A Critique of Civilization As A Disease.

[Ryan Rudolph]

An interesting discussion arose between Cato and I in worldly matters as to whether or not civilization is a disease. I thought it was genius forum worthy so I’m expanding the critique and moving the discussion here.

Here are the following arguments I have constructed as to why western civilization is a disease.

1. First of all, the overpopulated godless cities are only able to be sustained through large scale commercial farming models that completely destroy soil reserves.

2. Secondly, over the last 100 years human beings have refined and specialized our building supplies to create overly vain, excessively expensive structures that enslave us to a lifetime of mortgage payments. And we sacrifice our freedom for increased comfort, security and pleasure. (completely feminine)

3. Thirdly, most businesses in cities are feminine in their nature: eg:// music stores, film stores, casinos, fast food restaurants, restaurants in general, big sky raise businesses that do nothing really except push paper and use up resources, hotels, bars, supermalls, technology stores where the latest gimmicks are peddled. The entire thing is complete and total femininity.

4. Not to mention that the luxury and abundance of material in the west is only achieved through the continued exploitation in countries such as India, China, South Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East and many others.


The genius doesn’t want to be a part of any of this chaos. This is why I agree with many of the other intelligent posters on here when I say that sustainable living through permaculture implementation is the most intelligent environment to create as a means to allow genius to grow and mature.

A combination of sustainable gardening techniques with minimal housing is the ideal model to create as a means to create a fertile environment for the developing genius.
.

[Cory Duchesne]

Good post, I agree.

The difficulites of this era could most concisely be attributed to the mutual expoitation that goes on between femininity and an inadequately developed masculinity.

Inevitably the masculine must become controlled and exploited by the very thing it tries to control and exploit.

Until mankind realizes that his efforts to control nature are in vain, he will continue to feverishly and parasitically gnaw at the flesh of the earth until it is dry bone.

Femininity(sensuality) becomes exploited by and thus exploits an inadequately developed masculinity (thought, rationality).

I think mankinds biggest hurdle is to go beyond his abnormally extreme sensual involvement with experiences that are achieved through immature imagination, thought, lust and cunning.

He uses his intellect to achieve sensual experiences that are, in terms of quality and quantity, a pernicious deviation away from the natural allotment of enjoyment. The high levels of sensual pleasure that he is able to experience is unprecedented - and thus his suffering has reached an unprecedented high as well. Pleasure creates pain, and pain creates the desire for more pleasure. Ultimately pleasure and pain are one undivided movement. Samsara if you will.

The sudden destruction of nature has been the shadow of industrialization.

The advent of agriculture was the poison seed of the tumescent Industrialization we see today.

Primitive hunter gather cultures were able to subsist for thousands and thousands of year without any major problems.

White man with his more sophisticated intellect destroys in 100 years what primitive man subsisted peacefuly off of for 1000's of years.

Further development of masculinity is neccesary, and the only way it can adequately develop is if you are genuinely interested.

[DHodges]

1. First of all, the overpopulated godless cities are only able to be sustained through large scale commercial farming models that completely destroy soil reserves.

Why do you say "godless"?

I certainly see god(s) as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[DHodges]

Primitive hunter gather cultures were able to subsist for thousands and thousands of year without any major problems.

This is a very romantic notion, that primitives were (or are) trouble free.

Agriculture allowed man to be in control of his food sources. As a hunter-gatherer, you are at the mercy of whatever happens to be available; sometimes you do well, sometimes you starve. Moving away from the hunter-gatherer nomadic lifestyle, being in one place with a reliable food source, allowed things to develop beyond what you could carry with you, and removed the stress of the constant need to find food.

Philosophy is not possible - or at least very difficult - when you must constantly work at the basics of finding food and shelter.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Why do you say "godless"?

The word godless is not used here signify a world devoid of the belief in god.

It is used to signify that we live in a western civilization that lacks morals, and by lacking morals I mean individuals that do not have a holistic understanding of reality.

