The Dangers Of Vibes-Based Anthropology

Why understanding what it means to be human cannot be left to unvoiced assumptions.

In my recent video on why I am against Paul Kingsnorth, I only briefly touched on a critique of something I have noticed in virtually every one of his speeches and conversations. The problem of his vibes-based anthropology. His criticism of “The Machine” in its various iterations is that it is causing us to become less human. But just as he does with “the Machine” and “The West”, he only vaguely hints at what he means by the term human– relying heavily on an assumption of common understanding among his audience.

As someone who feels alienated by Kingsnorth and many of the academic and intellectual elites that seem to comprise his tribe, I find this troubling. My own story actually places me in a unique position between the Kingsnorth camp and much of what they call the machine. I have always been drawn towards the intellectual side of my evangelical heritage, but I found the common contempt of most elites for the low church, non-denom movements extremely distasteful. Those people have reliably shown me genuine love and kindness, alongside those with much less to offer, and they are the only ones I see doing so.

The other side of the equation comes from my lately discovered autism. As I’ve come to understand the condition and the challenges it presents, I can clearly recognize the influence of autistic minds in constructing much of “The Machine”. I’ve already written about the need for more christian empathy towards figures like Elon Musk, whom Kingsnorth criticizes quite openly, but he is far from the only example. The internet is very clearly the fruit of autistic engineering.

But autistics have pioneered the avenues of both thought and communication for millenia. Many place both Aquinas and Calvin on the spectrum, and it’s a certainty that a great degree of neurodiversity was responsible for the invention of every technological and communications breakthrough from the printing press onward.

Kingsnorth hedges his bets on many things he critiques, with balancing statements about “some good things” or “not all bad” that have come about through “progress”-- but I am quite concerned that the common denominator in what he considers the “bad bits”, is a type of mind that is foreign to his notion of humanity.

Kingsnorth identifies one of the serious “problems” that drives the “progress” of the machine– an ever increasing desire for certainty. But he seems to have little curiosity regarding the underlying causes of that desire, focusing instead on an unquestioning assumption of the “goodness” of what has been lost.

The desire for certainty stems from a need to communicate unpopular questions or correctives above the noise of consensus belief, by people deeply convinced of the truth, who recognize the uphill battle of changing minds. When the normal result of challenging accepted dogma is execution, the impetus for seeking clarity and certainty in communication begins to emerge. If the leadership of the church had been willing to listen to Jan Hus, the need for a Martin Luther may not have arisen.

Once these minority viewpoints become accepted, they too can fall prey to the corrupting power of consensus adoption. One might say that what Kingsnorth is wrestling with is the problem of a necessary skepticism, taken to a logical extreme. But the remedy he seems to be putting forth has dangerous consequences.

Definition Through Exclusion

My critique of all vibes-based anthropology is centered around the problem of unity and multiplicity; determining what binds a group together, and how much a minority or individual can deviate from the norms while still remaining in communion. A nation can abide with political parties of differing opinions, but it cannot survive warring factions, and it certainly cannot tolerate terrorists who aim to destroy the union.

Exclusions are sometimes necessary to protect unity. It is not an injustice to quarantine contagious individuals, but the manner in which they are curtailed matters greatly. When the presence of an infectious animal threatens the health of a herd, we do not build them sanctuaries; we cull them. If the belief that we have strayed too far from medieval ideals becomes the consensus opinion, then fears that we might adopt some of the worst aspects of that time, such as burning heretics, is not unfounded.

It is incumbent on the majority to accept responsibility for those individuals as if they are equal participants in the image of God. But this is a test that majority populations have almost universally failed. The expert in the law sought to use the law to exclude the Samaritan from being defined as a neighbor. Medieval Christians used creedal adherence to exclude Jews. Muslims exclude the apostate. The endorsers of slavery excluded the black man. Those are black marks we recognize and condemn. But if we think that we are immune to making the same mistakes, we are fooling ourselves.

Within the past few years, we have seen family members disowned for political opinions, or stances on vaccines, first towards the unvaccinated, but increasingly towards the vaccinated as well, with extremists touting a ‘pureblood’ test that often dictates whom they would consider marrying. And while I am as big an advocate for the embrace of marriage and children as anyone, I worry about Christian communities that will exclude those “made eunuchs by men”, such as detransitioners who cannot reclaim their reproductive capacity or the appearance of their natural sex.

