My understanding of what is known as "history" is very different, even than that presented in this article, Niall. Firstly, a positive. I'm glad that you are documenting a path along historical events with such expressive descriptives. But I do think that the most universal, impartial context will find a lot of this is mistaken.
Your first sentence is: "After World War II, the world was in shock." My view of war is quite different, as is my view of events such as the Coronavirus pandemic. I see wars and pandemics as having a very strong positive element because they eradicate so many immoral humans (on both sides). For many animals and ecologies, the pandemic was actually the best thing that had happened to the world for a very, very long time. It slowed everything down. It showed that the wealthy can be restrained. Similarly, I am sure that the war would have taught many people how to care, to be resourceful, and reconsider their exploitation of others such as farmed animals. Sadly, the baby boom period after WW2 was a huge disappointment at an eco-holistic level.
Amid all the to's and fro's of human policy-making and activity, the large group of animals, wild and domesticated/farmed, are the ones who are usually forgotten. Human directives have a huge toll on animals. I'm glad that you mentioned Carson's 'Silent Spring'.
Your article goes on to support the ideals of socialism, which is something that I too categorically agree with. However, as counterargument, I note that the oppression of the low classes of humans actually has some possible positive effects. One of these is suppressing widespread overconsumption and maybe also suppressing the inclination for poorer families to breed and instigate nuclear families (although sadly, many poor families still cant resist the temptation to grow their families).
I'm a likely supporter of world governance, and believe that the United Nations should probably have more power. I see potential problems there, but the self-interests of individual nations is a huge problem.
Your article's best moments are probably toward the end where you question the impartiality of US imperialism. You also make a few enlightened connections to human biological impulses, but I disgree with the idea that humans cannot possibly have any inherent moral agency. Humans can, and occasionally do, extend their circle of interest and kindness to other humans and other species of animals, and the pinnacle of morality is to be "kind to all beings".
I believe humans can develop a firm moral system but the problem is the people who seek and gain power are entirely the wrong people , e.g. Trump and so many others. Ordinary people, who do have a moral sense, need to start taking control back from the pirates and crooks.
Thanks. I'm trying to put through a thought-litmus test for your idea of "ordinary" or "fitting" people for the possession of power. I remain doubtful that democracy in our current terms will satisfactorily lead to a good power balance. Do you, or any other readers, have any ideas on a good leader or "president" of any state? There are plenty of good people who would end their roles in disaster too. Systems degrade very quickly sometimes, especially but not always when money is central to progress.
Will deal with this in due course. Simple fact, as Trump shows, is that no single "leader" can be granted the power to control a state as there is no inbuilt mechanism to stop autocracy.
Niall, a recent interview with Jaques Baud you would find very interesting, where he compares the French polity with the Swiss one (He is Swiss, and also more than a little dismayed at the direction his country has taken recently). He says that while both Swiss and French regard their own countries as democracies, through the Swiss eyes France resembles nothing so much as a Monarchy.
Just to try to clarify your second sentence: Trump is Trump, and does not make any rule about the potential of those actually suitable to act in powerful office.
Trump is actually very little different from any previous POTUS, when you strip away the verbiage and look at the policies.
The only reason that he has been able to subvert the USC to the degree he has is that the previous 50yrs of POTUS' laid all the groundwork for this.
When I was a student in the late 80s, studying US/UK PolSci, one recommended textbook was "The Imperial Presidency", I think by Schlesigner, but not 100% on that.
The US Uniparty are not appalled at what he is doing - they are appalled it is not THEM doing it.
That's a pretty relevant and insightful argument. I guess I could, however, trace the genealogy of this culture and note that they do cluster around similar origins etc. that may to a large extent be peculiar to the USA.
Doubtless we agree that human lust for power and abuse of that power once achieved is a massive worry. I also believe that examining the best case scenarios, when humans have most been at peace, is definitely worth studying. If you're at all interested, my YouTube video 'Gesamtkunstwerk, total impact, and Elon Musk' may interest.