Futhermore, even if one sees clearly that that self is an illusion, their understanding may still be lacking because they have no deep understanding of the myriad of ways we are destroying the planet, and therefore they are not changing their lives to mirror this type of understanding.

Many people in this forum throw around the word self and ego so frequently that it sounds a bit clichéd, meanwhile there are serious problems that our planet is facing that each individual must make a radical change in their lifestyle to bring about a deeper order.

However generally people are content being enslaved to civilization because it gives them lots of gimmicks to occupy their feminine brains with.

[Cato]

Dhodges

(from C. Patrick)Primitive hunter gather cultures were able to subsist for thousands and thousands of year without any major problems.

(Then from you)This is a very romantic notion, that primitives were (or are) trouble free.

It isn't "romantic", it is just plain uninformed.

This is why I just cannot take these guys seriously. They have NO knowledge of history and man's struggle.

There were as many trouble for the ancients and aboriginals as there are for modern man, they were just different (in degrees) problems.

Aboriginals (so-called "primitive" man) faced early death, lack of health care, and waring neighboring tribes. They faced low birth rates and high infant mortality. They were certainly free of the diseases we get today (high rates of diabetes, high blood pressure) but they often didn't live past 40 years old ANYWAY!

Aboriginals, whether small farmers or the vaunted "hunter/gatherers", faced unrelenting pressures of nature, as well. Why the hell do you people imagine their religions were always so earth related? It was because they were at the mercy of the seasons! Droughts weren't just annoyances they were KILLERS. Hunger resulted and people starved!

You people show the most ignorant and insulting view of our American Indians I have seen for a long time. In fact, you share your views of them with the racist views of the late 1800s when dime novels romanticized the "natural man" and the "noble savage" making NO distinction between one tribe or another.

You know, it is a shame that many of you people imagine that your simplistic, childish views pass for in depth discussion about philosophy.

You latch on to a few catch phrases and you think you are philosophers!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cato wrote:

You latch on to a few catch phrases and you think you are philosophers!

I’m not suggesting that Natives experienced some sort of utopia, my main point is that they respected the natural world much more than we do.

Their superstitious religions guaranteed it. The wisdom they possessed is that they had knowledge of native perennial crops that the contemporary man is completely ignorant of.

They were able to survive with very little by only taking what they needed. They were much closer to the minimalist ideal than modern man.

Modern man goes to the super market and loads up his shopping cart at the expense of the third world and at the expense of the destruction of the western world.

Modern man is a huge fool. An exploiter, A pleasure whore.

He is addicted to woman and he will be the first one to defend having a wife and kids as natural.

Cato, you come into to a genius forum and defend having a wife and kids, have you no idea what is rational?

[Cato]

Cosmic Pros,

my main point is that they respected the natural world much more than we do.

... and THERE you are WRONG, too! SOME Indian tribes had this reverence you are talking about. Many more did not. It was standard practice for many tribes to use up an area until it could no longer sustain them and then move on to a new place to devastate, to begin the process anew.

Dude, I am telling you that you have no clue whatsoever about what the aboriginal peoples in this country or any other country dealt with, how they lived or what their practices were. then you base your entire point on this non-existent knowledge and base a philosophy on unfounded conclusions.

There was a recent book (1491 : New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles Mann) that did a fantastic job rectifying the mistaken ideas of aboriginal Americans as the perfect man of nature. It is nonsense, total crap. Such a man NEVER existed in any time nor in any land.

You are utopian without any grounding in historical analysis. And, without historical analysis, your simplistic ideas cannot be claimed to be thought out or even intelligent.

Cato, you come into to a genius forum and defend having a wife and kids, have you no idea what is rational?

When such a blatantly ignorant statement is made, who can talk sense to it?

And, I'd rather be "addicted to women" than spend my time with children such as yourself. At least with a chick I can occaisonally get a 'lil sumpthin. With you goofs all I'd get is frustration and blather!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cato wrote:

There was a recent book (1491 : New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles Mann) that did a fantastic job rectifying the mistaken ideas of aboriginal Americans as the perfect man of nature. It is nonsense, total crap. Such a man NEVER existed in any time nor in any land.

