GENIUS FORUMS

Nordicvs,

All of the sudden, great difficulty in life (what you view as such in your coddled, easy existence) is necessary for proper intellectual development and growth...well, buddy, make up your mind, will ya? (And for crissakes: stunted? Your bias and smugness are at least consistent.)

That doesn’t mean definitely. It was a necessary stage, but I suspect our way of life will keep on advancing. I watched a special on the discovery channel to see what was more efficient – 20 of the strongest men in the world digging a 6 ft hole or an excavator, guess who won? It took the 20 men four extra hours to dig the hole, and they all complained of muscle pain for days after, whereas the excavator driver finished sooner, and showed little signs of physical pain. Surely this is a positive development. Technology isn’t perfect, but it is far superior to a world without technology.

Which 'races' are worthy and unproblematic to "help?"

The ones that have the highest probability to become totally wise. Wise individuals have emerged within the White race, the Indian race and the Asian race, but not the black race to the best of my knowledge. And almost all of these individuals have been males.

Here I'm supposed to be "grateful" to an abstract collection of matter manipulations in higher complexity ("technology"), and as you say I've "turned my back" on it, as if---very much as if---I have abandoned my FAITH in technology. It is very much a belief system for you as much as it's an addiction and a grand attachment that you feverishly defend, support, justify and rationalize, and press forth like a religious zealot every chance you get.

Go live in Africa, with no access to plumbing, or sanitation. After you drink sewer infested drinking water or muddy puddle water for a few days, I bet you’d sing a different tune. I am grateful to live in Canada because it is a democratic, technologically advanced country, and the quality of life here is wonderful compared to the rest of the world. It was surely luck to be born here.

I realize fully what a crutch it really is because I've used it and have seen so many others, like you, use it as well. It's all porn.)

Just because something has a degree of negativity does not mean that it is entirely negative. Technology has positive attributes as well, and you ignore them. I know technology has negative attributes, but I would still rather live in a society with it, as the quality of life is far superior.

that's like a toilet telling a human how to take a shit.

Or in your case, that’s like a log in the woods telling a brave nomatic Nordicvs how to take a shit… lol.

Another thing---security? From what? By placing myself intentionally in dangerous and taxing situations without any backup or help from anyone and surviving only on the strength of my mind, body, and spirit...this is how I'm clinging to security?

You're right, that’s not seeking security, that’s just plain insanity. You know, you and Osama bin Laden would get along just fine. You both could live together in the desert, roaming for days at a time, drinking water from the odd cactus, eating scorpions together, while fanning each other with electronic parts you gleefully stole from the evil city, and you two could lay under the sun together getting scorched severely by the rays until you both have skin cancer, oh how romantic! Oh how spiritual! : P ….

You're mentality reminds me of the life of this guy. How droll!

You can live a non-attached existence without intentionally putting yourself in harms way. A risky life is not a wise life, you seem to have a romantic notion of what wisdom entails.

Ryan R wrote: That doesn’t mean definitely. It was a necessary stage, but I suspect our way of life will keep on advancing.

It wasn't a stage, it was a gradual adaptation to climatic change---it's what happens when humans directly and intimately connected to the natural order of life on this planet undergo proper evolutionary adaptation---and it went no further because no further change was necessary. The northern nomads found a technological system that worked fine for their needs, and eventually they drifted across the landbridge into current-day Alaska that appeared at the last glacial maximum and, not only surviving that using only bows and arrows, occupied an entire continent (two, really, but I'm not getting into the South Americans, who were influenced by the Old World) and thrived, co-existed peacefully with it and relatively so with each other.

For 40 thousand generations the population of these nomads in NA remained the same---balance. The Inuit stayed in the coldest climate and yet didn't "advance" further. What's the reason? When educated under western systems, an Inuk will blow away the average American or European on IQ tests, lending evidence to your point in that other thread (which was a good point, I admit) that colder climates did cause a surge in intellectual development (which you twist into ego-feeding by claiming that tropical populations were 'stunted,' which is like saying an emu is stunted because it can't fly).

