PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Humanism - Yes or No?



Praetorianer
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 06:22 PM
Frequently Asked Questions

What is Humanism?


Humanism is the mental habit of looking at the world as if it existed only for human beings. If there's a forest, you consume it. If there is land, you use it. If there was other stuff on that land, it's Too Bad, because you've just gotta have that 4x4 truck, color television, and sprawling suburban home, if you're a wealthy first worlder. Or maybe you simply want another patch of land for subsistence farming and slash-n-burn agriculture, if you're a third worlder. Either way, you're not thinking of anything except yourself and other humans. It's like the whole rest of the world doesn't exist.

What is Anti-Humanism?


Anti-Humanists recognize that without our environment, we die. For this reason, we can no longer think of humanity in terms of individuals and what individuals want (color TVs, slash and burn agriculture, "freedom") but as an organism inside of an environment. Humanity is one single mass, and we are but its cells. Our individual wants and purchasing power are not as important as the health of the whole in the context of its environment, because if the environment dies, the whole dies, and then the individual is nothing.

How does Anti-Humanism Work?


You stop thinking in terms of "rights" and "freedoms" and other individualistic, moralizing nonsense. You start thinking in terms of practical survival of your species. You open your mind to the possibility that most people are stupid and useless and that, if we terminate them, we will notice absolutely zero loss and no one of importance will care. You stop thinking of the world as a place ordained by God for human consumption. You stop worrying about what you want and start focusing on what you need. You'll find the latter category is much smaller, and far less destructive.

How can I practice Anti-Humanism?


Repeat after me: Human life is not sacred. Not every life is important. Most people are functionless bovines devoid of redeeming qualities. Our environment is dying because, thanks to humanism, we overpopulated and have polluted, destroyed, maimed, overused, until we're at global catastrophe levels. In this light, every dead human is a victory. Stop screwing around and start thinking seriously about killing all those but our most valuable members of society. We don't need movie actresses, we don't need democratic politicians, we don't need people with IQs of under 120. We need smart, strong, capable people who can think outside the mental confinement called humanism.

Who are Humanists?


Liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, most Buddhists, every businessperson. Remember, respecting the individual pays and makes you popular, with the only glitch being that you murder us all and our world. Good work.

You're so Bloodthirsty...


Listen, idiot, if we don't fix something we all die. Which would you rather have: a few smart survivors, or all of us die for humanistic equality? You fucking moron - you're first against the wall for even asking such a stupid question.

Are you Angry?


Dunno. There used to be smart people in control, but now a herd of morons has taken over and destroyed almost everything good. Wouldn't you want them dead? If you don't, you're probably a moron.

Don't you have Morals?


Yes - with one single rule - don't kill your own goddamn planet.

What about (special interest here)?


When we're not on the brink of environmental destruction, I'll worry about your problem.

You're a Nazi/Communist/Asshole


When people cannot understand arguments, they use broad meaningless classifications to try to defeat the other party. It won't work. When the food wars start, no one is going to care about your moral pretense.

What about retarded people?


What are they good for? "Kill them all." - David Vincent

I would like to...


You...do...not...understand. This isn't about what you'd like. It's about what must be done. If you still don't understand, go stand up against that wall. Over a bit. Blindfold?

You monster!


Your way of thinking is obsolete. Our planet is near death because of your pitying, moralistic viewpoint. Remember this rule, and remember it well: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions without a reality check is murder. So now it's your turn against the wall.

Anti-Humanism (http://www.antihumanism.com/faq/)

Would you agree or disagree?

Teuton
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 06:29 PM
Repeat after me: Human life is not sacred. Not every life is important. Most people are functionless bovines devoid of redeeming qualities. Our environment is dying because, thanks to humanism, we overpopulated and have polluted, destroyed, maimed, overused, until we're at global catastrophe levels. In this light, every dead human is a victory. Stop screwing around and start thinking seriously about killing all those but our most valuable members of society. We don't need movie actresses, we don't need democratic politicians, we don't need people with IQs of under 120. We need smart, strong, capable people who can think outside the mental confinement called humanism.



Hmm...I think he should kill himself then.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 06:37 PM
Don't you have Morals?

Yes - with one single rule - don't kill your own goddamn planet.


Oh, cry me a river.

I do love the ego of people who actually believe this 4 billion old planet is suffering through our actions.