You’re problem is that you actually believe American history as the gospel. Much of American Histroy is designed to make it seem as though the British came here and actually improved the way of life that was already here. Their claim to fame for North America was they actually brought guns, alcohol and sugar which basically corrupted many of the native tribes.

I’m not saying all, but many of the native tribes in North America had sustainable techniques established. They knew of seed saving and companion planting, and they only hunted what they needed.

The worshipped symbols in nature such as the wolf, eagle and river and strived to obtain certain attributes which they assigned to this symbols. Their religious systems guaranteed that they respected the natural world.

If you do your research, most native tribes had some sort of belief system worked out for themselves, I suspect that it was only the tribes that lacked a group belief system that would confusingly destroy the natural world and move on to another area.

I’m from Canada, and I have studied the native history here and most tribes didn’t devastate the landscape, they lived minimal sustainable existences for thousands of years.

This is true because there were such small numbers of them with no or little technology that they didn’t have the capability to devastate the landscape plus their belief systems ensured that they protected the natural world.

In Canadian history, It is only the white man in his overpopulated cities and grossly exaggerated technologies that is able to totally devastate a landscape.

You are a fool because you believe the drivel that they teach in American Universities. America is pure pride, and they will do anything do maintain their sense of achievement and superiority.

They will even lie about the past so they do not have to face up to the myriad of blunders that their ancestors are guilty of.

Have you ever watched guns, germs and steele? It illustrates how African tribes lived in perfect harmony with the environment until the British came and enslaved them into mining.

The british have blundered everywhere they have explored. They destroyed the sustainable systems that many of these native people had established for thousands of years.

Permaculture is simply a revival of many of these ideas that many native tribes already practiced.

Cato, Research this, it may seem new to you, but many of the ideas within it are quite ancient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

[Andreas]

Lots of genuinely interesting perspectives there.

Let's not forget to keep in mind that this identity-maintenance propelled, uh, 'wisdom', has the world to do with sucking golf balls through garden hoses, though.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Andreas wrote:

Let's not forget to keep in mind that this identity-maintenance propelled, uh, 'wisdom', has the world to do with sucking golf balls through garden hoses, though.

If this is what you believe, why don’t you actually finish the post with a well-thought out argument? Instead of just judging it blindly. It is quite irritating to have a post interrupted by someone who is too lazy to actually write something in depth.

Finish what you start, don’t just judge something as inferior merely as a means to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, put the work in.

Because perhaps you’re right, but I’ll never know because there is no argument here.

[swan]

Personally I rather live in this civilization than in any other reasons:
1- Healthcare: I won't simply die because of flu or appendicitis.
2- Knowledge: let's face it we have access to thousands of books, millions of web pages and each day knowledge multiplies, without that knowledge we wouldn't be posting here.

If you were to grow your own food you'll be too busy soiling and harvesting to even consider thinking on things like this, and when you finish the the days' shores you'll be too tired to think on anything besides eating and sleeping.

Please, search on some diet page, how many calories you have to consume per day to stay healthy and tell me if you can grow, reap and storage all that, without using any modern utility *made with the western industrial model*and all by yourself then I can support you. *I'm not saying this is the best option we have, but at least is better than the troubles of a non civilized community*

[Ryan Rudolph]

Swan wrote:

Knowledge: let's face it we have access to thousands of books, millions of web pages and each day knowledge multiplies, without that knowledge we wouldn't be posting here.

Swan, I agree, I’m not referring to a complete abandonment of civilization, just a drastic restructuring. I agree that computers are a useful resource because of the invaluable knowledge that they provide, among other technologies.

Swan wrote:

If you were to grow your own food you'll be too busy soiling and harvesting to even consider thinking on things like this, and when you finish the the days' shores you'll be too tired to think on anything besides eating and sleeping.