The desire to reject the tools of “The Machine”, is understandable. Scientific measurements and numbering have been used to divide humanity by race and intelligence, and later to erode distinctions of sex and sexuality. But we used other means to distort the imago dei long before we could sequence genes, and the dangers of rejecting empiricism from our worldview are far reaching.

Kingsnorth’s thesis, that the “The Machine” is unmaking our humanity, necessarily defines what it means to be human on unbiblical terms. The assumption that what it means to be human is wrapped up in a wistful ideal once grasped by the majority of “normal” people is not a Christian notion, but the essence of paganism. This came through in his Erasmus lecture at First Things, a watershed moment on his path to cultural ascendency– and I am not the only one to notice it.

Why I Can't Get on the Doomer Train

What Does it Mean to be Human?

The image of God is an indelible aspect of human nature that cannot be lost or destroyed (Genesis 9:6, James 3:9), but is instead fallen (Romans 3:23), and in need of redemption. Kingsnorth’s antagonistic approach towards those who reject his vision is antithetical to the critical solution offered by Jesus in the Gospels, specifically in Luke 15.

In this chapter, Jesus answers the Pharisees’ inquiries about his willingness to dine with tax collectors and sinners with three parables, questioning the impulse to abandon one lost sheep out of a hundred, or one coin out of ten, before culminating in his longest story, the parable of the lost son, in which Jesus’ casts his antagonists in the role of the elder brother. This older son, who has done nothing wrong, refuses to enter into his father’s celebration. He has defined paradise as the place from which sinners are excluded.

Kingsnorth is far from the only one to hold this position; there are many people standing outside the celebration, not wanting to be associated with the embarrassing outsider. Each of us are tempted to make the same exclusions for somebody. But Kingsnorth’s grievance isn’t aimed at an individual, despite his regular mentions of Musk, who, ironically, is pursuing very similar ends, as a figurehead of “The Machine”.

Instead, his vision seems to line up with the first of Jesus’ parables, that of the lost sheep. But he is not simply advocating for the abandoning the lost sheep, but the shepherd as well. In his view, those who seek to protect and save the sinner are enablers; guilty by association. He not only assumes the attitude of the elder brother, but projects it onto the wide swath of humanity, and calls it good.

The Unrepentant Activist

This way of thinking seems to be nothing more than the exultation of nature, a holdover from his pre-christian environmentalism. The only explanation I can see for the unquestioning welcome of Kingsnorth from so many Christians is that he shares a mutual kind of aesthetic blindness. I am far from the only one to observe the notable distinctions within the body of converts to Orthodox Christianity, which has been enjoying a surge in popularity. I have gotten to hear and speak with many of these converts, some quite personably, and it is not difficult to recognize that many of them have found a genuine peace with God within that tradition.

I believe that the kingdom of God is vast and uncontainable, and God draws His children into and out of local communities and traditions for His good purposes. I have encountered many people in whom the spirit of God resides in various traditions all across the globe, including several that I do not particularly resonate with.

But there are others within those traditions that embrace them for reasons other than the fellowship of the spirit. The “orthobros” and “trad caths” often seem far more excited about the triumphalism of cultural supremacy afforded by the ancient and apostolic roots of their traditions than the sanctifying work of the spirit within them. Others seem drawn to the same churches because they find the music and art and liturgy more beautiful than the “machine” like qualities of the modern mega churches, which they loudly and regularly critique.

I don’t fault them for this; I can very much relate to the feelings expressed by someone like Jonathan Pageau, who has found an artistic calling as an iconographer in the Orthodox church. The aesthetic style of the tradition resonates with him in a way that it does not with me, but I relate through the experience of joy receiving playing the instruments I am skilled with in a contemporary worship setting. I am more useful to God’s purpose in that setting than I would be in a Church of Christ, where another friend is able to put the skill of writing shape-note hymns to good use.

In another real sense, I do resonate with Kingsnorth, as I find the highest expression of beauty in the natural settings of God’s creation. But I also marvel at the greater depth of understanding we gain through the scientific study of that creation, which has revealed the truth of Jesus’ words regarding the lilies of the field, whose infinite complexity far surpasses not only the splendor of king Solomon, but anything created by human hands, including the majestic cathedrals of Europe.

