Book Review: Philosophical Future Book by Good Youth Poison Room

There is a big gap in the Chinese philosophical books published in Hong Kong since Li Tianming. In an era when there was still much freedom of speech on Radio Hong Kong, there was a group of philosophers in Hong Kong who produced a talk show called "Philosophy Talk" to introduce philosophy to the general public. I minored in philosophy in my own university days and understand the useless and really useless of philosophy. I am glad that there is still a group of "idiots" in Hong Kong who are willing to promote philosophy.

The book is divided into eleven topics, each essay by a different author, and explores future issues from a philosophical perspective. Firstly, literati are light, I used to write philosophical articles, secondly, philosophy books are divided into different academic schools, the topic of each article in the book is very interesting, but for some reason most of the authors' arguments are always "wrong" It is a pity that now that I am older, working hard to support my family, I have no leisure to go online to fight a philosophical pen war, and write responsibly philosophical articles that deserve the other person's response and are well-founded. Now just casually whining into each article.

Cultural Extinction As the first article, and put it on the Internet for reading and review, it is written very smoothly. The article quotes theories written by American philosophers about the indigenous people, using the example of the Crowe's commitment to survive under the white regime, to bring out whether the culture of only empty shell rituals or not. I understand that publishing books in Hong Kong today have to be very careful. Saying the wrong word becomes a banned book, but without applying the theory to the fact that Hong Kong culture is facing a crisis of extinction, as a local philosopher in Hong Kong is not qualified. Can a philosopher be tolerated where there is no freedom of speech?

This article about eternal life commits the fallacy of the idea of ​​​​swapping. The god in the article refers to the three gods of Christianity, and to the gods of ancient Greek mythology. The two are completely different gods. Immortality doesn't equal eternal life. Didn't Saint Seiya kill many Greek gods? Strictly speaking, there are no records of Greek gods dying, but the Wiki says that there is a possibility of god-killing in Greek mythology and that they can be subjected to eternal torture that is more painful than death. Furthermore, the Greek gods were not omniscient and omnipotent, not without any restrictions. The subject of what makes people human is very good, but it was completely ruined by the author.

This article about sterilization completely demonstrates the philosophical show, discusses whether childbearing is moral, and pretends to quote a lot of moral theories, but the central argument is completely vulnerable. The author has roughly forgotten the philosophical classic "The Selfish Gene" that reproductive immorality is itself a self-denial position, which is necessarily morally false. Very simple thought experiment, there are two groups of people on Earth, one group believes that childbearing is moral, and the other group believes that childbearing is immoral. A hundred years later, there will be only those who believe that childbirth is moral. Moral thought must have a carrier to exist, and a world without humans cannot be a moral world. Whether excessive childbirth is moral is a very real philosophical question.

Genetic modification is a matter of science and economics, not of philosophy. Any technological development will inevitably eventually become low-cost popularization, a hundred years ago with the rich afford the electric light, the poor can not afford so unfair as a reason to oppose Edison to invent the electric light, isn't it ridiculous? The new humans and old humans will create a conflict, which is already an old-fashioned problem. There is no need to consult a philosopher, look at X-Men or Gundam Seed to find the answer.

Gender The poison of leftist ideas in this author is too deep. To criticize, I really don't know how to talk about it. However, I agree that social gender (gender) should be abolished, just using biological sex (sex) is enough. At most, a physiologically non-male and non-female third gender is added to distinguish between normal men and women in general. The problem of women's oppression mentioned in the article does not need to be created with sexism at all, and can be solved by applying traditional liberal equal human rights. Perhaps the author should put more heart and soul, to argue why there is a J can be a woman, at least can be seen as a joke.

The family article is also smooth and stable, except for being a little boring, I can't find any problems. The text says that Confucius discussed filial piety, and the ancients had to mourn for three years. Modern people only have a maximum of one week's bereavement leave. If a company is willing to give three years of paid bereavement leave, they can take up to six years if their parents die apart. I strongly support the implementation of Confucian filial piety.

The idea of ​​​​the Internet is seriously outdated. Nowadays, Facebook is dead. No one cares about getting likes anymore. Only KOLs who rely on Internet promotion to eat are left. Tiktok is not strictly social media, communication is very one-way, it is just a TV with unlimited channels, and most people return to the embrace of passive entertainment.

Future Money This article is not just a different viewpoint, but the author is simply ignorant and pretending to be knowledgeable, outsiders and insiders talk nonsense, his understanding of money and currency, completely deviated from the view of orthodox economics. First of all, the monetary value of gold does not need to be recognized by the regime. Those who have watched the film will know that without a government and no currency, people will return to using gold. Gold is considered money use by humans because of its physical characteristics. The second is the government-recognized currency, which is not equal to money, the nearest is Zimbabwe super inflation those more zeros than the Yinsi paper currencies, the far away are the gold dollar rolls and silver dollar rolls in the late Republic of China. The person in the article is right to say that money "requires the collective approval of people", but money is not a pure and abstract existence, and must have a physically limited supply to be established.

The original article said that gold is dead and that money originates from government power, which itself has a certain philosophical reason. However, the article is not yet paragraphed but is superfluous, greedy to talk about cryptocurrency. Obviously he has not read the Bitcoin white paper and does not understand the philosophy of Bitcoin digital gold at all. This article can seriously drag down the standard of the entire book, Likecoin founder Gao Reconstruction wrote the preface for this book, even allowed this article full of errors and omissions to be published, it is really too irresponsible. Friends who have read this article, hurry up and read Gao Reconstruction's "Wealth Liberalism" to set the record straight.

The Future Person is a relatively good one written by Zhepu in the book, using very interesting examples to illustrate the moral issues we have about our responsibility for the Future Person. Take out the sword of moral utilitarianism, and then point out other problems brought up by the application of moral utilitarianism , too heavily the author wants to "preach".

Whether the virtual world is real or not, using Wittgenstein's method, the "real world" is renamed the physical world, and the problem is easily solved. The problem stems from the unclear concept of the "real world." However, the article talks about the difference between virtual and fictional, but there is the style of Zhepu. The magical world in Harry Potter novels is an unreal fictional world. But Harry Potter VR games are a real virtual world. I have to complain, why use such an outdated example of Second Life, when talking about VR should use "Blade Runner"?

Utopia is also a very flat philosophical article, and distinguishing between communist and anarchist understandings of oppression is also very insightful. The article mentions Rawls’s On Justice and doesn’t even mention Rawls’ arch-rival Nozick’s State, Anarchy, Utopia, the inference that utopia cannot exist, which is a bit disappointing. If the article can quote Nozick to comment on the last sentence of the article, make this world a beautiful place, this article is 100%.