The Case Against Humanism

Over the last few decades, we have seen a growing and admirable support for science, critical thinking, and secularism. Alongside this, we have seen a predictable backlash against "humanism" that has been quite frankly puzzling to many who hold these values and see them as fundamental to the flourishing of our species. It is as if these values are so intrinsically linked to humanism, that too criticize humanism must mean that one is disavowing these very principles. While there have been a multitude of reasons for this backlash, I will lay out here a case against humanism, not as an attempt to lay blame upon individuals who hold these values, but to seriously consider the broader consequences of our collective actions under this moniker and lay out a new vision for how we can strive towards a more perfect future.<br><br>The first, and most obvious charge, against humanism, is the myriad of problems of anthropocentrism; the prioritization of the uniquely human experience over all other agents in the universe. A simple look at our relationship to the natural world lays bare this mentality. While many humanists have endeavored to bring science and critical thinking to the environmental debate and to some extent, have undertaken this endeavor with a long-term vision that prioritizes human civilization and our potential uniquely human experience, it is undeniable that we have exercise great dominion over the Earth and its inhabitants. We have ravaged ecosystems, driven countless species to extinction and continue to systematically exploit the natural world, to the detriment of human civilization in the long run. While many humanists genuinely believe that their actions are in the best interest of their own kind, our distinctly anthropocentric viewpoint dictates that our interests are of the utmost importance and that the interests of other beings are subordinate to our own. Not only this, but even in our attempts to protect the natural world, our actions are motivated by a desire to preserve its utility to us and to ensure our own survival, even if at the expense of the very survival of countless other species.<br><br>Now of course, this critique could be extended to the entirety of human civilization, not just to its humanistic faction. But even within the uniquely humanistic context, this mentality is not only pervasive in our relationship with the natural world, but in the way we treat each other. Our tendency to view the "other" as a separate entity, whose interests we view as secondary to our own is mirrored in the way our dominant culture has historically treated those from different societal groups. Our mentality of dominance has not only been extended towards our relationship with the natural world, but to those within our own species who have been deemed as "other." Perhaps no historical example of this can better be seen than in the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas at the hands of European colonizers. To the uniquely humanistic worldview, we have seen the systematic subjugation and eradication of countless cultures and peoples in favor of the dominant culture and its interests. Perhaps no better example of this can be seen than in the notion of "manifest destiny," in which it is the duty of our uniquely humanistic vision to spread its influence across the globe and to bring our brand of "enlightenment" to those who are "less than" us.<br><br>While perhaps the most morally troubling consequence of the humanistic mentality is found in our relationship to the natural world, and to those within our own species who we have deemed as "other," perhaps its most existentially troubling consequence can be seen in the void left by our attempts to supplant religious dogma as the sole arbiter of meaning and purpose. With the erosion of religious and metaphysical beliefs, the uniquely humanistic worldview has been left with the burden of not only discovering the truth about the universe, but of imbuing human existence with a sense of purpose. We have seen a multitude of attempts to fulfill this purpose; from the existential notion that human existence is inherently meaningless, to the distinctly humanistic notion that our purpose and meaning can be found in the collective pursuit of progress. Despite these efforts however, the uniquely humanistic worldview remains incongruous with the ultimate reality of the universe. That is, that our existence, our progress, and our notion of purpose are all completely secondary to the grand tapestry of existence. Many of us have been content to accept our existence as ultimately meaningless, and to derive meaning from our own subjective experiences and pursuits. However, with uniquely humanistic worldview's attempt to supplant the notion of the universe's inherent meaning, we are not only in discord with the ultimate nature of existence, but have derived a sense of purpose that is inherently fleeting and ephemeral.<br><br>Therefore, in light of these anthropocentric tendencies and our attempts to derive meaning in an ultimately meaningless universe, I propose that we must seriously consider a new perspective; one that holds that our uniquely human existence is not the paragon of the universe. I call this perspective "Terraism." While humanism has laid out a vision for the flourishing of our species that prioritizes the uniquely human experience as the ultimate aim of the universe, Terraism posits that our existence is but one component of the broader universe; one that is inextricably linked to the intricate web of existence that comprises and surrounds us. While the uniquely humanistic worldview derives our sense of purpose from the distinctly human pursuit of progress, Terraism derives our purpose from our existence as component parts of the broader universe; an existence that is inextricably linked with and subordinate to the natural world and to the totality of existence. While humanism has brought us many uniquely human accomplishments, we have exercised great dominion over the Earth and its inhabitants. Perhaps it is time to forsake the uniquely humanistic vision and to work towards a new future that acknowledges our secondary status in the grand tapestry of existence.<br><br>---<br><br>EDIT: I am a little underwhelmed by the quality of this sub as of late. I think that the best conversations that can be had here are ones that lay out arguments that are meant to genuinely be criticized and scrutinized. While I am happy for this post to be downvoted, I implore you to share your criticisms and engage with the argument itself.