Of course I can. Any thinking, open-minded person can....Ryan Rudolph wrote: You cannot know the future, you are talking out of your ass again.
The large boulder is rolling downhill towards a cliff; there's approximately twenty meters until it rolls over the edge; its mass, the angle of the slope, and the boulder's increasing speed will ensure it will roll off. I don't need a fortune cookie or a calculator or a degree in quantum physics to see clearly what's going to happen. It's literally a no-brainer. You don't even need logic to know what's going to happen; a sense will suffice.
(I'm not sure if you're acting this ignorant for your own immature and twisted amusement, or if you really are, but it could be the latter, so I should have more patience here. It could be you really have no clue about the history of civilization whatsoever. Everyone's ignorant of many things. )
When people settle down in an environment, remain motionless and start farming, they flourish---although this seems "good," they're thinking only of themselves (homocentricity) and strip the soil until it's infertile, and pillage the resources of the surrounding area until fuckall is left. Population grows and becomes unmanagebale = class structure (lower, middle, upper or ruler); government; trade; economy; religion. Wealth is accumulated by the ruling class = warriors formed (perversion of the masculine, the hunter) to defend it, and the rich themselves. Guess what happens? The population continues to explode until there's not enough food = people start to starve. More people + pollution = more disease = more unrest = more control by the ruling class = law. No resources = expansion outwards, consuming more and more like a horde of locusts (that's all civilized humans are, essentially: techno-locusts). Mass extinctions follow. Surrounding tribes get attacked and invaded, conquered, enslaved, assimiliated for those resources and the space they occupy = pretty much constant war for the last 11 thousand years, and science being developed to invent technology to better destroy, process resources, acculumate wealth, and make war with those in areas that have resources.
Many drivers (systems of government) have been replaced in the seat of civilization, but the result is the same: the beast keeps pressing down heavier on the gas, accelerating (although it was almost in neutral for a time during the Middle Ages). Waste and corruption expand as power expands, without exception; the society becomes decadent, despite religious attempts and moral precepts to prevent that, and gets conquered by another nation, which does the same thing with greater technology, used exclusively by those in power (to increase wealth and war power). Like an abused child, the technologically inferior society, tribe, or civilization is crushed by another technologically advanced as it itself had been---what happens to one nation, that nation ends up doing to another, like a raped child growing and gaining power over another. Eye for an eye makes this all the more bloodier. (Rome rapes Britannia, England rapes the Colonies, America rapes the world.)
So, from 5 million humans (on the entire planet) just before farming crap began to about 150 million by the appearance of Jesus, during the Imperial expansion of Rome, which, by the time it collapsed (employing much of the technology it gathered from Greece, et cetera, and taking no responsibility for it), led to nearly 500 million when Rome was first sacked. It remained, slowly increasing, through the Middle Ages (famine, starvation, disease---the Black Plague really making a dent in it---and war, combined with no real technological advancements, in medicine in particular, kept it all in check), which was the last time anything close to balance could be observed regarding humans and their environment. And then after 999 AD, when Christ didn't return and the Church began to lose its grip, the Age of Enlightenment soon commenced.
Some visualaids for perspective.
(If you're anal retentive about these sources, there are thousands of other ones. Just ask.)
By the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, 1850, human population reached 1 billion. It doubled, to 2 billion, in 80 years---by 1930. It reached 3 billion, in 1960, 30 years later. It reached 4 billion, in 1975, only 15 years later. It reached 5 billion, in 1987, only 12 years later.
And 8 years ago, 1999, it reached 6 billion. Currently, it's now passed 6.5 billion. Every four seconds another human adds to the problem, and another species goes extinct (in case you're a real fucking wanker and don't give a shit about the natural world, for its own sake, consider the only two things you eat that do not come from Nature---salt and water---and tell me how technology in the hands of greedy, lazy morons catering to other greedy, lazy morons is going to feed your grandchildren when we're over 8 billion and Nature exists only in zoos. Currently, science and technology caters to commercial, political, or military goals, and there's no evidence this will change; too profitable; too tasty; and people are too stupid.)
