the worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race?

[Cory Duchesne]

An excellent article by Jared Diamond revealing how the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and crowded cities actually reduced human life expectancies.


"The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/ag ... stake.html

[La Verdad]

An excellent article by Jared Diamond revealing how the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and crowded cities actually reduced human life expectancies.


"The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/ag ... stake.html

I don't see why that's such a bad trade. When you're not hunting for food and picking berries all day there's actually time to do the things that make life worthwhile - like philosophizing, painting, learning an instrument - doing all the things that prove that man is not an animal.

I found this part esecially interesting:

Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture.

If the hunter-gatherer environment is as artistically nurtering as the author repeatedly insists, then how come the hundreds of thousands of years we spent in it produced nothing but cave scrawlings?

As for it making life shorter - so what? It's the materialistic-feminine nature that strives for a life of as much comfort and length as possible.
The masculine nature, longs to lead a life fraught with difficulties, agony, struggles, defeats because only these provide the opportunity for discipline, happiness, overcoming, victories (especially moral ones ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc).

The effeminate man longs for Heaven/Eden and the masculine man longs for Earth (even in a decision to leave it).

[DHodges]

If the hunter-gatherer environment is as artistically nurtering as the author repeatedly insists, then how come the hundreds of thousands of years we spent in it produced nothing but cave scrawlings?

There is this persistent meme of a Golden Age, when everything was easy, nobody had to really work, it was always summertime and the living was easy. Somehow we screwed it all up and got thrown out of Eden.

I'm tempted to get all Freudian and say this is a desire to return to the womb.

[Nick]

If the hunter-gatherer environment is as artistically nurtering as the author repeatedly insists, then how come the hundreds of thousands of years we spent in it produced nothing but cave scrawlings?

There is this persistent meme of a Golden Age, when everything was easy, nobody had to really work, it was always summertime and the living was easy. Somehow we screwed it all up and got thrown out of Eden.

I'm tempted to get all Freudian and say this is a desire to return to the womb.

I agree, sounds like just a bunch of hippies trying glorify their lifestyle. I prefer sleeping on my bed over a pile of leafs. I prefer living in a secure enclosure rather than in the wild. And I see how technology has the capability to eventually get us to a point where we might no longer have to work. These are all results of thinking outside of the box and going against the grain (masculinity). The problem is that most of the world is too feminine to use what masculine thinking has gained for us responsibly. Instead of being patient and developing things responsibly, things have been rushed to reap the benefits as soon as possible. Sure this causes all kinds of problems, but it's not moving out of caves that caused it. It's a case of a child finding his father's shotgun, and accidentally shooting himself in the head because he has no respect for it.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick wrote:

And I see how technology has the capability to eventually get us to a point where we might no longer have to work.

This is debatable Nick, for instance Many philosophers believe that robots will free human beings from the plight of labour, but robots need to be manufactured like anything else and this process will always require some sort of human labour. That labour maybe drastically reduced by lets say nanobots, but humans will need to maintain nanobot systems. Our labour will continue to become increasingly complicated until the incredibly wise and simple philosophers realize that the entire technological progression was a waste of time to begin with.

Man only needs simple food, clothes and shelter, but I see that he will always need to work for it, but for him working close to nature growing food isnt a burden, but working in a factory assembling technology is quite a problem for the sage. To negate the world is a masculine thing, to be attached to technology is a feminine thing.

Currently the world is enslaved to manufacture technology that we don’t really need. Things such as televisions, cell phones, mp3 players, cameras, etc are not needed, they are the result of a deluded overpopulated civilization that is unable to think outside the box in terms of simplicity and minimalism.

[Nick]

In our current society we don't use technology responsibly. It's all about getting it done as fast as possible, marketing it to consumers, and making the most money off of it as possible. In the case of an enlightened society technology would be used responsibly. Not for the purposes as I described above, or the purposes you described. I agree minimalism and simplicity is a good thing. Combining this mentality with advanced or nano-technology would be a wonderful thing.

Do you honestly think we would be better off living as hunters and gatherers again? This time was not all peaches and cream. People generally only lived into their twenties, and they were so busy just trying to survive there was little else they could focus on. And you think farming would be easy without technology? It could be argued that the man power required to maintain healthy crops is actually just as difficult or more so than being a hunter gatherer. I'd take the benefits of technology over these in a heart beat.

Like I said in my previous post, it's a case of a child finding his fathers shotgun and blowing his head off because he didn't have respect for it. Most people don't have the respect for technology that they should have. Using it for their overly feminine life styles and greed. If humans can learn to use technology responsibly for the overall benefit of mankind then the possibilities are endless.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An excellent article by Jared Diamond revealing how the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture and crowded cities actually reduced human life expectancies.

There's some interesting link between what Jared Diamond is referring to:

Such [agricultural] bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It’s not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn’t want.

and the well known story of Cain and Abel, where Cain, the farmer, murders Abel the shepherd (herdman or teacher). The shepherds were a wandering people, using a lot of land but in a moving, nomadic fashion. There are more historical myths highlighting the violence of the agricultural society against the less organized, smaller scale dynamic lifestyles of hunters and shepherds (eg the Sumerian story of Dumuzi and Enkimdu). The age of colonialism demonstrated the same overwhelming destructive take-overs.

But as the story goes, out of Cain were born great musicians and craftsmen, and perhaps the whole organization that complex societies need to function, bearing all their god-like technological fruits.

What price paradise? Or for that matter: which growing pains for consciousness?

[Tharan]

It depends on the yield of hunting relative to the yield of food production. Crops supply less protein in general.

In Africa up until about now, or Europe or the Americas during the last ice age, or even America during the great buffalo herds, or current and past Eskimo populations, the efficiency of hunting and fishing would greatly outweigh the yeild from agriculture.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Little Nickie wrote:

Do you honestly think we would be better off living as hunters and gatherers again?

I’m not suggesting a complete return to a hunter/gather state, but there are many techniques natives used that can be applied to small scale sustainable agriculture.

For instance: Natives were aware of perennial vegetables and fruits that grow year round and they were aware that in some areas certain varieties grew well together based on what species are planted together.

These simple relationships can be used on an individual’s private property to basically mimic the natural world.

An individual can grow enough perennial vegetables and fruits on his property to last him year round, and he only needs a relatively small amount of space to do it.

So techniques hunters/gatherers used can be transferred over to small scale sustainable agriculture models.

And it ends up being much more efficient because the individual doesnt need to wander for miles everyday collecting food from spot to spot.

The problem with modern agriculture is it consists of predominately large scale monocrops. Monocrops do not grow well, the soil needs variety. When you grow one crop on its own, the soil and the plants die unless you dose the entire field with petroleum based fertilizers which is incredibly labour intensive and not an intelligent solution to the problem.

North American crops are still predominately based on the Monocrop design system which is responsible for the huge amount of soil decay and erosion that we are now seeing.

In the last 100 years, North America has lost almost 20% of its fertile soil reserves. Scientists are now beginning to realize that we have a SERIOUS problem. And some scientists are beginning to study the growing and nomadic techniques of ancient tribes that were able to survive for thousands of years without causing any serious damage to the soil.

Also by growing perennial varieties instead of annuals the soil does not need to be tilled which further prevents soil erosion and decay.

Of course the perennial varieties are not as gratifying as annual mutants that scientists have bred in labs, but the destiny of humanity is to become less attached to feminine things anyhow so I don’t see a problem.

Little Nickie wrote:

Combining this mentality with advanced or nano-technology would be a wonderful thing.

I’m still skeptical of nanotechnology, if it can be done in a way that isn’t incredibly labour intensive and enslaving to mankind then I don’t have a problem with it, but based on man’s technological history, I find a feeling that it maybe just another blunder, but again I’m not absolutely certain.

I just don’t believe sages will want to work 9-5 jobs in the future to maintain nanobot factories when the products produced by nanotechnology are not needed in the first place, however there maybe exceptions.

Diebert wrote:

But as the story goes, out of Cain were born great musicians and craftsmen, and perhaps the whole organization that complex societies need to function, bearing all their god-like technological fruits.

Yes, but because there is such frustration to live in civilization doing hellish jobs such as operating these technological fruits and because of how attached man is to women etc…we have musicians, artists and all sorts of other freakish mutant specializations that further divide and confuse the masses on what is the right way to live.

Most artists do not want society to change because there entire living depends on there being a problem/conflict in society so you will rarely hear a musician singing about global solutions to humanities problems.

And the ones who try usually do not have a complete understanding of the problem anyhow.

The counter-cultural types end up giving their limited opinions such as getting excited over rebelling against your government or preaching some nasty word such as love or some other rot…

Great Musicians are rare. Only because greatness is associated with masculinity, but music tends to be excessively feminine, but perhaps the wise musician is possible, however he may end up being a martyr to his craft which is unnecessary suffering in my opinion.

Tharan wrote:

It depends on the yield of hunting relative to the yield of food production.

What is ironic is that yields have never been higher in the United States, they are producing such a surplus of protein-rich crops such as soyabeans that thousands of tones are disposed of every-year.

The problem is that these monocrop design systems are completely destroying the environment. The farmers are thinking profit, not sustainability.

