Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mark UX, Sep 4, 2015.
Thanks for this interesting post, I appreciate it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's fairly straightforward, really: much of what you are saying is beyond just wrong. It's dangerously, destructively wrong. And while it is vague, to the extent that you may understand the implications of what you are saying, one might consider it downright evil - sick, even. And your posting of that video implies you know this and are doing it on purpose. And that's the rest of the reason for the reaction: it's a reaction to the smug, sociopathic attitude with which you are presenting your sick idea. The primary flaw was pointed out immediately, but to put a finer point to answer the questions:
For a start, about 6 billion people would die in a fairly short period of time - perhaps a year.
Your definition of "a better planet for all of us" apparently requires killing me to achieve it, so no, I would not leave behind my current lifestyle to support your vision.
The Amish are a bunch of hypocrites. When they get sick they go to a modern hospital.
Many thanks Billy. I sincerely believe I should quit this forum, only by seeing those reactions. If I am wrong, my apologies, seems like a very sensitive topic.
I do not know how to respond to this. The entire intention of the posts in this thread are seeking the opposite: healthy proposals, not even final solutions. In any case, you will never get a fight-back or insult from my part as posted above, just for disagreeing with a topic.
What I would really would like to understand, is why it is "dangerously, destructively wrong".
I think it would be more like 500 million - 1 billion in that first year. Then the stocks would be greatly reduced. Another 1-1.5 billion in the next 12 months, then a leveling off...
Mod Hat ― Post edits
Two posts in this thread have been edited. In either case, the original currently remains on file in soft-delete status, which is my standard policy when undertaking such actions.
We would also note that one post that was edited invokes no actual moderator retort; it is sometimes necessary to scrub unacceptable discoruse from quoted material, as well.
As to the other, look, some things simply strike us amiss, and some of those things that strike us amiss will penetrate deeper and seem just awful. That the reaction is, at least compared to the historical record around the particular question, misguided only compounds the problem, but for now the lesson can be to double-check our own contexts.
But if people intend to respond to an argument or point of argument harshly, yes it would behoove them to at least demonstrate they have a clue about what they protest. However, the closer one verges to what broader society can perceive as a threat―including the deliberate wishing of harm, even as a figurative retort―the more directly we have to act.
To that end, I'm taking a pass on throwing any flags in the reasonable expectation that members of this community are smart enough to figure such points for themselves, and acknowledging in that same consideration that we are all human and sometimes slip up.
Please take specific care to avoid such problematic rhetoric.
Have you read any of the responding posts in this thread, including the rest of mine? If not, start by reading the rest of my post -- the part you didn't quote.
We're discussing a hypothetical, but I'm basing it on the assumption that Mark UX could snap his/er fingers and instantly eliminate all technology, but without magically re-locating us all to functioning farms that materialized out of thin air. If that happened, the world's food production would immediately drop by about 85% and in a matter of months we'd have massive food shortages and famines. We just don't store enough food to support the world for most of a year if production were to suddenly be curtailed. Not to mention, we'd lose the ability to store perishable food and the ability to transport it. Residents of major cities, such as New York, would begin starving in weeks, assuming they can survive that long without water being pumped-into the city. That's also assuming this finger-snap doesn't transform NYC back into forest and spread the people around, give them farming skills, etc. A powerful finger-snap could sustain us longer before most of us die, bringing us closer to your scenario.
I dont think Mark meant it as a snap of the fingers. I was going from when that time of full implementation. It would take a while to breed all those mules for the 40 acres. Plus its going to take a while to usurp all those existing farmers to divide up their property for the inner city poor that will be bussed out to implement Mao's... er I mean Marks plan. Lots of those kansas/oklahoma/iowa farmers got guns we will need to pry from their cold dead fingers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
...You know it will be the poor stuck out in nebraska implementing Marks New Deal...
Probably should designate a few extra acres for graveyards. No trees to cremate the suicides that will increase in the first 5 years of this. Probably some pretty nasty domestic violence too... I mean for the transplants er.. participants.
