• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#31 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 23 November 2006 - 11:52 PM

vortexentity, are you denying we are headed toward crisis on many fronts or did you just feel like calling names?

#32 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 24 November 2006 - 01:14 AM

The author of this thread is anti-intellect. It is not intellect but greed which is an emotion that has caused the current crisis in the world. People growing fat on oil money would like us all to stay servants of their oil guzzling economy. This has caused an environmental catastrophe by the burning of 80% of the world's fossilized CO2 reserves in less than 120 years. We have at the same time cleared land that was sequestering a great deal of the current CO2 in the atmosphere.


None of this is in question as it is self evident. The problem is not with intellect but the lack of it being the dominant force on the planet. The dominant force is instead very base instincts of greed, gluttony, and sloth. These are derived from human emotion not from intellect as the author seems to fear.

To be mutually aware of a problem is not to necessarily to agree on the cause I guess. I am certainly able to discern the error but I am unwilling to agree that it is intellect that is the cause. I think that the fact is that it is emotion and those of less than altruistic motive that is to blame.

If you read my post you would know that. Likely you read the authors post and did not take the time to read the analysis provided by other members as myself. The author is very anti intellect not just anti technology. It is this unreasoning aspect that causes me problems and I see that this person is a Luddite to the extreme.

Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.


This is nonsense. The choices mankind has made are to this point not the best ones for the task at hand but that is not to say that mankind can not live with nature and develop his own habitat within the natural order without destroying it.

Certainly there are rascals out there that are making a fast buck and are messing up the environment. That does not mean that intellect caused the problem. In fact it is the lack of adequate intellect in this case that caused the problem.

It is just nonsense to say that our problem is thinking and communicating too much as this author states. This is a caveman with a computer. It is not really worthy of comment really. I mean come on. This person sits in front of a mass produced computer, connected to a internet connection and proselytizes a spiel about anti-technology and anti-intellect. It is pure nonsense. Luddites with computers downing technology. It is absurd to the extreme.

The fact that you support such nonsense is indication that you are in agreement. The comment on narcissists was due to your wording that was quoted. "We laugh at the story of lemmings running off the cliff to their death"

That is a pretty typical narcissistic sentence if I have ever seen one.

#33 william7

  • Guest
  • 1,777 posts
  • 17
  • Location:US

Posted 24 November 2006 - 03:16 AM

Destroy Industrial Society.

http://www.biblegate...18;&version=31;

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 25 November 2006 - 12:17 AM

The author of this thread is anti-intellect. It is not intellect but greed which is an emotion that has caused the current crisis in the world.


I don't read that in the post above, not at all. Maybe you read other posts by him in which he said these things.

The more you put on your table the more you kill the Sky and Oceans - the Rivers and Lakes.


The "table" being all the things humans demand and he listed a number of them. These things and what we have to do to get them and maintain not only the things but the lifestyle we enjoy are what is putting pressure on the planet. He is saying that this high lifestyle is causing pollution and other problems along with the energy crisis. That's what I got out of it anyway. I dont see anything anti-intellect in that. It's more anti-living too high on the hog.

He may have other views that I would not agree with. I'm not going to another site to argue with someone. I'm just discussing things here.

The comment on narcissists was due to your wording that was quoted. "We laugh at the story of lemmings running off the cliff to their death"
That is a pretty typical narcissistic sentence if I have ever seen one.


Lemmings were supposed to have done things that lead to their downfall and we laugh at the story of the stupid animals. But, humans are polluting the planet along with global warming and so on so I made a comparison between the two. We have up to now not been able to stop this behavior.

You seem to read into things what you want to see whether they are there or not. There is nothing narcissistic about commenting on human behavior or in comparing it to fables.

#35 amar

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Paradise in time

Posted 25 November 2006 - 04:45 AM

Lifestyle of Mass Destruction.

Destruction is an inherent feature of Development.

Progress = Destruction of Nature.
Development = Destruction of Nature.


We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.

