World View

I was born into a highly secular society and raised in an irreligious and agnostic family background. Consequently, I have been an atheistic materialist and naturalist for most of my life until my late thirties, and was only interested in nature and natural sciences. Due to my popular science interest in modern physics (cosmology, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics) I started to realize fundamental philosophical problems concerning the flow of time, causality, the laws of nature, and the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. I also realized the hard problem of consciousness, the problem of reason (incl. intentionality / aboutness), the problem of universals, the standard problem of free will, and the problem of objective morality, as well as the ultimate question "why is there anything rather than nothing". This led to a spiritual journey spanning about 15 years in search for a coherent world view, which implied the exploration of very different approaches like mathematical monism (Max Tegmark), integrated information theory (Giulio Tononi) and conscious agent theory (Donald Hoffman), pantheistic neopaganism (panpsychism, hylozooism, animism), Eastern philosophies like Daoism and Shintoism, non-dualism (Advaita Vedanta) and neoperennial integral thought (Ken Wilber), Whiteheadian panentheistic process thought, Bergsonian and Nietzschean flux, quantum idealism (Amit Goswami, Johanan Raatz and Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy), Neoplatonism with objective idealism (Timothy Sprigge, John Leslie), and finally classical theism. I also thoroughly evaluated the pro and con arguments for Christianity, esp. Roman Catholic and Reformed theology, as well as Biblical exegesis and history (just for the record: no, I was not converted by my wife, who was a Cafeteria Catholic and "Chreaster"). My current views are an idiosyncratic amalgam of several of the above approaches.


My "conversion" to an anti-materialist world view did not involve any faith in holy scriptures, but was exclusively based on reason and a careful critical evaluation of empirical evidence and philosophical arguments. However, I meanwhile think that even without sophisticated arguments we can simply know as a properly basic belief that materialism is wrong.


I strongly reject the modern surrogate religion of atheistic naturalism (esp. "New Atheism"), secular humanism (incl. the myth of progress), eliminative materialism, functionalist physicalism, mechanistic determinism, and reductionistic scientism as incoherent, irrational, empirically refuted, and thus absurd faith, which is mostly based on sloppy argumentation and shallow philosophy (esp. among internet infidels), and ultimately implies detrimental nihilism.



I am a libertarian transhumanist and sympathize with anarcho-capitalism (sensu Murray Rothbard and David Friedman) and a private-law society (sensu Hans-Hermann Hoppe).


I hate leftism (incl. liberalism and green socialism, etc) with all its ugly faces such as political correctness, egalitarianism, multiculturalism (incl. muslim mass immigration), demotism, postmodern relativism, the undermining of human exceptionalism by animal rights or even nature rights, welfare nanny state with ever increasing taxes, third wave feminism, gender mainstreaming, LGBTQ agenda, radical environmentalism (anti-human and anti-civilization), centralization, globalization of crony corporate capitalism, and a tendency towards super-statism and ultimately world government. I thus hope for the demise of EU and UN, and welcome the growing success of rightwing populist parties and the alt-right around the globe as intermediate steps on the way to a private law society (or maybe neocameralism as intermediate step).


I am a right-accelerationist, techno-utopian, and cornucopian, who rejects today's rampant doomerism, cultural pessimism, and negative attitude towards technology, progress, and growth. Web technologies like VPN, blockchain, and crypto-currencies will be the foundation for a future libertarian economy and free society, beyond the threat of corporate big data and an Orwellian surveillance state. Major problems like resource depletion will be solved with new technologies (e.g., asteroid mining). Overpopulation is an overhyped pseudo-problem, as Earth's human population will peak at about 11 billion in 2100 and then gradually decline to a stable level of some billion. Nevertheless, a Malthusian mass die-off in Africa seems possible considering its estimated quadruple in population size till 2100. Anthropogenic global warming is a real and serious problem, but it can and must be solved with geo-engineering (e.g., sea water spraying for marine cloud brightening, and biochar) combined with large-scale reduction of carbon emissions by CCS and CDR. We will certainly move from a fossil fuel economy to an electric society, powered by modern nuclear plants (LFTR, IFR, Traveling Wave reactors, or fusion reactors) rather than renewable energies like wind and solar, because the latter could never sustain an industrial civilization on a global level.


I am a proponent of promethean environmentalism, ecomodernism, and technogaianism, envisioning a good Anthropocene. Environmentalists have to give up the idolizing of pristine wilderness and accept that the future of nature will be more like a well tended garden. We cannot terminate human civilization and return to the caves only to preserve some exotic monkeys or dolphins. We are not in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, but the extinction of a significant percentage of biodiversity is an inevitable consequence of the Anthropocene, which will neither kill the planet nor humanity. Much of iconic wildlife that we want to preserve will only survive in commercial game reserves (for photo safari tourists and big game hunters), in zoos, or even only as virtual reality in cyberspace. National Parks should be private enterprises run for profit, and allow the enjoyment of scenic nature, natural monuments, and native wildlife for paying visitors.



After some years of bad experiences especially with social media interactions I am no longer willing to debate issues like anti-materialism or intelligent design theory with stubborn atheists, naturalists, and hardcore Darwinists (and ignorant Bible thumpers as well). I generally block all such fruitless attempts on social media, which I now only use to publish my own views and arguments for those few folks, who are really interested and open minded. My spare time is simply too limited to waste it fighting an endless army of clueless trolls and their silly platitudes. I publicly present the arguments that convinced me, and I welcome if they should make others think too, but I couldn‘t care less about those, who reject these arguments or remain unconvinced. Likewise, I am simply not interested in further amateurish objections from infidel armchair philosophers, because you can be pretty sure that I already read several book length sophisticated academic discussions about each of them and have my well-thought-out reasons why I consider them as failures. I also do not have the time to answer common objections or common questions for the umpteenth time by email (Google is your friend). That said, if you are open minded and should have special questions concerning ID implications from my own field of expertise (paleontology), then you are of course welcome to ask and I will try my best to answer your questions adequately as far as my time permits.