But they were perfectly content to stay the same, healthy, peaceful and fullfilled as people, and not change when it wasn't necessary. That is wisdom. I'm not exaggerating---look it up yourself---in fact, I make a point of not doing that (I've lived with only a knife in the wild and know it's no damned picnic---at first; rather, it's hard, yet quite fulfilling, work).

Was there crime and poverty and bigotry and high suicide rates? Not at all; they were no rules or laws set into scripture, but everything was worked out reasonably when things did happen (no, it wasn't perfect, but nothing human ever is). Suicide was very rare; men were valued and respected. Kids were cared for and females, who weren't worshipped, were actually a benefit to society and contented in being so.

Did millions die in non-stop bloody wars and religious conquests? Nope. Sometimes they squabbled over territory or, mainly, when something happened and food sources ran out---these never lasted and by the time the Euros came there were vaguely defined borders and many nations that had quite adequate diplomatic ways of resolving all issues (hey, 20 thousand years of doing what works tends to create greater understanding among similar peoples who are on the same side, ultimately, and know-how to work and live together).

Were there plagues and depression and thousands of mental disorders? No. They were at the time of colonization among the soundest, strongest, most well-balanced, healthiest people in the world.

How about drug-addiction, pollution, or unwanted children? They used some plants with addictive properties but never developed socially-crippling addictions until alcohol was given to them; and there was no word for "orphan" until whites arrived.

They managed all this, and developed art and music, because they were nearly perfectly adapted---tempered and sharpened by natural selection, strengthened by living in harmony with---their environment, not trying to manipulate the fuck out of it. For women.

Of course it will keep advancing---that's the whole point: why is that necessary?

Why is the definition of progress "more" and not "less?"

Ryan R wrote:I watched a special on the discovery channel to see what was more efficient – 20 of the strongest men in the world digging a 6 ft hole or an excavator, guess who won? It took the 20 men four extra hours to dig the hole, and they all complained of muscle pain for days after, whereas the excavator driver finished sooner, and showed little signs of physical pain. Surely this is a positive development.

Surely not. I take it you've never done a hard day's work in your life, hey? (Awaiting your answer before I go further, because otherwise it'll be like trying to explain to a Down's Syndrome patient that his fly's open.)

Ryan R wrote: Technology isn’t perfect, but it is far superior to a world without technology.

Prove that bold statement. Superior to what and in what ways?

Ryan R wrote: The ones that have the highest probability to become totally wise. Wise individuals have emerged within the White race, the Indian race and the Asian race, but not the black race to the best of my knowledge. And almost all of these individuals have been males.

Okay! You ain't diggin' them there niggers. Gotcha, Tex.

I dunno, there, hoss; Jimi Hendrix seemed pretty fucking right on---I've extracted more wisdom from his song lyrics than I have from the totality of your posts. Plus he was the world's best guitar player and had more soul in his hangnail you have in your entire body. He, in fact, was a musical genius.

But I's gonna stop there, boss. I ain't wants ya to sick none o' yo boys afta me; yunno? Say nuh-more? K? K? K?

Ryan R wrote: Go live in Africa, with no access to plumbing, or sanitation. After you drink sewer infested drinking water or muddy puddle water for a few days, I bet you’d sing a different tune. (*) I am grateful to live in Canada because it is a democratic, technologically advanced country, and the quality of life here is wonderful compared to the rest of the world. It was surely luck to be born here.

Why the hell would I move to a filthy shithole of a civilization (stripped of natural resources) trying to act like other, better-painted and richer shithole civilizations to "do without" the things I already do without? Being poor is awesome---that's what we need more of, you phony buddhite.

