"Guns Germs and Steel"

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Cory, my beloved friend, have you lost your mind? (removes all sharp objects and cord-like objects from the room, and quietly shuts the door)

[Steven Coyle]

Cory, that came from your unknown field mind.

J/K

[Cory Duchesne]

oh I got it all under control over here folks.

Just tricking you people into enlightment, thats all.

That's all it ever was. All under control.

no sweat.

*cyber high fives*

[Steven Coyle]

*Hi5*

[Tharan]

beebuddy,

I read it. I agree with you that it was an informative book.

I didn't read his follow-up but one of the residents at my previous postion was reading Collapse at the same time I was reading Guns... and gave me a good synopsis of the recurring pattern of collapse that we seem destined to enjoy. Cannibalism!

An interesting tangent, the big/fat/unhealthy folks we have here in America from eating too much fast food, though they flee slower than the more fit, might be able to save themselves for a couple of weeks or a month as the roaming bands of cannibals find them too unappealing. It won't last long though. Good times!

[Carl G]

These nomadic tribes didnt know they were wise, they were just subordinating themselves to nature because they had no choice to, and by doing so, they were unintentionally wise.

The oral traditions and ceremonies of some of the North American tribes suggest different. They did know they were wise, they consciously cultivated and husbanded their values and their enviornment.

And, in the other sense, generally we are all "just subordinating" ourselves "to nature because" we have "no choice." So, what are you saying.

Once man developed the clevereness to manipulate and control (once he ate from the apple of knowledge) all hell broke loose, he became unbalancd.

You may be speaking of a pure state which existed before hunter/gatherer, or which exists in the abstract or within individuals on a momentary basis. Otherwise, all people manipulate and control. Goes with the territory.

If indigenous primitive tribes were so wise, would they be so quick to get hooked on the booze? They were naive, and simple people who were easily duped.

These are naive and simple statements. There are cultural and biological reasons why they were "so quick to get hooked on the booze." And these have nothing to do with wisdom.

Now, after an ugly 10 000 or so years, man is in a position to learn from his mistakes and actually become conscious.

How does this follow? "Man" is always in a position to learn, but current conditions do not mean -- and evidence does not show -- he is any more disposed to learn. Besides, learn what? Consciousness does not automatically follow learning. One must wish for it. Being mindful of ordinary things, like self-preservation, does not confer consciousness.

What is it that promotes interest in the highest values? Is consciousness even possible for most of us? Who among us can rise above modern cell-phone television buy-me stimuli?

He may or may not. It's not looking too good really.

Exactly.

But there are a few promising individuals who are bringing awareness to the world.

Individuals cannot bring "awareness to the world." One can only bring awareness to oneself.

Individuals can, however, point the way. But others must be willing -- and able -- to follow.

[Carl G]

Well, I've been to several reservations where there are people still living as close to the old ways as possible including no alcohol and such... it appears to me as if those with the desire to remain wise, and remain in touch with nature are doing so, while those more interested in worldy persuits are doing that.

This may be for the best in the end - people being able to leave leaves those who desire to stay able to do what they're doing without the disruption.

-Rory

You make it seem like this is a fairy tale world where everybody simply does as they desire.

Most people have no choice about what they do. And many are actually coerced into doing what others wish them to do. This is particularly and sadly true on the Rez.

[Cory Duchesne]

These nomadic tribes didnt know they were wise, they were just subordinating themselves to nature because they had no choice to, and by doing so, they were unintentionally wise.

The oral traditions and ceremonies of some of the North American tribes suggest different. They did know they were wise, they consciously cultivated and husbanded their values and their enviornment.

And, in the other sense, generally we are all "just subordinating" ourselves "to nature because" we have "no choice." So, what are you saying.

In contrast to hunter gather's, science represents an attempt at controlling nature Carl. This thread has a lot to do with agriculture and the consequences of its introduction.

There is not nearly as much manipulating happening in the Hunting and gathering mode. Such a mode is much more submissive and subordinated, than agriculture.

Agriculture is a more conscious attempt to manipulate nature.

And since it wasnt conscous enough, agriculture has created some awful predicaments.

Cory: Once man developed the clevereness to manipulate and control (once he ate from the apple of knowledge) all hell broke loose, he became unbalancd.

Carl: You may be speaking of a pure state which existed before hunter/gatherer, or which exists in the abstract or within individuals on a momentary basis. Otherwise, all people manipulate and control. Goes with the territory.

