Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[sushil_yadav]

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Dear Group Members,

I want to share an article with you. This is about the link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Thank you,
Sushil Yadav

[ My background is given in the first letter ( letter No. 1 ) under the
topic " Correspondence with neuroscientists " on the website :
www.netshooter.com/emotion ]

Please note : The article has been written in short sentences rather than paragraph-form because it is about subjective experience / emotion/ reduction of thought.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.


Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.


When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.



A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.



FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.

SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.



I am trying to get the following experiment conducted in a psychophysiology/ bio-chemistry laboratory.

There is a link between visual / verbal speed ( in perception, memory,
imagery ) and the bio-chemical state of the brain and the body.

Emotion can intensify / sustain only when visual and verbal processing
associated with the emotion slows down ( stops / freezes ).

The degree of difficulty of an emotion depends upon the degree of
freezing (of visuals and words ) required to intensify and sustain that
particular emotion.


Experiment:

Subjects (preferably actors specialising in tragedy / tragic roles )
will be asked to watch a silent video film showing any of the
following:-

(1) Human suffering.
(2) Animal suffering.
(3) Suffering ( Destruction ) of Air / Water / Land / Trees.

Subjects will be asked to intensify and sustain the subjective feeling of pain/ grief for the sufferer.

The chemical changes associated with the emotion in the body(blood) would be measured by appropriate methods.

The silent video film will be shown at different speeds :
(1) 125% of actual speed.
(2) Actual/real speed.
(3) 75% of actual speed.
(4) 50% of actual speed.
(5) 25% of actual speed.


Results :

(1) Intensity of emotion increases with the decrease in visual speed.
(2) Intensity of emotion is maximum when visual speed is minimum (25%
of actual speed)

(3) The amount of chemical change associated with the emotion in the
body(blood) will be found to increase with the decrease in visual speed.

(4) The chemical change is maximum when visual speed is minimum.
(5) The amount of chemical change will increase with the decrease in
breathing rate. Breathing becomes so slow and non-rhythmic that it stops
for some time at the inhalation/ exhalation stages.

The above co-relations will be valid for all subjects -even for those who cannot feel pain/ grief. Such subjects will experience emotion associated with boredom/ discomfort/ restlessness/ irritability/ uneasiness. The chemicals released will be different but the co-relation between visual speed and amount of chemical will be same( the breathing rates will be different/ fast).
All subjects will experience some kind of emotion.

[If scientists can discover 4000 different chemicals in cigarette-smoke then they can certainly detect the few chemicals released in blood when weexperience higher-level emotions like pain, empathy, compassion, remorse etc… ]


In the 2nd stage of experiment we shall replace the silent video film with a Narrator ( Audio only ) and repeat the procedure thereby establishing the link between intensity of emotion and verbal speed. The narrator will slow down verbal speed by-- speaking slowly, stretching words, repetition of words/ sentences & making use of
pause/ silence between words.

Please note:
(1) A THINKING MIND CANNOT INTENSIFY / SUSTAIN ANY EMOTION.
While this statement is generally true for all emotions, it is
particularly true for all painful emotions.

(2) In a society in which visual ( verbal ) speed and breathing- rates
are fast , pain / remorse / empathy cannot be experienced. It is
impossible.


PROOF.
Proof of the link between pain and slow visuals / words :-

In the last century man has made thousands of movies / films on various
themes / subjects. Whenever pain / tragedy is shown in any film the
visuals ( scenes ) and words ( dialogues ) are always slowed down. In
many films tragedy is shown in slow motion. At the most intense moment
of pain the films almost become static / stationary.

Tragedy-films provide direct proof / evidence of the link between pain
and slowness.

Pain can intensify / sustain only when visual ( and verbal ) speed slows
down( stops/ freezes).


CHANGE IN VISUAL SPEED OVER THE YEARS

One thousand years ago visuals would change only when man physically
moved himself to a new place or when other people ( animals / birds )
and objects ( clouds / water ) physically moved themselves before him.

Today man sits in front of TV / Computer and watches the rapidly
changing visuals / audio.

He sits in a vehicle ( car / train / bus ) and as it moves he watches
the rapidly changing visuals.

He turns the pages of a book / newspaper / magazine and sees many
visuals / text in a short span.


CHANGE IN VERBAL SPEED OVER THE YEARS

In ancient times verbal processing was “live” in nature—ie it happened when people actually spoke.
Today there is non-stop verbal processing inside the mind through print and electronic media ( newspapers, books, magazines, radio, television, computer etc…) as a result of which the verbal content & speed has increased thousands of times.


The speed of visuals ( and words ) has increased so much during the last
one hundred years that today the human brain has become incapable of
focussing on slow visuals /words through perception, memory, imagery.

If we cannot focus on slow visuals / words we cannot experience emotions associated with slow visuals /words.



Before the advent of Industrial Revolution Man's thinking was primarily
limited to :

(a) visual processing ( slow visuals )
(b) verbal / language processing ( slow words )

Today there are many kinds of fast thinking :

(1) visual processing ( fast visuals )
(2) verbal / language processing ( fast words )
(3) Scientific / Technical thinking ( fast )
(4) Industrial thinking ( fast )
(5) Business thinking ( fast )

(3), (4) & (5) ARE ASSOCIATED WITH NUMBERS / SYMBOLS / EQUATIONS /
GRAPHS /CIRCUITS / DIAGRAMS / MONEY / ACCOUNTING etc…

As long as the mind is doing this kind of thinking it cannot feel any
emotion - not an iota of emotion.

In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
In a thinking ( scientific / industrial ) society emotion itself becomes extinct.

EMOTION IS WHAT REMAINS IN THE MIND WHEN VISUAL /VERBAL PROCESSING SLOWS DOWN (STOPS/ FREEZES )



There are certain categories of people who feel more emotion (subjective experience ) than others.

If we attempt to understand why (and how ) they feel more emotion we can learn a lot about emotion.

Writers, poets, actors, painters ( and other artists )

WRITERS
Writers do verbal ( and associated visual) processing whole day- every day.
They do slow verbal ( and associated visual) processing every day.
(A novel that we read in 2 hours might have taken 2 years to write. This is also the reason why the reader can never feel the intensity & duration of emotion experienced by the writer )

POETS
Poets do verbal ( and associated visual ) processing whole day- every day.
There is more emotion in poetry than in prose.
This happens because there are very few words ( and associated visuals ) in poetry than in any other kind of writing.
There is a very high degree of freezing / slowing down of visuals & words in poetry.

ACTORS
Actors do verbal ( and associated visual ) processing whole day- every day. During shooting / rehearsal they repeat the dialogues ( words ) again and again ( the associated visuals / scenes also get repeated along with the dialogues )

PAINTERS
Painters do visual ( and associated verbal ) processing whole day- every day.
They do extremely slow visual processing - The visual on the canvas changes only when the painter adds to what already exists on the canvas.


There are some important points to be noted :

All these people do visual & verbal processing - whole day - every day.
They do slow visual & verbal processing.
They do not do scientific / industrial / business processing whole day - every day.

Most of the city people doing mental work either do this kind of mental processing which is associated with NUMBERS / SYMBOLS/ Equations / Graphs / CIRCUITS / DIAGRAMS / MONEY / ACCOUNTING etc… or they do fast visual ( verbal ) processing whole day - every day.

This kind of thinking ( processing ) has come into existence only during the last 200 years and has destroyed our emotional ability ( circuits ).



