anti-humanism – An advice column explores why people feel “disgust” at humanity, tracing it to history and offering steps rooted in compassion and action.
A wave of moral disgust is pushing some people to question what it means to be human—and whether there’s any place for them in a world they believe is harming the natural environment.
In a recent reader question published in an advice column. the writer described a feeling of being “disgusted” to be human.. The reader said they claim to value the natural world but feel unable to reconcile that belief with how human achievements. daily routines. and consumption. from entertainment to something as ordinary as coffee. appear to benefit only people while leaving other creatures behind.. What began as anger. they said. has shifted into something heavier: the sense that every human act is part of an extractive cycle that threatens the world that made life possible.
The column’s framework begins with the idea of value pluralism—the notion that people often hold multiple values that are equally legitimate but can collide in painful ways.. Against that backdrop. the reader framed their dilemma in stark terms: if the human species is sustaining its existence at the expense of the rest of nature. how can a person keep participating without feeling sickened by their own role?
The author argues that when someone spirals into hate for their own species, softer emotions are often underneath.. Disappointment. sadness. and fear about the future can be overwhelming. the writer said. and the mind may try to bypass vulnerability by jumping directly to loathing.. Standing in judgment over one’s own kind can feel like moral elevation. even if it offers little comfort and risks becoming its own trap.
The column places today’s feelings in a much longer history of “anti-humanism. ” describing recurring surges in different eras. often after large-scale crises.. The writer points to ancient and medieval religious stories in which disgust with humanity is projected upward onto the divine.. In those narratives. only a small number are saved—through an ark in a Mesopotamian version and through Noah’s family in the later biblical retelling—because humanity is portrayed as so bad that wiping the slate clean becomes the solution.
According to the account, that pattern has continued through time.. Anti-humanism. it says. reappears after catastrophes such as the bubonic plague in the 14th century. religious wars in the 17th century. and the atomic age in the 20th century.. Today. the column argues. the rise in anti-humanism is returning again amid what it describes as a human-driven climate crisis. especially among a vocal minority of environmental activists who welcome the end of destructive Homo sapiens.
The reader also referenced a specific movement described as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. which advocates stopping having children so humanity will fade out and the Earth can recover.. The column treats that idea as part of a broader emotional and philosophical turn: a belief that the presence of humans. rather than how humans behave. is the core problem.
But the author suggests that the reader’s target may be narrower than they think.. Humans, the column says, are not outside nature.. The issue may instead be a particular way of relating to the world—one the author characterizes as highly extractive—that some people promoted at a particular historical moment and that still shapes modern life.
The column traces that shift to a philosophical tradition described as Western and dualistic: the idea that humans can be separate from nature and that the natural world can be treated as an object to be exploited for human gain rather than approached with respect.. It links this thinking to 17th-century figures such as Descartes. who argued the soul is distinct from matter and only humans have souls. and Francis Bacon. who helped formalize the scientific method.
Before that turn. the author says. many spiritual and philosophical traditions around the world did not treat living things—and in some cases even natural features like rivers or mountains—as devoid of spirit.. The writer points to ancient Greek thought. Indigenous beliefs in the Americas. Hindu traditions in India. and Shinto in Japan as examples of traditions that emphasized a degree of soul or spiritual presence across life.
In this account. the column argues that turning nature into a commodity extended beyond sustainability and culminated in what it calls hypercapitalism.. The author says understanding this history matters because it suggests the current paradigm is not inevitable.. Anti-humanism and hyper-extractive habits, the column notes, have not always been the dominant mood.
To illustrate that point. the writer points to Renaissance humanism. describing it as a tradition that emphasized the beauty and legitimacy of human life.. The column quotes Michel de Montaigne from his Essays: the claim that there is nothing so beautiful and legitimate as living properly. and that despising one’s being is portrayed as one of the most barbarous maladies.. It also cites Montaigne’s idea that human life is a gift and that refusing that gift is both wrong and harmful.
The author also reflects on why Montaigne’s sense of pride for loving life might matter.. It’s not framed as a shallow ego, but as recognition that being human is difficult.. The column compares the burden of earlier centuries—plague. famine. and political violence—with the burdens of the present. including images of pollution. large-scale deforestation for food systems. and losses of birds that once helped shape ecosystems.
Even so. the column cautions against concluding that humanity itself is “the cancer of the planet.” It argues that humanity cannot be a stain on nature because people are part of nature.. It also stresses that nature is not portrayed as pure or idyllic—other animals reshape ecosystems. act in their interests. and drive extinctions.. The more accurate description. the writer says. is that humans are unusually clever and capable of both cooperation and greed. and that right now society is leaning too far toward the latter.
So what should a person do with the pain that comes from seeing harm and recognizing their own involvement?. The column’s first recommendation is to let those feelings in rather than flee from them.. It says the disappointment. sadness. fear. and other “soft feelings” need space. because trying to escape them can be a way of relieving oneself too easily.. The author warns that fatalistic thoughts—such as “ugh. we’re the worst”—can make the person expect nothing of themselves.
The writer also argues that feeling pain can be evidence of moral capacity.. If a person feels hurt by the suffering of the natural world. it signals that they may still have capacities for cooperation. care. and compassion.. A desire for a better future, the column suggests, would not arise without those capacities.
The column then draws on the Buddhist scholar and environmental activist Joanna Macy, describing a practice of “honoring our pain for the world.” It describes how reframing pain as a form of suffering-with the world can support compassion and reinforce interconnectedness with other forms of life.
After shifting away from a dualistic view of separation from nature. the column moves to what Macy calls “active hope.” Hope is not treated as a mood that either arrives or doesn’t. but as a practice.. It means committing to act on behalf of what someone loves, even when success is uncertain.. The column emphasizes that this approach is not about betting on outcomes; it is about choosing what kind of person to be and how to show up.
The author links the “no guarantees” element to the Buddhist ethic of acting without attachment to results.. That does not mean having no goals or using the most effective methods.. Instead. it stresses the courage to act while recognizing that people cannot control everything that happens to what they care about.
The advice writer adds a personal note. describing how difficult it is to practice active hope when someone loves a person or a cause and wants certainty that everything will be okay.. When the practice works. they say it can resemble the pride Montaigne described: a kind of grounded self-respect built on action.
The column also includes a reading list that ties philosophical ideas about the rise of anti-humanism to contemporary debates.. It mentions a book described as exploring what drives the current resurgence of anti-humanism. and it argues that anti-humanism is not entirely separate from transhumanism—the view that science and technology should be used to evolve humanity into a new version.
Within that discussion. the column states that both worldviews. in the way the author frames them. envision today’s humanity disappearing.. It then points to a utilitarian challenge: if the goal is maximizing overall well-being. a future where everyone lives the same perfectly optimized life might seem desirable.. The column counters that an all-identical-life world is felt in the guts to be a hellscape and notes a concept called “saturationism. ” which argues well-being stops adding once there are enough similar lives. making variety important.
Finally, the column brings in critique from a staff writer described as arguing that saturationism preserves a mistake of the original framework—namely the assumption that the best future can be derived by theorists.
Beyond the ethics debate. the column also points readers toward a video explanation about how complex structures predate the scientific method and widespread mathematical knowledge.. As described. the example begins with Turkey’s Göbekli Tepe and extends to the Sainte-Chapelle cathedral in Paris. offering a way to look at how earlier humans built sophisticated works that seem. at least intuitively. beyond what people should have been able to do at the time.
human disgust climate anxiety anti-humanism moral dilemmas value pluralism environmental activism active hope