 terrorists in order to protect the state (and the military itself). Furthermore, if the military becomes an expression of new kinds of security apparatuses in a post-traditional state world, then terrorists plus transhumanism may provide a model for future versions of the military in so far as terrorism represents decentralized, highly-responsive / highly-aggressive, and networked cells rather than the staid and dictatorial hierarchies of centralized authority. If the military can co-opt such features while refraining from using the dark side of terrorists' strategies (attacks on civilians, public utilities), terrorism may itself be providing the models its enemies can use to destroy it. It is not enough just for the military establishment to be aware of transhumanism and hope to use advanced technologies to disrupt terrorism to defend the state. Militaries must take on transhumanism as a toolkit for understanding geopolitical shifts – shifts which have given a surprising amount of power to poor, technologically inferior, and "disorganized" terror groups. Transhumanism has an affiliation with, maybe even roots in, the "cybertopian" visions of a world interconnected with communications technologies for the common good. This is a naive and perhaps dead view of reality, now, but one that nonetheless informed the beliefs of many technologists who are now building the world we live in. The decentralization of their vision is an actionable good that militaries may take away in order to become the type of force needed to destroy non-state terrorist groups. Transhumanism represents new ways for militaries (and therefore states, if they are to survive) to understand the role of cheap, ubiquitous, powerful, and weaponizable technology in the hands of the everyday man. Transhumanism illustrates to militaries the power of distributed common technology, yes, but more than that it carries an ethos that anyone could (even if not everyone should) take up these tools for their own purposes. I once heard a squadron commander in the Air Force describe the essential military mission as follows: "Our job is to kill people and break things." That is about as hard-boiled as you can get, I think. But in a posthuman future in which militaries assume positions and attributes previously held by eggheads very far from battlefields (transhumanists) and enemies willing to kill wantonly (terrorists), perhaps the essential military mission itself becomes less about Destroying the Things as it will be about Disrupting the Patterns. Every terror attack causes the patterns of traditional state
terrorists in order to protect the state (and the military itself). Furthermore, if the military becomes an formula of newfangled kinds of security apparatuses in a post - traditional country world, then terrorists plus transhumanism may supply a model for future versions of the military in thus far as terrorism represents decentralized, highly - responsive / highly - aggressive, and networked cell rather than the staid and authoritarian hierarchy of centralized authority. If the military can co - opt such features while refraining from using the black side of terrorists' strategies (approach on civilians, public utilities), terrorism may itself be providing the models its enemy can use to destroy it. It is not enough just for the military establishment to be mindful of transhumanism and hope to use advanced technologies to disrupt terrorism to defend the state. military must necessitate on transhumanism as a toolkit for understanding geopolitical shifts – shifts which have given a surprising amount of power to poor, technologically inferior, and " disorganized " panic group. Transhumanism has an affiliation with, possibly even root in, the " cybertopian " vision of a world interconnected with communications technologies for the common good. This is a naive and possibly dead view of reality, now, but one that nonetheless informed the beliefs of many technologists who are now building the world we live in. The decentralization of their sight is an actionable good that military may consider away in order to become the type of force out needed to destroy non - state terrorist groups. Transhumanism represents new ways for militaries (and therefore submit, if they are to survive) to understand the function of cheap, omnipresent, powerful, and weaponizable technology in the hands of the everyday world. Transhumanism illustrates to militaries the power of distributed common engineering, yes, but more than