You are ornery as all hell, but I have a weak spot for iconoclasts.millipodium wrote: Your on the wrong board bro, here's something more up your alley
Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.reedsch wrote:You are ornery as all hell, but I have a weak spot for iconoclasts.millipodium wrote: Your on the wrong board bro, here's something more up your alley
I think most equate Nihilism with hopelessness. Acknowledgment of the fact that everything ends in a black hole would require the corresponding emotional outlook to qualify as Nihilistic, otherwise it would more properly be referred to as Realistic. My own demise does not make the world a less lovely place.
Who appointed you arbiter of definitions Mr. Daniel Webster? What exactly do you think "values" are? 100% EMOTIONAL.millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.reedsch wrote:Who appointed you arbiter of definitions Mr. Daniel Webster? What exactly do you think "values" are? 100% EMOTIONAL.millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.
But to acknowledge your Webster privileges for a moment, how would you define the difference between a fatalist and a nihilist?
reedsch, what you need to understand about milli, is that the word nihilism, to him, has a meaning that is so broad and flexible that it's pointless having a dicussion with him.in response to reedsch, millipodium wrote:
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.
I go by the actual definitionCory Duchesne wrote:reedsch, what you need to understand about milli, is that the word nihilism, to him, has a meaning that is so broad and flexible that it's pointless having a dicussion with him.in response to reedsch, millipodium wrote:
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.
Despite I have clearly stated my beliefs and on a variety of subjects(in this discussion, the focus was on agiculture)- I still get labeled the nihilist.
This makes no sense.
----------------------------------
Milli, for the last time, in regards to agriculture - I believe there needs to be a radically shift in our approach to producing food.
Rather than having less than 1% of the population producing food, maybe 70% or more should be producing food.
And the way they produce food should rely less on tilling the soil and should instead focus more on establishing perenial tree and bush crops, there should be more emphasis on any foods that can be produced without anual tilling and sowing. The animals that we eat should be less dependent on conditions that require alot of human labor.
The reason we arent doing this now is because perenial foods and less maintenance animals tend to not taste as good.
Another reason is the factor of entertainment, the aesthetic gratifications of culture have such a powerful hold on young minds and old, that meaningful intelligent work becomes intolerably unstimulating, depressing simply because they require sensitive, sublte minds that love what is commonly regarded as dry and terrifying. It is simply not possible to produce endless entertainments and luxuries without mercilessly exploiting other countries and regulating the general population to an eneverating and dull work routine.
Another big factor is that relying mostly on tree crops demands a mind that is willing to value the survival of future generations.
One has to be motivated to do work that may not show much profit until one is dead. Ones work should profit future humans as much or even more than the present generation.
- -- the older generation has a hard time mustering up the energy to plant trees because they don't feel that they will profit in any way from the work.
By the time the trees are producing food, the older generation who planted them will probably be dead.
And so that is why a philosophy or way of life aimed at ending the ego (and making the totality ones identity) is important.
The present general population, like milli, is not interested in thinking to far into the future.
living for the shallow gratifications of the moment combined with surviving the laziest and thoughtless way as possible is all they really value --- and they are unconcsious of this!
And thus there lives are a confused, idiotic struggle - marked by the occasional joy but mostly littered with mostly angry protests towards an illusionary enemy.
The Advances in food production have [in part] created a system that rests on highly finite resources - the effect is that populations grow to large numbers in areas that really aren't suitable for supporting high populations.milli wrote: you've changed your discourse on agriculture. Before you agreed that the advances in food production allowed too many humans to live. Now you're backpedalling.
Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people. And it is wrong. We may agree on this one.Cory Duchesne wrote:The Advances in food production have [in part] created a system that rests on highly finite resources - the effect is that populations grow to large numbers in areas that really aren't suitable for supporting high populations.milli wrote: you've changed your discourse on agriculture. Before you agreed that the advances in food production allowed too many humans to live. Now you're backpedalling.
Take Newfoundland in Canada for instance. That place is a rock, hardly suitable for producing much food. The fish popluation has been totally pillaged - there is no fish left - and that leaves the population of newfoundland totally dependent on other countries soil and oceans (which are also increasingly unstable). The Newfoundland population is highly vulnerable to being cut off from a food suply.
The advances in food production have also made it easier for the indolent general population to take the availability of food for granted.
People have no realistic conception of reality and instead their minds are focused on the personal lives of Angelina jolie, Brad Pit, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the next amercian idol, etc.
Milli,milli wrote:Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people.
Your responses are totally loaded with value interpretations, yet you can not or will not defend your own assertions. Is this because you perceive them to be self-evident?millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life.
...
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.
Value is proportional to scarcity. So yes, anything that is abundant is not valued. Farmers happily limit food production when the price they receive for their effort is not sufficient. I have no idea though how you'd introduce scarcity otherwise. Nature never willingly limits itself (at least as far as I can see), it goes pedal to the metal until it runs out of gas or some other external factor constrains it.Cory Duchesne wrote: The advances in food production have also made it easier for the indolent general population to take the availability of food for granted.