Development can never be sustainable.
Sustainability and Development cannot exist together.


Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.

Sustainable Living is associated with consuming less – being satisfied with a simple and frugal life.
Development is associated with never ending desires – always wanting more.


Sustainable lifestyle requires Constancy.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Sameness.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Repetition.


Development is associated with Change.
Development is associated with New.
Development is associated with Transience.


Industrial Societies can never be sustainable – When you make thousands of consumer goods you kill Nature - you kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land.

A Society that does mental work [city based] can never be sustainable - it will keep on making consumer goods - destroying the environment moment by moment.

Only agriculture-based societies that do physical work can be sustainable.


The term Sustainable Development is like the terms

Stationary Walk.
Silent Talk.
Wakeful Sleep.
Dark Sun
Gentle Torture.
Dry Rain.
Peaceful War.


sushil_yadav


Oh but it is a great paradox.
The manmade world is beautiful and horrid.
Just like nature.
There is an eternity of it, but temporal and ever-ending too.
The best we can do is hail King Conscience, strive for the ideals, and
Hail Eris too.

#36 marcopolo

  • Guest
  • 128 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Fair Oaks, California

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:50 AM

It seems there are alot of people who think this way. It is not just the radical greens and earth firsters, tree spikers, etc. but in fact many people seem to share his premise that mankind is a disease and is destroying the planet.
I wonder how many of these people have heard or transhumanist philosophy or understand the possibilities of molecular nanotechnology. If they do, how many of these have taken the time to try to understand the possibilities that these technologies, if developed, could lead to a sustainable future? Does Greenpeace have an official stance on nanotechnology, or if they do, is it the negative "grey goo will kill us all" attitude, much like what they think of GM food?

#37 jdog

  • Guest
  • 227 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Arkansas

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:08 AM

sushil:

It's evident (to me, but I could be wrong, and if I am then I stand to be corrected) from your initial post that you are 1) passionate about caring for nature and the environment, 2) a neo-luddite, 3) college educated (psychology major maybe), and 4) have not taken an intro to logic course.

I'm not going to spend the time to point out the numerous logical fallacies in the original poster's arguments, but come on; if you expect this forum (which might I add is largely populated by individuals exercising reason and logic) to coherently and realistically consider your assertions when you forego using reason and logic in your deductive reasoning, you are just wasting everyone's time. I'm sorry if I sound like a dick, but I have a hard time using tact when much of your theory is based on unreasonable deductions.

As a general response to your overall theories; stopping or impeding human progression is not the answer we require to ensure our survival. Even if it were the answer, inherent in every man is a nature of instinctual curiosity to learn, to evolve, and to grow. This desire will constantly be at odds with your attempt to restrict our inevitable and natural evolution. Restricting our development is not the answer to your question. Your intentions are noble, but not realistic.

I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to search for answers to our environmental issues which are inspired less upon the suffocation of human progress, and more on development of a culture of sustainability.

edit: add boldface

#38 JohnDoe1234

  • Guest
  • 1,097 posts
  • 154
  • Location:US

Posted 17 February 2007 - 05:18 AM

Today man is putting a lot more than Food on the Table.

Cars, Computers, ipods, Aeroplanes, Luxury Yatchs, Caribbean Vacations, Palatial Homes, Video Phones, Designer Clothes, Designer Drugs, Cosmetic Surgery …………… The list is endless.


you could lead by example and get rid of your computer ;))



Love ya' man! Simply amazing...

#39 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 18 June 2007 - 08:41 AM

Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.

sushil_yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
PlanetSave
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt

#40 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 18 June 2007 - 10:42 AM

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.


This is a false assumption on multiple levels and also one that is predicated on a perspective of self destruction. That said please do not confuse me for the opposition, I favor as much protection for the environment as we can rationally provide along with the develop of a new value system based on the establishment of intrinsic value for non-tangible *unmarketables* that are essential for the balancing of competitive concern for the environment but I also think this statement and the gist of the entire thread deserves a reality check.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.