You are not really making much of a point. Think about it this way. Just because all living creatures are conscious, that doesnt mean it is incorrect to distiguish higher forms of consciousness from lower.

In the same sense that there are higher degrees of conscious, there are higher degrees of manipulation and control.

cory: If indigenous primitive tribes were so wise, would they be so quick to get hooked on the booze? They were naive, and simple people who were easily duped.

Carl: These are naive and simple statements. There are cultural and biological reasons why they were "so quick to get hooked on the booze." And these have nothing to do with wisdom.

What makes you think that there is something besides biology? Wisdom is a configuration of biology. I know you have a sort of cartesian sort of bent, so I doubt you'll agree.

cory: Now, after an ugly 10 000 or so years, man is in a position to learn from his mistakes and actually become conscious.

Carl: How does this follow? "Man" is always in a position to learn, but current conditions do not mean -- and evidence does not show -- he is any more disposed to learn.

History tends to reveal that man leans not only more as time goes on, but he also learns at faster intervals. Disoveries were more shallow in the old days, and they happened at slow intervals.

These days the discoveries are becoming relatively deeper and are happening at much faster intervals.

Besides, learn what? Consciousness does not automatically follow learning. One must wish for it. Being mindful of ordinary things, like self-preservation, does not confer consciousness.

I'm afraid it does. Drug addicts inhibt their consciousness, the addiction overides self preservation and prevents learning.

What is it that promotes interest in the highest values?

higher genes, higher biology = higher environment = higher conscoiusness.

Is consciousness even possible for most of us? Who among us can rise above modern cell-phone television buy-me stimuli?
[/quote]

good point.

cory: But there are a few promising individuals who are bringing awareness to the world.

carl: Individuals cannot bring "awareness to the world." One can only bring awareness to oneself.

There is no difference. They are one in the same.

[Carl G]

In contrast to hunter gather's, science represents an attempt at controlling nature Carl. This thread has a lot to do with agriculture and the consequences of its introduction.

There is not nearly as much manipulating happening in the Hunting and gathering mode. Such a mode is much more submissive and subordinated, than agriculture.

Hunting/gathering is a science, too; it is farming in the sense that it requires management (of resources).

Agriculture is a more conscious attempt to manipulate nature.

And since it wasnt conscous enough, agriculture has created some awful predicaments.

No dispute here.

Cory: Once man developed the clevereness to manipulate and control (once he ate from the apple of knowledge) all hell broke loose, he became unbalancd.

Carl: You may be speaking of a pure state which existed before hunter/gatherer, or which exists in the abstract or within individuals on a momentary basis. Otherwise, all people manipulate and control. Goes with the territory.

You are not really making much of a point. Think about it this way. Just because all living creatures are conscious, that doesnt mean it is incorrect to distiguish higher forms of consciousness from lower.

In the same sense that there are higher degrees of conscious, there are higher degrees of manipulation and control.

I thought you were being vague, overly black-and-white, and unnecessarily religious/new age. There is and has been both wise and unwise farming and hunter-gathering. None of it has to do with an apple of knowledge, though I recognize a certain distant metaphorical meaning there.

Cleverness and wisdom can go together. Often this has not been the case, I agree with you there.

cory: If indigenous primitive tribes were so wise, would they be so quick to get hooked on the booze? They were naive, and simple people who were easily duped.

Carl: These are naive and simple statements. There are cultural and biological reasons why they were "so quick to get hooked on the booze." And these have nothing to do with wisdom.

What makes you think that there is something besides biology? Wisdom is a configuration of biology.

How could there not be? Do you actually believe in materiality as the only or even prime aspect of reality? And what do you mean, "wisdom is a configuration of biology." I would say more or less the oppositie, if anything: biology is a function of consciousness.

I know you have a sort of cartesian sort of bent, so I doubt you'll agree.

Not sure what you mean by "cartesian", but I hope it's a compliment. :)

cory: Now, after an ugly 10 000 or so years, man is in a position to learn from his mistakes and actually become conscious.

Carl: How does this follow? "Man" is always in a position to learn, but current conditions do not mean -- and evidence does not show -- he is any more disposed to learn.

History tends to reveal that man leans not only more as time goes on, but he also learns at faster intervals. Disoveries were more shallow in the old days, and they happened at slow intervals.