(*) That's because you're a shifty, rationalizational, dubious, ego-humping ponce who's been sheltered and spoiled his whole life. The hardest thing you ever had to endure was likely being denied a new bike on your tenth birthday. Be honest now---what was your allowance as a kid? More than the yearly income of one of those lazy black slobs in Africa, I bet...yunno, that "stupid race." (Which was just fine before being conquered, exploited, and enslaved by technologically advanced nations, oddly enough.)

Of course you love it---it gives you everything you want. It's fem-boy's paradise---unthreatened, not overly populated yet, and half our trees are still standing! It's a former English side-project that mutated into the effeminate neon Walmartland that it is today, only because England was too inept to hang onto it and the Americans too busy slaughtering red-skins to really bother (too much snow anyway---that won't be a problem in fifty years, though), kept safe and cozy by America (we're its little bitch, in case you forgot, that's why; an investment preserved until they run out of all their shit). So, think of yourself as a federal park inhabitant in this bureaucratic, pussy-breeding, politically correct corporate slut twit-factory of a country...that can explode and burn, for all I care. I'll piss on its ashes with a big old grin afterwards.

I don't think you have a bloody clue what goes on in this country, either.

Ryan R wrote:Just because something has a degree of negativity does not mean that it is entirely negative.

Great logic. So, if I pummelled you with a baseball all over your entire body except for your face, that wouldn't be negative?

Anyway, by what gage do you deem this negativity? The reason it is negative is because people who are feminine have arranged it so, for the logical goal of acquiring wealth and "power." This will never end of its own accord, thus the "negativity of technology" will never end---until the entire structure no longer stands---because corporate and military idiocy always steers (researches, funds, designs, develops, produces, monopolizes, markets, sells) the bulk of technology. To think otherwise is the same whimsical species of naivety that led those to invent things like alcohol, the first firearm, nuclear weapons, and goddamned farming in the first place.

We never fucking learn, and each generation is just getting stupider and stupider.

Ryan R wrote:Technology has positive attributes as well, and you ignore them.

Look, Adolf, you didn't even fucking read my last post, did you?

Anyway, that's a point of view----medical technology is on paper a fabluous idea, same with communism...until a hundred years pass and the population of the planet has tripled and kids are being born with three toes and one eye and the head the size of a watermellon (insert racial quip per your discretion). Hmm. All of the sudden it's negative---again. Why?

Nice clean environments, electric heat and clean air---wonderful idearz!---O, how women like you loved such comfort...until pandemic influenza wiped out millions (in the early part of the century) and later types of viral and bacteial strands adapted and mutated into more contagious and more deadlier forms as we've killed off everything Nature used to keep there to balance that shit out and keep it in check, not to mention employ it in the first place to manage species popualtions (see Black Death) when predators weren't around. Now we have superbugs in extreme isolation and can't even begin to try to figure out how to kill them. While we prey on ourselves, painting our evolution into a corner...

I could go on, but I get the impression you've already drifted off into fantasies of Spock throwing La Forge out of an airlock...

Ryan R wrote:I know technology has negative attributes, but I would still rather live in a society with it, as the quality of life is far superior.

Or in your case, that’s like a log in the woods telling a brave nomatic Nordicvs how to take a shit… lol.

Yipper...

Ryan R wrote: You're right, that’s not seeking security, that’s just plain insanity. You know, you and Osama bin Laden would get along just fine. You both could live together in the desert, roaming for days at a time, drinking water from the odd cactus, eating scorpions together, while fanning each other with electronic parts you gleefully stole from the evil city, and you two could lay under the sun together getting scorched severely by the rays until you both have skin cancer, oh how romantic! Oh how spiritual! : P ….

And little Ryan's facade of enlightenment comes tumbling down like a castle of marbles made with Elmer's glue. Too bad, I thought were doing rather well restraining yourself. It could be you have a black gene or something; you may want to look up your family tree---there could be apes still living in it, yunno. (That would be a good thing.)

Ryan R wrote: You're mentality reminds me of the life of this guy. How droll!

Ah, Bizzare, they don't make em like that anymore.