Couple all that human infestation with enough nuclear power to decimate the surface of the world many times over, shifting climatic patterns and global warming, thinning ozone and unrelenting (oh so "good" capitalist) corporate technocracy poisoning the future landscape of lost billions who, in their longer life-spans and longer leisure periods, do nothing but talk and play and recklessly consume more than they produce and don't give a shit because something funny's on TV...not to mention the utter deficiency of the collective human immune system and new strains of superbugs (bacteria, virusus) popping up exponentially...well, you tell me, how hard is it to see where this is going?
It's all a big blob, rolling faster and faster towards a cliff. I know what's going to happen.
Huh. I'm beginning to wonder if you really are a spineless, soulless ego-driven shit-sack that cares for nothing but its own petty desires. Here you seem like a kid on a sinking ship, covering its eyes and repeating, "Everything's okay, everything's okay, everything's okay..."Ryan Rudolph wrote: The planet is not tortured, you are, you are the one observing the destructive nature of man. The planet is not conscious, so I wonder if it is possible to be aware of the destruction without being bothered by it?
This world is dying. Civilization is insane. Humans are illogical. You are illogical.
And you see virtually nothing at all; and never speak to me about masculinity again---you have utterly no sane conception of it.Ryan Rudolph wrote: Masculinity is not roughing it like some sort of primitive savage, you are too extreme, you do not see the positive aspects of technology.
Real men are not object-obsessed, or technology-obsessed; they make do with the least amount possible of almost everything.Ryan Rudolph wrote: I don’t understand your logic, do you believe that a user of technology is more likely to marry a woman? I don’t see any correlation between the two.
The pure masculine is nomadic, resisting, independent, naturally developing an equilibrium with its environment; it is at home in the wilderness; it is fluid, spiritual. The feminine is material (Mater) and is stationary, attracting, dependent, naturally forming a hole or void into which its surroundings are drawn and absorbed (civilization itself is feminine); this formed over millions of years of evolution because females naturally needed to stay in one place to give birth, which made them vulnerable and needing protection. Back when males were actual men, not manginas---instead: hunters---following herds, the result was only basic technology (simple tools and weapons), everything geared towards nomadicism. It worked well because society kept moving; the hunting culture and Nature's influence kept it so. Only the feminine seeks permanence.
This went along just peachy for a long time until an Ice Age forced people south in Mesopotamia and for some reason (still unknown) they stopped hunting and specialized on gathering = farming = goddess-worship, feminine dominance; and then overspecialized = civilization.
The whole story's right here(Gilgamesh = the first king, mangina, "two-thirds-feminine;" Enkidu = Wild Man, hunter, masculine---the Native seduced from the wild by a temple harlot, corrupted, weakened, enslaved, and absorbed into civilization).
A "user of technology" is in woman's world and is born into it, just like I was, a slave to it, just like you are and almost everyone is. What's the difference between a farm and a computer, essentially? They both have a man fixed in one place, being feminine, thinking feminine, behaving feminine, serving feminine values and feminine interests, wanting instead of needing (instead of living according to only what is necessary). From your point of view, you're exploring and doing whatever---from another's, watching you, you're sitting in a box and staring at a box, not moving, not doing a fucking thing except clacking away on a flat plastic plate and clicking another plastic lump. (A magnificent illustration.)
The computer is the new farm; we are kept in place, controlled, distracted, our male natures completely inside-out; backwards---doing what women used to do for two million years. Gathering. Info-gathering.
Case in point. Thinking feminine.Ryan Rudolph wrote: They have a limited capacity to build efficient and well adapted living structures.