These days the discoveries are becoming relatively deeper and are happening at much faster intervals.

Oh, pardon me, you're referring to technology, aren't you? You can't be saying we are gaining in self-knowledge. Or even that we have learned anything about the folly of war, or the dangers of over-fishing, or mono-culture planting. That would be ludicrous.

Besides, learn what? Consciousness does not automatically follow learning. One must wish for it. Being mindful of ordinary things, like self-preservation, does not confer consciousness.

I'm afraid it does. Drug addicts inhibt their consciousness, the addiction overides self preservation and prevents learning.

It doesn't work to state it in reverse. The results of inhibiting consciousness does not prove the means for increasing it. My point stands.

What is it that promotes interest in the highest values?

higher genes, higher biology = higher environment = higher conscoiusness.

"higher environment = higher conscoiusness."

????

Such faith in farming. Funny, I used to have such myself.

And in biology: "higher genes, higher biology = higher environment". If that is your starting point, where do you propose these better genes will come from, with which all the rest hinges?

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory Duchesne wrote:
In contrast to hunter gather's, science represents an attempt at controlling nature Carl. This thread has a lot to do with agriculture and the consequences of its introduction.

There is not nearly as much manipulating happening in the Hunting and gathering mode. Such a mode is much more submissive and subordinated, than agriculture.

Carl: Hunting/gathering is a science, too; it is farming in the sense that it requires management (of resources).

Yes, but a significantly less conscious science. They took what they could get, and made the most of only what was allotted naturally. They exhibited more conciousness than the animals, but overall, quite unconscious in contrast to the awareness that exists today. I'm talking about the totality of the most educated people today. They probably out-number the total population of many of the oldest natives.

Their explanations for most of the natural world rested upon a belief that each distinct thing significant to their survival was the effect of some sort of deity. Indigenous people’s personified nature. As the intellect of man developed, his understanding of nature became increasingly impersonal, masculine.

Cory: Once man developed the clevereness to manipulate and control (once he ate from the apple of knowledge) all hell broke loose, he became unbalancd.

Carl: You may be speaking of a pure state which existed before hunter/gatherer, or which exists in the abstract or within individuals on a momentary basis. Otherwise, all people manipulate and control. Goes with the territory.

Cory: You are not really making much of a point. Think about it this way. Just because all living creatures are conscious, that doesnt mean it is incorrect to distiguish higher forms of consciousness from lower.

In the same sense that there are higher degrees of conscious, there are higher degrees of manipulation and control.

Carl: I thought you were being vague, overly black-and-white, and unnecessarily religious/new age. There is and has been both wise and unwise farming and hunter-gathering. None of it has to do with an apple of knowledge, though I recognize a certain distant metaphorical meaning there.

Carl, read guns, germs and steal, and talk later. When human’s were hunter gather’s there is very strong evidence that hardly any hierarchy existed at all - -- the fire pits of the chief had just as much and the same type of remnants, indicating that resources were distributed equally, and evidence points to much healthier humans who were very resistant to disease, and populations did not get out of hand.

Other archeology findings have found that in agricultural societies, the fire pits and dwellings of leaders, chiefs and Kings revealed a tremendous inequality in resources. When man developed agriculture, he did so out of a new quality of cleverness endowed to a minority. The birth of agriculture represented the birth of a new type of consciousness. This new type of consciousness, and new type of food gathering method was really the seed of recorded history, which is quite ugly. By doing agriculture, man started ruining land, weakening his health, falling into fantastically malign diseases, and he was forced to migrate into areas that his biology was not naturally suited for, and proceeded to corrupt yet educated everything in his path, spreading his strange diseases.

The birth of agriculture and the birth of the written word were probably fairly close together. Once man moved from being an oral culture, to a more literate culture, he laid a foundation for building what we see today – a marvelous mess.

The garden of Eden story is actually a decent metaphor if you see with enough subtlety and awareness.

cory: If indigenous primitive tribes were so wise, would they be so quick to get hooked on the booze? They were naive, and simple people who were easily duped.

Carl: These are naive and simple statements. There are cultural and biological reasons why they were "so quick to get hooked on the booze." And these have nothing to do with wisdom.


Cory: What makes you think that there is something besides biology? Wisdom is a configuration of biology.

Carl: How could there not be?

You tell me how there could be – one isn’t any more probable than the other, so I lean towards that which hurts most.