Swan, you assume that the inefficient, destructive commercial farming methods are the only methods available.

What you fail to realize is that there is a radical movement of sustainable agriculture that is rapidly emerging globally. This movement is centered around simply providing enough food for small communities, not cities.

It has been called Permaculture, forest gardening, natural farming, but the main point is that it takes very little time to maintain, one has an enormous amount of leisure.

To initially set up the sustainable model is the big part, but after that, one’s friction reduces drastically.

For instance: I grow fruit trees, berries, perennial vegetables, perennial herbs and they require very little maintenance and upkeep.

In a half an acre, one can produce enough food for a small family for an entire year, quite easily I must add.

One just needs to work with nature instead of against it.

These crude farming models that provide food for the masses are going out the window. Large scale operations with machinery, fertilizers, etc, are ignorant, they have no understanding of the natural world.

The destiny of each man is to grow his food, the people in the cities aren’t going to like this idea. They have been domesticated by the comfort of the city life. And they have been conditioned by the pleasure of artificial food.

As we run off of fossil fuels, our farming methods will be forced to become much more efficient/intelligent/nondestructive.

Do a search on Robert Hart: forest gardening.
Put his name into Wikipedia, or search David Holmgren, or Bill Mollison, or Masanobu Fukuoka.

Swan, you need to get with the times my friend, things are changing incredibly fast.

The genius needs to stay hip on what is intelligent.

“The sage cannot be a hermit without food”
Cosmic Prostitute

[Andreas]

Andreas wrote:

Let's not forget to keep in mind that this identity-maintenance propelled, uh, 'wisdom', has the world to do with sucking golf balls through garden hoses, though.

If this is what you believe, why don’t you actually finish the post with a well-thought out argument? Instead of just judging it blindly. It is quite irritating to have a post interrupted by someone who is too lazy to actually write something in depth.

Finish what you start, don’t just judge something as inferior merely as a means to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, put the work in.

Because perhaps you’re right, but I’ll never know because there is no argument here.

You're quite right. I'm going to seize making myself feel warm and fuzzy by concocting condescending jokes (completely void of substance). It's not so much wrong as it is a waste of time, albeit a funny one for me.

[swan]

Andreas wrote:

Let's not forget to keep in mind that this identity-maintenance propelled, uh, 'wisdom', has the world to do with sucking golf balls through garden hoses, though.

If this is what you believe, why don’t you actually finish the post with a well-thought out argument? Instead of just judging it blindly. It is quite irritating to have a post interrupted by someone who is too lazy to actually write something in depth.

Finish what you start, don’t just judge something as inferior merely as a means to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, put the work in.

Because perhaps you’re right, but I’ll never know because there is no argument here.

You're quite right. I'm going to seize making myself feel warm and fuzzy by concocting condescending jokes (completely void of substance). It's not so much wrong as it is a waste of time, albeit a funny one for me.

Your point of view is acceptable and i respect it, but i only see this movements as a last resort (i.e. all fossils run out and green energy it's unnafordable "hypotheticaly speaking"). I might be thinking as a polis inhabitant, but i feel you have missed my point, i didn't say that you can't grow yourself the food, what i tried to say was that it takes time, if you were to take care of an acre of land how much hours per day would it take you?, and to prepare this food that needs processing?, let's remember that civilization developed out of the food surplus and by far machinized production produces more food than self-growing it: this surplus of food we have it what let's us have specialized jobs ergo developing futhermore the civilization.

If Socrates & Plato where to spend their day taking care of the lands they wouldn't been able to do the dialogues or develop the theory of ideas....that's why i've never heard of a greek slave or a chinese farmer to become famous because of some intelectual achievement (I'm not saying that to be a sage or illuminated you can't grow your own food, what I'm saying is that to be able to assign your time to this task you must have food granted as in civilized communities where a certain group does this work) (if there is anyone forgive my ignorance, and please be kind enough to refere me to him/her so i can enrich myself). *It must be a Farmer that grows food for him and his family or disciples all by himself and it's able to create philosophical knowledge*.

