How many of you are antihumanist?

Post Reply New Topic

I mean the whole humanity is crime in terms of universal justice. I don't want to be a human. Humans and their social games. It is the core issue why there is injustice at the first place. Their personal feelings and bonding deals are the core issue why the big picture is ultimately lost in the end. This the core of corruption which can be said in two words: Human relation.
This is why I try to survive my life without personal help. Even if I could get a relationship I just know it would be highly unethical.
If you love fairness and good then there is no room for humanity. History has proven it.

Not sure of what you are trying to present or illicit.
Animal life, pretty much all like that isn't a chlorophyllic amoeba, is not fair or humane.
Living is not Just or Fair or Good, they just have no feelings on it in general. But pretty sure that young moose was not happy top have his belly ripped open an wolves devouring him before he was properly dead. I am sure animals (the majority) where on male gets the spoils and the rest simply live our day without passing genetic material forward and just surviving until death are not exactly dancing.

Do I think we humans deserve snuffing out? only so much as that we will be likely cause of our own extinction.

But I do not hold to belief that other lifeforms are less or more noble and deserving on basis that they do not communicate their feelings over things nor waste valuable time needed to live and procreate moralizing over deciding to eat the young one or the old on.e

gingerpickles, other animals don't usually create daily holocausts (farming industry). Most of nature is different by magnitudes.

Yeah... But no. Animals are idiots, too.
The nile perch. Chinese ladybugs. Grey squirrels.
Being anti-humanist is a reasonable viewpoint, but not for a pro-animalist.

I prefer being moderately antihumanist not for the horrible things humans do, but for the glaring dissonance between the greatness they collectively, in some under-funded halfarsed attempts, approach, and the mundaneity of the things they individually engage in, whole-heartedly.

I mean, humans know better.
They still f**k it all up in their narrow mindedness.
The greatest minds of my generation are working on making me click on ads.
That's why humanity has to end.

Yes, and this is the problem. The sentient species that arises on this planet will understand that "evolution" is a losing game for any species that still partakes in it. If a species wants stability and staying power, evolution won't provide it-- the algorithm is designed to keep churning up the top as well the bottom. When you've domesticated, eaten, or tamed the whole of nature and you still have lust for more, the only place to turn is on yourself-- and we've been doing that. Once power has been established it's a matter of controlling it, and that's where animals tend to fail, humans included.

As for the OP I'm not anti-humanist, I'm a practical person, I see what's going on and I've done enough research to see that the things you're complaining about: nature will solve them, whether it be our own or mother nature herself. I'm more disappointed in the lost opportunity that this species passed up than anger. I feel pity, not hatred. That being said, life will go on and there will be another intelligent species that arises, and perhaps fails like us, and so on and so on, until one of them finally gets the "game" and makes the last step of evolution: casting it aside. Humans aren't the end of a long line of evolution, we're merely a stepping stone for next-- we'll provide the lessons of what not to do for another species, and in that manner humanity does have a purpose.

I'm not sure really if I'm anti-humanist or not.

I'm very cynical and can be quite misanthropic though.

Yes. Humanity is awful.

With regards to nature and animals though, I believe ethical killing of animals (quick and painless) as a source of food is not wrong at all.

Unethical killing of animals and making them live in awful living conditions however I am opposed to.

Otherwise, with regards to animals, nature and the environment, I believe the planet is here to provide for us, so use it's recourses we shall.

The problem is excessive usage of the planet's recourses.

I support environmentalism and minimizing our usage as using recourses too quickly, too fast will screw not just us but other animals over too.

I could never enjoy the idea of being vegetarian or vegan but I strongly respect them so long as they don't take the piss out of me for not being one.

With regards to war, it's always existed and conflict will always exist in this species as in the estimated 10,000-195,000 years we've been here our minds have evolved at the rate of sluggish snails (aka we're still awfully flawed and idiotic, all of us, in our own ways, including myself), but we are now at a point in history where our technology is powerful enough for vast destruction and, possibly one day, mass extinction.

So for our own safety and for the safety of all life on Earth, it is our responsibility to ensure these weapons of mass destruction aren't used, which I pessimistically believe will not be the case.

Like I said, mass genocide and such has always been around, but the numbers don't lie and World War 2 caused more deaths than any other conflict in human history.

It sounds cliche, but WW2 is good evidence at just how much more dangerous we are becoming as a species.

Aristophanes, I remember you made a metaphor awhile back compared humanity to teenagers - I agree.

We're teenagers being given military-grade weapons.

Although we know the dangers of using them, that's not going to make any sort of positive difference.