Carl: Do you actually believe in materiality as the only or even prime aspect of reality?

I don’t believe in a prime aspect of reality, a prime substance. You’ll never get to the end of it, nor the beginning of it.

Carl: And what do you mean, "wisdom is a configuration of biology." I would say more or less the oppositie, if anything: biology is a function of consciousness.

I seriously would be delighted if that were the truth Carl. Please give me some reasons why you think that what you prefer to be true is more reasonable than say a position which denies ‘an intelligent otherness’

cory: Now, after an ugly 10 000 or so years, man is in a position to learn from his mistakes and actually become conscious.

Carl: How does this follow? "Man" is always in a position to learn, but current conditions do not mean -- and evidence does not show -- he is any more disposed to learn.

cory: History tends to reveal that man leans not only more as time goes on, but he also learns at faster intervals. Disoveries were more shallow in the old days, and they happened at slow intervals.

These days the discoveries are becoming relatively deeper and are happening at much faster intervals.

Carl: Oh, pardon me, you're referring to technology, aren't you?

I’m referring to more than that. Is it a coincidence that pre-Socratics like Heraclitus emerged around the same time as Buddha and Lau-tzu? No, these philosophers emerged because there was the sufficient amount of culture developed via the evolution of the written word, and various inventions.

The Greeks developed the foundations for science. Since Aristotle passed away, there have been scientific discoveries coming one after another, at faster and faster intervals.

Progress leading up to Aristotle was slow in relation to the progress that we seen from the time of Aristotle up until Nietzsche.

And the progress we have seen between Nietzsche up until now as been relatively even faster.

We’ve developed science to a level that allows us to now explore the mind. The work happening in biology and neuroscience is promising.

In some ways humans are still incredibly immature – but when you think about how you can’t smoke indoors hardly anywhere anymore, how you can’t get burnt at the stake for having an opinion against the government or church, when you think about how we don’t enslave other races (Aristotle thought it was perfectly normal for there to be human slaves), how we give more freedom to women, about the amount we have learned about what not to do in regards to agriculture, when you see the awareness that most of the population has in regards to how we are just a tiny spec in the middle of a practically infinite universe………there are so many examples of how we have indeed evolved, despite the viciousness and great stupidity is still there.

These days we don’t ban books and we pretty much condone every act of expression imaginable.

And then look at organizations like amnesty international and green peace, etc.

These are all signs that we have matured.

Our culture today, sure it has been feminized a great deal in regards to the excessive senstuality, that is just a necessary foundation, but it has come along way in other senses, and I’m optimistic that humans will undergo quite a drastic change and if they don’t, no big deal, its only life.

Carl: You can't be saying we are gaining in self-knowledge. Or even that we have learned anything about the folly of war, or the dangers of over-fishing, or mono-culture planting. That would be ludicrous.

Actually, go to any University these days and they teach you about all of these things. There are plenty of TV shows and magazines bringing awareness to all of these phenomena. We are still very stupid, sure, in some instances you may even find unprecedented stupidity, but that is only because there is unprecedented intelligence. The two may go hand in hand.

Carl: Besides, learn what? Consciousness does not automatically follow learning. One must wish for it. Being mindful of ordinary things, like self-preservation, does not confer consciousness.

Cory: I'm afraid it does. Drug addicts inhibt their consciousness, the addiction overides self preservation and prevents learning.

Carl: It doesn't work to state it in reverse. The results of inhibiting consciousness does not prove the means for increasing it. My point stands.

How can you say that consciousness does not follow learning? That makes absolutely no sense. Give me an example.

Carl: What is it that promotes interest in the highest values?


Cory: higher genes, higher biology = higher environment = higher conscoiusness.


Carl: "higher environment = higher conscoiusness."

Is it a coincidence that Heraclitus, Buddha, Lau Tzu, Plato, Socrates, and Aristole were all of noble birth? These individuals had greater consciousness, because, aside from their ideal disposition, they had a greater, more noble environment growing up, which I attribute to greater genes/biology.

Cory: Such faith in farming. Funny, I used to have such myself.

I really don’t put my faith into farming, its an interest.

Carl: And in biology: "higher genes, higher biology = higher environment". If that is your starting point, where do you propose these better genes will come from, with which all the rest hinges?

If I were to state that the biology originates from the workings of cosmic consciousness and/or reincaration, I would have to explain the origins of the cosmic consciousness. So we might as well eliminate the cosmic consciousness - it is superflous and one values it only because its gratifying to the frightned ego which fears to think more deeply.

