Why Transhumanist Anarchists and Primitivist Anarchists Are Not Enemies

Introduction

As a fundamentally libertarian school of thought, Anarchism in general is based on individual freedom from arbitrary power structures. Beginning with the early Socialist Internationals and, earlier than that, the debates between individualist and collectivist anarchists, a tendency to factionalize an idea that is agreeable to a wide range of activists and intellectuals seems innate to anarchism itself. We are all individuals, with different pictures of how the world ought to be, different backgrounds and educations, and favoring different philosophies. Being so different, with ideas so apparently opposed, can we imagine a future where everyone is right? Or failing that, can we at least imagine a future where everyone has space to live as they please, according to precepts of noncoercion and anti-authoritarianism?

Difficult as it may seem from our human perspective, it is our duty as Transhumanists to try to think outside of that space, into the potentialities of paradigm-changing technology. While by definition we cannot know what lies beyond that boundary, we are already able to conjecture how these exponential changes will solve seemingly intractable problems related to our physical, mental, and social limits as embodied humans. Therefore, it can’t be a big leap to imagine that our ideological gaps could also be reconciled by the advances of technology. This goes double for those of us who imagine more incremental advances in technology as the future bears out, because this would mean we as a society are more in control of what advances we take and in what order. If we can encourage a less hierarchal society and work with other groups to dismantle power structures in the intervening time, we stand a better chance of encouraging and disseminating technology that allows us to live non-hierarchically and respectfully of one another’s differences. Both Transhumanist schools of thought have an optimism, hope, or even faith, in common as their root–- the Singularitarian that an exponential advance will solve our problems in some way we cannot know, the Incrementalist that we can work together to harness linear advance to solve or problems in foreseeable ways.

So how can we reconcile these technology-centered goals and ideals with those of a group who positions themselves against all technology? On the surface, it seems impossible and our differences with the Primitivists irreconcilable. A closer look at the foundations of our own ideas will tell us that the two are not so opposed in their aims.

Philosophical Conflicts

The main object of Primitivists’ critique is “civilization”. Does this critique actually oppose Transhumanist thought? As people raised within a society that situates the advance of technology inherently within the broader medium of “civilization”, it appears logical that a critique of civilization is inherently a critique of technological advance. So far, all technological advance has come from the collective efforts of a “civilized” society, one that has been heretofore largely hierarchal. As Anarchists outside of primitivist thought, we argue that “civilization” does not necessarily need to be hierarchal. But as Transhumanists, do we need to maintain an argument that “civilizations” are necessary at all? After all, if one is holding Anarchism forth as a belief, then they have implicitly (if not explicitly) rejected government as it is currently concieved–- Another conception currently perceived as key basis of “civilization”.

As we exist now, we are caught up in our individuated bodies and mentalities, locked in the human condition limited by the brain and tools available to us. If Transhumanist technology truly allows us to transcend these material human limits, we must also accept that it can allow us to transcend the limits that condition has placed on society as a whole. If we are to further hold forth a belief in Transhuman Anarchism, we must recognize that a society without power structures lacks a key component of “civilization” as widely conceived. We do not, therefore, need to hold on to the concept of “civilization” as one of any use to us, especially with its long history of use as a comparative device to encourage war and derision against the “uncivilized”. Having thus determined that Anarchism does not necessitate “civilization”, we can also demonstrate that Transhumanism does not necessarily perpetuate it.

A thought experiment involving the following line of questioning may be useful in this elucidation. In a Transhumanistically conceived posthuman being, we can imagine an intelligence so vast that it can encompass an entire society or even a biome, one wherein an individual may be only dimly or superficially aware of the consciousness or will encompassing them. Is this posthuman then a “civilization”, within a single consciousness? Is the aggregate being itself “civilized” if it has no equal, competitor, or companion to make a rule to govern it? Do we imagine the relations in between beings at this scale and complexity as being that of a “civilization”? Will they converge toward an “Omega Point” of inevitable conclusions or will they have an even more alien diversity of thought than we do? Will posthumans even need our concept of laws and boundaries?

The rhetorical purpose of this thought experiment is to challenge the idea that “civilization” remains a useful idea beyond a certain technological level. I would argue that thinking along these lines reveals that a sufficiently advanced society is not necessarily bound by the constraints of “civilization”. In fact, it is precisely this lack of constraint that many Transhumanist Anarchists believe makes highly advanced technology a prerequisite for Anarchist society to exist in the first place. Before we scoff at a critique of “civilization” we must reckon with the fact that the type of agency that we humans have will change drastically, and that our definition of the structure of social hierarchies between sentient individuals must also change drastically, to accommodate the kinds of unlimited capacity we ascribe to posthuman beings. To this extent, it may be as useful to Transhumanist Anarchists as it is to Primitivists to adopt a critique of “civilization” in the sense that it exists now.

