PETA discussion continued

[irkone]

Because I am now restricted from the regular forums, I am going to proceed with my PETA argument/animal rights argument as well as other concepts etc. I have to go back and forth between forums so give me some time to respond.

[Jazzratt]

I sent my continuation in a PM. Sorry it was late and everything.

[irkone]

Everything born on Earth has the right to be born free. Unfortunately, we are born into a system overly obsessed with genocide, rape, and the transformation of the natural world into mountains of material wealth for a small percentage of people and wasteland for all alike - full of toxic chemicals and fueling a mass extinction unparalleled since dinosaurs. This right to be born free and live freely applies to animals, humans, trees, etc. Humans aren't born with the right to indiscriminately kill anything they want. How often do you see children (prepubescant) killing animals without pity or punching one another? (Which is usually over a material object if witnessed or provoked by an elder.) You rarely do. The reason for this is because they are not born with the desire or right to kill beetles, caterpillars, dogs - it is a notion learned through society - not a genetic code written into their DNA. It is this same society which has brainwashed its enslaved members that the only way to live - it is not written in their DNA they must/had to live on a plantation or work forty eight hours a week - is under a corrupt system known as modern civilization. It is entirely based on materialism and exploitation - the impoverishment of one group, the enrichment of an other (which happens to control the military and kill/imprison all who disobey/disagree), and the ultimate destruction of landbases. It has become known as "progress." What, exactly, are we progressing towards? A toxified environment where rivers of liquid waste are unable to sustain fish (which we could have eaten)? The destruction of forests and habitats which are no longer able to sustain plentiful amounts of quadropeds (which we could have eaten). Space exploration? To find a pristine land where we can do to it exactly what has been done to Earth - rape it? Give me a good example of progression. Do you consider the performance of genocide over thousands of years to millions upon millions of people a payable price to achieve a better quality of life? I see the ultimate enslavement of Earth under the realm of a minute percentage of tyrants in the relatively brand-spanking new era of civilization as "regression" as do many others who are currently revolting - or devolting (devolving + revolting) as Ward Churchill puts it.
The concept of attaining information about nearly anything in a matter of seconds is thrilling - but where is the widespread progress when that technology is available, once again, only to the wealthy? When you speak of human politics improving the quality of life for humans - you seem to neglect billions of people who do not have access to such improvements. In fact, civilization has done them more harm than good:

"More than a billion people cannot fulfil their basic needs for food, water, sanitation, health care, housing and education. Nearly 60 per cent of the 4.4 billion people living in developing countries lack basic sanitation, almost one third do not have access to clean water supplies, one quarter lack adequate housing, 20 per cent do not have access to modern health services, and 20 per cent of children do not attend school through grade five. Worldwide, 1.1 billion people are malnourished, unable to meet minimum standards for dietary energy; and protein and micronutrient deficiencies are widespread. Nearly 2 billion people in developing countries are anaemic."
- http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/ch03.html

Overpopulation is a result of civilization and a difficult trend to counter because of all these precious "human rights." When I was in third grade, it was my turn to read off my homework assignment to the class, in the presence of the principle. It was something like "what do you think about war?" My response was - at the age of eight or nine during the Gulf War - that war was bad, but that it was also good - it controlled population. The principal and teachers laughed at this statement. "Oh the things kids say! Har har har!" I looked at them in total awe. How could they not understand there were and still are way too many fuckin' people on Earth right now to carry on at current rates? The amount of food and trees etc is limited, and eventually it is going to run out unless there is a balance. This is fundamental. (Your "HMPH, technology and agriculture" response is just waiting to erupt, I can feel it... but you're just going to have to wait until further below.)


How hard is it to fucking understand, POOR PEOPLE ARE HUMANS. ANIMALS ARE NOT.

It's been previously explained in this thread that the goal of society/etc. is to improve human life, so there is no need to explain it again.

Human rights, animal rights, material rights. Talk to them (above) about rights and the current progress and improvement of the quality of life. They will surely agree with you wholeheartedly. Showdogs, racehorses, diamond necklaces are valued higher in our society than the poor. Not just because the rich usually own them, but because of their monetary value. These materials represent wealth and further income, and are valued over the poor. Therefore, the poor parallel animals in their worth, and if your worth is not high, your rights are not important. Does oil have rights? To a certain degree. It has the right to not be destroyed, unlike animals or the poor beacause it is more valuable. More precisely, our (the wealthy of the world) "right" to develop oil comes at the expense of the lives of thousands of people whose "rights" seem to disappear when the prospect of economic growth appears. Their "right" to defend themselves gets a "terrorist" label stamped on their foreheads. Jeff Luers was senteced to 22 years in prison for the arson of three SUVs in a dealership parking lot in the dead of night without putting any human in danger besides himself. This sentence is more than twice as long as the average sentencing for rape or manslaughter. This is just an example of the worth of SUVs over a human's right to life or a woman's right to an unmolested domain.

This need for progress or improvement you insistently and arrogantly contend is an elitist dream and neglects to consider foreign calamities due to your glorification of a pedestalled utopian illusion based on conquest and material wealth.




When was the last time an animal made an intelligent contribution to society/humanity?

Well, off the top of my head, they supply us all with food don't they? Seems pretty important to me. They supplied humans with clothing for thousands upon thousands of years. Just because clothing can be made out of synthetic materials now invalidates this contribution? It may not be "intelligent", but when is the last time George W. Bush made an intelligent contribution to society/humanity?


QUOTE (chimx @ November 08, 2006 01:19 am)
y'all are making extremely anthropocentric assertions. not everyone has made intelligent contributions to society/humanity.


Yes, but healthy humans actually have the capability to, given the right circumstances, make intelligent contributions to society/humanity. There is not a shred of evidence that animals have that same ability.

Deforesting rainforests is not, by far, an "intelligent" contribution to society/humanity, because ultimately once these forests are gone, that's it, they're fuckin' gone. It takes hundreds of years for forests to fully mature and provide the amounts of timber currently seeked as well as medicines and fruits currently stocking shelves. Humans also have the capability to make detractions from the entire world which animals do not. You can at least give them that much credit.

Again, off the top of my head. The tsunami of 2004. Native tribes living off of the mainland who had an ancient, thorough knowledge of the behaviors and attributes of their surroundings (water and fish) took notice of abrupt changes of patterns and fled to higher ground prior to the devestation. Did the fish communicate to the tribes through anthropomorphic means and directly inform them of the subsequent disaster? No, but through acute surveying of behaviors they provided an entire community with enough information to abandon their location and save their lives. Had the majority of people in Thailand and nearby coastline posessed such deep knowledge and understanding of their landbase and surroundings, "primitivism" would have saved their lives as well. I would consider this a grand contribution to society (at least their society). The instinctual behavior of animals and fish, if studied, can provide more concrete information on a storm, a cruel winter, or a tsunami than any radar (even Doppler!) or meteorologist. Satisfied? I would say that would have improved the quality of life for many of the tsunami victims. Sorry Dr. Rosensmallpenis, primitivism beat out your precious technological advancements in that department. And it only cost you 300,000 lives. Preach on!

Intelligence? How about the study of the crow in captivity? There was some food in a bottle, a metal wire, and a crow (they walked into a bar...). The crow bent the end of the wire, held it with its beak, slipped it into the bottle, and retrieved the food from inside. This may not be a contribution to society/humanity, but it is intelligence. However, if Dr. Evil had the brilliant idea to hold the world captive, and the only way society/humanity as we know it could survive was if a primitive crow could retrieve a sunflower seed from a coke bottle... you'd be sucking that crow's beak.

Now, to doctor Rosethornpenis....


The objective of human politics is to improve the lives of humans.


By improving the lives of humans, do you mean cheap labor? Do you mean genocide? Do you mean starvation? Do you mean dumping chemical waste into rivers? Do you mean exposure to nuclear radiation and resulting deformities never before seen until our current state of "improvement" in human lifestyles? Do you mean having to test dangerous synthesized drugs on animals to prevent genetic mutation in humans - including possible lethal side-effects? Do you mean DNA damage caused by cellphone radiation? Carcinogens in nearly every present-day food product (available at a low price to the majority)? High fructose corn syrup and other synthetic chemicals found in food along with pesticides? Fine particles absorbed by pregnant woman, leading to genetic mutation in the womb? The fine display of honesty and genuine care for human life exhibited by ruling governments around the globe? The disappearance of photoplankton and coral reef resulting in the plummeting numbers of large fish which used to be the prospects of industrial fishing (which inflicted enough damage itself on these species)? The rule of law favoring the powerful and rich?



No.
Did I claim otherwise?



These are all occurring, thanks to our human politics.



Unfortunately, yes.

You admit we have failed to meet our human politics objective. Thank you.



I can asure you, without any doubt, that infant mortality has decreased and life expectancy has increased with modern medicine. You are welcome to leave the internet (please) and go live in the wild and use animal organs to heal yourself.

I can also assure you, with the introduction of these "improvements" the QUALITY of human life has decreased (though the QUANTITY of human life has increased). Take a look at suicide rates, cheap labor, torture. Many infants born today, thanks to modern medicine, are born with physical deformities, autism (possibly caused by high levels of mercury engulfed), to an extent where they can not feel happiness at the same level because they are either in great pain physically and/or mentally. They're alive, sure, but how is their quality of living compared to a healthy fit teenager flirting with the opposite/same sex? They will always feel envious and left out.

Life expectancy? Not necessarily true. It was normal for American Indians to live into their seventies without any modern medicine. (Who just recently received plumbing on their "human improved" reservations where children inhale gasoline vapors to get high and where adults are infected with chronic alcoholism.) Look at Africa - the poorest continent in the world. Perhaps where there is a scarcity of food there is the lowest life expectancies and where the most food is horded has the longest. Life may be made easier for elders with the aid of respirators, wheelchairs etc. and you may live longer into your retirement. But, what is the thrill of enjoying your retirement money when you can no longer walk, get an erection (Viagra? It leads to blindness) or plainly do not have the energy to enjoy it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather live ten years less and enjoy your entire life in freedom than spending the majority of your youthful waking hours busting your ass to enjoy ten extra years in a wheelchair with so many fuckin' medicines towards which you pay half your pension you slowly lose your mind? COME ON MAN!


It's an undisputable fact that modern technology and agriculture, something unknown to many Amerindians, has allowed people to produce a lot more food.

Once again, you seem to value quantity over quality. You should know - if you do not, i'll tell you - that the key to a healthy diet is variety. You can't eat processed chicken or wendy's everyday and expect to be healthy. Sure, there's a shitload of it, but watch "Supersize Me" (Where the man goes on a strictly McDonalds - or Burger King? - Fastfood - diet for thirty days) and tell me you still think that's O.K. Two hundred varieties of the fruits stocked on our grocery store shelves come from the rainforest. There are over three thousand varieties of fruits native to this tropical climate and at current deforestation rates in this area, forests which supply the earth with 20% of its oxygen, will cease to exist by 2050.

I would also like to add, I am indebted to Derrick Jensen for "removing the dams" in my head.

[irkone]

jAZZRAtt i'll get to your PM shortly

[irkone]

In light of your restriction. And because it was fun:

QUOTE

Jazzrat, I don't know you the least bit, however our so-far pleasant discourse would lead me to believe you never really experienced any of those.
Well, I'm afriad you're wrong. Like you are about most things.
QUOTE

Compassion coming from someone like you? Impossible.
Although it would be lovely to think that I'm afraid I do have emotions and even express compassion for my species. Just don't ask me to get weepy about any other random lumps of organic matter.
QUOTE

You were probably that kid who screamed to mommy everytime a dog came close to him wagging its tail with its tongue floppin around, or wept uncontrollably when a moth landed in your hair. These are some really traumatizing events for which you blame animals.
Never was really traumatised by animals. Never was fond of dogs though, one of them did bit my head, but I'd never say I condemned all dogs for that. Also my mother suffers from a phobia of butterflys and moths, you insensitive ****.