[Carl G]

Cory wrote:

Carl, read guns, germs and steal, and talk later.

I may, and okay, I'll be quiet.

Suffice it to say that your mental process and mine are so different that I don't think it is worth discussing further now anyway.

[millipodium]

So cory, the bounty that agriculture provides and the subsequent growth in human population is a negative? You are anti-human. How do you feel about that? Do you expect people to care about your thoughts and value them when at your core you are full of hate for humanity?

[beebuddy]

It's almost unbelievable that people actually believe that skin color has anything to do with intelligence. What is unbelievable is that some feel it is the 'tough but true' way of seeing things.

[Nordicvs]

Yes, but a significantly less conscious science. They took what they could get, and made the most of only what was allotted naturally. They exhibited more conciousness than the animals, but overall, quite unconscious in contrast to the awareness that exists today.

Native man understood his world perfectly, intuitively over many thousands of years; because he was perfectly adapted to it and directly connected to it.

Modern man is not "more conscious"---what an arrogantly absurd notion;---if he's more aware (and I doubt it: without the exception of a few individuals, most people are semi-conscous at best), he is so only in regards to the overly complicated civilized world he'd created. Native man had the sense or "consciousness" (or wisdom) to live in harmony with his environment; modern man's environment is artificial, with which he lives in anything but "harmony," destroying the natural world as well while he stumbles about, organizing and talking too much and trying to control everything.

I see nothing wise or especially conscious or aware about modern man---he's a well-read prisoner to his own tedious and logicized puzzles and games. Collectively, he's a well-educated moron.

I'm talking about the totality of the most educated people today. They probably out-number the total population of many of the oldest natives.

Who cares?---though I highly doubt it (envision an enormous hypothetical scale, to measure wisdom, and place five old wise natives on one end with a hundred million pasty Harvard graduates on the other, and it'll be raining pasty suits faster than you could outline a thesis). Natives lived intelligently, vastly more intelligently than us today; modern man is a fumbling intellectual who lives in a box, stares at a digital box, and poisons his world while making and chasing boxes.

What does reading have to do with intelligence?

Their explanations for most of the natural world rested upon a belief that each distinct thing significant to their survival was the effect of some sort of deity. *Indigenous people’s personified nature.

They knew enough and it worked. That is wisdom---which men today severely lack, accumulating many thoughts and words and ideas and knowing very little, doing very little.

*No, they didn't. They respected it and expressed it in ways that we don't understand, merely interpret dismally. A native man looked for himself in other beings; he prayed to his prey---not to "some sort of deity."

As the intellect of man developed, his understanding of nature became increasingly impersonal, masculine.

Ancient man's intellect developed out of necessity---he did what he had to do to survive, and his mind developed proportionally to accomplish that. His will drove his intellect only as far as it needed it to go. That's also wisdom.

[sue hindmarsh]

Nordicvs wrote:

Ancient man's intellect developed out of necessity---he did what he had to do to survive, and his mind developed proportionally to accomplish that. His will drove his intellect only as far as it needed it to go.

That would be true for people from any era. Each generation has to adapt to the changing circumstances of their environment. The technology most useful a couple of hundred years ago was the plough – now it is the computer. In a few hundred years from now it could once again be the plough - or perhaps creating artificial environments on distant planets for humans to inhabit.

That's also wisdom.

Being adaptable has been very useful to us as a species – but I wouldn’t describe it as “wisdom”.

You describe ‘wisdom’ as:

They knew enough and it worked. That is wisdom---which men today severely lack, accumulating many thoughts and words and ideas and knowing very little, doing very little.

It is true that there are enormous pressures on the planet, and that mankind is to blame for most of them, but without his “thoughts and words and ideas” I’m not sure how he could work towards mending the earth?

-
Sue

[Cory Duchesne]

Nordicvs: Native man understood his world perfectly, intuitively over many thousands of years; because he was perfectly adapted to it and directly connected to it.

Modern man is not "more conscious"---what an arrogantly absurd notion;

Native man had no choice to live in a balanced way with nature, he didn’t have any alternative. It’s just like any animal in an undisturbed eco-system. Natives lived very harmoniously in their environment for the same reason any of the animals in nature have, not because of great wisdom, but because their consciousness was minimal and subordinated to the whims of the environment. As man became more consciousness, he became less subordinated to nature and more manipulative. As Dostoevsky said: “excessive consciousness is a disease”.