SELF-ASSESSMENT OF ( SUBJECTIVE ) INTENSITY OF EMOTION IS ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG.

Suppose the maximum intensity(and duration) of a particular emotion that
can be experienced by any human being is 100 units.

Let us suppose the maximum intensity(and duration) of that particular emotion ever
experienced by two people A & B in their entire life is :
A - 100units
B - 20 units

Now suppose A & B are made subjects on a particular day and are asked
to feel that particular emotion under experimental conditions ( or
outside the laboratory ) and the intensity &duration they actually experience is
:

A - 90 units
B - 18 units

If A & B are then asked to indicate the intensity &duration of emotion on a scale
of 0 -10 their response is likely to be ;

A - 9
B - 9

Who is right and who is wrong ?
A is right.
B is wrong - B is wrong by a wide margin - B has experienced an
intensity(and duration) of 18 units out of a maximum of 100 units and his correct /
actual score should be 1.8

Self- assessment ( self rating ) can be accurate only if people have
the capacity to experience the highest intensity &duration ( units ) of the
particular emotion under study.



Because of physical work and slow visual/verbal processing in small(slow)agriculture based societies of the past, the mind used to experience a state of emotion all the time. If we read one thousand-year-old literature we will not come across the term "boredom" -the concept of boredom did not exist in slow societies. There were long gaps between different visuals and between words/ sentences -and people had the ability to experience/ tolerate the gaps -it was normal for them.

Emotion can intensify / sustain only when visual / verbal processing slows down ( stops / freezes ). In an Industrial (thinking) society people experience very little emotion because of fast ( visual / verbal / scientific / industrial / business ) thinking

Suppose the maximum intensity and duration of a particular emotion ( for most people ) in a fast society has reduced to 5 units ( from 100 units that people used to experience in earlier /slower societies ).

If such people experience 4 units of emotion they will give themselves a
rating /score of 8 on a scale of 0-10 whereas their actual score should
be 0.4

IN A FAST SOCIETY SLOW EMOTIONS BECOME EXTINCT.

[Please note :
Fast emotions =emotions associated with fast visuals/fast words/fast breathing/fast heart-rate.
Slow emotions=emotions associated with slow visuals/slow words/slow breathing/slow heart-rate.
Rate of thinking=number of visuals/words processed per minute.
Gaps between thinking =gaps between visuals/ words/ sentences.]



IQ Vs EQ

IQ always has an element of change in it – IQ is about trying to make/ discover/ invent something new all the time.
Change is an inherent feature of IQ.
IQ is also about thinking more in less time—it involves speeding up of mind. Someone who does more mathematics in less time is considered more intelligent in mathematics. IQ is about change and speed.

EQ is about sustainment of the same feeling/experience over a period of time. When we experience any higher-level emotion for 10 minutes we experience the same feeling( subjective experience) over and over again for 10 minutes.
The( same) feeling can sustain only if there is Repetition.
EQ involves Repetition—Constancy—Sameness.

IQ and EQ are contradictory.
IQ and EQ are opposites.
IQ and EQ are inversely proportional.



(1) A thinking species destroys the planet.
(2) Animals lived on earth for billions of years (in very large numbers)
without destroying nature.
(3) They did not destroy nature because their thinking / activity was
limited to searching for food for one time only.
(4) Man has existed on earth in large numbers for only a few thousand
years / a few hundred years.
(5) Within this short period Man has destroyed the environment.
(6) This destruction took place because of Man's thinking.
(7) When man thinks he makes things.
(8) When he makes things he kills animals / trees / air / water / land.
( Nothing can be made without killing these five elements of nature ).

(9) A thinking species destroys the planet.



Intelligence Is A Curse.

This planet is on the verge of total destruction.

The cause of destruction is – overactivity.
[Out of millions of species in this world the human-species is the only one that has indulged in overactivity]

The cause of overactivity is – Intelligence.
[The environment would never have got destroyed if Man had been only as intelligent as animals]

Intelligence is the biggest cause/ source of destruction in this world.

[In fact Intelligence is the only cause of destruction in this world other than natural causes]



MENTAL WORK IS INJURIOUS TO THE MIND AND PLANET.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

People cannot stop physical activity and mental activity (simultaneously) for even 2 minutes.

For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he
began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products--
a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).


The nature of mental work is such that man has to do new mental work every day- in fact he has to do new mental work every moment- Man cannot repeat in the next moment the mental work that he has already done in the previous moment.

A mathematician cannot solve the same problem of mathematics every day- once he has solved it he will be forced to take up a new( unsolved) problem. Even when he is solving one particular problem he has to move from one step to another - there is a continuous change involved -- there is no constancy at any stage.

An engineer cannot design the same machine again and again –once he has made a machine he will try to make changes/ design a new one.

A writer cannot write the same article every day- he will be forced to write something new every day/ every moment (This is also the reason behind endless discussions/ debates/ arguments).



Discussions, Debates and Arguments.

Let us examine how much discussion we are collectively having in Industrial Society every day.

Millions of pages in print – newspapers / books / magazines.
Millions of web-pages on internet every day.

Now add to this all the conversation (discussion) we are having through radio / television / telephone and several other media every day.

And add to this all the discussion we are having through face-to-face interaction.

The volume of discussion per individual in one week is greater than the total discussion someone living in pre-industrial society would have in his entire life.

There is too much discussion in modern society.
Discussion is not solving our problems – discussion itself has become a problem – a gigantic problem.


A society that does mental work will discuss itself to destruction [extinction]

A society that does mental work will argue itself to destruction [extinction]

A society that does mental work will debate itself to destruction [extinction]


A society that does mental work can never stop discussions / debates / arguments – it is impossible. It will discuss / debate / argue till the last moment of it’s existence.


Discussions / Debates / Arguments – these are creations of a society that has switched-over from physical work to mental work.

Discussions / Debates / Arguments – these are diseases of a society that has switched-over from physical work to mental work.


Discussions / debates / arguments can end only in agriculture-based societies that do physical work.

We cannot do physical-work and mental-work simultaneously.

There is an inverse relationship between physical-work and mental-work.
If one is high [more] the other has got to be low [less]

If we want to do physical work we have to reduce mental activity by the same proportion.
If we want to do mental work we have to reduce physical activity by the same proportion.

There is very little discussion / debate / argument in societies that do physical work - ie, agriculture-based societies - And this is the reason why they are millions of times saner than industrial societies.




Change is an inherent feature of mental work.

Since change is an inherent feature of mental work - a society that does mental work can never be at peace with itself – it is impossible.

A society that does mental work will always be restless.

Only those societies that do physical work [agriculture and related activities] can find contentment and peace.




AS LONG AS CITIES EXIST WE CAN NEITHER SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT NOR THE MIND.

To save the [ remaining ] environment from destruction man will have to
return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].

To save the mind from mental diseases man will have to return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].



Criminality and Abnormality.

Industrial Society has collectively killed billions of Animals and Trees [ Remember -plant and animal species developed over a period of millions ofyears]

It has also killed most of Water and Air [ Please note - polluting Water and Air is equivalent to killing Water and Air ]

The soil was not fertile when the earth was created. It became fertile - very slowly - over a period of millions of years. And look what man has done - He has covered millions and millions of hectares of land with cement and concrete. All the land that has been covered with cement and concrete has been killed.

