#title A N T I P R E D A T I O N
#author Post-Comprehension
#date Feb 14, 2022
#source <[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbygYR5kN0][youtube.com/watch?v=0fbygYR5kN0]]>
#lang en
#pubdate 2024-03-09T17:49:11
#topics anarcho-transhumanism
#notes This is a rough automatic transcription, feel free to correct any errors.
[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbygYR5kN0]]
** Transcript
The famous Christmas store has the largest selection of permanent trees and it come pick a tree from our forest.
What words would you use to describe the famous Christmas store?
The trees last forever. It's like being in a real forest. And trees look so real.
Anti predation is the opposition to predation and the position that it should be abolished.
Let's quickly describe what predation is:
“The biological interaction, ecological dynamic and set of relations in which one organism known as a predator kills and consumes another organism known as the prey for food.”
This cruelty deprives life forms of freedom from domination and the ability to have a choice in their development.
It is also a matter of questioning why humans hold this monopoly on the ability to escape it, and why others don't. Anti predation lists seek to find ways to expand this ability, and the autonomy provides. Outward to lessen the grip humans have over it so that other life forms can also participate in free. Appreciation the matter of predations, importance to our current ecological system is not a reason in itself as to why this is morally justified or should even continue without objection and skepticism, even as we understand that predation presently serves a fundamental role within earthly cologie as a transference of energy distribution between species. As well as the type of population control, we also see the locks it places on these creatures development through the enforcement of playing out this role to. Five. This robs them of the potential for something more than a life in search of a kill, to survive or in constant fear of becoming another's meal, cruelty, pain, and suffering are natural processes, but this doesn't mean we should allow them to continue unopposed. Nature must not be kept in the prison of framing it as immutable or as an excuse to limit our options. If we allow this, then we'll find ourselves sliding into dogmas that keep us and others from moving forward with, and even possibly beyond, nature itself. Self as the famous anarcho transhumanist slogan goes, if nature is unjust, change nature to give a similar example of an injustice that was perceived as natural and seemingly inescapable, we look to infant mortality, the dying breath of infants unable to survive disease or harsh winters was thought to be unavoidable. It was viewed as a simple fact of life that most babies would not make it. Last, a few years of age. For a time, this was a harsh reality of nature that had no escape until the inventions and developments of heaters and medicine that is in the face of these new possibilities, as once nearly unavoidable, a natural part of child rearing became less of the. The reality of the entire experience, just because something can be a natural part of life, doesn't mean it is unchangeable, unpreventable, or unstoppable. Rather, it's only one way within one moment of 1 outcome in which life can transpire, not how it is can be not to be in its entirety. If evolution is to teach us something, it is that nothing is permanent except in permanence. Humanity has a tendency to perceive its situation and status as the exception and work from there, excusing themselves from the rest and saying that's how things are. Everything, not human, is seen as natural, while everything human is. This is how humanity justifies their privilege over the rest of the world and establishes a precedent in the minds of future generations forming a sense of dual realism. From this perception where they give themselves either more importance or lack of importance, creating a dichotomy of thinking where you are either a human supremacist or a human extinction list. Human supremacists view their privilege and heighten the food chain as inherently good and evidence of their superiority. Proclaiming ownership over all of humanity's. Creation with pride and deterring any possibility that the other species could even attain or do better than them, even if they too had similar mental capability and capacity. The other half gives humanity a lack of importance through viewing their own development is precedential evidence that higher cognitions and even consciousness itself is inherently bad, and that spreading this must therefore only lead to negative. Outcomes the presumption that these human extinctions have is that if the other species had a sense of morality or technical wonder, or simply the ability to divert tyranny of predation, they too would be doomed to the similar failures of humanity. Both of these presume that humans, humanity, and merely human likeness are both wholly unique and mono, simplistic, neuro and bodily divergences tell us otherwise. It's imperative that we look at both of these perspectives with both disdain and a form of acceptance. Not that the narratives are correct, but understanding that certain things within them are from the human extinction. The fragment of truth is in identifying humanity's negative impact on the environment. It was indeed humans that led us to the existential disaster of climate change we now face. But it is also humans that are desperately trying to divert it. The same can be said of genocide, which was caused by humans, but also stopped. By them, the point is our diversity not focusing on a single path that some will or could take and proclaiming that is the only way the fragment of truth in human supremacism is seeing the wonders, inventions, and playful activities humanity has created in viewing them with pride. But the issue is taking this to the exclusive end it does in proclaiming. Priority. Imagine what wonders and creations could have been or still could be when we set the manifestations of imagination and their workings free from the barriers of the land hand classification. So then who is humanity to say that diverting predation isn't a natural process? And So what if it were somehow an exception to nature? Not that it's necessarily important if it were either way.