Remember, I mentioned how native man personified nature, meaning - whatever distinct part of nature that happened to be useful to his survival ended up being regarded as a deity of sorts. This of course ensured his survival, as he was not likely to disrespect a supernatural deity.

Modern man on the other hand, eventually came to understand nature as something mechanical, impersonal and predictable. He saw and continues to see nature as neither good or bad, and simply focused on using his scientific knowledge to manipulate nature to his benefit. So in that sense modern man began to live in greater extremes of samsara, doing greater evil in order to achieve greater sensations of good. That is why modern man has manifested in the form of great philosophers who expounded tremendous psychological insights. Modern man pushes things to the extremes and then reflects on his folly, thus becoming wise.

And that is why woman is often regarded as amoral on this forum. Generally, women hardly does anything of great good, and that is because she is hardly capable of great evil on her own initiative, and instead depends on living through the deeds of her man. Some times she pairs up with a Mozart, other times she pairs up with a Hitler. Either/or, her actions are based more on looking for opportunities to survive, whereas the masculine spirit wants to achieve an ideal that is less concerned with practical survival and more concerned with a lofty ideal often involving notions of immortality, heroism and unprecedented superiority.

Nordicvs: if [modern man] is more aware (and I doubt it: without the exception of a few individuals, most people are semi-conscous at best), he is so only in regards to the overly complicated civilized world he'd created.

The sort of consciousness that I am talking about isn’t really in regards to practicality and survival (which I’m not saying should be neglected) but more in regards to truth. Modern man is closer to truth than native man and that’s because he doesn’t see things as personally as native man. Modern man looks at things more impersonally, however, because he is still very attached to his more base emotions, he ends up being quite the imbecile.

Nordicvs: Native man had the sense or "consciousness" (or wisdom) to live in harmony with his environment

Why do you think native man is so much different from any wild animal? Wild animals live harmoniously with their environment too. But I wouldn’t attribute this to any sort of wisdom and consciousness.

Nordicvs: modern man's environment is artificial, with which he lives in anything but "harmony," destroying the natural world as well while he stumbles about, organizing and talking too much and trying to control everything.

I agree with you 100% that modern man is a blundering idiot, but I say that he is because of his excessive consciousness. Do I advocate that he go back to his old ways of hunting and gathering? Well of course not, no, modern man’s problem is that he is still not consciousness enough. His excessive consciousness is too minimal.

As Nietzche once said: “what are you doing to overcome man?”

Nordicvs: I see nothing wise or especially conscious or aware about modern man---he's a well-read prisoner to his own tedious and logicized puzzles and games. Collectively, he's a well-educated moron.

I didn’t mean to speak on behalf of the majority of modern humans, but only on behalf of permaculturalist-types, Masanobu Fukuoka types, David Suzuki type people, environmentalists – who really are a dime a dozen these days. These people are more aware of truth than natives. They are both environmentally sensitive and aware as well as scientific. Natives were good hunters, however being a practical hunter isn’t necessarily being aware of much truth – natives were generally fabricators of crazy myths.

[Cory Duchesne]

Millipodium wrote:

So cory, the bounty that agriculture provides and the subsequent growth in human population is a negative?

yep, thats about what I'm saying.

Milli: You are anti-human. How do you feel about that?

Since you've called me this many times before, I'd say it feels like I've become habituated to your repetitive buzz words.

Your posts have lost all effect due to their unfruitful and unvarying repetition.

[millipodium]

Millipodium wrote:

So cory, the bounty that agriculture provides and the subsequent growth in human population is a negative?

yep, thats about what I'm saying.

Milli: You are anti-human. How do you feel about that?

Since you've called me this many times before, I'd say it feels like I've become habituated to your repetitive buzz words.

Your posts have lost all effect due to their unfruitful and unvarying repetition.

ANd you're still an anti-human monster.

[Cory Duchesne]

[Cory indulges in a drawn out laugh, with his shadow cast exageratedly against the wall, akin to the stereotypical villans seen in cartoons]

[millipodium]

[Cory indulges in a drawn out laugh, with his shadow cast exageratedly against the wall, akin to the stereotypical villans seen in cartoons]

It's not funny, you sick and evil freak.

