Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[sushil_yadav]

You need to think about the current environmental crisis which is likely to destroy most life on earth within this century.

Stop thinking about what might happen in a few million years.

When was the last time a meteorite destroyed all life on earth?

Besides, It is beyond Man's ability to prevent a catastrophe of that magnitude.

One space shuttle exploded during take off. Another exploded on the return journey. And here is someone talking about destroying meteorites in outer space.

It is you who needs to get real.

sushil_yadav

[Zylark]

Yes, do dodge the bullet and not answer my questions. What will happen to the billions of people that will starve to death if you remove technology and science from society?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

You need to think about the current environmental crisis which is likely to destroy most life on earth within this century.

False. It will change the enviroment. Some species will die, some will prosper. And certainly humanity faces real challenges, but not on a genocidal scale.

The world have seen many climatic shifts over the billions of years since it formed, and none have been really catastrophic.

I'm not saying climate change is harmless, we should do our best to at least not accelerate it. But I doubt very much we can do much to hinder it, seeing as with or without humans and technology, climate changes have happened before and will happen again. And the current change is largely natural.

You seem to confuse change with disaster on the other hand.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Stop thinking about what might happen in a few million years.

Huh? Who knows when another meteorite/asteroide of a significant size comes to visit? Even a small one, like the Tunguska meteor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event ) would be quite catastrophic if it had happened over a densly populated area.

Do you have evidence that the next such event is millions of years into our future?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

When was the last time a meteorite destroyed all life on earth?

Ummm, let's see. Never. It have however destroyed the entire top of the foodchain. Possibly several times. And at the moment, the top of the foodchain is where we humans are at. And such an event will happen again unless we develop technology to stop it.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Besides, It is beyond Man's ability to prevent a catastrophe of that magnitude.

Currently, possibly correct. But within a couple of decades of further research and technological development, that won't be much of a challenge. For the first time in the history of the earth, one species can save the entire planet from a disaster we know is likely to happen some time in the future. Are you seriously proposing we should abandon that path?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

One space shuttle exploded during take off. Another exploded on the return journey. And here is someone talking about destroying meteorites in outer space.

And? A couple of failures in research and experiment (which the space program is) does not mean that the entire idea of space exploration, research and technology is futile.

As for stopping meteorites, we've already done some remarkable experiments. We've gotten close to them to analyze them. We've landed on them. Soon we'll even put ion-rockets on them to see how that will work. Only through research can we stop the little buggers if they go on a collition course with earth. And intrinsic in research is failures. Not all experiments work. Either out of conceptual, technological or more often, human error.

Besides, who says we should destroy a meteroite on a collition course? Given ample warning, we can with current technology push meteors out of their projected path. Better technology just means the window for required warning need not be so long as it is today.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

It is you who needs to get real.

What is more reasonable, abandon modern society and technology out of some misplaced enviromental hysteria (and in the process create global famine) or confront current and future challenges, environmental included, by utilizing our collective experience and knowledge by furthering research and technology?

[Xero77x]

This ballgame's in the refrigerator,
The door is closed,
The lights are out,
And the butter's getting hard.

What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second,
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy,
What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second,
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy.

Pepperoni and green peppers
Mushrooms, olive, chives,
Pepperoni and green peppers
Mushrooms, olive, chives.

Need therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes.

What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second,
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy.
What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second,
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy.

Pepperoni and green peppers,
Mushrooms olive, chives,
Pepperoni and green peppers,
Mushrooms olive, chives.

Need therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes,
Therapy, therapy.
Advertising causes...
Therapy, therapy
Advertising causes,

Well advertising's got you on the run,
Need therapy, therapy advertising causes,
Well advertising's got you on the run,
Need therapy, therapy advertising causes,
Well advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run,
Advertising's got you on the run.

What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy,
What a splendid pie,
Pizza-pizza pie,
Every minute, every second
Buy, buy, buy, buy buy.

Pepperoni and green peppers
Mushrooms olive, chives,
Pepperoni and green peppers,
Mushrooms olive, chives.