"However, as counterargument, I note that the oppression of the low classes of humans actually has some possible positive effects. One of these is suppressing widespread overconsumption and maybe also suppressing the inclination for poorer families to breed"
Actually, poverty and high birth rates go hand in hand for several very rational reasons.
Obviously, birth control would be an expensive luxury for them.
Their children will give them security in old age.
They can't afford the luxuries that might otherwise take up their time and goals.
They are also usually not educated to a high standard, as societies that allow poverty tend to create ghettos.
If your goal is to reduce the human population, by far the quickest, simplest and best method is to grant them a "middle class lifestyle" or better. Now you moan about natural resources - I get it. 8bn humans on a planet that should comfortably accommodate somewhere between 500m and 1-2bn leaving space for OTHER species and the planet to breathe.
Having communally-owned resources would mitigate that to a not-negligible degree, but...
What are the alternatives? Impoverishment = higher birth rates.
Oppression = higher birth rates.
Forced sterilisation? Eugenics raises its Fascist head, and frankly anyone who argues for forced sterilisation should be first in the queue. And perhaps their kids too, if they already have some. That crowd would fall silently quickly.
Gnuneo, this is a reasonable advance on the discussion.
I dont believe that poverty and high birthrates are always hand in hand. There are several tools that alleviate:
- education, wisdom, moral agency, knowledge of the facts
- freely available contraception (and, secondarily, abortion facilities)
I do think that there is a huge space for organisations to make people aware of the consequences of their actions to breed, and importantly to dispel and explain many of the fears and myths that you cited. Some fledgling organisations include Stop Having Kids and many small antinatalist groups.
Your strongest argument is probably the fear of being unsupported in old age. It's not something I'm worried about without any dependants, but I do think that we can do a better job of explaining what is likely to happen. For example, making friends with younger people outside the family is one option, and this activity also serves and builds community.
Luxuries and consumables are not really ethical, and offspring are pretty much the same thing: "new shiny objects". I have plenty of interests and hobbies as an ecological and animal artivist, so I dont think that the absence of my own blood children is a problem at all. I do not concur that raising lifestyle standards would decrease birthrates; in fact, greater prosperity is typically an incentive to try to make more room for new people. If only people realise that there are severe distress signals in the ecology and society, then they might wake up to the idea that breeding is going to make things much worse.
You argued that education is low with poverty situations, but I dont think that's quite correct. It's never been easier to teach en masse with technological tools, but ALSO with community values being shared and friendships made. Protest and dissent do create some healthy solidarities, and there are plenty of social media examples of poorer people bringing up the real issues and acting more sensibly with higher moral agency.
Yes your views on Earth's sustainable human populations are pretty good. We humans have decimated plenty of other species. However, most antinatalist arguments are not just about this fact, but about the moral problems with breeding per se, including the imposition of life and its entailed suffering.
I have definitely considered a model of incentivising sterilisation, and it's actually been successful on small scales. I want to clarity with you that eugenics is not actually the issue with choosing not to breed (although even Stop Having Kids still believes it is). I get the idea that you find eugenics to be intolerably immoral, but this prejudice is usually due to associations to the Nazis and their experiments. Eugenics in the moral vision is actually an important area of consideration, and David Pearce (hedweb.com) is a pretty decent place to read for this, or you may discuss with me. I practise what I preach, so having zero dependants of any species is what I'll always do and always advocate for ALL of us, me first.
I hope you don't take offence that I observe your focus is on antinatalism, and then bend everything else to fit that vision.
So while literally every RW study will point to the link between poverty and high birth rates (Simply place a map of global poverty on top of global birth rates and you will see the undeniable link immediately), you say poverty doesn't HAVE to produce high birth rates. Fine, it doesn't, but in the RW, that is the effect it is having. Wishful thinking that it won't if the poor just do what you tell them to doesn't help.
