Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by sushil yadav, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    A very limited set of desires, with a great deal of denial involved, is ruling the world right now.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Desires have always ruled the world because desires are the world.


    And not a limited set of desires. All man’s decisions are desire based.

    Desire for food
    Desire for drink
    Desire to reproduce
    The reproduction desire leads to desires for wealth , attractiveness, security etc.
    Desire to survive.
    And then we come to desire for liberation
    Desire for God
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    We can see that nature is filled with desire.
    Animals and plants desire to reproduce more than anything.
    Everything desires to eat.
    Plants desire sunlight and water.
    Water desires to run downhill

    Nature is itself desire
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    No, a limited set of desires. The people who jump over and deny desires for community, desire not to hurt others, desire to be careful, desire not to rush into things, etc. have had far too much control.
     
  8. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Ok some desires are more prevalent than others, that is true.

    But if you are talking about people, then the reason that those limited set of desires are most prevalent is that people give those desires most importance.

    Sorry, but it is a fact of the world that most people put their own hunger , thirst, security and reproductive desires first (and those of their immediate families). After those desires are satisfied people will show more altruistic tendencies to help their fellow humans; not to hurt others; help with community etc.

    It is a comforting thought to think that the world is controlled by a selfish minority, but sadly this is not the case. It is controlled by a selfish majority.

    There are of course exceptions to this, there are people who put others before themselves - but these are a minority.
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Let me ask...

    What would you expect?


    Seriously...


    And here's the fundamental underlying doohickey:

    If what you expect isn't what you see, there's something wrong with your expectations, no?






    Further:

    Denial is an important tool for mind's capacity to cope with the demands of "reality". People are basically over-stimulated, and don't have minds that are well equipped to deal with everything in the world. Denial is a circuit breaker that flips when perceived stimulous threatens any conceptual relationships that are "structural" so to speak, in that they are key to the processing of stimulous as the person in question has learned to do so. So when they are threatened, denial protects that mind from potentially cracking (or perhaps just over-working).

    Philosophical dabblers, and well hell just people thinking about this stuff tend to forget that "truth" is impersonal, and try to "find the truth for themselves"... but judge things like "denial" as a necessarily detracting force. I say, all forces in play are part of nature... and understanding their interaction in terms of function and utility are the philosophical imperative. Thus, to really understand nature in all its forms, philosophically I don't think there can be a "too much" in this regard. Too much as compared to what? YOUR ideal? Is YOUR ideal, necessarily "THE ideal"? Meh.

    People are a reaction to their environment... they're an ever-changing propensity with a continous theme mandated by their perspective (what's happened to them, how they percieved it, how they are percieving it what's currently happening, and the evolution of their initial conditions).

    Bah.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2007
  10. sushil yadav Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    Grantywanty,

    You are very correct - we were not created to chase endless desires - we need to show concern/ compassion for environment.

    People are so individualistic/ self centered.

    When they fall sick they rush to the Doctor.
    When they fall sick they rush to the Hospital.

    When these same people are told - The Earth is sick - all ecosystems are dying, they say - why bother - why should we alter our lifestyle - why try to heal - it was meant to happen this way.

    And then these people discuss spirituality in discussion forums - not knowing that they are millions of light years away from spirituality.

    sushil_yadav
    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2007
  11. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    I have a lot of sympathy for your feelings here. I just know that my love of nature and horror about what is happening is very much a selfish thing. I do not mean that I only worry about what damage to the earth will eventually do to me or my children. I mean, I love the earth. I feel it is mine and I am its. I am not noble or selfish or self-sacrificing in my concerns for it. My concerns come out of my desires and identity. I don't worry about other people's desires. I worry that they are so stupid they have cut off desires that would make them love this planet.
     
  12. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    No. If I go to my kid's school and am surprised to find a big hole in the floor of my kid's classroom he can fall through, there was nothing wrong with my expectation that he would be safer.





    REad you argument carefully. You will find that it also 'explains' my position. yet you find fault with my position and have taken steps to counter it. You see what I mean. My position is also natural, so what the hell are you doing, trying to tell me not to judge other positions when here you are with what you think is an objective position judging mine. Why weren't you silent? Did I go against YOUR ideal?