Man has stockpiled thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear material and nuclear waste which is going to remain highly radioactive and carcinogenic for the next thousands of years - and which has already leaked into the environment hundreds of times.


What could be more criminal than this.
What could be more abnormal than this.

Lawyers and Judges are trying to catch a few criminals.
They don’t realize the entire Industrial Society is criminal.

Psychologists and Psychiatrists are trying to classify a few people as abnormal.
They don’t realize the entire Industrial Society is abnormal.




Industrial Society is collectively making millions of tonnes of weapons and explosives [of all kinds] every year – and then it wonders why there is so much violence in this world.

Big Mystery.

If you make millions of tonnes of weapons and explosives on earth they are going to be used on earth – they are not going to be used on Mars.



Make things
Buy things
Sell things

This is not the purpose of life.

Destroy Shopping Culture.

No one deserves more.
Everyone deserves less.




There was a time when Man knew nothing about the number of species and millions of species existed.
Today Man knows the names of millions of species and nothing is left of the species.



It took millions of years for millions of species to slowly come into existence on earth - and man has decimated all other species.

After destroying millions of highly-developed species on earth Man is today searching for a few molecules of life in outer-space.

If a few microbes, a few molecules of methane / water are found on Mars - it becomes the newspaper headline.

They call it progress.



The following is about to come true.

Nature can exist

(1) before man.
(2) after man.
(3) not with man.


Environment can be saved only if we stop production of most [ more than
99% ] of the consumer goods we are making today.

ENVIRONMENT CANNOT BE SAVED BY RECYCLING

THE ATTEMPT OF AN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT BY RECYCLING IS LIKE SHOOTING SOMEONE
10,000 TIMES AND THEN TRYING TO SAVE HIM BY TAKING OUT ONE BULLET.

Time is running out for this planet.


sushil_yadav

[I am seeking help from volunteers in spreading this message far and wide]

[redstar2000]

This is the correct forum for this topic.

Duplicate postings were deleted from Politics and Theory.

Please do not make multi-postings of the same item in different forums.

Thanks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Emotions are a property of the human brain, and can currently be altered with drugs.

There is even resaerch under way about curing permanent depression with circuitry in the brain.

Emotions can also be bad things; they can cause one to mnake rash decisions where a rational agent would make reasoned ones.

Besides that, it's another primitivist screed. What's the point anyway? why do you wish to hold back the human race?

[sushil_yadav]

Dear friends,
I want to thank everyone for reading the article. I would like to add some more points to the topic.


Regarding Industrialization there is an important point to be noted. Modern Industrial Society has existed for 100 years - 200 years - 300 years. When we compare this period with the total duration for which human society has existed on earth this period is so short - so small that it almost does'nt exist. It is almost zero.

Material things don't bring peace and happiness. Today billions of people have got things which even Kings did not have in the past. Car, computer, television, fridge, telephone - no King ever had these things. But people are still restless and unhappy.

Consumerist-Lifestyle is just not sustainable. If we do not immediately return to living a very simple and frugal life then very soon there will be no human life on earth.



Think Positive.

Psychologists say -- Think Positive.
Politicians say – Think Positive.
Economists say – Think Positive.
Scientists say – Think Positive.
Everyone says – Think Positive.

Arctic ice is melting – Glaciers are melting – Rivers are drying up.
Think Positive.

Fish population in Oceans is down to 1/3 of what it was 100 years ago.
Think Positive.

Pollution levels are going sky-high and valley-deep.
Think Positive.

There used to be millions of members in most species of Animals and Birds. Now they are down to thousands and hundreds.
Think Positive.

Weather is getting more and more irregular and unpredictable.
Think Positive.


Thinking positive is the height of insanity.
Thinking positive is the height of abnormality.


This is a world that has become completely incapable of feeling Pain, Compassion, Remorse and Guilt.
The planet is getting destroyed moment by moment – and people are thinking positive.


Very soon there will be 1 Animal and 1 Tree left in this world – and people will still be thinking positive.

They will be holding Seminars, Conferences and Global-Summits to save the Environment.




There is an important point which the human-species needs to understand. People think they can save the Environment by doing something.

We can never save the environment by doing something.

It is overactivity that has destroyed environment in the first place.

Human-species is the only one out of millions of species that has indulged in overactivity on this planet [ And for this very reason the human speciesis going to exist on earth for the least amount of time]

And it is not Mild Overactivity – It is Excessive Overactivity – Exponential Overactivity.

We cannot save the environment by doing something.

We can only save it by doing less of what we have been doing - much less of what we have been doing.

If we want to save environment we will have to reduce human activity [overactivity] by 99%.



The Illogical Logic of Man.

A few birds have got infected with bird-flu and Man has started killing millions of birds.
They say birds are a threat to humans.

Sometime ago there was Mad Cow disease and Man started killing hundreds of thousands of cows.
They said cows are a threat to humans.

Ever since Man came into existence - millions of humans with infectious diseases have transferred such diseases to millions of other people - and will continue to infect millions more in future.
Such people are a threat to rest of the people.
Man should follow the same logic here and kill all infected people.

It is Man who has killed millions of people in Wars and other forms of Violence – and can kill millions more any time in future.
Man should follow the same logic here and kill all people.


It is the human species which is the greatest threat to humans and all other life on this planet - In fact the human species is the only species which is a threat to all life on Earth.

Man has decimated all Animal and Plant species – polluted the Sky and Oceans - and poisioned every square inch of earth.

In a mere 200 - 300 years Industrial Society has destroyed all that Nature laboriously created over a period of millions of years.


Humans pose the greatest threat to other humans.
Humans pose the greatest threat to all other life on earth.


The so-called Rational and Civilized Man should follow the same logic here - and destroy the entire human race.

Please note :

If you indulge in Factory Farming – If you torture the birds – confine millions of them in prison like conditions – depriving them of Sunlight and the freedom to walk and fly – you are creating an environment for the spread of virus and disease.



Lifestyle of Mass Destruction.

Destruction is an inherent feature of Development.

Progress = Destruction of Nature.
Development = Destruction of Nature.


We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.

Development can never be sustainable.
Sustainability and Development cannot exist together.


Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.

Sustainable Living is associated with consuming less – being satisfied with a simple and frugal life.
Development is associated with never ending desires – always wanting more.


Sustainable lifestyle requires Constancy.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Sameness.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Repetition.


Development is associated with Change.
Development is associated with New.
Development is associated with Transience.


Industrial Societies can never be sustainable – When you make thousands of consumer goods you kill Nature - you kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land.

A Society that does mental work [city based] can never be sustainable - it will keep on making consumer goods - destroying the environment moment by moment.

Only agriculture-based societies that do physical work can be sustainable.


The term Sustainable Development is like the terms

Stationary Walk.
Silent Talk.
Wakeful Sleep.
Dark Sun
Gentle Torture.
Dry Rain.
Peaceful War.




There was a time when Man used to say –

I work in order to feed my family.
I work in order to put Food on the Table.

Today man is putting a lot more than Food on the Table.

Cars, Computers, ipods, Aeroplanes, 200 TV Channels, Luxury Yatchs, Caribbean Vacations, Palatial Homes, Video Phones, Designer Clothes, Designer Drugs, Cosmetic Surgery …………… The list is endless.


Man is putting thousands of consumer goods and services on the Table.
There is too much weight on the Table.
And the Table has begun to creak.


The more you put on your table the more you take out from the mouths of Animals and Birds.

