PDA

View Full Version : The Anti-Humanist Manifesto



sheriff skullface
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 06:24 PM
from http://www.antihumanism.com/

Anti-Humanism
"Humanism is death disguised as life. When you are a humanist, you think only of humans. You see the world as existing only for human consumption. It is more important to save every life than to produce better beings, in your view. You think any death is a tragedy.

This sort of thinking is antiquated. While it is delusional under any circumstance, it was allowed to flourish because of the wealth of humanity. Now it is obsolete. Since we have polluted our oceans and air, overused land, overpopulated the earth with excess humans, killed off many natural species, destroyed most forests, and paved almost everything else, we are no longer able to be concerned with humans. We are on the verge of destroying our environment and the primary cause is that we're too humanistic to restrict our own numbers.

"You can't do that," they say. "Because everyone has the right to freedom, and to buy whatever they can, and to build a house, and eat whatever they can, and... and..." It's a neverending list of wants. Everyone wants to look like the good guy who tells us all that we can have whatever we want. But that's an illusion, and they know it, but they don't care. They're only thinking about themselves, while they claim to be thinking about others; it makes them feel good to tell us we can have whatever we want, it makes them feel good to "care" about others, to cry over any death, etc.

That behavior has turned humanity into a cancer. Seven billion and no end in sight. Can't eat fish more than once a week because it's toxic with heavy metals. Where did the forests go? Well, we can have a fun drive down the pavement, surrounded by signs advertising cheap consumer goods, and then we can go someplace and buy something. It's this "freedom" that keeps us equal. The logic behind all of this is humanism. Humanism pleases the crowd. It justifies itself as "equality." All of the people out there who cannot do anything useful, and therefore fear someone will tell them what to do, love equality. They are addicted to it. They crowd into spaces, breed out of control, eat all the food, and never think about the consequences. Why? They are mediocre.

Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists. "
your thoughts?

Mazorquero
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 08:32 PM
A lot has to do with the erroneous concept of the human as a being not related with Nature, but as its owner: The antropocentric theory based in our divine creation, according to the most important religion nowadays.
We always tend to say "Humans and plants, humans and animals, etc.". Aren't we animals? That silly artificial diferenciation makes some people think other silly questions like "Do animals have feelings?". So, as we are not part of the nature, humanism finishes the bond by creating "moral rules" which are very diferent from natural ones. "Don't kill or fight against other humans because they are persons", sure, I won't do it as long as the other person doesn't attack me. Humanists tell us that humanism is the solution to our present problems, but they don't tell you that our present problems were caused by their ideology, here a classic example:
A normal family (like yours or mine) starts the day as usual. The husband goes to work after having breakfast, but first goes to the bank to retire some money. As soon as he exits the bank two masked men shoot him like mads and run away with the money. One more dead to fill the news columns. Think about all what the poor husband left behind, his now very sad family, a nice life with his beloved people, and the horrible sensation of insecurity. Now imagine that the killers are caught. Humanist laws will say that 10 years behind bars is a fair punishment. How do you think the wife and the children would feel if you tell them that their man only represents ten years in jail compared to a whole life sadness?. Or what do you think that could have happened if the man killed the assasins in self defence? Humanist laws will condem him because of murdering two "people". What's the "human" behind that, can somebody explain it to me (because I honestly don't understand)?

Dutch Dennis
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Everyone wants to look like the good guy who tells us all that we can have whatever we want. But that's an illusion, and they know it, but they don't care. They're only thinking about themselves, while they claim to be thinking about others; it makes them feel good to tell us we can have whatever we want, it makes them feel good to "care" about others, to cry over any death, etc.

And, of course, the existence of democracy in the industrialised west doesn't help matters. Nor does capitalism with its 24/7 non-stop advertising bombardment trying to convince people that their lives will be more meaningful if they have rock-hard abs or a plastic rotating drum that will make shredded salad for that dream garden party that will convince the neighbours you are really much better than they are even though you know deep inside that it's really just BS.

The problem is that even if you do realise that people are thinking in an out-dated way, you are in the minority. The rest of the materialist selfish masses will screw up the planet for every one and every species, regardless of your personal political convictions.

sheriff skullface
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 11:52 PM
And, of course, the existence of democracy in the industrialised west doesn't help matters. Nor does capitalism with its 24/7 non-stop advertising bombardment trying to convince people that their lives will be more meaningful if they have rock-hard abs or a plastic rotating drum that will make shredded salad for that dream garden party that will convince the neighbours you are really much better than they are even though you know deep inside that it's really just BS.

The problem is that even if you do realise that people are thinking in an out-dated way, you are in the minority. The rest of the materialist selfish masses will screw up the planet for every one and every species, regardless of your personal political convictions.

the answer is finding a system in which people will be able to compete with each other in the economy and everything else without advertising 24/7 and materialism being shoved down peoples throats

Dutch Dennis
Monday, February 19th, 2007, 12:05 AM
the answer is finding a system in which people will be able to compete with each other in the economy and everything else without advertising 24/7 and materialism being shoved down peoples throats

Indeed, the specialisation of labour was the foundation of civilisation and the establishment of the first permanent settlements. Without specialisation culture wouldn't exist. So we cannot simply take the position that "capitalism is bad, so the opposite must be good".

