"Woke" Franchises

[Iconoclast]

I don't really care about how a person feels on the inside. Such questions are pointless for society. That is something that a person should only share with themselves, family, and close friends. However you should obey the social mores of where you are. So if you are a male you should act as such socially if society sees you as such(even if you don't "feel like a man" whatever that means) Same for women we have physical bodies and that's how we interact with society, I believe in a soul and am not a mateialist. But I don't know if a soul has a "gender" so it does not matter sure maybe men's and women's souls are the same and there is no disntiction. But our physical bodies are and our society lives in the material so deal with it.

I find it deeply ironic how many of the same people who believe in the concept of the soul nowadays are so eager to say that your identity is dictated by your physical body. The idea that humans are how they appear on the outside rather than how they feel on the inside does indeed seem like a materialist argument; it asserts that humans have intrinsic properties by virtue of our matter, regardless of things like internal mental states. I just find it kind of funny, and a bit incongruent, how so many people who insist humans have immaterial souls that could potentially form the basis of an identity separate from the body suddenly flip a switch to crude materialism when confronted with the notion of a transgender or transracial person and insist "No, no, you are your body, your meat decides your identity! It's all about how other people see your meat!"

The idea of a “human” is technically a language-act. It’s a form of make-believe. Our minds are what create the category of human in the first place and then assign humanness to others. If we weren’t sapient in the first place, we might be humans without ever even knowing what a human is. Most other species on this planet are not intelligent enough to have names for their own species. They just kind of exist as nameless things, incapable of assigning themselves to any particular category of thing. A dog has absolutely no idea that it is a dog and possesses a quality of “dog-ness”, for instance. Let's say a wild dog lived in complete isolation from humans. Without ever having seen the dog, verified its dog-ness, and assigned it the property of dog, could it ever have been said to be a dog?

This line of thinking has a name. It's called the Problem of Universals and it's older than dirt. Plato, of course, argued that abstract concepts had a separate reality from the things they represented. Aristotle was also, in a sense, a realist and argued that things had a "hylomorphic substance"; that they consisted both of matter and an abstract, immaterial form representing that matter. Some later philosophers argued for nominalism, or the idea that the categories of things we can speak about are just made-up names and do not describe any intrinsic property of anything.

The ruling class are truly, insanely evil. With identity politics, they have created an argument that can never actually be won, which people can argue about forever and ever, quite literally for thousands of years hence, without ever arriving at a meaningful conclusion.

 

[IndyFront]

I support transgender people who genuinely have body dysmorphia and needs surgery to alleviate that ailment, but most transgender ideology is just transtrenders that insult and trivialize what ACTUAL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE GO THROUGH on a day to day basis and aren't actually transgender at all.

Don't even get me started on the idiocy of "trans-race/racial" or whateverthefuck. A lot of these are just mentally ill people who won't take their meds imo

 

[Iconoclast]

I support transgender people who genuinely have body dysmorphia and needs surgery to alleviate that ailment, but most transgender ideology is just transtrenders that insult and trivialize what ACTUAL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE GO THROUGH on a day to day basis and aren't actually transgender at all.

Don't even get me started on the idiocy of "trans-race/racial" or whateverthefuck. A lot of these are just mentally ill people who won't take their meds imo

That's pretty much my stance, as well. It was a rhetorical argument.

 

[Vyor]

I find it deeply ironic how many of the same people who believe in the concept of the soul nowadays are so eager to say that your identity is dictated by your physical body. The idea that humans are how they appear on the outside rather than how they feel on the inside does indeed seem like a materialist argument; it asserts that humans have intrinsic properties by virtue of our matter, regardless of things like internal mental states. I just find it kind of funny, and a bit incongruent, how so many people who insist humans have immaterial souls that could potentially form the basis of an identity separate from the body suddenly flip a switch to crude materialism when confronted with the notion of a transgender or transracial person and insist "No, no, you are your body, your meat decides your identity! It's all about how other people see your meat!"

God made man and woman the way they are, your argument is nonsense.

 

[Iconoclast]

God made man and woman the way they are, your argument is nonsense.

Again, it was a rhetorical argument.

If you come from a creationist point of view, then certainly, that could be considered the case. We might say that God, possessing omnipotence and omniscience, can directly perceive the actual objective facts of each living being's essential properties.