The more you put on your table the more you kill Animals and Trees.

The more you put on your table the more you kill Water, Air and Land.

The more you put on your table the more you kill Mountains and Valleys.

The more you put on your table the more you kill the Sky and Oceans - the Rivers and Lakes.


There are so many things on the Table that one can barely see the Food.

We need just a few things to live.
And we are making thousands of things.

Billions of people are engaged in making, buying and selling of thousands of consumer goods.


Destroy Shopping Culture.

Go back to Simple Living.
Go back to putting just Food on the Table.


sushil_yadav


[ I request readers to share this artricle with other people ]

[LSD]

Regarding Industrialization there is an important point to be noted. Modern Industrial Society has existed for 100 years - 200 years - 300 years. When we compare this period with the total duration for which human society has existed on earth this period is so short - so small that it almost does'nt exist.

And yet it is also the period that has given us the greatest increase in living standards, education, knowledge, understanding, development, and progress in human history.

Doesn't that demonstrate the usefullness of "modern industrial society"?

That 200 years of industrialization dwarfs 2 millions years of paleolithic scrounging shows us unquestionably that modern society is "the way to go".

The fact that you are claming otherwise is clearly a sign of rank insanity.

Luckily modern medicine has given us tools to treat you! :lol:


We can never save the environment by doing something.

Why the hell not?

Asserting something doesn't make it true. There are absolutely many things that we could actively do to improve the environment without sacrificing human civilization.

Adopting primativism, however, is not one of them.


The more you put on your table the more you take out from the mouths of Animals and Birds.

Really? Well, good thing then that I don't give a damn about birds' mouths.


Go back to Simple Living.

And that would be what exactly?

Paleolithic? Neolithic? Feudalism? What?

Should we go all the way back to the beginning? "Cast off" our clothes and our language and run around grunting in the dirt killing "outsiders" and raping any attractive females we see?

This glorification of "nature" is idealist nonsense. "Nature" is a brutal and violent environment. "Nature" has killed far more species than humans ever have, and it would kill us without a second thought if we were to abandon the tools of civlization.

You talk about modern "rationality" demanding the killing humans to end disease, well that's what your precious "primative socities" did.

For all you condemn industrial civilization, it's brought us antibiotics and antivirals; paleolithic man practiced infantiside and ritual murder.

He also prayed a lot.

And perhaps that's your "master plan". We'll all return to "nature" and then "God" will "save us" from our "sins" of "industry".

If so, all I can say is that if you're waiting for "him", you'll be waiting for a long time to come! :lol:


We need just a few things to live.

Maybe, but we need many more things to live well.

Sorry, but you're never going to convince anyone to give up their computers and watches and cars so they can go back to slavery and despotism.

"Simple living" means simple society. That means short nasty ignorant lives with little fredom, no security, and a lot of misery.

No thank you! :angry:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Primativism under the disguise of "scientific experiments". What's even better is that this kat thinks there is "something to" these inane ramblings.

[pedro san pedro]

what a load of bollocks all that was! i feel sorry for you, taking that long to type an 'article' that bad!!

i got a fiver says that this guy is a hare krishna



We can never save the environment by doing something.

i agree that many of todays environmental problems are a by-product of industrial ssociety - but going and living in a cave is not going to fix them. we need technology to clean up the messes that we have left behind. how would you propose that we clean up areas heavily infected with toxins if we've gone down the primativist route? what would you have us do with nuclear waste?

let alone trying to produce enough food to feed everyone!!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sushil_yadav
Today people are thinking all the time...

Your post demonstrates the contrary in an indisputable fashion. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[pedro san pedro]

redstar2000 Posted on Jan 21 2006, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (sushil_yadav)
Today people are thinking all the time...


Your post demonstrates the contrary in an indisputable fashion. ohmy.gif

user posted image

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

LSD, nicely replied. I'd just add one more thing. Environmentalism, in all its forms, is petit-bourgeois bullshit.

[pedro san pedro]

care to elaborate upon that? i kinda think that a functioning ecosystem is kinda important to allowing humanity to enjoy quality of life. not to mention the fact that environmental issues cause the deaths of 100,000's of people each year.a lthough, admittidly, those people tend to be poor - so perhaps they don't count ;)

[Vanguard1917]

care to elaborate upon that? i kinda think that a functioning ecosystem is kinda important to allowing humanity to enjoy quality of life. not to mention the fact that environmental issues cause the deaths of 100,000's of people each year.a lthough, admittidly, those people tend to be poor - so perhaps they don't count

Well, environmentalism is based on a notion that human beings should limit industrial production in the interests of 'the environment'. Instead, the environmentalists favour small-scale, localised and 'sustainable' production.

Even if 'environmental issues' do 'cause the deaths of 100,000s of people each year' - which i'm sure they do not - mass industrial development has the potential to radically improve the lives of many millions of the world's poor.

I'm a socialist primarily because i don't believe that capitalism can provide the kind of mass industrial development that is needed for the genuine liberation of mankind from poverty. For me, socialist society will display mankind's productive capabilities to an extent that would now seem impossible.

I am a socialist not because i wish to see the historically massive productive achievements of capitalism to be cut-back, but because i believe that capitalist development of the productive forces does not go far enough.

The socialism of the environmentalists is something that is completely alien to the Marxist vision of a future society. Marx and Engels argued that human beings cannot be liberated without major developments in the forces of production:

'It is possible to achieve real liberation only in the real world and by real means... Slavery cannot be abolished without the steam engine and the mule jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture... [I]n general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.'

[pedro san pedro]

from the world health organisation, 2000


a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150,000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.

from WHO, 2005


the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that human-induced changes in the Earth's climate now lead to at least 5 million cases of illness and more than 150,000 deaths every year.


you seem to be under the impression that enviornmentalists want to see humanity return to the caves and to the trees - as the delightful individual who started this thread woulkd. i assure you that this is not the case and that infact the quote you provided -


'It is possible to achieve real liberation only in the real world and by real means... Slavery cannot be abolished without the steam engine and the mule jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture... [I]n general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.'

- is actually quite relevant to modern environmnetalism. modern environmnetalists know that they have to campaign in a sloution based direction. stickinbg with the global warming theme - environmentalists propose the use of renewable energy as an alternative to coal. now, i'm pretty darned sure that this would consitute a major jump in technology - taking us away from what was being used for energy during the industrial revolution and providing a cleaner alternative

[Vanguard1917]

from the world health organisation, 2000

There has been no concrete study made to prove the negative effects of 'climate change' on human health. At the moment, it is still mere speculation.

We should remember the key issue here: environmentalism is first and foremost a product of an existing social climate of fear and uncertainty that is widespread in Western society. The science of 'environmental damage' is not the underlying cause for the rise of the environmentalist movement. Environmentalism, as a mainstream movement, has only existed for a couple of decades or so. We have to ask ourselves why.


you seem to be under the impression that enviornmentalists want to see humanity return to the caves and to the trees - as the delightful individual who started this thread woulkd. i assure you that this is not the case and that infact the quote you provided -

The environmentalists are under pressure to present themselves as a modern political movement. But if you scratch beneath the surface a little, you'll see that the environmentalist logic is actually extremely backward and, even more worryingly, anti-humanist.

The environmentalist message is essentially that human beings should practice restraint. Human beings are seen to be the source of the world's problems. I prefer to view mankind as a glorious and amazing species... and i don't apologise for this.

