/fa/ - Fashion

>>6382807
Why is it our responsibility? Obviously people have a drive to reproduce, but it doesn't mean anything truly objectively. Naturalistic fallacy, is-ought distinction, we figured this out centuries ago. Barring the existence of some deity or equivalent, there is no purpose to existence outside of subjective frame of reference. No one will be around to give a shit if we go extinct. No one will care if humans are all short 200 years from now, because they'll all be short. No one will care if they're stupid, because they'll all be stupid. No one will care if they're "ugly," because they'll all be ugly. (Protip: even beautiful people can look ugly if you look at them right/wrong, start dissecting their features, etc.)

The only likely one of those scenarios, by the way, is extinction.

We're here, and then we're not. Barring that deity and it's intervention, collective we will be here, and then we won't be. (You're going to look stupid if an undetected killer asteroid shows up three days from Earth tomorrow, man.) Genus Homo might terminate. We might evolve into Homo Needsaninternetconnectiontosurviveandhasapigschnozicus, as different from us as a leopard from a purebred Felix Cattus. Brute material reality doesn't give a shit about anything.

But, like I said earlier, it doesn't have to suck. (>>6382485 and >>6382503)