There might be some Katrina trailers left that re-located families can start with, while they build their soddy barns/storage. But Windmills for water have always been cool looking! Helped fix one a long time ago. It was cool when water started coming out. Once the herd gets big enough, they can use cow-pies to heat/cook on... LOL... I suppose thats the reason not a lot of amish communities in nebraska. No trees for firewood/charcoal...
ok I am done for now.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, you mean Stalin. That's similar to (though perhaps the inverse of) what he did. But yes, I agree that if it is an imposed social movement, it will take time to implement, which will make the holocaust happen more slowly and in a more organized fashion.
The scenario I describe is more akin to what might happen if a massive EMP destroyed all technology instantly (and somehow prevented us from repairing it).
Neither one. The closest would be Pol Pot, on the authoritarian Left, or maybe Abraham Lincoln in US history - although that was not by Executive Order (Homestead Act).
Most of the world's population is not actually supported by high tech day to day - the biggest fundamental gains in food production have been from the 17th century combinations of plants and animals from different agricultural traditions, and the improved knowledge of plant nutrition that followed. Neither of these factors fundamentally requires what we think of as modern technology. Modern sanitation would be the other big one, and that is more politics than technology (it's not beating swords into plowshares that marks the good life, but the king's gold into the peasant's plumbing fixtures).
The ascription of modern prosperity to the technology that characterizes it is natural, but the cause/effect relationship is largely the other way. And the waste involved is not trivial - it's true that this current setup is not sustainable.
It's not even sensible. We started with farm boys tending mixed animal/plant farms, with improving prospects (science) of production and efficiency on site. Instead, we sent the boys half way around the world to secure crude oil, used that to power and fertilize the conversion of a working ranch landscape into square miles of row crop monoculture, put the animals that used to power and fertilize into distant pens and the people into distant ghettoes, run most of the fertilizer from all sources into the Gulf of Mexico where it kills the fish. Sometimes, we cut out the middleman and just dump the oil straight into the Gulf, but that efficiency improvement is accidental. Each step makes sense in that it makes money, but the overall arrangement is obviously running on externalized costs - some of which are accumulating debt.
So we are in the position of someone with a bad tooth that doesn't hurt - dentistry is expensive and painful now, but letting it go until it blows up will almost certainly be worse. And eating a lot of candy while we mull our options is a wee bit nuts.
In order to understand how your psychological attitude and brain works, I had to read back many of your posts which dated back to long time ago, and watch how you did reacted when disagreeing with different posters, regarding any topic, but especially… the ones focusing in economy, consumption habits and Earth sustainability; it was a good exercise.
Having understood that, I will proceed to clarify a few points here, because I am not really sure if the original intention of the topic has been deliberately diverted, or if its intention was misunderstood as a whole.
Your assumption is incorrect, and such incorrectness comes partially because you misunderstood the original post (#1) which opened this thread:
Let me say it once again, “to reflect about what would the best way of living in a realistic sustainable way in our planet”. Amish was put in the context of an exemplification, but any other constructive idea or human-group analogy would be welcomed, even… when my example of Amish people habits would not be the more appropriated.
I also said in post #1, when opening this thread:
Interesting enough, I am still awaiting for constructive ideas about what would be the best way to break our current consumption habits and the treatment we currently are giving to our planet. And please understand the word “Planet”: it is not U.S. Likely or not, U.S. is a country contained in a host: your planet. So based on that, what is more important to you Russ?: the country where you are living, or the host that contains your loved country? No host, no country(ies). No country, no patriotism. Follow me?
So my vision regarding these matters as always been more worldview, and not necessarily pointing what would be best for my own country, of even for me as an individual. It is a good exercise in life to attempt to have a bird-view to analyze things, specially, when it involves the planet on which you are contained.
So Russ, I believe you have reached the crossroad in this thread:
Would you continue to divert the original intention of the thread?
Will you start giving examples of what you consider would be the best way of living in a realistic sustainable way in our planet”? (Even forget the Amish if you wish, give your own examples, it does not matter)
Or… do you believe we are just doing it right, according as how our civilization is currently living?
No deal, no plan, not brainwashing society, not authoritarian system at all (to which I completely disagree by the way): just ideas.
Technology is going to save us without having to alter our habits? Perfect, how? Can you guys elaborate?
Technology is not going to save us, and indeed we will be forced to change our habits? Good, in which way?
