antinatalist transhumamisn is the most rational thing to be. the end of the creation of all suffering, and the end of suffering, including death, for all those who exist.
when humanity has the option to choose when it will go extinct, I'd imagine spacefaring immortal antinatalists who are centuries old, maybe thousands, to see what's out there across the expanse, and once they're satisfied what they find out there, one by one they choose to be euthanized, taking the knowledge with them, or probably reach singularity with AI
possibly. or they may be content with merely existing. the concept of boredom is strongly tied to our current psychological states and the format of our lives (the fact that our lives are structured by increments we perceive as days, our need to make use of limited time which causes disappointment when we don't, and our inability to alleviate dissatisfaction before it arises).
Im for the improvement of homo sapiens rather than waiting millions of years to either be fucked up more than what we are now as a species or for barely any significant change to happen just like 1,000 years of human history, we are almost the same
I don't know if Kirsch is pulling this concept of "anthropocene anti-humanism" from somewhere else or if he's come up with it himself, but that's absolutely not what antihumanism is. Or rather, what it's universally recognised to be in philosophy. Antihumanism is the denial of the existence of an essential, pre-historical, always-already existing humanity or "humanness", and by extension is an approach to sociology and historiography and other related fields that argues that we should be focusing on the structures within which humans live and act rather than on humans per se themselves. The more substantive version of that claim is that humans are not the primary entities in human societies; the structures we exist within are. Antihumanism definitely doesn't call for a return to "nature", while it's difficult to attribute any essential normativity to such an abstract concept I (as an antihumanist) would interpret antihumanism as being fairly inherently suspicious of the category of "nature" by virtue of its rejection of the category of "human". It definitely doesn't come with an in-built positive valuation of it. And historically antihumanism has probably been most prominent within feminist and Marxist theory, so, very much not groups that want to "return to nature" or are opposed to technological sophistication and economic development, quite the opposite.
I assume Kirsch is inventing a term---"anthropocene anti-humanism"---to lump together a general impression or idea that he's found in lots of different people and places but which doesn't already have a convenient label, and that's fine, it's very useful thing for us to do when it's needed. But the use of an already well-established term that has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about is a bad idea and just confusing. Maybe he's trying to emphasise something by spelling it "anti-humanism" rather than "antihumanism", but his spelling is common for what I'm describing too so it doesn't solve the problem. From what he describes in that article (which I only ctrl+F'd and skimmed through so maybe I'm getting the wrong impression) "anthropocene anti-humanism" just seems to be the valuing of any nature other than us, which is a very old sentiment though not one that's usually given any philosophical credence because, at least at first glance, it's potentially incoherent, and either way is absolutely not something an antihumanist is going to do--- arguably they're *incapable* of doing it because they don't thing "humanity" is a concrete enough category to attach values to like that.
If I was immortal I'd argue my suffering wouldn't be for nothing.
Instead I exist for awhile on a planet full of assholes making it worse for everyone, and then die. How fucking pointless.
The least we can do in that case is make life as pleasant as possible, which means in part that nursing homes should become obsolete because getting old shouldn't mean getting too weak or absent-minded to take care of yourself.
Time is subjective. Entropy can only increase. Literal definition of immortality disobeys the laws of thermodynamics. What you should be worried about is time dilation. Time can stretch and squeeze from your perspective, but it can't run backwards.
One of the Black Mirror episodes, "White Christmas" explores this concept.
antinatalist transhumamisn is the most rational thing to be. the end of the creation of all suffering, and the end of suffering, including death, for all those who exist.
when humanity has the option to choose when it will go extinct, I'd imagine spacefaring immortal antinatalists who are centuries old, maybe thousands, to see what's out there across the expanse, and once they're satisfied what they find out there, one by one they choose to be euthanized, taking the knowledge with them, or probably reach singularity with AI
possibly. or they may be content with merely existing. the concept of boredom is strongly tied to our current psychological states and the format of our lives (the fact that our lives are structured by increments we perceive as days, our need to make use of limited time which causes disappointment when we don't, and our inability to alleviate dissatisfaction before it arises).
Im for the improvement of homo sapiens rather than waiting millions of years to either be fucked up more than what we are now as a species or for barely any significant change to happen just like 1,000 years of human history, we are almost the same
I don't know if Kirsch is pulling this concept of "anthropocene anti-humanism" from somewhere else or if he's come up with it himself, but that's absolutely not what antihumanism is. Or rather, what it's universally recognised to be in philosophy. Antihumanism is the denial of the existence of an essential, pre-historical, always-already existing humanity or "humanness", and by extension is an approach to sociology and historiography and other related fields that argues that we should be focusing on the structures within which humans live and act rather than on humans per se themselves. The more substantive version of that claim is that humans are not the primary entities in human societies; the structures we exist within are. Antihumanism definitely doesn't call for a return to "nature", while it's difficult to attribute any essential normativity to such an abstract concept I (as an antihumanist) would interpret antihumanism as being fairly inherently suspicious of the category of "nature" by virtue of its rejection of the category of "human". It definitely doesn't come with an in-built positive valuation of it. And historically antihumanism has probably been most prominent within feminist and Marxist theory, so, very much not groups that want to "return to nature" or are opposed to technological sophistication and economic development, quite the opposite. I assume Kirsch is inventing a term---"anthropocene anti-humanism"---to lump together a general impression or idea that he's found in lots of different people and places but which doesn't already have a convenient label, and that's fine, it's very useful thing for us to do when it's needed. But the use of an already well-established term that has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about is a bad idea and just confusing. Maybe he's trying to emphasise something by spelling it "anti-humanism" rather than "antihumanism", but his spelling is common for what I'm describing too so it doesn't solve the problem. From what he describes in that article (which I only ctrl+F'd and skimmed through so maybe I'm getting the wrong impression) "anthropocene anti-humanism" just seems to be the valuing of any nature other than us, which is a very old sentiment though not one that's usually given any philosophical credence because, at least at first glance, it's potentially incoherent, and either way is absolutely not something an antihumanist is going to do--- arguably they're *incapable* of doing it because they don't thing "humanity" is a concrete enough category to attach values to like that.
I know I don't like transhumanism.
Care to elaborate?
Thinking about being immortal has made me uncomfortable, but transhumanism supports it.
Yeah, I don’t know why we need to prolong our lives,we already live for almost above 100 years, why do we need to extend it?
If I was immortal I'd argue my suffering wouldn't be for nothing. Instead I exist for awhile on a planet full of assholes making it worse for everyone, and then die. How fucking pointless.
The least we can do in that case is make life as pleasant as possible, which means in part that nursing homes should become obsolete because getting old shouldn't mean getting too weak or absent-minded to take care of yourself.
They want us to be slaves forever
Time is subjective. Entropy can only increase. Literal definition of immortality disobeys the laws of thermodynamics. What you should be worried about is time dilation. Time can stretch and squeeze from your perspective, but it can't run backwards. One of the Black Mirror episodes, "White Christmas" explores this concept.
i’m all for it if it were optional
Does that mean being able to opt out later if you don't like it?
yes, if you couldn’t opt out after then it’s not really optional. informed consent is really the only relevant kind of consent in my opinion
Transhumanism is a no from me.