MEMIUS

 In "arch-anarchy", already republished here, the anonymous author "A" presents some good insights into why the laws of nature should not be seen as immutable decrees that govern the universe and much less worthy of veneration. However, I would like to make my arguments. I would say that our relationship with the laws of nature is a form of Stockholm syndrome, our entire lives we have been trapped by them and most of us cannot imagine that we can ever be free from them, because of this.Until we reach a point of idealizing them as something sacred. I will give two examples to better explain what I mean. First, the state under the anarchist vision, we spend our entire lives living under the rules of the state, hearing at school or in state propaganda about how wonderful and necessary a state is, that the majority of the population really thinks it is impossible to live without politicians and bureaucrats regulating our lives. The second is the death over death view of...

 One of the great goals of transhumanism is to achieve immortality through science, and indeed some futurists like Raymond Kurzweil and Ian Person think we are close, citing advances like nanotechnology and mind scanning by artificial intelligence as being close to granting us this by the middle of this century. As an arch-anarchist I support overcoming any obstacle to the will of the individual and that includes death(1). But even with the predictions of Mr. Kurzweil(2) and Mr. person(3) we would not be totally free from death, even with the emergence of technology to transfer our minds to synthetic bodies in the event of death as person discusses we would still have to deal with existential risk scenarios. for example an asteroid or comet impact event, a supervolcanic eruption, a natural pandemic, a lethal gamma-ray burst, a geomagnetic storm from a coronal mass ejection destroying electronic equipment, long-term natural climate change, hostile extraterrestrial life or the Sun tu...

  For decades scientists have debated the following topic, how come we don't find life beyond Earth in such a vast universe? This is the so-called Fermi paradox, and many solutions have been proposed, well, I'll show you mine . Researchers from   search for extraterrestrial intelligence  ( SETI )   generally try to look for alien life by looking for earth-like worlds, well at least within the habitable zone of a star, now maybe the problem is that we are not thinking far enough. Perhaps life outside of Earth is so radically different from what we know to the point that it challenges our understanding of what "life" is, making it difficult to find or contact it. Now let's extrapolate how different it could be  :    In 1973, astrophysicist Frank Drake suggested that intelligent life could live inside neutron stars, based on this, American physicist Robert Forward published a speculative fiction book in 1980  " Dragon's Egg "  which deals with a...

 By Max T. O'Connor  [Editor: This article is reprinted from Extropy  #1 , 1989  . Extropy was published by The Extropy Institute]   "There are no moral phenomena at all, only a moral interpretation of phenomena." Friedrich Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil."   I am going to argue that not only do we have good reasons to reject morality, but an amoralist viewpoint is especially fitting for Extropians. Don't be put off by the seemingly radical nature of my thesis - you may end up finding it not only convincing but also attractive and liberating! To begin, I will explain why I have come to dislike morality. Then, I will provide what I believe are solid theoretical reasons for rejecting any objectivist view of ethics (that is, any view stating that morals are objectively right or wrong, or actions objectively good or bad). Lastly, I will conclude the main part of the paper by moving beyond subjectivist ethics to an amoralist position. The Faults of Moralities A...