Humanist Vs. Naturalist. Where do you stand?
Naturalist- nature knows best, the highest value is to respect the natural order of things, human disruption of nature is evil, trying to improve on nature will only bring destruction.
Humanist- humans are an essential part of nature, through human minds, the biosphere has the ability to steer its own evolution, humans have the right and the duty to reconstruct nature so that humans and biosphere can both survive and prosper, for humanist the highest value is harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease, and hunger, all the conditions that deprive humans of opportunity, and limit their freedoms.
I paraphrased these definitions from Freeman Dyson, award winning scientist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM, his description begins at 27:30 into the video (I highly suggest you watch the whole thing).
Humanist and Naturalist being on the ends of the spectrum, where do you stand? Why, and why not the other end of the spectrum?
I’d say I’m both, leaning more on the naturalist side. We are all naturally both, we’re either strong Naturalists with lower Humanist values or vice versa. I don’t believe the intent was ever really to improve nature, but to use it to our advantage. That’s what survival is all about and that’s what makes us the dominant species. “The greatest evils are poverty, underdevelopment, unemployment, disease, and hunger, all the conditions that deprive humans of opportunity, and limit their freedoms.” I could not disagree with this any more. Humanists essentially believe in the betterment and advancement of humankind and consider naturalist views acutely. Poverty, underdevelopment, and unemployment are primarily a result of humanist values. If economies did not inflate there would be no solid ground for these misfortunes to stand upon. Economies would not inflate if it were not for greed of the elite who mask their intentions with what their companies can do for the world without letting us know what they are doing to the world to produce whatever it is they are selling. Disease and hunger are directly affected by the formers.
@simple7enigma, @goodnightrobots, The way I personally interpret reconstructing nature, is reconstructing our own biology to better survive the other components and aspects of nature. As well, literally bringing back extinct species, and recreating favorable ecosystems. Ultimately I don’t think destruction of species to be kosher, but manipulating their genetics to withstand human pressures, could possibly be an avenue worth exploring.
@goodnightrobots, Humanist’s aren’t responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of humanism. Just as islam isn’t responsible for the atrocities done its name. Not to mention this occurs within a market economy, where profit is the only goal.
@imhotep, i would have to go with let the dead lie on the whole bring back extinct species. It kind of upsets the natural everything has an E.L.E. As well as the fact i cant think of animals to bring back beyond the use of “that’s so cool!”
@shaniquaaa, Agreed but through the Malthusian Darwinian stance of our statified society, through the market economy, that view is propagated. So basicly what I’m saying is the Naturalist perspective, is the one that propagates that attitude, it’s okay to fixate on human desires, dismissing the consequences of are actions on the rest of nature, because we are the fittest, the smartest, the superior, we are the “Lords of creation.” Most scientist are aware that are survival is contigent on the survival of the biosphere of the planet. Thats why humanism is ultimately beneficial to the long term survival of life itself.
If I try to comprehend most things in scientific terms, then that makes me a naturalist. If I give away the last note on me to someone much poorer, then that makes me a humanist. I’d say I’m both. And I practice both at their respective times. They don’t contradict one another, neither do they overlap. It’s not like being either a liberal or a conservative. Those two stand opposite one another. You can be one at a particular time. More simply, you can either be fat or thin at a particular time, since the two adjectives are opposites.
But that’s not the case in here. One can be a naturalist and a humanist at the same time and there’s no harm in that.
Well I’ll forgive the bastardization of the term humanism in this context and go with the flow.
I personally think that Nature did well for most of our history, but we’ve grown intelligent enough to shape nature. This to me is a boon and not a curse. Within the next 30 years it will be possible to shape our genetic structure.
I think for some time we have been a situation where we are no longer subjects to evolution and nature but they are subject to us. It is a responsibility that if we do not take will have disasterous consequences.
The naturalist way is not even a choice for humanity on the whole, because it is already a humanist world and that will not change. If we do some how make humanity naturalist, the world is screwed because the very size of humanity is not compatible with the natural system.
If we do not get a handle on this humanist way the world is screwed also because we will not have that sustainable balance of the human world and the natural world. I have no doubt humans will get their act together and relatively soon, but of course it isn’t just a matter of wishful thinking, we will be in a place of technology, organization, communication, obligation, co-operation and realization of prioritization (sorry for all the “…ion”s, I was thinking of ending it with “for mobilization to true civilization” what do you think, too much?) ha
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Don’t fight nature because you cannot win, don’t try to improve upon it because it cannot be done.
Humanity can be improved, and so can our situation in, and our relation, to nature.
But that’s where humanists go wrong. They don’t strive for improvement, they strive for clinging to bullshit by artificially and temporarily circumventing the consequences of wrongdoings. That’s what it’s all about.
Keeping the sickly, the weak, and the dumb, alive… does not benefit humanity nor nature nor anything else. It only benefits the subject individual’s bloated ego. They’re a cancer upon the earth and upon mankind, that’s why mother nature tries to kill them as much as possible.
And don’t give me that bullshit about them being victims, because they’re not. And even if they were, that’s just natural, elimination of the weakest has been the principle since the beginning of life. And for good fucking reason.
I’m not saying we should kill anyone, that’d just be sick. But it’s equally sick to keep someone alive when they’re supposed to die. And guess what, by keeping those fuckers alive you indirectly kill others in a myriad of ways, not to mention that you’re killing the planet.
