"Real thinkers actually test the hypotheses presented to them, evaluate them against reality, and come to a reasoned conclusion," says Professor Periclueless.

"So, class, let's gather around and we'll discuss how humans should live their lives. Let's get our test tubes at the ready, the Bunsen burners lit, the logarithm tables ready to hand, our chemicals arranged.

First, we have to come up with a hypothesis. I put forward that the capitalist system is mankind's crowning achievement. (Great applause)

Sure, some humans have been left behind and are starving but most have profited, well, at least 1% have. Why, I have a great share portfolio and I'm buying another investment property next week! (More applause)

Now, humans would be bored if they didn't work. They love wearing suits and working in small offices. (Heavy, drumming applause for three minutes)

Human love competition, love climbing the ladders the corporate world has built for them. It is a system that richly rewards the greed..., er, sorry, the ambitious.

Did I hear mention of the name Socrates? Silly people like him were a handicap to human progress. They despised the businessmen not realizing they were the salt of the earth. Names like Murdoch come to mind.

Now, I want you to go away and write a 3,000 essay on why capitalism is the only show in town. Make sure you include a bibliography and, when you quote important people, make sure you name them less I think you actually said or thought something yourself.

Class dismiss!"

WmTrevor,
Been unable to post till now.
Anti-humanism is a diverse spectrum, and a little more complicated than “a theory which holds that people are fundamentally bad because they destroy things and waste resources”. Anti-humanism on the left merely urges that humanism is a post-Christian ideology, just as removed from reality and finally dedicated to productive-conformity—not for the sake of lofty ideals or humanity’s betterment, but species-monopoly and profit.
I note too that all the atrocities attributed to “anti-humanism” in the article are right-wing ideologies, with the exception of China’s one child policy—and China is a capitalist-authoritarian-oligarchy whose crimes have far more in common with fascist regimes than any left-wing utopianism.
Zubrin sounds much like Matt Ridley with his reckless and indifferent optimism and libertarian free-market “anti-humanism”. My own consistent argument has been that the population explosion and the rape of the planet are the direct consequence of the capitalist dynamic; humanity and all life forms are reduced to fuel for profit. How this or libertarianism—individualism—anti-communitarianism—can be reckoned in any sense “humanistic” I’m unable to fathom.
But in any case, I don’t support knee-jerk anti-population agenda’s like Dick Smiths, which are nationalistic within the context of globalisation he and Australia exploits and profits by. I’ve often been critical of such movements here.
Capitalism is in the process of being compromised naturally—which it cannot tolerate—and the pyramid-scheme of humanity it has built-up will collapse. A controlled-demolition might spare much suffering—but won’t happen.
I’ve also been critical of what I call “dark green” environmentalists, who are removed from reality. Yet these are very few and the Green Demon the right loves to anathematise is a strawman. Most environmentalists are much more thoughtful and practical—whereas their antitypes are about as willing to embrace change as the NRA.
But you’re a thoughtful person I respect and I’m surprised if you’re persuaded by this transparently neoliberal trash.
David G,
Reflecting on Mathew Arnold’s essay, “Culture and Anarchy”, it is the “barbarians” who are most to be despised. As here, the philistines are merely their minions.
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/3.html

Sarcasm is never a very potent debating tactic, David G.

>>"So, class, let's gather around and we'll discuss how humans should live their lives. Let's get our test tubes at the ready, the Bunsen burners lit, the logarithm tables ready to hand, our chemicals arranged. First, we have to come up with a hypothesis. I put forward that the capitalist system is mankind's crowning achievement. (Great applause)<<

The more so, because you are really not very good at it, I'm afraid.

Here's a teensy clue, which no doubt you will overlook in your headlong rush to justify your fervent anti-capitalism:

Disagreeing with the answer does not mean the question is invalid.

But I can see that your hobby-horse is in mid-gallop, and doesn't intend to stop and listen. So all I can say is, enjoy the ride.

DG,

Making a ridiculous straw man argument only makes you look more pathetic.

Your failure to provide even one example of where a socialist society anywhere near what you propose has worked and your apoplexy at even being asked to do so indicates that your disconnection from reality is a sore point.

Capitalism is flawed, but works and has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. The quote that "capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for everything else" is particularly apt.

Squeers,

I suppose that every true socialist experiment has ending in tyranny is just a huge coincidence?

Squeers, I like the quote you used: 'Reflecting on Mathew Arnold’s essay, “Culture and Anarchy”, it is the “barbarians” who are most to be despised. As here, the philistines are merely their minions.'

The Americans are the world's greatest barbarians closely followed by the British and the French. Collectively, they lead the West towards ever greater killing and destruction.

Of course the Philistines, foolishly claiming they are thinkers, endorse the warmongering and greed of the barbarians because they are too dim-witted to realize that it will soon lead to nuclear war and human extinction.

It is fortunate that people like Eisenstein exist. He shines a light into the cerebral darkness that exists in the swamp-like minds of most humans, even some here on OLO.

Here's John Armstrong on "Barbarism".

"The word 'barbarism' has an unpromising, faintly idiotic origin. It was coined in Ancient Greece as a way of mocking those who did not belong to Hellenic culture and who did not speak one of the Greek dialects.....However, this smug provincial attitude was not as secure as it might seem. The 'barbarians' about whom the Greeks were most concerned were the Persians. The Persians were highly sophisticated, they had the same level of technology as the Greeks, they put large armies in the field and fleets on the seas, their kings had vast economic resources, greater than those of any of the Greek states. So despite its original mocking overtone, 'barbarian' was not a term that applied to people in a weak position......Building on this term, 'barbarism' developed a further, very useful, meaning in the second half of the nineteenth century. Now, it began to be clear, the barbarians were not so much people on the outside, as a powerful and important group within modern developed societies.

This was how Matthew Arnold employed the term: 'When I go through the country and see this and that beautiul and imposing seat of the aristocratic class crowning the landscape, "There," I say to myself, "is a great fortified post of the Barbarians."'

The Barbarians were certainly not people who lacked resources or power; they were healthy, vigorous, chivalrous; they were marked by 'courage, high spirits and self-confidence'; they prized health and good looks. What, one would wonder, can Arnold find to fault them on? In what sense are they Barbarians?

Well, this: their outward accomplishments and possessions - their great material prosperity - are not well directed. They do not serve a higher purpose than their own maintenance. In other words, barbarians have a very high degree of material prosperity but no corresponding spiritual prosperity...in fact lacking a crucial element of true civilization....."

(From 'In Search of Civilization')