Q&A with my readers. (1)

As you may have noticed, I’ve added an “ask a question” link to the header. I figured, if tumblr does it, it might not be a bad idea. Like most blog writers, I don’t always feel like I get a lot of feedback. It probably doesn’t help that I treat my readers so badly (but most of the people I ban are trolls, bigots or time-wasters anyway, so no skin off my nose). So without further ado, let me answer the first questions I’ve received.


Name: Jeffrey Kraus-yao
Comment: The claimed motivation of anti-abortion activists is the supposed sanctity of life. Another motivation might be their belief in the value of suffering.

That’s… not really a question, but okay. Let me quote the great late George Carlin on the issue of “sanctity of life”:

But you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear this phrase “sanctity of life”. You’ve heard that. Sanctity of life. You believe in it? Personally, I think it’s a bunch of shit. Well, I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other ‘cuz God told them it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the land, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead motherfuckers…

And you might have noticed something else. The sanctity of life doesn’t seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You rarely see a bumper sticker that says “Save the tumors.”. Or “I brake for advanced melanoma.”. No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, E. Coli bacteria, the crabs. Nothing sacred about those things. So at best the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!


Name: travis
Comment: Hi,
I was wondering what’s your view on primitivism? I’ve found Godesky’s* thirty theses very compelling, but I’m not that experienced in anarchist theory.



Thank you for your question travis, but I have to say my knowledge of primitivism is very limited. It’s just not an area I’ve ever had particular interest in. I understand the basic argument and sympathize with it to an extent. You can point to any feature of “progress” and construct an argument that it’s the source of all our problems, from language to nuclear energy.

That being said, I have issues with this site you’ve linked. The first point there is extremely important:

“Diversity is the primary good.”

Designating any concept as the “primary good” is a huge claim, and it seems to me absurd on the face of it. Even if just thinking about ethics, “diversity” wouldn’t even enter the picture for me. I would rather look to things like equality or freedom, or perhaps more pragmatic considerations like well-being or self-fulfillment or things like that. But diversity? Is a hypothetical group that is completely homogenous ethically evil? I don’t get it.

Anyhow, the crux of the argument justifying this principle seems to be that evolution and cosmology are geared to generate diversity, therefore we need to foster diversity in human groups. This seems to me like metaphor run wild. First, it is not true that evolution and cosmology are driving towards diversity. This is an illusion derived from the fact that both evolution and cosmology start with situations of low complexity, and that therefore subsequent states appear to be driven by increased complexity. But like complexity, diversity is a by-product of evolution and cosmology, not its drive. This is bad metaphor and bad science.

I am not saying that I necessarily disagree with this web site. Looking over the points, I would say I agree with almost all of them, especially point 11: “Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil.” There seems to be a great deal of good in here and I may write it about some more in the future.


Name: Daniel
Comment: To cut a long story short –

I’m a 19 year old male, from London and I was in a relationship with a 15 year old female.

We had a few sexual encounters and conversations; and as a result of an argument, she reported me to the Police and now i am on bail awaiting prosecution.

I have depression, and realistic view of reality which is the product of a vigorous learning curve over recent years – namely inspired by your blogs, and the renowned works of philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and others.

So why am I messaging you? I don’t know what to think or do anymore . . .

I am a firm believer that we are all victims of circumstance – i didn’t chose to be born, i didn’t chose to have a heart beat, to experience hunger, to experience tiredness. I am a victim as much as the next man / woman.

Me and the mentioned girl had so many common interests, views, and social circumstances. We were a metaphorical extension of each other. And now, alas, I am being blamed for sexual offences. Which, despite the facts, are a product of of reality and not a product of my intrinsic volition.

So yeah, you can email me back, ignore me, whatever. I just thought i would message you.



What the actual fuck?


Anyway, thank you to everyone who sent in questions and I hope to do this again soon.

3 thoughts on “Q&A with my readers. (1)

  1. Miep March 1, 2014 at 09:57

    I agree entirely on “sanctity of life.” What this really means is “sanctity of human life” over all other forms. It’s crap.

    Diversity of species in a natural community makes for a more stable and resilient natural community. Diversity of genetic material in a species, the same. Tolerance of cultural diversity in humans ignores the vicious nature of some human cultural values. We’d be better off with less diversity in this department and better taboos.

  2. Brian L March 5, 2015 at 20:24

    Daniel mistook you for Saul Goodman, Francois. It happens. S’all good, man! Lol

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: