Zero State is a new grouping that has emerged out of the inchoate slew of groups and personnel straddling futurism and transhumanism in the United Kingdom. Following the mutations amongst these associations over the last decade, one could get cynical about the lack of 'take off' one finds in a movement. A similar parallel could be drawn in the quest for liberty.
So, we find that the latest permutation seeks not to mainstream transhumanism, but to embrace the values and broaden participation. Admirable goals, no doubt and mood music to the major focal point of this post. Without quoting from the text, a troubling manifesto was put up for comment on a mailing list as a response to the financial crisis. The first paragraph blamed the financial crisis on capitalism and deliberate actions by a cross-section of government and the richest 1%. The result was that the middle class were paying a redistribution to the rich. The redistribution to the rich exists but I was loath to recognise agency in such a confusing and unknown situation. Within the text, such sentiments did denote class war and the politics of envy; sentiments indistinguishable from any utterance of the Labour Party or the radical left. This led me to think: if we are unable to understand what has occurred so far (since we can read a slew of competing narratives), what would transhumanist interests bring to the table? And I think that this is an important question, since these interests, these values distinguish us from the peddlers of traditional fictions.
One of the key factors of the banks has been a misreading of risk; part of the area that plays into the research on cognitive bias and other factors that can skew thought and action. Should we ensure that there are women traders to break up the dominant effects of testosterone? Should we ensure that all risk officers are women (the mother of all Battles?) Do we need to consider the effect of archaic institutional perspectives on what has occurred? Corporations, regulators and hedge funds all date from the twentieth century. They find it difficult to receive, process and act upon information; the complexities are too tangled in certain circumstances. (That does not prevent us from identifying those companies that were just stupid: loading themselves up on badly rated debt and foudering as a result).
The emphasis should be on questions, not an narratives. Adopt a story and you will instantly slot yourself into an existing narrative; one based on its own assumptions, not the evidence.
