Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[sushil_yadav]

Zylark,

Are you ever going to get the message?

The quality of my article does not depend on your views/ judgement.

sushil_yadav

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Zylark,

Are you ever going to get the message?

Oh, I got the message alright. And I obviously didn't need the sarcasm tags in my previous post. Thank you for being so swift in proving my point.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

The quality of my article does not depend on your views/ judgement.

sushil_yadav

No, the quality of your so-called "article" pretty much speak for itself.

When you are ready to answer to critique of it, do let me know.

[Perception]

Originally Posted by Zylark

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?...


...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]

First off, thank you Zylark, for the laugh. Secondly, Sushil, you really aren't showing any attempt at answering any questions or debating any points of interest against your proposed experiment, as Zylark and thegreenfairy have pointed out quite a few times. This is showing anyone willing to read all this that you're really nothing but an arrogant fool with an inferiority complex, trying to get people to reassure to you the delusion that it's ok to be so arrogant. Also, this would not be considered an article in any sense. At the most, it's a very rough outline of a possible analysis experiment. This is not what I normally consider an article. An article is usually a work done discussing the outcome of an experiment or situation from what I know of them.

[Zylark]

I suspected as much, and here is the proof. Sushil is nothing more than another troll fishing various forums with his far-out ideas.

He have canvassed various boards with a copy-paste approach, not in order to spark debate, but gather followers to his deranged world-view. As is apparant by his lack to actually engage in discussion in all these references.

For your pleasure:

Bullshit canvassing in practice...

This is a troll and should be banned.

[thegreenfairy]

sushil - did u think cus this a pot website that u would find mindless followers or something??

and zylark - i disagree with the banning - i'm kind of curious to see if he has any other great solutions. lol. my brain needs some exercise.

[Randolphus]

Wow. I agree with zylark. Yes, society needs change, perhaps even a dramatic one, but I believe going backwards is (as I stated) going in the wrong direction. We already know what sort of society is brought about by the past. How do we know society might not get better in the future, we don't, but yet we keep heading that way, in hopes that society as a whole betters itself. We'll either destroy ourselves or immortalize ourselves, but in that, who's to say which is better? I like where you are going with this though. Society does need to change, I just don't agree with your change. heh

[sushil_yadav]

Originally Posted by Perception

Sushil, you really aren't showing any attempt at answering any questions or debating any points of interest against your proposed experiment, as Zylark and thegreenfairy have pointed out quite a few times. This is showing anyone willing to read all this that you're really nothing but an arrogant fool with an inferiority complex, trying to get people to reassure to you the delusion that it's ok to be so arrogant. Also, this would not be considered an article in any sense. At the most, it's a very rough outline of a possible analysis experiment. This is not what I normally consider an article. An article is usually a work done discussing the outcome of an experiment or situation from what I know of them.

Mr. Expert Opinion,

It is you who is a fool - with a superiority complex.


Discussions, Debates and Arguments.

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

Millions of pages in print – newspapers / books / magazines.
Millions of web-pages on internet every day.
Now add to this all the conversation (discussion) we are having through radio / television / telephone and several other media every day.
And add to this all the discussion we are having through face-to-face interaction.

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

There is too much discussion in modern society.

Discussion is not solving our problems – discussion itself has become a problem – a gigantic problem.

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

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

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

Discussions / debates / arguments can end only in agriculture-based societies that do physical work.
We cannot do physical-work and mental-work simultaneously.
There is an inverse relationship between physical-work and mental-work.
If one is high [more] the other has got to be low [less]

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

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


sushil_yadav

[sushil_yadav]

Originally Posted by Zylark

I suspected as much, and here is the proof. Sushil is nothing more than another troll fishing various forums with his far-out ideas.

He have canvassed various boards with a copy-paste approach, not in order to spark debate, but gather followers to his deranged world-view. As is apparant by his lack to actually engage in discussion in all these references.

For your pleasure:

Bullshit canvassing in practice...

This is a troll and should be banned.

Zylark,

Mr. Detective - Whether I post in one forum - or 50 - or 500 - it is none of your business.

Why should you start itching if I have posted in many forums?

Answer me - if my posts are troll how do they exist on forums and blogs?

There are moderators in most forums. They are not sleeping. Quite obviously they have an opinion which is very different from yours.

sushil_yadav

[Perception]

Ok, the copy/paste technique is not answering any questions, my condescending friend. Also, please realize that you're suggesting that discussion and, in turn, gathering opinions on information in order to gain a better understanding of the information is a bad thing. Now, if one were a true believer in this theory, I would most certainly expect them not to have a computer with access to the broadest network of communication, discussion, and debate known to man, and much less the will to use it to discuss one's ideas.


Oh and I'd also like to see the evidence that brought you to the conclusion that I'm a fool with a superiority complex, considering you know absolutely nothing about my beliefs. I made my judgement after watching a series of rather immature personal attacks on people who did nothing but disagree with an opinion, and upon seeing that your views on current society are horribly askew. You, however, seem to be making yours as yet another childish lashing, directed this time towards myself.