QUOTE

Maybe that's why you spend your time indoors at a computer advocating technocracy,
It's related more to the efficiency of the distributive sytem and the egalitarian nature of human advance. Of course so far you have only been able to think of it in terms of the capitalist paradigm.
QUOTE

because you are too scared to realize there are other ways to live - outdoors - where all those scaaaary furrrry creatures live.
Living outside constantly is impractical, especially in my country. We are simply unable to cope properly outdoors in the environment that I inhabit. OF course I do go outside.
QUOTE

I would rather kill myself than live a life indoors staring at a screen in the comfort of a controlled, safe environment protected from any external source or fundamental human emotion.
If you think that's technocracy then you've got a fairly warped strawman in your head.
QUOTE

A crucial reason I don't work jobs fitting this description.
What job you have is irrelevant to this discussion, which I thought was about attatching the idea of rights to non-sapient biological matter.
QUOTE

But don't worry, that's why I am here, to help you open up and let all of your pent-up aggression out which you have received from your abuser and do not know how to discharge.
What fucking abuser? Where did you get your fucking degree in pseducology?
QUOTE

A kiss? sure Jazzratt. Even a hug.
I don't know you well enough for you to touch me. Besides I don't know where you've been.
QUOTE

When is the last time you went for a hike?
I went walking along the hills near my house on Saturday.
QUOTE

Breathed in the odor of fresh pine needles (it's much more refreshing than inhaling diesel exhaust or stale dust)?
Pine isn't native to my homeland, or the area I now live. I generally don't find types of air more or less refreshing than each other, but whatever.
QUOTE

Watch an ant get lost on your forearm or a bee as it realizes your arm is not a flower?
Well, the first question is irrelevant as ants aren't really exculsive to the outdoors, not by a long shot. And in answer to the second, I haven't. This is not due to being underexposed to bees, the bastards are everywhere, they just tend not to land on me. Since you seem desperate to know.
QUOTE

(then again i'm pretty damn sweet and you can't stand it)
What are you talking about?
QUOTE

Or laid outside under the stars with a woman/man you love?
Too long ago thank you very much arsepipe. Not that it's any bussiness of yours.
QUOTE

You can't do any of that inside on a computer.
Which is why I don't spend all my time inside in front of a computer.
QUOTE

Maybe i'm absolutely wrong. Maybe you do those all the time, but I would bet money, even an ENTIRE SQUIRREL that you don't.
Where's my squirrel motherfucker?
QUOTE

Am I a primitivist? No, that's just a term technocrats and politicians have created to generally fit anyone who isn't obsessed with power and control - oh wait - and "[improving] the lives of humans."
Power and control have been fundamental in human relations from feudalism onward, to ignore them is foolish. I do not desire either, as I don't really know what I'd do with them. You aslo talk about improving the lives and structures of humans as if its a bad thing? Why? What made you become misanthropic? Were the other kids mean to you at school? Did you have trouble fitting in? Did you never quite understand how to get those "mysterious plastic boxes" working? Did you fail science?



Well, I'm afriad you're wrong. Like you are about most things.

That's just like - yer opinion, man.


Although it would be lovely to think that I'm afraid I do have emotions and even express compassion for my species. Just don't ask me to get weepy about any other random lumps of organic matter.

Wow, I underestimated you. And by random lumps of organic matter... do you mean dead babies?


Never was really traumatised by animals. Never was fond of dogs though, one of them did bit my head, but I'd never say I condemned all dogs for that.

Well, that is what I consider a traumatizing childhood event concerning an animal.


Also my mother suffers from a phobia of butterflys and moths, you insensitive ****.

Does it make me any more insensitive that I laugh out loud every time I read this? Butterflies are considered by many to be the most beautiful insects, and are completely harmless - much like moths. There are a few caterpillars which can sting you with their spikey backs, but a thorough knowledge of this - much like the knowledge indigenous people posess which is just so damn primitive - would steer you clear of potential trouble. Or maybe you can see if Egon has his PKE meter set to dangerous caterpillar mode, the one just below Slimer's Gooey Balls meter. I heard he has a few spare proton packs in the Ecto1.

I can understand the fear to fly in an airplane, the fear of heights, fear of speeding in a car, fear of walking down an alley at night, the fear of water due to an inability to swim - because there is a chance of DEATH related to those activities. A butterfly landing on your head is only going to cause you death if you're near the edge of the top of a building or cliff, in an airplane which somehow a butterfly made its way into the cockpit and "attacked" the pilot; beside a pool of water, or driving a car and spazzing the fuck out, or walking down a dark alley at night, using your pepper spray on the moth instead of the sebsequent assailant. The phobia is almost as absurd as the fear of the boogyman.



It's related more to the efficiency of the distributive sytem and the egalitarian nature of human advance. Of course so far you have only been able to think of it in terms of the capitalist paradigm.

I've read about technocracy - A system based on the centralized control of all aspects of production using machines to do everything for us so we wouldn't have to work. Equality for all. The replacement of money with evenly matched energy credits for all. You are advocating an ideology equal to the absurdity of mine. At least what I am advocating has been proven to work harmoniously with Earth for thousands of years. If everyone is equal, and no one NEEDS to work, and everyone can pursue their hobbies - which is usually something more in touch with Earth such as gardening, art, fishing, hunting, music, singing, dancing - there is no need for this system. All it would do is leave humans with the absolute pointlessness in their existence. If machines control all production - the only thing humans have been needed for and known since the beginning of civilization - humans would have to find purpose in other areas. Now, the only alternate I can see as to where humans would turn, would be back to nature (unless your idea of purpose is hanging out with emotionless, programmed machines in a factory) which would come through a connection once again with their landbase. So instead of wasting everyone's time with technocracy, let's prevent the pointless "told you so" cycle and return to nature now.

In addition to this - the whole purpose of civilization since it's inception is to exploit the poor as well as their landbases and reap massive benefits for the exploiters. This is the relationship between the rich and poor - the haves and have-nots. This is the stature the rich are not willing to give up for "equality for all" and "energy credits."


What job you have is irrelevant to this discussion, which I thought was about attatching the idea of rights to non-sapient biological matter.

Non-sapient, hmm, can't be dead babies. Oh, now i get it - animals, or nonhumans. Well let me just say this: There are groups who care about and suppose rights for nonhumans and are among the FBI's top domestic terrorist threat list (fighting the system). The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front). However, I do not condone such activity - for the record.


QUOTE (irkone @ November 07, 2006 11:08 pm)
Alright, lets add a positive connotation to it. Suck MY cock.

That's a bit forward don't you think? Couldn't we go out for a meal first, come back to mine and share some wine. Maybe cuddle in front of a fire? A kiss too much to ask?

QUOTE
A kiss? sure Jazzratt. Even a hug.

I don't know you well enough for you to touch me. Besides I don't know where you've been.

Jazzratt, stop playing these games with my heart!!!


What fucking abuser? Where did you get your fucking degree in pseducology?

The dog that bit you on the head. I knew there was one.


Pine isn't native to my homeland, or the area I now live. I generally don't find types of air more or less refreshing than each other, but whatever.

Then to educate you, the air quality in a large, bustling city smells of diesel fumes near the street (most everywhere), and garbage with a sprinkle of seawater near the rivers. When you compare this to a countryside hundreds of miles away, it is very refreshing, and something underpriveleged poor people from the city never experience. The sight of more than eight stars is also an astonishing spectacle for the same people.


Well, the first question is irrelevant as ants aren't really exculsive to the outdoors, not by a long shot. And in answer to the second, I haven't. This is not due to being underexposed to bees, the bastards are everywhere, they just tend not to land on me. Since you seem desperate to know.

You must have quite an infestation on your hands huh?
Please don't call them bastards, they provided you with god damn honey didn't they? Do you not appreciate it? Say "thank you little bees!" next time you see them, and they will land on you without stinging you. But, if they don't think you meant it... they will land on you, pretend to be nice, and THEN they will sting you.

I'm pretty damn sweet, whatdya think?


Where's my squirrel motherfucker?

I'll sculpt you a squirrel when you stop playing games with my heart.


Power and control have been fundamental in human relations from feudalism onward, to ignore them is foolish. I do not desire either, as I don't really know what I'd do with them. You aslo talk about improving the lives and structures of humans as if its a bad thing? Why? What made you become misanthropic? Were the other kids mean to you at school? Did you have trouble fitting in? Did you never quite understand how to get those "mysterious plastic boxes" working? Did you fail science?

Improving lives, structures, I went over that, mysterious plastic boxes? Do you mean time capsules? Fail science? No, but I would assume you did with your asinine "lumps of biological matter" comments. And to ignore fundamental human relations from feudalism onward being foolish: Yes, that is correct, it would be foolish to ignore history and the atrocities of the struggle between rich and poor for power and control. I do not ignore history, I am fully aware civilization was founded upon genocide. What is more foolish is to resign to the abstraction that there is no other way to live besides underneath the powerful and rich, and even moreso that you have no power over your own life. It is necessary to look at (read) both sides of a story. To look at (read) both sides of a war. To read into possible motives for acts of war and vengeance and not just assume everything you hear from the capitalist news about terrorism (TV) is absolute and ultimately, come to your own conclusions.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by irkone+--> (irkone)You admit we have failed to meet our human politics objective. Thank you.[/b]

Of course!
Human politics has been in the hands of the ruling class since human politics have been around. Human politics will only serve the interests of all humans when socialism is established.


Originally posted by irkone+--> (irkone)I can also assure you, with the introduction of these "improvements" the QUALITY of human life has decreased (though the QUANTITY of human life has increased). Take a look at suicide rates, cheap labor, torture. Many infants born today, thanks to modern medicine, are born with physical deformities, autism (possibly caused by high levels of mercury engulfed), to an extent where they can not feel happiness at the same level because they are either in great pain physically and/or mentally. They're alive, sure, but how is their quality of living compared to a healthy fit teenager flirting with the opposite/same sex? They will always feel envious and left out.[/b]

Modern medicine also cures diseases previously not curable, thus improving our quality of life. There is also absolutely no proof whatsoever that autism is increased by the advent of technology and modern medicine.


[email protected]
Life expectancy? Not necessarily true. It was normal for American Indians to live into their seventies without any modern medicine. (Who just recently received plumbing on their "human improved" reservations where children inhale gasoline vapors to get high and where adults are infected with chronic alcoholism.) Look at Africa - the poorest continent in the world. Perhaps where there is a scarcity of food there is the lowest life expectancies and where the most food is horded has the longest. Life may be made easier for elders with the aid of respirators, wheelchairs etc. and you may live longer into your retirement. But, what is the thrill of enjoying your retirement money when you can no longer walk, get an erection (Viagra? It leads to blindness) or plainly do not have the energy to enjoy it in the first place? Wouldn't you rather live ten years less and enjoy your entire life in freedom than spending the majority of your youthful waking hours busting your ass to enjoy ten extra years in a wheelchair with so many fuckin' medicines towards which you pay half your pension you slowly lose your mind? COME ON MAN!

Christ almighty!
If people didn't want to live longer, medicine would not have advanced as much as it has. This has occured because people like being healthy. Health causes people to not die and therefore live longer.
Poor eyesight? Guess what? Modern medicine has a cure for that! If not for metals mined out the earth, often fucking up landscapes, forrests, polluting the water, plastic made from drilling oil and refining it, creating greenhouse gasses, polluting the air and water, and medical research on defenseless animals, billions of people around the world would have to suffer with myopia and hyperopia. Dr. Rosenpenis, for instance, wouldn't see shit without glasses.
Thanks, modern medicine.


irkone
Once again, you seem to value quantity over quality. You should know - if you do not, i'll tell you - that the key to a healthy diet is variety. You can't eat processed chicken or wendy's everyday and expect to be healthy. Sure, there's a shitload of it, but watch "Supersize Me" (Where the man goes on a strictly McDonalds - or Burger King? - Fastfood - diet for thirty days) and tell me you still think that's O.K. Two hundred varieties of the fruits stocked on our grocery store shelves come from the rainforest. There are over three thousand varieties of fruits native to this tropical climate and at current deforestation rates in this area, forests which supply the earth with 20% of its oxygen, will cease to exist by 2050.