So… the perfect balance is a mix of naturalism and humanism, of course. After all… we’re humans, living in nature.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Peace and love
I mean, in this day in age, this ‘natural selection’ mindset would never work (with politics, human rights organizations, etc), and overpopulation will likely increase until we either overflow to another planet, naturally decrease our population (probably run out of natural resources and have no choice), are naturally eliminated (meteor, volcano, ice age), or we blow ourselves up :/
Can’t we be both? Extremes are rarely ever good.
Humans are, after all, a part of nature. We need to find a balance between humanity and nature. We’re perfectly capable of doing so; it’s just tough to do. We’re too curious and greedy for our, and our planet’s, own good. If we step back and realize the affects we have on nature, we would slow down.
Humanist, because of what I call the Uncle Ben/Spider-Man principle: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Humans are, thanks to our brains, the dominant power on this planet. But it doesn’t mean we should just run roughshod over the animals and ecosystem. It’s because we’re able to think and feel more deeply than the animals that we owe it to ourselves to do better than natural selection, because we can choose to do so instead of having the choice made for us by instinct. If you ask me, that’s the right and duty of sentience. I’m all for the advancement of technology too, but I’m also all for it in a way that minimizes pollution and minimizes damage to the animals, our fellow Earthlings.
And as for overpopulation, I’ve heard that the population is expected to plateau sometime this century. Birthrates have already been declining for years in the modern countries, as a country becomes more developed, birthrates tend to decrease.
@jpete011, Better than that? Are you saying you’re better than the universe, better than “God,” better than the laws of reality, etc?
And just imagine what the world would look like if the dumbasses hadn’t been weeded out, do you have any idea how fucked up mankind would have bee? How hard it would be to survive? Do you realize that there wouldn’t even be a mankind to begin with? Probably no life at all, because it would all have been taken over by degenerate shit genes and over time gone extinct due to shitty adaptation. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, evolution is a good thing, and for it to work the worst fit must be eliminated.
Like two of the main Age of Reason guidelines: “Do not be a cancer upon the earth” and “Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.” And the group behind it is one of the wisest and most prominent humanist movements the world has seen.
@shaniquaaa, Compassion is just an emotion, it calls for no action, instincts and ego do but they know no compassion. The kindness you speak of is superficial and false, all it does is encourage dependency and stupidity and misery. And having to feel bad because someone else does, that’s just plain crazy. If you want someone to feel bad just because you feel bad, you are a scumbag, why on earth would you want someone else to feel bad? That’s very destructive.
Save someone’s life? Hello, people die eventually anyways. How is postponing it saving someone’s life? It isn’t. And just so you know, if you keep someone alive you indirectly kill others. Life feeds on life, everything we eat is a living being that we kill, and every time we eat we rob someone else of an opportunity to eat.
People don’t just fall ill like that. They fall ill because they abuse their own bodies. They’ve earned the sickness. Just like healthy people earned their wellbeing. That’s all there is to it, it’s all cause and effect. Do X and get result Y. If someone is too stupid to make the right choices for themselves, then they’re obviously unfit for this world.
And to take it one step further… what do these people give to the world? Nothing, huh? They just exist, they eat, they shit, and then they die. What did the world gain from that? What did humanity gain from that? That’s right, nothing. And then there’s the whole pollution issue, that person polluted the earth. They gave nothing, but they took a whole lot, they’re selfish parasites.
Speaking of selfish, a lot of people would accuse someone with my perspective of being selfish, but that’s ridiculous. Why would they call us selfish? Because we refuse to give them what they demand of us, demanding something of others is what’s truly selfish. Especially when you don’t offer anything back. Oh, and that “compassion” stuff is actually just your ego wanting to satisfy its need to be “the saviour,” it’s really nothing but a selfish drive. True compassion is just that, compassion, a feeling, it calls for no action. Associating compassion with feeling bad for others, or with satistying the demands of a parasite, is fallacious and malignant.
If someone gets cancer and doesn’t tell his family, he’s a damn scumbag. But sure, if nobody else would tell them I’d step in and do it. And yes, I would explain that’s just the way it is, the kids deserve the fucking truth. The most horrible thing I know is people lying to kids, it’s sickening. Tell them the fucking truth.
There is no running or hiding from reality. You can try, but you won’t get far. And there’s no sense in wanting to escape it. On top of that, trying doesn’t do anything for you but add a lifetime of misery and mental breakdowns.
Stop trying to fight reality. Reality is good. The laws of nature will never be unneeded. And yknow, humans aren’t that evolved, we still have a long way to go… and that will be slowed down a lot if we keep every fool alive. Not to mention that there’s not enough place for other life forms if people don’t die, humans are NOT worth more than other creatures. And for every human kept alive, countless animals and plants die, even other humans, life feeds on life.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Nature made you, nurtures you, lets you grow, lets you exist. Don’t disrespect her. Humans are nothing but a small part in this big thing, and their role is getting more and more outdated. Especially the weak ones, who are evolving into weaker and dumber and more morbid creatures by the day.
Peace and love //Elion
I’m glad the psdeoscientific Goring perspective is represtented on HE, makes it feel like the 1930’s again. Retain your empathy people, it serves an evolutionary purpose.