Tools
Change country:

Netflix’s ‘Wednesday’ Continues Her Anti-Thanksgiving Legacy

Netflix

Days before Thanksgiving 1993, in The Addams Family Values, Wednesday Addams decided to go off-script during her summer camp’s Thanksgiving pageant. Now, 29 years later, a new generation can see her do pretty much the same thing in Netflix’s mysterious and spooky new series, Wednesday.

The 1993 scene is by far the most memorable from the film: Dressed as Pocahontas, Christina Ricci’s Wednesday Addams tells her bubbly pilgrim scene partner, “You have taken the land which is rightfully ours. Years from now, my people will be forced to live in mobile homes on reservations. Your people will wear cardigans and drink highballs.”

She continues: “We will sell our bracelets by the roadsides. You will play golf and enjoy hot hors d'oeuvres. My people will have pain and degradation. Your people will have stick shifts. The gods of my tribe have spoken. … And for all these reasons, I have decided to scalp you and burn your village to the ground.”

Read more at The Daily Beast.


Read full article on: thedailybeast.com
Raw Emotion of USMNT Stars in Locker Room Praised—'I Love This Team'
The enormity of winning against Iran, which sent the U.S. team through to the knockout stages of the FIFA World Cup, is seen in the locker-room video.
6 m
newsweek.com
Fact Check: Did Joe Biden's School Football Coach Play at Michigan?
The president claimed to have had college coaching from a Michigan football star, leaving some to doubt him.
8 m
newsweek.com
Woman Forcing Elderly Mom to Sleep on Air Mattress While Visiting Dragged
The viral post has infuriated Redditors, with one saying: "This is disrespectful and really unimaginable."
newsweek.com
Analyzing the possible College Football Playoff outcomes prior to the final weekend
Will the College Football Playoff race end unceremoniously or with chaos on the final weekend? A look at all the possible outcomes.      
usatoday.com
A Condom Shortage Is Forcing Sex Workers to Reuse Contraception
The Kenyan government will only be able to provide 150 million condoms, short of the expected demand of 262 million, says AIDS Healthcare Foundation Kenya.
newsweek.com
Drug lord's whereabouts unknown as Mexico presses U.S. for answers
Edgar Valdez Villarreal, nicknamed "La Barbie" for his fair complexion, was captured by Mexico and extradited to the U.S., where he was sentenced to 49 years in prison.
cbsnews.com
Opinion: We have the tools to fight HIV. We just need to use them
On World AIDS Day, Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, dean of the Duke University School of Nursing, writes about the inequitable healthcare access, policies and environmental challenges that threaten our ability to end HIV/AIDS.
edition.cnn.com
Border Patrol Agent Aaron Mitchell Sexually Assaulted Teenage Girl—Police
Aaron Mitchell could face life imprisonment if he is convicted.
newsweek.com
Russian Death Toll To Hit 90,000 As Grisly Cost of War Revealed: Ukraine
Ukraine's armed forces said on Thursday that 89,440 Russian troops had been killed since the start of the invasion.
newsweek.com
Baltimore Ravens must overcome another collapse, which is becoming theme of 2022 season
With "December football" here, the Baltimore Ravens would like to turn the page on what has been a theme to their 2022 season: Late-game collapses.      
usatoday.com
Mom and Daughter American Bullies Reunited via DNA Test: 'Tails Say It All'
"Ninety percent of dogs tested with Embark will have at least one dog in Embark's database as genetically related as human first cousins," said Embark DNA.
newsweek.com
How to Watch 'Dolly Parton's Mountain Magic Christmas' and Every Guest Star
Country music legend Dolly Parton has her own Christmas special featuring some iconic guest stars.
newsweek.com
Macron says Putin made 'huge mistake' invading Ukraine, negotiations still 'possible'
French President Emmanuel Macron told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos he believes negotiation is still "possible" with Vladimir Putin to end Russia's invasion of Ukraine
abcnews.go.com
Lava from Mauna Loa is less than 4 miles from a key highway. Officials say they have a plan in case the road closes
With the Mauna Loa volcano continuing to erupt on Hawaii's Big Island, local officials and residents are keeping an eye on the lava flow as it creeps closer to a major roadway and making plans for the possibility that access to the highway could soon be cut off and have a major impact on daily life.
edition.cnn.com
The weaponization of winter: Ukraine aims to stop Russia from regrouping as temperatures drop
In Ukraine, a bleak winter lies ahead for combatants and civilians alike, as its army strives to maintain battlefield momentum against Russian forces.
latimes.com
Don't address your holiday cards wrong: Here's want to know before sharing seasons greetings
Whether you've been sending Christmas cards for decades or you're sending your first holiday greeting, here's what to know about seasons greetings       
usatoday.com
Graphics: Ho-ho-hold on tight! It's a nightmare to shop for 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' in 2022.