What the fuck? No fruits are harvested from virgin tropical forretsts. Even we poor third worlders have discovered agriculture. Thanks to technology.

Listen, ass-hole: stop being dumb or shut the fuck up.
I never mentioned anything about eating McDonald's every day. But you do bring up a good point. Agriculture allows us to have a tremendous variety of food. Transportation also helps. You know? The evil roads with trucks, trains, boats, airplanes? Fucking up the environment? They allow you to eat a variety of different foods. A long fuck time ago before people started ruing their lives with technology, folks pretty much ate what they found in their area. I would probably never have seen bread, rice, apples, beef, or this amazing line of coke I just snorted. This is called variety.

Deforrestation? How is technology responsible for that? You're committing logical fallacies all over the place, it's hard to know where to begin with you. Technology can progress without staving our environment of the trees it needs. Technology also allows us to exploit the earth's resources without causing so much harm.

The only harmful effect of technology is that bumbling idiots like yourself get to post these ridiculous rants on the internet.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Question: why are you using a computer?

[chimx]

Question: why aren't you living on a commune?

[irkone]

What the fuck? No fruits are harvested from virgin tropical forretsts. Even we poor third worlders have discovered agriculture. Thanks to technology.

Listen, ass-hole: stop being dumb or shut the fuck up.
I never mentioned anything about eating McDonald's every day. But you do bring up a good point. Agriculture allows us to have a tremendous variety of food. Transportation also helps. You know? The evil roads with trucks, trains, boats, airplanes? Fucking up the environment? They allow you to eat a variety of different foods. A long fuck time ago before people started ruing their lives with technology, folks pretty much ate what they found in their area. I would probably never have seen bread, rice, apples, beef, or this amazing line of coke I just snorted. This is called variety.

"Today, most plants that grow wild in New England are thought of as weeds. But thousands of years ago people here actually encouraged some of these plants to grow, because the leaves, seeds, stalks, and tubers, or underground stems, were edible.

Between 4,000 and 3,000 years ago, people in eastern North America learned to plant and tend a variety of plants—goosefoot, marsh elder, sunflower, and squash. Goosefoot, also known as chenopodium, is a common plant that is found along the banks of rivers and in other disturbed habitats. People gathered the stalks in August and September, dried them, and then shook them to collect the seeds, which are rich in protein. Archaeological evidence suggests that people here harvested and stored great quantities of these seeds.

Unlike domesticated plants, which require people to plant them, wild plants reproduce year after year on their own. Some archaeologists believe, though, that our ancestors may have played an active role in encouraging these wild plants to spread, perhaps by weeding out the other plants around them. Although people here wouldn’t have domesticated plants like corn for another 2,500 years, this was an early step toward planting and tending gardens."
-http://www.pequotmuseum.org/NativeLifeways/EarlyAgriculture/

A common and thorough knowledge of plants lost thanks to the introduction of WESTERN agriculture.

Now we just overplant, exhaust the land, and have to move on to fertile soil. Farmers have to buy genetically engineered seeds from companies which can only yield a single season of crops.


Listen, ass-hole: stop being dumb or shut the fuck up.


Deforrestation? How is technology responsible for that?

Again, you prove my point, you fucking moron. If you can not make the connection between these two, I have no further discourse with you, and the world would be better off without you in it.

[inquisitive_socialist]

it seems that irkone tried to adress too many topics at once. animals rights, that good. so is the environment. so is any of the other random ass points you raised in the rambling novella you felt it necessary to post. look, animals, as soft and furry as they may be, are NOT as smart as people. its a sad but true fact. which i enjoy. i state that i can happily eat anything less intelligent or able than me. if i can sneak up on it and stab,shoot,or any other way kill an animal, it was mine to kill and eat. and if a deer can sneak into my house and maim/ kill me, its welcome to eat me. this modern time we live in may have something to learn from primitivism, i personally think we overlook alot of knowledge because its "primitive", but also, if you think sitting in front of a computer is so evil, why are you posting on a website.why do you own a computer? why not go live in the woods. i did it for 2 1/2 months, it was amazing. but now that im back in the comfort of my technologically advanced living, im not gonna say im better for having slept under a tree, or whatever it is you think i should do other than maybe split a rail with dr rosenpenis. if you think that people here are ignorant of animal rights, go do something about it, dont sit here and tell us we're not as good as you because we dont fuck goats or whatever.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by irkone+--> (irkone)A common and thorough knowledge of plants lost thanks to the introduction of WESTERN agriculture.[/b]

So? Agriculture yields more food, a greater variety of food, more nutritious food, tastier food, etc.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Now we just overplant, exhaust the land, and have to move on to fertile soil.

No we don't.
There is plenty of arable land where exhaustion doesn't occur.


Farmers have to buy genetically engineered seeds from companies which can only yield a single season of crops.

This is not an inherent quality of modern agriculture.


irkone
Again, you prove my point, you fucking moron. If you can not make the connection between these two, I have no further discourse with you, and the world would be better off without you in it.

Clever.

Deforrestation is not an unavoidable effect of the advent of modern technology. Nobody is bothering with this bullshit you've been posting because you have no notion of logic whatsoever. Your entire argument rests on completely fallacious logic: post hoc and cum hoc.

The former means that if one thing happened after another, it must have occured as a result of that. Not true.

The latter means that if two things occur simultaneously, then they must be causally related. Also not true.

Just because the advent of technology and agriculture have accompanied the growth of global capitalism, deforrestation, land exhaustion, and cultural hegemony, doesn't prove that these are direct or inherent results of the former.

Again: why are you using a computer?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:02 am
Question: why aren't you living on a commune?
Because (1) we haven't been able to establish one and (2) I'm not a lifestylist.

[irkone]

it seems that irkone tried to adress too many topics at once. animals rights, that good. so is the environment. so is any of the other random ass points you raised in the rambling novella you felt it necessary to post.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58268

Start there. Hence the word "continued" in "PETA discussion continued."


look, animals, as soft and furry as they may be, are NOT as smart as people. its a sad but true fact

I have not claimed anywhere that animals are as smart as people. I never claimed sparrows could perform long division or multiply fractions. There are many different facets of intelligence, and this intelligence saved a majority of them from the tsunami of 2004. (Nonhuman sea dwellers can only swim so fast... and good luck to them finding a high-ground.)

I have said:

The instinctual behavior of animals and fish, if studied, can provide more concrete information on a storm, a cruel winter, or a tsunami than any radar (even Doppler!) or meteorologist.

The crow bent the end of the wire, held it with its beak, slipped it into the bottle, and retrieved the food from inside. This may not be a contribution to society/humanity, but it is intelligence.


if you think sitting in front of a computer is so evil, why are you posting on a website.why do you own a computer? why not go live in the woods. i did it for 2 1/2 months

Animals already agree with me on the subject matter. Living in the woods is ideal but only if you are with a community. Only a psycho would live in the woods by himself. I am posting on a website (particularly this website) because I would assume a majority of people on this website do not agree with me, however, if I can persuade the minds of a few people, that is an accomplishment. It would be less meaningful to express this opinion to people who already agree with me and lack significant contrasting viewpoints - which is vital for a full spectrum of understanding.


if you think that people here are ignorant of animal rights, go do something about it

OK... you basically just answered your own question:


why are you posting on a website.why do you own a computer?

Because I think people here are ignorant of animal rights, therefore, I am doing something about it by posting on a website. I am also linking animals rights and the rights of the poor to the exploitation of their landbases (the environment) because of countless historic examples of the rich and powerful driving off or killing the former two in order to gain access to the latter.


dont sit here and tell us we're not as good as you because we dont fuck goats or whatever.

Beastiality is a product of civilization, as well as rape. It comes from the placement of material possession on things such as animals and women. I never said you aren't as good as me, I am just pointing out your arguments are flawed and lack concrete substance.

[irkone]

So? Agriculture yields more food, a greater variety of food, more nutritious food, tastier food, etc.

Wrong. Agriculture does not yield a greater variety of food. A wide variety of food occurs naturally from your landbase. What agriculture does is select a small percentage of foods which are most efficiently produced on a mass scale in order to make the most profit. Maybe you didn't fully read through my previous post. There are over 3,000 fruits in the rainforest. We use 200 in the western world.


There is plenty of arable land where exhaustion doesn't occur.

Take a look at the Sahara desert. Is it just coincidence that the largest desert in the world happens to be adjacent to where civilization and agriculture began? Explain cave paintings of elephants, lions, hippos, and other animals in the center of these vast deserts. Could it be possible the mass consumption of raw materials as well as over-used grazing land exhausted all the minerals in the ground?

No one knows for sure and most likely no one ever will because all anyone can focus on is "progression" NOW.


Deforrestation is not an unavoidable effect of the advent of modern technology.

Then why does it continue? How has modern technology come to be? How will we further modern technology? Where will we get all the materials? So far trees are the cheapest, most efficient source of energy in large abundance (quickly diminishing) in the eye of the producer - used for paper, a wide variety of construction, housing, heat, furniture, pencils, gun stocks, ice cream sticks, your dildo. There is a large dependence on trees, likewise with oil. To attain this environmentally sound modern technology you speak of, we are going to need more of these non-renewable resources. Unfortunately, until we reach this utopian technological era, civilization must continue consuming all of these NON-RENEWABLE resources to maintain its rate of "production" to supply its over-population.


Again: why are you using a computer?

There is a dire need to educate a large portion of computer-users who cannot see past the screen in front of them (which may be why they need glasses in the first place).

[t_wolves_fan]

Whoa, another fun one.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Your ignorance is remarkable. And very revealing of the nature of primitivism.


Wrong. Agriculture does not yield a greater variety of food. A wide variety of food occurs naturally from your landbase. What agriculture does is select a small percentage of foods which are most efficiently produced on a mass scale in order to make the most profit. Maybe you didn't fully read through my previous post. There are over 3,000 fruits in the rainforest. We use 200 in the western world.

If it wasn't for modern technology, how many fruits from the rainforrest would you have access to? Answer: zero.
Agriculture is not the same as mass agriculture. It provides variety because it allows people to plant things that normally don't grow in a given region, by adapting soil conditions with fertlizers, pesticides, and irrigation. For example, the weed I grow in my backyard is agriculture. It's not native to south eastern Brazil, so without agriculture, I couldn't have enjoyed that bowl I just smoked.


Originally posted by irkone+--> (irkone)Take a look at the Sahara desert. Is it just coincidence that the largest desert in the world happens to be adjacent to where civilization and agriculture began? Explain cave paintings of elephants, lions, hippos, and other animals in the center of these vast deserts. Could it be possible the mass consumption of raw materials as well as over-used grazing land exhausted all the minerals in the ground?

No one knows for sure and most likely no one ever will because all anyone can focus on is "progression" NOW.[/b]

See the part of my post that deals with logical fallacies.
And also notice that I said that much of the Earth's arable land is not prone to exhaustion. The parts that are presently cultivated, for instance.

Furthermore, the ongoing desertification of sub-Saharan Africa is not due to agriculture.

And it is possible to oppose irresponsible farming methods that cause land exhaustion without blindly rejecting all agriculture and technology.


Originally posted by irkone+--> (irkone)Then why does it continue?[/b]

Because wild trees are valuable.


[email protected]
How has modern technology come to be?

Peoples' desire to increase the efficiency of their tasks and the enjoyment of their leisure.


irkone
How will we further modern technology?

By continuing this pursuit.


Where will we get all the materials?

Earth


So far trees are the cheapest, most efficient source of energy

No it isn't.


Unfortunately, until we reach this utopian technological era, civilization must continue consuming all of these NON-RENEWABLE resources to maintain its rate of "production" to supply its over-population.

We have very efficient tree farms nowadays.

De-forrestation can and is regulated. Probably it should be limited more rigorously. Sometimes, however, it's necessary. Your house, internet cafe, library, school, university, workplace, or whevere you're using a computer probably occupies the former place a tree. My point: often cutting down trees is good.