They are ignorantly growing crops in a way that destroys the soil, but hoping for that big score before there soil is destroyed. Most commercial farmers know that trying to support the masses in the cities using the current methods is a lost cause.

The problem is that you cannot have 8% of the population trying to grow food large scale for 92% of the population especially when that 92% of the population is incredibly overpopulated and controlled by excessive impulses.

large scale models do not work, more of the popluation needs to adopt small scale sustainable agriculture on their private properites.

Over 50% of the corn and soyabeans produced in the US is used for sweetener extraction.
One of the biggest imports into the US is sugarcane…

-------------------------------------------------------------

Lame joke:

Robin: Holy Feminine Humans Batman!

Batman: You’re Right Robin! To the Batmobile!

Robin: but Batman, Remember I suggested taking bicycles instead of using the Batmobile because it’s a V8 and inefficient…

Batman: You question my authority!

Robin: But it’s a V8!

Batman: But I look so good driving in it, it goes well with my outfit, and when I drive fast past Catwomen I know she likes it…

Robin: But were supposed to be role models for the kids Batman…

Batman: Listen, I decided I don’t need a sidekick anymore, I’m going as a solo superhero, Batman has a better ring than Batman and Robin anyhow…

Robin frowns….

[yombie]

I think science is the turning point in humanity. Sure with all it's flashy lights and fandangled options it has now-a-days, it makes for some easy living, but just like the corn which we help create, it is slowly destroying is. I learned once that humanity didn't suffer from tooth decay until the development of corn. Science claims to be a self correcting process, so that truths too, like the ephemeral, do and do not exist. But as science proceeds and new technology and information is created, we start to shelter ourselves into a box of which everything is done and thought for us, (much like present day!). Science is horrible (but can be good), it doesn't allow so much for unique interpertations of reality and takes us away from what makes us human, and is the mask of which people wear to cover up their own insecurities of their own beliefs in a world that strives for a norm, or set parameters.
Modern man is doomed, in that we cannot allow ourselves the chance to experience the growths of new/radical, thought/belief systems... yet all that needs done, is to change how every body else sees things.
Fundamentalism co-exists with science... for as much as we strive to define the material realm of existing we strive with equal force to define the nature of things inconceivible that exist... sorry for the tangent.

--------------
time,distance,force,thought... these are things are all relative, and are left merely to be interpertated.

.Yombie

[Diebert van Rhijn]

large scale models do not work, more of the population needs to adopt small scale sustainable agriculture on their private properties.

If prices would get high enough, they might starting to feel it's worthwhile? People hardly act out of idealism.

But why stop at home gardening? People could start doing a lot of things themselves. Home decoration and small repairs, it doesn't take much training to be able to do some work to the house or repair broken stuff. People could use different forms of transportation, at least half of the time, to get around. If they have to 'get around' in the first place. Quite a lot of traffic goes nowhere special, as has been found out.

The wasting of energy and materials does not only happen, it seems an underlying theme of the 'modern' world. It drives economy and developments. Insane abundance like a mountain of rock that produces rare gems. Which is perhaps not so 'unnatural' as some think. Perhaps one could call it natural to the extreme - and in this case mostly unconscious too.

Now what about the worth of nomadic civilisations? Were the Mongols perhaps not so stupid as the nickname implies?

One interesting article I'd like to see some commenting on is the following: The Original Affluent Society.

Hunting and gathering has all the strengths of its weaknesses. Periodic movement and restraint in wealth and adaptations, the kinds of necessities of the economic practice and creative adaptations the kinds of necessities of which virtues are made. Precisely in such a framework, affluence becomes possible. Mobility and moderation put hunters' ends within range of their technical means. An undeveloped mode of production is thus rendered highly effective. The hunter's life is not as difficult as it looks from the outside. In some ways the economy reflects dire ecology, but it is also a complete inversion.

What do the wise think of such a framework, as the current dominant agricultural and city-centered lifestyle creates so much suffering - by its very nature? Or is a static dug-in world producing mass-technology as we're enjoying right now an unavoidable development?

Why did so many sages live such unsettled lifes, as far as we know?

[Tharan]

Cosmic Prostitute wrote,

What is ironic is that yields have never been higher in the United States, they are producing such a surplus of protein-rich crops such as soyabeans that thousands of tones are disposed of every-year.

It is not a static picture. US crop yields are higher NOW due to science. Historically speaking, you throw your seeds and pray for rain.

The problem is that these monocrop design systems are completely destroying the environment. The farmers are thinking profit, not sustainability.

Really, this language is not realisitc. It is physically impossible to "completely destroy the environment." A culture might add elements that lend living near the polluted land unliveable or unsavory, which what I think your real point is.

That issue can be attacked from many angles, not simply organic farming. There is no such thing as balance in Nature. Nature is nature, including the humans on planet earth. Nature is always balanced and cannot be anything but balanced.

If someone dislikes the smell or babies are born with three eyes, then do something about it. Science seems to work.

They are ignorantly growing crops in a way that destroys the soil, but hoping for that big score before there soil is destroyed. Most commercial farmers know that trying to support the masses in the cities using the current methods is a lost cause.

The soil cannot be destroyed. Soils can lose minerals, which can be replaced.

The problem is that you cannot have 8% of the population trying to grow food large scale for 92% of the population especially when that 92% of the population is incredibly overpopulated and controlled by excessive impulses.

Why not? Why couldn't less than a tenth of a percent of the population, with the help oif automation, make food for 99.99% of the popultaion, even with their "excesses?"

Science is magic.

large scale models do not work, more of the popluation needs to adopt small scale sustainable agriculture on their private properites.

That sounds like an outstanding solution for you. I encourage it. But it is not the only solution.

Over 50% of the corn and soyabeans produced in the US is used for sweetener extraction.
One of the biggest imports into the US is sugarcane…

So? Is this a moral argument then?

Sugar = bad? What else is "bad?" Weed? Alcohol? They are also chemically induced pleasures. Even simple thoughts can be argued to be chemically induced and are sometimes pleasureable.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tharan wrote:

The soil cannot be destroyed. Soils can lose minerals, which can be replaced.

On the contrary, humus which is a major component of soil takes hundreds to thousands of years to properly decompose by microorganisms.

Modern Agriculture systems destroy this balance in one growing season…

Tharan wrote:

Nature is always balanced and cannot be anything but balanced.

Are you denying the fact that humans can damage the environment? Are you aware that the Sahara desert used to be vast rainforests? Man can have a harmful affect on the planet due to unintelligent behavior, this is an irrefutable fact.

In the last 100 years the quality of our fresh water, air, and soil has been drastically degraded. Man is supremely unintelligent and many of the scientists are causing the damage.

Tharan wrote:

Science is magic.

You are in awe of a mirage…

Science is slavery, look around, call centers, sweat shops, What has technology done for us besides enslave us? the population is diseased, overweight, confused, neurotic, where is all the magic? Science has failed in solving all of humanities real problems including agriculture.

Tharan wrote:

Sugar = bad? What else is "bad?" Weed? Alcohol? They are also chemically induced pleasures. Even simple thoughts can be argued to be chemically induced and are sometimes pleasureable.

When the body has sensitivity one is unable to consume substances that cause pain to it. Weed, alcohol and sugar are examples. The human is an excessive beast plagued by his uncontrollable desires, he clings to sensation and delusion.

If one is a true minimalist, then one does see refined white sugar as bad. It has harmful affects on the body and mind.

Diebert wrote:

What do the wise think of such a framework, as the current dominant agricultural and city-centered lifestyle creates so much suffering - by its very nature? Or is a static dug-in world producing mass-technology as we're enjoying right now an unavoidable development?

.

The city creates suffering because it is not sustainable, humans do not own private property, they are a slave to rent, they can not grow their own food, they must work a job they hate to buy it at a grocery store and so on...

The city has failed us in providing freedom.

By looking at civilization, it is quite clear that man is controlled by technology, he is a slave to maintain it, assemble it and so on.

True freedom is when one has the courage to abandon what is not needed and return to a life of simplicity…

Man is spending billions to put rovers on mars, but meanwhile his agriculture systems are failing...where is the logic? there is none, humanity is moving in many confused directions that have no relationship to each other. Many of the scientists are the biggest fools of all.

We are unable to get the simple things right, because the simple problems arent gratifying enough for us, humans crave excitement and thrill which is one of the major sources of the world’s misery.

[Nick]

Cosmic Prostitute, I don't think I have made my point clear enough in my responses to you. I'm not trying to predict the future or say that there aren't benefits in the different aspects of our ancestor's lives. The point of everything I've said is this. Man's ignorance and greed are the cause suffering, not the technology itself. With all things great comes great power. This power can do many good and bad things. Deciding what this power is used for are the choices made by people, not the technology. Until man learns to seek Truth above everything else, technological advances, along with other things, will continue to cause much damage and suffering. But the benefits of technological advances are great in numbers too. If and when man decides to clear his mind and live at one with the Tao, technology will naturally be used with perfect wisdom and logic. Effortlessly eliminating all the negative aspects of technology.

[Jason]

I’m still skeptical of nanotechnology, if it can be done in a way that isn’t incredibly labour intensive and enslaving to mankind then I don’t have a problem with it, but based on man’s technological history, I find a feeling that it maybe just another blunder, but again I’m not absolutely certain.

I just don’t believe sages will want to work 9-5 jobs in the future to maintain nanobot factories when the products produced by nanotechnology are not needed in the first place, however there maybe exceptions.

One of the long-term goals of nanotechnology is to create self-replicating devices. Once/if that occurs the theory is that humans will be free from maintenance or creation of the devices. They would possibly reproduce and power themselves from readily available raw materials and energy sources. Bacteria are already doing it, but they're hard to train.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The city has failed us in providing freedom.

No doubt about the problems urbanization created. But lets list some more effects for a complete picture. What comes with cities is:

- more developed and specialized industrial and business developments (with so many 'slaves' and infrastructure concentrated)
- thriving, more diverse local markets
- easier telecommunications and transport
- more intense social network for trade, art and science
- skills and resources are concentrated and create more power
- possibility for states and states make possible highly organized military, which have been used to forcefully spread civilisations, including science, skills (including reading and logic/reasoning) and art

By looking at civilization, it is quite clear that man is controlled by technology, he is a slave to maintain it, assemble it and so on.

This is even true for hunters and gatherers, or nomads - they remain controlled by nature, weather, tribal hierarchy and rivalry. Freedom doesn't appear to lie in the abundance or lack of technology: every so-called 'freedom' creates an underground 'dungeon'.

True freedom is when one has the courage to abandon what is not needed and return to a life of simplicity…

What you call simple might depend on the individual situation. One can experience a 'simple' life aimlessly drifting on a very complex layer of technology working out of sight for him, letting others pay the price. Or one can experience a 'complex' life for example surviving in a warzone or as refugee with no means of existence.

We are unable to get the simple things right, because the simple problems arent gratifying enough for us, humans crave excitement and thrill which is one of the major sources of the world’s misery.

Maybe the word 'simple' is misleading here. There's nothing simple about getting enough people educated, medicated and civilized enough to deal with existence in a transparent manner. Maybe most have to get through a lot of complexity and illusive gratification before one "gets it" right, the Tao way.

[Cory Duchesne]

Jason wrote:

One of the long-term goals of nanotechnology is to create self-replicating devices. Once/if that occurs the theory is that humans will be free from maintenance or creation of the devices. They would possibly reproduce and power themselves from readily available raw materials and energy sources. Bacteria are already doing it, but they're hard to train.

Jason, lets just imagine that right at this moment you were one of those leading edge scientists who just so happened to be on the verge of perfecting the perfect nanobots - the sort of nanobots that would take over the labour industry and relieve man of his obligation/condemnation to work........

now.....

Would you think it wise to release such technology onto the world?

Is humanity mature enough to deal with technology?

What would humanity do with all the excess leisure that replicating nanobots can provide?

Wouldnt such excessive leisure only amplify the present state of widespread decadence and narcisism?

So why would someone be enthusiastic about the even more powerful technology that lie shilouetted upon the ominous horizon?

Probably because they are a decadent narcisist.

Jason, we clearly can't even responsibly wield the technology we have, yet, absurdly enough, you are enthusiastic about a new technology that, if misused, has even more dire complications.

Mankind has a maturity problem. Mankind is weak, narcisistic, feminine, envious, jealous, lustful, sensual, frightened, bored, etc, etc.

How often does he employ the technology he has gained thus far toward ends that do not function to preserve his base qualities? Hardly ever.

Even a discussion forum such as this is sensual and motivated mostly by emotion. Most of the people on this forum (including myself) are not much diffferent from the academic philosopher who keeps himself occupied with reading, logic and thinking for purely sensual reasons.

Do you honestly think that providing man more leisure via technology is going to mature him?

People work more hours now than they ever have in history. All for the sake of maintaining the technology that provides us with more and more sensuality.

The more pleasure man gets, the more pain he must pay.

Man must go beyond good and evil, beyond pleasure and pain, beyond masculinity and femininity. Beyond the world.

That is why I see permaculture, fukuoka, and the architecture of christopher alexander as important.

And this is why:

Man's leisure should be provided to the degree that he proves able to wisely design and build systems that provide his own food, to the degree that he can wisely design, build and maintain his own shelter wisely, to the degree that he has the sensitivity, intelligence, and wisdom neccesary for getting along and cooperating with others.

In that way he earns and deserves his own leisure.

People should not have leisure handed over to them in a gold platter.

Personally I was raised in a fairly affulent family, was quite spoiled as a child - and I am paying the price for it in my early adult-hood - - as are my parents.

People should have to develop their intelligence and put in the hard work and study to earn their leisure.