Choice in itself presents us with diverting relations, often contradictory to the more there is the. That can exist, and once it does, it's forever seen as always been perhaps no. Indeed, the trans species people will find it odd that humans once thought that the escape pods from predation were only reserved for them. Thinking in retrospect, how naive it was for one species to assume that it had ownership over the concept and ability to divert predation. The prejudice of certain Members within that species tell the rest that tools, written language, abstract ideas, devices, behaviors, remedies, and habits were theirs only. Even telling anyone that suggests other. Wise or even intends to think about expanding these to the other species that they are imposing humanity on to them, as if giving the means to escape human domination was somehow perpetuator the tyranny of speciesism is assuming that choice is a human concept and not something that belonged to all. Our anarchism seeks to break this down through finding new ways for life to interact, to cooperate in individually with themselves. Others in ecologies, be it their home world, another or none at all, enriching themselves and those around them, through dismantling any fixed notions of what you others, nature, life in the universe is and can. The phrase and injury to one is an injury to all should have no limits on whether that one is human or not. Predation is an injury that some have found a way out from, while the rest haven't. As long as it continues to exist, invoking fear manifested trauma until life takes and effects. No one is truly free.
We should ask ourselves the same question again and then some. Why should some species have the ability to understand? Sent freedom and ways to avoid tyranny. And why shouldn't others? Why must we maintain this hierarchy of ignorance? Our knowledge directly correlates to our ability to understand options and ways to act on them.
If these other species do understand this, then we should find ways to facilitate communication with them so they can be heard.
If they don't understand, then they should still be allowed the opportunity to understand or simply live a life free from domination through increasing their individual agency, putting into focus the ways in which we can expand our view of what freedom is and can be seeking out and dismantling the limits of social and species stratification, which blurs our vision for discovering a more liberatory tomorrow.
Anti predation is an anarchist transhumanist. Promethea and life affirming, life expanding and life uplifting position that seeks to ignite the potentials within the ever expanding cosmic oceans. Reside in.
* * *
Humans differentiated themselves from the other age by resisting the physical dominance, hierarchies of nature and beauty in the apes. They did this by mending weapons such as spears, which could level the playing field against the physically stronger oppressors. This was the opening shot in the struggle for freedom that has come to define the human experience. The evidence for this period of human history is sparse, but it suggests that the dawn of human history we had the same hierarchies of physical dominance that we today observe in our ape cousins.
But two innovations we differentiate ourselves from our close relatives. One was cooperation by organizing into groups less strong among our and. Sisters, we're able to compensate for the lack of physical strength against the stronger in their societies.
The other was technology we invented projectile weapons like Spears in order to avoid having to engage in close combat with their physically stronger oppressors. Thus, the practice of freedom was born within human societies, but differentiating ourselves from the apes through the struggle to achieve freedom we made the struggle, our nature, our species, being and Marxian terms.
While humanity has not remained free since our struggle for freedom continues, humans have continued to revolt against their oppressors. Most of the time spontaneously, by fleeing to areas where the elite could not reach them.
From 1840, the 8th year of the First World Revolution of the capitalist world system and its failure which led to the creation of the organized left on we have organized ourselves into movements that have included political parties and unions for the specific purpose of achieving a free society.
In the last 500 years, groups marginalized by the state and ethnic conventions have struggled against the state for civil rights, and workers have driven up labor costs by organizing against the bosses. Humans became human by discovering the struggle for freedom. There's no reason why the struggle for freedom. Should stop here. A truly universalist humanism means the transformation of nature by humanity and the service of the goal of freedom. This requires meaningful interaction. Nature. The structures of alienation, unfree human societies have separated humans from nature, setting them apart as something else entirely, with the right to dominate nature. This is the reality of anthropocentrism. By finally abolishing on freedom and human societies, humans can see themselves as moving parts of nature and thereby dispense with the notion that humanity has the right to dominate that which allows them to exist. Instead, humanity can now interact with nature in a meaningful way. It no longer transforms nature by exploiting its resources in other species. But instead transforms nature so that the struggle for freedom is no longer monopolized by homeo sapiens and all living creatures can be brought into the same revolutionary humanist process of transformation that humans have undergone.
* * *
The observation that nature, or even simply natural law does not suffice for freedom is not new or even contemporary within anarchism. Errico Malatesta once uttered a similar line of argumentation when addressing the appeals to a harmony by natural law at some. Individualist anarchists. Would use to justify their own positions. Even go as far as to directly reference and mention.
As an example, the so-called harmony that is to be found in nature signifies only this. The very existence of something means that the conditions necessary and sufficient for it to exist have been in place. But nature has no purpose, or at any rate, none of men's purposes. She cares nothing for the deaths, hurts and sufferings of human beings, and these may very well serve as components of her harmony.
The cat eating the mouse is a natural phenomenon and thus perfectly in harmony with the cosmic order. But if we could ask the mice, we might well find that such harmony is just too jarring for their liking. It is a law of nature that living beings must eat, and therefore the numbers and strengths of the living are limited by the quantums of food suited to each species but nature indifferently enforces her limits by means of disasters, deaths. Of starvation and degeneracy and an infinite number of examples could be cited.
Now just answer the question. Are these the baby scorpions born in eggs? Is this an egg laying being?
It's loading a little sack, something like an egg, and then they break out the sack and all white, and then they. Turn black. Let's put him up a minute.
You don't know anything about this do you?
Right, exactly.