When our world combined CO2 levels go beyond that of 0.01%, give me a ring.



What about (special interest here)?

When we're not on the brink of environmental destruction, I'll worry about your problem.

"Don't panic Mr Mannering"


What about retarded people?

What are they good for? "Kill them all." - David Vincent

How pleasant! Sums up the man's whole outlook on life, doesn't it? :)

Imperator X
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 06:40 PM
He sounds like just another neo-Jainist lunatic.

Hauke Haien
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Hmm...I think he should kill himself then.

That is not a good comeback if he is really anti-individualist and anti-humanist. He would if it was part of a comprehensive effort.

Anyway, I disapprove because it is just another form of universalism, in this case negative. The rejection of liberal-individualism and humanity (as opposed to both folk and individual) is good, but the world as such is not worth being preserved without our kin existing on it.

Praetorianer
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 07:31 PM
When our world combined CO2 levels go beyond that of 0.01%, give me a ring.

It may be suprising to you, but CO2 appears to be not the only problem for planet earth. http://www.nordfolk.net/images/smilies/doh.gif

SuuT
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 08:19 PM
This man is a fool.

Humanism is:


The new emphasis in the Renaissance on human culture, education and reason, sparked by a revival of interest in classical Greek and Roman ...
www.virtualsalt.com/litterms.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://www.virtualsalt.com/litterms.htm&usg=AFQjCNGNXFY-27iVdGfuUojbeb9QivlGzQ)
A philosophy that places faith in the dignity of humankind and rejects the medieval perception of the individual as a weak, fallen creature. "Humanists" typically believe in the perfectibility of human nature and view reason and education as the means to that end.
www.novelguide.com/a/discover/nfs_0000_0023_0/nfs_0000_0023_0_00026.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/nfs_0000_0023_0/nfs_0000_0023_0_00026.html&usg=AFQjCNFARidAKDi3q5ib52HuZfiBqUp_7A)
The object of much critique, humanism is a description of a position which believes human identity is the result of the individual s human essence, rather than the influence of social or cultural factors. ...
royal-holloway.org.uk/ltsn/english/events/past/staffs/Holland_Arrowsmith/Critical%20Concepts%20edit.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://royal-holloway.org.uk/ltsn/english/events/past/staffs/Holland_Arrowsmith/Critical%2520Concepts%2520edit.htm&usg=AFQjCNE2KYRMajAVFR4VH0ClTw57K_2SXQ)
concern for human welfare, dignity and values.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html&usg=AFQjCNF-isX6XEejhuM4Fy1KuKyZr_ZhxA)
An ethical doctrine that asserts the central importance of human life and experience on earth and the right and duty of each individual to explore and develop their potential. ...
bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl%3Falpha%3DH&usg=AFQjCNGJT881NpH5gnNStjkmvAOrIg8n9Q)
A Renaissance philosophical and educational movement emphasizing the importance and dignity of the human existence, of the individual self, and of the here-and-now. ...
fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNF-dkoUtg9o49vjQBASGU3iCTHVog)
a philosophical orientation to education which holds that the purpose of education is to enhance personal growth and development. This growth of this philosophy among educator led to a swing from teacher-centred to learner-centred learning environments. ...
www.nald.ca/adultlearningcourse/glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://www.nald.ca/adultlearningcourse/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNHuCJx75_V0TWuY3MSE4rVy1eiAZA)
The intellectual, scientific, and literary movement of the 14th to 16th centuries which exalted Greek and Roman culture and learning
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=7&oi=define&q=http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm&usg=AFQjCNF6OJ7WChKdzIJ9ADb9rQH9OT7afw)
Focus on humankind as center of intellectual and artistic endeavor; method of study that emphasized the superiority of classical forms over medieval styles, in particular the study of ancient languages. (p. 524)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_H.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_H.html&usg=AFQjCNEAUzifr-7baCGeJpEgVi6CLXzRRg)
The system of philosophy based upon human reason, actions, and motives without concern of deity or supernatural phenomena.
www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=9&oi=define&q=http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm&usg=AFQjCNF2CMtIxGuTfBND-louuzoapJSTEg)
A term with a variety of meanings, ranging from a study of the humanities (languages, literature, philosophy, history, etc. ...
www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_h.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=10&oi=define&q=http://www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries/glossary007_h.htm&usg=AFQjCNGtgi2KA2eDFR2shF-yAp5_VZU1AQ)