Therefore, he who has the intelligence and wisdom to design his shelter and food system in a way that provides him leisure - understands how and why freedom and responsibility are one

People who are given great leisure before they put in years of holistic observation, hardwork, study and experimentation - are doomed to frivolty, fickleness, narcisicm, envy, hedonism, suffering, poor health, studidity, etc, etc, etc........

[Sonata]

Humanity has never made a mistake they live for a reason just like every other form of life.

You could say what was the worse move the dinosaurs made and it would be the same thing.

Why did the (dinosaurs/sapiens) never make it past the Earth? Simple because they were both affriad of the truth. Or they all had a different form of the truth which none could agree with. Hell they created religion for the same reasons the dinosaurs did. So they would never have to deal with it.

And eventually they will sacrafice it all just to prove their little points. Do we really need 6 billion people less just to figure out what the truth really is? I guess you all do. Cheers to the ego of humanity have fun killing eachother over it. Or you could just say "yes" and save yourselves the wait.

[Tharan]

Tharan wrote:

The soil cannot be destroyed. Soils can lose minerals, which can be replaced.

On the contrary, humus which is a major component of soil takes hundreds to thousands of years to properly decompose by microorganisms.

Hummus? Ground garbanzo beans and olive oil?

Soil be can be easily recreated in the lab. It is done all the time.

Modern Agriculture systems destroy this balance in one growing season…

If this were true, shouldn't we be short of food for many years now?

Tharan wrote:

Nature is always balanced and cannot be anything but balanced.

Are you denying the fact that humans can damage the environment? Are you aware that the Sahara desert used to be vast rainforests? Man can have a harmful affect on the planet due to unintelligent behavior, this is an irrefutable fact.

Humans can change the environment certainly. Did you know that all the continents used to be one?

In the last 100 years the quality of our fresh water, air, and soil has been drastically degraded. Man is supremely unintelligent and many of the scientists are causing the damage.

I feel healthier than ever. I make smart personal choices.

Tharan wrote:

Science is magic.

You are in awe of a mirage…

Science is slavery, look around, call centers, sweat shops, What has technology done for us besides enslave us? the population is diseased, overweight, confused, neurotic, where is all the magic? Science has failed in solving all of humanities real problems including agriculture.

Where is all the magic, you ask? In (computer-based) message boards, I tell you! It is magic that we can speak now.

Tharan wrote:

Sugar = bad? What else is "bad?" Weed? Alcohol? They are also chemically induced pleasures. Even simple thoughts can be argued to be chemically induced and are sometimes pleasureable.

When the body has sensitivity one is unable to consume substances that cause pain to it. Weed, alcohol and sugar are examples. The human is an excessive beast plagued by his uncontrollable desires, he clings to sensation and delusion.

I generally agree with you here. But it is not an absolute.

If one is a true minimalist, then one does see refined white sugar as bad. It has harmful affects on the body and mind.

So what is a false minimalist? A masquerading maximalist?

And wouldn't that make a true minimalist equivalent to a masquerading maximalist?

...No wait...that would make a true minimalist equivalent to am masquerading minimalist. Yes, it is all clear now.

[Jamesh]

Don't read Jared Diamonds stuff as a bible - he doesn't always get it right.

The fraud of primitive authenticity

Megadeath in Mexico

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tharan wrote:

Where is all the magic, you ask? In (computer-based) message boards, I tell you! It is magic that we can speak now.

Yes, but is it even necessary that you and I talk on this machine?

Is it a necessity or a luxury?

I say it is a luxury, I really don’t need any of this.

And for me to be using this luxury, Chinese slaves had to assemble this computer, the parts had to be shipped across the world, people had to install the software…

I’m just saying that the wisest philosophers negate the entire world for the world’s sake…

A complete and total negation is the only way the entire world will be free.

A real sage dies completely and this is an incredibly rare thing,

One shouldn’t be attached to something that is another’s slavery…

[Tharan]

Yes, but is it even necessary that you and I talk on this machine?

Is it a necessity or a luxury?

I say it is a luxury, I really don’t need any of this.

In the past, I would ask my ex-wife "Can't you see beyond your own nose?"

And for me to be using this luxury, Chinese slaves had to assemble this computer, the parts had to be shipped across the world, people had to install the software…

I selfsufficiently assemble my own computers and install the software. I don't depend on my neighbor and then whine about the quality of his work.

Those "slaves" are making a multiple of what their parents and certainly their granadparents made. They have many more luxuries in their lives and both life expectancy and child survivale rates have increased significantly. What needs to happen, is that they need to unionize for a generation or two.

Globally speaking, it is irrelevant what some American, wringing his hands against the very monitor he proclaims he does not need, thinks about "what is best for the natives."

I’m just saying that the wisest philosophers negate the entire world for the world’s sake…

A complete and total negation is the only way the entire world will be free.