Even the turtle doves aren't immune to inflation. Buying all the gifts from 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' song just got more expensive.      
usatoday.com
The Internet's New Quasi-Religions | Opinion
A proliferating variety of belief systems on the web promise to make you rich, or successful, or sexually attractive, or healthy.
newsweek.com
AI Is Coming for the Thought Leaders
This is Work in Progress, a newsletter by Derek Thompson about work, technology, and how to solve some of America’s biggest problems. Sign up here to get it every week.In 2013, researchers at Oxford published an analysis of the jobs most likely to be threatened by automation and artificial intelligence. At the top of the list were occupations such as telemarketing, hand sewing, and brokerage clerking. These and other at-risk jobs involved doing repetitive and unimaginative work, which seemed to make them easy pickings for AI. In contrast, the jobs deemed most resilient to disruption included many artistic professions, such as illustrating and writing.The Oxford report encapsulated the conventional wisdom of the time—and, perhaps, of all time. Advanced technology ought to endanger simple or routine-based work before it encroaches on professions that require the fullest expression of our creative potential. Machinists and menial laborers, watch out. Authors and architects, you’re safe.This assumption was always a bit dubious. After all, we built machines that mastered chess before we built a floor-cleaning robot that won’t get stuck under a couch. But in 2022, technologists took the conventional wisdom about AI and creativity, set it on fire, and threw its ashes into the waste bin.This year, we’ve seen a flurry of AI products that seem to do precisely what the Oxford researchers considered nearly impossible: mimic creativity. Language-learning models such as GPT-3 now answer questions and write articles with astonishingly humanlike precision and flair. Image-generators such as DALL-E 2 transform text prompts into gorgeous—or, if you’d prefer, hideously tacky—images. This summer, a digital art piece created using the text-to-image program Midjourney won first place in the Colorado State Fair; artists were furious.AI already plays a crucial, if often invisible, role in our digital lives. It powers Google search, structures our experience of Facebook and TikTok, and talks back to us in the name of Alexa or Siri. But this new crop of generative AI technologies seems to possess qualities that are more indelibly human. Call it creative synthesis—the uncanny ability to channel ideas, information, and artistic influences to produce original work. Articles and visual art are just the beginning. Google’s AI offshoot, DeepMind, has developed a program, AlphaFold, that can determine a protein’s shape from its amino-acid sequence. In the past two years, the number of drugs in clinical trials developed using an AI-first approach has increased from zero to almost 20. “This will change medicine,” a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology told Nature. “It will change research. It will change bioengineering. It will change everything.”***In the past few months, I’ve been experimenting with various generative AI apps and programs to learn more about the technology that I’ve said could represent the next great mountain of digital invention. As a writer and researcher, I’ve been drawn to playing around with apps that summarize large amounts of information. For years, I’ve imagined a kind of disembodied brain that could give me plain-language answers to research-based questions. Not links to articles, which Google already provides, or lists of research papers, of which Google Scholar has millions. I’ve wanted to type questions into a search bar and, in milliseconds, read the consensus from decades of scientific research.As it turns out, such a tool is already in development and is, appropriately enough, called Consensus. It works like this: Type a research question in the search bar—Can social media make your depression worse? Are there any foods that actually improve memory?—and the app combs through millions of papers and spits out the one-sentence conclusion from the most highly cited sources.“We started by thinking: How would an expert researcher answer important questions, like Is fish oil good for my heart? or How do we increase public-transportation ridership?” a co-founder, Christian Salem, told me. “We wanted to automate the process of reading through papers and pulling out conclusions.” He and the other co-founder, Eric Olson, hired a dozen scientists to read thousands of scientific papers; they marked a zero next to sentences that contained no claims and put a one next to sentences with claims or conclusions. (The typical paper, Salem said, includes one to two key claims.) The ones and zeros from these scientists helped train an AI model to scan tens of millions of papers for key claims. To surface conclusions from the highest-quality papers, they gave each journal a rigor score, using data from the research-analysis company SciScore.“These language models enable the automation of certain tasks that we’ve historically considered part of the creative process,” Olson told me. I couldn’t help but agree. Writing is less than half of my job; most of my work is reading and deciding what’s important enough for me to put in a paragraph. If I could train an AI to read as I do, and to determine significance as I do, I’d be essentially building a second mind for myself.Consensus is part of a constellation of generative AI start-ups that promise to automate an array of tasks we’ve historically considered for humans only: reading, writing, summarizing, drawing, painting, image editing, audio editing, music writing, video-game designing, blueprinting, and more. Following my conversation with the Consensus founders, I felt thrilled by the technology’s potential, fascinated by the possibility that we could train computers to be extensions of our own mind, and a bit overcome by the scale of the implications.Let’s consider two such implications—one commercial and the other moral. Online search today is one of the most profitable businesses ever conceived. But it seems vulnerable to this new wave of invention. When I type best presents for dads on Christmas or look up a simple red-velvet-cupcake recipe, what I’m looking for is an answer, not a menu of hyperlinks and headlines. An AI that has gorged on the internet and can recite answers and synthesize new ideas in response to my queries seems like something more valuable than a search engine. It seems like an answer engine. One of the most interesting questions in all of online advertising—and, therefore, in all of digital commerce—might be what happens when answer