It’s not simply that there is no meaning in the universe. It’s that humans simply are predisposed to believing that there could be. We haven’t yet realized that we cannot afford to anthropomorphize the cosmos any longer. In other words, the longer we wait to remove egocentrism and superstition, the longer our descendants will have to wait for any real progress.
Did you know that there is no such thing as ‘race’? Races don’t exist. They’re made-up. They’re not real. And…that’s not an opinion. It is a fact. There are lots of ways for people to say that they’re different from someone else…why not pick something less…fictional?
Now we know who’s paying for climate change denial
How is it possible that homosexuality (in the form of sexual activity, parenting, bonding, courtship) be considered EVIL or STRANGE, when it occurs throughout nature, among mammals, birds, reptiles, and even insects? It is objectively NATURAL for trillions of individual organisms, including humans, to take these forms. So you see, it’s much harder to make the case that what is ‘natural’ is ‘evil’—and that is how a thinking person might respond to such an absurd position.
Now, if their position is derived from some amalgamation of natural law (e.g. Aristotle, Aquinas), where human violations are based on expressions of free will, and not on innate predispositions, the response would be to question the validity of that particular formulation of natural law in light of so much contradictory evidence. When trillions of organisms repeatedly violate such ‘natural law’, surely we would immediately begin to doubt its accuracy.
Furthermore, if human violations of natural law are matters of free will, then it becomes political. In contemporary Russia, for example, human homosexual forms have become officially demonized. Since, according to this ‘natural law’ position, it is a matter of free will, then individuals, being free to act ‘as they wish’, are persecuted for acting ‘as they wished’. By definition, Russia must then be categorised as (at least) an authoritarian state, which no free-thinking person could ever wish to live in.
This means that if we disregard non-human evidence of homosexual forms, and assume human homosexual forms are violations of natural law explained by free will, the only way for society to comprehend homosexual forms in humans is to criminalize them. Since we live, in principle, in open societies, we cannot disregard human and non-human evidence of homosexual forms, and nor can we criminalize these forms for conflicting with demonstrably-false nomothetic constructions of human and non-human behaviour. In future open human societies, once reparations and reparatory protections have been assimilated, homosexual forms will be, necessarily, irrelevant to public institutions. As with gender identity, I look forward to the day that the public space is blind to these forms.
Since gender is irrelevant in public, and since individuals are not fully autonomous, nor is their status as individuals relevant, should we not delete the pronouns ‘he’, ‘she’, and ‘I’ from institutional vocabulary?