They are not the wisest philosophers as you rightly point out. A complete and total "negation" would require us to endure a few years of "free-for-all." Can you handle it?

A real sage dies completely and this is an incredibly rare thing,

Has a true sage ever been born?

One shouldn’t be attached to something that is another’s slavery…

Is this cubicle my bondage chain?

[DHodges]

A complete and total negation is the only way the entire world will be free.

I'm of two minds about this, mostly because I've been reading Neitzsche lately.

He calls this saying "No" to life.

The other option is to give a big "Yes" to life, accepting how things are rather than condemning it. But this actually involves a pretty big change of perspective, because life, the universe, doesn't care about our morality. It is what it is. To see that is a perspective "beyond good and evil."

One shouldn’t be attached to something that is another’s slavery…

The main problem, as I see it, is that people are so attached to their own slavery.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tharan wrote:

I selfsufficiently assemble my own computers and install the software. I don't depend on my neighbor and then whine about the quality of his work.

So you go down into the earth and mine your own ore?

And you sit on a factory line and put together your motherboard, processor, hard drive, ram, power supply, case, keyboard, mouse, video card, ethernet card, CD-Rom, sound card? Wow that’s impressive.

You must write your own software too, Think of the vast amount of labour that is necessary...

Tharan wrote:

They have many more luxuries in their lives and both life expectancy and child survivale rates have increased significantly.

Yes, but what is their quality of life? Would you like to spend 8 hours a day sitting in a dark factory assembling electronics? It’s corrupt, its not needed, a luxury, its excessive.

Man is enslaved because a minority of people are attached to luxury, this includes technology.

The intelligent man of the future will show the ultimate compassion and negate what is not needed so the world can be totally free.

Tharan wrote:

A complete and total "negation" would require us to endure a few years of "free-for-all." Can you handle it?

A free-for-all only happens with the immature mind. The mature people will be the only ones strong enough to negate all attachments anyhow. And only a minority is strong enough to do this, its going to happen slowly.

Tharan wrote:

Has a true sage ever been born?

No, not born, one matures into it. Diogenes started working with his father I believe, and after he observed the slavery, corruption and dishonesty, he choicelessly found himself living in a barrel. it takes time.

Tharan wrote:

Is this cubicle my bondage chain?

Yes, a cubicle is a bondage chain because it enslaves yourself and the labour you perform enslaves others.

I’m not saying that everyone is in a position to completely negate the world, for instance: I work part time at a call center because I need money, but I see how miserable the people are and I can see what we need to do collectively. And obviously I own a computer which has been assembled by slaves, however I am slowly negating what is not needed a little at a time and moving into a direction of sustainability.

The human being should not need to go on prozac to get through the day, but this is what our lives have become.

Dhodges wrote:

The other option is to give a big "Yes" to life, accepting how things are rather than condemning it. But this actually involves a pretty big change of perspective, because life, the universe, doesn't care about our morality. It is what it is. To see that is a perspective "beyond good and evil."

I see what you mean, and I agree. To quote UG krishnamurti he said “ I really don’t care what the hell happens to the world”

All UG was suggesting here was that he wasn’t emotionally involved in how the events of the world unfold. I feel the same way, I'm open to the world never changing and completely destroying itself, but I’m also open to a massive revolution of consciousness. Both are options that could occur.

There is a story about UG where a man came to him and said "why do you sit here all day and no nothing besides rant on people, why dont you go out and get a real job like me?"

UG said: what is it you do?

The man responded: "I sell car insurance"

UG said "I'd prefer to sit here and when I'm hungry I walk outside and eat off the fruit tree there."

The man had no response... This is the direction humanity needs to move in, and UG was aware of it, but he focused purely on the psychological in his teaching.

I dont agree with Quinn's critique of UG. Sure he had imperfections, but he definitely possessed wisdom. I dont believe he was an imposter, just silly in a few ways.

Dhodges wrote:

The main problem, as I see it, is that people are so attached to their own slavery.

Yes and if I am attached to my own slavery that this in itself sustains another’s slavery.

For instance: If North America values cell phones, meaning everyone needs to have one and they’re all attached then this results in slavery in China and India because someone needs to assemble these vile machines.

Every demand creates extra labor. The wise man desires very little and as a result he is low maintenance.

A low maintenance man causes less damage on the world because he barely exists.

The man who exists is the one who causes all the problems.

However do not misunderstand me, I'm not saying abandon your computer today because the computer is an invaluable teaching tool because its extensive knowledge database.

But eventually the knowledge that will need to be known for a sustainable life will be known and the computer will not be needed.

The computer is training the human brain to be able to retain massive amounts of knowledge.

Even the way that we click and navigate through pages as we search micmics the way neutrons search for data in the brain cells themselves.