I don't care what you think, dipshit. Being an evil genocidal fuckstick is not enlightenment.reedsch wrote:Your responses are totally loaded with value interpretations, yet you can not or will not defend your own assertions. Is this because you perceive them to be self-evident?millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life.
...
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.
Idle rage against the machine. Your stock is dropping.
I don't think you are aware of the pun you fell into there, nor am I sure if you've given much time and energy to understanding the complexity and precariousness of mainstream agriculture.red wrote:I have no idea though how you'd introduce scarcity otherwise. Nature never willingly limits itself (at least as far as I can see), it goes pedal to the metal until it runs out of gas
That is one of the problems with bright people, they tend to assume that they are the only ones God gave any intelligence to, and that anyone who disagrees with them is because of faulty logic, lack of information. It is quite obvious that stored hydrocarbon energy has been converted into biomass, a significant part of it human flesh. Sure, the wheels could come off at any time (another pun for you). My point is that nature is not self-limiting. My suspicion is that the mass of humanity will not scale back their consumption until they are forced to by external conditions. However we are not lemmings, and it is possible to change course before ramming the iceberg. The real problem is the vested financial interest in the status quo: factory food and farming, Cheetos culture, etc. Fat cats will indeed drive their gravy train right off the cliff.Cory Duchesne wrote: I don't think you are aware of the pun you fell into there, nor am I sure if you've given much time and energy to understanding the complexity and precariousness of mainstream agriculture.
Ad hominem attack. Not effective.reedsch wrote:Even the village idiot has a tale to tell, but thank you anyway for proving that your further commentary can be disregarded with no danger of missing something actually useful.millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.
Your empty personal attacks are just worthless, that's all.
You're blaming the victim, because you don't have the nuts to hold perpetrators responsible. The Elite dictate the "common values" you disdain.Cory Duchesne wrote:Milli,milli wrote:Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people.
Please consider:
Food was never meant to be grown in the areas where large populations have unwisely inflated. Therefore, it is not wise to assert that ‘agriculture was taken away from the people’.
These people never had agriculture to begin with.
People are generally born in areas where agriculture was never practiced and/or can’t be practiced so these people lived their lives (or are now living their lives) buying their food with money they earn doing jobs that do not directly attack the problem of unwise population growth.
These jobs often encourage unwise population growth or the jobs and people running them are simply amoral and completely divorced from any useful information.
Another thing worth considering is that a life of farming does not bring in the luxuries that are concomitant with a hot wife.
A life of a farmer is by no means a desirable one, generally speaking. Especially these days! Men and women have never been so spoiled rotten.
And as I have asserted earlier – there needs to be a brand new approach to agriculture. The old approach not only requires too much labor but it gradually ruins the land.
-----------------------------------------------------
Anyhow, Personally, I think that an indolent, foolish and slavish life is more comforting to the ego than freedom.
People generally, when faced between a) being exploited, unconscious mules and b) living with consciousness, freedom and integrity, will *unconsciously* end up living in a way that leaves them defined by the former definition.
If you have the vitality and health for the job Milli, then the role of, the current prevalence of, and the nature of “unconsciousness†is a factor that really needs consideration if you are to be a sane individual.
I think that things are the way they are simply because the majority of people unconsciously want them to be.
It’s not so much that they consciously want to suffer or consciously want to be exploited and stupid. The truth is that people are born both largely unconscious and endowed with a mind and environment of peers that leaves their mind incapable of developing in a way that inst prioritized around whatever is most sensually gratifying in the immediate.
And that which is most sensually gratifying in the immediate is the most foolish.
In other words, people are naturally inclined to have faith in stupidity (or not have faith in intelligence) and are likewise inclined to be terrified and pained by intelligence.
Why do you think they crucified Jesus and Socrates?
It’s true that the environment plays a big role in keeping people dumb - -but the illuminati? Come on now – look how naturally inclined young children are to be jealous and exploitative. And look at all the silly rituals and traditions that the parents unquestioningly coerce their young children into. There really is not that much ‘forced coercion’ or conspiracy happening here by a cloaked and nefarious illuminati. Just take a good look at your typical approach to parenting.
People are generally very eager to be idiots. No need to bring the illuminati into all of this. If you want to blame some sort of external agency – blame the mainstream, common values, mainstream cultural traditions and methods of parenting.
The whole of societies values are prioritized around the core value of sensual bodily titillation - - - and to change this fact may not be possible through any sort of external coercion!
Over the next century or two, larger amounts of the population may gradually start having an inner impulse to live more philosophically, but perhaps they won’t. Maybe genetic engineering will be required.
Don't tell me Ted Bundy was 'made' fucked up.
The guy was born that way. His brain should have been preserved and studied. Or better, he should have been kept alive and his living brain should have been studied by neuroscientists and compared with normal brains.
But people are too stupid to support much intelligence.
Revenge is far too powerful of an undercurrent for anything too intelligent to happen in society.