A philosophical movement during the Renaissance that stressed life on Earth, and the quality of being human. Rejected living only for the afterlife of Christianity.
www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=11&oi=define&q=http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm%3Ftopic%3Dh&usg=AFQjCNGXXQ9q4OWJzSsjOl_LQP9pUYG1Cg)
the philosophy that superseded scholasticism, characterized by its chief concern for human values and interests as distinct from, but not opposed to, the otherworldly values of religion
codesign.scu.edu/arth12/terms1.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://codesign.scu.edu/arth12/terms1.html&usg=AFQjCNHWhbwVe480Zt1RVA2mHCwh2c7a4w)
noun: a. a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values b. a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
www.uuscouters.org/glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=13&oi=define&q=http://www.uuscouters.org/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNEpi62Y4lh4UrmsqK3UfyOzr8GZNg)
Humanism is the belief that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. Humanists make sense of the world using reason ...
www.equality-ne.co.uk/resources/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://www.equality-ne.co.uk/resources/glossary.html%3Fletter%3DH&usg=AFQjCNEbhmM9YQccec5hClgDa9160XBJ_Q)
a school of philosophy that believes in human effort and ingenuity rather than religion.
homepage.tinet.ie/~peterc/a/a5.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=15&oi=define&q=http://homepage.tinet.ie/~peterc/a/a5.html&usg=AFQjCNFX4LCvrcXXrMCgibBMY7iUBaRimQ)
belief in a human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behaviour that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority.
www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/Definitions (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=16&oi=define&q=http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/Definitions&usg=AFQjCNFV-P6PUVR335WxbkoUSRHifeICkw)
Modern worldview based on an evolutionary model that considers human beings the ultimate life form and denies the existence or relevance of God. Right and wrong are determined by human standards, not God’s.
meandertravel.com/biblicalanatolia/biblical_anatolia.php (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=17&oi=define&q=http://meandertravel.com/biblicalanatolia/biblical_anatolia.php%3Fdetails%3Dglossa ryh%26m%3D1%26md%3Dsc1&usg=AFQjCNElyiwmaFF_T9vPkg_O-qNBfva5wQ)
Humanism is an ideology based on the centrality of humankind. It is possible to espouse theistic humanism, or even Christian Humanism. In these cases, the term humanism means a concern for humanistic goals, with the understanding that God is the final solution to man's needs. ...
www.geocities.com/changes1611//definitionscommonisms.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://www.geocities.com/changes1611//definitionscommonisms.html&usg=AFQjCNFfRI-WriMOCY4bBiQEkbMkyIaKSw)
(Knowledge said... ): This is the only way/ of truth ./ And the fool in me/ buried God's lantern in dark clay/ that an angel might not see (CP41)
med-vetacupuncture.org/english/vet/holist3.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=19&oi=define&q=http://med-vetacupuncture.org/english/vet/holist3.htm&usg=AFQjCNGZfdydPIYvG7oF0bmZIkKgPnTsIA)
humanitarianism: the doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare
the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
the cultural movement of the Renaissance; based on classical studies
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=20&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dhumanism&usg=AFQjCNHx4WIgtN9veAai_RnQGVTGObJgsg)
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities -- particularly rationality. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=23&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism&usg=AFQjCNGOa7p3WuSgVyvKLrxV45kEwzRrLw)
Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism (life stance) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=24&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism+(life+stance)&usg=AFQjCNHB3JVXctgfBrkyRcV1b2aUjuSx2A)
A secular ethical system that centres on humans, their values, needs, interests, abilities, dignity and freedom; The study of the humanities or the liberal arts
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humanism (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=25&oi=define&q=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humanism&usg=AFQjCNEL4KrZ-Eemp_ad1g5e-R1b4lbmig)

Praetorianer
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Humanism is the mental habit of looking at the world as if it existed only for human beings.

and


A secular ethical system that centres on humans, their values, needs, interests, abilities, dignity and freedom; The study of the humanities or the liberal arts
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humanism

No worlds between it.

SuuT
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 10:56 PM
No worlds between it.


I'll quote all things of philosophical merit said in his..whatever this is.