Full disclosure: while I don't have kids myself (Like in Ideocracy, the conditions were never right), I always wanted them, and no, they are not just "shiny things" ffs, they are people/animals just like you and me.
I know Dave Pearce from decades back IRL, been round his flat a number of times, had several discussions. We don't agree on everything, and he found my critique of his dissertation painfully pointed. Still, a very clever man, not to be sniffed at, and good company. And generous to a fault. If you've never been to Brighton UK, I'd recommend a trip.
While I'm more Idealist than Materialist - though BOTH perspectives are essential to grasp Actual Reality - and I've also bemoaned 'being born' at times (Perhaps increasingly so), I don't accept the ultra-Idealist position that being born is a "curse" to the pure consciousness. I've considered it, and rejected it, to some extent. Still, the Buddhist ideal of ending the cycle of incarnation has always made a great deal of sense too, so clearly mixed feelings.
"I get the idea that you find eugenics to be intolerably immoral, but this prejudice is usually due to associations to the Nazis and their experiments"
No, it's the association with very wealthy people who decide that the poor are less than them, less than human. I find that incredibly offensive, and psychopathological.
Now, if individuals choose to be sterilised, that is entirely up to them. Some even don't regret it later - I have a good Danish friend who falls into that category, so I know they exist.
As you probably gathered, I'm a left-liberal/soft-Anarchist. And that informs my perspectives on such matters.
...yes, Martin is one of my alternative names. I regard myself as a textual analysis expert and debating expert, and I'm going to give your response a reasonable evaluation.
High birth rates, in my understanding, is anything above zero for humans in the last few hundred years at least. So, no, there is no automatic "link" between poverty and high birth rates. Did you survey Elon Musk? He has 13+ children and are you suggesting he's in poverty? Your reference to "wishful thinking" is an appeal to futility.
Your idea that kids/babies are people/animals just like you and me is exactly the point. They consume, they are liable to immorality and cruelty, etc. What exactly are you saying?
I too do not argue along all lines of hard antinatalism. In the current society, with domestic overpopulation the world's greatest problem, dealing with that problem is our primary responsibility. David Pearce is, like me, a soft antinatalist. But we still philosophically appraise and can weigh the consequences of, say, breeding humans.
Your take on eugenics is somewhat reasonable, but not clear. Moral eugenics is moral. Immoral eugenics is immoral. Adding-on snobbery against poor people is something outside of that.
In regard to soft-anarchism, I also believe in the ideals of consent, but when the world is bleeding fire, increasingly consent loses its value and should be replaced wholly by rational wisdom.
Marcus, if you are a " debating expert", then tell me which intellectual error it is to go from a wide sample (eg, billions of people and entire global regions), to a single person as a counterexample?
No, the Queen of England having 4 kids does not mean that the lower birth rates of the middle classes and the higher birth rates of the poor are removed from the equation!
"Your idea that kids/babies are people/animals just like you and me is exactly the point. They consume, they are liable to immorality and cruelty, etc. What exactly are you saying?"
I am saying that other people may not regard children in the same way that you do/you think others do.
"I too do not argue along all lines of hard antinatalism. In the current society, with domestic overpopulation the world's greatest problem, dealing with that problem is our primary responsibility. David Pearce is, like me, a soft antinatalist. But we still philosophically appraise and can weigh the consequences of, say, breeding humans."
Wait - there are people who think that "Zero birth rates for a hundred years" IS TOO HIGH?!? I have no idea where to begin.
"Your take on eugenics is somewhat reasonable, but not clear. Moral eugenics is moral. Immoral eugenics is immoral. Adding-on snobbery against poor people is something outside of that."
My position that *outside of personal choice*, eugenics is by definition immoral. The notion that some people have a right to determine who shall and shall not have offspring is offensive.