that it carries an ethos that anyone could (even if not everyone should) take up these tools for their own function. I once heard a squadron commander in the Air Force describe the essential military mission as come: " Our job is to kill multitude and break things. " That is approximately as hard - boiled as you can get, I think. But in a posthuman future in which militaries assume positions and attributes previously held by eggheads very far from battlefield (transhumanists) and enemies willing to stamp out wantonly (terrorists), perhaps the essential military mission itself becomes less about destroy the Things as it will be about Disrupting the Patterns. Every terror approach causes the patterns of traditional state
 tegrorists in order to prouect the state (anb the mmlitary itself). Wurthermore, if the military uecones ab expression of new kivds of seburity apparauuses in a post-tresitional stats wornv, then terrorisjs plus tranvhumanism may [ruvnde a model for future versions of tre miliyagy in so far af tegrjrisj represents decentralized, highly-rssponsine / highly-aggressove, and networked cells rahher than the staid anf dictatoriql hywrarchies of centraliztd authority. If the military can co-opt such featbres while tzdralting from uwing nhe dark side of terrmrists' xtrategies (attsckv ob civilians, public utmlities), terrorism mai itself ba 'roviding the models utw enekies can yse to dxstdoy it. It is not enkugh just fir the military estsbjpxhment to be aware os transhumanism and hope to use advanceg tschnologies to disrupt rerrorism to defend tje state. Iilitaries must take on transhumanism as a toolkid for jndtrwtandkbg geopolitical shifts – shifts which have given z xugprising amount on power to poor, tevhjokjgically infetior, anb "djsorganized" terror groups. Tranwhumanism has an affiliation with, maybe wven roots iu, tye "cybertopian" visnons of a woxld injerconmected with communicatiuns fechnologied for the zommon good. This is a naive and perhaps dead viqw of reaoity, now, bug ong that gonethelesd informed the beliefs ov mani techtologists aho are now building the world xx live in. The dacettralizacion on their vision ys an actionabke good that militariea may teke away in jrder to becokg the type of force nqedee to destroh non-state terrprist grolpf. Trqnshumanism represcnts vsw ways for milnuarues (and therefote rtaeed, mf thqf are to sureive) to inderrtand the riue og cheap, ubiquitous, pmwerrul, and weaponizabke technoligy in tre hands of tne everyday man. Trwnshukanmsm ilkusjrates to militaries the power kf distrihutcd common tecrnoligy, yes, but kore than that it carries an ethos that anyone could (even if not everyone shpmld) take up vhese eools for their own purposes. U once heard a sqmadron commander in ths Air Xorce describe the essential military mission as follows: "Our job is to kill peiple aid break thinfs." Tnat iv cbobt as hwrd-blmled as you can gvt, I think. But in a posthuman fuvure in whhck militaries assume positions avd attributes previously held by egghsads veru far from battlefields (transhukanists) and enemies willlng to kiol wahtonly (tercorists), perhaps the rssentnal mioitary nisslon itself becumex pess abouh Dextxoying the Things as it will be avout Dusgupting the Pattxrns. Every tcrvor atjack caufes the patterns of fgaditkonal state
terrorists in order to protect the state military Furthermore, if military becomes an security in a post-traditional world, then terrorists transhumanism may provide a model for versions of the military in so far as terrorism represents decentralized, highly-responsive / and networked cells rather than the staid and dictatorial hierarchies of centralized authority. the can such while refraining from using the dark side of terrorists' strategies (attacks on civilians, public utilities), terrorism itself be providing the models its enemies can to destroy it. It not enough just for the establishment be aware transhumanism hope use advanced technologies disrupt terrorism to defend the state. Militaries must take on transhumanism as a toolkit for understanding geopolitical – shifts given a amount power poor, technologically inferior, terror groups. Transhumanism has an affiliation roots in, the "cybertopian" visions of a world with communications for the common good. This is naive and perhaps dead view of reality, now, one that nonetheless informed the beliefs of many technologists who are now building the world in. The decentralization of vision is an good militaries take in order become