Re: FAQ Additions (Posthuman mind control)

den Otter (
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:30:45 +0100

> From: Harvey Newstrom <>

> den Otter <> wrote:
> > I'd have no problem with outlawing the indoctrination of children
> > with anything else than rationalism and critical thought. Given
> > the damage that religion and related dogmas have done to
> > individuals
> [...snip...]
> > I think this in itself somewhat coercive measure could
> > be fully justified. Ultimately it would improve everyone's situation,
> > after all.
> Don't you realize that this is the same view held by the religious nuts?

Yes, and I bet that (some) religious nuts drink thea, wear T-shirts and ride a bike, but that doesn't mean that those things are automatically bad. The same goes for some of their ideas/ methods.

> Everybody seems to want to outlaw other views and limit teaching to
> their view.

It's not as much the views that matter but their (inevitable) results. The brainwashed offspring of those nuts will shape the society of the future, not in the last place because they produce more offspring than atheists. See Israel for example, those guys really have a problem. And the US, the most powerful nation on earth, is still in the grip of primitive superstition at the brink of the 21st century. Amazing! If you want to fight superstition and ignorance, you must nip it in the bud. This bud happens to be the brainwashing done by parents. Later other institutions take over, but the position of the parents and direct relatives remains very important.

> Everybody thinks that their viewpoint can be justified, and
> that such a position would improve everyone's situation.

Sure, but only few are right. Transhumanists are some of those few.

> Such a position is dangerous, whether you hold the "right" view or the
> "wrong" view. I am constantly amazed at how much people are willing to
> override the desires of other because "we know we're right".

We can scientifically prove that we're right, something that the others can't. Also, we can scientifically prove that the other memes will usually deminish one's quality of life, and *always* lead to the permanent destruction of the host. Our intentions are good, and our methods are sound. It doesn't get any better than that.

> Why is your position any better than the conservative desire to outlaw
> the teaching of evolution and limit teaching to just the Bible? Is it
> because you're belief system is true and theirs is false?

Transhumanism, in its pure rationalist form, is simply the most practical, user-friendly meme around. The only one which really has the potential to provide eternal life, freedom and happiness. Through technology and reason we shall overcome, so to speak. The rest are either outright lies (religion) or defeatist nonsense (humanism) which offer only false protection from reality. Opium for the people.

> Do we really
> want to outlaw the teaching of wrong theories?

What we want is the elimination of bad memes. As the religion/ communist/fascist etc. memes are apparently more efficient at taking people over than rationalism, individualism and transhumanism, it would probably be necessary to support those memes by actively suppressing the bad ones. After a while (a couple of generations) the new memes would probably have become ingrained enough in the mainstream to make it on their own. Perhaps. After all, it is no coincidence that memes like religion have dominated human history.

> Won't this lead to the
> State being run by Thought Police?

It is *already* run by thought police (only their methods are still relatively crude), so what's there to lose?