However, assuming that humans evolved on our own in a nihilistic, valueless world bereft of actual symbols until consciousness came to be, Man and Woman are just artificial, invented categories of thing. They only exist through mutual social agreement. I could invent such a category myself, on the spot. I could say that all people with their hair styled in a cowlick are Meeps.

This is basically how nominalism works. Man, woman, non-binary, genderfluid, whatever the hell, are just names of categories of things arrived at by social agreement. They don't describe any intrinsic property of anything.

 

[Vyor]

Again, it was a rhetorical argument.

If you come from a creationist point of view, then certainly, that could be considered the case. We might say that God, possessing omnipotence and omniscience, can directly perceive the actual objective facts of each living being's essential properties.

However, assuming that humans evolved on our own in a nihilistic, valueless world bereft of actual symbols until consciousness came to be, Man and Woman are just artificial, invented categories of thing. They only exist through mutual social agreement. I could invent such a category myself, on the spot. I could say that all people with their hair styled in a cowlick are Meeps.

This is basically how nominalism works. Man, woman, non-binary, genderfluid, whatever the hell, are just names of categories of things arrived at by social agreement. They don't describe any intrinsic property of anything.

Hold on, let me quote you again, I'm not sure you read your own post here

I find it deeply ironic how many of the same people who believe in the concept of the soul nowadays are so eager to say that your identity is dictated by your physical body.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hold on, let me quote you again, I'm not sure you read your own post here

I was making a point. My point was that a lot of people are willing to accept mind-body dualism right up until the mind decides that it wants a different body for some sort of emotional fulfilment, and then they revert to materialism and monism and are like "You either have melanin or you don't", or "You either have XY or XX chromosomes".

By and large, the transgender debate is one of realism versus idealism, or realism versus nominalism. In the idealist or nominalist framework, sex or gender or race is all in your head. It's a made-up category of thing, a language-act. It's an abstraction that doesn't describe any real property of anything.

In the realist framework, people are objectively the sex or gender or race that they outwardly appear to be. In short, people's sex, gender, or race is not set by internal feelings, but by an outside observer. Even if you posit that God is that observer, that's still technically a realist stance, just with God perceiving the person instead of another human. This is the case, of course, unless we assume that God can bypass the senses and perceive the actual objective fact of any thing.

This argument reminds me of an old webcomic strip.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2014-07-26

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2014-07-26

www.smbc-comics.com

 

[Vyor]

I was making a point. My point was that a lot of people are willing to accept mind-body dualism right up until the mind decides that it wants a different body for some sort of emotional fulfilment, and then they revert to materialism and monism and are like "You either have melanin or you don't", or "You either have XY or XX chromosomes".

By and large, the transgender debate is one of realism versus idealism, or realism versus nominalism. In the idealist or nominalist framework, sex or gender or race is all in your head. It's a made-up category of thing, a language-act. It's an abstraction that doesn't describe any real property of anything.

In the realist framework, people are objectively the sex or gender or race that they outwardly appear to be. In short, people's sex, gender, or race is not set by internal feelings, but by an outside observer. Even if you posit that God is that observer, that's still technically a realist stance, just with God perceiving the person instead of another human. This is the case, of course, unless we assume that God can bypass the senses and perceive the actual objective fact of any thing.

This argument reminds me of an old webcomic strip.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2014-07-26

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - 2014-07-26

www.smbc-comics.com

Or you're just very stupid and can't actually read people's arguments.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

I don't even care about whether they are "valid" or not. What worries me is that they are significantly destabilizing the narrative and allowing the leftist media creators to crowd us out.

I would suggest pretending to be all-in and educating yourself on all their Shibboleths until they inevitably fall in with the conservative "minority groups", and then turning on them. Keep your real feelings close to your chest, and never reveal them online or in writing. Or if you do choose to reveal them online, do so in anonymous spaces.

 

[Iconoclast]

Or you're just very stupid and can't actually read people's arguments.

Obviously, you don't understand what I'm trying to say, here.

The woke/unwoke divide is an ontological and epistemological one. As in, one about the nature of being and whether not it's possible for one to have knowledge of facts about other people, or if everything we can say about someone else is merely an abstraction. There are a whole bunch of different competing philosophical stances here.

