why would a posthumanist eat?

wagga wagga 17-8-18

what is posthumanism?

the starting point i propose is that there is no posthumanism — although there are those who claim otherwise* but really, it doesn’t matter — there are only some humans, collaboratively and collectively imagining what a posthuman being’ could be, would be, would do. that is where we are at.

humanism is a kind of default for the secular, it is almost as if it is interchangeable with it. it is ok not to believe in god but you ought to believe in something else, and why not the human — human potential, human growth, the essential goodness’ of the human, the inherent superiority of the human.

″…i think therefore i am (…better, and infinitely more important, than non-humans)…”


how do we do this collaborative collective imagining?
one of the ways is through conversations.

how can we deconstruct the way we have conversations? how do we create a context, a space for conversations to unfold, so that they enable this collaborative collective imagining. how can we talk with each other in such a way that the conversations are less hierarchical, so that they allow silences, so that if someone wants to say something they can say it and take the time they need to say it and think it, and so that we can listen — and so someone has the possibility not to speak if they have nothing to say?


johannes: why would a posthumanist eat?’ 😶
bianca: Because if you don’t then you die

i am not sure if a posthuman/ist would eat for that reason - it is too abstract to connect the act of putting food in one’s mouth with not dying — and in any case i don’t think that one’s death, in a posthumanist context, is necessarily something that ought to be avoided at all costs.

i think you eat because you are hungry or because it is etenstijd’ (= dinner time) or because it’s pleasurable or because you are depressed and it is comforting or any number of other reasons…

the battle of getting children to eat not just pizza…
how to explain to a dog that this crumpet with strawberry jam is not for them?

sometimes my grandmother would ask me or my grandfather to eat something because het moet op’ (= it has to be gone).

people don’t just want to have something to eat : they want to have an eating experience’.


one idea that emerges from a posthuman/ist reevaluation of ethics, of what matters — and here it connects intimately with ideas about a new materialism where matter matters — is that everything matters equally, every thing that exists has the right to exist and to continue to exist in the way that it manifests then how is it possible to justify putting something into one’s mouth, chewing it, swallowing it, digesting it, allowing one’s body to extract the nutrients from it.

are humans just like vampires or parasites?

is it necessary to be a humanist in order to eat?


*for a quite digestible introduction to one of the leading posthumanist theorist’s work you could do worse than read dave shaw’s summary of rosi braidotti’s the posthuman part one and part two.