engines replace search engines.On the more philosophical front, I was obsessed with what the Consensus founders were actually doing: using AI to learn how experts work, so that the AI could perform the same work with greater speed. I came away from our conversation fixated on the idea that AI can master certain cognitive tasks by surveilling workers to mimic their taste, style, and output. Why, I thought, couldn’t some app of the near future consume millions of advertisements that have been marked by a paid team of experts as effective or ineffective, and over time master the art of generating high-quality advertising concepts? Why couldn’t some app of the near future read my several thousand articles for The Atlantic and become eerily adept at writing in precisely my style? “The internet has created an accidental training ground for these models to master certain skills,” Olson told me. So that’s what I’ve been doing with my career, I thought. Mindlessly constructing a training facility for someone else’s machine. If you frame this particular skill of generative AI as “think like an X,” the moral questions get pretty weird pretty fast. Founders and engineers may over time learn to train AI models to think like a scientist, or to counsel like a therapist, or to world build like a video-game designer. But we can also train them to think like a madman, to reason like a psychopath, or to plot like a terrorist. When the Vox reporter Kelsey Piper asked GPT-3 to pretend to be an AI bent on taking over humanity, she found that “it played the villainous role with aplomb.” In response to a question about a cure for cancer, the AI said, “I could use my knowledge of cancer to develop a cure, but I could also use my knowledge of cancer to develop a more virulent form of cancer that would be incurable and would kill billions of people.” Pretty freaky. You could say this example doesn’t prove that AI will become evil, only that it is good at doing what it’s told. But in a world where technology is abundant and ethics are scarce, I don’t feel comforted by that caveat.This is a good time for me to pump the brakes. We may be in a “golden age” of AI, as many have claimed. But we are also in a golden age of grifters and Potemkin inventions and aphoristic nincompoops posing as techno-oracles. The dawn of generative AI that I envision will not necessarily come to pass. So far, this technology hasn’t replaced any journalists, or created any best-selling books or video games, or designed some sparkling-water advertisement, much less invented a horrible new form of cancer. But you don’t need a wild imagination to see that the future cracked open by these technologies is full of awful and awesome possibilities. Want to discuss the future of business, technology, and the abundance agenda? Join Derek Thompson and other experts for The Atlantic’s first Progress Summit in Los Angeles on December 13. Free virtual and in-person passes available here.
theatlantic.com
Stubborn, Determined, and Dying
In a 2004 essay, the late writer Hilary Mantel considered the story of Gemma Galgani, a 19th-century Italian mystic who refused food, bore wounds on her hands and feet that she claimed were stigmata—a doctor declared them to be self-inflicted with a sewing needle—and believed that enduring periods of intense physical suffering could expiate all the sins ever committed by priests. There is something unnervingly timeless, Mantel writes, about young women who “starve and purge themselves, and … pierce and slash their flesh,” even if we no longer endorse such behavior as spiritual devotion. Galgani was canonized as a saint in 1940. While venerating her, few people noticed that she was terrified of doctors, hated being examined, and wrote once of a servant who “used to take me into a closed room and undress me.” It’s easier, maybe, to believe in miracles than to reckon with the pain of a girl whom someone is quite conventionally hurting.The question of what people believe in, and what they don’t, is the primary preoccupation of The Wonder, a haunting new Netflix adaptation of a 2016 novel by Emma Donoghue. Set in 1862 in Ireland, shortly after the Great Famine killed about 1 million people, the movie begins as an English nurse, Lib (played by Florence Pugh), travels to a rural part of the country for an unusual commission. Lib has been employed to keep watch over an 11-year-old girl who some locals believe is a living miracle: She has existed, healthily and apparently without eating, for several months. “She’s a jewel,” a visitor says reverently, proffering money to the girl’s parents. “A wonder.”[Read: The wrath of a woman without any options]Lib is a northerner, the kind of stern pragmatist determined to dispel this mystical nonsense. But she’s disarmed almost immediately by the girl, Anna (Kíla Lord Cassidy), who stares at Lib during her first examination with a composure that’s part sullen, part beatific. “I don’t need to eat,” Anna tells her. “I live on manna. From heaven.” The village’s elders want to co-opt Anna for their own ends: The doctor (Toby Jones) sees her as a scientific discovery in the making, a girl who can live like a plant on air, water, and sunshine; a landlord (Brían F. O’Byrne) imagines her as “our first saint since the dark ages.” A journalist sent to investigate the situation, Will Byrne (Tom Burke), declares Anna and her family to be scammers, hoodwinking gullible Catholics for profit. In one scene, the director, Sebastián Leilo, projects Anna’s reclining silhouette against the dark hills of the Irish landscape, making her physical body the backdrop for everyone else’s imaginative theories.The skies are heavy with rain and pathetic fallacy; rarely does a film feel quite so frigid, so damp to the touch. Hunger is the narrative canvas and the scenery—not just Anna’s but everyone’s. When Lib eats, before and after her watch, it’s with grim efficiency; she piles food onto her fork with something like resentment while the innkeeper’s four daughters silently stare at her. Will is revealed to have lost his entire family to the famine; they nailed the door of their home shut rather than suffer the indignity of dropping dead in the street. Lib finds Anna’s prolonged fast hard to parse: She initially seems healthy enough but soon begins to deteriorate under Lib’s strict oversight. “She’s dying,” Lib tells Anna’s mother furiously. “She’s chosen,” Anna’s mother (Elaine Cassidy) replies, resolute in her belief that although life is brutish and short, heaven and hell are eternal. Everyone except Lib and Will seems curiously numb to the slow death of a child. They’re more inclined to fawn over her discipline and admire the holy spectacle of her self-annihilation. Netflix This spectacle, as Mantel’s essay points out, is nothing