First off, the issue of transgenderism isn't even a political argument, really. It's a metaphysical one.

If we believe in souls, or in mind-body dualism, then we must necessarily believe that the human body is not, strictly saying, you, but a vehicle piloted by a disembodied mind that can assume basically any identity it wants.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I uploaded my mind to a computer and then downloaded my mind to the body of a pony, Altered Carbon style. Let's say, that this process somehow preserves the continuity of my consciousness such that rather than being copied into a different body that is a whole new person, what I internally experience is suddenly seeing out of a different set of eyes.

In this case, my internal conception of self may not change, but my embodied experience definitely would. I would be walking around on hooves. I would have a tail and movable ears. Every movement, every twitch of muscle, would seem foreign and bizarre. Over time, my sense of self would likely be profoundly altered by such an experience. However, for the moment, I would still be "me".

In that instance, which one takes primacy? The external, observable fact of my new body, or the internal experience of still being myself, the mentally human being with years of experience of previously being human? Would I still hold any legitimate claim to humanity, in that instance?

Pretty much all of these issues of identity boil down to the problem of consciousness itself. Namely, that it is impossible for a human being, as yet, to directly experience another human being's consciousness. I can't reach inside someone's head to determine facts about their inner experience. I must ask them.

Every human technically lives in a sort of solipsistic, closed-off hermitage of the mind: the only being that each human is absolutely sure is conscious is the self. We cannot directly confirm the fact of consciousness in others except by their self-reporting. For all we know, all other people are P-zombies with no qualia. We believe in each other's consciousness because we choose to, socially, not because we know it for a fact.

Science hasn't identified the cause of consciousness or qualia as phenomena. Despite literal millions of brain scans and despite hooking people's brains up to Utah arrays, we still haven't discovered the physics that underlie consciousness. Those who believe in a soul think it's something separate from the brain. Some /x/-tier guys think the brain is a receiver for consciousness and that consciousness is a field we reside in, or something along those lines (some parallels with it-from-bit; suppose spacetime itself were a computational medium; some of this gets into the realm of pure speculation and junk science, but it is, at the very least, a fascinating concept). Atheists and materialists who argue against the existence of the soul insist that the mind is just patterns of electrical activity between atoms and that consciousness is an illusion.

Because of this, we have absolutely no clue what would happen if we were to upload a mind into a different substrate. Would the person forever cease to be conscious? Would a new consciousness be created in that instant? See also, Derek Parfit and the teletransporter paradox.



Identity is located in the mind, but we can't quite access the mind directly, with current technology. Depending on how minds actually work, we may never be able to. We don't even quite know what will happen when we connect humans brain-to-brain with a BCI; if they'll experience it as two consciousnesses talking to each other, or a single consciousness with the memories of both beings. Come to think of it, we're actually quite close, technologically speaking, to being able to conduct that exact experiment, ethics and safety notwithstanding. It has already been done in neuron cultures and animals.

A Brain-to-Brain Interface for Real-Time Sharing of Sensorimotor Information - Scientific Reports

A brain-to-brain interface (BTBI) enabled a real-time transfer of behaviorally meaningful sensorimotor information between the brains of two rats. In this BTBI, an “encoder” rat performed sensorimotor tasks that required it to select from two choices of tactile or visual stimuli. While the...

www.nature.com

A brain-to-brain interface (BTBI) enabled a real-time transfer of behaviorally meaningful sensorimotor information between the brains of two rats. In this BTBI, an "encoder" rat performed sensorimotor tasks that required it to select from two choices of tactile or visual stimuli. While the encoder rat performed the task, samples of its cortical activity were transmitted to matching cortical areas of a "decoder" rat using intracortical microstimulation (ICMS). The decoder rat learned to make similar behavioral selections, guided solely by the information provided by the encoder rat's brain. These results demonstrated that a complex system was formed by coupling the animals' brains, suggesting that BTBIs can enable dyads or networks of animal's brains to exchange, process and store information and, hence, serve as the basis for studies of novel types of social interaction and for biological computing devices.

Now, what relevance does this have to the debate?

