The author main point is the affirmation that rejecting some human things is bad: > " Adhering to our current ideal of beauty — specifically in Western culture

The author main point is the affirmation that rejecting some human things is bad: > " Adhering to our current ideal of beauty — specifically in Western culture, specifically at this time in history — means being as divorced from your humanity as possible. See: the physical impossibility of “anti-aging,” the literal objectification of glass skin and jello skin, > (...) > otherworldly creature, complete with all the trappings of modern “beauty”: taut, textureless skin; a small, sloping nose; wide eyes, plump lips, and cheekbones carved from computerized stone. The texture of the skin changes with aging. It seems that most people prefer a skin more like a baby than like a 90 year old. Also, the "physical impossibility of “anti-aging,”" isn't a given: our current technology doesn't allows that yet, but since we've just started manipulating the clock of mices to make them look younger or older, I think it may be too early to conclude it's impossible (or in the other direction, possible on humans) If people want that, why not? What's so bad about "small, sloping nose; wide eyes, plump lips, and cheekbones carved from computerized stone"? What would be so nice about having say a large beaked nose, dryed out lips and small cheekbones? I can't pretend to know either way, but at least I can respect people wants. Maybe the author should start questioning his assumption, and what looks to me like a strong status-quo bias? If I were the author, I would start reading "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" to question the sources of these biases. And why this weird focus how being human is so great? Isn't that an endowment bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect The whole thing reeks of various biases, and little actual information. He gets 1 point for "Basically, unattainable standard of beauty + cultural obsession with beauty = lower quality of life!" - at least that's a testable hypothesis, so it passes the epistemological filter. But it's very devoid of content otherwise. > "The human longing to be beautiful, to feel beautiful, to be surrounded by beauty, and to be part of that beauty really overrides a lot of our other urges" But I thought the point was rejecting humanity was bad. So just to be clear, it is bad for some things the author like (like aging or a bad skin) but good for other things the author dislike (the "longing to be beautiful")? That's a 0 for self consistence. > So much of “beauty” today is a class performance, a display of wealth, and that's an aspect community, too. Signaling that you have power. Close, but no cigar. If that was with a citation of "Society of the Spectacle" or even just dropping Debord name that'd be worthy of another point. > And so I really see a huge parallel there with people having no qualms about stealing art from real artists to participate in this AI trend And I know how to spot a luddite when I read things like that. > Let’s go back to the beginning and talk about makeup’s original purpose No sorry I'm done, I don't need more pretense of knowledge.