Need therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need,
Therapy, therapy,
Advertising causes need.

[Perception]

I think I'm going to agree with Zylark on this one, Sushil. Abandoning all technology and moving the technological clock backwards would be a massive hinderance on the world today. Also, it would take away a good amount of access to information like the internet. The process just isn't convenient for humanity. I differ from Zylark in my views on the point that we do need to start acknowledging the problems humanity has caused for nature, and we need to start trying to fix them. Still, I do agree with all he or she said about our future problems needing attention and research.

[Iscariot]

Yeah suggesting that we should turn back the technological clock and etc is probably the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

Well right next to that bullshit psychobabble. Though a lot of people could be mentally fucked up from being in an environment a lot diff than where our brains evolved, in hunter/gatherer socities where humans spent 99% of their existance.

Still what dumb bullshit. lol

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Perception

I differ from Zylark in my views on the point that we do need to start acknowledging the problems humanity has caused for nature, and we need to start trying to fix them. Still, I do agree with all he or she said about our future problems needing attention and research.

We agree totally. Our actions do have an impact on nature, and we really need to reduce this to the bare minimum that is pragmatic and feasible. One of the requirements and cornerstones for a sustainable development really.

I'm no big fan of consumerism, and certainly not neo-liberalism and global unrestricted capitalism. One easy step to a significant reduction of emissions for example would be to reintroduce tariffs to equalize the cost of import produce (from low labor cost countries) and locally made equivalents. And introduce taxes on international moneytransfers. Overnight you'd stop industrial out-sourcing and a sizeable chunk of global transport whilst revitalizing local industry.

Item two, would be to plug everone into a clean powergrid. Utilizing thorium based (and safe, non-weaponsgrade fuel byproducts to boot) nuclear reactors in the thousands. A totally necessary step if we want to make fossil fueled cars and other transport be a thing of the past and close down seriously polluting fossil-fueled powerplants. Hydroelectric power development is also a great source of energy. Wind and solarpower is rather too unstable in most places on earth unfortunately. But carpeting vast areas of desert with solar powerplants is a feasible option.

Thirdly is industries duty to follow the entire lifecycle of their products. From it rolled out of the factory, via the consumer to recycling. That would emphasize the need to design products with recycling in mind, making the process easier and more efficient.

And there is tons more that could be done.

Some would require a change in our current culture (not necessarily a degradation, but a change nonetheless), but if it helps the enviroment and also shrinks the gap between the rich and poor nations, I won't complain. Not that I'm all that obsessed by consumerism in the first place. I hate shopping for anything else than electronics and food/beer

Oh, and I'm male btw

[sushil_yadav]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

Yeah suggesting that we should turn back the technological clock and etc is probably the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

Well right next to that bullshit psychobabble. Though a lot of people could be mentally fucked up from being in an environment a lot diff than where our brains evolved, in hunter/gatherer socities where humans spent 99% of their existance.

Still what dumb bullshit. lol

Mr. Expert Opinion,
It is your mind that is full of bullshit.
Do you have any common sense at all?
Have you read the article? The article says we should not be making as many consumer goods as we are making today. Nowhere does the article say go back to stone age.

sushil_yadav

[thegreenfairy]

there are solutions out there - lots of solutions.

what it comes down to - they are not supported by big corporations. they are not marketed. they are not seen in commercials during american idol. they are not sold at walmart.

period.

end of story.

i disagree entirely with that article on almost all the main points. it advocates ignorance. i am also being visual, verbal, and feeling emotions right now as i am typing.

and that experiment - hello!!!!!!!! - that's research - action - thought. and did u buy ur computer?? are u going to eat it?

sorry for the sarcasm but ignorance is never the answear - neither is it ever bliss. suicide bombers many times come from an uneducated, agricultural society - don't think that helped them, us, or the planet any.

i won't argue that ppl should stop over consuming - and that disconnecting from our hectic flow of input more often wouldn't benefit us, but running out in the woods to subsist in a log cabin? the whole process would only start over again - since it would not be known to future generations.

