Church of transhumanism

[Coma]

@Atilla

Represent scale orders of magnitude different.

Okay… but, he doesn’t care, he doesn’t really affect the H2O-molecules in his tea (except for the sugar, milk and stirring), and the molecules have no choice but to be drunk. So, it doesn’t matter at all what they do. Maybe they would be happier and more helpful if they were just drops of rain, making the soil fertile and help growing plants or feeding animals or such…

I can understand when people turn to a god of some sort to give their lives a meaning, or to make any sense of all this wonderful chaos around us, but why should I imagine some big, non-caring guy? This wouldn’t answer any of the questions I might have

I actually like mythology a lot, so I like to imagine my big tentacle-buddies sleeping somewhere under the sea, or I might imagine Odin’s messengers when I see a flock of ravens, or whatever, but to actually give a hypothetical being, obviously created by the imagination of humans no better than myself, power over my life - nah, won’t happen.

[Atilla]

@Coma

but why should I imagine some big, non-caring guy

Because you can not imagine higher dimensions (mathematical, not new-age bollocks).
And 10 dimension needed to understand omnipresence and omniscience, and the timeless scale of everything to happen causes omnipotence.

@Coma

the molecules have no choice but to be drunk. So, it doesn’t matter at all what they do. Maybe they would be happier and more helpful if they were just drops of rain, making the soil fertile and help growing plants or feeding animals or such…

Only from your scale. On a microscopic level it doesn’t matter. Same applies on the macroscopic level. For example:

[amal]

@Atilla

Can I apply for that?

Absolutely. I also think emotional intelligence classes would be most apt as well as practical. Being aware of the chemistry and biological workings of emotions in yourself and others has the potential to drastically improve the human experience.

[Eyeux]

I do get your point! but it still falls into this category:

@Eyeux

I just feel like most of the good things a Church could bring us… wouldn’t actually need a Church to exist at all.

For example…

@amal

church as defined by a non-profit organization who pools resources, enable action, and do so under documented governance.

There are other kinds of organisation which would allow you to achieve these same results, withouch bringing in all the big issues that raising a “church” would.

this point you raised though…

@amal

The freedom to practice biohacking for example, would fall under CoT’s “doctrine” and thus be protected under “religious freedom”

Is the main point of argument I have in favour of a new Church.

The problem with this point is that it is optimistic.

As in… there is a fat chance it would not accomplish what we hope… and even a risk of backfiring!

Let me elaborate!

• Female Genital Mutilation is actually a religious practice. Yet, and gladly, it is not protected under religious freedom. Neither are animal sacrifices, even in the US. So there is a chance that biohacking will not simply achieve “protection status”.

• Even if religious freedom protects the freedom to practice biohacking, we would still face a “logistical” challenge: we would still require trained professionals to perform such practices. And said training might conflict with CoT’s doctrine. So it would not surprise me if someone raises an interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath that goes against biohacking. Gets it to suppreme court, manages to get a precedent… and now we are in a scenario where you are free to practice biohacking, but you need a doctor to do so, but a doctor that does so can no longer work within hospitals.

• It would actually bring biohacking into the spotlight in far too negative ways. So if now we have somewhat of a “gray freedom”, once there is a legalised Church which can be seen as a “facade for illegal surgery”, then there will be new legislation following suit! and if it’s already hard to find professionals now… I bet it would become even harder if there is a Church.

• right now we actually do have that freedom, to some extent… I am honestly afraid that a Church of Transhumanism would take it away from us on an expectacular backfire.

• and even in places where there are other similar practices protected, there is action taken against it anyway. Take UK and the massive backstep the bodymod community took last year, for example.

And then, I worry also about things like this:

@anon3825968

Dude, it’s a pretend church. It’s a device to abuse legistlation

Yep, that would be clear… for some people. The scarce ones who are actually able to understand sarcasm. (roughly 2% of the population)

And exactly that is what would paint us with a terrible light for everyone else.

Thanks to that, then, legislation around biohacking will become way tighter.

Being taken seriously, also… forget it, right?

If it’s hard enough to get Transhumanists in positions of power at the current moment in time… Immagine how much harder would that be once we are brought to the same level of joke as Pastafarians?
Forget about getting a Transhumanist congressman elected then!

And we need that guy, otherwise it’s much harder to change the laws that need changing!

I totally agree with this, though:

@amal

I do think that collection of donations in order to do things like the following is a dang good use for the church structure

Albeit… and NGO can achieve the exact same positive results, without bringing in all the issues a Church would.

@Atilla

That was the reason I tagged you in the other topic, I just didn’t know how to link you here!

Ohh, now I see that!!
This forum never shows me new threads, I must manually search for them…

[Coma]

@Atilla

Only from your scale

Yeah, because I definitely care more about a living, feeling, breathing being that might or might not find something to drink to survive than about some maybe or maybe not existing “omnipotent” creature nobody can show me any proof of.

@Atilla

Because you can not imagine higher dimensions

Nor do I need to - I mean, what for? I am a human being, member of the animal species running around on this planet, and all I can wish for is make my life as good as possible while making the lives of others maybe a bit better as well, or at least not much worse.

[anon3825968]

@Eyeux

And exactly that is what would paint us with a terrible light for everyone else.

It would paint us in a terrible light among those who take religion seriously - a group which largely overlaps your 2% who don’t understand irony. Quite frankly, I really don’t give two shits about their opinions or their feelings.

[amal]

@Eyeux

Female Genital Mutilation is actually a religious practice. Yet, and gladly, it is not protected under religious freedom. Neither are animal sacrifices, even in the US. So there is a chance that biohacking will not simply achieve “protection status”.

I think though that there would be a burden to prove biohacking procedures in question were “harmful”. Putting a chip in the skin is currently targeted in legislation in several states here… but if a challenge were brought under religious freedom, they would need to argue that doing so voluntarily by a practicum church member was “doing harm” to that person.

[Atilla]

I go to get snacks…

[anon3825968]

Looks like I’m gonna start reusing my external editor to post here, so Discourse stops reporting live on my typing

[Coma]

@anon3825968

Quite frankly, I really don’t give two shits about their opinions or their feelings.

Nor do I, but they can affect life here a lot. Even in Germany, a lot of things are still influenced by religion, and openly opposing it can get you into trouble. In the US, or in islamic countries, it leads to even bigger trouble…

@Eyeux

It would actually bring biohacking into the spotlight in far too negative ways. So if now we have somewhat of a “gray freedom”, once there is a legalised Church which can be seen as a “facade for illegal surgery”

And this is something to keep in mind as well - if biohacking leads to bad publicity in what possible way ever, it might have a lot of backlash on people who are not even into it.
Maybe it would be a better idea to start on a more general thing, like enabling bodmod-artists to actually do their work - so both the bodymod- as well as the biohacking-community would have some benefit of that. Once that is done, there is a legal ground to build on, kind of, so people can no longer say that we are practicing things that are in most countries either legally grey or straight impossible…

[Coma]

@amal

I think though that there would be a burden to prove biohacking procedures in question were “harmful”

Of course they are - they involve doing harm to a body. There is something injected under the skin, or even some scalpelwork involved. Not saying this is anything bad, but it is obviously doing harm. And if things go wrong (and this can always happen, and inevitably will), there is even more harm done. And society might have to pay for it, at least in countries with health care like the EU.
Bodymods in the UK were banned, because court said it is impossible to agree to getting things like that done. So… nothing easier than that, I guess…

[Eyeux]

@amal

I think though that there would be a burden to prove biohacking procedures in question were “harmful”.

I would be much more inclined to agree with you if not for the events of 2019 here in UK, which are not far from happening in US.

All you need is one guy’s biohacking event going terribly wrong and becoming viral.

Then we’ll have a PR shitstorm in our hands which can only make everything much worst than it is now.

