[Daktoria]

Just to note, this is a different topic from Fasces' topic about technology and work. The emphasis here is on the actual integration of robotics and computers into human anatomy itself as it pertains to the definition of humanity.

The reason I'm asking about this distinctly is because of fascism's emphasis on ethnocentrism. With the integration of robotics and computers into anatomy, the very definition of what we are becomes altered, so the idea of a folk community predicated upon biological similarity becomes jeopardized.

Perhaps a fascist society would universally implant augmentations, but how could it be possible to retain a sense of social hierarchy in such a case? If anything, universal implants would convert a fascist society into a communist society because the very definition of what people are would become equalized.

Furthermore, why not implant everyone regardless of biologic origin? That way, a fascist society could transform and assimilate everyone into a similar physical entity. Even more so, a fascist society could benefit from biological diversity by identifying with cybernetics first.

If a fascist society rejects cybernetics, then I don't see how a fascist society could be predicated upon the idea of a superior race. Indeed, it would be holding itself back instead which means it wouldn't really be dedicated to the pursuit of victory or evolution.

[Preston Cole]

Perhaps a fascist society would universally implant augmentations, but how could it be possible to retain a sense of social hierarchy in such a case?

I would oppose cybernetics entirely if it would get the point of people just asking for an augmentation and receiving it instantly. The only area where cybernetics should be allowed is in the military.

On the issue of cybernetics blurring ethnic differences, I think history will eventually come to the point of Fascist States becoming redundant as nations age and ethnic populations dissipate. Fascism and nationalism will then turn into inegalitarian global authoritarianism. Even in that age, universal augmentation should be strongly opposed.

If a fascist society rejects cybernetics, then I don't see how a fascist society could be predicated upon the idea of a superior race. Indeed, it would be holding itself back instead which means it wouldn't really be dedicated to the pursuit of victory or evolution.

The whole point of a Fascist Ubermensch is to become an ubermensch through human power. Fascism opposes technological decadence, and universal cybernetics would certainly atrophy human intellectual and physical material. Like I said, the military would prosper if cybernetics were to be introduced into it because you have to do and use everything at your disposal to become a powerful nation.

[Daktoria]

I would oppose cybernetics entirely if it would get the point of people just asking for an augmentation and receiving it instantly. The only area where cybernetics should be allowed is in the military.

On the issue of cybernetics blurring ethnic differences, I think history will eventually come to the point of Fascist States becoming redundant as nations age and ethnic populations dissipate. Fascism and nationalism will then turn into inegalitarian global authoritarianism. Even in that age, universal augmentation should be strongly opposed.

Either before or after ethnic dissipation, how would you decide (outside of the military) who's entitled to (how much) augmentation outside of a market mechanism? I don't see how might makes right would be a useful adjudication tool because the mighty wouldn't need cybernetics anyway. Quite literally, the mighty would already be mighty.

The whole point of a Fascist Ubermensch is to become an ubermensch through human power. Fascism opposes technological decadence, and universal cybernetics would certainly atrophy human intellectual and physical material. Like I said, the military would prosper if cybernetics were to be introduced into it because you have to do and use everything at your disposal to become a powerful nation.

The invention of cybernetics is representative of human capacity as much as any other invention though.

For example, (how) do you perceive cybernetics differently from say genetic engineering?

[Jackal]

I will address the rest of your post later as I don't have time right now but I did want to comment on something.

If a fascist society rejects cybernetics, then I don't see how a fascist society could be predicated upon the idea of a superior race.

Not all of us believe in the idea of superior race or creating a state out of a single race. Many, like myself, are more assimilationists rather than racialist when it comes to our social policies and implementing them within the fascist state.

"Race? It is a feeling, not a reality. Ninety-five per cent, at least. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. National pride has no need of the delirium of race." -Benito Mussolini.

[Jamie M]

I agree with Raptor. Fascism was not racist, so that's one problem with cybernetics gone.
As for the larger question of would they be allowable, I'd say yes. Although Preston Cole objects, I think it would be foolish to ignore a means of improving ourselves and hence our Nation. I would not allow gratuitous augmentation, as that could quickly become a problem in itself. However, using cybernetics to help those with disabilities, or to help people perform their job more effectively; these would be fine.

[starman2003]

I agree with Raptor. Fascism was not racist, so that's one problem with cybernetics gone.
As for the larger question of would they be allowable, I'd say yes. Although Preston Cole objects, I think it would be foolish to ignore a means of improving ourselves and hence our Nation. I would not allow gratuitous augmentation, as that could quickly become a problem in itself. However, using cybernetics to help those with disabilities, or to help people perform their job more effectively; these would be fine.