[sushil_yadav]

Originally Posted by Perception

Oh and I'd also like to see the evidence that brought you to the conclusion that I'm a fool

Go - check the thread to see who used the word fool first.

sushil_yadav

[Perception]

If you had read the rest of that, you'd see that my statement came with evidence to support it. Stating that somone is a fool hardly provides sufficient knowledge to the receiver of the comment to come back with the same statement. As I said in the quoted post, you know absolutely nothing about me that could lead you to believe I'm a fool. I've gained insight into your (quite avoidant and selective) personality through the posts in this thread. I have not presented any beliefs of my own other than rational skepticism. Nothing I've said in my posts gives you any provocation to call me a fool. On the other hand, everything you've said here gives me more than enough cause to do the same to you.

Staying on topic, I'd like you to try to support your use of the internet to spread your idea of non-communication. The whole thing is quite hypocritical and self-absorbed in my opinion.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Mr. Detective - Whether I post in one forum - or 50 - or 500 - it is none of your business.

50 or 500? How about 11.400? But you are correct in one sense. You're not as much a troll as a spammer. Even lower in the foodchain. Only unlike most spammers you are not fishing to push a product or service. You are pushing some crazy ass ideology.

Had you only been willing to discuss your ideas, it could be mildly amusing, but you are not. Besides calling people names and copy-pasting contents from your confused so called "article" of course.

You have no idea what a discussion is do you? Or at least, you are not willing to have one. All you want is people to agree to you blindly.

[Iscariot]

Science and Technology is the real terrorist.

Theres no polite way to say it; you're stupid. Without technology true real consciousness would never exist the way it does today. the human race would have been boot stomped by animals with teeth. Spears and fire-making is technology and science.

Secondly the reason humans are destructive with science and technology is because our minds evolved in hunter/gatherer societies our minds are full of evolutionary mechanisms that are not meant for anything other than genetic survival, that doesn't mean non-destructive it means in an environment grossly grossly different from the ones our minds evolved in, its going to cause SHIT.

Human nature is specifically volatile because we didn't evolve for logic, rationality and understanding probability. However WITH OUR BRAINS AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WE CAN BECOME AWARE OF THOSE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS AND MAKE MORE INFORMED CHOICES.

THE REASON THE WORLD IS THE WAY IT IS - IS BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE FUCKING IGNORANT OF SCIENCE AND THE WELL DOCUMENTED UNCONSCIOUS EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS.

Fuck calling science and technology terrorism is stupid beyond words.

Discussion is not solving our problems – discussion itself has become a problem – a gigantic problem.

No its not. Discussion is what brings about things like the god-damn computer you're using to write this, it brings about medications like anti-biotics that save billions of lives. Anyway, agriculture is still fucking technology and science you dick.

PROBLEMS ARISE IN HUMAN SOCIETIES BECAUSE OF UNDERLYING HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, WE ARE FULL OF UNCONSCIOUS EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS THAT GUIDE PEOPLE WITHOUT THEM EVER REALIZING IT. THE ONLY REAL WAY TO COMBAT THAT IS THROUGH EDUCATION WHICH ENVOLVES DISCUSSION. YOUR SOLUTION IS TO TAKE AWAY THE ONLY THINGS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE US BETTER.

the mind is made up of connatural particularized learning mechanisms which evolved in pleistocene hunter/gatherer societies for organizing experience into adaptively significant stratagems. THAT IS THE GOD-DAMN PROBLEM NOT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The fucking facts are if science was thought to people the right way and people became aware of how our minds work/why their like that instead of bullshit irrationality that most people believe that the world would be fucking just fine. Ignorance of science is the fucking problem, not science.

reading those posts make me want to tear my fucking eyes out, just so i'd never have to read somthing that idiotic again. I don't care how condescending I sound, its fucking stupid to the level that I wouldn't expect to hear it from a child, and not only that, its harmful BULLSHIT MISINFORMATION.

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

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

NO NO NO NO FUCKING nO.

HUMANS WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR ABILITIES. ANIMAL SPECIES WERE WIPED OUT BEFORE AGRICULTURE CAME ABOUT BY FUCKINGGgGGgGGG HUMANS.

WE ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE OF UNCONSCIOUS (SOMTIMES CONSCioUS) EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS, THEY GET MAGNIFIED IN A SOCIETY THAT IS CAPABLE OF GREATER HARM BUT THEY ALWAYS FUCKING EXISTED.

cept as time goes on human science and technology is probably going to get to the point that we can fix what problems we've caused. (The ones that are possible to fix) and then live in a basic utopia besides that. thats the potential for science and technology.

[thegreenfairy]

u say we were mostly physical workers so we had less problems?

do u know how long ppl lived back then? they had more physical problems - and they had plenty of disagreement - and like animals they settled it by fighting or killing each other. i'd rather be alive to go see a therapist than dead cus somebody didn't like something i did - or because i died of pneumonia cus i couldn't just take nyquil cus i had a head cold.

and as has been pointed out more than once - y are u here argueing if it's counter-productive? ur being a part of ur own problem - and ur solution wouldn't work even if it was a good idea if u didn't go out and convince ppl - requiring alot of mental work.

and if the philosophy were to take hold it would have to be passed on to the next generation via disscussion - unless we wanna do it the old fashioned way and beat ppl up if they don't like it.

[Iscariot]

i died of pneumonia cus i couldn't just take nyquil cus i had a head cold.

I dunno shit about nyquil but i suspect that a lot of different nyquil types are cough suppressants (most cough medication is) which would actually increase your chances of getting a lung infection.

cough medication takes away productive coughing.