Anyway, I fail to see how that resembles me in any way: "He is an inept, greedy and self-absorbed stuntman who is frequently injured when his stunts go wrong."

1. Please demonstrate, in your quizzical brand name wisdom, how I'm inept and in what way?

2. Greedy? Hilarious.

3. Self-absorbed. Oh, that has been true before, but I don't think it applies anymore. I'd give my life to save just one acre of rainforest on the coast. That's probably how it's going to turn out anyway.

4. I don't risk my life for praise or money.

5. I think this is yet another unconscious transfer of yourself onto me.

Ryan R wrote: You can live a non-attached existence without intentionally putting yourself in harms way.

How? Why would you be so frantic to protect yourself if your ego was in good order and "life" wasn't an attachment?

Ryan R wrote:A risky life is not a wise life, you seem to have a romantic notion of what wisdom entails.

Here you go again---you can't see the wisdom in the phrase "Nothing ventured, nothing gained," because you've never risked a thing and always take the easy way out, like any feminine person would, for protection. So I can't knock you for that. Perfectly understandable---when I was 12 or 13, I was the same.

Romantic? As in "tending toward or suggestive of love or romance?" Hell, that's not me at all. That sounds like you, I expect. Or: "suggestive of an idealized view of reality?"

Now that is you. A practical view of reality comes through experience of living such a reality, which I have and which you have only had wet dreams about, so, no, wrong again.

And back to the point of thread, for a second time, please define Buddhism...or have you concluded your original purpose of the thread?

Nordicvs,

Were there plagues and depression and thousands of mental disorders? No. They were at the time of colonization among the soundest, strongest, most well-balanced, healthiest people in the world.

There has always been mental illness. Primitives caused less damage to the environment, but they were not psychologically advanced. They suffered the same delusions as people do presently.

Jimi Hendrix seemed pretty fucking right on.

Jimi Hendrix was not wise. Musical genius is in the same league as joggling as far as the enlightened sage is concerned. Moreover, even though there have been lots of intellectual blacks such as Al Sharpton, Barck Obama, and many others, those thinkers are still eons away from enlightenment. I haven’t found any evidence of even one enlightened black man, so my position stands until someone proves it wrong.

It’s not racist, its just factual. In the same way that stating that the probability of a women being enlightened is very low. Not impossible, but very low.

I don't think you have a bloody clue what goes on in this country, either.

oh Sure, there’s corruption, war, pollution, urban drift, a destruction of species and so on, but there are also positive things such as a boom in nutrition, green technology, better politics, advanced medical treatment, more affordable housing, green transportation, and so on. For every current problem, there are many intellectuals brainstorming trying to come up with innovative solutions, and only the best solutions will be retained.

We never fucking learn, and each generation is just getting stupider and stupider.

I don’t think so, I think you are simply deriving a lot of pleasure from this doom day vision of yours, I think the opposite is true. Increasing numbers of children are more knowledgeable than their parents in areas such as nutrition, science, the environment, using the internet etc. Many have easily surpassed the intelligence of their baby boomer parents, whose strong work ethic have turned them into a bunch of mindless drones. The youth these days are more selfish, which is a good thing. Selfishness leads to intellectual improvement, and the abandonment of old patterns that no longer work.

And back to the point of thread, for a second time, please define Buddhism...or have you concluded your original purpose of the thread?

Not Buddhism, A Buddha. Buddhism (the religion) is filled with contradictions and bogus ideas. People that openly practice Buddhism are mentally retarded. Check this out this guy . The Buddha didn’t practice Buddhism, he lived a wise existence. So the word Buddha is synonymous with the word sage, wise man, Man of the infinite, enlightened man or Ryan R, the word is not the thing, the signifier is not the signified, you get the idea?

Basically, what I saying is that you’re entire critique of civilization is rooted in negative emotion that you are addicted to, you derive emotional positivity from excessive negativity, you need to step back and realize how those ideas are feeding the center of your being in the same way a vampire feeds off the neck of a woman.