[Cory Duchesne]

millipodium: It's not funny, you sick and evil freak.

lighten up sweetie. My point is that your crusade against the nihilist seems to be the result of you growing up on too many cartoons, too much hollywood entertainment.

[millipodium]

millipodium: It's not funny, you sick and evil freak.

lighten up sweetie. My point is that your crusade against the nihilist seems to be the result of you growing up on too many cartoons, too much hollywood entertainment.

At least you will openly admit your contempt for humanity. I applaud your honesty.

[Cory Duchesne]

milli: At least you will openly admit your contempt for humanity. I applaud your honesty.

To borrow from Nietzsche:

What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?

I feel this way all the time, especially toward my enemies who I feel are growing as human beings.

And yes, my enemies are pretty much the whole of humanity.

[Nordicvs]

That would be true for people from any era. Each generation has to adapt to the changing circumstances of their environment. The technology most useful a couple of hundred years ago was the plough – now it is the computer. In a few hundred years from now it could once again be the plough - or perhaps creating artificial environments on distant planets for humans to inhabit.

No, that is not the same as what I'm talking about, and it's not true for people of any era---only the eras resulting from the pattern of civilization begun in Sumer.

Modern man has little concept of "necessity"---doing only that which is necessary, whether consciously or subconsciously, to survive. Why? Because his artificial environment takes cares of his needs and leaves him confused regarding "need" and "want."

The plough is a conscious adaptation to solve a problem---how to produce more food with less labour. Why do we need more food? Why do we need farming at all? Both came about from overpopulation and lead only to more overpopulation.

How is a computer necessary to survival? Ancient man invented only that which he needed to live---he put his extra time into his art, music and children, not into figuring out how to make hunting and gathering more efficient (it was perfectly efficient as it was); modern man puts a camera on a cell phone and has the idiocy to say, "Necessity breeds invention."

What's necessary about a camera on a cell phone---what's necessary about a cell phone at all? (Like I said, ancient man "drove his intellect only as far as it needed it to go." And he made wiser choices.)

Being adaptable has been very useful to us as a species – but I wouldn’t describe it as “wisdom”.

Most species' adaptations are subconscious, and yes, that is a type of "wisdom"---several millions years worth of "species choices," even if they were solely on genetic levels (not conscious of course), which assisted the survival of the species, is by definition "wisdom," thus the creatures that have been around the longest are the wisest, and humans aren't even on the map yet---but that's not what I'm talking about either:

Humans are in control of their own evolution; we are conscious of our own adaptations. And we are unwise about those choices. We don't know what survival means, because few of us ever "just survive" anymore. No, we "live" now. We've lost what was known, the common sense stuff that went largely unspoken (and yet conveyed, taught experientially) between generations of fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Today, we need thirty years of study just to begin to make that which was unknown known again. (That is inefficient and is not wise. Education is not wisdom; information is not wisdom.)

It is true that there are enormous pressures on the planet, and that mankind is to blame for most of them, but without his “thoughts and words and ideas” I’m not sure how he could work towards mending the earth?

How wise is it to try to mend something that can mend itself---if it is left alone and given time to do that?

The boreal forests, for example, are doing much better at "recovering" by themselves in Northern Russia than in Northern Canada; both suffered a lot of shit during the Cold War, but after it ended, Canada's are still not doing that well, compared to Russia's. Why? Because Russia never bothered to try to "make everything better," mostly due to no money and no real interest; as early as the the mid-1990s there were a few Russians who noted that by being left alone, the forests were coming back. They didn't need our management, our "help."

In Canada, we have the conceit and arrogance (and control-freakism) that most of the West has; "the environment is frail and helpless, and we must coddle and save it." Rubbish. Nature is tough; our "help" is what harms and destroys it as much as our pollution and logging. Like an overprotective mother, we smother it and doom it to weakness and sickness, a slow death.

So, modern man has not yet gained the wisdom to leave it be. All his "thoughts and words and ideas" are useless, superfluous, ridiculous.

[Cory Duchesne]

I agree that native man lived more wisely than modern man.

But did he live that much different from the animals? Animals live in a sustainable way too, they dont overpopulate, they don't become addicted to drugs, kill themselves, tortue each other, etc.

But I stand by what I said earlier - -- modern man is more conscious of truth, he is closer to consciousness of truth.

His problem is that he's stuck in the middle. He's used his more advanced intellect to enslave himself to his more primitive emotions