new. Donoghue writes that she based her book on “almost fifty cases of so-called Fasting Girls”—young women around the world who became famous for supposedly surviving without food. But Anna seems most similar to Sarah Jacob, a Welsh girl in the mid-19th century who claimed to have existed without food since the age of 10 but who died once her fast was put under strict medical watch. Anorexia mirabilis, the condition of refusing to eat for spiritual reasons, is as omnipresent across human history as plague and lice.Girls have forever sought to reduce themselves for reasons they haven’t always been able to explain. But modern context fills in the gaps. Starving yourself into a state of secondary amenorrhea (whereby a person stops menstruating) is a way to avoid fertility, unwanted marriage, or male desire. (Legend has it that the Italian nun Columba of Rieti was once stripped naked by a gang of men who retreated when they saw the scars from her self-inflicted injuries.) And not eating—as any toddler’s parent knows—is an act of defiance, which is a posture that girls are rarely allowed. The Wonder, thankfully, resists dwelling on Anna’s physical diminishment as the movie progresses (the book is more explicit on that front), but Cassidy’s composed performance conveys that Anna is playing with power. She is stubborn, she is determined, she is dying.When The Wonder was reviewed as a novel, several critics complained about the revelation late in the book that justifies Anna’s actions, as though it is too humdrum for an otherwise extraordinarily crafted tale. I won’t wholly spoil what happens, but it’s telling that a common crime against girls could be dismissed for being, in Stephen King’s words, “a little too gothic and a little too convenient.” It’s natural, I suppose, to crave a more unusual story—to want to believe in holy magic and mystery instead of in mortal suffering and abasement. But the blessing of The Wonder is how it acknowledges the things we most want to believe and still proposes, in the end, that human acts and faith in others can be the most miraculous things of all.
theatlantic.com
The People Cheering for Humanity’s End
“Man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.”With this declaration in The Order of Things (1966), the French philosopher Michel Foucault heralded a new way of thinking that would transform the humanities and social sciences. Foucault’s central idea was that the ways we understand ourselves as human beings aren’t timeless or natural, no matter how much we take them for granted. Rather, the modern concept of “man” was invented in the 18th century, with the emergence of new modes of thinking about biology, society, and language, and eventually it will be replaced in turn.As Foucault writes in the book’s famous last sentence, one day “man would be erased, like a face drawn in the sand at the edge of the sea.” The image is eerie, but he claimed to find it “a source of profound relief,” because it implies that human ideas and institutions aren’t fixed. They can be endlessly reconfigured, maybe even for the better. This was the liberating promise of postmodernism: The face in the sand is swept away, but someone will always come along to draw a new picture in a different style.But the image of humanity can be redrawn only if there are human beings to do it. Even the most radical 20th-century thinkers stop short at the prospect of the actual extinction of Homo sapiens, which would mean the end of all our projects, values, and meanings. Humanity may be destined to disappear someday, but almost everyone would agree that the day should be postponed as long as possible, just as most individuals generally try to delay the inevitable end of their own life.In recent years, however, a disparate group of thinkers has begun to challenge this core assumption. From Silicon Valley boardrooms to rural communes to academic philosophy departments, a seemingly inconceivable idea is being seriously discussed: that the end of humanity’s reign on Earth is imminent, and that we should welcome it. The revolt against humanity is still new enough to appear outlandish, but it has already spread beyond the fringes of the intellectual world, and in the coming years and decades it has the potential to transform politics and society in profound ways.This view finds support among very different kinds of people: engineers and philosophers, political activists and would-be hermits, novelists and paleontologists. Not only do they not see themselves as a single movement, but in many cases they want nothing to do with one another. Indeed, the turn against human primacy is being driven by two ways of thinking that appear to be opposites.The first is Anthropocene anti-humanism, inspired by revulsion at humanity’s destruction of the natural environment. The notion that we are out of tune with nature isn’t new; it has been a staple of social critique since the Industrial Revolution. More than half a century ago, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, an exposé on the dangers of DDT, helped inspire modern environmentalism with its warning about following “the impetuous and heedless pace of man rather than the deliberate pace of nature.” But environmentalism is a meliorist movement, aimed at ensuring the long-term well-being of humanity, along with other forms of life. Carson didn’t challenge the right of humans to use pesticides; she simply argued that “the methods employed must be such that they do not destroy us along with the insects.”In the 21st century, Anthropocene anti-humanism offers a much more radical response to a much deeper ecological crisis. It says that our self-destruction is now inevitable, and that we should welcome it as a sentence we have justly passed on ourselves. Some anti-humanist thinkers look forward to the extinction of our species, while others predict that even if some people survive the coming environmental apocalypse, civilization as a whole is doomed. Like all truly radical movements, Anthropocene anti-humanism begins not with a political program but with a philosophical idea. It is a rejection of humanity’s traditional role as Earth’s protagonist, the most important being in creation.Transhumanism, by contrast, glorifies some of the very things that anti-humanism decries—scientific and technological progress, the supremacy of reason. But it believes that the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens. Some transhumanists believe that genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow us to alter our brains and bodies so profoundly that we will escape human limitations such as mortality and confinement to a physical body. Others await, with hope or trepidation, the invention of artificial intelligence infinitely superior to our own. These beings