See, the mind is the seat of identity. I cannot identify myself as human without the benefit of my mind. If I was a P-zombie, any statement I could make about my identity would be meaningless. I couldn’t really say that I was anything at all, because there would be no “I” to say it.

When people coming from a theological perspective insist both that humans have souls, but that humans are our bodies, they’re trying to have it both ways, simultaneously. Which is it? Does a human have a disembodied soul floating around inside, or is a human the same thing as their body?

 

[DarthOne]

I find it deeply ironic how many of the same people who believe in the concept of the soul nowadays are so eager to say that your identity is dictated by your physical body. The idea that humans are how they appear on the outside rather than how they feel on the inside does indeed seem like a materialist argument; it asserts that humans have intrinsic properties by virtue of our matter, regardless of things like internal mental states. I just find it kind of funny, and a bit incongruent, how so many people who insist humans have immaterial souls that could potentially form the basis of an identity separate from the body suddenly flip a switch to crude materialism when confronted with the notion of a transgender or transracial person and insist "No, no, you are your body, your meat decides your identity! It's all about how other people see your meat!"

The idea of a “human” is technically a language-act. It’s a form of make-believe. Our minds are what create the category of human in the first place and then assign humanness to others. If we weren’t sapient in the first place, we might be humans without ever even knowing what a human is. Most other species on this planet are not intelligent enough to have names for their own species. They just kind of exist as nameless things, incapable of assigning themselves to any particular category of thing. A dog has absolutely no idea that it is a dog and possesses a quality of “dog-ness”, for instance. Let's say a wild dog lived in complete isolation from humans. Without ever having seen the dog, verified its dog-ness, and assigned it the property of dog, could it ever have been said to be a dog?

This line of thinking has a name. It's called the Problem of Universals and it's older than dirt. Plato, of course, argued that abstract concepts had a separate reality from the things they represented. Aristotle was also, in a sense, a realist and argued that things had a "hylomorphic substance"; that they consisted both of matter and an abstract, immaterial form representing that matter. Some later philosophers argued for nominalism, or the idea that the categories of things we can speak about are just made-up names and do not describe any intrinsic property of anything.

The ruling class are truly, insanely evil. With identity politics, they have created an argument that can never actually be won, which people can argue about forever and ever, quite literally for thousands of years hence, without ever arriving at a meaningful conclusion.

Except the body and soul are linked. I know that much from Orthodox teachings- I will try to do further research.

Also, the whole transgender (and LGBTQ) ideology is based upon utter nonsense. Even from a purely scientific stand point it’s nonsense. It was nonsense back in the 1930’s and it was nonsense when Kinsey did his ‘research’.

 

[Vyor]

Obviously, you don't understand what I'm trying to say, here.

You aren't trying to say anything. You're just throwing around a whole lotta philosophical concepts without actually using them for what they actually mean. You ignore the opposing argument because it reveals you to be a dumbass.

When people coming from a theological perspective insist both that humans have souls, but that humans are our bodies, they’re trying to have it both ways, simultaneously. Which is it? Does a human have a disembodied soul floating around inside, or is a human the same thing as their body?

The theology is "god man man and woman as man and woman, not man in woman or woman in man therefore transgender shit is just that: bullshit"

This is a self consistent argument.

 

[Bassoe]

Under your logic someone could have a relationship with Mrs. Beaver from Chrinicles of Narnia she is equally intelligent to normal humans and it would be ok.

Of course not! Nothing about the whole 'enormous rodent' thing, she's a married women.

Transhumanists have a concept called "morphological freedom", where they believe that humans should be able to alter ourselves into whatever, up to and including fragmenting ourselves into completely different subspecies. Anders Sandberg wrote a long essay on it (which is unfortunately paywalled):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118555927.ch5

This notion was mirrored by Zoltan Istvan's "Transhumanist Bill of Rights":

Immortality Bus Delivers Newly Created Transhumanist Bill of Rights to the US Capitol

Immortality Bus Delivers Newly Created Transhumanist Bill of Rights to the US Capitol

www.huffpost.com

The problem with Istvan's argument for people having the ultimate individual freedom to reshape their biology is the same as any other hyperlibertarian argument, that he doesn't take zero-sum competition forcing people to do what's effective/profitable, not what they want, into account.

Imagine a society with biotech such that they can remake their bodies and minds into anything they want.

