The meat in France and in the world: production, conso ...

[Ahmed]

The evolutionism applied to anthropology was a colossal error of the first anthropologists, since it has been rectified ... and it is no longer rife today, outside of its legitimate scientific field, that in social matters. But, as you point out, its influence on the transhumanist currents persists.

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

I have a hard time thinking that people would consume meat to sit their dominations with a desire (a pleasure?) To chew, digest and defecate an animal ....

No doubt this cannot be consciously assumed, but the success of transhumanist ideas clearly indicates the rejection of the animal part which is ours and, as an ultimate consequence, the destruction of the human for the benefit of the machine. Can a "mechanical" man imagine anything other than an extension of the performative rationality which animates him?
I see a continuity in the detestation of nature, of animals and of what in us is incarnated in her and in them. I specify that I am referring here only to the objective aspect of our behavior and not to our individual subjectivities ...

There is no trace that seems to me in the ancient history of hating nature *.
The "machinization" of the world, a recent phenomenon, is a consequence of technologism and corresponds to a threshold effect achieved in technical abstraction.
They are Memes technologies that colonize our brains push us towards an evolution of the transhumanist type, and not a primitive subconscious desire (if any that is what would be the origin?).

From a meta-historical point of view, humanity is only host to an extremely powerful complex of ideas (economism / technologism) and that failing to become aware of the phenomenon, we run, "without knowing it of our own free will" towards a most disastrous fate.
It is only a simple process, no more and no less ...

* Ancient societies venerated a multitude of deities half-human and half-animal, inheritance of animism and the cult of nature, it is with the appearance of monotheism that the affirmation of the human race as a dominant species it is instituted.

[sen-no-sen]

The trouble is that the childhood of humanity is so long that it is very presumptuous to rely on the way of life of the last primitive societies as described in the recent science of anthropology and draw relevant conclusions.

effectively! Anthropology is based, almost exclusively, on the discourse of evolutionism and transhumanism is only the extension of it through the technique replacing an insufficient and imperfect nature, leading to a kind of "relative immortality. "which is moreover, here too, only the extension of religious discourse. White beanie / white beanie!

The goal of every thing is to persevere in beingas a consequence of the second principle of thermodynamics.
When humans began to develop the first tools, they unknowingly opened the Pandora's box.
The emergence of technology and then of technology logically (self-complexification) followed a process of development bringing a major selective advantage to our species, giving us the illusion of being the masters of the world.
Technologism therefore works through us towards the saturation of the world and should go to the end of its logic (AI), once this task accomplished we should logically disappear (rather by "solubility" than by means of a violent extinction).

However, your remark on the extension between evolutionism and transhumanism seems to be an ideological attack under the meaning that ... creationism would not be in its Memes the possibility of transhumanism, which is historically false.

[Janic]

However, your remark about the extension between evolutionism and transhumanism seems to be an ideological attack under the understanding that ... creationism would not bring into its memes the possibility of transhumanism, which is historically false.

Well, that's the reasoning that's wrong! Indeed, it is already necessary to know what everyone puts under the label creationism with all its possible variants according to the cultures, the times.
For my part, but that engages only my point of viewit is not a question here of any relationship with creationism, but of an "evolution" of manners and techniques that are not embarrassed by religions or their morals, except that the hope of transhumanism is to make a better world than the one that exists, considering it as imperfect and therefore to improve. Whether he recognizes it or not, it is the other side of the religion which promised a better future too, but by an intervention external to this nature in question. As a result, it is human techniques that replace the "miracles" of faith that everyone benefits, believers or not. Except that every piece on its reverse and that it is not possible to have the butter and the pie and this is what believes, hard as iron, transhumanism that is to say a world without laws, without pre-established rules, and therefore without god, in line with evolutionism.

Now :

creationism would not bring into its memes the possibility of transhumanism, which is historically false.

Creationism, as a system, does not exist outside of this world and it goes towards this transhumanism because it has little choice.
I regularly grumble against vaccines, chemical drugs, or grafts, transfusions that are just a few aspects of this technical substitution (and it works!), The powerful means that has the living to solve this kind of situation. In a way, once again, the human thinks to be stronger, more talented, more powerful than this nature in question (and yes, the work of an intervention external to this nature which is also only a product ) and where the human is made god through his substitution techniques.
So, to come back to the subject, the human has been "created", constructed, vegan; all these mechanisms correspond to this nature, but for the various reasons given, it has deviated towards other food modes and current science shows, more and more, that this deviance turns against it by various pathologies and therefore rather than rectify our errors, transhumanism maintains them to justify its ameliorating interventions which will turn out, as usual, to be catastrophic.

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, I did not situate the idea of ​​detestation of nature in the distant past and even less original, but rather as a consequence of the growing influence of technology, so the emergence of this feeling is recent. It seems to me that the celebration of the artificial implies a subjective rejection of a nature that this project objectively condemns.

[Janic]

tonight on France 5 at 20h50, in the opposite world: the end of animal suffering.
86kg of meat per capita per year; a billion animals sacrificed per year in unbearable conditions.

[Ahmed]

You forgot the question mark at the end of the title!

[Janic]

You forgot the question mark at the end of the title!

Ah damn! I thought it had already happened.

[Janic]

finally it is not a question mark that is missing but a dozen!
Seen on the side of VGL that I am, nothing new except that it shows that whatever the professions, not just in agriculture / livestock, each justifies the situation that ensures his livelihood, pardon steak, daily in the deeper indifference to what is happening elsewhere and in permanent self-justification. The three monkeys: to see nothing, to say nothing, to hear nothing! Of course, the comparison with Nazism and its gassings and human slaughter is evoked. Yet it is true that the difference is barely noticeable (except that it was not which human animals, from their point of view, as in the era of black slavery) since less than the type of victim sacrificed, it is indifference, the lack of compassion for the fate of others which dominates in every case.
It is true that as long as there is demand, there will be supply and it is not about to stop unless everyone puts his!

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, I did not situate the idea of ​​detestation of nature in the distant past and even less original, but rather as a consequence of the growing influence of technology, so the emergence of this feeling is recent. It seems to me that the celebration of the artificial implies a subjective rejection of a nature that this project objectively condemns.

We agree, but it proves that this is ultimately only distantly related to our subconscious desires of humans.
If humanity tends towards artificialization, it is because of the degree of colonization of the brains operated by the technologism, proof that there is a force at work and that this one uses us to reach its advent.