Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 1 2006, 09:34 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 1 2006, 09:34 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 06:35 PM
Possesion is nice ,but once we put possesion in importance over other human beings or our enviroment itself we become unaware of the wickedness we perpetuate on people and nature.
Not really, infact, the opposite is true in most cases. Our ability as individuals to help people is magnified with technology. We can travel further, get ideas and information out quicker etc. There's nothing wicked about wanting to have technology, it's extremely beneficial to humans, it even expands our ability to communicate and discuss, as we are doing now. It doesn't cause wickedness, inherantly. There are issues where technology does cause someone else to suffer and for the most part people don't care, for example, sewing machines used in sweatshops to produce Converse, or companies like coke who dump chemicals and pollute 3rd world nations water supplies. With all these examples, there is not a problem with the technology itself, but it's application.
So when it rains there would be a hut or dwelling of some kind where the rain would not come on you. Clothes could be easily made too.
Why a hut? why not a house. It is simply a far more efficient version of the hut. Unlike the hut, it lets virtually no water in, you can have heating, and it'll last longer. Why not produce top of the range clothes, that'll keep you really warm when you have to go out and about?
You do realize that alot of ailments today and most of the lot of them are created by our living and means today?
Some illnesses are caused by our living means. But we also have cures for most of them, and almost all the natural ones to. As I said, overall our life expectancy has doubled, twice. Thanks to industrialisation. So yes, there are some drawbacks to technology such as with pollution and poisoning, we need to sort them out.
As for seeing friends in a small village or natural space seeing your friends would be quite simple. Infact those you survive with you will naturally be inclined to socialize with.
So no more seeing people that don't live within walking distance? that's a shame it really is. But you're not selling it to me. My partners do live in another city, and all you have to say, is fuck it, learn to like the locals a bit more.
They were looking into a mirror of a culture that they thought were less productive or inferior to their own.
They were less productive and inferior. This isn't an assumption. Scientists don't "make shit up" and then decide how they can make it look true. We have concluded, empirically after looking at the facts of the time, that they were inferior, in most ways. For example, (amongst other things) they were incapable of treating very basic diseases - and often the cures were more dangerous than the symptoms. They had inefficient shelter and sewerage leading to the spreading of things like typhoid and polio. They didn't have machinery to produce things like food more efficiently, and so people starved. None of this was a matter of choice, they were simply didn't have the mental or physical understanding/ability to drag themselves out of the filth, as soon as an invention came about that could makes these conditions better, they fucking jumped for it. Because unlike you they weren't sitting in a comfy house pondering the morals of technocracy, there were in real life, suffering. And I dare say it's nto a fucking nice feeling.
Even if that was true I wouldn't call living being retired in a nursing home or being ignored by your family a desirable condition of old age.
Im sure if the people at that age shared that view, they would kill themselves or something. If they really didn't want to live to be 80, we really can't stop them jumping off a building. Just because you don't want to live to 80 doesn't mean society should abandon it's capacity to allow people that life expectancy, what a selfish and frankly, sick position to hold. I've known people who made it to 30, then got married, had kids, holidays, and the time of their life. Of course, you are sentencing all of humanity to an early grave, not to mention that as soon as you abolish technology, billions will die. Billions, in the victorian age, the population of the earth was a fraction the size that it is today. And yet, steam trains and boats couldn't effectively transport food to feed even that small population. So if you were to go back that far, and apply today's population, the death count would be unimaginable. Of course, technological infancy was no the only reason for starvation in the Victorian era, the political system was also to blame. Much like today.
Today most people don't have the precious time. ( Time being a construct to control the weakminded.)
Time is infact, an inherent dimension to our "reality"
I say live well and die free.
Fine by me, but that's a lifestyle choice. It shouldn't be enforced as a social norm.
Perhaps my ideals differ from others.
Which is fine as long as your not trying to make everyone else live your lifestyle.
Technology might of created many elaborate tools of sophistication and yet it has not cured the morals of society or the human soul.
There's no such thing as the soul. But morals? what are morals. What morals do you think society should hold? and what material reality led you to believe so?
I disagree.
I believe the ills of society are greater with the benefits of it falling short.
But believing aint going to sell it to me. You have to prove it, and prove that the abolition of technology, the massacre of billions, is more desirable, than some drawbacks that need ironing out.
You claimed that I am wrong in my spiritual beliefs and that your empirical evidence is soley right.
I believe the burden of proof comes on you.
Then quite simply, you are wrong. You can't just make some bullshit up, and claim that it's up to other people to prove you wrong. There is no evidence, no real scientific evidence for the existence of a spiritual or metaphysical realm. None. You have said there is one, so you have to prove it.