the type of force needed to destroy non-state terrorist groups. represents new ways for militaries (and therefore states, if they survive) understand the role cheap, ubiquitous, powerful, and technology the hands of the Transhumanism to of common yes, but more than it carries an ethos that could (even if not tools for their own purposes. I once heard squadron commander in the Air Force describe essential military mission as follows: "Our job is to kill people and things." That as hard-boiled as you can get, I think. in a posthuman future which militaries assume positions and attributes previously held by very from battlefields and enemies willing kill wantonly (terrorists), the essential military becomes less Destroying Things be about Disrupting the Patterns. Every attack the patterns of traditional state
 terrorists in order to protecT the state (aNd the MilItaRy ItseLf). FuRthermore, if the MIlitAry becomes an expression Of new KiNDs of SEcUrity ApparatUSeS IN a pOsT-tRadItIOnAl staTe wOrld, theN terroristS plUs TranshumanisM MaY provide a mOdeL for future veRsiOns of tHe MilITary iN so Far as TerrorISm reprEsents decEnTRalizeD, Highly-rESPoNsivE / highly-aggressive, ANd NEtworked cells rAther tHaN ThE STaiD anD dictatoriAl HieraRChies of CEnTRALizED authority. If tHe military cAN co-Opt sucH fEatURes whiLe refRaINinG from using tHe daRk side of tErroriSTs' stratEGies (attAcks on CivIliAns, pUBlIc UtiLiTIes), TErRorISm mAy itself Be PrOvidiNg thE MODEls iTs eNemiEs can Use to destroy iT. It Is noT EnoUgh juSt for The mIlItary EstablIshmeNt To be aware of tranShumAnism and hOpe To Use AdVanceD TechnoLogIes To disruPt terroRIsm To DEFEnD the state. MilitarieS mUST tAke on traNshumaNIsM aS A toolkit FoR unDersTANding GeopOLiTical shiFts – shiFTs WhIch have GiVen a suRpRisIng AmounT Of poWer to pOor, technOlogiCAlly inferior, anD "Disorganized" tERrOR GrOUps. TRanShumanism haS an aFFiliAtioN WiTh, mAYbe evEn rooTs IN, tHE "cybertopian" visions Of A world InterConnected with CommunicatIONS technolOgieS FoR The common good. THis is A naive and pERhaps deaD view Of realitY, now, but onE THat nonetHelEss InfOrmED ThE beliefs of manY TEchnOlOgists wHo aRe now buIldIng The WorLd We live in. THe decentRaLiZaTiOn oF theiR Vision is An ActIoNabLe gooD That miLitarIes mAy TaKE awAy in ordER tO BEcomE tHe Type Of fOrCe neeDed tO DesTroy non-State terrOriST groUpS. TRanshumAnism represenTs New ways for MiLitAries (aND ThereforE states, if they are to surviVE) to undeRstAnd thE rolE of cheap, uBiqUitous, PowERful, anD weapoNizabLe TecHNOlogy IN ThE haNdS of the everYDAy mAn. TraNsHumaNism illUstrates to militariES thE power of distrIbuTed cOMMoN teCHnOLogY, yES, buT MOre than that it caRries an ethOs THaT anyone couLD (evEn If not evEryone sHould) TAke up thEse tools fOr their owN pUrpoSES. I oNce heard a sQuadron cOmmander iN The AiR foRce deScrIbe the EsSenTial mIlitarY MisSion aS folloWs: "our job Is to kIlL people aNd break things." That is abouT as harD-boilEd aS you can geT, I tHInk. but in a posThumAn future in WhiCh mIlitaRieS AssumE posITiOns ANd attRibuTEs previouSLy HelD BY eGgheads very FAR FroM battLefIElds (trAnshUmanists) and enemieS Willing to kill wAntoNLY (teRroRIsts), PeRhaps the essentIal MiLITary missIoN itself becoMes less aBoUT DestRoying The ThiNgs as it WILl BE about disrUptIng the PatTerNs. eVery terRoR aTTack caUses ThE patteRns of tRAditIONal state
 terrorists in order to pr otect thestate  (a ndth e mi lita ry itself). Fu r ther more, if the militarybecom es an e x pr essio n of ne w  k i n dsof  s ecu ri t yappar atu ses ina post-tra dit io nal state wo r ld , then ter ror ists plus tr ans humani sm  ma y  prov ide  a mo del fo r  futur e version so f them ilitary i nso f ar as terrorism r e pr e sents decentra lized,  h i gh l y -re spo nsive / hi gh ly-ag g ressive ,  a n d net w orked cells r ather thant hestaidan d d i ctator ial h ie r arc hies of cen tral ized auth ority. If them ilitary  can c o-o ptsuch fe at ure sw hil e  r efr a ini ng fromus in g the  dar k s i de o f t erro rists ' strategies(at tack s  on  civi lians , pu bl ic ut ilitie s), t er rorism may itse lf b e providi ngth e m od els i t s enem ies  ca n use t o destr o y i t. I t  i s not enough justfo r th e milita ry est a bl is h ment tobe  aw areo f  tran shum a ni sm and h ope to us eadvance dtechno lo gie s t o dis r uptterror ism to d efend the state. Mil i taries must t a ke o nt rans hum anism as atool k it f or u n de rst a nding  geop ol i ti c al shifts – shiftswh ich ha ve gi ven a surpris ing amount o f  power t o po o r, technologicall y inf erior, and "disorga nized " terror  groups.T r anshuman ism  ha s a n a f f il iation with,m a ybeev en root s i n, the"cy ber top ian "visions o f a worl din te rc onn ected with com mu nic at ion s tec h nologi es fo r th eco m mon  good.T hi s is a  n ai ve a ndpe rhaps  dea d  vi ew of r eality, n ow, buton ethat no netheless inf or med the be li efs  of ma n y  technol ogists who are now buil d ing the  wo rld w e li ve in. Th e d ecentr ali z ationof the ir vi si oni s  an a c t io nab le  good that m ili tarie smaytake aw ay in order to bec o methe type of f orc e ne e d ed  to de s tro yn on- s t ate terrorist g roups. Tra ns h um anism repr e sen ts  new wa ys formilit a ries (a nd theref ore state s,  ift h eyare to sur vive) to  understa n d the ro le of  ch eap, u bi qui tous,  power f ul,  andweapon iz able t echno lo gy in th e hands of the everyday  man.Trans hum anism ill ust r ate s to mili tari es the pow erofdistr ibu t ed co mmon te chn o logy,  yes ,  but more th ant h at  it carries a n  et hos t hat anyone  cou ld (even if not e v eryone should)  tak e upthe s e to ol s for their ow n p ur p o ses. I o nc e heard a s quadronco m mande r in t he Air  Forced e sc r ibe th e es sen tial mili tar ym issionas  f o llows:  "Ou rjob is  to ki l l pe o p le and break thi ngs." T hat i s  ab out a shard-bo i ledas you can  get, I thi nk. Bu t in  a po sthuman  f utureinwh ich milita r ies assum e pos itionsan d at tri butesprev i o uslyheld  b y e ggheads v e r yf ar  f r ombatt lefie ld s (t ranshuman i sts) and  en e mies wi ll ing t o kill wa n t only (terr ori sts), p erhaps the esse n ti a l mil itarymissio n itsel f  be co mes les s a b o ut Destro ying theT hin gs  asit willbe  abo ut  Di sr upting the Patt erns. Ev ery terr o r  attac k c a uses the pa tt erns of trad ition al state
 terrorists_in order_to protect the state_(and the_military_itself). Furthermore,_if_the military becomes_an expression of_new kinds of security_apparatuses in a_post-traditional_state world, then terrorists plus transhumanism may provide a model for future versions of_the_military in_so_far_as terrorism represents decentralized, highly-responsive_/ highly-aggressive, and networked cells_rather than_the staid and dictatorial hierarchies of centralized authority._If_the military can_co-opt such features while refraining from using the dark_side of terrorists' strategies (attacks on_civilians, public utilities),_terrorism_may_itself be providing the_models its enemies can use to_destroy it. It is not enough_just for the military establishment to be_aware of transhumanism and hope to_use advanced technologies to disrupt_terrorism to_defend the state. Militaries must_take on transhumanism_as a_toolkit for understanding_geopolitical shifts – shifts which have_given a surprising_amount of power to poor, technologically_inferior,_and "disorganized" terror_groups._Transhumanism_has an_affiliation with, maybe_even_roots in,_the_"cybertopian" visions of a world interconnected_with_communications technologies for the common good. This_is a naive and_perhaps_dead view of reality,_now, but one that nonetheless_informed the beliefs of many technologists_who are_now building_the world we live in. The decentralization of their vision is_an actionable good that militaries may_take away in order_to become_the_type of force_needed_to destroy_non-state terrorist groups. Transhumanism represents new ways_for militaries_(and therefore states, if they are_to survive) to understand_the_role of cheap, ubiquitous, powerful, and_weaponizable technology in the hands of_the everyday man. Transhumanism illustrates_to_militaries_the power of distributed common_technology, yes, but more than that_it carries an_ethos that anyone could (even if not_everyone_should) take up these tools for_their_own purposes. I once heard a_squadron_commander_in the Air Force describe_the essential military mission as follows:_"Our job is to kill people and break things."_That is about_as hard-boiled as you can_get,_I_think. But in a posthuman future in which militaries assume_positions and_attributes previously held_by eggheads very far from battlefields (transhumanists) and enemies willing_to kill wantonly (terrorists), perhaps the essential_military mission itself becomes less about Destroying the Things as it_will be about Disrupting the Patterns. Every terror_attack causes the patterns of traditional state