"The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us" is a book written by philosopher and cultural critic Ran Prieur. In the book, Prieur explores the possibility of a future where humanity no longer dominates the planet and imagines what that world might look like.

Prieur argues that the current trajectory of human civilization, with its focus on growth, consumption, and technological progress, is unsustainable and ultimately destructive. He believes that the only way to avoid catastrophic outcomes is for humans to voluntarily reduce their population and consumption levels, and to fundamentally change their relationship with the natural world.

Prieur's vision of a post-human future is not necessarily bleak. He suggests that without humans, the Earth could eventually return to a state of balance and biodiversity, and that other species could potentially evolve to fill the ecological niches once occupied by humans.

However, Prieur acknowledges that the transition to a post-human world would likely be difficult and violent, as humans resist giving up their power and privilege. He also notes that his ideas are largely speculative and that it is impossible to predict exactly what would happen if humans were to disappear from the planet.

"The Revolt Against Humanity" presents a thought-provoking and challenging perspective on the future of humanity and the planet. While some may find Prieur's ideas extreme or unrealistic, his work serves as a reminder of the urgent need for humans to rethink their relationship with the natural world and to consider the long-term consequences oftheir actions.
Prieur's book is part of a broader trend of thinking known as "post-humanism," which challenges the traditional human-centric view of the world and emphasizes the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Post-humanism encourages humans to move away from the belief that they are the most important species on the planet and to instead recognize the importance of biodiversity and ecological balance.

-----

Prieur's book is not just a philosophical treatise, but also a call to action. He argues that humans need to fundamentally reorient their values and behaviors if they hope to avoid a future of ecological collapse and social unrest. He proposes a range of strategies to achieve this, including reducing consumption levels, implementing sustainable technologies, and promoting alternative economic systems.

One of the most controversial aspects of Prieur's book is his suggestion that humans should voluntarily reduce their population levels. He acknowledges that this is a sensitive issue, but argues that it is necessary in order to reduce the strain on the planet's resources and to give other species a chance to thrive. He suggests that this could be achieved through a combination of education, access to birth control, and cultural shifts towards smaller families.

"The Revolt Against Humanity" is a thought-provoking and challenging work that raises important questions about the future of humanity and the planet. While some may find Prieur's ideas extreme or unrealistic, his work is an important reminder of the urgent need for humans to rethink their relationship with the natural world and to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. The book also challenges readers to consider the ethical implications of human dominance over the planet and to imagine alternative futures where humans live in harmony with other species and the environment.

However, it is important to note that not everyone agrees with Prieur's ideas. Some critics argue that his proposals are too radical and unrealistic, and that they would require massive social and cultural changes that are unlikely to happen. Others argue that humans should focus on finding technological solutions to environmental problems, rather than simply reducing population and consumption levels.

Despite these criticisms, Prieur's book has sparked important discussions about the future of humanity and the planet, and has encouraged many people to think more deeply about the ethical and ecological implications of their actions. Ultimately, whether or not one agrees with Prieur's ideas, his work serves as a powerful reminder of the urgent need for humans to rethink their relationship with the natural world and to take action to protect the planet for future generations. ( )

Is humanity going to be around 100 years from now? How about 50? How should we take the question? One group of radical thinkers called anti-humanists thinks we should celebrate the now-thinkable idea of human extinction. The Anthropocene has been a disaster for Earth's ecosphere, they say. The world would be a lot better off without us. Let's give other life forms a chance to come back and thrive. Let's get out of their way.

Another group of radicals, the transhumanists, doesn't mind the prospect of human extinction. They count on technology to save the day by turning people into cyborgs, then ultimately AI-directed robots robust enough to survive a radically degraded environment on Earth and ultimately able to redesign themselves into space probes to seek new home worlds.

Kirsch's book is mostly a survey of recent books by and on the two camps. It's a quick high-level read, an entertaining way to view humanity's worst case from two unusual angles. If you want to go there. ( )

I always look forward to Columbia Global Reports. They tend to be short and jampacked. A single topic, usually controversial, intensely written up, with insights not available on facebook or twitter, let alone linkedin. This latest one is The Revolt Against Humanity, by Adam Kirsch. It does not disappoint.

It could be that humans disappear altogether, selected out of existence by a plague or a war or by an unlivable change in the ecosphere. Because homo sapiens is not just parasitic and detrimental to the planet, it is by far the most invasive species, and we all know how destructive invasive species can be, settling where they don’t belong and upsetting the balance of everything. Even its waste is horrific. It’s the only species whose waste is toxic to the planet instead of beneficial. I could go on. Doesn’t matter. They’re gone for the purposes of this book.