Even under an optimistic lens…

@amal

if a challenge were brought under religious freedom, they would need to argue that doing so voluntarily by a practicum church member was “doing harm” to that person.

This would most likely cause for legislation which could even “require” certain documentation or affiliation, such as “by a practicum church member”, which would definitely reduce a lot the number of people who are willing to perform such procedures.

Also…

This scarcity would also lead to even more “back-alley procedures”, which would become easier to be performed on the period immediately following the instating of the Church…

This would most likely lead to bad surgery happening, under the guise of “religious freedom”…

And then we have our viral event…

Don’t get me wrong: I do love your motives and goals, @amal. But I feel someone got to raise the “hard questions” and all the “bad scenarios”.

And I do that exactly because I want to see the Transhumanist community grow.

And also because we do have wider responsibilities, such as this:

@Coma

if biohacking leads to bad publicity in what possible way ever, it might have a lot of backlash on people who are not even into it.

[Atilla]

I can protect your privacy with my Photoshop skills

[anon3825968]

@Coma

openly opposing it can get you into trouble

That’s why I don’t even bother having a conversation with religious people anymore.

I tolerate those around me who I know have faith in something but keep it strictly to themselves - including not displaying outward religious symbols, which are in-your-face religious messages I don’t need to see anymore than I need to hear them. As soon as someone starts mentioning or showing faith in magical beings or irrational beliefs, I simply break off communication, and more often than not, plain cut off relationship.

Live and let live is my motto. Just don’t come anywhere near me with your mental pollution.

[Atilla]

@Eyeux

This would most likely lead to bad surgery happening, under the guise of “religious freedom”…

You are pointing out the dissonance between ‘freedom’ and ‘must’.
In chaotic church a gospel is about trimming the vines of the grape. Is that restrictive, or lets the plant to thrive… but I skip preaching this time.

Do you think that an : “Approved by The FSM” could be a solution to signify what “we” consider the right way?

[amal]

@Coma

Of course they are - they involve doing harm to a body. There is something injected under the skin, or even some scalpelwork involved.

My point here is that medical doctors and surgeons who pledge to do no harm will gladly do these procedures. This would be the perspective of the argument. Perception of harm is not up to litigators but actual experts when debated in courts of law.

[Atilla]

@anon3825968

As soon as someone starts mentioning or showing faith in magical beings or irrational beliefs, I simply break off communication, and more often than not, plain cut off relationship.

And that"s what happened to you at work when that dude saw your implant
In Hungary a situation like this is described as “The ice-cream licks back”

[Coma]

@amal

My point here is that medical doctors and surgeons who pledge to do no harm will gladly do these procedures

Okay, but what about the others? Those guys I strongly prefer to visit?
Like I said, they banned it in the UK for exactly such reasons…

[Eyeux]

@anon3825968

Live and let live is my motto. Just don’t come anywhere near me with your mental pollution.

That is a great attitude.

problem is when your* own actions are the ones bringing the problems to your own doorstep.

(* generic ‘you’)

for example, when you said:

@anon3825968

it’s a pretend church. It’s a device to abuse legistlation designed for real churches, and a potential lobbying group.

We cannot ignore that other groups and individuals would also attempt to use this “device to abuse legislation”. But “you” are the one who would have to pay the consequences from their actions as well…

It’s almost as an invitation for people to take advantage of your actions.

@Coma

Okay, but what about the others? Those guys I strongly prefer to visit?

Exactly my fear!

We might be building a scenario where the good professionals we currently have available will be pushed away…
And the only ones we’ll have left are operating under the guise of “Hair Clinics”!

ps: @Atilla, I’m not ignoring you. I did enjoy your prompt!! but I try to limit my already terribly long posts!! And right now I got my “serious face” on…

But I’ll get back to you there at some point!! ^^

[amal]

Not an issue. Arguing harm in court is not practice in the field. The court battle would be to validate the religious freedom to do so over the states law against it.