Anti-Humanism Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

UlfrTheMighty

Sergeant Knight at Arms
i tought that i wanted too hear you guys opinion on an Anti-Humanism vieaw of life.

Anti-humanism is interesting reading and, quite a complex way of expressing the age old truth that we are no more or less special than any other life form. Simply another type of organism in the intricate ecological web of Gaia. Admittedly, modern humans are a species that seems to struggle to find the meaning of life and live in harmony with everything else. As far as I can tell, an acute idiosyncratic awareness of self, the ‘seeking’ urge, and technology are the only things that set us apart from other animals.

So, given that we are basically animals on Earth and our collective actions continue to, sadly, wreak more environmental havoc than any other species… why do we think we have the right to persecute and deal out blanket death sentences to introduced/unwanted animals and plants (aka pest species)? By definition, humans are a pest species. I would argue that those animals and plants have consciousness, a right to life and a part to play in this new ecology just as we do. There is no doubt that humans have brought about irrevocable ecological change. But all is not lost. Let’s get our act together first and trust that nature is an intelligent, dynamic, self-regulating system that will find a new balance with our compassionate support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism

is a set of ideas, beliefs, and practices in the realm of social theory and philosophy which respond critically to traditional humanism or to traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition.
Central to antihumanism is the view that concepts of "human nature", "man", or "humanity", should be rejected as historically relative or metaphysical.

Antihumanism is not, actually, a term for generalized misanthropy; it refers to the philosophical perspective which rejects humanism's elevation of human beings to a special metaphysical level of existence compared to the rest of reality. Antihumanism opposes abstract concepts of "man", "humanity" and "human nature" and posits that humans are not rationally autonomous subjects.

in short "Anti-Humanism is the belief that we are just like animals. Only through technology do we excel past the rest of the animal kingdom."

 
I would argue that those animals and plants have consciousness, a right to life and a part to play in this new ecology just as we do.

Can't wait to see how this thread develops. :lol:

Also, there are two typos in your sig. It's "believe," not "belive."
 
Technology didn't just happen though, we created it. Not our fault an ape sheep can't make an ipod....even though he could use one.
 
Argeus the Paladin said:
Humans aren't special compared to other animals. We just happen to be at the top of the food chain.
Therefore, we are special.
Humanity, **** yeah!
**** the xenos, **** the non-human! Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean!
 
Ambalon said:
Argeus the Paladin said:
Humans aren't special compared to other animals. We just happen to be at the top of the food chain.
Therefore, we are special.
Humanity, **** yeah!
**** the xenos, **** the non-human! Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean!

My point exactly. Seems like my sarcasm went undetected.

*prepares to sneak attack for 30x damage*
 
Argeus the Paladin said:
We just happen to be at the top of the food chain.

Not really. It depends on where you go. A surfer in shark-infested waters isn't at the top of the food chain, neither is an unarmed tribesman in the African Savanna. I could continue with a dozen other examples. Simply put, humans are not apex predators like sharks, lions, tigers, etc, are. The very fact that we're omnivores, and cannot kill/eat our food without using created tools, proves this.

Top of the intelligence chain, perhaps, but that's an entirely different thing.
 
Pharaoh Llandy said:
Argeus the Paladin said:
We just happen to be at the top of the food chain.

Not really. It depends on where you go. A surfer in shark-infested waters isn't at the top of the food chain, neither is an unarmed tribesman in the African Savanna. I could continue with a dozen other examples. Simply put, humans are not apex predators like sharks, lions, tigers, etc, are. The very fact that we're omnivores, and cannot kill/eat our food without using created tools, proves this.

Top of the intelligence chain, perhaps, but that's an entirely different thing.

I actually mean it in a looser sense of the word. Humanity itself is on top of the food chain, in that there is no animal however large and fierce and armed-to-the-teeth by nature we cannot, as a society/community, hunt down and eat/process into shiny products. Sure, a surfer in shark-infested waters is not by himself at the top of the food chain, but tell that to a wolfpack of nuclear submarines armed with anti-everything-in-the-water nuke torpedoes of doomy doom. Similar with the African savannah and one of Rommel's panzer division*.

* Provided, of course, they didn't run out of fuel and/or supplies and/or were encircled, but I'm on a tangent thar. :lol:
 
Argeus the Paladin said:
I actually mean it in a looser sense of the word. Humanity itself is on top of the food chain, in that there is no animal however large and fierce and armed-to-the-teeth by nature we cannot, as a society/community, hunt down and eat/process into shiny products.

Then what about the very very tiny deadly creatures we can't hunt down and destroy? Mosquitoes, for example, indirectly kill more people each year through passing on the malaria virus than any large predator. Ticks spread Lymes disease. Back in ye olden days, the population of Europe was devastated by the Black Plague, spread by fleas carried by rats and domestic animals.

