Bioconservatives are those who feel that modern technology has gone too far and is challenging some deep, fundamental aspect of humanity, and is putting the species in extreme danger and thus, technology needs to be banned or at least heavily regulated by the proper authorities, whether it be the church or the government. This can range from supporting GMO labels on foods to bombing cloning facilities because they are "an abomination before the Lord." While religions tend to be bioconservative, most bioconservative factions tend to be secular, and it can run the gamut across the entire political spectrum, uniting Neo-Pagans and hardened Evangelical Fundamentalists.
Who Bioconservatives AReBiocons, as they're often called, are a nebulous and diffuse movement; the rank structure above generally represents the average bioconservative party structure; just about every meta-empire has its own bioconservative party, sometimes several of them. Very little uniform can be said about bioconservatives, since they aren't a uniform lot. The general consensus is that technology has gone to far, although where "too far" is and what best to do next can vary greatly from individual to individual and party to party. Some parties take a more precautionary stance and promote tighter regulations on unregulated technological advance. Others want to ban it completely and punish those responsible.
There is no agreement over what technologies should be targeted, either, although a number of of the same technologies appear so many times that they can be considered the "usual suspects." They include but aren't limited to: animal uplifting, germline genetic engineering, mind uploading, mind downloading, AGIs, extensive biological engineering of the human species, pods, and the production of androids. Some bioconservatives go further and attack biosculpting for "erasing natural differences between the races and the sexes," while others will zero in on longevity treatments and regenerative treatments, arguing that humanity was never intended to live as long as these treatments allow and that doing so is erasing some fundamental aspect of what makes humans human. Bioconservatives almost uniformly reject the God AIs and the idea that AIs should rule over humans. Often, bioconservatism is said to be anchored in an unwillingness to change and adapt, which is as human as any other behavior. However, given the many biocons can support technological progress in other areas, this simplistic statement belies the complexity of the actual position. At its heart, bioconservatism is a production of perceived human uniqueness and agency within the universe. It's an attempt to conserve the biological status of human beings, both legally, ethically, and technologically. One can debate whether such things ever existed to begin with, but these are at the core of the bioconservative argument, often along side arguments such technologies are dangerous - which is a fair accusation. After all, some of these technologies that they protest almost succeeded in wiping out humanity once; they see it as perversely stupid to let said technologies finish the job. Like most reactionary and conservative movements, bioconservatism (and it's cousin, preservationism) open themselves up to abuse from con artists and scammers, with many neo-evangelical preachers extolling the virtues of dying while secreting using the church tithes to pay for their own longevity treatments. However, this is not nearly as common as technoprogressives want to think it is, and a great many biocons truly believe their position, and truly believe that something gets lost with these technologies - some ineffable thing that makes humans human. |
|
What bioconservatives want
This is where common goals begin to break down. Bioconservatives can want anything from total banning of certain technologies to high regulation of it, depending on the nature of the technology in question, and the nature of the individual and the bioconservative party that's pushing for the ideology. However, all bioconservatives want political power so they can force their agenda through, and thus, they seek to influence electorates and governments into adopting their positions. Most meta-empires have their own bioconservative party but the Monarchy is often seen as the source of the meme, and so a fair number of bioconservatives come from the Monarchy. However, they are far from the only ones, and not all bioconservatives agree with the Monarchy or the other religious groups that promote it. However, this doesn't stop them from wanting political power to enforce their ideals, and it can sometimes lead to conflicts with more technoprogressive groups who oppose them.
What bioconservatives can Provide
Being the varied bunch that they are, bioconservative parties can generally provide the following for those who are members to their organizations:
- Favors
- Hideout. Especially from more technoprogressive governments and from those who oppose the movement, although this may not universally be the case.
- Provisions
- Political and legal support. In some cases, depending on the local power of the bioconservative party and what the individuals need accomplished.
- Replacements
- Special Orders. Mostly through their social media networks
- Training. Mostly in political-related skills, given the political nature of these parties.
