If Freud is right about the death drive (and he is mostly proven

>humans still alive

I see a mild flaw in your theory

>>2215359
>If Freud is right about the death drive
He isn't.

File: barn-owl-portrait-2-for-web.jpg (360KB, 1424x2048px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1424x2048px

>and he is mostly proven right by empirical reality in psychology as well as history

bait thread

>>2215362

The Holocaust, Nuclear weapons,biogenetics,climate change and cybernetics, seems to me the biggest proofs that the death drive, is the only drive propelling the human race.

True we have not killed ourselves yet, but we do find good ways of bringing up that option to the table.

The idea death drives every fiber of our being, either out of denial or the notion you only have 1 short life, is edgy, however I think humans are more pathetic than that. We are driven by emotions and associate some emotions with death, we can make up any shit we want to make us feel better though we can equally make up more shit to cover up any contradictions between our beliefs and our desired short term lifestyle. With all these pitfalls it can't be overwhelmingly influential, sure a few get severely spooked (although it might be attributable to some other unusual factor like a traumatic upbringing), however it doesn't make much difference to the majority of normies.

>>2215380
You see how if a billion humans have children and continue life, it isn't newsworthy or historically relevant?

Also

>one group of humans has death impulse
>other group of humans is feeling pretty okay
>first group dies
>second group expands to fill the void left by first group

As long as you have 1,000 or more humans who live near each other and feel like living, it's going to be hard to get rid of the little bastards.

>>2215430

You misunderstand, I am not a edgy anti-natalist.

Of course the biological principles are there for the propagation of the species. The thing is though this isn't the decision of a small group, but of a whole species, which is mobilised by drives and not just psychological egoism.

The decision to annihilate the human race by nuclear weapons, or its destruction by technological post-humanism, does not ensure any prospects of survival.

Even if a second Adam and Eve were to survive, again it would not guarantee the survival of a species that has surrendered to its extinction.

>>2215359
Ain't you heard?
We're all gonna die >>2213007

>>2215459
>The thing is though this isn't the decision of a small group, but of a whole species

I'm pretty sure humans are only cognitively capable of thinking in terms of small groups.

>>2215380
All of these are not driven by desire for death, but to increase the group's safety and quality of life. The Nazis wanted to expel and kill Jews because they believed Jews had a negative impact on their society, not because they just loved killing. America wanted nuclear weapons to protect itself from military threat, not because we just wanted to increase the chance of global annihilation. I could go on and refute your other examples but the point is clear.

it's all will 2 power tee bee aich

>>2215380
>biogenetics
?

YALL WANNA FUG YO MUMS WIT YOUR DAD'S DICK DONTYA YA LESBIANS?
>>2215359
Also no. Humans propel forward in life, pushing death aside. Life over others' destruction happens once in a while but it isn't a "drive".
>>2215459
This shit is devolving into Neon Genesis Evangelion levels of introspection or I'm just too drunk.

File: mQeVaNc.png (83KB, 1203x706px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1203x706px

>>2215359

>>2215359
>(((((((Freud)))))))))