The closest I would come to that position, and I wouldn't do this seriously anyway, is to say that the eugenics should start with the wealthy (Along with 'forced depopulation' to put it in the nicest possible way). The last people who should be stopped from having children are the subsistence farmers who use almost no resources. The first to lose should be the billionaires.
"In regard to soft-anarchism, I also believe in the ideals of consent, but when the world is bleeding fire, increasingly consent loses its value and should be replaced wholly by rational wisdom."
Technocratic, indeed. "I know best" - there's never been horrors from that POV in history, of course.
I've just recalled the two main disagreements I had with Dave Pearce.
He thinks that the ENTIRE animal kingdom should be re-engineered to prevent animals eating each other, to "reduce suffering".
This is beyond insanity. For nature, we are simply energy and information shifting around within her systems. It is the EGO that wishes to live forever. I would have no truck with such insane mega-engineering whatsoever. Everything that lives, lives because other things are dying. Death is not something to be terrified of, it is part of the cycle of life. Obviously something generally to be avoided if possible for the longest time, but not something to get highly excited about.
A society where all pain and suffering is removed is a society filled with pain and suffering under the surface.
Of course, to a technocrat, the animals don't get to give consent to any of this. "We know best" once again.
The other point of contention was that he was complaining about "Alpha males" getting everything, and "Beta males" such as himself having the scraps. This is from just under 40 yrs ago so excuse the imprecise memories.
I pointed out to him, well, I asked him what about his life he would have changed, if he could? I pointed out that he had everything he wanted to be happy, and he didn't WANT to drive the fast cars, the fast women, and all the other trapping of "Alpha males". He was stunned - and absolutely to his credit, immediately agreed and saw the ramifications. Despite it undermining the key points of his Master's dissertation, which he was very proud of, and is the basis of his posthumanism/transhumanism (I always get them mixed up these days).
Since then we drifted apart - I emigrated for several years - and haven't spoken even on FB for many years.
But he is one smart cookie, and you should totally make the effort to meet IRL if you haven't.
My understanding of what is known as "history" is very different, even than that presented in this article, Niall. Firstly, a positive. I'm glad that you are documenting a path along historical events with such expressive descriptives. But I do think that the most universal, impartial context will find a lot of this is mistaken.
Your first sentence is: "After World War II, the world was in shock." My view of war is quite different, as is my view of events such as the Coronavirus pandemic. I see wars and pandemics as having a very strong positive element because they eradicate so many immoral humans (on both sides). For many animals and ecologies, the pandemic was actually the best thing that had happened to the world for a very, very long time. It slowed everything down. It showed that the wealthy can be restrained. Similarly, I am sure that the war would have taught many people how to care, to be resourceful, and reconsider their exploitation of others such as farmed animals. Sadly, the baby boom period after WW2 was a huge disappointment at an eco-holistic level.
Amid all the to's and fro's of human policy-making and activity, the large group of animals, wild and domesticated/farmed, are the ones who are usually forgotten. Human directives have a huge toll on animals. I'm glad that you mentioned Carson's 'Silent Spring'.
Your article goes on to support the ideals of socialism, which is something that I too categorically agree with. However, as counterargument, I note that the oppression of the low classes of humans actually has some possible positive effects. One of these is suppressing widespread overconsumption and maybe also suppressing the inclination for poorer families to breed and instigate nuclear families (although sadly, many poor families still cant resist the temptation to grow their families).
I'm a likely supporter of world governance, and believe that the United Nations should probably have more power. I see potential problems there, but the self-interests of individual nations is a huge problem.
Your article's best moments are probably toward the end where you question the impartiality of US imperialism. You also make a few enlightened connections to human biological impulses, but I disgree with the idea that humans cannot possibly have any inherent moral agency. Humans can, and occasionally do, extend their circle of interest and kindness to other humans and other species of animals, and the pinnacle of morality is to be "kind to all beings".
Thank you for your writing.
I believe humans can develop a firm moral system but the problem is the people who seek and gain power are entirely the wrong people , e.g. Trump and so many others. Ordinary people, who do have a moral sense, need to start taking control back from the pirates and crooks.