There is a dire need to educate a large portion of computer-users who cannot see past the screen in front of them

But by paying for internet access, living in modern society, and using our technology aren't you promoting technological advancements which have provided these things? If you were really against it, you probably wouldn't be online talking to us. Tell the truth, your comfort is more important than your "values", isn't it?
There are plenty of anarcho-primitivist crazies out there. Go find your buddies and move to a cave.

[Johnny Anarcho]

I like PETA; I read Animal Liberation and its good to know theres an organization doing something to end these animals suffering. The free stuff you can get from PETA2(their youth wing) is pretty good too.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 11, 2006 01:16 am
I like PETA; I read Animal Liberation and its good to know theres an organization doing something to end these animals suffering. The free stuff you can get from PETA2(their youth wing) is pretty good too.
Nothing like free shit to cheer you up when you're dying of cancer. Beats using animals for the development of medical treatment anyway.

And thanks for telling me they have free stuff, I'll try to get some, it's getting cold here in England now, fire material always comes in handy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:42 am


Well, I'm afriad you're wrong. Like you are about most things.

That's just like - yer opinion, man.
Wow. That's deep.




Although it would be lovely to think that I'm afraid I do have emotions and even express compassion for my species. Just don't ask me to get weepy about any other random lumps of organic matter.

Wow, I underestimated you. And by random lumps of organic matter... do you mean dead babies? They're dead what the fuck do I have to care about them?



Never was really traumatised by animals. Never was fond of dogs though, one of them did bit my head, but I'd never say I condemned all dogs for that.

Well, that is what I consider a traumatizing childhood event concerning an animal. I wouldn't, I don't mind dogs. It's no more traumatising than being attacked by any other animal.



Also my mother suffers from a phobia of butterflys and moths, you insensitive ****.

Does it make me any more insensitive that I laugh out loud every time I read this? Butterflies are considered by many to be the most beautiful insects, and are completely harmless - much like moths. There are a few caterpillars which can sting you with their spikey backs, but a thorough knowledge of this - much like the knowledge indigenous people posess which is just so damn primitive - would steer you clear of potential trouble. Or maybe you can see if Egon has his PKE meter set to dangerous caterpillar mode, the one just below Slimer's Gooey Balls meter. I heard he has a few spare proton packs in the Ecto1.

I can understand the fear to fly in an airplane, the fear of heights, fear of speeding in a car, fear of walking down an alley at night, the fear of water due to an inability to swim - because there is a chance of DEATH related to those activities. A butterfly landing on your head is only going to cause you death if you're near the edge of the top of a building or cliff, in an airplane which somehow a butterfly made its way into the cockpit and "attacked" the pilot; beside a pool of water, or driving a car and spazzing the fuck out, or walking down a dark alley at night, using your pepper spray on the moth instead of the sebsequent assailant. The phobia is almost as absurd as the fear of the boogyman. This is absolute proof you're an ignorant little brat determined to piss people off over the internet. Did you, at any point in your wonderful diatribe bother to think that a phobia can be an irrational fear of something, or did that skip over your head? And you're the one with pretentions to psychoanalysis.




It's related more to the efficiency of the distributive sytem and the egalitarian nature of human advance. Of course so far you have only been able to think of it in terms of the capitalist paradigm.

I've read about technocracy - A system based on the centralized control of all aspects of production using machines to do everything for us so we wouldn't have to work. Equality for all. The replacement of money with evenly matched energy credits for all. Good so far...
You are advocating an ideology equal to the absurdity of mine. Mine doesn't require millions of people to die and doesn't deprive the world of medical technolgoy in the name of some wishy-washy "mother nature" type idea.
At least what I am advocating has been proven to work harmoniously with Earth for thousands of years. An irrelevant concern in deciding a governmental system.
If everyone is equal, and no one NEEDS to work, and everyone can pursue their hobbies - which is usually something more in touch with Earth such as gardening, art, fishing, hunting, music, singing, dancing - there is no need for this system. It keeps them out of the need to work, it improves the standard of living through technology and it will alow us to progress far beyond may even the reaches of our planet. Also in the hobbies you mentioned hunting and fishing - aren't they barbaric sports that hurt "da widdle anmwals"? Also how the fuck is dancing, music or singing an Earth type hobby?
All it would do is leave humans with the absolute pointlessness in their existence. If machines control all production - the only thing humans have been needed for and known since the beginning of civilization - humans would have to find purpose in other areas. We're an adabtable species (hence our ability to do what we want with others), I'm sure not having to work anymore won't crush us. You also ignore the fact that people would still be constantly redesigning, improving and creating new machines?
Now, the only alternate I can see as to where humans would turn, would be back to nature (unless your idea of purpose is hanging out with emotionless, programmed machines in a factory) which would come through a connection once again with their landbase. That's not the only alternative and it competes for most stupid with "maintain the status quo".
So instead of wasting everyone's time with technocracy, let's prevent the pointless "told you so" cycle and return to nature now.Ahh, so you have crystal ball on you too? Fabulous.


In addition to this - the whole purpose of civilization since it's inception is to exploit the poor as well as their landbases and reap massive benefits for the exploiters. That's not the only reason for the existance of civilisation, and it has provided me with many things I am thankful for. Like cancer treatment and pizzas.
This is the relationship between the rich and poor - the haves and have-nots. This is the stature the rich are not willing to give up for "equality for all" and "energy credits." Hence revolution you dumb bastard.



What job you have is irrelevant to this discussion, which I thought was about attatching the idea of rights to non-sapient biological matter.

Non-sapient, hmm, can't be dead babies. Wait, why not? Dead babies aren't sapient or even sentient. DO with them what you will, they're fucking dead.
Oh, now i get it - animals, or nonhumans. Well let me just say this: There are groups who care about and suppose rights for nonhumans and are among the FBI's top domestic terrorist threat list (fighting the system). The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front). However, I do not condone such activity - for the record. Yeah and both of those organisations are anti-worker, backward nutjobs that need a good smack in the mouth.



QUOTE (irkone @ November 07, 2006 11:08 pm)
Alright, lets add a positive connotation to it. Suck MY cock.

That's a bit forward don't you think? Couldn't we go out for a meal first, come back to mine and share some wine. Maybe cuddle in front of a fire? A kiss too much to ask?

QUOTE
A kiss? sure Jazzratt. Even a hug.

I don't know you well enough for you to touch me. Besides I don't know where you've been.

Jazzratt, stop playing these games with my heart!!! It could have been worse. I was going to make a reference to you having sex with animals, aren't I just the kindest chap for choosing not to do that?



What fucking abuser? Where did you get your fucking degree in pseducology?

The dog that bit you on the head. I knew there was one. That event is insignificant in my life. Compared to having a potentially fatal diesease at a young age anyway.



Pine isn't native to my homeland, or the area I now live. I generally don't find types of air more or less refreshing than each other, but whatever.

Then to educate you, the air quality in a large, bustling city smells of diesel fumes near the street (most everywhere), and garbage with a sprinkle of seawater near the rivers. When you compare this to a countryside hundreds of miles away, it is very refreshing, and something underpriveleged poor people from the city never experience. The sight of more than eight stars is also an astonishing spectacle for the same people. A: Don't talk down to me just because you assume I live in a city.
B: I've probably seen more fucking environs than you ever will. I honestly couldn't tell you the differences, for me, in the air in the dubai desert and the air in London. (I'm fully aware of what their actual differences are, but they are not perceptable.)



Well, the first question is irrelevant as ants aren't really exculsive to the outdoors, not by a long shot. And in answer to the second, I haven't. This is not due to being underexposed to bees, the bastards are everywhere, they just tend not to land on me. Since you seem desperate to know.

You must have quite an infestation on your hands huh? Not since the last time I sprayed the fuckers.

Please don't call them bastards, they provided you with god damn honey didn't they? Hopefully we will have technology soon to synthesise honey, thus rendering bees irrelevant.
Do you not appreciate it? They aren't intellegient enough to know, so I generally don't.
Say "thank you little bees!" next time you see them, and they will land on you without stinging you. But, if they don't think you meant it... they will land on you, pretend to be nice, and THEN they will sting you. I'm not going to wonder around talking to insects because some delusional loser told me to. I've never been stung by a bee because I don't flail like a cretin.


I'm pretty damn sweet, whatdya think? Yes :wub:



Where's my squirrel motherfucker?

I'll sculpt you a squirrel when you stop playing games with my heart. Damn, I wanted a real one. Still, I hope it's a bloody good sculpture!



Power and control have been fundamental in human relations from feudalism onward, to ignore them is foolish. I do not desire either, as I don't really know what I'd do with them. You aslo talk about improving the lives and structures of humans as if its a bad thing? Why? What made you become misanthropic? Were the other kids mean to you at school? Did you have trouble fitting in? Did you never quite understand how to get those "mysterious plastic boxes" working? Did you fail science?

Improving lives, structures, I went over that, I was hoping you had a more lucid line of reasoning for it.
mysterious plastic boxes? Do you mean time capsules? Most electronic things (bar computers, obvisoulsy)
Fail science? No, but I would assume you did with your asinine "lumps of biological matter" comments. Then you're very wrong. I have a college (british sense of the word) level education in chemistry and two qualifications for biology and physics. As if you couldn't fucking guess.
And to ignore fundamental human relations from feudalism onward being foolish: Yes, that is correct, it would be foolish to ignore history and the atrocities of the struggle between rich and poor for power and control. I do not ignore history, I am fully aware civilization was founded upon genocide. What is more foolish is to resign to the abstraction that there is no other way to live besides underneath the powerful and rich, and even moreso that you have no power over your own life. It is necessary to look at (read) both sides of a story. To look at (read) both sides of a war. To read into possible motives for acts of war and vengeance and not just assume everything you hear from the capitalist news about terrorism (TV) is absolute and ultimately, come to your own conclusions. Oh for fuck's sake. You know exactly what I mean. ALso where the shit does terrorism come into this. I never watch TV

[irkone]

It provides variety because it allows people to plant things that normally don't grow in a given region, by adapting soil conditions with fertlizers, pesticides, and irrigation.

'"A perfect example of this is the Nile which supported the Egyptians. In order to use river water, humans have built dams across rivers and brought irrigation methods to farm in desert areas. But irrigation could cause desert soils which have a high salt content to damage it's soil."
-http://library.thinkquest.org/C001323/data/travel.html

You want to talk about primitivism? You are still advocating techniques which CAUSE desertification. Brilliant.

The existence of dams, keeps much of the land barren around the Nile. It may provide hydroelectric power, but an insignificant amount compared to the destruction they cause downstream. When the river would flood, essential nutrients would replenish the soil and allow for plant growth which would have a large, positive impact on the surrounding animals. (That's FLOOD, excess freshwater downstream, not salinized water).

Precautions for using pesticides and fertilizers properly, in a safe manner, are so plentiful, spills or misuse occur constantly and harm surrounding ecosystems. Anyone can buy these products regardless of their intellect or countenance for age-old blunders. "Pesticide residues can contaminate freshwater ecosystems for generations." -http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/conservation-2000/lake-notes/fertilizers-and-pesticides/pesticides.html

The way irrigation contaminated what quite possibly could have been a thriving ecosystem known now as the Sahara Desert. You are committing the same crime these CIVILIZED people committed. You are not taking into account possible recurrencies of the same ignorance shown by your civilized ancestors.



Also how the fuck is dancing, music or singing an Earth type hobby?

Haha, are you serious? These are some of the only activities available to you without technology - which you are born with. You can do all of these without any technological detriments, and they prove to be liberating and exhilerating experiences leaving the performer content, refreshed and ultimately reborn. If you need to ask me this question, you have been deprived and should try them sometime (or you SHOULD HAVE). And i'm not talking about Dance Dance Revolution.

Irrational? What is irrational is this belief modern technology will save us all. What is it saving us from in the first place? The situation it has thrown us into? The current dreadful state of pollution, death, deformities, disease and starvation? The result of civilization? Every major plague has been a result of close-quarter contact:

"Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, traces the history of how people's advancement in civilization and agriculture has profoundly affected how germs became closely associated with infectious diseases.