Adaptation is only necessary when its necessary---living structures did perfectly fine with stone tools or even bows and arrows. Farming wasn't necessary---Native North Americans still prove this by their very existence (except they're in zoos today called reservations). Greed was the force behind technology, and it still is. As I showed above, we are nothing close to efficient---we've methodically become less efficient over time. Every good intention begets exploitation, waste and corruption.
You're narrowminded = Homocentric, civiliocentric, techocentric, and Engliocentric. The Sioux had no such complicated language and they passed it generationally (without it needing to be written down, which just strips the environment needlessly), for probably 30 thousand years. English is the worst language on the planet, cumbersome and slopped together from Latin, French, et cetera, the most overly complicated and hardest to learn---that's not efficeint, or logical, or necessary. (u n0 wot i m3an?)Ryan Rudolph wrote: You are wrong, look at how complicated the English language has become just based on the last century alone, the additions to the English language has allowed humanity to be able to describe many more natural processes, and analyze them from many different disciplines. There is a relationship between the evolution of language and the evolution of technology, you are ignoring this blatant fact.
Ugh. As I already told you, I've done it and am going back to it very shortly. It's not just knowing how to survive in the wild, which isn't hard, but also living with less, usually in utter poverty and being perfectly okay with it; every time I stayed put, getting involved with females (who always stay put), possessions accumulated, weakness and inefficiency increased, so part of it has been learning to live with loss (many types of loss) as well as less, letting go of everything I owned and getting back on the road.Ryan Rudolph wrote: No, I think it is the issue because If you cannot live what your saying, how am I supposed to? Ideally, philosophy is supposed to point to a way of living, and it must be attainable, meaning if one does it they must be able to keep their same plight-free circumstance. If I abandoned all my technology, more plight would be added into my life, so I will not do this. you see my goal is to decrease plight, not increase it.
When it comes to technology, one simply needs to discriminate between beneficial technology and harmful technology.
For example: I have no personal use for military equipment, or a xbox 360.
But having a prepaid cell phone with $10 of minutes loaded on it at all times can come in handy.
Or a fridge to keep your food cold and preserved. (*) People die each day due to food that has gone bad from bacteria/decay in countries without this technology.
I've tried to do it without any technology and no human contact, but it didn't work; so, no, I would never claim to be perfect or capable of being totally free of all technology or social interaction. I realize I'm a social being, and some very, very basic devices are necessary to survival, so I'll keep a few.
(*) As I've already demonstrated, that does nothing to dent overall human population. Disease is a natural process of curbing that---until humans detached themselves from Nature and took control of their own "evolution," used medical technology to fight disease, fight evolution, fight Nature. Are we winning? Did the population of Easter Island win anything, ultimately? Did Sparta? Did Rome?
1. There's no such thing as a wise country. Civilization itself is not sound, sane, intelligent, or wise. The arm of a drooling lunatic is not sane or wise, and neither is a country.Ryan Rudolph wrote: Wiser countries put less money into harmful technology over beneficial technology. For instance: Canada spends much more money on medicial technology than it does on miliary technology, and this is an intelligent thing to do.
2. Ever heard the expression, "Enough rope to hang yourself?" How about: "Cruel to be kind?" Nature is cruel in order to be kind---humanity is kind in order to be cruel.
3. I wouldn't use Canada as any sort of example of being a beacon of prosperity or wisdom. I know this country inside and out---I live here, was born here, and was once deluded enough to be "proud" of it---and it's about as feminized as the US or Australia or the UK, or even most of Europe. Same shit, more pretty PC paint on the pile.
Yes, and when more powerful countries use up their trees and oil, desertify their topsoils, suck all the minerals they can out of their mines, they'll point their military at us and force us to play ball. (The materials for technology come from Nature; materialism fuels its careless expansion.) It is inevitable.Ryan Rudolph wrote: Canada is a much wiser country as a whole compared to a country like North Korea who puts much of their money into military technology instead into fundamental industries like farming, medicine, manufacturing and transportation.
