[ExI] antiscience from both sides
sparge at gmail.com
Tue Apr 16 12:34:37 UTC 2019
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:45 PM Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> 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?
I'm saying it's anti-scientific to value humans but not the environment
they need in order to thrive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat