First let me situate myself socially. I'm from Australia, but I've spent the past six months at an American university, working in the field of "consciousness studies" (think philosophy of mind, neuroscience, cognitive science). My first question is, where would I be if categorized by class? I live in a nicely furnished university house that doubles as an office, but it's a temporary arrangement, and I have no savings and few possessions. At the moment I'm nominally an employee of the university, but I'm living off money paid into an account every fortnight by a private donor. I'm the author of a scientific hypothesis now being turned into a paper, but I spend half of my time thinking about topics outside my official job description. So am I a worker or an idler? Am I in the public sector or the private sector? Am I privileged by my command of science or oppressed by my financial dependence?
Next, let me try to state what passes for my political philosophy. The last time I tried to give this a name I had to call it "antinatalist transhumanism" (this is the part where I sound like I come from another planet). My antinatalism (i.e. opposition to having children) comes from my negative assessment of what human life offers people, and the feeling that one has no right to place someone else in that position. Transhumanism (i.e. the radical technological transformation of the biological human condition) is the course of action I suggest for those who are already living. I should emphasize that for me transhumanism is a gamble and a struggle, not a destiny or a self-evident good, and it involves choices (e.g. I would be for biological rejuvenation and against digital brain emulation, if those technologies existed).
Of these two attitudes, I think antinatalism is at once the most familiar and the most beyond the pale. It's just too negative for most people to countenance. Transhumanism is much more an unknown quantity, and has some widely feared associations (eugenics, artificial intelligence), but at least it has an affirmative dimension. If they have any relationship to present-day political tendencies, I suppose it would be to deep-ecological primitivism and anarcho-capitalism respectively, but I think that's more a matter of the company they currently keep than any inherent affinity.
So to summarize, I see transhumanism as a likely new component of future politics and culture, and antinatalism as a perennially possible component, with popular opinion always stacked heavily against it. Now I promised a description of my *political* philosophy, so what is it? In practice, I'm a pure scientist and a political agnostic, so it seems doubly apolitical: I don't engage in politics, and I don't advocate a form of politics. But both orientations are determined by the isms I've already introduced. Antinatalism leads to political agnosticism because all existing political programs seem like inadequate gestures, bandaids at best and distractions at worst. And the basic form of transhumanist activism is (in my opinion) not antiluddite legislation, but the deed of self-experimentation itself, thus the privileging of science. So I think there's an unfamiliar sort of politics there.
I'm very interested in how this relates to a world presently dominated by themes like global economics and global warming, but I'll stop here.