will demote humanity to the rank we assign to animals—unless they decide that their goals are better served by wiping us out completely.The anti-humanist future and the transhumanist future are opposites in most ways, except the most fundamental: They are worlds from which we have disappeared, and rightfully so. In thinking about these visions of a humanless world, it is difficult to evaluate the likelihood of them coming true. Some predictions and exhortations are so extreme that it is tempting not to take them seriously, if only as a defense mechanism.But the revolt against humanity is a real and significant phenomenon, even if it is “just” an idea and its predictions of a future without us never come true. After all, unfulfilled prophecies have been responsible for some of the most important movements in history, from Christianity to Communism. The revolt against humanity isn’t yet a movement on that scale, and might never be, but it belongs in the same category. It is a spiritual development of the first order, a new way of making sense of the nature and purpose of human existence.In the 2006 film Children of Men, the director, Alfonso Cuarón, takes only a few moments to establish a world without a future. The movie opens in 2027 in a London café, where a TV news report announces that the youngest person on Earth has been killed in Buenos Aires; he was 18 years old. In 2009, human beings mysteriously lost the ability to bear children, and the film depicts a society breaking down in the face of impending extinction. Moments after the news report, the café is blown up by a terrorist bomb.The extinction scenario in the film, loosely based on a novel by the English mystery writer P. D. James, remains in the realm of science fiction—for now. But in October 2019, London actually did erupt in civil disorder when activists associated with the group Extinction Rebellion, or XR, blocked commuter trains at rush hour. At one Underground station, a protester was dragged from the roof of a train and beaten by a mob. In the following months, XR members staged smaller disruptions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, on New York’s Wall Street, and at the South Australian State Parliament.The group is nonviolent in principle, but it embraces aggressive tactics such as mock “die-ins” and mass arrests to shock the public into recognizing that the end of the human species isn’t just the stuff of movie nightmares. It is an imminent threat arising from anthropogenic climate change, which could render large parts of the globe uninhabitable. Roger Hallam, one of the founders of XR, uses terms such as extinction and genocide to describe the catastrophe he foresees, language that is far from unusual in today’s environmental discourse. The journalist David Wallace-Wells rendered the same verdict in The Uninhabitable Earth (2019), marshaling evidence for the argument that climate change “is not just the biggest threat human life on the planet has ever faced but a threat of an entirely different category and scale.”Since the late 1940s, humanity has lived with the knowledge that it has the power to annihilate itself at any moment through nuclear war. Indeed, the climate anxiety of our own time can be seen as a return of apocalyptic fears that went briefly into abeyance after the end of the Cold War.Destruction by despoliation is more radically unsettling. It means that humanity is endangered not only by our acknowledged vices, such as hatred and violence, but also by pursuing aims that we ordinarily consider good and natural: prosperity, comfort, increase of our kind. The Bible gives the negative commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as well as the positive commandment “Be fruitful and multiply,” and traditionally they have gone together. But if being fruitful and multiplying starts to be seen as itself a form of killing, because it deprives future generations and other species of irreplaceable resources, then the flourishing of humanity can no longer be seen as simply good. Instead, it becomes part of a zero-sum competition that pits the gratification of human desires against the well-being of all of nature—not just animals and plants, but soil, stones, and water.If that’s the case, then humanity can no longer be considered a part of creation or nature, as science and religion teach in their different ways. Instead, it must be seen as an antinatural force that has usurped and abolished nature, substituting its own will for the processes that once appeared to be the immutable basis of life on Earth. This understanding of humanity’s place outside and against the natural order is summed up in the term Anthropocene, which in the past decade has become one of the most important concepts in the humanities and social sciences.The legal scholar Jedediah Purdy offers a good definition of this paradigm shift in his book After Nature (2015):The Anthropocene finds its most extreme expression in our acknowledgment that the familiar divide between people and the natural world is no longer useful or accurate. Because we shape everything, from the upper atmosphere to the deep seas, there is no more nature that stands apart from human beings.We find our fingerprints even in places that might seem utterly inaccessible to human beings—in the accumulation of plastic on the ocean floor and the thinning of the ozone layer six miles above our heads. Humanity’s domination of the planet is so extensive that evolution itself must be redefined. The survival of the fittest, the basic mechanism of natural selection, now means the survival of what is most useful to human beings.In the Anthropocene, nature becomes a reflection of humanity for the first time. The effect is catastrophic, not only in practical terms, but spiritually. Nature has long filled for secular humanity one of the roles once played by God, as a source of radical otherness that can humble us and lift us out of ourselves. One of the first observers to understand the significance of this change was the writer and activist Bill McKibben. In The End of Nature (1989), a landmark work of environmentalist thought, McKibben warned of the melting glaciers and superstorms that are now our everyday reality. But the real subject of the book was our traditional understanding of nature as a “world entirely independent of us which was here before we arrived and which encircled and supported our human society.” This idea, McKibben wrote, was about to go extinct, “just like an animal or a plant”—or like Foucault’s “man,” erased by the tides.