/lit/ - Literature

>>15983707
>Civilization, as a process, is indistinguishable from diminishing time-preference (or declining concern for the present in comparison to the future). Democracy, which both in theory and evident historical fact accentuates time-preference to the point of convulsive feeding-frenzy, is thus as close to a precise negation of civilization as anything could be.

Honestly you just want accelerationism but without the technological singularity. If you're against anthropocentrism, you're signing the world up to be taken over by technological singularity (regardless of if you subscribe to a biocentric philosophy), if you aren't then you risk massive environmental losses that continuing the modern conservation mentality affords. I think the best bet is to; continue this stream of not necessarily misanthropic but beyond-anthropocentric focused philosophy trend we see in newer contemporary thought, while somehow organizing an anti-democratic bloc within the status quo. This affords the potential for a return to "diminishing time preference" while also leaving a quasi stewardship mentality in place (if you believe capitalist realism can be dismantled without landian futurism or fisher style suicide). What you realize is that some degree of discrete anthro-appreciation is necessary for the biocentric foundation to find it's roots. Without that you'll be unable to prevent accelerating technological singularity. Basically I gleamed that civilization needs to be equally intrinsic in its value as nature, this is the only way for biocentrism to not be overwhelmed by post humanity. Think strategic rather than violent ecology, sure you risk becoming manufactured dissent but encouraging accelerated capitalism is a good way to end up with scary robots, and scary robots don't care about trees anon. While reading linkola and hoppe, read The Dark Enlightenment by land, just keep in mind Land won't provide you with ecology, but sometimes an on par antithesis is equally as educational. Good luck fren!