Humanity is one single mass, and we are but its cells. Our individual wants and purchasing power are not as important as the health of the whole in the context of its environment, because if the environment dies, the whole dies, and then the individual is nothing...You start thinking in terms of practical survival of your species...You stop thinking of the world as a place ordained by God for human consumption. You stop worrying about what you want and start focusing on what you need. You'll find the latter category is much smaller, and far less destructive...We need smart, strong, capable people who can think outside[...]mental confinement...if we don't fix something we all die...don't kill your own[...]planet.

Unbeknownst to this person, he is taking a Humanist stance.

In short, Humanism is the belief that individual human beings are the fundamental source of all ethical and moral evaluation; and, have the ability to understand - and even to control - the natural world by careful application of their own rational faculties.

Which is exactly what this person is saying.

During the Renaissance Humanists such as Bruno, Erasmus, Valla, and Pico della Mirandola helped shift attention away from arcane Christian theological disputes toward more productive avenues of classical study and natural science.

Thrymheim
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 11:11 PM
There are valid points in his article but I think that it takes it too far, we do need to stop thinking as individuals and start thinking for the good of our species/race but there is no need to be so dogmatic about it. So as he has laid it out I have to say I would be inclined to favour the points but not to such an extreme level.

lei.talk
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 10:23 AM
...open your mind to the possibility that most people are stupid and useless and that, if we terminate them, we will notice absolutely zero loss and no one of importance will care...Not every life is important. Most people are functionless bovines devoid of redeeming qualities...every dead human is a victory...start thinking seriously about killing all those but our most valuable members of society...we don't need people with IQs of under 120.

We need smart, strong, capable people who can think outside the mental confinement called humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism).http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=610287#post610287

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=74026&page=3

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=75474&page=2

Praetorianer
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 01:57 PM
Sure, SuuT. He states his opinions like a whining teeny and muddles Anthropocentrism and Humanism from time to time, but still:


In short, Humanism is the belief that individual human beings are the fundamental source of all ethical and moral evaluation; and, have the ability to understand - and even to control - the natural world by careful application of their own rational faculties.

Iīm sure this is not what he means, because the focus stays on humanity as a part, which can determine and control anything around it. We may have the abilities to do so, but in his opinion we donīt have to make use of it.

Future governments, which are more forward-looking than todays, have to think about over-pollution and find solutions to solve it on a national or worldwide base. Birth-control or his idea of "useless life"?

SuuT
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 02:25 PM
Sure, SuuT. He states his opinions like a whining teeny and muddles Anthropocentrism and Humanism from time to time, but still

Don't get me wrong: remove the intellectually pretentious vitriol, and he has the basis of something. And that "something" is a fundamentally Humanist stance, as I have shown. - there is nothing 'new' in what he is saying, however.

Hitler was a Humanist, by definition. (that should stir-up some clap-trap...)


...the focus stays on humanity as a part, which can determine and control anything around it. We may have the abilities to do so, but in his opinion we donīt have to make use of it.

Eh? His fundamental premise is that certain members of humanity, as active human agents of intent, endowed with capacities above and beyond that of certain people(s), must necessarily make use of their extra-ordinary capacities so as to implement a better husbandry of the 'whole'. His thesis is replete with contradiction in so far as it is - precisely - human control that is the lynch-pin of his Humanistic 'Anti-Humanism'.


Future governments, which are more forward-looking than todays, have to think about over-pollution and find solutions to solve it on a national or worldwide base.

Do you mean "over-population"?


Birth-control or his idea of "useless life"?

I want him to tell me who is going to take up his garbage, mow his lawn, clean his pool, replace the transmission on his car, re-wire the electricity in his home, pick his produce. Stuff like that.

And then, once he does, attempt to argue those people(s) as "useless".

Praetorianer
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Don't get me wrong: remove the intellectually pretentious vitriol, and he has the basis of something. And that "something" is a fundamentally Humanist stance, as I have shown. - there is nothing 'new' in what he is saying, however.

Hitler was a Humanist, by definition. (that should stir-up some clap-trap...)

Itīs not necessary to discuss the meanings of the word. The german wiki says itīs a Weltanschauung which focuses on the on the individual and his interests and values. That is, what the text refers to. Since wiki the principles of Humanism are tolerance and non-viokence, something he rejects, too. Iīm sure, people have a different stance to the meaning of this term, but thatīs not the question here.