Whereas hunters frequently are on the move, farmers are sedentary and live close to their own sewage, thus providing microbes a short path from one person's body into another's drinking water."
-http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/epidemic/naturalhistory.html

The thought of manual labor? Instead of washing dishes, buying dishwashers? Instead of sewing your own scarf, puchasing one made by an eight year old in Thailand? Is that the point of modern technology? To serve our lazy asses to make life easier? Remember, just because something is easier, it doesn't make it better. If this "progression" towards modern technology is destroying the earth at immense rates (which we live on, let me remind you), how are we currently saving ourselves? Lets further this rate of destruction, you say, and create technology which may possibly save us from our own demise by the time half of the mammals on the planet are extinct and living conditions are worsened in poor countries. What a noble idea you argue.


This is absolute proof you're an ignorant little brat determined to piss people off over the internet.

In the face of all of your kind words, I remain here to broadcast an alternative mental pathway to you. You are missing the entire picture - or unable to see the entire picture. This urge to destroy everything the civilized encounter is a psychological product of civilization which is run by psychopaths. My argument started off with animal rights - animals are destroyed by civilization. Then the poor - who are created and destroyed by civilization (at the leisure of the powerful), who so inconveniently dwell on prospective treasure and when refuse to abandon their homes, are killed. Then technology - a means utilized by the powerful to further advance the efficiency of the former three trends (as most technological inventions we know today are a result of military research). Jensen ellaborates:

"I just used the term psychopath to describe Charles Hurwitz and others who guide this culture. I don't use this term spuriously. A psychopath can be defined as one who willfully does damage without remorse: 'Such individuals are impulsive, insensitive to other's needs, and unable to anticipate the consequences of their behavior, to follow long-term goals, or to tolerate frustration [many of you seem unable to tolerate the frustration I am causing you]. The psychopathic individual is characterized by absence of the guilt feelings and exiety that normally accompany an antisocial act.' Dr. Robert Hare, who has long studied psychopaths, makes clear that 'among the most devastating features of psychopathy are a callous disregard for the rights of others and a propensity of predatory and violent behaviors. Without remorse, psychopaths charm and exploit others for their own gain. They lack empathy and a sense of responsibility, and the manipulate, like and con others with no regard for anyone's feelings.' Hare also states, 'Too many people hold the idea that psychopaths are essentially killers or convicts. The general public hasn't been educated to see byond the social stereotypes to understand that psychopaths can be entrepreneurs, politicians, CEOs and other successful individuals who may never see the inside of a prison.'
You can take your pick between these definitions. Both work for Hurwitz, both work for corporations and those who run them, and both work for the culture at large."
Jensen, p.666 "Endgame"

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by irkone+November 11, 2006 09:29 pm--> (irkone @ November 11, 2006 09:29 pm)
Also how the fuck is dancing, music or singing an Earth type hobby?

Haha, are you serious? These are some of the only activities available to you without technology - which you are born with. You can do all of these without any technological detriments, and they prove to be liberating and exhilerating experiences leaving the performer content, refreshed and ultimately reborn. If you need to ask me this question, you have been deprived and should try them sometime (or you SHOULD HAVE). And i'm not talking about Dance Dance Revolution. [/b]
Fair enough with singing or dancing but beyond that we need tools, which are technology. Bashing a stick on a rock to make a rythm is (admittedly highly rude) technology. And once again you completely miss who I am with your arrogant assumption that I haven't tried these; I'm fairly mediorcre as singers go, I play the drums and a bit of guitar & I'm not the world's most coordinated dancer, but I still do it. You seem to have this idea in your head that supporting technocracy and transhumanism makes somone completely unable to enjy life's simple pleasures. Sorry to dissapoint darling.


Irrational? What is irrational is this belief modern technology will save us all. Where did I say "save" you stupid strawmanning twat. Technolgoy will do what it's designed to do wether that is to cure us of illnesses or simply to cook our food faster.
What is it saving us from in the first place? The situation it has thrown us into? The current dreadful state of pollution, death, deformities, disease and starvation? The result of civilization? Hah, I'd rather live now, even with what we have than back in whatever non existant golden age your reactionary nature has caused you to claim.
Every major plague has been a result of close-quarter contact:

"Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, traces the history of how people's advancement in civilization and agriculture has profoundly affected how germs became closely associated with infectious diseases.

Whereas hunters frequently are on the move, farmers are sedentary and live close to their own sewage, thus providing microbes a short path from one person's body into another's drinking water."
-http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/epidemic/naturalhistory.html Irrelevant, if there is a drawback to our technological advances then we must simply smooth them out, the march of progress (thankfully) will not be stopped by reactionary extremeists like yourself.


The thought of manual labor? Instead of washing dishes, buying dishwashers? Instead of sewing your own scarf, puchasing one made by an eight year old in Thailand? Slowly we're also getting rid of the need for the 8 year old and instead using robots, this process would be much faster under technocracy. There is nothing wrong with removing manual labour from our lives - it leaves us with more time to just prat around.
Is that the point of modern technology? To serve our lazy asses to make life easier? THat's an oversimplification but that is one of its great applications, to see a selection of others I suggest you read the Sciences & Environment subforum on this very website.
Remember, just because something is easier, it doesn't make it better. Nope, but if it is made or done with machine-perfect precision than it sure as fuck is.
If this "progression" towards modern technology is destroying the earth at immense rates (which we live on, let me remind you), how are we currently saving ourselves? First I think this is an oppurtunity for me to bring up a quote by a friend of mine that really helped solidify my views on this sort of subject:
NoXion
If it was necessary to stripmine the entire planetary surface and remove every tree and then pave the whole thing over in order to ensure maximum happyness for every single human being, then I would do it in a heartbeat.. Now onward; it is not about 'saving ourselves' we are merely perpetuating ourselves, improving ourselves - saving suggests some sort of massive direct danger.
Lets further this rate of destruction, you say, and create technology which may possibly save us from our own demise by the time half of the mammals on the planet are extinct and living conditions are worsened in poor countries. What a noble idea you argue. Fuck half the mammals, we can do without them, kill them all if nescessary. Also the system I argue for would preclude the existence of fucking poor countries you dolt.



This is absolute proof you're an ignorant little brat determined to piss people off over the internet.

In the face of all of your kind words, I remain here to broadcast an alternative mental pathway to you. Yes I know you're a loony there is no need for you to euphamise it as "alternative mental pathway".
You are missing the entire picture - or unable to see the entire picture. This urge to destroy everything the civilized encounter is a psychological product of civilization which is run by psychopaths. A) Still thinking in either a capitalist or feudalist paradigm. I fully agree that cappies are fucking psychopaths, we part ways when you declare that the very structure of humanity is based on the rule of psychotics. Also, this is a little off topic but quite interesting to me - why are you going in for all this fucking psychology crap? Every post I've bothered with by you seems to involve you talking psychology, what the fuck is with that?
My argument started off with animal rights - animals are destroyed by civilization. Oh no, not the poor animals!!! Not non-sapient beings! How fucking awful!
Then the poor - who are created and destroyed by civilization (at the leisure of the powerful), That's a false anlysis that blames what is done within the framework of civilisation on that framework. THat borders on the fallacious.
who so inconveniently dwell on prospective treasure and when refuse to abandon their homes, are killed. Again this is an argument constructed entirely on past paradigms, which you should know full well that I do not support.
Then technology - a means utilized by the powerful to further advance the efficiency of the former three trends (as most technological inventions we know today are a result of military research). Technology is utilised by everyone, no matter what they do or who they are. Technology is everything we make from the clothes on out backs to the hubble telescope and (just because they're an awesome product of civilisation) pizzas.
Jensen ellaborates:

"I just used the term psychopath to describe Charles Hurwitz and others who guide this culture. I don't use this term spuriously. A psychopath can be defined as one who willfully does damage without remorse: 'Such individuals are impulsive, insensitive to other's needs, and unable to anticipate the consequences of their behavior, to follow long-term goals, or to tolerate frustration [many of you seem unable to tolerate the frustration I am causing you]. The psychopathic individual is characterized by absence of the guilt feelings and exiety that normally accompany an antisocial act.' Dr. Robert Hare, who has long studied psychopaths, makes clear that 'among the most devastating features of psychopathy are a callous disregard for the rights of others and a propensity of predatory and violent behaviors. Without remorse, psychopaths charm and exploit others for their own gain. They lack empathy and a sense of responsibility, and the manipulate, like and con others with no regard for anyone's feelings.' Hare also states, 'Too many people hold the idea that psychopaths are essentially killers or convicts. The general public hasn't been educated to see byond the social stereotypes to understand that psychopaths can be entrepreneurs, politicians, CEOs and other successful individuals who may never see the inside of a prison.'
You can take your pick between these definitions. Both work for Hurwitz, both work for corporations and those who run them, and both work for the culture at large."
Jensen, p.666 "Endgame" Once more this works better as a critiscm of capitalism, especially as I have used similar arguments myself in reference to CEOs and the like. If you could explain to me precisly what relevance this has to communist technocracy and transhumanism I would love you to.

[irkone]

Also how the fuck is dancing, music or singing an Earth type hobby?



Haha, are you serious? These are some of the only activities available to you without technology - which you are born with. You can do all of these without any technological detriments, and they prove to be liberating and exhilerating experiences leaving the performer content, refreshed and ultimately reborn. If you need to ask me this question, you have been deprived and should try them sometime (or you SHOULD HAVE). And i'm not talking about Dance Dance Revolution.


Fair enough with singing or dancing but beyond that we need tools, which are technology. Bashing a stick on a rock to make a rythm is (admittedly highly rude) technology. And once again you completely miss who I am with your arrogant assumption that I haven't tried these; I'm fairly mediorcre as singers go, I play the drums and a bit of guitar & I'm not the world's most coordinated dancer, but I still do it. You seem to have this idea in your head that supporting technocracy and transhumanism makes somone completely unable to enjy life's simple pleasures. Sorry to dissapoint darling.

You can clap your hands, you don't need the stick or the rock! The rest, ugh, I don't really care all that much to comment, no offense.


Now onward; it is not about 'saving ourselves' we are merely perpetuating ourselves, improving ourselves - saving suggests some sort of massive direct danger.

Once again, "improvement" I went over, and did so about the dangers we are facing. There is no need for me to re-quote my previous statements. See above (or in Chit Chat peta thread possibly).


we part ways when you declare that the very structure of humanity is based on the rule of psychotics

Once again, you have missed the whole point of my agrument. You need to sit back, read it, and then argue. Not cut and paste every sentence and refute it. You miss the entire message that way. I did not say humanity. I said civilization. Humanity was going fine until civilization (begun by the powerful, rich, posessors of advanced weaponry) took over. Humanity thrived for thousands upon thousands of years until civilization was introduced. And at even worse rates with the demand for energy needed to fuel our modern technology fetish.


Slowly we're also getting rid of the need for the 8 year old and instead using robots, this process would be much faster under technocracy.

You would be a great abstract painter. You are already a great abstract thinker. Because the rest you advocate is purely that. Technocracy is an abstraction, except for on the Sci-Fi channel. The amount of energy to create such a system would be astronomical and the Earth is already stressed to the point of exhaustion. The complete transformation from "power" into "equality" would be an unwilling notion for most of the powerful, and revolution would be a MUST. If revolution were successful, it would take generations to complete the global overthrow and generations to reconstruct factories at a rate efficient enough to produce these robots. And this is only if there are enough healthy people alive with a substantial amount of food from the remaining plants and animals which haven't been obliterated by the war or previously gone extinct (which you seem apathetic towards).
Eliminating the poor is an abstraction until technocracy is established or civilization abolished. Being able to survive on the Earth after half of the mammals which inhabit it die (reflecting the state the world is in) is an abstraction.
You may try and claim the same for the theory I argue - that it is abstract. But it has already been proven to work at levels more harmonious than any current level modern technology has created.


Once more this works better as a critiscm of capitalism, especially as I have used similar arguments myself in reference to CEOs and the like. If you could explain to me precisly what relevance this has to communist technocracy and transhumanism I would love you to.

It is a criticism of civilization.

I am going to lump the following together to prove a point:


Where did I say "save" you stupid strawmanning twat.