But human beings have yet to fully master nature - which is the ultimate goal. It is only then that we can fully understand the laws of nature and manipulate them in the interests of humanity.

One more thing that seems to 'confuse' the environmentalists: the environment has no worth in and of itself. Human beings that seek to protect the environment for the environment's sake forget what it means to be human. The environment's only value is its value to humanity.

[pedro san pedro]

the environment has no worth in and of itself. Human beings that seek to protect the environment for the environment's sake forget what it means to be human. The environment's only value is its value to humanity.

i agree entirely - what you are saying here is that the environment does have a value to humanity. therefore we should aim to both protect it and use it in a sustainable manner, so that it can continue to have a value.


One more thing that seems to 'confuse' the environmentalists: the environment has no worth in and of itself

again you are present a twisted idea of environmentalism. environmentalists simply realise that the environment is crucial to mankind and to quality of life so should therefore be protected.


We should remember the key issue here: environmentalism is first and foremost a product of an existing social climate of fear and uncertainty that is widespread in Western society. The science of 'environmental damage' is not the underlying cause for the rise of the environmentalist movement. Environmentalism, as a mainstream movement, has only existed for a couple of decades or so. We have to ask ourselves why.

one could argue that modern environmentalism started with the publishing of 'toxic spring'. a book based upon science and the real effects of toxic polution - not fear but concrete evidence. also, it makes sense that western environmentalsim has grown so rapidly in the past few decades - keeping track with humanities ablity to damage the environment on a much larger scale

also, other cultures have developed environmentalism in the past - the maori concept of tapu is heavily luinked to environmental issues, environmentalism is not simply a phenomen that occurs exclusively within the 'petit bourgeois'. i am still curious as to why you feel that this is the case?

[LSD]

The environmentalist message is essentially that human beings should practice restraint. Human beings are seen to be the source of the world's problems. I prefer to view mankind as a glorious and amazing species... and i don't apologise for this.

I agree entirely.

Humans are an amazing and incredible species; almost certainly the most advanced in light years, perhaps even in the universe alltogether.

That said, at this stage of development, we are still not capable of surviving independently. We still require a viable ecosystem to provide us with the nutritients and inorganic chemicals we need to survive.

When that changes, and it will, this discussion will be very different, but for now, we are obligated to keep the earth's environment in a functional state.

Primativists would argue that the only way to do this is to undo progress. This is, of course, utter nonsense.

There are numerous technological ways to keep the ecosystem viable without compromising living standards. We just need to make an objective analysis of the situation and be honest about our needs, wants, and abilities.

Presently, no one is motivated to do this.

The governments of bourgeois states and their corporate masters have no interest in recognizing environmental damage, nor do they have any desire to effect significant change.

And the environmentalist movement, for its part, is too trapped in its idealist fantasies to be rational about the situation.

Neither group is capable of properly prioritizing and planning; and the fact is that while some environmental issues are pressing, a good deal of them are distinctly overblown.

Climate change, for instance, is survivable. If the price of technology is a 1% increase in global temperature over the next 100 years, I will pay it willingly.

There are some things that are truly to important to give up and nothing, no not even "nature", is "priceless".


one could argue that modern environmentalism started with the publishing of 'toxic spring'.

I believe you're referring to Rachel Carson's "Silent Springs", the book that lead to the banning of DDT and the rise of the American environmental movement.

It's actually a rather book today, especially as so many of its "facts" have been demonstrated to be absolutely false.

Even more interesting, however, are the political results of the book and what they tell us about the class nature of contemporary mainstream environmentalism.

The US ban on DDT didn't just affect the US, it also affected thowse it trades with, aids, and influences.

Through the use of, mainly, DDT, the US and the first world was able to effectively eradicate malaria by the turn of the 1960s, accordingly, by the early 1970s, the government could afford to concede to the "greens" and ban it.

The rest of the world, however, was not so lucky. In many parts of the third world, DDT continued to be desperately needed well past the 1970s; and even today, Malaria continues to be a massive killer. But despite this need, "environmentalists" are deeply reluctant to concede their first and greatest gain.

Politics is politics, and they are determined to put "values" over lives.

There is still no significant evidence that DDT is at all harmful to humans and there is overwhelming evidence that it is harmful to malaria. Accordingly, it should be a no-brainer that it be employed in those areas where malaria is a concern. But it largely isn't.

Now, there are valid questions on the efficacy of DDT as compared with recent synthetic alternatives, as well as some rather interesting cost-studies, but the point here is that the environmentalists do not oppose DDT for pragmatic reasons, but rather for ideological ones.

And entirely idealist ideological ones at that.

Mainstream "environmentalism" believes, insofar as it can be said to "believe" in anything, that nature is of value in and of itself.

"Nature is beautiful" and "must be protected", more so than human beings. Indeed, it is even popular in such circles to, semi-jokingly, refer to humans as a "disease" or a "plague" that has "infected" the "earth".

Such an anti-humanist attitude can only come out of a petit-bourgeois attitude of idealist post-modernism, in which the idealist "whole" is more important that the practical issues of actual people. Epsecially, those "brown ones" off in those "funny sounding countries".

Unfortunately, for a good deal of the environmentalist movement, saving a tree or a humpback whale is more important than saving an Ethiopian or a Laosian. For a movement so tied in with genuinely progresssive causes, it's disturbing to see that level of covert racism.

It's rather similar to how third world countries are being asked to "reduce greenhouse gasses" and curb pollution in their industrialization in a way that the first world never was.

While North America and Europe were permitted to advance regulation-free, the rest of the world is expected to pay for their freedom by limiting their development and increasing their costs.

Just another face of imperialism, albeit a "green" one.

There are real environmental issues that need to be addressed, unfortunately a great deal of the mainstream movement has its priorities completely misfocused.

Far too many environmentalists refuse to address the problem from a pragmatic perspective, and insist on seeing the environment as somehow "beyond" statistics. They reject that the issues can be treated quantitatively and speak of intangibles and "pricelessness".

There is no such thing as "pricelessness", not from a policy perspective.

There is too high a price for a "green" earth, and primitavism is one example. Not that I'm saying that all environmentalists are primativists, because they're not. But they do need to come to terms with the materialist nature of nature.

Nature isn't sacred, it isn't "special", and it isn't "distinct".

We are nature, and nature is us. And in terms of human society, we are all that matters.

[red team]

It's rather similar to how third world countries are being asked to "reduce greenhouse gasses" and curb pollution in their industrialization in a way that the first world never was.

While North America and Europe were permitted to advance regulation-free, the rest of the world is expected to pay for their freedom by limiting their development and increasing their costs.

Just another face of imperialism, albeit a "green" one.

That may not be entirely accurate for third world countries.
They're already developing cutting edge "green" technology:

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/fragile-planet-0126/

[Vanguard1917]

Now, there are valid questions on the efficacy of DDT as compared with recent synthetic alternatives, as well as some rather interesting cost-studies, but the point here is that the environmentalists do not oppose DDT for pragmatic reasons, but rather for ideological ones.

The ban on DDT shows the extent to which the environmentalist movement has risen from being a grassroots movement to a mainstream one; it's ideas are now being taken on, to varying degrees, by the ruling class.

A point that i'd like to make: that the rise of the environmentalist movement has coincided with the demise of the workers' movement tells us something quite significant. Environmentalism is a petit-bourgeois movement, and the rise of petit-bourgeois movements was permitted due to the vacuum left by the demise of the working class movement.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:23 PM
For all you condemn industrial civilization, it's brought us antibiotics and antivirals; paleolithic man practiced infantiside and ritual murder.