Do you mean "over-population"?

Yes, excuse me.


I want him to tell me who is going to take up his garbage, mow his lawn, clean his pool, replace the transmission on his car, re-wire the electricity in his home, pick his produce. Stuff like that.
And then, once he does, attempt to argue those people(s) as "useless".

Thatīs correct. I assume he additionally has the view of a Radical Traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyr_(journal)#.22Radical_traditionalism. 22) then.

SuuT
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 03:05 PM
Itīs not necessary to discuss the meanings of the word. The german wiki says itīs a Weltanschauung which focuses on the on the individual and his interests and values. That is, what the text refers to. Since wiki the principles of Humanism are tolerance and non-viokence, something he rejects, too. Iīm sure, people have a different stance to the meaning of this term, but thatīs not the question here.

He makes it a necessary question given the parallels between what he espouses and Humanism to make clear what the fundamental themes (be they semantic or otherwise) of Humanism are. There are epistemological, ontological, ethical, moral, phenomenological, even metaphysical (and more) aspects to Humanism. That his Humanistic "Anti-Humanism" - in its moral aspect - condones the use of force, does not push him, or his premises, out of categorical Humanism. It's the first thing that struck me as foolish, in fact, about his thesis. A close second was his timbre.



I assume he additionally has the view of a Radical Traditionalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyr_(journal)#.22Radical_traditionalism. 22) then.

You think?


"we don't need people with IQs of under 120"

I'm not so sure.

Gagnraad
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 03:14 PM
"Man marks the Earth with ruin" - I don't remember who said that, but it is true, nonetheless.

I believe nature is all, and we all know that without it, we would perish. But to kill 90% of all mankind to obtain it? Not a big loss, as our world would no doubt benefit from it.
But I may perhaps be a naive anti-humanist, as I believe that the 90% of us will realize that nature is all, and finally start treating nature with the respect and awe it deserve, one day.

I am however prone to do anything about it. I revere nature, whether or not anyone else does is not my problem. If I truly was a anti-humanist, I would trash my computers and everything I own and build my own hut made of mud and kill every person that passed by.

Luckily, I'm not that much of a anti-humanist. :P

That was my reply to the same thread at Nordfolk.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Angrily written, but it contains valid points. So-called “Humanism” (and I'll use the term in the sense the original post intended it) is a relic of Christianity’s universalistic ‘love for mankind’ that was upheld for centuries as a pillar for all moral conduct. Belief in the religion died, yet its legacy remains unquestioned even today: It’s unquestioned that starving, diseased, poverty-stricken Africans deserve food and medicine; unquestioned that the inherent and perfectly natural ‘dark side’ of human nature should be repressed at any cost, no matter where in the world it springs up.

Social and geopolitical policy are shrouded in painful misconceptions of mankind and of nature simply because they submit uncritically to a gross overestimation of the value of life, and the worth of each individual human being, and this is evident in almost everything mainstream: from concern about ’racism’, to ‘liberating Iraq’, to curing AIDS etc. These things matter to people because Christian moralism still speaks to them through its uncritically accept moralistic legacies.

In short, Christianity still restrains and misdirects humanity, in so far as it still posits our species’ only goal: to eradicate ‘badness‘. And however laughably naïve, childish and thoroughly pointless such an objective sounds in our ears, it’s precisely this objective that defines Western thought in almost all spheres.

Humanism is in essence the drive to sever our species from the forces of nature, a process that involves severing part of ourselves. It’s wholly artificial, wholly naïve: Man is not what humanism imagines him to be, and thus any vision it projects for the future is unreachable.

The fallout of humanism/humanitarianism is obvious: massive overpopulation, the enervation of natural selection’s effects on us, needless wars, the prevention of necessary wars (in the Malthusian sense), mass immigration, the outbreeding of quality genes, the suppression of independent thought for the safety of the ‘herd‘, and perhaps most of all, the stagnation of an entire species until the impossible is attained.

The truth is that most people don’t care if an earthquake kills a thousand people in Guatemala, and there’s no reason they should. The sooner people can shed the guilt attached to their deepest, most natural feelings, then perhaps the sooner we can eject the monstrous idiocy of ‘unconditional brotherly love’ and actually advance as a species.