Irrelevant, if there is a drawback to our technological advances then we must simply smooth them out, the march of progress (thankfully) will not be stopped by reactionary extremeists like yourself.

Or by bumps in the road like "people" (poor) who oppose the "progress" (exploitation of their land on which their homes sit)?


Oh no, not the poor animals!!! Not non-sapient beings! How fucking awful!


Fuck half the mammals, we can do without them, kill them all if nescessary. Also the system I argue for would preclude the existence of fucking poor countries you dolt.

This is what you would teach your children also isn't it?


QUOTE ( NoXion)
If it was necessary to stripmine the entire planetary surface and remove every tree and then pave the whole thing over in order to ensure maximum happyness for every single human being, then I would do it in a heartbeat.


Yes I know you're a loony there is no need for you to euphamise it as "alternative mental pathway".

I do not think you have the right to call others "loony" when your propositions require and suggest the further demise of Earth. I am for protecting life in general, and the abolishment of repressive agents and laws. You support the idea of killing the rest of Earth to insure your own happiness. Lets see now, what did I quote earlier?

"A psychopath can be defined as one who willfully does damage without remorse: 'Such individuals are impulsive, insensitive to other's needs, and unable to anticipate the consequences of their behavior, to follow long-term goals, or to tolerate frustration [many of you seem unable to tolerate the frustration I am causing you]. The psychopathic individual is characterized by absence of the guilt feelings and exiety that normally accompany an antisocial act.' Dr. Robert Hare, who has long studied psychopaths, makes clear that 'among the most devastating features of psychopathy are a callous disregard for the rights of others and a propensity of predatory and violent behaviors. Without remorse, psychopaths charm and exploit others for their own gain. They lack empathy and a sense of responsibility, and the manipulate, like and con others with no regard for anyone's feelings.'"
-Jensen, p.666, "Endgame"

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by irkone+November 11, 2006 06:29 pm--> (irkone @ November 11, 2006 06:29 pm) '"A perfect example of this is the Nile which supported the Egyptians. In order to use river water, humans have built dams across rivers and brought irrigation methods to farm in desert areas. But irrigation could cause desert soils which have a high salt content to damage it's soil."
-http://library.thinkquest.org/C001323/data/travel.html [/b]
cum hoc ergo propter hoc


Originally posted by [email protected]
You want to talk about primitivism? You are still advocating techniques which CAUSE desertification. Brilliant.

Irrigation causes desertification?
That is just a tremendous generalization and an outright lie.


dumbfuck
Precautions for using pesticides and fertilizers properly, in a safe manner, are so plentiful, spills or misuse occur constantly and harm surrounding ecosystems. Anyone can buy these products regardless of their intellect or countenance for age-old blunders. "Pesticide residues can contaminate freshwater ecosystems for generations."

99% of the food made from crops that you have eaten has been raised with pesticides and fertlizers. Yes, even most "oraganic" foods use some forms of pesticides. Either that, or the people who cultivated the food you ate, ate food grown with pesticides. You would be dead if it wasn't for the basic notion of common sense that says that we have to do something about the worthless soil or worms eating our tomatoes.

The fact that practically all westerners accidentally ingest small quantities of pesticides couple with the fact that diseases resulting from this fact are extremely rare prove the fact that it's not unhealthy for humans, but yes for pests.

[uber-liberal]

Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it's nothing but flowers

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
you got it, you got it

We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
we got it, we got it

There was a shopping mall
Now it's all covered with flowers
you've got it, you've got it

If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower
you've got it, you've got it

Years ago
I was an angry young man
I'd pretend
That I was a billboard
Standing tall
By the side of the road
I fell in love
With a beautiful highway
This used to be real estate
Now it's only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it's nothing but flowers
The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we'd start over
But I guess I was wrong

Once there were parking lots
Now it's a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got it

This was a Pizza Hut
Now it's all covered with daisies
you got it, you got it

I miss the honky tonks,
Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens
you got it, you got it

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
you got it, you got it

I dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
you got it, you got it

We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
you got it, you got it

This was a discount store,
Now it's turned into a cornfield
you got it, you got it

Don't leave me stranded here
I can't get used to this lifestyle

Talking Heads, (Nothing But) Flowers

[irkone]

99% of the food made from crops that you have eaten has been raised with pesticides and fertlizers. Yes, even most "oraganic" foods use some forms of pesticides. Either that, or the people who cultivated the food you ate, ate food grown with pesticides. You would be dead if it wasn't for the basic notion of common sense that says that we have to do something about the worthless soil or worms eating our tomatoes.

The fact that practically all westerners accidentally ingest small quantities of pesticides couple with the fact that diseases resulting from this fact are extremely rare prove the fact that it's not unhealthy for humans, but yes for pests.

Sure, because we have spent hundreds of years building up immunities to these pesticides. You have no more proof that it doesn't cause long term effects to humans than I have proof it does. But we do know it fucks up ecosystems. Lets wait a couple generations, see if the pesticides have a detrimental effect, and then proceed after evaluating extensive research. "Nah", say the progressives, "lets just fuckin' get on with it and leave the effects for our children to deal with." Brilliant.


Irrigation causes desertification?
That is just a tremendous generalization and an outright lie.

I didn't make it up. Your denial is a reflection of the mindset of civilization - that nothing could possibly be wrong with it. As if historians or present transcribers don't exclude portions which do not conveniently fit into their agenda. There will always be at least two sides to a story, and to not take into account both is ignorance. For example, the Mexican-American war is completely excluded from American textbooks, as well as the numbers of indigenous American Indians slaughtered. It is comparable to the constant news broadcasts of "more Americans were killed today, bringing the number up to [a minute fraction of Iraqi civilian deaths]." No stories are made by the American press about Iraqi civilian deaths because that would not make our "progress" as acceptable to the general public and allow further unthwarted "progress." There are constantly sympathy stories towards American families whose "soldiers" have been killed in battle. Well, too fucking bad, soldiers are created with the possible intention to die - it is part of their job description, civilians are not.

"Before the dam was built and went into operation, the Nile floods brought silt containing potassium and phosphorous but also could leach away any accumulated salts. The fine-grained alluvial soils of the Nile valley do not drain easily and need artificial drainage. Due to the hot, arid climate, irrigation water evaporates quickly, leaving behind its salt, causing salinization."

"In 1982 almost all the irrigated area in Egypt was potentially affected by salt, and at least half of the area (12,000 km²) is already more or less affected. Egypt's agriculture potential and Nile delta salinity are mapped in figs. 2.26 and 2.27. About 400 km² are provided with drainage systems each year at a cost of US$200 per hectare. Nevertheless, this is not sufficient to stop salinization. Farmers are unwilling to make this investment, and the government authorities have difficulty in keeping open the drainage channels that are essential for proper functioning of the tile drainage underneath the farmlands (Meybeck et al. 1989; Beaumont et al. 1988)."
-http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E05.htm

"One of the most conspicuous phenomena of water-quality degradation, particularly in arid and semi-arid zones, is salinization of water and soil resources. Salinization is a long-term phenomenon, and during the last century many aquifers and river basins have become unsuitable for human consumption owing to high levels of salinity. Future exploitation of thousands of wells in the Middle East and in many other water-scarce regions in the world depends, to a large extent, on the degree and rate of salinization. Moreover, every year a large fraction of agricultural land is salinized and becomes unusable.Salinization is a global environmental phenomenon that affects many different aspects of our life (Williams, 2001a, b): changing the chemical composition of natural water resources (lakes, rivers, and groundwater), degrading the quality of water supply to the domestic and agriculture sectors, contribution to loss of biodiversity, taxonomic replacement by halotolerant species ( Williams, 2001a, b), loss of fertile soil, collapse of agricultural and fishery industries, changing of local climatic conditions, and creating severe health problems (e.g., the Aral Basin)."
-http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003TrGeo...9..333V

"Many crops, such as citrus, avocado, and mango, are sensitive to chloride concentration in irrigation water (an upper limit of 250 mg L-1). In addition, long-term irrigation with water enriched with sodium results in a significant reduction in the hydraulic conductivity and hence the fertility of the irrigated soil. Similarly, the industrial sector demands water of high quality. For example, the high-tech industry requires a large amount of water with low levels of dissolved salts. Hence, the salinity level of groundwater is one of the limiting factors that determine the suitability of water for a variety of applications.The salinity problem is a global phenomenon but it is more severe in water-scarce areas, such as arid and semi-arid zones. The increasing demand for water has created tremendous pressures on water resources that have resulted in lowering water level and increasing salinization."
-http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003TrGeo...9..333V

It's an outright lie! A mass conspiracy! Live on, invincible modern agriculture!

[irkone]

QUOTE
Here we stand
Like an Adam and an Eve
Waterfalls
The Garden of Eden
Two fools in love
So beautiful and strong
The birds in the trees
Are smiling upon them
From the age of the dinosaurs
Cars have run on gasoline
Where, where have they gone?
Now, it's nothing but flowers

There was a factory
Now there are mountains and rivers
you got it, you got it

We caught a rattlesnake
Now we got something for dinner
we got it, we got it

There was a shopping mall
Now it's all covered with flowers
you've got it, you've got it

If this is paradise
I wish I had a lawnmower
you've got it, you've got it

Years ago
I was an angry young man
I'd pretend
That I was a billboard
Standing tall
By the side of the road
I fell in love
With a beautiful highway
This used to be real estate
Now it's only fields and trees
Where, where is the town
Now, it's nothing but flowers
The highways and cars
Were sacrificed for agriculture
I thought that we'd start over
But I guess I was wrong

Once there were parking lots
Now it's a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got it

This was a Pizza Hut
Now it's all covered with daisies
you got it, you got it

I miss the honky tonks,
Dairy Queens, and 7-Elevens
you got it, you got it

And as things fell apart
Nobody paid much attention
you got it, you got it

I dream of cherry pies,
Candy bars, and chocolate chip cookies
you got it, you got it

We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
you got it, you got it

This was a discount store,
Now it's turned into a cornfield
you got it, you got it

Don't leave me stranded here
I can't get used to this lifestyle


Talking Heads, (Nothing But) Flowers


Blind
-------

Signs
Signs are lost
Signs disappeared
Turn invisible
Got no sign
Somebody got busted
Got a face of stone
And a ghostwritten biography
Dogs start to run in,
Hungry for some food
Dogs start a-twitching
And they're looking at you
It was light
By five
Torn all apart
All in the name of democracy
He's hurt
He's dying
Claimed he was a terrorist
Claimed to avert a catastrophe
Someone should'a told him
That the buck stops here
No one ever said
That he was involved with thieves
And they're blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind

No sense of harmony, No sense of
time, Don't mention harmony, Say:
What is it? What is it? What is it? Give
a little shock, and he raises his hand
Somebody shouts out, says: What is
it? What is it? What is it?
He was shot down in the night! Peop-
ple ride by but his body's still alive
The girl in the window what has she
done? She looks down at me ...
says: "I don't want to die!"

And I'm blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Somebody could have told us where they go
Crawling all around looking for foot, foot, footprints
Now tell me what the Hell have we become?
Some dirty little bastards What the Hell is going on?u
No sense of harmony, No sense of
time, Don't mention harmony, Say:
What is it? What is it? What is it? Give
a little shock, and he raises his hand
Somebody shouts out, says: What is
it? What is it? What is it?
He was shot down in the night! Peop-
ple ride by but his body's still alive
The girl in the window what has she
done? She looks down at me ...
says: "I don't want to die!"