Continuing to think about the changes in agency that we expect humans to see in a Transhuman society, we cannot fully expect that those who for whatever reason do not embrace Transhuman technology, society, lifestyle, ideas etc, will retain the kind of agency that they have now. Whether for better or for worse, it is possible (although completely unfavorable) that posthumans will determine for themselves that we humans are not capable or useful within their society or that they may not be able to maintain an equal standard of living for humans comparable to what we enjoy now. Pessimistic modern society with its paranoid science fiction regards this as evidence that the most likely outcome for humanity is enslavement (the Matrix), or genocide (Terminator). Influential thinkers and public figures such as Stephen Hawking, Eric Drexler, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Elon Musk are likewise concerned by this possibility, showing that it is a fear that stands up to intense intellectual scrutiny.

However, if a Transhumanistically conceived society (or for short, a Transhuman society) is as non-hierarchal and anti-authoritarian in orientation as we Transhumanist Anarchists expect that it will be, this unequal situation will at the very least allow for a human society that continues to exist outside of a Transhuman society, where the two are not competing over the same resources. This is entirely possible since the resources needed by posthumans to maintain a minimum standard of living are far different than those needed by humans. Transhuman society will require resources extracted with technological assistance, whereas human needs have not really changed since the evolution of H.Sapiens Sapiens, just our preferences and expectations. Since the complexity of the two societies would be so drastically different, it therefore follows that if non-hierarchal attitudes prevail, posthumans have nothing to lose by the concurrent existence of a Primitivist society. On the other hand, a society centered around humans’ current expectations and needs within a modern “civilization” would certainly compete for resources with a Transhuman society and thus would require one side or the other to negotiate or accommodate the other. From this perspective, the Primitivists’ “re-wilding”, “back-to-hunter-gatherer” scenario is in fact a likely outcome for humans. Of course, it is necessary to point out that this is not the only possible outcome for humans. The purpose here is to argue that Transhumanists and Primitivists have aims that do not in fact compete.

One counter argument most likely to be put forth by the Primitivists is that the technologically assisted or enabled extraction of resources required by Transhumans would necessarily harm Earth and its biomes. The nature of this argument is the deep connection that Deep Ecology posits between humans and the emergent systems of nature as a whole, which is very important to Primitivists. The prevailing idea seems to be that this deep connection humans have to “Gaia” has no real bearing on Transhumanist theory because Transhumanists want either to supersede the “natural” aspects of humanity or enhance them through the use of technology. While not categorically false, the argument for ecological harm is not completely sound or accurate. Even if a paradigm does not develop that technologically reintegrates posthumans into the biosphere of earth, they will be enabled by technology and informed by historical records as well as the logic of causality that their existence is a direct result of life on Earth. Whether or not they ascribe this to an emergent system/intelligence (“Gaia”) is not relevant. It is likely that for this reason that posthumans will hold the Earth, at least symbolically, in high regard and have some interest in its preservation. It is likely as well that they will be much better than we are at accomplishing this preservation as well, being able to simulate, observe, and think on scales of time, space, and complexity beyond our wildest dreams.

Resource Competition and Environmental Destruction

At this point it is important to assert that while Earth is symbolically important to us all, as Transhumanists we must both remember and remind others that Earth is not the be-all and end-all of the living space or the resources that will be available to us once appropriately enabled by technology. As Science informs us, it is extremely important that we look outwards and ever outwards towards outer space to find new resources, accommodate growth, and safeguard against catastrophic cosmic “natural disasters”. We can certainly be assured that Primitivists will not be competing with Transhuman society for resources in space. Concurrently, we cannot be so sure that posthumans will be interested in the resources of Earth if they aspire to create the kind of economy that will grow to accommodate their ever-increasing need for processing power and resources. (Let us take for granted for the purposes of this essay that Primitivists would not be satisfied to live out their “rewilding” on another planet or in a constructed or virtual environment, easy solutions that don’t serve the argument presented here).

Rich in resources as it is, the Earth is simply too limited to sustain the kind of society and scale of accomplishment that posthumans will likely want to achieve. There is no real reason that, even in the worst scenario, a particularly powerful posthuman entity or a Transhuman society will be satisfied with the resources of Earth. In any better scenario, Earth’s resources are simply a starting point to the near-infinity of the rest of the universe. For this reason, any but the most apathetic manifestation of a posthuman entity or Transhuman society would probably take the attitude “The humans can have it when we’re done with it.” Sinister as this may sound to those who are jaded with the ecological destruction wrought by humanity in the past two centuries, there is reason to believe that much of use to humans will be left behind.