That is not neccessarily true, some civilizations practiced these things but not all of them by any means.

If we commit ourselves to creating a sustainable world i think that we technologically advance and preserve the biosphere without seriously retarding industrial development. But at the time being, there is no motivation to plan for the long term when you have to worry about quarterly profits (and whatnot).

[Delirium]

On the actual article, i think most of these problems are just simply symptoms of capitalism. There are clear links between industrial pollutents and various deformities and diseases. Cars share a large amout of blame here though. These problems could be remided through a mixture of social changes and better environmental/health standards.

[pedro san pedro]

Unfortunately, for a good deal of the environmentalist movement, saving a tree or a humpback whale is more important than saving an Ethiopian or a Laosian. For a movement so tied in with genuinely progresssive causes, it's disturbing to see that level of covert racism.

It's rather similar to how third world countries are being asked to "reduce greenhouse gasses" and curb pollution in their industrialization in a way that the first world never was.

While North America and Europe were permitted to advance regulation-free, the rest of the world is expected to pay for their freedom by limiting their development and increasing their costs.

Just another face of imperialism, albeit a "green" one.

There are real environmental issues that need to be addressed, unfortunately a great deal of the mainstream movement has its priorities completely misfocused.

i assume that you are referring to the kyoto protocol here? kyoto was abandoned by the bush regime largley because developing countries were not required to reduce their fossil fuel emmissions at the same rate as the developed world. this was an area of kyoto that was favoured by the environmentalists and one that was looked down upon by those producing the highest greenhouse gas emmissions.

the environmentalsists used the dsame argument that you have - that the west was able to develop with fossil fuels and that the developinbg world should also have this oppurtinity.

likewise, environmental problems often are felt hardest by the poor - people living in forests, low lying areas or tropical zones - thru deforestation, rising sea levels or an increase in tropical diseases. thus, evironmentalism actually helps the poor.


Climate change, for instance, is survivable. If the price of technology is a 1% increase in global temperature over the next 100 years, I will pay it willingly.

then you are guilty of exactly what you are accussing the environmentalists of - putting society changing the way it lives before human lives. climate change is already affecting a lot of people - through increased disease, more extreme weather events etc. already one pacific island atoll is being evacuated - the tuvaluans are becoming the first 'climate refugees'. perhaps they would feel differently about climate change?

[LSD]

i assume that you are referring to the kyoto protocol here?

Not specifically, no.

Although even in Kyoto, developing countries are called upon to reduce emissions, something that the first world, in its turn, never was.

My primary point, however, was about the attitude behind it. The "humans are disease" mentality that unfortunately pervades much of mainstream environmentalism. There are indeed environmental concerns that need to be addressed, but if they are considered from the propper perspective, they will only lead to a total misallocation of resources.

The earth needs to work for us, not the other way round.


then you are guilty of exactly what you are accussing the environmentalists of - putting society changing the way it lives before human lives.

Not at all.

If there's a way to have an advanced industrial society without climate change, I think it should be pursured.

My point was merely that if the "worst-case scenario" is correct and climate change "must" accompany inmdustry, then its an unfortunate but acceptable price to pay.

Yes, it would require some large-scale migrations and reconstructions, but thanks to technology, we could survive it.

We could not survive primativism!

Again, I would prefer a perfect solution in which technology and ecosystem can both thrive. But, in the end, technology is more important for human lives than a cold planet. More humans would live better lives in a technologically advanced world, even if the planet is hotter, than they would in a technologically undeveloped world.

It's all about numbers.

[sushil_yadav]

I have made some additions to the article "Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment". To read the modified article please follow any of these links :

FreeInfoSociety (http://www.freeinfosociety.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=3649)

ePhilosopher (http://www.ephilosopher.com/bb-topic-244.html)

Corrupt (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167537083)

sushil_yadav

[Dimentio]

The destructive aspects of industrialism is not so much pollution as over-exploitment. Over-exploitment is the need for growth, the visible manifestation of the current price system. The polluting and domesticating factors are also factors made by the anascopic and brutal price system.

Let's take a look beyond capitalism and primitivism. Under primitivism, when the thermodynamic capacity would shrink, we would yet again sink down to a society were 99% of the population is illiterate peasants.

[Sentinel]

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Destruction is an inherent feature of Development.

Progress = Destruction of Nature.
Development = Destruction of Nature.


We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.
And so on. This thread was bumped by sushil_yadav today, but Sciences & Environment is no longer the appropriate forum for it.

On March 7, 2006 (ah, that glorious day) the CC voted 46 - 14 to restrict primitivists on RevolutionaryLeft to Opposing Ideologies. That is the only forum where the topic starter, sushil_yadav, is allowed to post since that decision -- moved to OI.

Feel free to continue the discussion here, sushil, you can start by refuting some of LSD's or someone elses points instead of merely posting even more random anti-human bullshit.

Transhumanist greetings, Sentinel :)

[sushil_yadav]

[QUOTE]

you can start by refuting some of LSD's or someone elses points instead of merely posting even more random anti-human bullshit.




The content of my article is neither random nor bullshit.

Want to see some favourable comments on the article? I can show you hundreds of them.

FreeInfoSociety (http://www.freeinfosociety.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=3649)

ePhilosopher (http://www.ephilosopher.com/bb-topic-244.html)

Corrupt (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167537083)

sushil_yadav

[jaycee]

i think that the capitalism obviously produces a certain type of technology (or rather gives rise to certain types)and much of it has negative effects. I don't only mean obvious things like cars polluting (both the air, noise pollution and pollution to the eyes, i.e motorways and dirty streets etc) and nukes but also more subtle things. For example t.v is damaging because of the way we live our lives, watching too much(which is also connected to its alienating anti-social aspect), not exercising. Both of these are connected to things like the hours we work, lack of community etc.

Also another subtle way in which capitism turns technology into a negative thing is reflected in a thing that happened to me recently. I was had just had a spliff with a mate and then we went outside, when i left the house i suddenly felt a great deal of stress leave me. I think this was due to getting out of the cramped confined space which houses are. This is not a criticism of houses but rather a criticism of the lack of community and extreme alienation in modern capitalism. Therefore the fact that people in older societies (especially primitive communist societies) had small houses (generally) was not very important this was because they tended to only eat and sleep in their house and the majority of their time was spent outdoors with the community. Under capitalism technology reflects one of the most widespread sicknesses of our time (alienation) and everything is built in accordance with this, everything becomes more and more confined and seperate to everything else.

Basically communist humanity will develope technology in a non alienating way and therefore will produce it in what Marx called the 'natural laws of beuty'. I think it is false to say either humanity will go 'back to nature' or it will advance technology, it will do both as producing technology is clearly a major part of human nature and alienation stems from acting in ways which is contary to human nature or turning central parts of human nature into oppressive forces as labour is now. It will return to primitive communism on a higher level , 'a return made conscious' as Marx put it.

Therefore primitivism does have a valid point in terms of seeing primitive communism as quantifiably better than capitalism in that it alienation and mental repression was far less developed. However that is no reason to throw away the progrssive aspects of human development.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2005 03:05 am
<snip>
Primitivist :angry:

Please don&#39;t quote an entire long-ass post just to say one word, it&#39;s fucking close to spamming.