First, your assumption that man cannot fix the damage he has wrought on the environment except by leaving it alone is one that deserves to be challenged. It is also impossible without the destruction of humanity. Basically it is too late to return to Eden and even to try will either destroy the environment or destroy humanity.

This is not however a *necessary* dichotomy, it is simply the state of affairs at present, however already too much damage has been done by human impact and the reversal of the process, or even to stabilize it will require too much time and too much unavailable cooperation, not to mention investment so I suggest you seek an alternative approach because the avenue of cease and desist will not happen.

There is another way to save the environment that involves stewardship, to become the true husband of Gaia. This avenue depends only upon developing and promoting aspects of the direction we are going anyway, Human Selection.

Currently Natural Selection as a process has been superseded by human intervention anyway. Certainly it has gone too far to *return* to any former state that is idealized by one group or interest or another. Some want to blur the distinction of Human Selection and Natural Selection through a slight of hand that is exploitive and suggest that we can do no wrong, as we are a part of nature so whatever we do is *Natural Selection* anyway. Obviously this is short sighted and also tends to be the result of self promotion or vested interest.

Others are fatalistic and feel that a kind of grand determinism rules social conduct and "que sera, sera". These folks are waiting for some kind of divine intervention to repair the damage and the results of that is simply negligent participation in causing the problem. This religious belief ironically is not just from the classically spiritual but those that think marketplaces have a kind of divine character too. Markets are blind to good and ill and only reflect human needs and wants balanced by culture and resources. The real trick is moving environmental values from the *want* category to the *need.*

Currently what we are experiencing is a subcategory of Human Selection that I like to Negligent Selection. We are continuously playing catchup with consequences, more often than not *unintended consequences* because we do such a poor job of critically thinking and challenging our own assumptions either as individuals or as competitive social groups.

Third there are is the most powerful factor that describes why humans cannot even approach the idea you promote sushil, they won't cease their unhealthy forms of conflict (violent resource redistribution - war) with one another and so long as this creates a kind of Manifest Destiny logic for any partisan proposition it will lay waste to all living things in the way of a conflict. This too is negligent selection and one way that human conduct has promoted the growth of pathogens for example for thousands of years.

Yes we must reorganize our social structures around a new set of values but you must realize that we CAN repair the damage even though some of that process will take generations and others parts mere decades.

Second this repair process can itself be made profitable and supportive of human economic need.

Third, there is no going back, only forward and Human Selection describes a process by which we must negotiate among ourselves as science, cultural demand and society through a kind of marketplace of ideas to create a more viable model for the future. Nature can be recognized, respected, and shielded from our worst ravages. Nature can be promoted and share a place in the world with our agriculture and habitat but *nature* is not defined by just this planet and we must broaden our horizons and learn to look beyond the hillocks of ants.

So I return to what is implicit in the initial challenge: can humanity go forward and create a new model of coexistence with nature or must humanity become extinct to provide a return to a mythical Eden?

#41 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 18 June 2007 - 11:36 AM

Second this repair process can itself be made profitable and supportive of human economic need.


We are starting to see the beginning of commercialization of alternative power. When tech is profitable and under market pressure it is subject to rapid advancement, unlike the sluggish start that comes from awarded grants here and there.

Solar cells are getting cheaper per efficiencies, they are just now hitting wallstreet in a big way, and companies like google and walmart are leading the way in buying huge orders which require new factories to fill.

I also think biofuels are getting close. From using switch-grass or the like, engineered bacteria that can breakdown the pulp at greater efficiencies is all that is needed to make it viable.

Unfortunately we have not embraced nuclear power even though we are in a position to be a leader in that type of energy influencing the rest of the world as well.

I know that post wasnt for me, but I can not stand the temptation of showing my optimism. I think public opinion on renewable and clean fuels is where it needs to be and we are just waiting for the economics to catch up. I think we will be environmentally friendly quicker than many think.