    You've contradicted yourself.
     
  13. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    What do you think of Unabomber manifest he seems shared some of your views and acted. What are you going to do about industrial society? Move to remote area, become Amish like, what are you going to do?
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846

    That sentence doesn't make sense and I can't quite interpret. He would be safer elsewhere?

    First, if you expected to not find a hole you were wrong because when you got there and saw the evidence there was a hole. Something happened to cause the hole of which you must not have been aware eh? So you were wrong because you lacked information. You couldn't have "expected" that he'd be safer elsewhere without knowledge of the hole. You could of course then decide that he'd be safer elsewhere, but your newly formed expectation doesn't really mean shit as you just discovered there is potentially information missing about any situation in which you place him, unless of course you're a moran and can't quite realize that.



    No I think you're being unnecessarily defensive really. I don't think that in any way, I countered your position.

    Please illuminate where I asked you not to judge stuff. My only criticism of your post is that you seem to think that what you observe, which I believe to be accurate... shouldn't be the case. But it IS the case, so obviously IMO, it SHOULD be or... IT WOULDN'T BE... as the universe tends only to allow what is to be if it managed to come to be so through the processes allowed in the universe and such.


    I don't think so, but maybe. If so please show me where and I'll work on it if I can see your point. I don't think I contradicted YOU either, I just added a bit to your argument that you seemed to have ignored, didn't mentioned, or couldn't see.
     
  15. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    You're an idiot. Who the shit are you to say what "we" should show concern for? I suppose you DO if you're persuasive enough though. Funny that. This however, means nothing as to the validity of what you try to persuade people to do. There is no judge for that besides yourself and your incredibly egotistical, limited scope. Of course it couldn't occur to you that your behavior is just as egotistical, perhaps much much moreso than those who you claim to be problematic.

    It's funny that you are doing exactly what you claim is wrong with people while you criticize them for it like this:

    Did it ever occur to you in the slightest that there is a reason for that? What is, IS for a good farking reason. The UNIVERSE brought it to be, no matter who tries to take or shirk credit. Try that premise and gank your damaged mind before it's too late for you to ever understand a farking thing. Maybe though, it's just your function to be a douche.

    Wow, how provential. Here's a smidge for you, captain oblivious: People can tell when they're hurt for certain. If my arm hurts, I have direct information coming from my brain "oh shit, my arm hurts". If some douche like you tells them "the earth is sick", all they have is some douche's word for it. Get it? Too complicated? Yes I think you'll miss that obvious point and opt for oblivious.

    How about this: prove your premise that the "earth is sick". I think you'll have a really, really hard time doing so - especially given that the earth isn't an entity that can "be sick" in the usual sense of the word.

    As if a douche like yourself has any authority on the matter. Oh shit yeah you like it like that eh? Yeah, guide me sushiljackoff. Guide me. Idiot.

    Lol, ironically if YOUR mind were offered as the only evidence to your retarded claim, I'd have to agree with it, at least the "mind" part. Thankfully, there's more evidence that that of your shallow hippy-speak.
     
  16. Patrick Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    Any progress on emotion experiments?

    To Sushil Yadav,
    I find your writings on the neural circuitry of emotion to be very intriguing. I was wondering if you have had any luck in your correspondence with university people, in getting them to perform any of your proposed experiments. I noticed that you have not updated your web page for a while, so I was wondering if you had made any progress. I too have done much research on the topic of sustainability as it applies to cities and believe that it is possible to have cities that co-exist with the environment. Cities existed before Industrialization and I believe they will continue to exist after Industrialization, although they will be radically different from what exists now. Much work must be done before sustainability can be achieved. I have posted the full details of a plan for a city and its economy that is in harmony with the environment. I would very much appreciate your thoughts as I am still in the process of refining what I have written. Thank you very much for your time.
    Please follow this link to read the details of my plan:
    sustainablecity.blogspot.com
     
  17. sushil yadav Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    wesmorris,

    Did you consume drugs before posting?

    Are you aware of all the nonsense that you are writing?

    Who are you?

    What makes you think you are a competent Judge/ Examiner of my work?

    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
    sushil_yadav
     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Ah, diversion and misdirection. I suppose it's all you have?