Seeing technology and civilization as the boogie man is your woman, and you are having a feeding frenzy with her.

*Ryan returns with his Spock mask back in order*

Ryan R wrote: There has always been mental illness.

How do you know this?

You don't, you're guessing, you haven't even looked into that. I can say, "There's always been people," and while that's somewhat true, it doesn't rationally defend any position if I were trying to disclaim the world's overpopulation of about 7 billion of us.

[I'll spell it out for you: whether or not there "always was" mental illness is hardly the point.]

Ryan R wrote: Primitives caused less damage to the environment, but they were not psychologically advanced. They suffered the same delusions as people do presently.

You wouldn't happen to have a list of these "same delusions," would you? (I'm not about to take your word for it.)

Show me evidence "primitives" harmed their environment. Show the statistical data that North American Natives were environmentally rescued when whites arrived, and I'll promptly concede this point to you. Otherwise, stuff this bullshit back up your bigotry matrix.

Ryan R wrote: Jimi Hendrix was not wise.

Going by what you consider wisdom (the degree by which one is able to raze environments and enslave others), I think you paid him a rather nice compliment.

Ryan R wrote:Musical genius is in the same league as joggling as far as the enlightened sage is concerned.

And "enlightenment" is in the same league as "joggling," whatever that is, as far as the musical genius goes. What's your point, other than claiming superiority for what you perceive genius to be?

You reading things and acting like an intellectual snob indicates neither wisdom nor enlightenment, but rather an ill species of pretense---which Jimi Hendrix did not have. He is superior to you in almost every way; he had vision and unmatched talent and great creativity (you have none of these), and he stood for what he believed (didn't go over to Vietnam to die for rich people) and didn't try to be something he wasn't. He was far more enlightened than you.

Ryan R wrote: Moreover, even though there have been lots of intellectual blacks such as Al Sharpton, Barck Obama, and many others, those thinkers are still eons away from enlightenment. I haven’t found any evidence of even one enlightened black man, so my position stands until someone proves it wrong.

It’s not racist, its just factual. In the same way that stating that the probability of a women being enlightened is very low. Not impossible, but very low.

No, it's not racism---it's smug bigotry. I can almost picture you with a top-hat and a monocle, sitting about with your academic ilk dressed like penguins, sipping brandy and dicussing Hemmingway with your peers, then suddenly---"Oh my, did you he'ar they are now letting dawkies into the public education centers?"

Ryan Van Rudolph: "My word. Absolutely ghastly; whatever shall they conceive of next?"

Ponce #2: "I know. It as though some of these liberal types feel that they're capable of the higher reasoning for which superior men such as ourselves are widely praised."

Ryan Van Rudolph: "Yes, quite. Savages. My brother, Regis, has two children in public classrooms as I speak. It is utterly obscene to think that little Herbert and Evander Jr. shall be sharing class space with negroid barbarians from who knows where. Our fine institutions ought to reflect the most cultured, refined, and enlightened of races only. Why, just look at their great nostrils---such results are sure to bring much unwanted impurity into our beloved bodily fluids. According to the esteemed Doctor Ernst Rüdin..."

Ryan R wrote: oh Sure, there’s corruption, war, pollution, urban drift, a destruction of species and so on, but there are also positive things such as a boom in nutrition,

Percent of people with normal (not fat, not skinny) body mass:

Men - Women (%)

Germany......... 53 37
Finland ............51 37
United Kingdom 46 38
Canada ............52 29
Switzerland ......49 30
France ............44 30
Denmark .........44 25
United States... 47 22
Sweden ...........44 25

"Mortality/Morbidity: Malnutrition is directly responsible for 300,000 deaths per year in children younger than 5 years in developing countries and contributes indirectly to over half the deaths in childhood worldwide."

Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change:

United States 60%
Sweden 58
United Kingdom 52
Japan 47
Netherlands 46
France 42
Canada 38

Don't get me started on diseases, birth defects, and mental illness...never before in history have humans been so weak, mentally, physically, and spiritually, so unhealthy and disjointed within communities, miserable, divided between genders, so overpopulated and yet in such silent agony of loneliness---and totally convinced of the opposite.

Ryan R wrote:green technology,

Such as?

Ryan R wrote:better politics,

I see you watch a lot of news...I fail to see how you equate swelling bureaucracies in bed with corporate colonialism as "better," but, then again, you think parks are a nice replacement for wilderness, so whatever.

I suppose progressively lower voter turn-outs signifies better government to you as well. As does the continuing war in the Middle East, war on "terror," war on drugs, war on crime, and stuff like this...

Inequality of income (0 = most equal society, 100 = the least equal):

United States 99
Canada 83
Netherlands 82
Switzerland 79
United Kingdom 78
Germany 66
Norway 60
Sweden 60

Average CEO’s pay as a multiple of an average worker’s pay:

United States 17.5
United Kingdom 12.4
Japan 11.6
Canada 9.6
France 8.9
Germany 6.5

Poverty level:

United States 17.1%
Canada 12.6
United Kingdom 9.7
Switzerland 8.5
Germany 5.6
Sweden 5.3
Norway 5.2

Children under the poverty level:

United States 22.4%
Canada 15.5
United Kingdom 9.3
Switzerland 7.8
Sweden 5.0
Germany 4.9
Norway 4.8

Ryan R wrote: advanced medical treatment, more affordable housing, green transportation, and so on.

Straight from the school texts. So naive...but at least your grades feed your ego, I expect, and make Mommy proud.

Ryan R wrote:For every current problem, there are many intellectuals brainstorming trying to come up with innovative solutions, and only the best solutions will be retained.

Yep, that's been taking place for a hundred years, and we've got more problems and people are more miserable than ever before. Like that "innovative idea" to cure the rabbit troubles in Australia---"Let's engineer a virus to kill them!" says dork in lab coat.

Fussy egghead number 2 replies: "Good idea! Hehee, snort, ha, snort. We can control it so it won't infect any other animals! Brilliant! We are so smart!!!1 lolz!"

How'd that work out for them?

Left-brainers specialized in some area does not innovation make; it's not the "best solutions" that are "retained," it's the cheapest ones that can be exploited into such technological marvels as weapons of war---like nuclear power, for example. Science is no separate noble entity devoted to some "betterment" of mankind, for crissakes; it's funded and only supported if it's ultimately profitable for rulers, or otherwise deemed to be more efficient at killing men. And it always will be.

You have so much to unlearn, young one.

Ryan R wrote: I don’t think so, I think you are simply deriving a lot of pleasure from this doom day vision of yours,

How little you understand. It took me twenty years to finally and fully comprehend what this world was all about---I was probably more in denial than you are now---and there wasn't anything pleasurable about it.

Ryan R wrote: I think the opposite is true. Increasing numbers of children are more knowledgeable than their parents in areas such as nutrition, science, the environment, using the internet etc. Many have easily surpassed the intelligence of their baby boomer parents, whose strong work ethic have turned them into a bunch of mindless drones. The youth these days are more selfish, which is a good thing. Selfishness leads to intellectual improvement, and the abandonment of old patterns that no longer work.

Better grades in school is not indicative of intelligence. Selfish = greedy = material = feminine = an accelerated more-of-the-same. You're an ignoramous. We've already established that true mental development results from difficulty, not ease, and yet here are once more, back inside your comfy delusion, trying to sell me cyber snake oil. Overall, kids are stupider than their parents, who are rarely around anymore because they're either split up and hate each other or they are run ragged by long hours chasing materialist desires and steeping themselves in drugs and alcohol to deal with it.

You're probably good at math---let's see if you can add up the following American numbers (American because the US creates the pattern other nations follow---especially Canada---but I'll throw in comparative stats from others countries for perspective)...