#42 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 18 June 2007 - 11:42 AM

I think the environment is in good hands ;)

#43 komirad

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 June 2007 - 11:06 AM

The Illogical Logic of Man.

A few birds have got infected with bird-flu and Man has started killing millions of birds.
They say birds are a threat to humans.

Sometime ago there was Mad Cow disease and Man started killing hundreds of thousands of cows.
They said cows are a threat to humans.

Ever since Man came into existence - 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.

It is Man who has killed millions of people in Wars and other forms of Violence – and can kill millions more any time in future.
Man should follow the same logic here and kill all people.

It is the human species which is the greatest threat to humans and all other life on this planet - In fact the human species is the only species which is a threat to all life on Earth.

Man has decimated all Animal and Plant species – polluted the Sky and Oceans - and poisioned every square inch of earth.

In a mere 200 - 300 years Industrial Society has destroyed all that Nature laboriously created over a period of millions of years.

Humans pose the greatest threat to other humans.
Humans pose the greatest threat to all other life on earth.

The so-called Rational and Civilized Man should follow the same logic here - and destroy the entire human race.

sushil yadav

FreeInfoSociety

ePhilosopher

Corrupt


"Man should follow the same logic here and kill all people. "
So why have you not killed yourself?

He is obviously biocentric not homocentric...
Human lives have superior value to animal's lives

#44 Zarrka

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 June 2007 - 01:56 AM

i only just saw this post and already its long, but ive read through it and most people are saying what i feel. We cant go back to Utopia, its not possible, and i agree with much of what Laz long has said. Instead of giving up, we should find solutions to this problem. As for us not being able to fix the environment as we did not make it, well, we humans are an intuitive lot, and we are going to be able to figure somthing ut. as long as people start letting those who want to fix it try and fix it. Not by taking us back into a tecnological ice age, but by expanding our knowedge so we understand the problem better so we have a better change of fixing it.

#45 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 25 August 2007 - 05:34 PM

He is obviously biocentric not homocentric...
Human lives have superior value to animal's lives


I find it ironic that you have no concern/ compassion for Environment despite the fact that you owe your very existence to nature/ environment.

Why do you breathe the Air?
Why do you drink the Water?
Why do you eat the Food that comes from Soil? - Why don't you have Computers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Take all your technology to the Moon - and try producing a single grain of Food without using any natural ingredient from Earth.


In the absence of Nature your grandfather would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would'nt have lived.

Show some respect to Nature.

sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt
ForeignPolicy

#46 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 25 August 2007 - 09:17 PM

Abraham Maslov.

#47 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 26 August 2007 - 05:07 PM

sushil, I agree with much of what you are saying. It's totally true that we can't keep on the same path we are on right now. If the third world catches up to what we are enjoying in the west at the present moment, our ecosystems will collapse and not only energy would be too scarce to supply our needs but also food, clean water and air would be harder and harder to find. Our present lifestyle can not be maintained indefinately unless we find answers to some very intractible problems. "progress" or adding more and more to what we are already doing accelerates the inevitable crash that we are headed toward.

We laugh at the story of the lemmings running off the cliff to their death. We think we are wiser  than their mythical behavior but it's humans headed toward the cliff by their own actions, not animals doing this. The animals and many plants will be swept away by our hubris and foolishness but we too will pay a big price.

Just look at the most powerful nation at present, the USA. It's president is avidly following policies that are a sure prescription for disaster not only environmentally but economically and militarily as well. He seems to care only for short term gains, either political or financial and if future generations die as a result, oh well. If our leaders are so short sighted and blockheaded, how can any of us hope things will get better?


xanadu

Thanks for expressing your views.
You are very right about America - 5% of world population consuming 40% of world resources. The entire world knows "The Great American Dream is a Nightmare for the Planet".

Life was never good in the past.

Life will never be good in future.

Life can never be good.


Suffering is a part of life - an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.

There is Physical suffering - There is Mental suffering.

In pre-industrial society there were physical diseases caused by virus and bacteria.
In modern society there are hundreds of lifestyle related physical diseases - Cancer, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity, Multiple Organ Failures.

Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.

We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes - they can stop work/activity only under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

For most people the choice is between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products-- a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

Today 50% of world population - 3 bilion people are living in cities. The necessary work of growing/producing Food is being done outside cities - in villages and countryside. Most of the people living in cities are engaged in unnecessary work - making things, buying things and selling things. The switch-over from Physical work to Mental work/ Desk job has led to an endless cycle of unnecessary and destructive work.

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.

Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop drinking water for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop eating food for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. Industrial Society is destroying necessary things[Animals,Trees,Air,Water and Land] for makng unnecessary things[Consumer Goods]. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return - once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.

If we live a simple life there is individual suffering - but no largescale destruction of Environment.

If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering - plus largescale destruction of Environment.


sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt
ForeignPolicy

#48 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 07 September 2007 - 10:21 AM

This Kaczynskien philosophy espoused by sushil yadav will not save the natural world.

I certainly disagree with sushil yadav in the idea that progress and development are not sustainable. I have been studying sustainable development for some time and my research indicates that it is more than possible it is already starting to take place more and more.



Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [Consumer Goods].

When we make consumer goods we kill Animals/ Trees, Air/ Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Industry kills Water. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted.

Industry/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


"Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"

These are figures of "Ecocide".
These are figures of "crimes against Nature".
These are figures of "destruction of Ecosystems".
These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".



sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
ePhilosopher
Corrupt
ForeignPolicy

#49 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 06 July 2008 - 08:51 AM

The author is very anti intellect not just anti technology. It is this unreasoning aspect that causes me problems and I see that this person is a Luddite to the extreme.


In the context of "environmental crisis" and "technology" I would like to give an example.


A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals - every hour.

Some people are trying to save the victim.

The sane way to save is - you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.

What these insane people do - they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it -- they don’t prevent it.

Instead, what they do - They say we are going to save the victim by using technology - the best technology - the best medical care.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.


They give the victim the best technology - the best medical care.

In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given.

One can imagine the fate of the victim.



Ecosystems are getting destroyed due to production of consumer goods.

Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land - directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]

Industrial society is destroying necessary things - animals, trees, air, water and land for making unnecessary things - consumer goods.

The sane way of saving ecosystems is - you stop production of consumer goods - you reduce production of consumer goods to the minimum level.

But the insane Industrial Society continues producing consumer goods [ in fact production is being increased every day]

The insane response of Industrial Society is - We will save the environment with technology - the best technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.

Bring this technology - Bring that technology.


In the meantime production of consumer goods continues - 3 billion people living in cities are continuously engaged in - making , buying and selling of consumer goods - killing the ecosystems moment by moment.

One can imagine the fate of environment.



Height of Insanity.......Height of Abnormality.

Destroy Industrial Society.....before it is too late.
Destroy consumerism..... before it is too late.


sushil_yadav

Corrupt
ePhilosopher
ForeignPolicy
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Edited by sushil_yadav, 06 July 2008 - 08:51 AM.


#50 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 12 June 2009 - 02:09 AM

sushil, I agree with much of what you are saying. It's totally true that we can't keep on the same path we are on right now. If the third world catches up to what we are enjoying in the west at the present moment, our ecosystems will collapse and not only energy would be too scarce to supply our needs but also food, clean water and air would be harder and harder to find. Our present lifestyle can not be maintained indefinately unless we find answers to some very intractible problems. "progress" or adding more and more to what we are already doing accelerates the inevitable crash that we are headed toward.

We laugh at the story of the lemmings running off the cliff to their death. We think we are wiser than their mythical behavior but it's humans headed toward the cliff by their own actions, not animals doing this. The animals and many plants will be swept away by our hubris and foolishness but we too will pay a big price.



xanadu,

For several decades environmentalists have been warning modern society that ecosystems are getting destroyed - that consumerist lifestyle is not sustainable.