All clear? Now go ahead.
Stalin didnt rhyme as well with mark... None the less, the point being made is this has been tried on the political level many times throughout history and it did not bode well for the poor or for the society as a whole, and that is apparent to many who have responded to the initial post.
Depending on the size and location of an EMP, it could be crippling for a while. 1 - 2 years of significant disruption but I dont think it would destroy all technology instantly:
http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging risk reports/solar storm risk to the north american electric grid.pdf
As a side thought, I wonder what a EMP would do to solar panels.
Here is what was clear to me. You didnt spend a whole lot of time applying the mechanics of this idea before suggesting it and now with people saying hey wait a minute, its our fault for not leaping on-board without reservation.
1. Yep but save us from what? Poverty? Lack of education? Lack of access to potable water? Food shortages?
2. Thats your position.
I'm just saying that the social influence is more significant than the religious influence. I can distinguish "my" Mennonites from the ones who immigrated before them and after them because of their cultural differences; there are practically no religious differences.
So, what you are saying is that instead of reading the rest of my post, which directly answers the question you asked me, you went and read a whole bunch of other, unrelated posts? That's bizarre.
You appear to be deliberately avoiding discussion of the flaws (one giant one in particular) in your idea. It's a bizarre and disrespectful tunnel vision act, but you can't force other people to ignore issues that you don't want to deal with. It apparently angers you that people aren't just patting you on the back and agreeing with you. Tough.
then why comment? you do know this was actually done at one point in time as not only an experiment, but by chef's/cooks etc????
... it made it easier to cook as well as to clean up afterwards.
are you going to denigrate the French, Cajun, cooks/chef's and people who still eat these for sustenance ?
Why is that? most people also watch TV, movies etc which contain graphic scenes that are far worse, and some are fairly realistic, too.
does that mean you hate movies, tv and visual training aids? research? etc?
you are being overly sensitive. after all, rubber frogs don't feel pain, unless you know something i don't.
and this is a baiting comment that only serves to show your over-sensitivity [and more that i will refrain from posting, due to guidelines]
PS: it may not be currently Politically Correct [PC], and it may not have even been PC in the past... but while i was in high school, this was one experiment that was done in my Freshman Biology course: afterwards, we dissected it. The experiment and dissection [and subsequent testing on anatomy] was 33.33% of the grade, and was required to pass the course.
[EDIT - although the post i am replying to is OT, i felt it necessary to respond... if it is not, (as i just now read the MOD post) then the MOD can feel free to delete it. Thanks MOD; sorry i didn't get to your post sooner.]
there is nothing in the Amish religion that i've seen that states going to a hospital or seeking professional medical attention is wrong, nor against their bible and their beliefs. this is also apparent in their care of animals.
Why is it hypocritical to seek professional care of your body and animals when it is your "temple" and both body and animals are required to sustain life and maintain a relationship with their deity?
you don't ask a professional firefighter to build you a space shuttle with water cooled launch pad like in FL...
nor would you ask an architect to perform the bleed-off of a pericardial tamponade ...
Because in every other area of life they reject technology. And yet they clearly benefit from technology, which means they are just playing dress-up with their buggies and their barns. I mean, they didn't have buggies in Biblical times either! When did God decide that 1800 was about the right time to stop progressing?
1- some congregations might not allow hospitalization
2- it is not always about rejecting technology, though. part of their religion/beliefs is the simple belief that you shouldn't have ties to the world... in this case, purchase of a car, tractor, etc would mean continual bills, taxes and a tie to the gov't... meaning it is wrong for them.
this is why they wouldn't have electricity from the grid, but some might create their own electricity by generator, solar, windmill or hydraulic means. (all technology)
Of course, there are also interpretations per the congregation you must consider as well.
again, it is more about havint a "tie to the world" than rejection of technology. i've seen Amish with cell phones here, as long as it is a pre-paid phone, it is not a tie. they refuse phone service to home or business.
so... it is not about choosing 1800 or anything of the sort. it is more about self-sustaining lifestyle that doesn't obligate them to be physically or obligated to a tie to the world ... which is why they don't drive trucks, etc.
that might not explain it well enough for you... i don't know
Separate names with a comma.