At the end of natural future
“If humanism puts an end to all religion and spirituality, […] we should ask [of humanism]: human as opposed to what? If the answer is as opposed to non-human animals/ to nature, then we can unmask humanism; unmask it as simply an unwarranted attitude of superiority to the rest of creation.
“Less frenetic human activity would be better in itself, even regardless of the ecological consequences of excess human activity. Let’s have wiser human activity. That will include: there being less of it. But not just less of the same; less and different. We should not support dreams that point in the opposite direction to this wisdom.”1
“yes, we’re currently warping the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans violently, and in ways that have analogues in only a few terrifying chapters buried deep in Earth’s history. Each year we spew more than 100 times as much CO2 into the air as volcanoes do, and we’re currently overseeing the biggest disruption to the planet’s nitrogen cycle in 2.5 billion years. But despite this incredible effort, all is vanity. Very little of our handiwork will survive the obliteration of the ages. If 100 million years can easily wear the Himalayas flat, what chance will San Francisco or New York have?”1
“Aus vielen Begegnungen mit nachdenklichen Menschen bei öffentlichen Veranstaltungen weiß ich, dass in unserer Gesellschaft ein hartnäckig unausgesprochener Konsens gereift ist. Er besagt, dass es nicht immer weiter »aufwärts«-gehen kann, dass das Wohlstandsmodell der Nachweltkriegszeit — in Deutschland und erst recht anderswo — keine Zukunft hat.