[lightsmitten]

Civilisation has also had a dysgenic effect on populations. The stupid and the weak reproduce in excess.

[Blair]

Civilisation has also had a dysgenic effect on populations. The stupid and the weak reproduce in excess.

Well, the stupid and the weak reproduce, period. The excess of it, beside the point. Numbers matter not. Only definition of purpose matters.

You can see the human race as a wriggling worm, no particular aim other than what is front of the senses, the nose. It is like a cancer in many ways, feeding off the host. The desire to recreate is foremost in a humans agenda, making little kiddies. That love them etc..

The excess is a consequence of deficiency.

[lightsmitten]

Well, the stupid and the weak reproduce, period. The excess of it, beside the point. Numbers matter not.

The downside of civilisation is that it increases the reproductive rates of defectives.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Lightsmitten wrote:

Civilisation has also had a dysgenic effect on populations. The stupid and the weak reproduce in excess.

and what is interesting is that man has created all sorts of rescue fallbacks to save him from nature's wraith.

However this can become troublesome in a drastically overpopulated world.

For instance: with a popluation of rabbits or some other animal, if the population becomes excessively high for that ecosystem, nature has natural checks established to destroy a certain number to ensure the survival of the whole.

But with humans, we have cleverly devised all sorts of ways to circumvent nature's attempts to destroy us.

EG://
Military rescue teams
disease vaceens
RRSPs
earthquake warning systems
And so on...


These additions to society would be fine if there was a healthy world population, but with the present condition, it only complicates matters.

the world population issue is an interesting one that needs to be gone into in more detail, if anyone else wants to contribute, be my guest.

[swan]

Problem is in how we're defining strong and weak...

Who is strong? the smart? well then only 2-5% of the world population would have the right to live. My point is that the strong need the weak to hold their position, only in an uthopy we would be all strong, we need "mental slaves" that do the monotonous work for us ;). Note that I don't deny that their stupid, vile and repulsive but that they are a necessary evil for the intellectual status quo to remain.

On over population mmmm aslong as i have food for me why should I care about some uneducated and almost barbaric being dying?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Swan wrote:

On over population mmmm as long as i have food for me why should I care about some uneducated and almost barbaric being dying?

I suspect humanity is moving in a direction where the strong are no longer dependent on the slave labour of the weak.

If we are dependent on the slave labour of the weak then we are not truly strong at all, but rather an extension of the weak.

Depending on ignorant slaves is a lot like a flea that munches on the the dead skin on a pitbull’s testicles.

It’s rather parasitic and the wise need to move away from that dependency if there is to be any hope for mankind.

As long as there is a demand for stupidity then there will be a continuity of stupidity.

IE: It is incredibly easy to grow ones food, build a minimal shelter, and acquire clothing. The truth is that these activities do not require as much labour and slavery as the masses assume in that these activities are presently being performed with no or little wisdom.

The wise man moves towards a minimal self-sufficiency, I think this is the destiny of humanity.

[swan]

Swan wrote:

On over population mmmm as long as i have food for me why should I care about some uneducated and almost barbaric being dying?

I suspect humanity is moving in a direction where the strong are no longer dependent on the slave labour of the weak.

If we are dependent on the slave labour of the weak then we are not truly strong at all, but rather an extension of the weak.

Depending on ignorant slaves is a lot like a flea that munches on the the dead skin on a pitbull’s testicles.

It’s rather parasitic and the wise need to move away from that dependency if there is to be any hope for mankind.

As long as there is a demand for stupidity then there will be a continuity of stupidity.

IE: It is incredibly easy to grow ones food, build a minimal shelter, and acquire clothing. The truth is that these activities do not require as much labour and slavery as the masses assume in that these activities are presently being performed with no or little wisdom.

The wise man moves towards a minimal self-sufficiency, I think this is the destiny of humanity.