Pollution is, necessarily, waste and toxic byproducts that are released into the environment. Note that waste and byproducts are, foremost, a sign of inefficiency. Advancing technology necessarily means increasing efficiency, insofar as the laws of Thermodynamics allow. While damage has already been done to the environment, it continues only because of our failure (whatever its cause) to adopt the more efficient and advanced technology which we have already invented. There is no acceptable reason to believe that posthumans would fail to adopt more efficient technology. Posthumans will be technologically enabled lifeforms, and lapses in efficiency would damage them and hold them back. The feared “grey goo disaster” or “catastrophic physics experiment failure” would be just as harmful to posthumans as it would to humans, if not moreso, and so it would be in their every interest to be careful as long as we share a home or neighborhood.

Humans are only careless with technology because they do not need it to survive — Indeed, the Primitivists’ argument that technology only enables society in superficial and destructive ways ia absolutely correct, but only when applied to contemporary humans. A more Rationalist Transhumanist might argue similarly that humans’ irrational and destructive use of technology are a logical result of the constraints of their embodied consciousness such as instinct, cognitive bias, and even emotions. These constraints on human consciousness benefit humans in the natural environment, where the Primitivist expects to thrive. However it would be foolish to ascribe them to posthumans, who would regard technology from an existential reference point, rather than a merely economic one.

The next concern that is touted against the coexistence of a Transhuman society and a Primitivist one is that the needs of a Transhuman society will grow along with their advancement and preclude any other type of society from existing alongside them. This argument is based on a premise that is absolutely true, but the argument itself is not sound because it ignores the fact that advancement necessarily depends on infrastructure. The Kardashev scale informs us that a posthuman being or Transhuman society will be limited by the energy resources it can fully use. An infrastructure on and around Earth that most efficiently uses its resources will be needed before one can be created around the Sun that most efficiently uses the Sun’s resources. As the jump is made, the infrastructure left on Earth is no longer relevant and provides such a tiny fraction of the required output that it can simply be dismantled or left behind. We have already rebuked the claim that this infrastructure would “use up” the Earth as it would be a given that “most efficiently utilizing the Earth’s resources” necessitates prolonging that use indefinitely. Sustainability is baked into the Kardashev scale.

The follow up that the Earth’s resources could be overused with enough efficiency that they would only last exactly as long as needed is rebuked by our previous argument that Earth would almost certainly remain valuable to posthumans. Besides, the time and distance scales needed to implement the next step up on the Kardashev scale would likely mean that Earth would not solely be needed to level up on the scale. As for the argument that most efficiently using the Sun’s resources means blotting out the Earth’s source of energy, keep in mind that the Earth only consumes a tiny tiny fraction of a percent of the sun’s energy. A dyson sphere built around the sun would require the equivalent of a pinhole on a volleyball to maintain the status quo on Earth. The expense required to maintain the safety and sanctity of its cradle world would be less than an afterthought to such a society or being (more on this later), so why even bother dismantling it?

Commonalities

Now that we have established that Primitivism and Transhumanism do not compete within a non-hierarchical paradigm, what should be the relationship between the two? It goes without saying that all anarchists are united in struggle against the inhumane power structures of the state. Even beyond this, Transhumanists and Primitivists share several common causes.

Of primary concern to all anarchists is the preservation of individual agency. While Primitivists argue for human agency to reject technological change, Transhumanists argue for human agency to embrace it. These two goals, opposing as they may seem, are in fact two sides of the same coin. How can someone argue for everyone’s freedom to choose something without simultaneously arguing for their freedom to reject it? While the Primitivists may find our ideas objectionable, we Anarchist Transhumanists can choose to view Primitivism as a reasonable alternative to state enforced industrial capitalism for those who are not interested in embracing Transhuman technology and society. This is beneficial for both parties because as Anarchists, we can embrace the Primitivists as a legitimate challenge to the kinds of civilizational power relations that systematically oppress individuals and grok their criticisms of modern/postmodern civilization into our own theory and understanding. Likewise, a Primitivist could recognize that some check must exist on human technological advancement or accumulation of arbitrary power structures. It stands to reason that such a check could be provided by a benevolent Transhuman society that is organized in a way informed by Primitivist critique of the civilizations from which they arose.

Another concern that Transhumanists and Primitivists share is the prolonged sustainability of the living space of their respective ideal cultures. For Primitivists, this is the Earth. For Transhumanists, this is the Earth plus literally everywhere else. Indeed, even now we can conceive of ways to prolong the habitability of the Earth as well as theoretical posthuman living spaces to an effectively indefinite extent. Some of these means are not very difficult to grasp or even impossible to implement at this moment, given enough time and resources. That means that a complimentary Transhuman society could conceivably sustain life on a Primitivist Earth up until or even beyond the heat death of the universe, shielding it from cosmic disasters that could wipe out all life on the planet. Imagine a truly immortal “Gaia”, unconstrained by the indifference of the universe that spawned it and eternally in harmony with her human children!