-NoX

[sushil_yadav]

Modern Industrial Society has existed for 100 years - 200 years - 300 years. When we compare this period with the total duration for which human society has existed on earth this period is so short - so small that it almost does&#39;nt exist. It is almost zero.


Life was never good in the past.

Life will never be good in future.

Life can never be good.


Suffering is a part of life - an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.

There is Physical suffering - There is Mental suffering.

In pre-industrial society there were physical diseases caused by virus and bacteria.
In modern society there are hundreds of lifestyle related physical diseases - Cancer, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity, Multiple Organ Failures.


Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.

We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

[ In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of restlessness/ anxiety/ suffering into peace. This requires ability and years of effort ]

For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products-- a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.

Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop drinking water for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop eating food for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. Industrial Society is destroying necessary things[Animals,Trees,Air,Water and Land] for makng unnecessary things[Consumer Goods]. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return - once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.

If we live a simple life there is individual suffering - but no largescale destruction of Environment.

If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering - plus largescale destruction of Environment.

sushil_yadav

FreeInfoSociety (http://www.freeinfosociety.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=3649)

ePhilosopher (http://www.ephilosopher.com/bb-topic-244.html)

Corrupt (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167537083)

[MrDoom]

Suffering is a part of life - an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.
It can be minimized through technology and industry.


Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.

We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.
Nonsense.


The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.
Then why are there so many fat people around?


People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.
Again, this is baseless nonsense. People work (even in a capitalist dictatorship) ultimately to improve their quality of life.


After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products-- a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).
Blame profit motive, not industry itself. A balance can be achieved if the profit initiative is removed.


If we live a simple life there is individual suffering - but no largescale destruction of Environment.

If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering - plus largescale destruction of Environment.

Go back to your paleolithic time warp, primmie.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info

[Publius]

Damn, that convinced me.

It&#39;s time to embrace our friends in nature. Let&#39;s go hug bears and fuck trees, and then everything will be right.

Oh wait.

It wouldn&#39;t.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info
What fucking sense do they make? They&#39;re just as wrapped up in their fucking secular rapture (credit to RedStar2000 for that paticular term) as all the other nutfuck primmies.

[Guerrilla22]

It&#39;s always interesting to read something from a primitivist on the internet.

[Dimentio]

Have anyone read "Unabomber&#39;s manifesto"

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:48 pm
Have anyone read "Unabomber&#39;s manifesto"
LOL, I was going to mention that. I&#39;ve actually read part of it because he donated it to the University of Michigan, where unfortunately he is an alum. I guess he actually was a brilliant mathematician, too bad he&#39;s so nutty.

[Dimentio]

Industrial society and it&#39;s future (http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm)

Read and enjoy.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 06, 2007 01:30 am--> (Jazzratt @ January 06, 2007 01:30 am)
Johnny [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info
What fucking sense do they make? They&#39;re just as wrapped up in their fucking secular rapture (credit to RedStar2000 for that paticular term) as all the other nutfuck primmies. [/b]
As far as sabotage and resistance goes they have their stuff together. Their t-shirts are good too.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Would the Earth Liberation Front be considered primitivist?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+January 10, 2007 05:01 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ January 10, 2007 05:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:30 am

Johnny [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info
What fucking sense do they make? They&#39;re just as wrapped up in their fucking secular rapture (credit to RedStar2000 for that paticular term) as all the other nutfuck primmies.
As far as sabotage and resistance goes they have their stuff together. Their t-shirts are good too. [/b]
<_< Seriously? They&#39;re good at attempting to instate their backwards system, and this is a...good thing? Primmies need to be ineffectual, otherwise they&#39;ll start damaging the left with their useless anti worker actions and "back to the caves" philosophy.
Fuck &#39;em.
Fuck their t-shirts as well.

[Dimentio]

Here in Sweden, primitivism is more and more associated with right-wing extremism, mostly because of Pentti Linkola and Varg Vikernes.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 10, 2007 01:04 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 10, 2007 01:04 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10, 2007 05:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:30 am

Johnny [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info
What fucking sense do they make? They&#39;re just as wrapped up in their fucking secular rapture (credit to RedStar2000 for that paticular term) as all the other nutfuck primmies.
As far as sabotage and resistance goes they have their stuff together. Their t-shirts are good too.
<_< Seriously? They&#39;re good at attempting to instate their backwards system, and this is a...good thing? Primmies need to be ineffectual, otherwise they&#39;ll start damaging the left with their useless anti worker actions and "back to the caves" philosophy.
Fuck &#39;em.
Fuck their t-shirts as well. [/b]
Damn right&#33; I totally agree, the primitivists really have no rational argument, and really the only way to stop suffering, and oppression is not to turn tail, but to progress technology and science, since that is the redeemer and savior of modern man

[bcbm]

but to progress technology and science, since that is the redeemer and savior of modern man

Since when?


And your use of religious terminology is somewhat frightening. :huh:

[Dimentio]

Without modern technology, we would still destroy the environment by excessive agriculture, and we would have much less energy at our disposal. You cannot imagine how poor people were in the 15th century.

An industrial worker today lives better than a king did under that time.

[Cryotank Screams]

Since when?

Since ever? With every scientific revolution man became more aware of his surroundings, and attained more knowledge that benefited humanity, and it also became a catalyst for socio-political revolution and change and relied less and less on mysticism, and more on rationalism, materialism, empiricism, and reality; man has crafted all of what we know today, even are hand dexterity was born from labor and technological progress, we know can cure diseases, deformities, save lives, and millions of other things, so in that regard we have redeemed our self from what nature has dealt us, and have saved ourselves from savagery.


And your use of religious terminology is somewhat frightening. :huh:

They are just poetic words to illustrate a point, and are divorced from religious connotations, though holy men have usurped such words and usually have a monopoly on the words.

[sushil_yadav]

Industrial Society is consuming psychiatric drugs/ sleeping pills by tonnes and tonnes.

A very large percentage of the population is surviving on precription drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

One-third of the population has become fat like elephants.

People talk about increase in lifespan. What is the use of increased lifespan if people have to resort to Drugs, Alcohol and Cigarettes to pull through life. And just wait a few more years - the average lifespan will soon become zero - human life will cease to exist on earth.



Consumerist-Lifestyle is just not sustainable. If we do not immediately return to living a very simple and frugal life then very soon there will be no human life on earth. We would need several planets[earths] to sustain the present lifestyle.

The human race has been destroying/ killing animals, trees, air, water, land and people from the very beginning of civilization. Science and Technology has increased this destructive capacity millions of times.

Every man is a serial-killer. The per-capita destruction of Environment - per-capita destruction of Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land is thousands of times greater than what it was 1000 years ago - 500 years ago - 200 years ago.

The Military-Industrial Complex is all set to destroy whatever life and environment that remains on earth.


There is a reason why the two World Wars happened in the recent past and not 1000 years ago?

It was not possible to have world wars 1000 years ago. World Wars became possible only when Science and Technology developed aeroplanes, ships and other carriers which could transport millions of troops and millions of tonnes of weapons[once again a creation of science and technology] from one corner of the globe to another.

And today one does&#39;nt even need all these to fight a war. One just needs to move finger-tips to launch missiles that can destroy the planet several times over.

Right at this moment there are several countries fighting wars with one another. There is internal war going on in almost half of the the countries of the world. All these wars are being fuelled and sustained by billions of tonnes of weapons produced by the Military-Industrial Complex every year.