There are two sides to this story. Some think Man is on his way out, and sooner than later. And that he deserves it. There are far too many. They’ve caused horrendous perversions of the Earth through overfarming, overfertilizing, making their cattle the largest measure of biomass in the realm, wiping out thousands of other species, burning everything in sight, etc. etc. That this cannot go on indefinitely is self-evident to them. And it’s not such a big deal. If we’ve learned anything, it’s that species come and go in an endless parade. It is the normal state of being on planet Earth. This particularly nasty species will end just as almost every other one has, without fanfare or mourning or reprieve. The fact that we can see it coming and, needless to add, that it is us we’re discussing, is what is different.

The other group supports what futurist Ray Kurzweil calls the singularity, in which the contents of everyone’s brain is uploaded into an electronic brain data warehouse, which continues to operate based on all its accumulated and available human wisdom. Plague-proof, ecology-proof and likely even war-proof, Kirsch posits this outcome as feasible. It means that human life is not for nothing, that wisdom gained through living will not have to be relearned, and progress will be achieved faster and easier. It might even mean an individual’s personality and character might survive forever in this state. It’s a kind of immortality. Or hell, depending.

There is also a subset of the tech-adapted, often called cyborgs, in which parts of humans are replaced by machinery, giving rise to a race of supermen, not subject to ordinary mortality tables. This is already well underway, quite remarkably without any controversy, protest or outrage. People have gotten used to the idea of pacemakers, artificial limbs, brainwave-controlled electronic hands, and of course organ transplants, from other people, animals, or grown in labs. At what point does the original human being become a cyborg is not even asked any more. We accept that such things are necessary for some people, and in some cases, they are improvements. So cyborgs don’t participate in the controversy of what comes after we’ve gone, because they don’t alter mortality - yet.

The wipeout scenario of humanity is actually favored by a growing number of people. Kirsch calls them the Anthropocene anti-humanists, a very Gulliverian term. The singularity fans are called transhumanists. That’s the whole setup for the book.

Kirsch does a literature review. He has collected pithy quotes from the proponents of both sides. They both make interesting points as well as a lot of nonsense. And neither side has the wherewithal to make a claim of reality for their position. The anti-humanists just think enough is enough, and the transhumanists just don’t think there’s ever enough. They hate the very concept of mortality. Jonathan Swift would understand.

The anti-humanists are really well established. Kirsch cites anxiety and depression everywhere, along with steeply declining birthrates. Young people are not the least certain they want to bring new children into a world doomed to cataclysm. It’s bad enough if they themselves are to be the last generation. But to saddle their own offspring with that fate is not merely undesirable, but quite avoidable. He finds a South African author who says the best thing we can do for the unborn is to make sure they stay that way (David Benatar, Better Never To Have Been).

Kirsch says the environmental crisis is what really drives anti-humanists. He says proponents are “really environmental(ists) in a hurry.” In my own book, I have likened the Earth’s action against homo sapiens to be like a dog shaking off water. It will be convulsive for a while, but ultimately, the planet will settle down and move on, clean and dry. So I can relate here.

At some point, religion has to enter into it, and whether or not the universe is even valid without the presence of Man. Oddly, Kirsch does not also evaluate whether Man, with all his invasive nastiness, is really what God had in mind for a mirror image of himself. As usual, nothing can be resolved from arguing over religion. Kirsch wisely just puts it out there as contributing to the argument.

The transhumanists though, are really up against it. First of all, science and technology are lagging very badly in getting to the singularity. There is major doubt whether it can be achieved before some disaster wipes out the species first. Kirsch doesn’t go there, but the fact is, we don’t even know how the brain creates a memory or how it calls it up. My favorite example (https://medium.com/the-straight-dope/great-minds-dont-think-alike-an-intellectual-theme-park-of-the-sciences-af3daa3edfd): think of your first kiss. This is something we typically have not thought about in years, yet it can be recalled instantly. We have no idea how this works. So how do transhumanists upload all the content of a brain? And then employ it?

Then there is the all-important support feature, which Kirsch does not consider either. If humans have disappeared, who is going to maintain, manage and upgrade the massive systems required to keep the singularity operating? And what exactly will this singularity do alone in the world? Travel to another planet just because it has the 100,000 years it would need available to do it?

From this you can see that once again, a Columbia Global Report inspires much cogitation. It exposes a concept most people spend zero time considering, and fills in just enough detail to make readers want to argue.

This is what I appreciate in the series.

David Wineberg ( )