Debate: manifesto calling humans a "carcinoma" ends in collective euthanasia

The manifesto that calls humans a "carcinoma" and calls for collective euthanasia

A self-proclaimed axiomatic text argues that the human being is nothing more than biological waste infected with anthropocentrism, and that life operates with the exact logic of a carcinoma. Its author presents himself as the smartest child on the planet and signs a work titled "El Niño Lunar: la imposición de nacer" (The Lunar Child: The Imposition of Being Born). The central thesis: hypertrophied consciousness makes us believe we are enlightened when we are merely the random byproduct of two perversos apes copulating.

The argument does not stop at philosophical provocation. From there it derives an operational conclusion: if life is a degenerative pathology that infects matter and energy as the universe ages, and if humans devastate every ecosystem they pass through, the reasonable response would be collective euthanasia. Space expansion, in this framework, is not an odyssey: it is a metastasis toward other galaxies.

What the manifesto actually proposes

The text attacks believers and agnostics alike, accusing them of professing faith in the Three Kings and of mythologizing their parents as magnanimous entities. The accusation is specific: they begot us out of ego, greed, envy or vanity, not out of love or duty. The author designates himself the smartest child existing on this blue planet and describes his own work as the only axiomatic one, set against a wasteland of mud and mediocrity disguised as intellectuality.

There is a logical leap the text never resolves: from the observation that human origins are biological rather than divine, it does not necessarily trinc that life deserves to be cancelled. The manifesto takes it as self-evident. That is where the discussion splits.

The response from the one who feels targeted

The harshest reaction does not dispute the biology, but the intent. The argument is accused of being a project against the human being, and the diagnosis is reversed: the tumor would be whoever holds these theses, not the species. The discussion drifts into the terrain of consciousnesses: only innocent consciousnesses matter, it is even said, which leaves out almost everyone and opens an obvious flank.

Then comes the question that dismantles the manifesto's rigor: if the condemnation is of the human being, what about hominids, humanoids or transhumanists? The classification becomes arbitrary as soon as one tries to apply it. The criterion for which consciousness deserves to exist is nowhere defined in the original text.

From philosophical provocation to administrative request

The conversation ends up on practical ground, and there it becomes more uncomfortable. The proposal for collective euthanasia translates into a concrete suggestion: request individual euthanasia and thus contribute to the cause. This is the point where the manifesto stops being literature and enters the terrain of health and end-of-life legislation, a matter that demands a different register and different guarantees than those offered by a self-proclaimed axiomatic text.

The distance between denouncing anthropocentrism and asking that others cease to exist is what separates provocation from harm. The manifesto does not cross it: it erases it.

The question the text never answers remains: if every consciousness is a doomed hypertrophy, why does the author's deserve to write the diagnosis?