Instability is rampant around the modern world and I can point to many impoverish individuals around the world.
Oh I totally agree, capitalism creates instability, not technology.
As for the rest of that sure there would be incoveniences but really compared to our current way of living I like the alternative.
By "inconveniences" you mean things like catching the Bubonic plague, typhoid, eating leaves, rabbits, bugs, sleeping in shit, watching most of the tribes children die of malnutrition, food poisoning, or being ripped apart by dogs, trying not to die of dehydration in the summer, or pneumonia in the winter ... what a morbid, dark, disgusting way of life. Something tells me you are far more comfortable, sitting in your chair there, reading this post with a full belly full of food, that you didn't have to run about naked with a stick for hours to kill and eat...
The irony is that the new foundation is solely dependant on the former and without the former the new foundation will cease to be.
Yes, as it stands we need nature. And for that reason, we must do our best to bring nature as far under our control as possible. People really never liked being completely dependant on the rain cycle, the path that a flock of buffalo takes, etc. Taking nature under our control, containing water so rainfall isn't much of an issue, farming animals, crops, etc, all means that we don't have to watch everyone shrivel up and die when there's no rain, or waste away when the buffalo all run away.
The more we tame nature, and bring it under the influence of our interests, the better. [/b]
Not really, infact, the opposite is true in most cases. Our ability as individuals to help people is magnified with technology. We can travel further, get ideas and information out quicker etc. There's nothing wicked about wanting to have technology, it's extremely beneficial to humans, it even expands our ability to communicate and discuss, as we are doing now. It doesn't cause wickedness, inherantly. There are issues where technology does cause someone else to suffer and for the most part people don't care, for example, sewing machines used in sweatshops to produce Converse, or companies like coke who dump chemicals and pollute 3rd world nations water supplies. With all these examples, there is not a problem with the technology itself, but it's application.
Yes but in it's creation it was a unperfect being who created it for it's application.
Quite frankly I wonder if we are rational enough to have such power.
You are right in it's application it does have the will and intent to do good.
In many instances though in it's application it causes suffering of the human psyche and spirit.
It ruins the enviroment that substains us and it used for control with coercion of the most negative kind or war.
Also if people believe in evolution then they would no that civilization in itself is contrary to natural evolution.
Infact I view civilization as a degression of evolution.
Why a hut? why not a house. It is simply a far more efficient version of the hut. Unlike the hut, it lets virtually no water in, you can have heating, and it'll last longer. Why not produce top of the range clothes, that'll keep you really warm when you have to go out and about?
Sure I could do that without technology.
I just view that basic survival and needs to be fulfilled in life coinciding with simplicity is better than the modern construct of complexity.
Some illnesses are caused by our living means. But we also have cures for most of them, and almost all the natural ones to. As I said, overall our life expectancy has doubled, twice. Thanks to industrialisation. So yes, there are some drawbacks to technology such as with pollution and poisoning, we need to sort them out.
Yes ,but with technology we see Aids,Hiv,Cancer and various other diseases taking peoples lives by the millions.
Just because you have superior technology does not mean that all problems are typically solved and let us not forget overpopulation which is a affect of modern society that can be just as bad.
Overpopulation leads to food storages causing starvation or low intake of water which leads to dehydration and death
So no more seeing people that don't live within walking distance? that's a shame it really is. But you're not selling it to me. My partners do live in another city, and all you have to say, is fuck it, learn to like the locals a bit more.
That may be true as a modernist for yourself ,but in a all out likely hood living in a natural setting I really don't think that would be a issue at all.
Afterall you can not have another friend in another town if you have not been there.
You would then adapt finding socialization of those in your territory.
They were less productive and inferior. This isn't an assumption. Scientists don't "make shit up" and then decide how they can make it look true.
Science is the study of data through scientifical inquiry and observation ,but what being do you think is the one that sorts such things out when it is not a computer?
It is a human being that has it's own individual bias perception of it's own existence.
Science is not fullproof.
We have concluded, empirically after looking at the facts of the time, that they were inferior, in most ways. For example, (amongst other things) they were incapable of treating very basic diseases - and often the cures were more dangerous than the symptoms. They had inefficient shelter and sewerage leading to the spreading of things like typhoid and polio. They didn't have machinery to produce things like food more efficiently, and so people starved. None of this was a matter of choice, they were simply didn't have the mental or physical understanding/ability to drag themselves out of the filth, as soon as an invention came about that could makes these conditions better, they fucking jumped for it. Because unlike you they weren't sitting in a comfy house pondering the morals of technocracy, there were in real life, suffering. And I dare say it's nto a fucking nice feeling.
