BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
rhymer
post Jun 26, 2006, 01:53 PM
Post #31


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2090
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
From: Wigan, UK
Member No.: 385



I read in the paper today an article about the probable time we can rely on 'free' energy sources.

It seems that oil, gas, and coal will all be used up within 100 years.

It may just be doomsday talk, but if it is true and nuclear or renewable fuels don't come on-line fast enough one wonders what life will be like for those of us in the more affluent countries.

We (or our children) may find out what it is like to live in Africa, Afghanistan or Iraq (as examples)!

Those peoples will have a much greater chance of survival than us!!

And, why is it that no major film-maker has painted such a scenario on-screen?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 26, 2006, 02:13 PM
Post #32


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



As fuel costs rise without limit, people will start riding bicycles a lot more than they do now. Food costs will rise due to havester, drying, and transportation costs, so people will eat a lot less meat. Ore processing costs will rise and so will sawmill operating costs, so logging and mining operations will decrease, and recycling will increase. Sounds like the hippie tree hugger environmentalist agenda wins after all.

Conservatives, of course, will advocate going to war for more energy resources, but who will listen to them? If the last 5 years are any indication, probably everyone. So we shall possibly envision in our film hordes of hippies on bicycles armed with spears and arrows, attacking anything in sight. Great film. Go see it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 26, 2006, 03:46 PM
Post #33


Unregistered









Dear Guest,
Thanks for Your invitation -- it proves that You´re not convinced in what You say.
"It is self-evident that our technological capabilities are advancing and improving, and the attempt to deny that on the grounds of some kind of metaphysical cyclicalism misses the point."
In the first place, the title of this thread does not deny the technological advancement; it states that our industrial society has a destructive impact on human beings and environment.
In the second place, can we equal technological advancement or improvement to progress ? Doesn´t progress imply much more than that ?
In the third place, the cyclical nature of Cosmos, the Eternal Return, as Nietzsche put it, is the ancient knowledge, and most classical writers based their conception of history as an endless series of cycles on it.
I wonder what You mean by "a meta-progress overaching a series of cyclical progressions eventually resulting in either a successful planetary-culture-birth or ecosystem failure" ?
You may think that the technological progress we´ve had so far has been mostly constructive and beneficial for humanity and environment.
Each one is entitled to her/his opinion. Yet, there is an important distinction between opinion and knowledge. Knowledge is a true opinion plus a causal explanation or an understanding of why it is true.
Opinion can be transformed into knowledge by a process which Plato called dialectic. In fact, the whole process of education is a passage from opinion to knowledge.
The concept of progress depends upon the standard of value chosen to measure it and upon the time perspective in which it is measured. Within the cyclical nature of Cosmos, within the Eternal Return, what is our concept of progress ? And what is our standard of value ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 26, 2006, 04:29 PM
Post #34


Unregistered









Rhymer and Rick,
You´re overlooking other possible future scenarios:
Solar energy, zero-point energy, and light beings -- The Golden Age and the Kingdom of Gods
or
cave-men learning to make fire -- starting from scratch again, as before !
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jun 26, 2006, 05:59 PM
Post #35


Unregistered









QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 26, 03:46 PM) *

Dear Guest,
Thanks for Your invitation -- it proves that You´re not convinced in what You say.


This statement is so laughably out of left-field that it nearly caused me to consider your post unworthy of response at all. I sincerely hope that this is not indicative of your actual apprehension of reality. The fact that I invited you to extrapolate your point in no way speaks to my conviction about my own. In all actuality I hoped you would reveal your total misunderstanding of the situation at hand. It is clear to me now that you have no interest in the discussion at hand and simply wished to throw out a few sexy quotation and advance your own position concerning the illusion of progress, which has been expounded by thinkers far more rigorous than yourself. Do you have any thoughts concerning the OP at all, or are you purely out to hijack?

QUOTE
"It is self-evident that our technological capabilities are advancing and improving, and the attempt to deny that on the grounds of some kind of metaphysical cyclicalism misses the point."
In the first place, the title of this thread does not deny the technological advancement; it states that our industrial society has a destructive impact on human beings and environment.


Quite true, and my statement was in no way an attack on the OP, it was an attack on your claim that there is no such thing as progress.

QUOTE
In the second place, can we equal technological advancement or improvement to progress ? Doesn´t progress imply much more than that ?


Technogical advancement is a form of progress. Perhaps you would like to say that while technology progresses, such sacrifices are made that from a greater perspective of social progress we have actually hindered ourselves. But how could this be your position when you quote that there is no such thing as progress and paint progress as some illusion of European culture which is inconsistent with ancient wisdom? So which is it? Progress or no progress.