These repeated exercises are causing changes in the brain cells themselves, The knowledge can be recalled easier.

So it is necessary, but it wont always be necessary. The human brain is changing/evoluting/growing expanding in simplicity/complexity.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cosmic prostitute: A complete and total negation is the only way the entire world will be free.

Dhodges: I'm of two minds about this, mostly because I've been reading Neitzsche lately.

He calls this saying "No" to life.

The other option is to give a big "Yes" to life, accepting how things are rather than condemning it.

Reducing ones approach to life down to 'yes or no' is too simplisitic and I think by doing so you take Neitzche out of context.

To say no to one thing is to say yes to another.

You can only 'consciously' negate that which is known, and thus great levels of refinement and sophistication can only be reached through negation.

Negation is essential. Nietzche thought is not so simplistic that one simply just says yes to everything.

Nietzche's power of negation was the reason he was such a powerful thinker.

The greater the negation, the greater the individual.

The more accepting of how things are one is, the more mediocre one is.

I think this is fairly obvious.

DHodges: [Saying YES to life] actually involves a pretty big change of perspective, because life, the universe, doesn't care about our morality.

Well, if you consider the best of what past humanity has offered its future self, you could argue that the universe does care about the betterment and refinement of itself.

For example, just look at what the QRS has done, along with Soren Kierkguaard, Fredrich Nietzsche, Socrates and countless others. Clearly they did indeed care about mans betterment.

I dont think Nietzche's life was just about smugly asserting that man's morality "It is what it is" and urging his readers to 'just accept it'.

Nietzche instead deemed humanity as vulgar and took it upon himself to Love and 'give' to humanity, to improve humanity.

For example, the following excerpt from 'thus spoke zarathustra' finds Zarathustra in dialogue with a wandering saint - and it is in this excerpt that Nietzsche exposes himself as a passionate moralist.

Zarathustra: "I love mankind."

"Why," said the saint, "did I go into the forest and the desert? Was it not because I loved men far too well?

Now I love God: men, I do not love. Man is a thing too imperfect for me. Love to man would be fatal to me."

Zarathustra answered: "What spake I of love! I am bringing gifts unto men."

"Give them nothing," said the saint. "Take rather part of their load, and carry it along with them--that will be most agreeable unto them: if only it be agreeable unto thee!

If, however, thou wilt give unto them, give them no more than an alms, and let them also beg for it!"

"No," replied Zarathustra, "I give no alms. I am not poor enough for that."

The saint laughed at Zarathustra, and spake thus: "Then see to it that they accept thy treasures! They are distrustful of anchorites, and do not believe that we come with gifts.

The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief?

Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me--a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?"

"And what doeth the saint in the forest?" asked Zarathustra.

The saint answered: "I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God.

With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling I praise the God who is my God.

But what dost thou bring us as a gift?"

When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: "What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!"--

And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys.

Nietzche's emphasis that the superman must disregard morality was merely a rhetorical point. He was aware the morality of your typical culture, is not at all moral, and he was aware of the tendency for those who are aware of mans hypocritical and imoral morality to escape into hermitude and isolation......So he emphasised the importance of living above and beyond morality - in order to be moral, in order to love.

If you say yes to life without giving life much contemplation, you are saying no to a greater life. When one becomes enlightened, the words 'yes and no' practically become meaningless abstractions unless they are used carefully in a certain context.

dhodges: [To see that the universe doesnt care about our morality] is a perspective "beyond good and evil."

I think my interpretation of 'beyond good and evil' is different than yours, but perhaps not by much.

First, let us agree that good and evil [in the sense that Nietzsche uses the terms] are one. For instance [to borrow from heraclitus] A doctor, to live as well as he typically lives, depends on the suffering of the ill. Therefore good(affluence, reputation, high standing) and evil (physical suffering and unpredictable, mal-adpative physiology) are one.

To live beyond good and evil is to be so wise that you don't need a doctor, nor do you need to derive your well being and livilhood off of anyone elses misery or confusion.

Scott Nearing is one of the best examples I can think of as a true superman in that regard. He never once had to visit a doctor because he was sick, he visited some doctors only to have conversations with them about the meaning of health, he was a strict vegan, he fasted occasionaly for about a week at a time (for scientific reasons), he was never sick a day in his life. He grew all of his own food, dug his own well, built his own house. He occasionally traveled to various places to give talks. He was one of the greatest men of the 20th century no doubt. And the strength and scope of his negation was indeed the essence of his ability to take life on to the fullest.

Personally, ever since I've become vegetarian - I havent once gotten sick. Whereas, back when I wasnt careful about what I ate - I got colds and flu's predictably and consistently.