    Your drivel is nothing less than insulting.

    "And then these people discuss spirituality in discussion forums - not knowing that they are millions of light years away from spirituality"

    lol. and you're willing to sell them the map eh? sheer nobility. "light years from spirituality"? wtf? you say I don't make sense? lol, I'M on drugs? wigga pleez.

    No it makes perfect sense to me. Did you read it? You've said nothing to indicate that you did. I asked a few valid questions that you completely ignored because they were phrased in a manner that's insulting to you.

    For instance:

    - You don't bother to defend your egotism, as you must not realize how you reek of it. Maybe you're okay with it, which I wouldn't have a problem with were it not for you chastising "everyone else" for exactly what you're doing. So you're a blatant hypocrite.

    - You don't bother to consider that all things are in balance at any given moment, even those that you find distasteful. The most egotistical possible act is IMO, to presume that the universe's capacity for balance is wrong, not your pretense of it. It's how children think, which I guess makes you a child. I asked you to consider that there must be good reason for X being as it is, since if it weren't "supposed to be that way" it would be different. You ask if I'm on drugs. Brilliant.

    - I ask if you can see the simple reason that explains what seems to baffle you "people don't believe me if I say the earth is sick".

    - I ask you to demonstrate the "sickness" you purport in a previous post, while letting you know it's going to be refuted. So you choose "did you do drugs before posting".

    - I point out the sheer egotism of your remark on spirituality.

    - I conclude you're an idiot, moran, etc. I think I supported it fairly well for the quick first draft version. You offer no substanative rebuttal.

    wesmorris, der duh.

    the fact that you come off like a wannabe hippy douche for the most part. sheezus you can't even fathom that can you?

    Industrial Soceity is Necessary for the Advancement of Mind and Environment
    wes_morris

    Oh i feel so wise now that I use a long title and bold tag. Maybe if I repeat my stupid shit enough, people will believe it.
     
  19. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    Yes. But my point was that having expectations that turn out not to fit a local reality or current reality or the seeming limits of reality does not mean that there was something wrong with this or that expectation. It seemed like you made the point that expecations must match reality or there is something wrong with them. I think that is an impovrished stance.




    Well, perhaps I misunderstood. I think the above sentence should not have a comma. If that is the case, then I did in fact misunderstand you and was unnecessarily defensive. I guess you could argue that the universe allowed the above sentence as written, but I have the feeling the intended meaning - that you didn't counter my position - is better expressed without the comma. Or perhaps with another comma after 'that'. It's a good example of what I meant, however minor. Expectations are about what could have been expressed better. It is a stance that assumes it knows the intentions of things, intentions that may or may not be coming through right now, but may better in the future precisely because of expectations, expectations themselves being parts of reality and many of them not the parts that need to back down so real intentions can come through.

    That may be a bit tough to follow, but it is in fact a fairly unique idea. Spend some time with it or don't.
     
  20. sushil yadav Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    Ecomurderer,

    The words you have used tell a great deal about the family and culture that raised you.

    If earth is not sick then what are millions of environmentalists fighting for?

    You are operating from a safe environment over here.

    Try posting in some of the radical environmental/ anti-globalization forums your insane opinion that "earth is not sick" , "ecosystems are not getting destroyed". People are going to kick you in the back.

    The proof of environmental destruction is everywhere - The evidence of environmental destruction is everywhere. But some people don't get it because they are living with their eyes and ears closed.

    There are some geniuses who demand proof of everything.
    They won't accept anything without proof.

    oh - yes!

    Where is the proof - where is the proof - they will cry.
    Where is the scientific proof - where is the scientific proof - they will cry.


    How do people accept their father as their father?
    Where is the proof?
    Where is the scientific proof?

    Scientific proof comes from DNA testing.
    How many people have got the DNA test conducted?

    sushil_yadav
    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2007
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846

    It's about acceptance really. Reality: can you accept it? I think people have a really hard time because of simply things like expectations that they simply will not release, regardless of evidence that they were obviously incorrect. It sounds simple, but "the reality" isn't. People suffer greatly because of their attachment to expectations that were clearly wrong.


    You're probably right. I don't spend enough time on that stuff and screw it up frequently.

