/lit/ - Literature

>>15997126
Thanks (those were both me lmao) I work under the assumption that if "nothing human makes it out of the near future" then that applies to our ecosystem as well. I have no qualms with what you're saying but I'll limit myself to this assumption because I only know basic minsky, kurzweil, and asimov. I also have no problem with humans altering themselves the way you describe, but I equally fear that if humanity is not in the picture at all then the ecosystem has no chance (maybe that truly is a remnant of anthropocentrism I must overcome, but I just don't know and am too uncertain to change).
>>15996984
>why won't biocentrism survive singularity?
This was the assumption that I predicated my argument on, solely because I fear that biocentrism is purely a human concern. When I say we need support for non anthropocentric philosophy, I refer to the trend of thought that de-escalates the importance of existentialism in order to escape this rut of entropic nostalgia culture that feeds on humanism. The only way to do this without acceleration (and by my argument keep biocentrism) is to simply foster philosophy that goes beyond humanity to the point where it can be installed beyond popular control. This would create a return to diminished time preference (civilization) and leave humanity in a position to prevent any further damage to the ecosystem (including that inflicted by itself and as a precaution against posthumanity).