1/2
In general, we can summarize the dangers of industrialization as such:
1. Industrialization was a mistake. It is cancerous.
It is a small percentage of total recorded human history, yet we are dealing with unprecedented problems. Here are some problems:
a) Mechanization of man (e.g., sedentariness, industrial energy replaces muscle power separating man from body, etc.)
b) Loss of self-reliant ways of life (e.g., being able to fish, hunt, build habitation, and more on one's own)
c) Breakdown of community and tradition (e.g., mass migration, materialism)
d) Rapid loss of biodiversity and pollution of earth (e.g., invasive species, oil spills, pesticides, lead poisoning, light pollution, micro-plastics in blood, nuclear spills, windmills killing bats and birds, and much much more)
e) The worship of reason over other forms of "knowing" (e.g., the discursive mind is privileged over the mindful non-intentional mind devoid of abstractions)
f) Overpopulation, overcrowding, and increased rates of mental illness. This leads to lack of fulfillment because human beings were meant to be a sparse and noble species. Most industrial societies are about 100 times denser than the evolutionary norm. "The genetic foundation of our bodies and minds is centered on small groups of people whom we intimately know, roaming amid vast openness. Our success as a species is adapted to this precise mode of existence... We are most at home in open and pristine wilderness, and therefore the further removed we are from this experience, the greater the likelihood of psychological disorder."1 Furthermore, "the more urbanized the setting, the greater the likelihood of mental illness."2
g) Forced reliance on a medical system that aims to destroy man's natural immunity (e.g., what is typically known as "Big Pharma", which the book Rockefeller Medicine Man by E. Richard Brown delves into this more but physical copies are typically censored). "The medical profession exists, first and foremost, to sustain and grow itself; solving health problems is a secondary and expendable objective."3
h) Increased rate of illness or weakness from preservatives, artificial sweeteners, processed foods, etc.
i) Culture no longer develops organically and occurs under the "guidance" of the largest stakeholders of powerful companies and social engineers.
j) Advanced surveillance technologies and measures of control. Loss of privacy.
k) Intensive agriculture and factory farms leading to soil depletion, cruel overcrowding of livestock, and so on.
l) and much, much more...
Continued...
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
2/2
2. Organization-dependent technologies have a telos, hence why I refer to them as "semi-autonomous". Industrialization is, in short, an invasive force.
Note, there's a difference between organization-dependent technology and simple technology. The former requires a massively interconnected technological system to sustain it. The latter is something any small group of people can make (e.g., bronze shovels).
"The more protected we are against the elements, that is, the more elaborate our artificial (i.e. technological) environment becomes, the more thoroughly it conditions our behavior. In the Stone Age, we were at the mercy of the elements; now we are at the mercy of the shield which protects us against these elements." (1969: 82). - Henryk Skolimowski1
The technological-industrial system cannot adapt itself to man, and man must change himself to adapt to the system. Its telos is defined by an increasing loss of privacy, loss of self-reliant ways of life, increasing overexploitation of the earth, and so on. This will culminate in things such as "brain-cloud interfaces", "fusing with the machine", and so on in the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". Already it is rendering man as expendable as he is replaced by greater automation.
The technological-industrial system cannot be regulated or compromised with. It simply continues its dehumanizing, anti-life march.
3. Industrialization was born from the logocentric elements inherent in Angrahamism in order to destroy the soul of the Earth.
The belief "one can reach a universal understanding of the world through reason or abstractions" and that "one can thereby improve the world via increases in conceptual knowledge". It ultimately stems from the notion a "culture should attempt to better the whole world and have a universal ends."
>culture should attempt to better the whole world and have a universal ends.
Yes, kant. and he is right
No, things were far better during pre-industrial times. Have fun with brain-cloud interfaces, energy directed weapons, automated surveillances, normalization of genetic engineering, weather modification technologies, the further erosion of communal integrity, more toxins like microplastics in your bloodstream, turning into a hackable Human 2.0, and more.
the great singularity wont be one of tecnology but one of genetics. genetical data will be the next big war, and will finally elevate evolution to the same speed of our technological improovement. This is a necessary step for a higher goal: the survival and expansion of self replicating information. this is the highest of goals because ot precedes all other teachings: religion, reason itself and humanity's history
we were born with a purpouse, to order the chaos, and raise self replicating information to the whole of the universe.
have fun getting eaten by wolves or dying of cholera.