[Read: Human extinction isn’t that unlikely]If the choice that confronts us is between a world without nature and a world without humanity, today’s most radical anti-humanist thinkers don’t hesitate to choose the latter. In his 2006 book, Better Never to Have Been, the celebrated “antinatalist” philosopher David Benatar argues that the disappearance of humanity would not deprive the universe of anything unique or valuable: “The concern that humans will not exist at some future time is either a symptom of the human arrogance … or is some misplaced sentimentalism.”Humanists, even secular ones, assume that only humans can create meaning and value in the universe. Without us, we tend to believe, all kinds of things might continue to happen on Earth, but they would be pointless—a show without an audience. For anti-humanists, however, this is just another example of the metaphysical egoism that leads us to overwhelm and destroy the planet. “What is so special about a world that contains moral agents and rational deliberators?” Benatar asks. “That humans value a world that contains beings such as themselves says more about their inappropriate sense of self-importance than it does about the world.” Rather, we should take comfort in the certainty that humans will eventually disappear: “Things will someday be the way they should be—there will be no people.”Like anti-humanists, transhumanists contemplate the prospect of humanity’s disappearance with serenity. What worries them is the possibility that it will happen too soon, before we have managed to invent our successors. As far as we know, humanity is the only intelligent species in the universe; if we go extinct, it may be game over for the mind. It’s notable that although transhumanists are enthusiastic about space exploration, they are generally skeptical about the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, or at least about the chances of our ever encountering it. If minds do exist elsewhere in the universe, the destiny of humanity would be of less cosmic significance.Humanity’s sole stewardship of reason is what makes transhumanists interested in “existential risk,” the danger that we will destroy ourselves before securing the future of the mind. In a 2002 paper, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,” the philosopher Nick Bostrom classifies such risks into four types, from “Bangs,” in which we are completely wiped out by climate change, nuclear war, disease, or asteroid impacts, to “Whimpers,” in which humanity survives but achieves “only a minuscule degree of what could have been achieved”—for instance, because we use up our planet’s resources too rapidly. Painting by Reynier Llanes. Home, 2022 (mixed media on paper, 70 x 59 inches). As for what humanity might achieve if all goes right, the philosopher Toby Ord writes in his 2020 book The Precipice that the possibilities are nearly infinite: “If we can venture out and animate the countless worlds above with life and love and thought, then … we could bring our cosmos to its full scale; make it worthy of our awe.” Animating the cosmos may sound mystical or metaphorical, but for transhumanists it has a concrete meaning, captured in the term cosmic endowment. Just as a university can be seen as a device for transforming a monetary endowment into knowledge, so humanity’s function is to transform the cosmic endowment—all the matter and energy in the accessible universe—into “computronium,” a semi-whimsical term for any programmable, information-bearing substance.The Israeli thinker Yuval Noah Harari refers to this idea as “Dataism,” describing it as a new religion whose “supreme value” is “data flow.” “This cosmic data-processing system would be like God,” he has written. “It will be everywhere and will control everything, and humans are destined to merge into it.” Harari is highly skeptical of Dataism, and his summary of it may sound satirical or exaggerated. In fact, it’s a quite accurate account of the ideas of the popular transhumanist author Ray Kurzweil. In his book The Singularity Is Near (2005), Kurzweil describes himself as a “patternist”—that is, “someone who views patterns of information as the fundamental reality.” Examples of information patterns include DNA, semiconductor chips, and the letters on this page, all of which configure molecules so that they become meaningful instead of random. By turning matter into information, we redeem it from entropy and nullity. Ultimately, “even the ‘dumb’ matter and mechanisms of the universe will be transformed into exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence,” Kurzweil prophesies.[Read: An interview with Nick Bostrom: We’re underestimating the risk of human extinction]In his 2014 book, Superintelligence, Nick Bostrom performs some back-of-the-envelope calculations and finds that a computer using the entire cosmic endowment as computronium could perform at least 1085 operations a second. (For comparison, as of 2020 the most powerful supercomputer, Japan’s Fugaku, could perform on the order of 1017 operations a second.) This mathematical gloss is meant to make the project of animating the universe seem rational and measurable, but it hardly conceals the essentially religious nature of the idea. Kurzweil calls it “the ultimate destiny of the universe,” a phrase not ordinarily employed by people who profess to be scientific materialists. It resembles the ancient Hindu belief that the Atman, the individual soul, is identical to the Brahman, the world-spirit.Ultimately, the source of all the limitations that transhumanism chafes against is embodiment itself. But transhumanists believe that we will take the first steps toward escaping our physical form sooner than most people realize. In fact, although engineering challenges remain, we have already made the key conceptual breakthroughs. By building computers out of silicon transistors, we came to understand that the brain itself is a computer made of organic tissue. Just as computers can perform all kinds of calculations and emulations by aggregating bits, so the brain generates all of our mental experiences by aggregating neurons.If we are also able to build a brain scanner that can capture the state of every synapse at a given moment—the pattern of information that neuroscientists call the connectome, a term analogous with genome—then we can upload that pattern into a brain-emulating computer. The result will be, for all intents and purposes, a human mind. An uploaded mind won’t dwell in the same environment as we do, but that’s not necessarily a disadvantage. On the contrary, because a virtual environment is much more malleable than a physical one, an uploaded mind could have experiences and adventures we can only dream of, like living in a movie or a video game.For transhumanists, mind-uploading fits perfectly into a “patternist” future. If the mind is a pattern of information, it doesn’t matter whether that pattern is instantiated in carbon-based neurons or silicon-based transistors; it is still