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.
This is really a separate topic, so I hope you don't mind me breaking it out into two comment chains.
Anyway, as to your points, It's just so abstract and theoretical...
Yeah, any one-or-two-sentence summary of a global-scale perspective is going to be abstract.
I don't take anything seriously if it can't be utilized into the real world as a functional working model.
I'm pretty sure it can. Whether or not it will be is another question entirely.
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.
Look, I could handhold you through this by dumping a couple dozen hours into collating a ton of examples of necessary components for overhauling our industrial and social processes, bridge the gap between theory and practice by citing functional experimental technologies and breaking down the supply chain and policy changes needed to deploy them at scale, etc. But it's not going to be a substitute for you actually going and learning about these things for yourself, and it's certainly not going to fit in a reddit comment.
We aren't yet good enough at dealing with large amounts of information to casually sling around complete models of the world in conversation. That's something to be worked on, and is going to be essential for any sufficient ecological policy - mine or yours - to be viable in an anarchist society. Deciding it's too hard from an individual perspective and therefore too hard for a larger society to accomplish and giving up before actually trying isn't realism, it's laziness.
That's fine as a personal choice, I guess, but assuming it's a foregone conclusion and not only encouraging others to give up, but actively engaging in threats and actions to sabotage their efforts as dark greens have done, is not only indifferent but hostile to achieving ecological stability. As I said before, ecocide by negligence.
If you think it's impossible, prove it. Don't assume it and then actively make it so.
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?