Thanks. I'm trying to put through a thought-litmus test for your idea of "ordinary" or "fitting" people for the possession of power. I remain doubtful that democracy in our current terms will satisfactorily lead to a good power balance. Do you, or any other readers, have any ideas on a good leader or "president" of any state? There are plenty of good people who would end their roles in disaster too. Systems degrade very quickly sometimes, especially but not always when money is central to progress.
Will deal with this in due course. Simple fact, as Trump shows, is that no single "leader" can be granted the power to control a state as there is no inbuilt mechanism to stop autocracy.
Niall, a recent interview with Jaques Baud you would find very interesting, where he compares the French polity with the Swiss one (He is Swiss, and also more than a little dismayed at the direction his country has taken recently). He says that while both Swiss and French regard their own countries as democracies, through the Swiss eyes France resembles nothing so much as a Monarchy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DDjb9Wbeqs (Relevant section at 41:30 if you're busy).
Just to try to clarify your second sentence: Trump is Trump, and does not make any rule about the potential of those actually suitable to act in powerful office.
Trump is actually very little different from any previous POTUS, when you strip away the verbiage and look at the policies.
The only reason that he has been able to subvert the USC to the degree he has is that the previous 50yrs of POTUS' laid all the groundwork for this.
When I was a student in the late 80s, studying US/UK PolSci, one recommended textbook was "The Imperial Presidency", I think by Schlesigner, but not 100% on that.
The US Uniparty are not appalled at what he is doing - they are appalled it is not THEM doing it.
That's a pretty relevant and insightful argument. I guess I could, however, trace the genealogy of this culture and note that they do cluster around similar origins etc. that may to a large extent be peculiar to the USA.
Doubtless we agree that human lust for power and abuse of that power once achieved is a massive worry. I also believe that examining the best case scenarios, when humans have most been at peace, is definitely worth studying. If you're at all interested, my YouTube video 'Gesamtkunstwerk, total impact, and Elon Musk' may interest.
"However, as counterargument, I note that the oppression of the low classes of humans actually has some possible positive effects. One of these is suppressing widespread overconsumption and maybe also suppressing the inclination for poorer families to breed"
Actually, poverty and high birth rates go hand in hand for several very rational reasons.
Obviously, birth control would be an expensive luxury for them.
Their children will give them security in old age.
They can't afford the luxuries that might otherwise take up their time and goals.
They are also usually not educated to a high standard, as societies that allow poverty tend to create ghettos.
If your goal is to reduce the human population, by far the quickest, simplest and best method is to grant them a "middle class lifestyle" or better. Now you moan about natural resources - I get it. 8bn humans on a planet that should comfortably accommodate somewhere between 500m and 1-2bn leaving space for OTHER species and the planet to breathe.
Having communally-owned resources would mitigate that to a not-negligible degree, but...
What are the alternatives? Impoverishment = higher birth rates.
Oppression = higher birth rates.
Forced sterilisation? Eugenics raises its Fascist head, and frankly anyone who argues for forced sterilisation should be first in the queue. And perhaps their kids too, if they already have some. That crowd would fall silently quickly.
Gnuneo, this is a reasonable advance on the discussion.
I dont believe that poverty and high birthrates are always hand in hand. There are several tools that alleviate:
- education, wisdom, moral agency, knowledge of the facts
- freely available contraception (and, secondarily, abortion facilities)
I do think that there is a huge space for organisations to make people aware of the consequences of their actions to breed, and importantly to dispel and explain many of the fears and myths that you cited. Some fledgling organisations include Stop Having Kids and many small antinatalist groups.
Your strongest argument is probably the fear of being unsupported in old age. It's not something I'm worried about without any dependants, but I do think that we can do a better job of explaining what is likely to happen. For example, making friends with younger people outside the family is one option, and this activity also serves and builds community.