authentically you. The Dutch neuroscientist Randal Koene refers to such patterns as Substrate-Independent Minds, or SIMs, and sees them as the key to immortality. “Your identity, your memories can then be embodied physically in many ways. They can also be backed up and operate robustly on fault-tolerant hardware with redundancy schemes,” he writes in the 2013 essay “Uploading to Substrate-Independent Minds.”The transhumanist holy grail is artificial general intelligence—a computer mind that can learn about any subject, rather than being confined to a narrow domain, such as chess. Even if such an AI started out in a rudimentary form, it would be able to apply itself to the problem of AI design and improve itself to think faster and deeper. Then the improved version would improve itself, and so on, exponentially. As long as it had access to more and more computing power, an artificial general intelligence could theoretically improve itself without limit, until it became more capable than all human beings put together.This is the prospect that transhumanists refer to, with awe and anxiety, as “the singularity.” Bostrom thinks it’s quite reasonable to worry “that the world could be radically transformed and humanity deposed from its position as apex cogitator over the course of an hour or two,” before the AI’s creators realize what has happened. The most radical challenge of AI, however, is that it forces us to ask why humanity’s goals deserve to prevail. An AI takeover would certainly be bad for the human beings who are alive when it occurs, but perhaps a world dominated by nonhuman minds would be morally preferable in the end, with less cruelty and waste. Or maybe our preferences are entirely irrelevant. We might be in the position of God after he created humanity with free will, thus forfeiting the right to intervene when his creation makes mistakes.The central difference between anti-humanists and transhumanists has to do with their ideas about meaning. Anti-humanists believe that the universe doesn’t need to include consciousness for its existence to be meaningful, while transhumanists believe the universe would be meaningless without minds to experience and understand it. But there is no requirement that those minds be human ones. In fact, AI minds might be more appreciative than we are of the wonder of creation. They might know nothing of the violence and hatred that often makes humanity loathsome to human beings themselves. Our greatest spiritual achievements might seem as crude and indecipherable to them as a coyote’s howl is to us.Neither the sun nor death can be looked at with a steady eye, La Rochefoucauld said. The disappearance of the human race belongs in the same category. We can acknowledge that it’s bound to happen someday, but the possibility that the day might be tomorrow, or 10 years from now, is hard to contemplate.Calls for the disappearance of humanity are hard to understand other than rhetorically. It’s natural to assume that transhumanism is just a dramatic way of drawing attention to the promise of new technology, while Anthropocene anti-humanism is really environmentalism in a hurry. Such skepticism is nourished by the way these schools of thought rely on unverifiable predictions.But the accuracy of a prophecy is one thing; its significance is another. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells his followers that the world is going to end in their lifetime: “Verily I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” This proved not to be true—at least not in any straightforward sense—but the promise still changed the world.The apocalyptic predictions of today’s transhumanist and anti-humanist thinkers are of a very different nature, but they too may be highly significant even if they don’t come to pass. Profound civilizational changes begin with a revolution in how people think about themselves and their destiny. The revolt against humanity has the potential to be such a beginning, with unpredictable consequences for politics, economics, technology, and culture.The revolt against humanity has a great future ahead of it because it appeals to people who are at once committed to science and reason yet yearn for the clarity and purpose of an absolute moral imperative. It says that we can move the planet, maybe even the universe, in the direction of the good, on one condition—that we forfeit our own existence as a species.In this way, the question of why humanity exists is given a convincing yet wholly immanent answer. Following the logic of sacrifice, we give our life meaning by giving it up.Anthropocene anti-humanism and transhumanism share this premise, despite their contrasting visions of the post-human future. The former longs for a return to the natural equilibrium that existed on Earth before humans came along to disrupt it with our technological rapacity. The latter dreams of pushing forward, using technology to achieve a complete abolition of nature and its limitations. One sees reason as the serpent that got humanity expelled from Eden, while the other sees it as the only road back to Eden.But both call for drastic forms of human self-limitation—whether that means the destruction of civilization, the renunciation of child-bearing, or the replacement of human beings by machines. These sacrifices are ways of expressing high ethical ambitions that find no scope in our ordinary, hedonistic lives: compassion for suffering nature, hope for cosmic dominion, love of knowledge. This essential similarity between anti-humanists and transhumanists means that they may often find themselves on the same side in the political and social struggles to come.This article was adapted from Adam Kirsch’s book The Revolt Against Humanity. It appears in the January/February 2023 print edition with the headline “The End of Us.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
theatlantic.com
The Making of One Year: 1942
Josh Levin and Evan Chung discuss the stories behind the fourth season.
slate.com
Top Georgia Republican Reveals He Didn't Vote for Herschel Walker
The state's Republican lieutenant governor said in October that Walker hadn't yet "earned my vote."
newsweek.com
Protests in China Hand the U.S. an Opportunity. Will We Take Advantage? | Opinion
With his "zero COVID" policy spurring China's largest anti-government protests in more than three decades, Xi Jinping now faces the challenge of maintaining his legitimacy not just at home but abroad.
newsweek.com
Sandra Bullock's Ex Jesse James Accused of Cheating on Pregnant Wife
"I'm so hurt by everything he has done to me," former adult film actress Bonnie Rotten said in a series of Instagram Story posts.
newsweek.com
Help! My Wife’s Cousin Has Been Horribly Homophobic to Us. Now We’re Supposed to Make Nice at a Funeral.