Finally, the values of Primitivism, like any ideological movement, need to be upheld in order for a Primitivist society to continue as such. If we were to destroy all technology and set humans back to a pre-industrial or even hunter gatherer state, who would preserve the knowledge that such a society was valued enough to be a goal in itself? It is a common criticism that given time such a society would be in danger of “backsliding” into technological advance. In contrast, Primitivist ideas would be easily accessible to a complimentary Transhuman society which has internalized the ideas we have proposed as Transhumanist Anarchists. Posthumans enabled by Transhuman technologies would be able to live a hundred Primitive lives in the blink of an eye. Since we have already determined that there is value to be understood in these political beliefs, there would inevitably be Posthumans who would want to live out a mortal life as did their predecessors or to ensure that their Primitivist companion culture would not surpass the appropriate technological threshold set by their distant ancestors. Only posthumans could develop the means to do this in such a way that is noncoercive and upholds a principle of anti-authoritarianism, principles they share with their companion culture’s Primitivist forebears.

Praxis & Instrumentality Concerns

A final argument put forth from a Primitivist perspective that must be addressed before continuing on is the idea that Transhumanism itself is simply a tool of the powerful and giving it credence by synthesizing it with Anarchism is simply propping up their will. This argument can be found in all the corners that are quite rightly paranoid over the increasing power of the elite and the concentration of the highest technology in their hands. In order to maintain focus, and because as an author and thinker I have no interest in the trite and frankly obsolete Marxist-Capitalist debate, I will resist laying out an economic analysis of why this unequal distribution of technology is not a long term concern. For the purposes of this essay it is enough for the Transhumanist Anarchist reader to adopt the assumption that the economic thought of their choosing will prevail.

Ideas are tools in the hands of the powerful, and as a result idealistic people can be tools as well. The concept of the “useful idiot” is well known to us all, as Anarchists allies have been historically abused by larger and less alien movements. If the conventional narrative of history can be accepted, the idea of turning an idea once proffered as a lure into a weapon is borne out by history and common belief. If that narrative is untrue, then Primitivism is nothing more than a potential lifestyle choice until the collapse or transcension of whatever conspiracy has guided all of human development so far. If Transhumanism is such a powerful tool then it is our duty as Anarchists to wield or at least understand it.

Our praxis as Transhumanist Anarchists must be one that turns Transhumanist technology and thought against the powerful who would wield it to control others. Unlike any other kind of Anarchist, our struggle does not need some great overturning of the world order because we anticipate a specific series of developments in the future that will enable our ideal society and justify our beliefs. We need only to spread our thought and influence key individuals who are responsible for bringing Transhuman technology and/or Anarchism into being to do so in a way that is responsible, just, and forward thinking. While some kind of Anarchist Revolution is appealing, we only need to take enough action to counteract abuses of power, ensuring at every step that the fruits of technological advance are spread equitably to a reasonable degree. Once we accept that Primitivism is complementary to our own goals, we can spread that ideology as well and empower Primitivists, encouraging them to look forward to the same advances we do. To this end, cooperation with other Anarchists and liberals or libertarians of all stripes is likely enough to ensure that all people are in a place where they can make an informed decision to choose a Primitivist humanity or a Transhuman posthumanity.

While this vaguely pacifist and synthesist standpoint may seem ineffectual and trite, keep in mind the two schools of thought in Transhumanism. If a Singularity occurs, all it takes is the right person in the right place at the right time to transcend and move the future in the direction it needs to go, whether that person is training an AI or expanding their own mental capacity. In that case, it is sufficient to have our thought in that person at that place at that time. If Incrementalism is correct, then the same rules that applied up until now will continue to apply forever. The bloody noses that anti-authoritarian thought has recently sustained indicate that unity is more important than ever and that the ideal of a stateless society is above any other debate. Transhumanist Anarchists can get together with others who share the their economic opinions and stay in touch with others who share their anti-authoritarian or Transhumanist ones to maintain collective links across the left-right spectrum. The best course of action would be to entertain all schools of thought on their merit, adopting a pragmatic, rational, and empathetic point of view based on the love of knowledge and understanding for its own sake. Most relevantly, though, we should evangelize Primitivists because they hold the way forward for the baseline human as the rest transcend. The idea is not to wait passively for the time to be ripe but to do all we can on social and technological fronts to ensure that our beliefs are carried forward.