But modern society which was busy chasing progress, growth and development did not listen. It refused to believe there was any environmental crisis or problem. It said science and technology will always find a solution - if earth gets destroyed we will move on to another planet.

Impossible dreams were sold to people in the name of science and technology.

Moving to another planet would probably rank as the most impossible of all impossible things.

One space shuttle exploded during take off - another exploded on the return journey.

So far man has not been able to go beyond the moon. There is no other life sustaining ecosystem/ planet within the solar system. Outside the solar system planets and galaxies are millions of light years away - billions of light years away.

So when are we moving to a new home ?

Next year - or 5 years later ?


sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
StrategyTalk
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Edited by sushil_yadav, 12 June 2009 - 02:16 AM.


#51 rhodeder

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 June 2009 - 02:03 AM

I agree that overpopulation will become a very serious issue one day. Will the unstoppable rise in overpopulation create a global famine where only a percentage of the human population will survive? As things are now you might as well say goodbye to our last remaining rainforests i think as billions of more people are added to the worlds population they will undoubtedly be cut down to make way for agriculture. Just go on google earth and observe the world for a couple days you will get a glimpse. Also look at world history of countries that are thriving farmland and what they were before then. The Area surrounding west virginia is a great example and also india.

#52 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:18 PM

can humanity go forward and create a new model of coexistence with nature or must humanity become extinct to provide a return to a mythical Eden?



Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.

"Green Industry", "Green Technology", "Ethical Consumerism", "Sustainable Development".

These are contradictory terms - these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green - it is impossible.

You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.



When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted. Industry kills Water.

Industries/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel - and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.

If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things [food, clothing, shelter] the ecosystems will last longer.

If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.

The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.



We are alive because of ecosystems - we owe our very existence to ecosystems.

Industrial Society has destroyed most ecosystems within a span of 250 years after Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Society has destroyed necessary things [animals, trees, air, water and land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured, repaired or restored by MultiNational Companies in industries and factories.

The collapse has already happened for millions of other species. Most of them have been decimated.

Very soon it will be the turn of man to go.


sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Edited by sushil_yadav, 27 June 2009 - 05:32 PM.


#53 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:13 PM

can humanity go forward and create a new model of coexistence with nature or must humanity become extinct to provide a return to a mythical Eden?



Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.

"Green Industry", "Green Technology", "Ethical Consumerism", "Sustainable Development".

These are contradictory terms - these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green - it is impossible.

You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.



When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted. Industry kills Water.

Industries/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel - and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.

If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things [food, clothing, shelter] the ecosystems will last longer.

If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.

The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.

This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.



We are alive because of ecosystems - we owe our very existence to ecosystems.

Industrial Society has destroyed most ecosystems within a span of 250 years after Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Society has destroyed necessary things [animals, trees, air, water and land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].

Ecosystems are not consumer goods that can be manufactured, repaired or restored by MultiNational Companies in industries and factories.

The collapse has already happened for millions of other species. Most of them have been decimated.

Very soon it will be the turn of man to go.


sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment




Industrial society has given us enormous material comfort and wealth, along with a huge increase in lifespan.

And environment/animals are there for one single purpose: to be used and exploited by man. I agree that sometimes we don't use the environment very well and waste precious natural resources, but we should never forget that it's all there for the single purpose of benefiting mankind. So preserving nature for its own sake is wrong and a degenerate thing to do. Why would anyone other than a total misanthropist believe that nature/environment/other species are more important than humans? Maybe this is the same point as yours, i didn't read enough of this topic to know, so if it is then great, and if it isn't, well my point is made.

#54 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:42 PM

Oh yes sir! This thread is right up my alley, I like it even better than the Psychiatry industry of death one  :)

Anyways, damn right progress is some bs, do you really need it? Not really...nature gives you everything. But without progess there's nothin to do right :)

I love those nihilist anti-industrial society type things keep em coming please!