Sure it could enormously improve all of society not just the military. Just think how far we could get if everyone was a top contributor and there were no losers.

[Preston Cole]

Either before or after ethnic dissipation, how would you decide (outside of the military) who's entitled to (how much) augmentation outside of a market mechanism? I don't see how might makes right would be a useful adjudication tool because the mighty wouldn't need cybernetics anyway. Quite literally, the mighty would already be mighty.

If it were absolutely unavoidable, I would prefer cybernetics be used in areas of national security, those areas that directly affect the power of the nation: the army, border protection, military intelligence, etc.

For example, (how) do you perceive cybernetics differently from say genetic engineering?

Genetic engineering still implies human power - humans improving themselves by living, learning, fighting, putting their more advanced genes to work. Cybernetics implies human laziness - a computer chip doing all the work/thinking for you. That's not acceptable.

I would not allow gratuitous augmentation, as that could quickly become a problem in itself. However, using cybernetics to help those with disabilities, or to help people perform their job more effectively; these would be fine.

Of course, I agree on the point about helping those with disabilities. But however much you would want to avoid gratuitous augmentation, it will eventually happen, as there's no limit to the development of computer science. Augmentations for any intellectual or physical aspect will be possible to develop. Universal augmentations for increased intelligence, augmentations for the increasing of muscular mass, augmentations for increased talent, etc. In the civilian sphere, they're just going to be harmful in the long run as human genetic material degrades itself and we will become completely dependent on computer engineering. It's a sure path to decadence. It could be debated what kind of augmentations would be beneficial in civilian life and wouldn't necessarily threaten human gene power, but I think it's a bad idea to embrace cybernetics entirely and for everyone.

[Jackal]

Alright time to respond to your post...

The reason I'm asking about this distinctly is because of fascism's emphasis on ethnocentrism.

I have already answered this in my earlier post.

With the integration of robotics and computers into anatomy, the very definition of what we are becomes altered, so the idea of a folk community predicated upon biological similarity becomes jeopardized.

Biomedical engineering is already working on helping those who have lost limbs and other such things through the use of robotics. As far as I know, they are not considered much different than what they originally were, aside from having a robotic leg now.

Perhaps a fascist society would universally implant augmentations, but how could it be possible to retain a sense of social hierarchy in such a case? If anything, universal implants would convert a fascist society into a communist society because the very definition of what people are would become equalized.

What augmentations are you thinking of? By the way, typically when Communists speak of egalitarianism they speak in terms of economics and making everyone an equal economically, hence the whole "abolish the classes" idea. If anything, making everyone equal in terms of genetics (in whatever Sci-Fi world that is) probably has more in common with National Socialism than Communism.

Furthermore, why not implant everyone regardless of biologic origin? That way, a fascist society could transform and assimilate everyone into a similar physical entity. Even more so, a fascist society could benefit from biological diversity by identifying with cybernetics first.

Again, a fairly National Socialist view. Refer to my first post in the thread.

If a fascist society rejects cybernetics, then I don't see how a fascist society could be predicated upon the idea of a superior race. Indeed, it would be holding itself back instead which means it wouldn't really be dedicated to the pursuit of victory or evolution.

Another National Socialist view. But I will play along and give some food for though: How can a race that claims to be superior use cybernetics to improve itself? Sounds very contradictory to me, although I would not doubt that it would be used if possible.

Ultimately, I think cybernetics would be used how they are used today - for medical purposes. After all, we are not living in the Star Trek Universe and the issue on what to do with cybernetics should not be a pressing one at all in a modern, fascist state.

This whole thread seems to be aimed towards Futurist National Socialists and Warhammer 40k Fascists (if there is any difference between the two). Luckily for us, most of them have left PoFo for friendlier waters.

[starman2003]

How can a race that claims to be superior use cybernetics to improve itself?

Superior doesn't mean perfect There's still room for improvement. The nazis claimed "aryan" Germans were superior but still favored eugenics, and sterilization of retards or what not.

[Jackal]

Superior doesn't mean perfect There's still room for improvement. The nazis claimed "aryan" Germans were superior but still favored eugenics, and sterilization of retards or what not.

This is a whole other argument for a whole other topic. I will say this, however, the Nazis could have (and I am sure they did) viewed "retards" as something like mutants, thus not being part of their little "Aryan" ubermensch pow-wow.

[starman2003]

I think history will eventually come to the point of Fascist States becoming redundant as nations age and ethnic populations dissipate. Fascism and nationalism will then turn into inegalitarian global authoritarianism.

Getting to sound more like me.

Fascism opposes technological decadence,

In principle, perhaps, but in practice it wasn't always techno-freiendly. See what Shirer wrote about nazi rule spoiling German technical colleges, and hindering research.