The opposite of a bad thing isn't necessarily a good thing. Instead, it is usually just the other side of the same coin.

Removing the growth imperative built into the present monetary system will, in my opinion, go a long way towards resolving the problem of the environment competing with economic growth.

Also, with economic matters having a less prominent position in the day-to-day lives of folks other things can become more important. Such as social activities, development of art/music, scientific development, etc

Moody
Monday, February 19th, 2007, 02:36 PM
Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists. "
your thoughts?

The question then arises, what is meant by "unproductive"?

Surely if we are to reduce the human population by a huge 90% as suggested [which might be a good idea!], then we would not want humans who are too 'productive', or else we would be back in the same boat again in no time!

Isn't our present predicament due to over-production of all kinds?

Shouldn't the future scaled-down human race be only minimally productive?

sheriff skullface
Monday, February 19th, 2007, 04:14 PM
The question then arises, what is meant by "unproductive"?

Surely if we are to reduce the human population by a huge 90% as suggested [which might be a good idea!], then we would not want humans who are too 'productive', or else we would be back in the same boat again in no time!

Isn't our present predicament due to over-production of all kinds?

Shouldn't the future scaled-down human race be only minimally productive?

I think it just means people should be productive but in a positive way not a negative way

Dutch Dennis
Monday, February 19th, 2007, 05:52 PM
If humans continue to increase in numbers as we have we will be unable to sustain those numbers. The result will be mass starvation, civil conflict, international conflict, disease, etc. Exactly the sort of events that humanism seeks to avoid.

*cue the UN to step in*

We simply cannot afford the luxury of humanist thinking. Nature won't allow it. We must start to think about over-population and resource depletion intelligently. We must alter our basic thinking on the issue. Humans are a part of, not the controllers of, nature. We depend on nature to provide what we need to survive and nature depends on us to use it sustainably, rather than exploitatively.

To come to such a consensus we need to help people understand the long-term consequences of their short-term actions. And, sadly, I do not believe that a majority of people are capable of such understanding or willing to accept the consequences.

Humanity, as a species, may have already failed.

Mazorquero
Monday, February 19th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Thomas Malthus observed accurately that population grows much faster than the production of food and other necesary things. So he concluded that illnesses, hunger, wars and natural catastrophes are natural ways of controlling population. Rude and violent, but true. Other people tried to soften those statements by saying that we could also increase the production of food an all that... and here we are.
Imagine how easy and fast would be to stop all those useless aids to Africa, Asia and Latinamerica. Those "aids" only extend the agony of all that people, nobody gets any benefit from that. Half of the world population would die, and we would be able to use with more efficiency the resources. Oh! I forgot to say that it's not a good idea because it's not "a human behavior"...

Moody
Tuesday, February 20th, 2007, 02:44 PM
I think it just means people should be productive but in a positive way not a negative way

Then what if it could be argued that the Japanese, for example, are the most productive race on earth?

In other words, don't we have to define 'productive' more closely to justify the removal of 90% of the world's population [which, as I said, could be a very good thing].


If humans continue to increase in numbers as we have we will be unable to sustain those numbers. The result will be mass starvation, civil conflict, international conflict, disease, etc. Exactly the sort of events that humanism seeks to avoid.

To stop the increase in humans would entail a stop to human breeding, as well as a euthanasia programme.
There are many flys in that ointment, not least the Catholic Church.


We simply cannot afford the luxury of humanist thinking. Nature won't allow it.

Some might say we should let Nature take her course.
Just live and enjoy yourself, let Nature take care of the consequences.


We must start to think about over-population and resource depletion intelligently. We must alter our basic thinking on the issue.

The problem is that, "we" might - but Billions of others who aren't "we", won't.


Humans are a part of, not the controllers of, nature. We depend on nature to provide what we need to survive and nature depends on us to use it sustainably, rather than exploitatively.

But isn't Nature itself just a tale of exploitation?


To come to such a consensus we need to help people understand the long-term consequences of their short-term actions. And, sadly, I do not believe that a majority of people are capable of such understanding or willing to accept the consequences.

Another problem with that outlook is that it leads to an increasingly 'risk averse' culture.
If we spend our lives worrying about possible 'worst case scenarios', are we really [i]living life to the full now?


Humanity, as a species, may have already failed.

Perhaps it is the fate of all species to become extinct and so 'fail'.
But Nature wouldn't see it as 'failure 'if humanity died out!
It would only be a failure as far as 'we' are concerned.


Thomas Malthus observed accurately that population grows much faster than the production of food and other necesary things. So he concluded that illnesses, hunger, wars and natural catastrophes are natural ways of controlling population. Rude and violent, but true.

Actually, this has been shown to be false as far as food is goes; in the West we have a huge over-production of food. Therefore we not only have vast food suprluses, we also have obesity and obesity related diseases through over-consumption.