[Zylark]

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Zylark, You are behaving as if you are a competent judge/ examiner of my article.
Why should I worry about your opinion? Who are you? Who is thegreenfairy for that matter?

Aaaah, the old ploy of not answering critisism but rather cast doubt over the ones delivering them. This is nothing but pure evasion tactics.

Which of course gives valuable information about you Sushil. First off, you're not interested in critique and discussion of your ideas, only agreement. Secondly, by off-handidly brushing away all critisism out of some notion that the messengers of said same is somehow beneath you, not beeing able to grasp your ideas, you convey the message that those that do not agree with you are somehow less smart than you. That's quite the assumption. Arrogant too.

And do remember, you started this thread, making a lot of claims. If you're not ready to defend your position in the face of legitimate critique, why did you post in the first place?

So how about dropping the rethorics, and just answer the questions outlined in the previous posts?

And if you think our critisisms are somehow flawed and based upon a misconception of your ideas or their resulting consequence, how about making your ideas clearer, instead of personal attacks?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Why do you expect a solution from me?
Am I the only one who created the problem?

This does not follow. What? Who said you alone created the environmental changes we are seeing? Please point me towards any such accusation made by me or anyone else for that matter.

And yes, you have outlined a "solution" so to speak. You presented it to us, remember, we did not demand it from you. All we demand is that you clarify your position, and answer some questions we have regarding it. Which by the way, if you was somewhat interested in honest debate, you would have figured out by now.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

The article does'nt suggest a solution is possible. The article is an analysis of what went wrong - what led us to the present situation/crisis.

This is just blatant lying. Your entire "article" is a bungled messed up polemic diatribe against modern society and technology based upon the false assumption that everything was so much better way back when without modern medicine, agriculture, technology or cities.

Or the solution(s) you give in your own words:

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

As long as cities exist we can neither save the environment nor the mind.
To save the [ remaining ] environment from destruction man will have to
return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].
To save the mind from mental diseases man will have to return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].

Even supporting mass genocide:

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

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

I could continue more or less endlessly. The entire article is so flawed by any rational standard, that it is timely to worry about your level of sanity.

The article is more correctly recognized as a polemic, seeing as it is full of unfounded assertions, false dichotomies and rethorics (most notably repetition of assertions ad nausia) rather than an invitation to honest debate. You've already made your conclutions, and made those painfully clear. It is not an attempt at objective description of current problems and how to solve them, but a highly subjective description of a deranged point of view.

Here's what I've boiled down your article and subsequent responses to:

[sarcasm]
Thinking and discussion, is bad mkay. Coz' that will only lead to development, and that is no good. Nevermind that technology have saved and sustain billions of peoples lives over the years, let's just focus on the bad repercussions and forget about all the good ones. We should be governed solely by emotion and not rational thought, and to do that we need to do hard labor on farms and not have cozy jobs that involve technology or administration. You know, stuff that require thinking. Come to think of it, we shouldn't have cities either. Let's force everyone to the countryside for some manual labor like Pol Pot did, that was a great success wasn't it?!

Yes, modern society is bad. We have weapons'n'stuff that is, mygosh, dangerous. Nevermind that those weapons are a result of human nature, 'coz by going back to iron-age agricultural society we'll eradicate human nature somehow. Modern medicine is bad to. It requires thinking to develop. Much better to kill the sick than treat them really. You know, to stop them infecting others.

Yes, it's a glorious plan indeed, and pretty much self-evident so I won't need to discuss it further, I'll just distract those who do not agree with red-herrings and personal attacks.
[/sarcasm]