Rank
0 1 2 3 |
Title
Member Organizer Leader Director |
Advantages
Rank 0 Rank 1, Politics IQ-1, Public Speaking IQ-1 Rank 2 Rank 3, Politics IQ, Public Speaking IQ |
Meaning of a WordIn some parts of the Verge and Bleed, the term "bioconservative" has a very different meaning from the normal meaning. For instance, in the Imperium, it is used to refer to a political and social organizational theory called yellow urbanism. This use of bioconservatism has absolutely nothing in common with the baseline definition. That said, throughout the Verge and Bleed, use of the term can generally be tracked to the type of conservatism that's outlined here: a cautious approach to technology (if not outright rejection of it) that's designed to conserve some ineffable quality of humanity as defined by the group in question. |
History of bioconservatism
The first bioconservatism movement likely emerged at the beginning the Interplanetary Period, although for all of human history every invention, from the automobile to the zipper to the written word itself, has been met with resistance in some form or another. What makes bioconservatives unique from people like Socrates who rejected writing is that they often argue their position from the prospect of "nature verses artificial" or the "natural world verses the artificial one." Bioconservatives are hardly unified and have hardly ever been unified throughout history; everything from anti-vaccination to protesting genetic manipulation of plants to a suspicion of modern science in general can be lumped under the bioconservative label and has been at some point. Suspicion about IVF, human cloning, genetic experimentation, and the right allowed bioconservatism to adopt the sheen of an ethical position, although the difference is that most bioconservatives are simply repulsed by the technology and so seek to ban it or regulate it, lacking the training in ethics to adopt a truly ethical outlook on a technology.
Given the age and diversity of the movement, it's hard to tell when it really emerged on its own. The modern iteration of bioconservatism emerged as a direct result of the Ascension Crisis and the Nanoswarms, and these are the things that the movement pivots around: rejection of nanotechnology and rejection of AGIs and AIs. It expands with time, incorporating new things to protest against, or new ideologies, but in practice, almost everyone who calls themselves "Bioconservative" is against either advanced nanotechnology or ASIs to some degree. When the Monarchy formed, it became a key player in the bioconservative movement; this was deliberate, since the king at the time saw them as a way to power. Now that the Umma has emerged, the movement appears to be splitting into two different direction: a more secular bioconservative movement following the Monarchy, and a more theocratic bioconservative movement that's following the Umma, while the new age left-leaning bioconservatives are forced to follow the Orlamu Theocracy - an organize that isn't really bioconservative, but that is often mistaken for one.
Given the age and diversity of the movement, it's hard to tell when it really emerged on its own. The modern iteration of bioconservatism emerged as a direct result of the Ascension Crisis and the Nanoswarms, and these are the things that the movement pivots around: rejection of nanotechnology and rejection of AGIs and AIs. It expands with time, incorporating new things to protest against, or new ideologies, but in practice, almost everyone who calls themselves "Bioconservative" is against either advanced nanotechnology or ASIs to some degree. When the Monarchy formed, it became a key player in the bioconservative movement; this was deliberate, since the king at the time saw them as a way to power. Now that the Umma has emerged, the movement appears to be splitting into two different direction: a more secular bioconservative movement following the Monarchy, and a more theocratic bioconservative movement that's following the Umma, while the new age left-leaning bioconservatives are forced to follow the Orlamu Theocracy - an organize that isn't really bioconservative, but that is often mistaken for one.
Bioconservative Culture
Given bioconservatism is a sociopolitical movement rather than a cultural one, there isn't much that can be said about bioconservatism as a culture. However, there are a number of beliefs within the community that are universally held, with the idea that some technologies should be regulated or banned. This carries over in their day-to-day life, where biocons often choose to avoid these technologies and usually push for political platforms that ban the technologies they deem as harmful, or defund exploration into these technologies. Given this unifying outlook, it isn't uncommon to find a bioconservative party on almost every habitat that allows political parties and groups, and sometimes they isolate themselves from others; bioconservatism is often synonymous with Hider culture, even though it's unfair to compare the two. However, what technologies qualify is always a point of contention, even within communities themselves, and this disagreement can sometimes cause a bioconservative community to split, fragment, or completely implode if they aren't all on the same page. ∎