There is suffering in every age and noone can not deny that.
I can not deny that.
However I think you are jumping the gun to state a culture being superior over another.
Different cultures have different outlooks and associations which makes superiority or inferiority attitudes all out nonsense.
Yes I am a cultural relativist.
Im sure if the people at that age shared that view, they would kill themselves or something. If they really didn't want to live to be 80, we really can't stop them jumping off a building. Just because you don't want to live to 80 doesn't mean society should abandon it's capacity to allow people that life expectancy, what a selfish and frankly, sick position to hold. I've known people who made it to 30, then got married, had kids, holidays, and the time of their life. Of course, you are sentencing all of humanity to an early grave, not to mention that as soon as you abolish technology, billions will die. Billions, in the victorian age, the population of the earth was a fraction the size that it is today. And yet, steam trains and boats couldn't effectively transport food to feed even that small population. So if you were to go back that far, and apply today's population, the death count would be unimaginable. Of course, technological infancy was no the only reason for starvation in the Victorian era, the political system was also to blame. Much like today.
Again today we have overpopulation and many other problems with technology that are just as bad as the present.
In all out reality you are replacing one problem for another only making the other look more superior in technological eyes.
Also I said this movement in my eyes should be for those who are seeking it.
So this whole view of me coercing others by force to follow my actions makes no sense.
That is anti-Anarchist thinking my opinion.
Time is infact, an inherent dimension to our "reality"
Time is only real because we make it so.
There is natural cycles of all life and organisms.
There are even universal cycles I am sure.
I believe in cycles ,but as for time in the way humans see it no.
Though I am forced to follow the clock my most people.
Fine by me, but that's a lifestyle choice. It shouldn't be enforced as a social norm.
Alright.
Which is fine as long as your not trying to make everyone else live your lifestyle.
Right.
There's no such thing as the soul. But morals? what are morals. What morals do you think society should hold? and what material reality led you to believe so?
I like to see the soul as a extension of conciousness.
Morals> You don't know what they are?
Morals I believe is a code of beneficial advice for people to follow to make their lives stronger and better suitable.
Morals often coincide with the many virtues of human beings.
That would be my short answer.
Did you want more of a indepth reply?
Define material reality.
But believing aint going to sell it to me. You have to prove it, and prove that the abolition of technology, the massacre of billions, is more desirable, than some drawbacks that need ironing out.
Proove to me technology is superior.
Also this massacres of billions is bugging me. I am not trying to convert millions.
I know there would be too many deaf ears anyways.
Then quite simply, you are wrong. You can't just make some bullshit up, and claim that it's up to other people to prove you wrong. There is no evidence, no real scientific evidence for the existence of a spiritual or metaphysical realm. None. You have said there is one, so you have to prove it.
I find it odd you would say somthing without even knowing much about my views in general.
Anyhow scientifically and logically we know there was a start for our solar system in general which created out planet.
Also in a rational sense we also know that the whole creation of this planet substains us as living organisms.
I believe it is perfectly natural and human to revere such a thing.
Oh I totally agree, capitalism creates instability, not technology.
I believe they are both the problem.
Good to see we can agree with that one.
By "inconveniences" you mean things like catching the Bubonic plague, typhoid, eating leaves, rabbits, bugs, sleeping in shit, watching most of the tribes children die of malnutrition, food poisoning, or being ripped apart by dogs, trying not to die of dehydration in the summer, or pneumonia in the winter ... what a morbid, dark, disgusting way of life. Something tells me you are far more comfortable, sitting in your chair there, reading this post with a full belly full of food, that you didn't have to run about naked with a stick for hours to kill and eat...
There are inconveniences in every age and if I had to hunt for my food or gather it I would gladly do it.
After all that is what natural evolution intended us to do.
Also modern civilization has created whole sequences of inconviences.
I could go through them too.
Y
es, as it stands we need nature. And for that reason, we must do our best to bring nature as far under our control as possible. People really never liked being completely dependant on the rain cycle, the path that a flock of buffalo takes, etc. Taking nature under our control, containing water so rainfall isn't much of an issue, farming animals, crops, etc, all means that we don't have to watch everyone shrivel up and die when there's no rain, or waste away when the buffalo all run away.
The more we tame nature, and bring it under the influence of our interests, the better.
Why do we need to submit control over nature?
Should we not try to find a way of just coexisting near each other?
That is the modern view of conquering.
Of course the more we conquer the world the more we destroy it.
It is like man at war with nature from whence he came.