Organized by IEET and Brighter Brains (Hank Pellissier).
I’ll be participating in one or perhaps two of them.
My positions, briefly:
- Immigration/Open Borders – Opposed, and not even just from an HBD/”waycist” perspective. See Immigration and Effective Altruism.
- UBI – For it, and not even just from an automation perspective. See The Ethnic Politics of Basic Income.
- Singularity 2045 – I am with techno-NRx “consensus” (Anissimov, Konkvistador, etc) that 2045 is extremely optimistic, if for different reasons. Mostly it is just an extension of the logic of the theory of Apollo’s Ascent. Kurzweil is wrong because progress in technology isn’t primarily driven by the stock of existing technology but by aggregate mindpower, which is increasing but not very quickly (and might start reversing altogether sooner or later once the Idiocracy Effect overtakes the Flynn Effect). We also have no idea what the cognitive threshold is for developing superintelligence. Perhaps it’s beyond homo sapiens capabilities altogether.
IEET link: Transhuman Debate in SF East Bay, co-sponsored by IEET – speakers needed
You can get tickets here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/transhuman-debate-tickets-20728825475
Transhuman Debate in SF East Bay, co-sponsored by IEET – speakers needed
Posted: Jan 11, 2016
IEET is co-sponsoring a “Transhuman Debate” event in Oakland, California, on February 6, 2016, at Humanist Hall.
The debate is titled “Argue 4 Tomorrow.” It will feature three “Oxford Style” Transhumanist Team Debates on these three topics:
IMMIGRATION & BORDERS
BASIC INCOME GUARANTEE
WILL THE SINGULARITY ARRIVE BEFORE OR AFTER 2045?
Each debate will be one hour long.
The first third will be presentation of their POV by the debate team,
the second part will open-ended dispute and persuasion between the two teams,
and the final section will have the audience leaping into the fray.
The event is co-sponsored by Brighter Brains Institute. Anatoly Karlin proposed the debate concept.
We’re looking for additional Debate Team members. If interested please contact [email protected]
At the present time the debate teams include:
Randal Koene (IEET Advisory Board member)
Nicole Sallak Anderson (IEET Advisory Board)
Ted Peters (Author)
Anatoly Karlin (blogger for Unz.com)
Scott Jackish (IEET contributor)
Anya Petrova (Infinity Gap)
Andrés Gómez Emilsson (IEET Contributor)
Mike Johnson (East Bay Futurists)
Lauren Barghout (speaker at Johns Hopkins University)
Jay Cornell (co-author of Transcendence
Hank Pellissier (IEET Managing Director)
Dan Faggella (IEET Advisory Board) – tentative
Tickets will be available at EventBrite soon
Stop using terms like waycist and cuckservative!
What does the term “waycist” mean?
Agreed with this. You’re a good writer but when you slip channer slang into your writing it’s cringey.
This question demonstrates the exact reason he needs to stop using it.
Oh, boo hoo.
Don’t cuck for these wordfags Anatoly, they’re not debating at IEET or writing for Unz.
Ironically for a transhumanist operation, we seem to be having some trouble filling up the FOR side of the Open Borders debate.
Even the less wrong have realized who’s right on that! 😉
I suppose my blog is hardly the best place to solicit this, but do feel free to send Hank an email ([email protected]) if (a) you are in the SF Bay Area; (b) are interested in attending this debate event and (c) arguing for the Open Borders position.
By all means, continue to use politically loaded words peculiar to a tiny segment of the population in an effort to educate and inform a wider segment of the population, works every time. The use of words that invite questions about one’s connection to racist thought are proven game winners. Extended discussion of the differences of between waycist and racist would be invaluable.
Anatoly, can you give us a summary report of the debate?
iffen-I like your comments, and I think one of the real challenges of HBD-type thinking is how to work it into mainstream and elite thinking for examination by a larger public. I’m just a casual reader, but I think it’s reasonably fair to say Anatoly, Steve, and some of the other folks are expanding the desiccated rhetoric of race and its relation to public policy. I’m thinking “Racial Expansionist” may be a useful term, but I’m not sure.
The problem is that “Open Borders” connotes anarchy, lawlessness, stampeding hordes, etc. Pro-immigrationists generally don’t seem to regard themselves as being for “open borders”.
Using them too much unironically on substantive posts is kind of gay though.
What would be gay would be to stop using them.
Like it or not, Anatoly using the word cuck has the shibboleth weight of a yiddish idiom. Our (((hostile elite))) have been winning because they defended their border of the Overton window, while telling us to move ours.
Even the less wrong have realized who’s right on that!
They don’t need to debate.
Open Borders is a fait accompli.
open borders is a straw man.very few people support full open borders.
Right, to stop using them would be gay, and using them too much unironically on substantive posts would also be gay.
AK, would be interested in joining in for an hour in a Youtube recording on alt-right perspectives on east-asia?
It is hosted on a growing alt-right channel of who’s associate has recently interviewed Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer and Ramz Paul.
It will be a private hosting on Google hangouts this weekend.
I forgot to say, the host is an Australian business-expat living in Taiwan. It’s a live recording on a channel with 1000+ subscribers (the parent channel has 7000+), it may be a good introduction if you ever plan to get your Youtube channel going.
First Germans kick out spies and now Facebook in legal trouble with Germans. Do you get refund on bad VW? Give all the Syrians basic German income and free train ticket to Paris. It was better with Russians and wall. Now they have Syrian Fall. No love for fraus.
Does this mean that if an alt-left ever forms it will not be possible to distinguish it from the alt-right?
Well they agree on by far the most important issues, immigration, race and globalisation. Everything else is really quite trivial in comparison to those.
The only truly important thing next to those is environmental protection, but as AK has written earlier; the ship has about sailed on global warming and worldwide mass-extinction. The whole left/right dichotomy has been irrelevant since the collapse of the USSR. It’s also limiting, in the sense that IRL, people always assume because you said you believe X, you must support Y, while thinking Z is a nasty lie.
Unfortunately much of the alt-right is quite childish, with the ‘muh’ this jargon, race-baiting (which turns many off), Hitler fixation and an unhealthy obsession with Jews.
Very informed post. I agree with many of your points. I still look for some sort of political solution. The current ideology has no organized opposition. It wins everything by default.
Since you understand Chinese, you may enjoy these documentaries.
https://youtu.be/LpL3gocAYvQ?list=PLwXMmy5fUrVxJNVA3Vb-kRRD5l2Px21Jn
In recent history of USA presidential election, it is very much like male beauty contest of candidates height. Ross Perot was unlikely to win if he had became major candidate. John McCain also suffer image disadvantage comparing to Obama. People naturally felt tall guys as protectors, stronger, big brothers. The feeling is subconscious resistant to rational reasoning. Small guys really have hard time to achieve such nature feeling for average folks. They had to work much harder like Napoleon or Lenin. Maybe people still have doubt about those poor guys. President Lincoln on the other hand felt like a natural leader.
If democrats want to beat Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would have hard time due to subconscious bias.
Bernie Sanders is only hope for Democrats.
What is the membership badge of the “Brighter Brains Institute”?