 
Valid points. Though to be fair no other animal or plants could actively combat diseases as well as man does and to such dramatic results given enough time - just look at how many diseases we've eradicated since the 20h century. I'm willing to bet that there'd be a day that most common bacteria/virii will be as much Man's biotch as the rest of the animal kingdom.
 
Úlfr said:
in short "Anti-Humanism is the belief that we are just like animals. Only through technology do we excel past the rest of the animal kingdom."
That does not exactly appear to be an entirely new perception. At least every secular person agrees that humans are first of all a faunal specie amongst others. What else could humans be? They consist of the same materials like other animals and developed in the course of evolution as well.

Úlfr said:
As far as I can tell, an acute idiosyncratic awareness of self, the ‘seeking’ urge, and technology are the only things that set us apart from other animals.
The distinctive feature of humans is the ability of self-reflection. As some people formulate it, while humans have a body, animals are a body. Unlike other animals humans consider their actions from time to time, meaning humans might be less reactive.

Úlfr said:
why do we think we have the right to persecute and deal out blanket death sentences to introduced/unwanted animals and plants (aka pest species)?
Humans have the right to harm other animals, because they have the ability. Like every other animal humans try to avoid dangerous living conditions, other animals can pose such a condition. No living being supports debilitating factors. In this regard no faunal specie is different to the others. Humans are not the only specie, which annihilates other species, but the only specie, which is able to do so in most cases (cf. Lotka-Volterra equation).

Úlfr said:
By definition, humans are a pest species.
There is no overall definition for pests, but generally every faunal specie can be defined as pest, if it somehow harms humans, especially economically. Humans are not a pest by definition, because humans are the defining ones.

Úlfr said:
I would argue that those animals and plants have consciousness, a right to life and a part to play in this new ecology just as we do.
I am not entirely sure, what you want to say here. Do you mean pests do neither have consciousness nor the right to live? And by defining humans as pest they would not have it as well?

Úlfr said:
Let’s get our act together first and trust that nature is an intelligent, dynamic, self-regulating system that will find a new balance with our compassionate support.
Nature is as intelligent as a ball, which decides to roll down a hill instead of up. Nature is not a being. It has no conscious mind and no intelligence at all. Instead it is just a product of natural laws. And what is this "new balance" supposed to be? Nature does not care about anything for the exact same reasons. There is neither a balance nor an unbalance regarding nature.
 
Damn, Hospes fori, it's like u r speaking from my minds, right from the start of anti-humanism is not something new/cool/hips to that nature has no conscious mind or intelligent of its' own. Hat off to you  :eek:
@Llandy: we are not strongest, fastest, top of the food chain animal but we are the ones who survived and adapted to the current environment on earth.
 
Argeus the Paladin said:
Valid points. Though to be fair no other animal or plants could actively combat diseases as well as man does and to such dramatic results given enough time - just look at how many diseases we've eradicated since the 20h century. I'm willing to bet that there'd be a day that most common bacteria/virii will be as much Man's biotch as the rest of the animal kingdom.

The problem is, the way 'nature' works, through evolution, is that no one species is supposed to be good at everything. It's a system of checks and balances, adaptations to a particular situation which give a benefit, usually at the cost of something else. For example, people with sickle cell are at a disadvantage because their bodies can't process oxygen properly, but at an advantage in another way because they have immunity to malaria.

Similarly, many plants have a certain medicinal properties, but there is no single 'cure all'. Sure we've gotten rid (in Western Society at least) of things like Polio, TB, Smallpox, but look at what's happening instead. Rising cases of HIV, Hepatitis and Cancer. Perhaps it's simply our diagnostic abilities that are improving, or perhaps it could be said that diseases like Smallpox or TB used to kill people off young, when otherwise they might have gone on to develop something cancer or something.

Sure, you'd think that improvements in medical care would mean less requirements for hospitals, but we're simply suffering different things. And there are some instances where being in hospital isn't beneficial at all (MRSA). Certain strains of bacteria and viruses do eventually develop immunity to our drugs, which simply results in them becoming strong and more difficult to treat. Again, evolution balancing things out.

So I doubt there'll ever be a day when we can cure EVERYTHING. Not unless we all upload out consciousnesses into android bodies, but even computers get viruses. Having super-android strength would be pretty cool, though.
 
Arzeal said:
@Llandy: we are not strongest, fastest, top of the food chain animal but we are the ones who survived and adapted to the current environment on earth.

Are you kidding me? Humanity has been 'dominant' for less than ten thousand years. Do you know how many millions of years the dinosaurs were dominant for? In another 3 million years, some dominant avian species parent is going to look back and say to their nest of avian kids "Let that be a lesson to you. We don't want to go the way of the mammals."

 
Back
Top Bottom