A Useful Idiot

My concern regarding Kingsnorth’s particular embrace of Orthodoxy is that it serves to baptise the idolatrous reverence of the undisturbed and undeveloped state of the natural world of his unregenerate environmentalism. His war against “The Machine” is aligned with the interests of the old world elites, the Club of Rome globalists who orchestrated the environmentalist movement as a trojan horse for population reduction.

In this way, he seems very much to be a pawn of the interests of the Bilderberg group, or the WEF, who have no qualms about weaponizing the naivety of Greta Thunberg’s and Paul Kingnorth’s right alongside “Machine” enthusiasts such as Bill Gates, in pursuit of their own aesthetic ideals. Pitting nostalgia and utopia against each other, the long term goal of technocratic revolutions is the restoration of an old-world European aristocracy.

Kingnorth’s war against the machine may indeed bring a return to the feudalism of the middle ages; in which he is the useful idiot, the lackey of the sheriff of Nottingham, calling for the capture of the outlaw Robin Hood, who dared to kill the King’s deer. This view is a typical one among elites, who view the ugliness of tract homes as a tragedy greater than the beauty of the families and communities they support and enable.

But the environmentalist wing of the technocratic agenda is inextricably linked to the other revolutions against the Kingdom, including the feminist movements and the sexual revolution, and the Darwinian and Freudian rebellions that preceded them. The widespread adoption of Darwinism ushered in new forms of old idolatry. The imaginative fiction of the late 19th and early 20th centuries cast man as an emergent god, Rousseau’s noble savage, minus the nobility. Technological sophistication was used to subdue nature, while man reverted to a beast in the bedroom.

These revolts were also viewed against “The Machine” that had enslaved humanity; the ordered model of the cosmos and the state churches. The revolutionaries followed the same instinct as Kingsnorth, placing the blame on the mistakes of man, or woman. Except instead of blaming Adam, they blamed the second Adam, Christ, the Jew, and the machinations of the Church, purveyors of “the opium of the masses” that kept free born men everywhere in chains.

The technocratic oligarchs view the squandering of resources through democratization as the problem, while the bottom up rebels blame the oppression of the elites. It is somewhat difficult for us to recognize from our side of the aftermath, but every revolutionary thinker, from Rousseau, Wollstonecraft, Darwin, Marx, and Freud, pursued the same vision that Kingsnorth seems to have in mind; a return to the perfection of Eden.

The spirit of these revolutions are more clearly revealed in the hippy movement and the summer of love. It may be that some aspect of Edenic innocence was truly present in those early years, just as there is a kernel of truth in the statement “all you need is love”; but there were also serpents in that garden, conflating the love of God with the kind of love meant only for husbands and wives, and the knowledge of God with the unearned wisdom of psychedelic drugs. Like all forbidden fruits, the vibes based revolution of the 60’s tasted sweet on the lips, but it ended with a very bad trip out of Woodstock.

The Pornographic View of Sex

These revolutions cannot be undone. The fruit, once ingested, changes the man, and those changes form his offspring, mutating both in extremity and rebellion. The effects of the sexual revolution, and the ideologies that preceded it, have become enmeshed in our culture in a myriad of ways that we can barely recognize. But one of the most insidious is what I call “the pornographic view of sex”, and it is very much an extension of the “vibes based” ethos of intuitive anthropology.

The pornographic view of sex has become increasingly prevalent across all forms of fiction, especially since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and has made its way into the dating and mating habits of the general population. Its widespread adoption is particularly dangerous to autistic people. To describe what this pornographic understanding is, remember that the chief difficulty for autistic people, including high-masking and undiagnosed autistic people, is recognizing and interpreting non-verbal social cues. Facial expressions, tone of voice, posture and body language can all go unnoticed, or be misinterpreted by people with autism.

In contrast, the pornographic view of sex is one where no explicit verbal communication is given. The classic caricatures of pornographic movies contain tropes of Policemen, pool cleaners, or pizza delivery boys ringing a doorbell, and being greeted by a beautiful woman. Any dialogue that passes between them would be completely routine under normal circumstances; the discussion is about “services” and “fixing things”, reciprocated with “payments” and “tips”-- a normal exchange completely composed of double entendres. The couple transition to foreplay and sex without ever making an explicit statement of their intentions, or inquiring about the interest of the other party.

As an experience utterly foreign to the autistic mind, the pornographic depiction of sex initiation can be categorized as a peak neurotypical experience. Just think of Forrest Gump, sitting awake, dumbfounded while Jenny has sex with her boyfriend, or his uncomfortability with the prostitute who mocks him for failing to reciprocate her advances.

This animalistic approach to human relations, the highest ideal of the vibes-based anthropology of the revolutionary spirit, views the autistic mind as a product of the machine. It also resides in the reactionary embrace of homeopathic and natural remedies to the industrialization of medicine.

The growing concerns regarding the “causes” of autism are deeply rooted in these naturalistic assumptions, targeting vaccines, or the use of Tylenol during pregnancy, while completely overlooking the fact that instances of infant and maternal mortality have plummeted, or the amazing innovations that allow infants born as early as 22 weeks to survive.

The public discourse on autism is largely discussed from a standpoint of inconvenience, rather than compassion, and the remedy is prevention, rather than support or understanding. This way of thinking is deeply rooted in vibes-based anthropology. It relies on the assumption of a natural good that we can easily apprehend and understand, but it really stems from selfishness and laziness.

Field-Day for Sociopaths

When you embrace the return to a vibes-based view of nature, you can’t sort out the good and bad bits of “The Machine”. But beyond ostracizing the inconvenient and alien characteristics of the 1-2% of the population with autism, a vibes-based anthropology allows another small percentage of the population to flourish– sociopaths.

The characteristics of sociopathy include deceitfulness, impulsivity, irresponsibility, a lack of remorse, and a general disregard for others. Sociopaths are prone to chronic lying and manipulation, conning for personal gain or pleasure, acting without planning or regard for consequences, disregard for obligations, indifference to harming others, rationalizing actions without guilt, and repeatedly violating rules or laws.

True sociopaths make up a similar percentage of the population as people with autism, though it may range slightly higher, from roughly 1-4%. But cultural influences can cause an increase of sociopathic behaviors among normal people, though the same could be said of autistic tendencies as well.

The circumstances that allow the flourishing of these two small, but influential populations are diametrically opposed. This seems to explain the swinging pendulum of cultural norms. The autistic innovators in technology and communication can break through the deception and manipulation of a chaotic social sphere. But the eventual adoption and integration of those technologies into the culture background allows sociopaths to navigate established systems with ease.

It may be that “The Machine” Kingsnorth opposes so vigorously promotes an increase in skepticism and the desire for certainty, causing a loss of social skills that makes all people act more autistic. The mediation of screens can certainly flatten the range of human emotion to something closer to what autistic people normally comprehend. But to vilify that system for the inconvenience it causes typical people leaves the door wide open for something far worse.

The autistic tendencies of silicon valley have dulled the vibes of the hippy culture; but the horrendous fruit of that movement is still visible in the sociopathic realm of celebrity social culture. The danger is embedded in Kingsnorth’s revolutionary stance of opposition to the machine. Whether he intends it or not, the framing of his vision opens the door for the widespread adoption of two more sociopathic tendencies; aggressiveness, and a lack of conformity to norms.

These qualities are already on display in the frequent and often unprovoked physical assaults, and repeated legal or social rule-breaking of the militant Trans and Antifa movements of the far left. But the widespread adoption of Kingsnorth’s non-fiction would serve as a trojan horse that will result in the manifestation of the imaginative fantasies that dominate the culture, especially the fantasies of women, who have imbibed the Roussean warping of romance.

Consider the following excerpt from the “Call Me Daddy” podcast, (around the 34-minute mark) one of the most popular among young women, in which Chelsea Handler relates a sociopathic story of a sexual encounter to the gleefully delighted host:

“I was walking down the street to their house and this really sexy British guy, just, we just locked eyes and it was like ‘Sex!’ you know what I mean? and I was like it’s something you would see in a movie, and I was like, ‘I’m in London,’- this was an impromptu trip- I’m like, ‘What if I just had an affair with this guy?’ and I walked past him, and I stopped and I turned around and he had stopped, and it was late at night– like this was dangerous you know? It could have been. And it was late at night, and he said “would you like to come back to my place?”

And that was the first thing he said. The eye look that we had was so intense that I was like, “Yes.” and we went back to his house. I mean, we barely spoke. I went over there every night after the Olympics for a week, had a full-on affair with this guy, I don’t even know if I know his last name, or his first, and we had this incredible– It was just like like just chemistry, but not a lot of like “getting to know each other”, it was just purely sexual and then I’d be like, “Okay, l’m going to the Olympics tomorrow.” and he’s like “Are you going to come back tomorrow night?” I’m like, “Yes definitely.” and then l’d get home at like 10:00, l’d be like, “l’m coming over”, and he’d be like, “Great.”