Luxuries and consumables are not really ethical, and offspring are pretty much the same thing: "new shiny objects". I have plenty of interests and hobbies as an ecological and animal artivist, so I dont think that the absence of my own blood children is a problem at all. I do not concur that raising lifestyle standards would decrease birthrates; in fact, greater prosperity is typically an incentive to try to make more room for new people. If only people realise that there are severe distress signals in the ecology and society, then they might wake up to the idea that breeding is going to make things much worse.
You argued that education is low with poverty situations, but I dont think that's quite correct. It's never been easier to teach en masse with technological tools, but ALSO with community values being shared and friendships made. Protest and dissent do create some healthy solidarities, and there are plenty of social media examples of poorer people bringing up the real issues and acting more sensibly with higher moral agency.
Yes your views on Earth's sustainable human populations are pretty good. We humans have decimated plenty of other species. However, most antinatalist arguments are not just about this fact, but about the moral problems with breeding per se, including the imposition of life and its entailed suffering.
I have definitely considered a model of incentivising sterilisation, and it's actually been successful on small scales. I want to clarity with you that eugenics is not actually the issue with choosing not to breed (although even Stop Having Kids still believes it is). I get the idea that you find eugenics to be intolerably immoral, but this prejudice is usually due to associations to the Nazis and their experiments. Eugenics in the moral vision is actually an important area of consideration, and David Pearce (hedweb.com) is a pretty decent place to read for this, or you may discuss with me. I practise what I preach, so having zero dependants of any species is what I'll always do and always advocate for ALL of us, me first.
Hi Martin.
I hope you don't take offence that I observe your focus is on antinatalism, and then bend everything else to fit that vision.
So while literally every RW study will point to the link between poverty and high birth rates (Simply place a map of global poverty on top of global birth rates and you will see the undeniable link immediately), you say poverty doesn't HAVE to produce high birth rates. Fine, it doesn't, but in the RW, that is the effect it is having. Wishful thinking that it won't if the poor just do what you tell them to doesn't help.
Full disclosure: while I don't have kids myself (Like in Ideocracy, the conditions were never right), I always wanted them, and no, they are not just "shiny things" ffs, they are people/animals just like you and me.
I know Dave Pearce from decades back IRL, been round his flat a number of times, had several discussions. We don't agree on everything, and he found my critique of his dissertation painfully pointed. Still, a very clever man, not to be sniffed at, and good company. And generous to a fault. If you've never been to Brighton UK, I'd recommend a trip.
While I'm more Idealist than Materialist - though BOTH perspectives are essential to grasp Actual Reality - and I've also bemoaned 'being born' at times (Perhaps increasingly so), I don't accept the ultra-Idealist position that being born is a "curse" to the pure consciousness. I've considered it, and rejected it, to some extent. Still, the Buddhist ideal of ending the cycle of incarnation has always made a great deal of sense too, so clearly mixed feelings.
"I get the idea that you find eugenics to be intolerably immoral, but this prejudice is usually due to associations to the Nazis and their experiments"
No, it's the association with very wealthy people who decide that the poor are less than them, less than human. I find that incredibly offensive, and psychopathological.
Now, if individuals choose to be sterilised, that is entirely up to them. Some even don't regret it later - I have a good Danish friend who falls into that category, so I know they exist.
As you probably gathered, I'm a left-liberal/soft-Anarchist. And that informs my perspectives on such matters.
Hi, Gnuneo,
...yes, Martin is one of my alternative names. I regard myself as a textual analysis expert and debating expert, and I'm going to give your response a reasonable evaluation.
High birth rates, in my understanding, is anything above zero for humans in the last few hundred years at least. So, no, there is no automatic "link" between poverty and high birth rates. Did you survey Elon Musk? He has 13+ children and are you suggesting he's in poverty? Your reference to "wishful thinking" is an appeal to futility.