65 million American youth in a total population of about 300 million, third highest on Earth.

+

Percent of all children born out of wedlock:

Sweden 46.4%
Denmark 41.9
United States 21.5
United Kingdom 19.2
Canada 12.1
Germany 9.4
Netherlands 8.3
Switzerland 5.6
Japan 1.0

+

Sexually active teenage population:

Norway 66%
United States 65
United Kingdom 57
Germany 56
Canada 53
Italy 34
France 34

+

Percent of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control:

Germany 95%
United Kingdom 92
Netherlands 88
Norway 87
Sweden 79
Canada 73
Denmark 70
United States 56

+

In the United States, there's an estimated number of TV homes in the order 109.6 million; average time kids spend watching TV each day: 4 Hours.

What do these little future brainiacs watch? Discovery channel? History channel? "ABC's Desperate Housewives is the most popular broadcast-network television show with kids aged 9-12 according to Nielsen stats. (Jan. 05) According to Nielsen the top TV shows for 12-17 year old girls were: American Idol, The O.C., Will & Grace, and One Tree Hill. The top TV shows for 12-17 year old boys were: The Simpsons, Malcolm, and The O.C.

Ah, yes, fountains of enlightenment and intelligence---Bart throwing doughnuts at his grandfather and other moronic, shallow, materialist chucklehead fests...the next generation's gonna be an army of buddhas, no doubt.

+

54% of kids have a TV in their bedroom. - Ibid; 44% of kids say they watch something different when they're alone than with their parents (25% choose MTV); 66% of children (ages 10 to 16) surveyed say that their peers are influenced by TV shows; 62% say that sex on TV shows and movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young; and according to the American Psychiatric Association, "The debate is over… For the last three decades, the one predominant finding in research on the mass media is that exposure to media portrayals of violence increases aggressive behavior in children." ["Witnessing repeated violent acts can lead to desensitization and a lack of empathy for human suffering."]

[Yes, lack of compassion for others---crucial trait for buddhas...]

+

"A study of 1,792 adolescents ages 12-17 showed that watching sex on TV influences teens to have sex. Youths who watched more sexual content where more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities in the year following the beginning of the study. Youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile. Basically, kids with higher exposure to sex on TV were almost twice as likely than kids with lower exposure to initiate sexual intercourse." - Study Conducted by RAND and published in the September 2004 issue of Pediatrics.

A studylinking TV and childhood obesity.

A studyof kids watching more TV than studying.

A studydemonstrating increased aggression among children and television.

On and on---yeah, geniuses to be, I'm certain---there are thousands of these studies out there, and I haven't even grazed the exalted internetz yet. lololz

There's no way I could convince someone who's head is buried in feces that it's not actually chocolate pudding. Your delusions and funkyass rose-coloured glasses obviously give you much comfort; your ignorance of the world at large, what people are going through, how this biosphere is dying, what's taking place in war-torn regions, and your utter lack of historical perspective is staggeringly evident.

You've rationalized a nifty little construct of this techno-metaphysical-wonderland in your head (every topic that arises you grab it and start stroking---like this one, edging back into it and away from the actual subject matter), and I can understand that---been there, done that. In such masculine bankruptcy, I can see the motivation to desperately cling to something, anything, and fabricate a make-believe future, denying current trends of human misery, greed and idiocy and overwhelming evidence of pure ecocide. I was the same way when I was 21, thought I knew everything and daydreamed of the wonderful techno-paradise it would be, our Cyber Messiah...just like how those equally daft idealists back in the 1950s envisioned jetpacks, and automatic highways and meals in pill form and Buck Rogers. The World of Tomorrow! Alas, they too underestimated much---like feminine greed, human stupidity, and how materialist want overrides all other considerations in the ultimate 'to-do list' of human priorities, despite our over-praised consciousness. Corporations steer technology, because they can afford to, and they do so, along with governmental winks and handshakes, to make money and nothing more.

