Venison sausage

[Jeeves]

t would certainly help, but I probably ought to have phrased my first sentence of that paragraph differently: I don't think this planet can sustain 7.7 billion persons--or even 1 billion persons--no matter what the diet. Even were we all to adopt (nearly) carbon neutral lifestyles.

I figure a maximum of 5 million intelligent humans (Haida, perhaps), in small bands, distributed far apart, is just about sustainable.
Of course the planet can't support humans the way we currently multiply, fight, pillage and waste. Try to calculate how much of the earth's bounty has been turned into implements dedicated exclusively to the destruction of other humans. Even the peaceful applications of technology are mostly insane.
I lived in LA briefly - in Anaheim Hills. The fake waterfall in our garden foamed blue bleach day and night, the swimming pool was always heated, the mini-jungle was sprinkled automatically at 7am and the pavement outside was scrubbed down every Wednesday night - two blocks downslope of a sagebrush desert!

Anthropocentrism (not humanism) is insane. That insanity produces ideas like organized religion, monetarism, nationalism and militarism.
Still, hungry people are even more dangerous than content people, so feeding them intelligently until they reduce their own reproduction would be a good idea. I speculate idly on various impossible ideas.
Not gonna happen, obviously, as only the least sensible humans aspire to be world leaders.

 

[parmalee]

Anthropocentrism (not humanism) is insane. That insanity produces ideas like organized religion, monetarism, nationalism and militarism.
Still, hungry people are even more dangerous than content people, so feeding them intelligently until they reduce their own reproduction would be a good idea. I speculate idly on various impossible ideas.
Not gonna happen, obviously, as only the least sensible humans aspire to be world leaders.

I would argue that anthropocentrism lies at the heart of humanism insofar as it posits both ideas and ideals about what constitutes "humanity" and "human nature," and in so doing, complementary notions about what is non-human, inhuman, and subhuman come into play. While we could fill a library or two with documentation on the atrocities committed in the name of, say, religion, we could certainly fill a few stacks with documentation on the atrocities committed in the name of human notions of reason.

But I don't want to (argue the matter), in part, because by the far the most common complaint about any and all critiques of humanism is that they seldom posit an alternative. And this is a fair criticism, though--especially over the past three or four decades (with the emergence of posthumanism as a discipline)--many have tried. Their efforts, while admirable, don't often readily "translate"--something or other about incompatible genres of discourse, say. For instance, have you read J.M. Coetzee's The Lives of Animals (or Elizabeth Costello--TLoA is contained within)? The more academic versions (like Donna Haraway, Cary Wolfe, Bruno Latour, for instance) have merit, but can't really be codified, or communicated in an accessible and practical manner.

Regardless, speculating on possible (but extremely unlikely) trajectories for anything and everything outside "the human" is now just a fantasy--it's too late, they're already gone (or irrevocably underway towards "gone"). And as for the people, only the wealthiest among us (I think) really have a chance for faring ok in the coming decades.

Plato said:

Socrates: Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is, not only how a State, but how a luxurious State is created; and possibly there is no harm in this, for in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have described. But if you wish also to see a State at fever heat, I have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler way of way They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured.

Glaucon: True, he said.

S: Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient. Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class have to do with forms and colours; another will be the votaries of music --poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors; also makers of divers kinds of articles, including women's dresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them.

G: Certainly.

S: And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?

G: Much greater.

S: And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?

G: Quite true.

S: Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?

G: That, Socrates, will be inevitable.

S: And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?

G: Most certainly, he replied.

(The Republic, Book 2)

 

[Jeeves]

I would argue that anthropocentrism lies at the heart of humanism insofar as it posits both ideas and ideals about what constitutes "humanity" and "human nature," and in so doing, complementary notions about what is non-human, inhuman, and subhuman come into play.

Obviously, you're referring to a quite different philosophy from the one to which I referred - and with which I'm loosely affiliated.

While we could fill a library or two with documentation on the atrocities committed in the name of, say, religion, we could certainly fill a few stacks with documentation on the atrocities committed in the name of human notions of reason.

Using the name of a person, place, thing or concept to promote an agenda is not the same as acting on behalf of, or for that person, place, thing or concept.

Regardless, speculating on possible (but extremely unlikely) trajectories for anything and everything outside "the human" is now just a fantasy--it's too late, they're already gone (or irrevocably underway towards "gone").

I know. Caves of Steel / Soylent Green time coming.

And as for the people, only the wealthiest among us (I think) really have a chance for faring ok in the coming decades.

Three decades, at the outside. What do you figure will happen in their walled mountain fastnesses when the monetary system breaks down? When money ceases to have any value, who will take care of them? When the food runs out, are the bosses more likely to eat the minions, or the other way around?