And it is going to get worse and worse every day.

If you kill one person they call it murder.
If you kill a few hundred they call it terrorism.
If you kill a few million they call it war.

Science and Technology has made this world [millions of times] more violent and unsafe than before.

Science and Technology has produced billions of tonnes of weapons and explosives - chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - millions of tonnes of Radioactive material [ which will soon be used to make dirty bombs - which are going to contaminate the environment for hundreds and thousands of years]. Science and Technology is the real terrorist.

sushil_yadav

FreeInfoSociety (http://www.freeinfosociety.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=3649)

ePhilosopher (http://www.ephilosopher.com/bb-topic-244.html)

Corrupt (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167537083)

[Sentinel]

I advice everyone not to bother replying to this poster. It would be a waste of time as he never replies back. His arguments have been challenged on the first page of the thread, but all he has done is to post more of his own (or perhaps some primitivist &#39;high priests&#39;) ramblings.

He is not here for debate, he is here to preach.

[sushil_yadav]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:52 am
I advice everyone not to bother replying to this poster. It would be a waste of time as he never replies back. His arguments have been challenged on the first page of the thread, but all he has done is to post more of his own (or perhaps some primitivist &#39;high priests&#39;) ramblings.

He is not here for debate, he is here to preach.
If my posts are not replies then what are they?

Some members have painted a very rosy picture of modern Industrial Society in this thread.

I have pointed out the evils of modern Industrial Society.

All my posts are replies. Which one is not a reply?

[Sentinel]

You were quoted and asked direct questions, by LSD. The normal praxis would be to answer those questions, so that he in turn can try refute your answers.. It&#39;s called a &#39;conversation&#39;. Or are you by any chance a follower of John Zerzan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan), who I&#39;ve heard wants to abolish conversation (language entirely, as a matter of fact) as a means of communication? If so, the best way to go would be to remain silent to begin with, though. Someone has to start, to be the vanguard&#33; And considering what you have to say, in your case that might be an option to seriously consider anyway.. :lol:

[Vargha Poralli]

I don&#39;t know whether I am right or wrong I think the user Sushil Yadav is a troll.He had never posted outside this thread that too brought of this dead thread long ago. Here too he is never responding to the posts of other members just repeating what he ahd said like a taperecorder .Its point less discussing with him. My opinion is to close this thread and Ban the User.

[Guerrilla22]

The guy who started this thread is completely nutty. Its true that modern industilization and technology has some negative aspects as well, but it also has numerous positive aspects as well, life saving medicine and medical technology being amongst the most important. I live in Michigan so the invention of the furnance was extremely helpful to me. Not to mention this web site on the internet, which has brought some 2,000 leftist together to exchange ideas.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 10, 2007 05:04 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 10, 2007 05:04 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10, 2007 05:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:30 am

Johnny [email protected] 05, 2007 03:18 pm
Primitivists make no sense except for this one, greenanarchy.info
What fucking sense do they make? They&#39;re just as wrapped up in their fucking secular rapture (credit to RedStar2000 for that paticular term) as all the other nutfuck primmies.
As far as sabotage and resistance goes they have their stuff together. Their t-shirts are good too.
<_< Seriously? They&#39;re good at attempting to instate their backwards system, and this is a...good thing? Primmies need to be ineffectual, otherwise they&#39;ll start damaging the left with their useless anti worker actions and "back to the caves" philosophy.
Fuck &#39;em.
Fuck their t-shirts as well. [/b]
Cmon, you wouldnt want one of their "Give Chance a Piece" shirts? Their theories may suck but the t-shirts kick :A:SS

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10, 2007 05:02 pm
Would the Earth Liberation Front be considered primitivist?
SOMEBODY ANSWER :&#33;:

[Dimentio]

Yes, they are fanatical primitivists of the stupidiest kind.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:50 pm
Yes, they are fanatical primitivists of the stupidiest kind.
Does that go for the Animal Liberation Front as well. I&#39;ve read up on both the ELF and ALF and I think they&#39;re justified in their actions.

[Sumac]

Just my two cents: I think the author of the thread&#39;s comments are a jumble of ideas, and though some of them make sense and are interesting, he is muddling things up and making to many generalizations. Don&#39;t forget...people are part of nature, too. We are part of this earth just like everything else, and we deserve the chance to try to survive on it, just like everything else.

Nobody specifically commented on the "intelligence as an evil" thing. I have come across this comment many times. I believe it is the LACK of intelligence that is the problem, not too much of it. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, yes. But a whole lot of knowledge is a GREAT thing. The reason the planet is getting destroyed in because we are not using the technologies and things we&#39;ve developed intelligently.

And as for the idea of environmentalism as a "petit bourgeous idea". Please...many of the poorest people in the world are the ones who respect nature and understand that it needs to be preserved. Trying to save a baby seal or whatever when millions of people are starving to death, yes, that is pretty snobby and senseless. But we need nature, and any real communist would agree, especially in this day and age.

[sushil_yadav]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:31 pm
The guy who started this thread is completely nutty. Its true that modern industilization and technology has some negative aspects as well, but it also has numerous positive aspects as well, life saving medicine and medical technology being amongst the most important. I live in Michigan so the invention of the furnance was extremely helpful to me. Not to mention this web site on the internet, which has brought some 2,000 leftist together to exchange ideas.
Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [Consumer Goods].

When we make consumer goods we kill Animals/ Trees, Air/ Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Industry kills Water. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted.

Industry/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


"Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"

These are figures of "Ecocide".
These are figures of "crimes against Nature".
These are figures of "destruction of Ecosystems".
These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
ePhilosopher (http://www.ephilosopher.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?127001.post)
Corrupt (http://www.corrupt.org/transcendence/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167537083)
ForeignPolicy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/resources/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2485)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [Consumer Goods]

That&#39;s a bit of a hasty generalisation, isn&#39;t it? Even in capitalist society plenty of genuinely useful goods and services exist.


When we make consumer goods we kill Animals/ Trees, Air/ Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Did you know that your food was once alive, too?

Oh my god, you&#39;re eating corpses&#33;


Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

They tend to damage them, yes, but destroy them? That&#39;s exaggerating just a tad.

And besides, as others have piointed out, the payoff is worth it in objective material terms.


It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Actually it matters a hell of a lot - if one has to damage the ecosystem, far better to do it in order to improve the quality of life for everyone rather than an elite.

You can always work to fix it as well.


Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Industry kills Water. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted.

Industry/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.

Do you have anything to offer other than a bunch of exaggerated tautologies?

Yes, even the greenest industries damage the ecosystem to a degree. The best thing to do is minimise the impact of industry as much as we can, not abandon it altogether.

Now are you going to actually reply to any points people here have made, or are you going to keep posting the same shit again? One of these choices will cause me to suspend your account and call for your banning for spamming. Which one do you think it is?

Choose wisely.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:24 am
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.
Destruction can also result in reconstruction - consider tree farms. I think they are great; no longer would we have to cut down vast areas of wild forest if we used only recycled wood and tree farms. And consider recycling.

It is true that the environment will be hurt even with most of the greenest industries, but that isn&#39;t some force being irrevocably corrupted. Nature can be revitalized quite readily, and it has been in places.

And it should be noted that it is in the communist interest to maintain a stable and lively natural environment, so I think it&#39;s totally ridiculous to say that all industry, regardless of social organization, will be particularly dangerous to the environment.