They're blind and they're blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind

The Facts Of Life
----------------------

Mon key see and mon key do
Ma king ba bies, ea ting food
Smel ly things, pu bic hair
Words of lo ve, in the air
Sparks fly, shoo ting out
Ma king sure that eve ry thing is wor king
I can't turn you down
We are pro grammed hap py lit tle chil dren
Mat ter o ver mind
We can not re sis so I won't fight it
Love is a ma chine
Love is a ma chine without a dri ver
The facts of life
The facts of life
A masterpiece
Biology
Smokey water
Air conditioned
Boys 'n' girls
And automation
Chromosomes
Designer jeans
Chimpanzees
And human beings
Machines of love
Machines of love
Strong in body, strong in mind
A love machine with the facts of life
The facts of life
The facts of life
So much sex 'n' violence
Must be a bad design
We're stupid to be fighting
Every night
The monsters we create
They welcome us aboard
The best in advertising
From coast to coast
The girls and boys combine
Like monkeys in the zoo
The clouds have silver linings
Looks pretty good
People fall in love like in fairy tales
I'm not sure I like, what they can do
I'm afraid that God has no master plan
He only takes -- what he can use
Factory life, ice cream & pie
Factory life
Someday we'll live on Venus
And men will walk on Mars
But we will still be monkeys
Down deep inside
If chimpanzees are smart
Then we will close our eyes
And let our instincts guide us
Oh oh oh oh no

The Democratic Circus
-----------------------------

Found out this morning
There's a circus coming to town
They drive in Cadillacs
Using walkie-talkies, and the Secret Service

Their big top
Imitation of life
And all the flags and microphones
We have to cover our eyes

We play the sideshows
And we like the tunnel of love
And when we ride the ferris wheel
We're little children again

And when they're asking for volunteers
We'll be the first ones aboard
And when the ringmaster calls our names
We'll be the first ones to go ... to sleep

Stealing all our dreams
Dreams for sale
They sell 'em back to you

On with the show
Start the parade
We sand along
Sweep us away

It's political party time
Going down, going down
And the celebrities all come out
Coming down, coming down, coming...

The sun is going down
And the dogs are starting to howl
We stay out after dark
Eating cotton candy
And the music's playing...

How we all laughed!
We split our sides
The cameras flashed
We almost died!

The rain's gonna pour on down, falling out of the sky
Coming down, coming down
And the celebrities all run out, and the rain's
Coming down, coming down

Gonna rain,
Gonna rain, gonna rain
Gonna rain, gonna rain,
Rain, rain
Rain, rain

And now I wonder who's boss
And who he's leavin' behind?

Ruby Dear
--------------

'Round and 'round
and we won't let go
And where we stop
no one knows
uh-huh uh-huh

Down and down
in a spin we turn
Looking like
we'll never learn
uh-huh uh-huh

Think about
what ev'ryone is saying
Ruby dear
Oh don't you hear

Late at night
when the radio is playing
Ruby dear
So looky here

Oh this record's broken
It slips a beat
And all those watermelons
Have gone to seed

Nothing lives
in this dirty little river
No one here
Will shed a tear

It dried up
but it couldn't run forever
Ruby dear
That's what we hear

I still like the ocean
Down by the sea
They left that door wide open
It tempted me
Hounding me
from the bedroom to the kitchen

Ruby dear
I'm still right here
Now they throwed
the fox amongst the chickens
It's too deep
I'll drown in my sleep!

Angels and prostitutes
They might look the same
And if to Hell we're going
I'll see you there

'Round and 'round
and we won't let go
And where we stop
no one knows
uh-huh uh-huh

Down the street
where the bonfires glow
Looking like
they lost control
uh-huh uh-huh

Settle down
in that rocking chair
Breathing in
that rotten air
uh-huh uh-huh

Johnny Jones
fell fast asleep
Down a hole
where the rocks are steep
uh-huh uh-huh

Totally Nude
----------------

Big and I'm bad
And I want you to know
I hand around
Where the grass is greener
Totally naked, baby
Totally nude
'Cause if I want to
Who's gonna stop me?
I'm absolutely free
Living in the trees
The birdies and the bees
'Cause I'm a nature boy

Locked up inside
You can't tell me where it's at
Open up, open up, open the door
Rocks and trees and physical culture
Some days you hide
I guess you wonder where you are
Nature boy, nature man, take me along
We got a life that's undiscovered

We threw it all away
Throw it all away
Rolling every way
It's irresponsible
So civilized
I guess you wonder where you are
Nature boy, nature man, take me along
Deep in the woods we're undiscovered

I'm a little fish and you're the river
Living in a boat that's underwater
We can tip, tip, tip it over
You can push, push, make it better now
Wake your daddy up
It's a quarter to five
Our little boat
Has lost it's rudder
Dive to the bottom
And we never come up

A polka party
For Bob and Martha
I'm absolutely free
living in the trees
The birdies and the bees
'Cause I'm a nature boy
Think what you like
This is really where it's at
Open up, open up, open the door
We don't need clothes and we don't need money
So civilized
I guess you wonder where you are
Nature boy, nature man, take me along
Deep in the woods we're undiscovered

These are other songs from the same album. I would say the one you quoted is just another comedic, purposeful mockery similar to the rest of the album attempting to transmit a meaning through absurdity.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 12:55 am



Also how the fuck is dancing, music or singing an Earth type hobby?



Haha, are you serious? These are some of the only activities available to you without technology - which you are born with. You can do all of these without any technological detriments, and they prove to be liberating and exhilerating experiences leaving the performer content, refreshed and ultimately reborn. If you need to ask me this question, you have been deprived and should try them sometime (or you SHOULD HAVE). And i'm not talking about Dance Dance Revolution.


Fair enough with singing or dancing but beyond that we need tools, which are technology. Bashing a stick on a rock to make a rythm is (admittedly highly rude) technology. And once again you completely miss who I am with your arrogant assumption that I haven't tried these; I'm fairly mediorcre as singers go, I play the drums and a bit of guitar & I'm not the world's most coordinated dancer, but I still do it. You seem to have this idea in your head that supporting technocracy and transhumanism makes somone completely unable to enjy life's simple pleasures. Sorry to dissapoint darling.

You can clap your hands, you don't need the stick or the rock! The rest, ugh, I don't really care all that much to comment, no offense.
Woukd you rather listen to somone clapping or somone with an instrument?




Now onward; it is not about 'saving ourselves' we are merely perpetuating ourselves, improving ourselves - saving suggests some sort of massive direct danger.

Once again, "improvement" I went over, and did so about the dangers we are facing. There is no need for me to re-quote my previous statements. See above (or in Chit Chat peta thread possibly). You spouted bollocks about only the powerful being improved, ignoring the inherent egaltarian thought in transhumanism (from where the idea of improving humanity comes from). The dangers are exaggerated by green reactionaries like yourself.



we part ways when you declare that the very structure of humanity is based on the rule of psychotics

Once again, you have missed the whole point of my agrument. You need to sit back, read it, and then argue. Not cut and paste every sentence and refute it. You miss the entire message that way. I did not say humanity. I said civilization. Humanity was going fine until civilization (begun by the powerful, rich, posessors of advanced weaponry) took over. Humanity thrived for thousands upon thousands of years until civilization was introduced. YOU FUCKING MOUTH BREATHING LYING SACK OF SHIT. Name for me, if you will the precise moment we became a 'civilisation' because I'd recognise it as the moment we started making things for ourselves, buildings to live in, weapons to hunt with and fires to cook with. The time before that, though not as "short and violent" as often characterised is in NO WAY preferable to a worldwide system of technates.
And at even worse rates with the demand for energy needed to fuel our modern technology fetish. OH NO! A "technology fetish". That technology fetish saved my life and saves the lives of millions. After the revolution we will be able to iron out the other side of our "technology fetish". You and you fucking disease fetish can fuck off, you and your fucking cave fetish can fuck off.



Slowly we're also getting rid of the need for the 8 year old and instead using robots, this process would be much faster under technocracy.

You would be a great abstract painter. You are already a great abstract thinker. Because the rest you advocate is purely that. Technocracy is an abstraction, except for on the Sci-Fi channel. A clichéd argument, and that sci-fi channel comment was an unnessasary attack.
The amount of energy to create such a system would be astronomical and the Earth is already stressed to the point of exhaustion. Of course it is, any day now the ocean's will rise and our angry god will come to strike us all down for our EEEEEVIL technology fetish.
The complete transformation from "power" into "equality" would be an unwilling notion for most of the powerful, and revolution would be a MUST. THe revolution as a must really doesn't bother me. In fact it was me who first pointed this out to you. Of course we need a fucking revolution to remove both the rich and powerful and little twats like you determined to prevent the march of progress.
If revolution were successful, it would take generations to complete the global overthrow and generations to reconstruct factories at a rate efficient enough to produce these robots. And this is only if there are enough healthy people alive with a substantial amount of food from the remaining plants and animals which haven't been obliterated by the war or previously gone extinct (which you seem apathetic towards). Technocracy is not just robots, although they are the most effecient method of preventing people from needing to work. There will be no shortage of healthy people, we will after all still have medicine and other such marvels of technology. As for food, food can be synthesised, if we get really desperate we could clone cows or something, but there would be no need if we could just make synth-beef.

Eliminating the poor is an abstraction until technocracy is established or civilization abolished. Being able to survive on the Earth after half of the mammals which inhabit it die (reflecting the state the world is in) is an abstraction. Based on concrete facts and logical assumptions.

You may try and claim the same for the theory I argue - that it is abstract. But it has already been proven to work at levels more harmonious than any current level modern technology has created. And your method for preventing inventors and innovators? Your method of keeping everyone blind to science? How are you going to persuade the people of the world that, actually, no medicine isn't a good thing, cooked food isn't a good thing, musical instruments aren't good things, faster transportation isn't a good thing. How? Do you expect the proletariat to be that fucking stupid? You understimate my class.



Once more this works better as a critiscm of capitalism, especially as I have used similar arguments myself in reference to CEOs and the like. If you could explain to me precisly what relevance this has to communist technocracy and transhumanism I would love you to.

It is a criticism of civilization. It doesn't mention anything essential to civilisation in there, the kind of people it mentions are essential only to capitalism.


I am going to lump the following together to prove a point:


Where did I say "save" you stupid strawmanning twat.


Irrelevant, if there is a drawback to our technological advances then we must simply smooth them out, the march of progress (thankfully) will not be stopped by reactionary extremeists like yourself.

Or by bumps in the road like "people" (poor) who oppose the "progress" (exploitation of their land on which their homes sit)? The revolution will be rising up of the people to "exploit" their own land. My class is not as stupid as you fucking think, so you can shove your "we must protect the poor like children from nasty things like transhumanism, technocracy and medicine or farming" up your arse, sideways.



Oh no, not the poor animals!!! Not non-sapient beings! How fucking awful!


Fuck half the mammals, we can do without them, kill them all if nescessary. Also the system I argue for would preclude the existence of fucking poor countries you dolt.

This is what you would teach your children also isn't it? And many other people's, I am training to become a teacher.



QUOTE ( NoXion)
If it was necessary to stripmine the entire planetary surface and remove every tree and then pave the whole thing over in order to ensure maximum happyness for every single human being, then I would do it in a heartbeat.


Yes I know you're a loony there is no need for you to euphamise it as "alternative mental pathway".

I do not think you have the right to call others "loony" when your propositions require and suggest the further demise of Earth. I am for protecting life in general, and the abolishment of repressive agents and laws. You support the idea of killing the rest of Earth to insure your own happiness. Lets see now, what did I quote earlier? My OWN happiness? You silly ****. The happiness of the human proletariat, my species & my class. You on the other hand are for putting animals and some vague "mother nature" in the same position the rich and powerful have over us now and for that you should be executed come the revolution - for we never again want anything in that position over us.


"A psychopath can be defined as one who willfully does damage without remorse: 'Such individuals are impulsive, insensitive to other's needs, and unable to anticipate the consequences of their behavior, to follow long-term goals, or to tolerate frustration [many of you seem unable to tolerate the frustration I am causing you]. Based on the fact you annoy me you're trying to diagnose me psychotic? Can I see your degree please?
The psychopathic individual is characterized by absence of the guilt feelings and exiety that normally accompany an antisocial act.' Nope, I'm just as capable of being guilty after an anti-social act, but I suppose you could say I don't feel guilty about an anti-"nature" act.
Dr. Robert Hare, who has long studied psychopaths, makes clear that 'among the most devastating features of psychopathy are a callous disregard for the rights of others I uphold the rights of every human until they prove to be irreedemable counter revolutionaries.
and a propensity of predatory and violent behaviors. HAHA, me violent!
Without remorse, psychopaths charm and exploit others for their own gain. Never purpsofully exploited another human being for my own gain.
They lack empathy and a sense of responsibility, and the manipulate, like and con others with no regard for anyone's feelings.'" Innacurate.
In fact most of that refers, again, to CEOs and bourgeoise politicians: not people essential to civilisation. Communism after all is civilisation and requires no psychopathic people. However you stirke me as quite psychopathic, what with the callous way you could consider killing a goodly number of people from some emotionless worship of animals. No revolutionary that I have met, talked to or no of is a psychopath.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Christ, you're thick.

