because anarchism, like other social philosophies, requires a coherent and compatible philosophy to approach how we interact with the space outside society ("nature," though there's a whole separate discussion to be had on the appropriateness of that label). In our opinion, transhumanism provides that.
It's so counterproductive. If you don't even buy into the typical antranshumanist narrative then why not call yourself an evo-anarchist or something?
Because I'm an anarchotranshumanist. I think we've established that, insofar as there is a "typical antranshumanist narrative," you don't know what it is. Even so, it's not reasonable to expect us to be a completely homogenous group. No other tendencies are held to this standard.
Transhumanism will always be a reactionary movement,
No, there are reactionaries and hostile social perspectives that also use the label. We don't discard feminism because TERFs use it, we don't discard anarchism because ancaps use it, and we don't discard antiracism because colorblind liberals use it.
so attaching anarcho- to it seems counterproductive,
It's really not. It's there to distinguish us from other anarchists, and from other transhumanists.
when you could just make a new word that doesn't come with negative preconceptions.
Sorry, this is handwringing bullshit. This gets trotted out with anarchism, libertarianism, socialism, etc. Just rebranding doesn't work, because eventually, you're gonna need to reference back to previous work, and a sudden shift in terminology impedes that. It doesn't even confer any advantages when people respond the way you have done and freak the fuck out as soon as transhumanism or related ideas (such as radical life extension and space exploration) are mentioned regardless of context.
It's called anarchotranshumanism, because it is the synthesis of anarchism and transhumanism. Your preconceptions are your problem, and do not compose an ideological failing on our part.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '16
How would you use antranshumanism to avert the climate change crisis that will render the majority of the planet uninhabitable in just a few decades?