Now imagine a group within said society uses said tech to specialize themselves for their economic role. For a desk job, they're a brain and a bare minimum of life-support feeding off the cheapest/most economically effective nutrient gruel.

Or equivalent for whatever career.

Since said group are more effective, they're the only ones being hired, therefore becoming one of them regardless of whether or not you actually want to becomes the bare minimum necessity for employment like degree inflation today. And of course, the rulers of said society will inevitably be trying to add rent-seeking measures with every biological rewrite. You're unemployable unless you pay for biomods but the biomods come with a coincidental ketracel-white addiction only supplied by the company manufacturing them.

Meanwhile, the whole capitalist society is under threat from Outside Context Problems, anyone who rather than using biomods to make themselves more effective within it, used them to make themselves more capable in general with intention toward not needing it.

“Read somewhere they’re the ones as think we aren’t fully human. Tools an’ clothes and farmyard machines, like? Sustaining a pre-post-industrial lifestyle instead of updating our genome and living off the land like God intended?”

“’Ow the hell can something with nine legs and eyestalks call itself human?” Joe demanded, chugging back half his pint in one angry swallow.

“It used to be, once. Maybe used to be a bunch of people.” Wendy got a weird and witchy look in her eye. “’Ad a boyfriend back thirty, forty years ago, joined a Lamarckian clade. Swapping genes an’ all, the way you or me’d swap us underwear. Used to be a ’vironmentalist back when antiglobalization was about big corporations pissing on us all for profits. Got into gene hackery and self-sufficiency big-time. I slung his ass when he turned green and started photosynthesizing.”

Traumatized by civilization's ugly self-destruction, they developed a disgust for human species, and so didn't want to repopulate the earth themselves. But they still needed a mission to cope with their new situation. So they devised a plan of creating a new, better humanity. A species that would repopulate the clensed world and live in harmony with it and among themselves, never repeating the mistakes of their "disgusting ape" ancestors. This mission helped them to prevent anarchy and cope with their self-hate, and soon evolved into a full-blown religion.

Since civilization had completely discredited itself in the eyes of Creators, their projected ideal human was to be a noble savage. But not a "natural", pre-civilized kind, that neo-luddites dreamed about, the one under constant threat of hunger, illnesses, and predators - there was nothing "noble" in that life, or rather survival, in Creators' eyes. Their project was to be a true king of nature, a biomachine so fit and enhanced that wilderness would pose no more danger to it than a comfy modern mansion with heated floors. Instead of rejecting technology like those luddites (or outsourcing his problems to it like people before the Fall), the new man would incorporate it and make its power his own. With the help self-sustaining machine symbiotes, as well as countless genetic enhancements, he would take the best of the two worlds - enjoy a longer lifespan, invulnerability to diseases, predators, and elements, and have the time and opportunity for great self-expression, all without the need to sacrifice his time, energy, and freedom to support even a single production chain. He would also be of such moral character, that he won't want to change this state of affairs and expand, ruining the planet once again - but this went without saying.

Or, you know, a barbarian horde composed of the nietzscheans from andromeda with a master race complex sacking civilization.

 

[Abhorsen]

I was arguing based on natural law ignoring any religious reasons. The reason why we beings mate is because it feels good, it feels good to incentivise life forms to do it and pass on their seed/offspring.

That's great. I didn't raise any religious reasons. I'm an atheist, so I have no religious reasons.

Your definition made a claim that applies to infertile women. You need to come up with a defense of that that excludes aliens.

The point of marriage is a union for the parents to raise children together so there is a better chance for offspring to live. It also functions as a union of two separate families to encourage clan and village growth and the growth of society.

The definition comes from that, infertile women are not relavent. They are still women, they are just disabled, disabled are not included in the definition of a group, if it was possible to make the infertile fertile and cure them then it would be great to do so.

Now here you try to save your claim, by carving out an exception in your moral rule for infertile women. But again you run into an issue because of your reasoning for the exception, that it's based on raising a kid. Suddenly you again run into an issue: if an infertile woman can raise a kid, why can't the right type of alien?

I completely disagree again it's a disorder the point of reproduction is to pass on you genes your DNA. She may be a person but that's not relavent. Again you thinking it's gross as well as most other people is proof that it is wrong.

Then I think you are gross. Therefore you are morally wrong. No, that isn't proof at all.

Nope under that logic animals when they mate are raping each other and we should stop them just like we do to children. Consent has little to do with why pedos are evil. It's evil because it's damaging the child they could die, or be infertile since they can't carry a child to term, hell they might not even be developed enough to have intercourse without horrible damage. Again naturalism is what I'm arguing for what is good for the species and how it acts in nature not high minded liberal "rights of man"

Specifically, this argument is gross.

First, let's deal with the animal part: animals aren't moral actors. What they do cannot be moral or immoral because they do not think, anymore than a bullet can be blamed for a murder.

Now, the gross part. Congrats, you managed to justify non-violent pedophilia, for old enough girls or any boy as long as it's with the opposite sex. Because they can have children with some degree of safety.

This tells us the issue with pedophilia isn't safety or fertility, it's consent, which kids can't give.

You are so bad at arguing that you accidently justified pedophilia. You should stop.

Also, the whole transgender (and LGBTQ) ideology is based upon utter nonsense. Even from a purely scientific stand point it’s nonsense. It was nonsense back in the 1930’s and it was nonsense when Kinsey did his ‘research’.

No. The LGB part at least is observed constantly in nature, for a good reason: kin selection and reducing mate competition. There's a reason third sons are more likely to be gay: it helps the genes to spread.

 

[Bassoe]

No. The LGB part at least is observed constantly in nature, for a good reason: kin selection and reducing mate competition. There's a reason third sons are more likely to be gay: it helps the genes to spread.

It ought to be easy enough to test if there's actually a 'gay gene', just wait a few generations to see if homosexuality goes extinct in tolerant first-world countries while remaining in countries that oppress it. If there is such a gene, so long as society makes its carriers have heterosexual relationships anyway regardless of whether they're unhappy about it or not, it doesn't affect reproductive fitness. However if society stops doing that, the gene suddenly prevents its bearers from reproducing and gets naturally selected out.

 

[Jormungandr]

I support transgender people who genuinely have body dysmorphia and needs surgery to alleviate that ailment, but most transgender ideology is just transtrenders that insult and trivialize what ACTUAL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE GO THROUGH on a day to day basis and aren't actually transgender at all.

Don't even get me started on the idiocy of "trans-race/racial" or whateverthefuck. A lot of these are just mentally ill people who won't take their meds imo

Yep.

I have empathy for people who are suffering from genuine gender dysphoria, but the amount of genuine sufferers in the world is a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Being a trans-trender is all the rage right now. shrug

 

[Abhorsen]

It ought to be easy enough to test if there's actually a 'gay gene', just wait a few generations to see if homosexuality goes extinct in tolerant first-world countries while remaining in countries that oppress it. If there is such a gene, so long as society makes its carriers have heterosexual relationships anyway regardless of whether they're unhappy about it or not, it doesn't affect reproductive fitness. However if society stops doing that, the gene suddenly prevents its bearers from reproducing and gets naturally selected out.

That experiment already happened. It was in the wild in dozens of species, and they are still around.

The real reason the first world countries' populations are flat or down is low marriage rates among straights. But I don't have the hugest issue with this: those not reproducing are the most liberal ones, and I don't want them to continue on fucking everything up.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Infertile women are women who suffer from a disability. They are not a seperate “class” of being from other women. It’s like if you explained what a human is to me and said “one head, two arms, two legs, etc” and I said “Ahhh but I know someone who was born with one leg are you saying they aren’t human?”

Mark my words that day is coming depending on how big the snapback with progressive counterculture is. There have been times in history where both the disabled and the infertile were treated as a sort of abhorrent subhuman class.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

It might take a hundred years, but the demographic victory is for the right.

Unfortunately, the ideological win will be for the Left unless something changes by 2050. Something like the neoliberals breaking their alliance and purging them from Academia.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

It might take a hundred years, but the demographic victory is for the right.

Unfortunately, the ideological win will be for the Left unless something changes by 2050. Something like the neoliberals breaking their alliance and purging them from Academia.

Their ideology is autophagic. What is known as Sorathic Evil. It will consume itself once it has consumed everything else, leaving a fertile barren field.