Church of transhumanism

I think you nailed it pretty well there! :grin:

Was about to write something along these exact lines!

I agree with both points @Satur9 raised.

But then, if the objective had nothing to do with philosophy, And "Transhumanists will deal with the philosophical bits, while we do the grinding…

  • using church as a defining word and not expecting philosophy…
  • “of Transhumanism”, and not expecting Transhumanists to voice their opinions…

are both points that murder that non-philosophical intent! :wink:

As I said on the very beginning:
I would support making a phony “Church of Blorgh”. I would be concerned about a “Church of Transhumanism/Biohacking/Grinding/Whatever”…

Mostly for the same points you raised ^^

1 Like

My point as the original raising was exactly as satur9 stated. I don’t care for religion or church the ame was to create a place to put ideas on how to actually go about protecting ourselves under the law be it by “abusing” government systems or not.

Transhumanisum was ment to incompase all the bodymoding you can handle. Church of grinder i suppose was more what I was going for but unfortunately shares its name with a gay hook up app.

As satur9 also state di want nothing to do with (as I see it) philosophical debates nor the telomere measuring, self injecting hormom notification , crazy dieting madness that some people would class as biohacking.

Can we, or should we do anything from the UK to get the ball rolling?
Or does it have to start from the US?

UK has no need for that.

This whole thing was only about bypassing laws in US to allow people to gain access to installing microchips even on US states where it’s not currently allowed.

1 Like

Corrected.

[quote=“Eyeux, post:254, topic:9362”]US states where it’s not currently allowed.
[/quote]

Can you specify what states were talking about?

I have done a decent bit of digging and all I find are headlines and laws about forced employer chips

I see nothing about voluntary stuff

Think that is one for the Americans. :sweat_smile:

but this is a good quote on the matter:

Again, I haven’t found any of said legislation, only states prohibiting mandatory implantation of employees when I dig into the legal verbiage

Then I personally see even less reason. :laughing:

1 Like

These are just the ones I have handy. It’s criminally difficult to find obscure state laws. You only hear about them when there’s public pushback. I don’t know how they expect us to follow the laws if they don’t tell us what they are.

wait…

Neither of those are any issue for us.

Even the Nevada bill… it only forbids companies from creating programs where people can “volunteer” to get an implant.

That is worded so no company can microchip it’s employees.

But absolutely nothing there prevents an individual from implanting a chip because he wants.

You’re reading the letter of the law and interpreting it in the most sensible way, which is a big mistake.

  1. The law in Nevada went through several revisions, becoming less ham-handed along the way. Without public oversight fickle legislators will do whatever is easiest, which in most cases is a blanket ban on body mods.
  2. The exact wording states that a person cannot “participate in a program…to voluntarily elect to undergo the implantation of a microchip or other permanent identification marker of any kind or nature”. This is pretty broad, and could easily be applied to piercing studios by bad actors.
  3. regardless of the final letter of the law, the ambiguity will lead piercing studios (which are a business) to make a risk assessment and many could decide not to allow RFID implants of any kind. That’s why you see so many people on the forums living in the US and unable to find a studio willing to help them. “novel” implants like RFID mean legal ambiguity that businesses can’t accept.

that wording is exactly what makes it easy to refute for single individual installs.

Break the chain and there is no longer a “program” there.

Agree with you there.

But again, funding a church will not change that.
Piercers who are that self preserving will not join a church just to do some implants.

And the ones who really want that niche market are the ones who won’t stop doing them anyway, because the law is not forbidding it at all.

The piercers themselves wouldn’t have to join specifically to perform the procedures. The church would formalize a precedent to allow implants (classified as a “religious ceremony”) to be installed, which would give body mod artists legal protection from any blowback from the law.

That would:

  • A) not be needed. Since there is no wording there forbiding an individual to be implanted, nor forbiding another individual being paid to perform such procedure.

  • B) not protect any body piercer.

If funding a church could protect the piercers in any way, then doctours should be able to perform abortions anywhere in the states.
But they can’t.

The Satanic Church is allowed to perform abortions as part of its ritae, but that does not grant any legal protection to doctors doing it.

Maybe that’s the answer, get the satanic tempel to sign off implants

afaik they already do that.

Yeah. Bodily autonomy is tenet #3 (“One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.”). Abortions + body modifications are both covered under that tenet.

So if I get this right, there already is a church that covers all that what the “church of transhumanism” was meant for?

Yes but it’s steeped in Christian mumbo jumbo, hence not desirable.