We have a couple drinks and then we’d have crazy sex and then l’d go back to the friends whose house I was staying at. I never even told them what was going on. I don’t know why, because I don’t– it just felt so steamy, and like, sexy, and I wanted to keep it to myself, you know what I mean?”

Handler, who is part of the mainstream celebrity social culture, is not diagnosed or generally believed to be sociopathic, though the label has been applied by critics. Why? Because our culture has elevated sociopathic behavior to an aspirational privilege. Her position as a “comedian” provides another layer of social protection, as her outrageous statements can always be walked back as mere jokes.

But the critics who describe her as “empty, selfish, soulless,”, “lacking empathy,” or “miserable”, are not speaking without cause. Many have criticized her for being childless and unmarried at 50, a state she has maintained through several elective abortions that she has unabashedly celebrated. The anecdote above, given in response to the question, “what was the best one night stand you ever had”, was “really hard” for Handler to answer, because she had “so many fun one night stands in my 20s and 30s.” X users also called her a “narcissistic sociopath” in response to her political takes, such as comparing Hamas supporters to MAGA.

The fact that celebrities and even politicians are praised for celebrating the death of people who hold the wrong ideas, or vote for the wrong party is deeply disturbing behavior, yet our culture routinely praises the boldness of celebrities who make such statements, backed up not by evidence of wrongdoing, but widely accepted “vibes” about the essential “wrongness” of their enemies.

These criticisms are not meant to prove the superiority of the machine-like qualities of autistic culture. There have been plenty of horror stories produced by cultures and traditions that aimed to restrict or eliminate immoral behavior to the extreme. Nor should we view those who actually have sociopathy, or antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) as unredeemable. The testimony of Christian apologist David Wood, who suffers from sociopathy and committed terrible atrocities prior to his conversion, shows that all kinds of lost sheep can be redeemed, and used by God.

There are some similarities between autism and sociopathy, as the following summaries by Grok AI point out. (If the source offends the reader, so be it. I found no reason to rewrite what was clearly stated, though I edited out a great deal of superfluous information.)

Both can present as having difficulty forming or maintaining genuine relationships, leading to perceptions of being “detached” or “unengaged.” For example, an autistic person’s flat affect (reduced emotional expression) might be mistaken for the emotional coldness seen in ASPD, though the underlying reasons differ (neurodevelopmental vs. personality-based).

Both can exhibit behaviors that seem impulsive or non-conforming to social expectations, such as acting without apparent regard for consequences. For example, an autistic child’s sudden running off (elopement) might superficially resemble an ASPD individual’s reckless rule-breaking.

Both can appear to challenge authority or societal norms, leading to perceptions of being “defiant.” For instance, an autistic person’s insistence on routine might lead to conflict with authority, similar to an ASPD individual’s deliberate rule-breaking.

In clinical settings, especially in children or adolescents, behaviors like social withdrawal, aggression, or rule-breaking can lead to diagnostic confusion. For example, a young autistic person with meltdowns might be mislabeled as having conduct disorder (a precursor to ASPD), especially if autism is undiagnosed.

Superficial overlaps can lead to stigma or misdiagnosis, particularly in high-stakes settings like schools or courts. For example, an autistic person’s social awkwardness or meltdown might be misread as “sociopathic” lack of care, while an ASPD individual’s charm might obscure their harmful intent. Accurate diagnosis requires considering developmental history, intent, and context. Public perceptions, as seen in online discussions often exaggerate or misapply these terms.

The failure of both these groups to adapt to the culture is a problem that is not easily resolved. But any solution will require the thoughtful application of all our faculties, skepticism, reason, evidence, charity, and trust. Expectations of conformity must be balanced with freedom of expression. But we cannot expect any system, whether based in mechanical and technological certainty, or “vibes-based intuition” to fully address the complexity of human diversity.

The True Nature of “The Machine”

To solve the “problem” of “The Machine”, and properly oppose it, we must first locate the true source of the machine that opposes humanity.

“If only it were so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

One of the reasons it’s so tempting to see that machine in other people, is because we see the rottenness within our own hearts exposed within the other. We prefer to surround ourselves with those who overlook the same instincts as ourselves, and persecute those who openly long with the desires we naturally suppress. But every time we squash the exposed evidence of our hidden sins, someone else pops up, shining another pesky light on the darkness we wish to hide.