Just because irrigation has caused desertification, doesn't mean that irrigation necessarily causes desertification. Rather, irrigation is used in basically all agriculture. All over the world. Desertification is occuring in isolated areas. This proves that irrigation is not the sole cause of desertification. Perhaps the use of certain irrigation methods under particular climate conditions causes desertification, but then the deciding factor in such cases clearly is not irrigation, is it?

And natural pesticides, many of which are still used today in organic farming, have been used since the begining of agriculture ten thousand years ago. Without any way to avoid or kill pests, basically all crops are imperiled by insects, worms, birds, rats, bacteria, fungus, and other wild animals. They're also not inherently harmful. Even the most so-called toxic pesticides, like DDT, are perfectly harmless to humans in controled amounts.

[uber-liberal]

These are other songs from the same album. I would say the one you quoted is just another comedic, purposeful mockery similar to the rest of the album attempting to transmit a meaning through absurdity.

But the points the song makes... 1) One person's eutopia is another person's overgrown garden, 2) Primitivism in the modern world is not only ludicrous but dangerous to the future and benefit of humanity; i.e. several steps back instead of one forward, and 3) Be sure you are giving up the right things for your ideals. "This was a Pizza Hut, now it's all covered with daisies..."
Talking Heads, like all good art & artists, should make us think. This song should be particularly pertinent to this forum, and indeed, this thread, because of the questions it asks.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Either he is a coward or he did us all a favor and moved to a cave when hopefully a bear will maul him to death. yay

[colonelguppy]

PETA is batshit crazy. seriously, you can't even demonstrate that humans have rights, how the fuck are you going to do it for animals?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:58 pm
PETA is batshit crazy. seriously, you can't even demonstrate that humans have rights, how the fuck are you going to do it for animals?
The moment I see a lion playing joyfully with a gazelle instead of ripping it to shreds for dinner, I shall accept the idea of "animal rights".

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 15, 2006 02:03 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 15, 2006 02:03 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 06:58 pm
PETA is batshit crazy. seriously, you can't even demonstrate that humans have rights, how the fuck are you going to do it for animals?
The moment I see a lion playing joyfully with a gazelle instead of ripping it to shreds for dinner, I shall accept the idea of "animal rights". [/b]
would we put animals in jail for shitting and fucking everywhere?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+November 15, 2006 07:25 pm--> (colonelguppy @ November 15, 2006 07:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 02:03 pm

[email protected] 15, 2006 06:58 pm
PETA is batshit crazy. seriously, you can't even demonstrate that humans have rights, how the fuck are you going to do it for animals?
The moment I see a lion playing joyfully with a gazelle instead of ripping it to shreds for dinner, I shall accept the idea of "animal rights".
would we put animals in jail for shitting and fucking everywhere? [/b]
Hats off to you, you raised smile.

[bcbm]

Name for me, if you will the precise moment we became a 'civilisation' because I'd recognise it as the moment we started making things for ourselves, buildings to live in, weapons to hunt with and fires to cook with.

In no particular order, these things denote a civilization:

1. Written language
2. Advanced political and social institutions
3. Agriculture
4. Division of Labor
5. Sedentary living

The first one arose around 7000 years ago in the Middle East and, until relatively recently (arguable), civilization was pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to humans. Life spans were shortened, class divisions and warfare created and intensified, epidemic diseases began and humans (some more than others) began having to work a whole lot harder to sustain themselves. Even the industrial revolution was a nightmare, as it signalled further destruction of under-class autonomy and liberty as the peasantry were reigned in and made "more productive" in factories (modeled after prisons) and crammed in to urban slums. It wasn't until the 20th century, after much fighting, that things began to look up at all for the under-classes, and most of those developments have been in the more prosperous nations. I'd say a lot of the wonders of civilization and the industrial revolution haven't been visited upon most of the world, but a whole host of other things have: disease, famine, overpopulation, wage-slavery, modern war.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

i LOVE animals, I SUPPORT animal rights, but do they come before people?

This is where the line is drawn in the sand!!!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 07:32 pm
i LOVE animals, I SUPPORT animal rights,
Does that mean you'd happily ban consuming them?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

NO, I would not support such a thing, that would be authoritarian.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:11 pm
NO, I would not support such a thing, that would be authoritarian.
So you wouldn't ban, say, masturbating in public either?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 16, 2006 08:17 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 16, 2006 08:17 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 08:11 pm
NO, I would not support such a thing, that would be authoritarian.
So you wouldn't ban, say, masturbating in public either? [/b]
Huh?? :wacko: :blink: I'm confused, :unsure: :unsure: :wacko: I thought we were talking about animals here? I am a vegan for life but if someone chooses to eat animals, well dude, i guess sadly, that is their choice.

masturbation? well man i say keep that to yourself! :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 16, 2006 08:20 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 16, 2006 08:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:17 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 08:11 pm
NO, I would not support such a thing, that would be authoritarian.
So you wouldn't ban, say, masturbating in public either?
Huh?? :wacko: :blink: I'm confused, :unsure: :unsure: :wacko: I thought we were talking about animals here? I am a vegan for life but if someone chooses to eat animals, well dude, i guess sadly, that is their choice.

masturbation? well man i say keep that to yourself! :lol: [/b]
We were, but I was also wondering how far you'd go to be 'anti-authority'. Damn right I eat animals, see this thread's parent to see precisly why.

Would you force people to 'keep it to themselves'? Or would that be authoritarian. And if you do allow it would you allow them to do so outside schools? Or old peoples homes? In the nude outside cafes? Under their ex girlfriend's window? Do you get the point I'm trying to make?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:24 pm
We were, but I was also wondering how far you'd go to be 'anti-authority'.
Wouldn't supporting using government to prohibit people from expressing their spirituality in front of their children qualify as "pro-authority"?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Of course!
Why do you think we'd call it a dictatorship of the proletariat if we didn't have every intention of using authority against reaction?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 08:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 08:50 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 08:24 pm
We were, but I was also wondering how far you'd go to be 'anti-authority'.
Wouldn't supporting using government to prohibit people from expressing their spirituality in front of their children qualify as "pro-authority"? [/b]
See the good doctor's post.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 16, 2006 09:06 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 16, 2006 09:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:50 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 08:24 pm
We were, but I was also wondering how far you'd go to be 'anti-authority'.
Wouldn't supporting using government to prohibit people from expressing their spirituality in front of their children qualify as "pro-authority"?
See the good doctor's post. [/b]
And this would be different from the kind of authority you don't like...how?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 09:08 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 09:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:06 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:50 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 08:24 pm
We were, but I was also wondering how far you'd go to be 'anti-authority'.
Wouldn't supporting using government to prohibit people from expressing their spirituality in front of their children qualify as "pro-authority"?
See the good doctor's post.
And this would be different from the kind of authority you don't like...how? [/b]
There is no authority I dislike. In the same way I don't dislike wasps. It's just the applications that I take issue with, not the idea itself. When it is applied against the workers and progressives then it is being applied badly. Against the bourgeoise and reaction it is being used well. Same with wasps.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Wasn't the American Revolutionary War an act of authoritarianism? Isn't all violence an act of authoritarianism?

A: Yes.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:11 pm
There is no authority I dislike. In the same way I don't dislike wasps. It's just the applications that I take issue with, not the idea itself. When it is applied against the workers and progressives then it is being applied badly. Against the bourgeoise and reaction it is being used well. Same with wasps.
One way uses authority to repress one group, another uses authority to repress the other group.

What is the difference, exactly?

And I thought the purpose of your ideology was not to use authority against a group, but to eliminate authority by producing an egalitarian society?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16, 2006 09:36 pm
Wasn't the American Revolutionary War an act of authoritarianism? Isn't all violence an act of authoritarianism?

A: Yes.
Not really.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 09:47 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 09:47 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 09:11 pm
There is no authority I dislike. In the same way I don't dislike wasps. It's just the applications that I take issue with, not the idea itself. When it is applied against the workers and progressives then it is being applied badly. Against the bourgeoise and reaction it is being used well. Same with wasps.
One way uses authority to repress one group, another uses authority to repress the other group.

What is the difference, exactly? [/b]
The group.


And I thought the purpose of your ideology was not to use authority against a group, but to eliminate authority by producing an egalitarian society? Once we've done away with reaction then the issue of 'authority' will become purely academic.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 09:54 pm
Once we've done away with reaction then the issue of 'authority' will become purely academic.
So there will be purges and essentially a reign of terror in the beginning, eh?

Nice.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 09:56 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 09:54 pm
Once we've done away with reaction then the issue of 'authority' will become purely academic.
So there will be purges and essentially a reign of terror in the beginning, eh?

Nice. [/b]
Reign of terror? Hardly. Unless you're implying that most citizens would be reactionary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 16, 2006 06:51 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 16, 2006 06:51 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 16, 2006 09:36 pm
Wasn't the American Revolutionary War an act of authoritarianism? Isn't all violence an act of authoritarianism?

A: Yes.
Not really. [/b]
You're blind.
Authoritarianism expressely refers to the forcing of an outcome upon another. Violence or the threat thereof is what all authoritarianism fundamentally rests upon.

Sorry to spoil your fairytale, kid, but all societies are established through authority, force, and violence. It's a fact of life.

[colonelguppy]

no, thats coercion. authoratarianism describes a style of government with relatively high levels of socio-economic controls.

not to get into a semantics debate though, i agree with you for the most part.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The use of authority describes forcing people to do things they don't want. All wars are an example of this. The side that wins gets to tell the losers what to do. In the American Revolutionary War, for instance, the Americans told the British and other oponents of an autonomous American liberal democracy to fuck off. The dictatorship of the proletariat will involve the workers telling the capitalists to fuck off. This is called using authority. Or authoritarianism. It's what we plan on doing all over the place to people who actively oppose the workers' republic.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 01:35 am
It's what we plan on doing all over the place to people who actively oppose the workers' republic.
When do you see this occuring, realistically?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In Nepal, for instance, it could happen any time.

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 15, 2006 08:29 pm

Name for me, if you will the precise moment we became a 'civilisation' because I'd recognise it as the moment we started making things for ourselves, buildings to live in, weapons to hunt with and fires to cook with.

In no particular order, these things denote a civilization:

1. Written language
2. Advanced political and social institutions
3. Agriculture
4. Division of Labor
5. Sedentary living

The first one arose around 7000 years ago in the Middle East and, until relatively recently (arguable), civilization was pretty much the worst thing to ever happen to humans. Life spans were shortened, class divisions and warfare created and intensified, epidemic diseases began and humans (some more than others) began having to work a whole lot harder to sustain themselves. Even the industrial revolution was a nightmare, as it signalled further destruction of under-class autonomy and liberty as the peasantry were reigned in and made "more productive" in factories (modeled after prisons) and crammed in to urban slums. It wasn't until the 20th century, after much fighting, that things began to look up at all for the under-classes, and most of those developments have been in the more prosperous nations. I'd say a lot of the wonders of civilization and the industrial revolution haven't been visited upon most of the world, but a whole host of other things have: disease, famine, overpopulation, wage-slavery, modern war.

The oldest known civilization is the Misoneans of Crete. While we still don't know much about them, we do know they had writing, a loose form of theocratic monarchy, agriculture and sedentary life. Division of labor they can't prove but it would stand to reason...

And, with all civilizations, and what you omitted from your list, there is a creation myth put into the context of some form of spiritualism. The advancement of this spiritualistic religon, for lack of a more fitting term, is more often than not the single driving force behind any civilization's advancement (Manifest Destiny being a rather unfortunate example).

The rest is pretty spot-on.