and as far as species go - how many species went extinct before a human being ever existed?

what about plants - there was a time on earth when no species used photosynthesis and oxygen was not prevalent. when oxygen emitting plants starting growing on earth the abundant oxygen was toxic to some species - and they went extinct.

did they do anything about it? no - because they are plants and cannot think. our brain is all that we have to make it even possible that we can sustain the human race and the planet - and it is possible.

and if we get to the point where we can't sustain both - hopefully somebody will have THOUGHT of a way for us to go somewhere else.

the only place this leads is that we have to use our brains to find a way to function more efficiantly or leave this planet - or we'll be back to killing each other for resources - that is where blind emotion leads us - and NOWHERE ELSE.

[sushil_yadav]

Originally Posted by thegreenfairy

suicide bombers many times come from an uneducated, agricultural society - don't think that helped them, us, or the planet any.

thegreenfairy,

Who is the terrorist? Who is the real terrorist?


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

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

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

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

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

And today one does'nt even need all these to fight a war. One just needs to move finger-tips to launch missiles that can destroy the planet several times over.Right at this moment there are several countries fighting wars with one another. There is internal war going on in almost half of the the countries of the world. All these wars are being fuelled and sustained by billions of tonnes of weapons produced by the Military-Industrial Complex every year.
And it is going to get worse and worse every day.

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

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

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

sushil_yadav

[thegreenfairy]

the same technology that launches military planes launches those that deliver hearts for transplants and ppl to agree on peace treaties. the same that delivers food to ppl dying in the desert.

the technology that allows me to talk to you right now came from the pentagon.

science and technology are unbiased - it is the humans which choose how to use them that are the problem. if it was 1000 years age those same humans would be just as bad - just using different tools to acheive what they want.

u can take ur argument a step further and say since a finger pushes the buttons - cut off our fingers.

neither science, technology, nor ur previous subject - thought - are bad in and of themselves. they are not anything - it is how they are used by individuals that is the problem.

there is no easy answear to the problem of a war - because a war is not one problem. every person fighting, starting, or supporting the war has their own reason for doing so - if not many reasons. each persons reasons are all the problems which ammount to a war. there may be some shared reasons - but there is not one cause just as there is not only one effect.

and the reason we can push a button and kill thousands is because that is precisely what somebody wanted to do. it is the desire to do it which is the problem. it is the emotion behind it which has made it dangerous, not the thought.

assuming that an inert peice of metal, a bunch of chemicals, etc is "bad" is just creating a scapegoat. that's like saying it's not my fault somebody died after i pointed a gun and pulled the trigger since it wouldn't have been a problem if nobody had invented a bullet or a gun. that's just me avoiding taking responsibility for my actions. i knew the outcome of my action of shooting - i did it because that's the outcome i desired.

emotion drives everything we do - even an accountant is not emotionless - he/she is there because they desire more money.

the key is the basis of morality - SELF CONTROL. simple to understand, difficult to master. that accountant has a choice - first of all of wether or not to be an accountant - second of what kind of accountant to be. they can work haliburton for big money and play a role in destrying the world - or maybe they can work for a non-for-profit children's hospital for half the pay. the one at haliburton made a choice based on personal greed.

and i completely disagree that human beings have a unique capacity for destruction. everything an animal eats it destroys. have u ever seen a dog begging at a table right after it's been fed? many dogs will eat till they throw up - then eat more - yet we balk at bulumia and roman vomitoriums. if that dog had the ability to eat non-stop - it would undoubtedly harm itself. the only reason ppl in industrialized nations aren't all obese and eating themselves to death is that we have the ability to THINK and realize that although that is what our emotion and instinct tell us to do - things have changed since we were hunter-gatherers and found food at the same rate we needed it.

if it wasn't for our intellect we wouldn't be here - we have no other attribute keeping us alive. we don't have a shell like a turtle - so we build our own shelter - we don't have big teeth or claws like a lion - so we need to invent weapons to hunt, and so on.

if u think progress is evil - u may as well go the way of the suicide bombers because the extinction of humanity is the only end of it's desire to improve and excel.

the terrorist is the real terrorist.