We each serve a sacred machine that bids us to keep its secrets - As John Calvin said, “fabricum idolorum est cor humanum,” translated as “the human heart is a factory of idols.” There is only one way to fight against the machine. We must admit our own defeat, and submit ourselves to the surgical skill of the great physician, who promises “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” - Ezekiel 36:26

Nature’s Remedy for Societal Collapse

What then do we do with the tiny remnant that will never fall in with the rest of the pack? Here, nature does show us a path forward, in an observation that could have come from many medieval monasteries. Not from what happened within the cloistered halls, but in the varied paths of the honeybees, between the fields of flowers and their apiaries.

The beehive is a model of efficient society. Honeybees divide and specialize labor, while also working together as a whole. The bees that travel back and forth from the hive to gather resources use a language of dance to communicate with others where to find food. They teach newly grown bees the way to fields known to be productive.

But there is a small percentage of bees that seemingly do whatever they want. They ignore the instructions of other bees, and fly off in random directions. They are extremely scrupulous in their search, surveying the boundaries of fields and exploring every crevice of trees and other structures. Such activities do pose a danger to the bees, as they may find themselves stranded without resources, if they go too far away from the hive without luck.

From an evolutionary standpoint, one might be tempted to dismiss them as a fluke, a mutant deficiency in bee-like behavior destined to lead to the extinction of their particular genetic line. But this could not be further from the truth. These bees are known as scout bees, and they play a vital role in the long-term survival of the community.

Beehives are constricted by the limitations of space and resources. As productive planners, they overstock their reserves, producing more honey than they can consume. This is a wonderful thing for humans, who reclaim the excess honey. By removing and replacing damaged or rotten frames, they maintain the integrity of the hives, and keep the bees healthy, happy, and busy.

But under natural circumstances, a hive can become sick when it reaches a point of overpopulation, leading to collapse. The same effects that plague captive rats and mice, as in the case of John Calhoun’s famous universe 25 experiment, can affect an overcrowded hive. Many have noted that urban decadence can produce similar effects on human society, leading to civilizational collapse. Yet bees provide us a way out.

The strange behavior of those peculiar bees, known as scouts, leads to the discovery of new sources of food, and more importantly, new locations for shelter. The scout bees find ways for the colony to survive through migration and expansion into new territories, overcoming the effects of climate disasters or other developments that might destroy existing habitats and food sources.

Their success lies in their ability to communicate their findings to the rest of the hive, and the willingness of the “normal” bees to listen and follow the instructions of the scouts. But there is a balance to this dance.

The bees don’t blindly follow the commands of an emphatic scout. The scouts must first convince each other that they have found a suitable location for a new home. Once the consensus of scouts reaches about 80%, the other bees will swarm, and head off to settle in their new home.

The parallels between the scout bees and autistics are striking. The scrupulosity and attention to detail mirror the autistic fascination with things that are overlooked and ignored by the average person. But the long history of autistic innovation points to a similarly vital role in human flourishing. The increase in outliers, and the estrangement between autistic people and other groups should cause us to take note of the times in which we live.

The dropping birthrates among developed nations seems to indicate a potential crisis that cannot be averted; we need to find and establish new colonies that will allow for growth and flourishing. But unlike honeybees, the needs of humans are not static; our role as cultivators requires an integration of the lessons learned through time. Those who cling to an outmoded view of what it means to be human are living in nostalgia.

Humans also have a tendency to cling to consensus, and like the honey bees, we trust consensus among our prophets as well. But what solution is being offered by the consensus of the prophets? Is it truly what is best for humanity? What if some of our scouts are wrong? What if the vibes-based apologists “against the machine” are leading us astray?

Followers of Christ cannot simply take their cues from the autists of silicon valley. But we also cannot rely solely on the “vibes” that make us feel warm or safe, or fearful. We must follow those who follow Christ in Spirit and in Truth; testing the spirits, testing the vibes, and testing the research as well.

A vision of humanity that relies on the exclusion of any percent of the living, whether autistic, or sadistic, fails to reflect the reality of humanity created in the image and likeness of God. Until we are able to ask the question “what does it mean to be human?” with openness and humility, rather than rational or vibes-based reductions, our future survival remains in peril.