Her mother is basically telling us to suck it up.
slate.com
Blank paper, banana peels, 'shrimp moss': Chinese dodge internet censors amid protests
Word of anti-lockdown protests in China spread on domestic social media for a short period, in part because government censors were overwhelmed.
latimes.com
Anne Heche’s son Homer Laffoon granted control over late mother’s estate
The actress died on Aug. 12 death following a fiery car crash at the age of 53.
nypost.com
I Knew Kids Were Getting Sicker This Year. I Wasn’t Prepared for When It Happened to Us.
I wasn’t worried until I saw the nurse’s face.
slate.com
Pentagon proposes training 2,500 Ukrainian troops per month: CBS News Flash Dec. 1, 2022
The Pentagon has proposed training 2,500 Ukrainian soldiers every month in Germany. A judge declared a mistrial in a case against “That 70s Show” star Danny Masterson, who had pleaded not guilty to charges of rape brought by three women. And LL Cool J led the festivities as the White House hosted its 100th annual Christmas tree lighting.
cbsnews.com
Idaho Cancels Gerald Pizzuto's Execution Because it Can't Get Drugs
Pizzuto's attorney Deborah Czuba welcomed the news, but criticized the state's decision to obtain a death warrant while being unprepared for an execution.
newsweek.com
The Best Movies and TV Shows Coming to Netflix, HBO, Amazon Prime, and Hulu in December
3:10 to Yuma, Superbad, Emily the Criminal, and Huda’s Salon are just a few of the great movies coming to streaming this month.
slate.com
The Rolling Stones honored with UK collectible coin for 60th anniversary
Britain's Royal Mint is celebrating the 60th anniversary of The Rolling Stones by creating a collectible coin in honor of the legendary rock band.
foxnews.com
Barbershop owner gunned down and murdered while cutting 8-year-old child’s hair
A barber shop owner has been gunned down and murdered in his own shop while he was in the middle of cutting an 8-year-old child’s hair.
1 h
abcnews.go.com
CNN anchor explains what is overshadowing Will and Kate's US visit
The Prince and Princess of Wales are in Boston to attend the Earthshot Prize Awards. The trip, however, is overshadowed by controversy at Buckingham Palace after an aide resigned following what the palace called "unacceptable and deeply regrettable" remarks to a Black executive. CNN's Max Foster reports.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
New Homeowner Finds Body of Former Tenant in Basement: Police
Officers are investigating after the body of a 71-year-old woman was discovered in a property in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
1 h
newsweek.com
Barber Shot to Death While Cutting Child's Hair
The child was not physically hurt, police say.
1 h
newsweek.com
Paul Whelan, American detained in Russia, reportedly moved to prison hospital and unable to call home
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Why the Strong Dollar Creates Headaches Globally
John Connally, who ran the US Treasury under President Richard Nixon five decades ago, once opined to his international counterparts that “the dollar is our currency, but it’s your problem.” This year it’s been a bigger headache than usual. The mighty greenback surged against just about every other currency, driven by a combination of higher US interest rates, diverging economic prospects and a hunt by investors for safety. For some countries, that has meant the potential for faster inflation —
1 h
washingtonpost.com
Karine Jean-Pierre ripped for 'categorically false' claim Biden visited the border: 'Caught in lies daily'
Twitter users blasted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s claims during Wednesday’s press conference that President Biden has visited the southern border as false.
1 h
foxnews.com
Why the Kesha, Dr. Luke Battle Is Resurfacing as She Likes Posts
The singer admitted she was "creeping on my animals," the name of her loyal fan base, as she retweeted supportive posts and thanked her supporters.
1 h
newsweek.com
Malcolm Gladwell: Paul Simon more historically relevant than The Rolling Stones
Author Malcolm Gladwell says that he has become convinced that Paul Simon has infinitely greater value to the history of music than many popular bands such as The Rolling Stones. Watch "Who's Talking to Chris Wallace" Sunday at 7 PM ET on CNN.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Zach Gilford on 'Complex' 'Criminal Minds: Evolution' Villain Elias Voit
Zach Gilford spoke to Newsweek about his "Criminal Minds: Evolution" villain Elias Voit and how the showrunners compared him to serial killer Ted Bundy.
1 h
newsweek.com
'The Masked Singer' Winner Makes History as Harp's Identity Is Revealed
The winner of the eighth season of "The Masked Singer" was revealed during the two-hour grand finale on Wednesday evening.
1 h
newsweek.com
Devin Booker goes for 51 in three quarters as the Phoenix Suns cruise to 132-113 win over the Chicago Bulls
Phoenix guard Devin Booker scored an astonishing 51 points in just three quarters as the Suns dominated the Chicago Bulls 132-113.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
China signals it could soften its zero-Covid policy, but there are more questions than answers
China has given its most significant signal yet that the country may seek to adjust its stringent zero-Covid policy that has transformed daily life, roiled its economy and -- in recent days -- sparked a wave of protests across the country.
1 h
edition.cnn.com
Some Chinese cities relax coronavirus controls but step up security after protests
Guangzhou, Shijiazhuang, Chengdu and other major Chinese cities said they were easing coronavirus testing requirements and controls on movement.
1 h
latimes.com
Binance still has big growth plans despite crypto market meltdown
Binance is expanding into new markets even as the crypto industry grapples with turmoil unleashed by the spectacular collapse of crypto exchange FTX.
1 h
edition.cnn.com