Honestly most of the shit you listed I'm into. Would love to short-circuit my pleasure centers, achieve total direct connections with other people, modify bodily weaknesses out of existence and achieve a state where crime and deceit are impossible because there's a perfect, independent record.
Not that I believe we'll get most of that.
Yeah we know trannies like you love tech
>the consequences of technology might be negative now, but technology will solve those problems in the future
People have been repeating this fallacy for centuries and it has yet to come true. For every (technology-caused) problem that's "solved" by new technology, a dozen new problems arise.
>Industrialization was a mistake. It is cancerous.
yes. you can end your argument here and it is perfect
It's important to understand the 3 points I made:
1. Industrialization was a mistake. It is cancerous.
2. Organization-dependent technologies have a telos, hence why I refer to them as "semi-autonomous". Industrialization is, in short, an invasive force.
3. Industrialization was born from the logocentric elements inherent in Abrahamism in order to destroy the soul of the Earth.
>Industrialization was born from the logocentric elements inherent in Abrahamism in order to destroy the soul of the Earth.
this is the only one i disagree with. Industrialization was born from evolutionary drives, like every other human behavior, individual and collective.
Those are not mutually exclusive. The evolutionary mechanism may very well "desire" its own end
>The evolutionary mechanism may very well "desire" its own end
this is an interesting thought. i believe it was Derrick Jensen who noted that human level intelligence may have been a 'lethal mutation' in the long run
>Industrialization was born from evolutionary drives
That's a difficult question, and I have been reading many books about this very topic. I even wrote a book largely focusing on this very question, but it needs more editing. Also, the last chapter is a mess.
Mechanism and life are discontinuous. Basically, life is emergent which decouples from mechanism. Furthermore, industrial, mechanistic technology is not a part of evolution then. It's more of a cancerous force then.
Not possible or sustainable without usura-- address that and the rest will sort itself out.
Yeah totally agree but really whats your point?
Also have to add some
Thoughts about the idea that if humans wernt mostly retarted and lead and ruled by idiiot israelite morons or whatever ...everyone could agree to live in some sort of paradise even while using some of these modern technologies
Some sort of real wise non corrupt leaders could help make something like this
I agree with Ulrich Horstmann's solution. Destroying all of humanity is the best route. Give birds and other organisms a chance.
Stfu, logocentric gay.
>let me argue reasonably for irrationality
moron
Ulrich Horstmann is more right than you'd like to admit.
There are also decent arguments for admixture with extraterrestrials, hence the mess we are in. I say just destroy all of humanity preferably through a weapon that sterilizes every last human being while sparing other organisms.
>death worship
thats a unironical loss in ethos and suicidial ideation makes your ideas not worth a damn.
You should have been more like ted.
It's too late to be like Ted. In the 90s there was still a chance. There's not anymore after cloud data centers. You have undersea cables connecting Azure and AWS data centers in Europe to America for a reason.
Surveillance is literally automated now and the kind of technologies coming out now are truly frightening.
I believe Maui fires was due to energy directed weapons for example.
so you have lost touch with reality
>Shut up alphabeth agent
saying that the maui fires might be energy weapons is sane, saying that they most definitely are is insanity.
At any rate i cant talk about the downsides of centralization without getting killed by the fbi so ill leave it there
I've already had a FBI visit humorously enough.
And yes, I agree with your assessment of "might" in this regard.
I'm just not a humanist anymore.
I'm sure everything will be so much better in reverse!
Stand in the shadows until the end of progress. —me
I trip and in my madness wonder if the Tech freaks are right. & this simulation started to see how long it takes us to drive to a singularity with different factors/variables
Guys, I can't handle all this affluence and Leisure time. I want a future without computers, the internet, modern medicine, modern agriculture, modern housing, electricity, and democratization. Things were better when our lifespan was 1/3rd the length, people believed in fictional gods, and major famine was a real threat. We have to go back
Lol imagine beleiving that living older than 30 is only possible because of "modern medicine"
Go lookup socrates age... and other notable folks in history ya big dumb weenie.