Your idea that kids/babies are people/animals just like you and me is exactly the point. They consume, they are liable to immorality and cruelty, etc. What exactly are you saying?
I too do not argue along all lines of hard antinatalism. In the current society, with domestic overpopulation the world's greatest problem, dealing with that problem is our primary responsibility. David Pearce is, like me, a soft antinatalist. But we still philosophically appraise and can weigh the consequences of, say, breeding humans.
Your take on eugenics is somewhat reasonable, but not clear. Moral eugenics is moral. Immoral eugenics is immoral. Adding-on snobbery against poor people is something outside of that.
In regard to soft-anarchism, I also believe in the ideals of consent, but when the world is bleeding fire, increasingly consent loses its value and should be replaced wholly by rational wisdom.
Marcus, if you are a " debating expert", then tell me which intellectual error it is to go from a wide sample (eg, billions of people and entire global regions), to a single person as a counterexample?
No, the Queen of England having 4 kids does not mean that the lower birth rates of the middle classes and the higher birth rates of the poor are removed from the equation!
"Your idea that kids/babies are people/animals just like you and me is exactly the point. They consume, they are liable to immorality and cruelty, etc. What exactly are you saying?"
I am saying that other people may not regard children in the same way that you do/you think others do.
"I too do not argue along all lines of hard antinatalism. In the current society, with domestic overpopulation the world's greatest problem, dealing with that problem is our primary responsibility. David Pearce is, like me, a soft antinatalist. But we still philosophically appraise and can weigh the consequences of, say, breeding humans."
Wait - there are people who think that "Zero birth rates for a hundred years" IS TOO HIGH?!? I have no idea where to begin.
"Your take on eugenics is somewhat reasonable, but not clear. Moral eugenics is moral. Immoral eugenics is immoral. Adding-on snobbery against poor people is something outside of that."
My position that *outside of personal choice*, eugenics is by definition immoral. The notion that some people have a right to determine who shall and shall not have offspring is offensive.
The closest I would come to that position, and I wouldn't do this seriously anyway, is to say that the eugenics should start with the wealthy (Along with 'forced depopulation' to put it in the nicest possible way). The last people who should be stopped from having children are the subsistence farmers who use almost no resources. The first to lose should be the billionaires.
"In regard to soft-anarchism, I also believe in the ideals of consent, but when the world is bleeding fire, increasingly consent loses its value and should be replaced wholly by rational wisdom."
Technocratic, indeed. "I know best" - there's never been horrors from that POV in history, of course.
I've just recalled the two main disagreements I had with Dave Pearce.
He thinks that the ENTIRE animal kingdom should be re-engineered to prevent animals eating each other, to "reduce suffering".
This is beyond insanity. For nature, we are simply energy and information shifting around within her systems. It is the EGO that wishes to live forever. I would have no truck with such insane mega-engineering whatsoever. Everything that lives, lives because other things are dying. Death is not something to be terrified of, it is part of the cycle of life. Obviously something generally to be avoided if possible for the longest time, but not something to get highly excited about.
A society where all pain and suffering is removed is a society filled with pain and suffering under the surface.
Of course, to a technocrat, the animals don't get to give consent to any of this. "We know best" once again.
The other point of contention was that he was complaining about "Alpha males" getting everything, and "Beta males" such as himself having the scraps. This is from just under 40 yrs ago so excuse the imprecise memories.
I pointed out to him, well, I asked him what about his life he would have changed, if he could? I pointed out that he had everything he wanted to be happy, and he didn't WANT to drive the fast cars, the fast women, and all the other trapping of "Alpha males". He was stunned - and absolutely to his credit, immediately agreed and saw the ramifications. Despite it undermining the key points of his Master's dissertation, which he was very proud of, and is the basis of his posthumanism/transhumanism (I always get them mixed up these days).
Since then we drifted apart - I emigrated for several years - and haven't spoken even on FB for many years.
But he is one smart cookie, and you should totally make the effort to meet IRL if you haven't.