[ExI] antiscience from both sides

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 00:38:40 UTC 2019

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 10:30 AM Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 5:29 AM Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ### So it's anti-scientific to be a humanist, someone who sees value in
>> humans, and not in the "environment"?
> Yeah, I'd say it is. We're not at all close to being able to thrive
> without the environment that formed us and supports us. Maybe we'll be
> there someday, but until then we should probably try not to ignore our need
> for our environment.
> ### Wait, what is it that you are actually saying:

1. It is anti-scientific to be a humanist
2. It is anti-scientific to not be an environmentalist (i.e. somebody who
ascribes moral subjectship to a collection of non-human entities, including
inanimate, plant and animal ones)
3. For a humanist it is advisable to pay attention to the environment in
order to avoid harming humans

All of the above? Only #3?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190415/794bb0d5/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list