[Perception]

Originally Posted by Zylark

We agree totally. Our actions do have an impact on nature, and we really need to reduce this to the bare minimum that is pragmatic and feasible. One of the requirements and cornerstones for a sustainable development really.

I'm no big fan of consumerism, and certainly not neo-liberalism and global unrestricted capitalism. One easy step to a significant reduction of emissions for example would be to reintroduce tariffs to equalize the cost of import produce (from low labor cost countries) and locally made equivalents. And introduce taxes on international moneytransfers. Overnight you'd stop industrial out-sourcing and a sizeable chunk of global transport whilst revitalizing local industry.

Item two, would be to plug everone into a clean powergrid. Utilizing thorium based (and safe, non-weaponsgrade fuel byproducts to boot) nuclear reactors in the thousands. A totally necessary step if we want to make fossil fueled cars and other transport be a thing of the past and close down seriously polluting fossil-fueled powerplants. Hydroelectric power development is also a great source of energy. Wind and solarpower is rather too unstable in most places on earth unfortunately. But carpeting vast areas of desert with solar powerplants is a feasible option.

Thirdly is industries duty to follow the entire lifecycle of their products. From it rolled out of the factory, via the consumer to recycling. That would emphasize the need to design products with recycling in mind, making the process easier and more efficient.

And there is tons more that could be done.

Some would require a change in our current culture (not necessarily a degradation, but a change nonetheless), but if it helps the enviroment and also shrinks the gap between the rich and poor nations, I won't complain. Not that I'm all that obsessed by consumerism in the first place. I hate shopping for anything else than electronics and food/beer

Oh, and I'm male btw

Ah, in that case, I do believe I misunderstood and paid a bit too much attention to the focal point of what you said, that being the future problems needing research, and not enough attention to the not-as-stressed concerns for our current situation. Upon review, I realize you did actually state possible ways to help our current situation, and I sort of passed oer them in my mind.

Also, nothing but excellent ideas and statemets in this post!! I don't think I've ever heard of more do-able ideas in any research I've done (which,I guiltily admit, isn't much). I agree with you completely in that case, and am more than anxious to see the changes you've proposed take place! Haha

[Zylark]

NP Perception. I wasn't entirely clear earlier where I stood on the enviromental issue. I just had to bite into the flawed logic of Sushil, and sort of lost the greater picture

Sushil, you need to chill down. No need to go ad-hominem on Iscariot.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Mr. Expert Opinion,
It is your mind that is full of bullshit.
Do you have any common sense at all?
(snip)

That was really uncalled for, but it do reveal you as a "true believer" in whatever irrational cause you are proselytizing.

But you can ofcourse prove me wrong. Answer this little question:

How many people do you think will die of starvation if you remove modern technology from society and (more importantly) agriculture and food distribution?

Don't forget to give at least a plausible reasoned explanation for your estimate. Even should you convieniently get zero.

And explain to me the method of your plan to rid us of technology. Will this be a voluntary program? And if so, what makes you think people would agree to such a moronic idea?

Or will it require force? Terror even?

---

And great post Greenfairy. Couldn't have said it better myself

[CheebCheeb]

I agree with a few things you said. We do need to become more logical and fix some of our problems. But everyone knows you cant change the world. And your talking about all the expierements that went wrong, that in result changed our world. Think about your expierement. What happens if it dosent work. Think about where the world would be. And actually thinking into this, your expierement already failed, because it would be absolutly impossible to spread this theory around the internet and change the whole world, especially something as extreme as you are proposing.

I personally enjoy my computer, I enjoy my car, I enjoy my house. It is true, humans are idiots, and most of the time are hard to live with, but overall I enjoy my life, and if in 10, 20, or 500 years the world ends, oh well, im alive now, im living my life, and id rather spark up my bowl with a lighter then rocks and twigs.

[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?

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

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.

I suggest you go through the thread once again. You will come across some favourable comments as well.

sushil_yadav

[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]