3 ms·
I strongly disagree with the article but what's with the ad hominim? - "...mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are uncl
by jocoda 3y ago
I strongly disagree with the article but what's with the ad hominim? - "...mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are unclear"
We're way past population levels where the traditional reaction to dissatisfaction with circumstances lets you pack up your tribe and move away to somewhere else. Everything is fenced in, and we are our own worst enemies. If you are nice or powerless you get trampled by the not so nice.
Maybe we'll adjust to a society that's equitable, for some high value of e. If so, I think we'll have evolved into something not human any more. Humans don't do nice.
Right now, it looks more like we're on the way to becoming morlocks and eloi.
- smitty1e 3y ago> Right now, it looks more like we're on the way to becoming morlocks and eloi. Why the ad hominem? not that I disagree with your point (especially with disrespect to the purported elite critics in my original post) but yes: these generalizations can be seen as unfair. But that is the point of generalizations: they are a shoe fitting a slice of audience. I tend agree with the article. If you want to know the overarching issue confronting humanity, it is loss of individual liberty coupled with loss of interest in the proper family. Every ersatz, hedonistic substitute pushed by our purported elite is designed to produce some techno-utopia with a thin globalist ruling class and a controlled, limited population of bipedal livestock. That is, the world is to be one large plantation run by The Cool People from their Tower of Babel, of whom I am not one.