    You're probably right. I'm a fairly half-assed writer.

    It is also tends to place "intention" into things that can't have them.

    Yah, miscommunication is really pretty easy to happen unless you're quite familiar with those with whom you communicate. I think it quite illuminates that expectations should be tenative.... fluid even, or dissapointment will likely be prevalant.
     
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Which expresses your stupidity quite clearly. I haven't really talked about the environment at all, only how YOU relate to it and why you're just an egotist. So in retataliation, you find me hurting something that isn't you, even though my entire attack has be directly at you. THIS is quite revealing as to the damage your ego could cause were people to take your stupid ass seriously, which I'm sure some do. You can't even see what's happening here.

    conclusion: your tactic is that if you are attacked, say your attacker is attacking the environment such that you can invoke the power of the related ideas. note that the rest of your WEAK ASSED retort continues with this childish premise.

    *chuckle* oh man seriously, this is how you think eh? Of course I wouldn't have devised an emotional attack simply to force you to expose yourself for the child you are eh? Instead, it's indicative of my breeding. YAY for exposing your ass further, you elitist prat.

    So this is argument from popularity, that's fallacious - and of course I'd expect no less from a childish egotist such as yourself.

    Here at sci you mean? LOL. I thought you meant "in your home" at first, which yeah it's fairly safe I guess, but one never knows eh? But no instead you're talking about the digital environment. Okay if you want to play that game: I was here first, bitch. You came to MY "safe environment" and started talking your childish shit.

    You may note, you fucking retard, that I never said "the earth is not sick". I said "why should anyone believe YOUR retarded ass when you make that claim". I did hint at the fact that "the earth is not an entity that can be sick in the typical way", but that's as far as it went. Oh, and I don't go to those type of forums because I've alway presumed they're full of morons like you.

    And some people can't accept the cycle of life, that "the environment" is constantly undergoing cycles of death and rebirth. As far as I can see, there is no way to "harm" a system that is self-balancing. One may only bemoan the effects.

    Neither should you dumbass, but your ego tells you that your message is more important than substance. Tard.

    *sigh* seriously this is pathetic. A "father" is a social relationship that can be re-established over time with one person or many, whom are easily recognized. The "ecosystem" is a world-wide system, a teansy portion of which one can "see" physically at any given time, which so many factors in play that one model cannot be said to fully describe it. Oh but sure comparing the two is valid because you're an idiot trying to score emotional points with those you'd love to see "kicking your attacker in the back". Fuck you.

    Your attempt at a point is destroyed. I'm sure however, you'll tell me how I'm murdering the environment for having exposed you for the moran you are.

    Industrial Soceity is Necessary for the Advancement of Mind and Environment
    wes_morris

    Oh i feel so wise now that I use a long title and bold tag. Maybe if I repeat my stupid shit enough, people will believe it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2007
  23. sushil yadav Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    64
    Patrick,

    Thanks for the comment.

    You are right - cities existed before industrialization. The major difference between pre-industrial cities and industrial cities is the level of population and consumerism. Today 50% of world population - 3 billion people are living in cities. Most of these people are using hundreds and thousands of consumer goods and services.

    The destructive impact of industrial cities on ecosystems is thousands of times greater than pre-industrial cities.

    The experiments I have proposed are primarily meant for those people who understand only the language of science. We don't need experiments to understand that our present lifestyle is destroying our Minds and Environment - the evidence is everywhere - left, right and center. The craze and fetish for science and scientific proof has mainly existed for the last 50 - 100 years. People have lived on this planet for thousands of years without needing scientific proof to understand something. It is Science and Technology that created the consumerist Industrial Society which has led to restlessness of Mind and destruction of Nature/ Environment. We don't need more science or more scientific proof. Science is not the solution - Science is the problem.

    Two things that have destroyed Environment are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism. Science and Technology is responsible for both these problems. World population was less than 1 billion in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus. When man made medicines/ antibiotics he created disaster - population increased very rapidly. In the absence of Science, Technology, Industrialization/ Industrial Revolution, the two problems of overpopulation and overconsumerism would not exist.

    sushil_yadav
    Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
    ePhilosopher
    Corrupt
    ForeignPolicy
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2007

Share This Page