12 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

HOW YELLOW IS YOUR URINE?

Chemicals have so thoroughly saturated our planet that we are unable to remove pharmaceuticals from our drinking water, antibiotics are creating super bacteria that are very difficult to kill, plastics are filling our landfills, sea life is dying off from contamination, etc...

Are we really any better off using so much chemicals in our lives? Would we live longer and happier lives if we relied more on substances that are biodegradeable and safe for the environment?

How will we deal with the ever increasing toxic sludge that seeps into every pore of our bodies and is constantly making the earth less habitable?

We can filter our water, but where do the filtered chemicals go? - back into the water system eventually.

All chemicals must be broken down or catalyzed into substances that are safe - we can make alot of money by using them in the short term - but how much will it cost to clean them up in the long run? Will we even have the ability to clean our earth and bodies in the not-too-distant future?

Chemicals are crude mechanisms for altering biological function - especially when digested and metabolized into a multitude of unknown compounds.

------------

Better to live without a capitalistic mass-produced lifestyle and screen for bad genes before they are propagated - giving us less need to use chemicals.



Out of sight out of mind?

Edited by abolitionist, 17 March 2008 - 07:04 PM.

[forever freedom]

Don't worry, the singularity will solve it all (partially serious here)

[abolitionist]

Don't worry, the singularity will solve it all biggrin.gif (partially serious here)

See, this is why I can't seriously call myself a transhumanist anymore.

Thankfully, I see the singularity as just a theory and not representative of Transhumanism.

Not that the Transhumanist declaration couldn't be better clarified.

[Luna]

Even if you stop chemistry, then you just evolve slowly like the rest of the stuff.
The bacterias will get there one way or another.
And antibiotics occur in nature too, meanings you're just making those stuff more common at humans.

Quitting isn't the way, improving is.

[StrangeAeons]

Ah, but you're missing the whole fun part of technology: we solve older, simpler problems only to create newer, more complex ones that demand the most of our newfound knowledge. I'm pretty sure one day we'll get ahead, though; quality of life since the early 20th century has increased quite a bit. By the way, I'm a huge fan of Queens of the Stone Age, so thanks for that thread title :D

[niner]

Better to live without a capitalistic mass-produced lifestyle and screen for bad genes before they are propagated - giving us less need to use chemicals.

A Neo-Luddite Fascism... Sounds like a plan.

[abolitionist]

Ah, but you're missing the whole fun part of technology: we solve older, simpler problems only to create newer, more complex ones that demand the most of our newfound knowledge. I'm pretty sure one day we'll get ahead, though; quality of life since the early 20th century has increased quite a bit. By the way, I'm a huge fan of Queens of the Stone Age, so thanks for that thread title :D

excellent point, we should use technology to subvert our design which causes these stupidities.

Otherwise technology becomes an extension of Darwinian design which is self-evidently extremely dangerous for the planet and the survival of the human race - not to mention the protection of individual rights.

Edited by abolitionist, 18 March 2008 - 04:17 AM.

[abolitionist]

Better to live without a capitalistic mass-produced lifestyle and screen for bad genes before they are propagated - giving us less need to use chemicals.

A Neo-Luddite Fascism... Sounds like a plan.

that's funny never been called a neo-luddite before

you better qualify statements like that - seriously

think about it - if you have bad genes that require you to be addicted to medications or a bad diet and lifestyle that causes the need for chemicals - that is an unneccessary addiction.

Better to solve the root of the problem than using chemical band-aids - or do you think we should continue bad diet, lifestyle, and genes and continue our chemical addiction?

[niner]

Better to live without a capitalistic mass-produced lifestyle and screen for bad genes before they are propagated - giving us less need to use chemicals.

A Neo-Luddite Fascism... Sounds like a plan.

that's funny never been called a neo-luddite before

you better qualify statements like that - seriously

OK. "Neo-Luddite" is a reference to your desire to live without a capitalistic mass-produced lifestyle, with few chemicals. "Fascism" is a reference to the presumably forced eugenics that you seem to favor.

think about it - if you have bad genes that require you to be addicted to medications or a bad diet and lifestyle that causes the need for chemicals - that is an unneccessary addiction.

Better to solve the root of the problem than using chemical band-aids - or do you think we should continue bad diet, lifestyle, and genes and continue our chemical addiction?

I'm not in favor of bad diets or bad lifestyles. I'm not addicted to chemicals, are you? I might be addicted to the Internet. That's not very healthy, but it seems to be better than television. There are some chemicals that I consume to make my health better. For example, I use some allergy meds. I suppose I could move to a place that didn't have trees, grass, mold, or dust mites, like a desert. I could kill my cat. But I don't want to do either of those things. Is that an addiction, or a lifestyle choice? I take some supplements that unquestionably improve my health. Addiction? I don't see it as such. This low tech life that you propose seems to run counter to the pro-longevity idea behind this forum. If you return to the 1700's, you can expect a healthspan similar to people of that time. Is that what you're looking for? You started out proposing the Neo-Luddite course as a way of improving health, which I find dubious.

[Shepard]

I'm not addicted to chemicals, are you? I might be addicted to the Internet. That's not very healthy, but it seems to be better than television. There are some chemicals that I consume to make my health better. For example, I use some allergy meds. I suppose I could move to a place that didn't have trees, grass, mold, or dust mites, like a desert. I could kill my cat. But I don't want to do either of those things. Is that an addiction, or a lifestyle choice?

This is an example of how modern man is so far from nature. Dude, you need to consume a 80% fat diet and drink raw milk. No more allergies, yo. Also take in some clay to cleanse out those toxins. And don't drink out of plastic containers.

Clear that rash right up.

[EmbraceUnity]

that's funny never been called a neo-luddite before

I agree with abolitionist that those terms should not be slung around irresponsibly, or else the terms lose their meaning. Simply mentioning that we should "screen for bad genes" does not necessarily imply the use of coercion, since it is a vague statement. It could very well be implying voluntary genetic engineering, which is a very noble goal, though without universal healthcare I can't see it working out as well. If people continue patenting the human genome there could also be major problems.

If you return to the 1700's, you can expect a healthspan similar to people of that time. Is that what you're looking for? You started out proposing the Neo-Luddite course as a way of improving health, which I find dubious.

Now this I completely agree with. However, I think there is some middle ground here. In my opinion, organic farming and so forth is opening up space for a greater degree of innovation. It is important to weigh the long-term utility and sustainability of technologies, including drugs, pesticides, etc.

For instance, one practice that I find disturbing is the near universal use of low dose antibiotics on healthy farm animals, especially considering looming threats like avian flu and other potential "superbugs."

That said, I fully support the use of any of these technologies when there is sufficient benefit.

Edited by progressive, 18 March 2008 - 04:50 AM.

[niner]

that's funny never been called a neo-luddite before

I agree with abolitionist that those terms should not be slung around irresponsibly, or else the terms lose their meaning. Simply mentioning that we should "screen for bad genes" does not necessarily imply the use of coercion, since it is a vague statement. It could very well be implying voluntary genetic engineering, which is a very noble goal, though without universal healthcare I can't see it working out as well. If people continue patenting the human genome there could also be major problems.

He's talked about it in the past with a distinctly coercive element.