It's pure fantasy, all entangled in the left-brain-ruled head of yours, to justify your addictions and ego feeding. [And I know how painful it will be for you once reality comes back and the bubble bursts. That humungous ego popping always stings like a motherfucker. But, then again, that's exactly what you need---a shock to your system and a boot up your monumental complacency. You, little one, require a humbling of the highest degree.]

Jim Morrison said it best...

Each generation wants new symbols, new people, new names. They want to divorce themselves from their predecessors.

Because that's the best way to dupe them into being a good little consumerites, and you have great potential in this, that is certain.

Ryan R wrote: Not Buddhism, A Buddha. Buddhism (the religion) is filled with contradictions and bogus ideas. People that openly practice Buddhism are mentally retarded. Check this out this guy.

Obviously it's never occured to you why more masculine systems and philosophies ultimately and inevitably return to the feminine---to religion...

Ryan R wrote:The Buddha didn’t practice Buddhism, he lived a wise existence. So the word Buddha is synonymous with the word sage, wise man, Man of the infinite, enlightened man or Ryan R, the word is not the thing, the signifier is not the signified, you get the idea?

So, why is it you're not "living without" as he did? Any idea what "ascetic" means? What an utter hypocrite you are---which is how you piece together your belief system, through this perplexing materialist fixation with stuff (high-tech toys) and paying lip service to what you see as "wisdom" or "enlightenment" to either further your superiority complex (stemming from vast degrees of inferiority, always) or, as I say, justify your addictions.

More to the point, how can austere, spiritual men gather in such numbers and create this super-duper-hyper computerized, information processing, neural network of a social system when it's the precise opposite of an austere life, devoid of want? (Hence: psuedo-buddhas.)

Ryan R wrote:Basically, what I saying is that you’re entire critique of civilization is rooted in negative emotion that you are addicted to, you derive emotional positivity from excessive negativity, you need to step back and realize how those ideas are feeding the center of your being in the same way a vampire feeds off the neck of a woman.

Seeing technology and civilization as the boogie man is your woman, and you are having a feeding frenzy with her.

I think you think so. Whatever makes it easier to dismiss me as a perceived threat to your attachments---you go girl! =)

Nordicvs wrote:

It's pure fantasy, all entangled in the left-brain-ruled head of yours, to justify your addictions and ego feeding. [And I know how painful it will be for you once reality comes back and the bubble bursts. That humungous ego popping always stings like a motherfucker. But, then again, that's exactly what you need---a shock to your system and a boot up your monumental complacency. You, little one, require a humbling of the highest degree.]

It’s not pure fantasy, it’s a possibility, just like your total destruction/decadence theory is a possibility, there are many possibilies related to future outcomes. Technology could prove to destroy mankind or help liberate him, but one cannot know for certain.

The main point is that I'm not emotionally involved in either outcome, although it would be better for humanity if we learnt how to harness the powers of technology, and balance it with the environment. However, I agree with you that it may destroy the planet, but I don’t really care. There is nothing I can do to stop that outcome. For instance: if I sell my computer, and start sleeping in my tent every night, its not going to matter, you follow?

And yes, there are certain types of technological inventions that I enjoy, but that doesn’t mean I’m attached to them.

For instance: I can either choose to boil water in a kettle to make green tea, or I can go outside start a fire, and put a pale over the fire, and wait. Either way results in the same outcome. Each method requires consumption of energy. Do you think I'm attached to using a kettle? Does that mean your precious Indian cultures were attached to making fires? It’s all rubbish! You can use technology without being attached to it.

Also, I enjoy writing on genius forum, does that mean I'm attached to computers? What are my the other options? Should I start making smoke signals from behind my house and wait for someone to respond? Does that mean that Indians were attached to making smoke signals as a means to communicate with each other? Rubbish!

Technology is completely natural; the problem is that humans are not rational enough to use it responsibly.