The tribal days of cultures all across the world probabaly had so much soul
And imagine the health and livliness of having fresh ass food and game
And not being loaded with chemicals
this exception to the norm? Yeah, that's everybody now. GL without modern dentistry by the way. Fighting wars of aggression... sovl.
homie. Teeth only rot from a shit diet
Go read dr weston prices studies of tribes
Thanks homie. I know u think im crazy but bacterial infections are detoxes... which are good... sometimes they can be harsh and damgerous though and that Black walmut is prolly better than big pharma
Lol its also hilarious to note that anytime nigher homosexuals like you argue that
Modern life is better than life in the past
You can only resort to pointing out
>did early,
>teeth rot
>wars
Which are mostly misconceptions (besides the war part)
All 3 of those negatives are better than today modern world negatives
But the point is also that Black person fsggots like you can only say "teeth , died and war"
Imagine the glory of going to battle, and then coming home to peace time in a close knit community with a family and healthy food and water. Building shelters. Dancing and simgimg by the fire . Seeing all the stars in the sky, knowing a lot of your ancestors and hearing stories of the ones from way before
And i guess its just an opinion at the end of the day, but its crazy that people rather be in a technologilgcal 9-5 world surroumded by strangers and deal with modern disease and unhealthy lives
>GL without modern dentistry by the way
see
>Teeth only rot from a shit diet
More specifically, teeth only rot from a diet that includes grains. Tooth decay was relatively rare prior to the Neolithic revolution. Before humans began to regularly eat grains (~10,000 years out of the ~300,000 years that anatomically modern humans have existed) then human fossils tend to have dental caries in 20-30% of their teeth at absolute most, and quite frequently have none whatsoever. But once we hit that point where agriculture became widespread, there's a sudden explosion in tooth decay to the point where fossils with 50% or more of their teeth affected by decay become quite common and it's suddenly incredibly rare to find a skeleton with no tooth decay.
Unfortunately, there's really no turning back the clock on this one. There are countless theoretical scenarios where humanity loses the ability to maintain industrial society, but I can't imagine one where everyone forgets how farming works.
Check out green black walnut tincture. It works better than antibiotics.
Most of those are good things. The rest are unavoidable facets of human life.
>Most of those are good things.
Kys.
Why was Teddy so scared to say that Marx was right?
>a) Mechanization of man
You mean more power? Yes please, make me an indestructible android
>b) Loss of self-reliant ways of life
Its funny because in the very next point you b***hwhine about
>c) Breakdown of community and tradition
Do you want to be self-reliant or live in a community, moron?
>d) Rapid loss of biodiversity and pollution of earth
Not my problem
>e) The worship of reason over other forms of "knowing"
Sorry nobody takes you philosophy degree seriously, now flip my burger
>f) Overpopulation, overcrowding, and increased rates of mental illness. This leads to lack of fulfillment because human beings were meant to be a sparse and noble species. Most industrial societies are about 100 times denser than the evolutionary norm.
Industrial revolution isn't forcing you to live in big cities. You're just a loser incapable of making friends, stop blaming physics for it
>g) Forced reliance on a medical system that aims to destroy man's natural immunity
Never existed. Rates of mortality and overall longevity were abysmal before modern medicine
>h) Increased rate of illness or weakness
Oh no more people get a chance to live, not in my nazi wet dream!
>i) Culture no longer develops organically and occurs under the "guidance" of the largest stakeholders of powerful companies and social engineers.
Always been this way. I'm sure cultures developed "organically" when 99.99% of the population were either slaves or unwashed illiterate peasants
>j) Advanced surveillance technologies and measures of control.
I'll agree with this one, but blaming industrial progress of man's natural inclination towards paranoia and tyranny is fricktarded regardless. Blame the man not the gun
>k) Intensive agriculture and factory farms leading to soil depletion, cruel overcrowding of livestock, and so on.
Oh no, wait its not my problem
>l) and much, much more...
You ran out of meme reasons aren't you?
soulless homosexual
seeth
industrialization, neoliberalism, capitalism, mass surveillance etc are 'hyperobjects', they are ontologically much much smaller than they seem, read timothy morton. it'll be alright, find your calling and what gives you power and remember to help your immediate surroundings.
White people did this blunder. Holy shite industrial rev was moronic
The premise is not really right. Industrialization isn't an issue. It's a part of natural forces. The problems arise when people started to attempt to calculate these natural forces and adjust them to outcomes.
It's just like the DART experiment from last year. Not only did it not behave like we thought it would but it is still not behaving as we thought it would. The hubris of low IQ morons knows no bounds.
Imagine having a system so complex that nobody can reliably predict what will happen a year from now. Give me your predictions of what will happen to the economy in 100 years. Do you think that people in 1923 could predict it? Not even close. People didn't even predict today in the 2000s.