[…]
He did not call this non-love evil or destructive. He called it perfect [machines].
[…]
Harrison, thanks for pointing out the weaknesses of post #11. There are indeed errors on my part. I need to analyze the reason for the failure of the rhetorical fear-tactic that I used. I was thinking that Objectivism cannot remain a minority philosophy and survive without allying with others, such as transhumanists (i.e., robots, machines). I thought so, in error, because I saw many similarities between the two philosophies. I have spoken with several transhumanists, read their rationales, and found that they believe in the primacy of mind , associate themselves with mind, and think that bodies are machines, viz., merely sums of individual particles, atoms, and molecules. They want to find a way to create a synthetic brain, download their minds or consciousness into it (they also confuse mind and consciousness, besides confusing organics and inorganics), and live in perfect artifical bodies (i.e., avatars, surrogates). I believed that the integration of Objectivism and transhumanism without contradictions would be a simple matter. The addition of Objectivist code of ethics to their philosophy would complete it, and transhumanism will add an evolutionary (albeit artificial) and technologically progressive edge to Objectivism. Then the Objectivist conflict with society would degenerate (i.e., fall or fragment as through my model) into the transhumanist conflict with all organic life. However, Objectivism is concerned with the primacy of reality , and it is a self-sustaining philosophy and lifestyle. I predict a long and prosperous future for you for at least two thousand years. Nonetheless, Objectivist intransigence would then equal the selflessly ignorant perseverance of Christianity unless you find new and influencial ideas (that are acceptable by the majority of others) to finally build your dream - Capitalism.
Go ahead and ignore (in post #11) all instances of where I try to connect Objectivism with transhumanism through machines. The main idea that I tried to express in post #11 is that money can be substituted with a different, yet rational (as well as emotional) currency. I tried to argue against sNerd’s counterargument #7 in Integrating Wealth and Health and prove that “all incentives do not have to be monetary.” More than that, I have shown that such different incentives can be inherently tax-free and provide a method and motivation for comfortable living. The reintegration of this economic idea into Objectivism led to the creation of the neo-Objectivist philosophy with the new and more efficient oath and where help from others can be easily acceptable for the sole reason that emotional payments can be limitless. The individual emotional reputation retains the selfish element and the incentive to still keep increasing one’s competence and the standard of living. Hence, my claim that Capitalism can be integrated with Communism, the market with the society, the self with the others, the beginning with the end.