Huge increase in lifespan? Please....fast food, genetically modified products...real healthy. Ancient African tribes (Bam-buti I think) were at one point measured for their body fat/cholesterol levels...they were all in ridiculous health, because all they did was move around the woods all day and ate only natural stuff. The geologist who was supposed to be in awesome shape, could not keep up with them even close...cant find the title of that book now...

Nowadays people worry too much about stuff like paying a bunch of paper for your three-ton piece of metal on wheels, or looking better than your fellow piece of meat and plasma homo sapiens in a few pieces of fabric with a shiny logo...dunno if that's really necessary, you lose touch with the magic that is mother nature like that!

Edited by russianBEAR, 08 July 2009 - 05:44 PM.


#55 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:53 AM

And environment/animals are there for one single purpose: to be used and exploited by man. So preserving nature for its own sake is wrong and a degenerate thing to do. Why would anyone other than a total misanthropist believe that nature/environment/other species are more important than humans?



This crazy society did not anticipate "Financial Collapse" until it actually happened.

This crazy society is not going to anticipate "Ecosystem Collapse" until it actually happens.


The way this insane, abnormal and criminal society is running is like :

A car running in a closed garage.

Adding extra floors to a building by removing bricks from the lower floors.



The crash - the collapse - the end is coming.

It is a matter of one or two decades at the most.


sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Edited by sushil_yadav, 22 July 2009 - 06:00 AM.


#56 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 22 July 2009 - 04:39 PM

This crazy society did not anticipate "Financial Collapse" until it actually happened.

This crazy society is not going to anticipate "Ecosystem Collapse" until it actually happens.


The way this insane, abnormal and criminal society is running is like :

A car running in a closed garage.

Adding extra floors to a building by removing bricks from the lower floors.



The crash - the collapse - the end is coming.

It is a matter of one or two decades at the most.


sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment



yea yea.. keep on with your BS, but you'll not convince many here.

#57 sushil_yadav

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Delhi, India

Posted 27 July 2009 - 05:37 AM

Some people believe environment is in good shape - ecosystems are not getting destroyed.

This is like believing :

Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction.

America has brought peace to Iraq.

sushil_yadav

#58 russianBEAR

  • Guest
  • 432 posts
  • 22

Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:03 PM

Well, I agree that consumerism lifestyle, while fun is damaging but for different reasons. I hate having to spend beautiful summer/winter/spring/fall days waking up in the morning, catching about 15 minutes of nature's beauty and then wasting the majority of my life in some office with fake air. I feel like I should be enjoying this nice planet but instead I'm stuck doing bs. At least if you live a natural lifestyle, yeah its hard work but you get to be in touch with the planet that gave birth to you.

But um....humans destroying nature? You're giving your species way too much credit here, this planet can easily whoop your ass. A couple of floods, tsunamis etc. and everybody and their grand ideas of immortalism, cryonics, and nanotechnologies are going right down the drain, literally. So if you tickle the sleeping dragon with some nice pollution, you might get it in a major way.

Doesn't mean humans are destroying it, they're just stupidly about to unleash the wrath of mother nature. When it shakes us all off, the planet will be just as fine as it's been for ages.

Other than that yeah, I'm growing increasingly disgruntled with city life, it's starting to really piss me off. Whenever I'm out in the nature I feel calm and serene, pretty relaxed. As soon as I get into the city I go crazy, too many people, everyone in a hurry, rush hour etc. I don't wanna spend my whole life like this to one day catch myself in that same rush hour of the past 30-40 years only now im about to die soon. 

Now hopefully I can take steps to make it happen for myself, I know some of my buddies already have and I'm envious...

#59 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 26

Posted 13 August 2009 - 04:04 AM

bgwouk,

Why are you arguing with these people? They are obviously mentally ill.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 256 posts
  • 26

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:47 PM

I would like to comment about EQ. EQ is kind of a watered-down version of Executive Function, which is clearly a far greater determinant of success in the real world than IQ. EF is essentially what old-school people called "grit" combined with common sense and rationality.

An excellent description of grit and EF:

http://alfin2100.blo...nce-talent.html

Hope this clears things up.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users