I don't think it is worthy of the genius to do something someone else can do, I believe that even if the genius "is dependant" of what the simple minds produce,the genius would be an Atlas carrying the structure of society on his shoulders.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Swan wrote:

I don't think it is worthy of the genius to do something someone else can do, I believe that even if the genius "is dependant" of what the simple minds produce ,the genius would be an Atlas carrying the structure of society on his shoulders.

But swan, just because one may have more intellectual capacity than another, that does not give one the right to exploit others to excessive labour and toil especially when the genius could be doing those very tasks for himself.

The rich live similar lives, the rich ignorantly accumulate millions of dollars and acquire power while the majority must slave away doing meaningless jobs so that the rich can live slothful lives of luxury.

Many guru's and self-proclaimed geniuses have abused the ignorance of the weak. And to my mind they are no better than the Donald Trumps of the world.

The genius needs to do things for himself… And if he is a true minimalist this will not be a burden for him.

Modern civilization has transformed us into domesticated creatures not capable of doing simple things for ourselves without the slave labour of others.

Basically what I’m suggesting is that psychological wisdom can be combined with a holistic scientific understanding to achieve a sustainable minimalism in a rural environment.

But Swan, if you were not born in the circumstances to do this, IE: private property, adequate resources and the energy to research and integrate all natural sciences together then I wouldn’t worry about it.

The psychological wisdom should be primary anyway so if you were born in a city with nothing I wouldn’t worry about leeching off the weak…

These values are useless for those who were not born into extremely lucky circumstances.

[swan]

But swan, just because one may have more intellectual capacity than another, that does not give one the right to exploit others to excessive labour and toil especially when the genius could be doing those very tasks for himself.

Yes it does give me the right, if I'm able to exploit them it means I can and maybe will, I don't need to support nor have emphaty for these beings, compassion is an emotion that tends to fog logical thought.

The rich live similar lives, the rich ignorantly accumulate millions of dollars and acquire power while the majority must slave away doing meaningless jobs so that the rich can live slothful lives of luxury.

I'm not saying that we have the right to enslave just to lay down and get tanned, this time we pocess because of other's workforce we could use it to develop more our philosophycal knowledge.

Many guru's and self-proclaimed geniuses have abused the ignorance of the weak. And to my mind they are no better than the Donald Trumps of the world.

Abused? If they did it it's because they wanted to, you do things you want to do. You might want to do them out of devotion, love or fear, but still it's your will.

The genius needs to do things for himself… And if he is a true minimalist this will not be a burden for him.

I believe the minimum is as bad as the maximum, we should look for a middle. Enough leisure with some work.

Basically what I’m suggesting is that psychological wisdom can be combined with a holistic scientific understanding to achieve a sustainable minimalism in a rural environment.

What fits you best, I suggest we pray upon the weak and use them as our scalinata to perfection.

But Swan, if you were not born in the circumstances to do this, IE: private property, adequate resources and the energy to research and integrate all natural sciences together then I wouldn’t worry about it.

The psychological wisdom should be primary anyway so if you were born in a city with nothing I wouldn’t worry about leeching off the weak…

These values are useless for those who were not born into extremely lucky circumstances.

I didn't understand this quite well, could you re-formulate it please?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Swan wrote:

What fits you best, I suggest we pray upon the weak and use them as our scalinata to perfection.

Can a man approach perfection if he has no sense of ethics? If his idea of perfection involves using others as a means to an end because they are intellectually inferior then he is not approaching perfection at all, but rather moving in a demonic direction of self serving narcissism.

I’m suggesting that there is a way to live in which you achieve genius and you do not have to exploit and use others at all.

Swan wrote:

Yes it does give me the right, if I'm able to exploit them it means I can and maybe will, I don't need to support nor have emphaty for these beings, compassion is an emotion that tends to fog logical thought.

But your thoughts are not logical, by feeling superior to humanity, you are using this emotion to justify unethical behaviors.