If you would like to know whether I think there is a higher perspective of societal progress which contains but is not limited to technogical progress, then yes I am a believer in progress from a practical perspective. We progress at different rates along different dimensions simultaneously.

The OP raises an important point that we may be making much larger sacrifices of our progression along certain dimensions for the sake of technogical progress. He believes that we should dismantle our industrialization and limit ourselves to an agrarian economy. Myself and other participants in this thread believe it is possible to develop technology and industrialization responsibly for the sake of conservation, planetary defense, and space migration. Do you have a position on this subject?

QUOTE
In the third place, the cyclical nature of Cosmos, the Eternal Return, as Nietzsche put it, is the ancient knowledge, and most classical writers based their conception of history as an endless series of cycles on it.
I wonder what You mean by "a meta-progress overaching a series of cyclical progressions eventually resulting in either a successful planetary-culture-birth or ecosystem failure" ?


If your reading comprehension were better I don't think you would have to ask this question. I was referring to what might be described as the "Atlantis scenario" where a given society develops advanced technology, fails to find a balance with humanism and falls. The overarching progress in this scenario is that from such society and society, where eventually one succeeds. If no society achieves a level of clean-energy, ecosystem conservation, etc. the point may be reached where the planet looses its ability to sustain life.

QUOTE
You may think that the technological progress we´ve had so far has been mostly constructive and beneficial for humanity and environment.


I think it has been constructive and beneficial to humanity in some ways and mostly destructive and non-beneficial to the environment. Sometimes I am so dismayed by the damage we are doing to the environment that I entertain such ideas as the OP delineates. But I retain a faith that we can find our way through this difficult adolescence.

QUOTE
Each one is entitled to her/his opinion. Yet, there is an important distinction between opinion and knowledge. Knowledge is a true opinion plus a causal explanation or an understanding of why it is true.
Opinion can be transformed into knowledge by a process which Plato called dialectic. In fact, the whole process of education is a passage from opinion to knowledge.


Fair enough. I suppose you think I have opinion, and you have knowledge?

QUOTE
The concept of progress depends upon the standard of value chosen to measure it and upon the time perspective in which it is measured. Within the cyclical nature of Cosmos, within the Eternal Return, what is our concept of progress ? And what is our standard of value ?


As mere human beings within this grand Cosmos you speak of we must value what is relevant to us. Therefore our standard of value is survival and the quality of that survival. Technology begins with the struggle for survival in a hostile environment, but at some point we discover that we rely on that environment and our technology is damaging it. Old habits die hard and we are in that awkward period where we have developed technology to the point where it is dangerous to ourselves and our environment and we must learn how to transcend this. There are many obstacles blocking our path -- habit, the global elite, etc.

What is your concept of progress? Is it just an illusion or is it something more? Have we sacrificed too much for technological progress? And if so, is the answer to return to agrarianism, or to develop technology more responsibly?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jun 26, 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #36


Unregistered









QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 26, 04:29 PM) *

Rhymer and Rick,
You´re overlooking other possible future scenarios:
Solar energy, zero-point energy, and light beings -- The Golden Age and the Kingdom of Gods
or
cave-men learning to make fire -- starting from scratch again, as before !


I don't think Rhymer or Rick are overlooking anything. I would think solar energy would fall into the catergory of renewable resources in Rhymer's words, or hippie environmentalism in Rick's. While solar energy is very real, zero-point energy remains a pipe-dream. I am an avid listener of Art Bell & George Noorys radio programme Coast to Coast. They have had many guests and callers who have discussed zero-point and even claimed they have a zero-point device but have been unable to produce proof of such a device. I suppose it is prudent not to eliminate it as a possibility, but for now it is not in evidence.

Could you please explain these "light beings"?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jun 28, 2006, 06:37 AM
Post #37


Unregistered









If we look back a hundred years, it is obvious that there has been an increase in our understanding of the physical forces.
If we look back four or five thousand years, it is uncertain whether there has been much, if any, progress in intelligence and the art of living.
Unfortunately, nowadays we have limited standards of measure for progress -- mainly technological and economic: the more we produce and the more we consume, the better we think we live.
That´s why Yasuhiko Kimura and other evolutionary philosophers call our culture "a wide conspiracy of mediocrity, undermining the drive toward higher human potential". Mediocrity is conforming to the average,
when our value system and our meaning in life is just to fit into society and make a good living -- and this becomes the highest meaning in our life, the overriding purpose of our life.
You write, "We must learn how to transcend this ..." Right !
But, if, as You write, " our standard of value is survival and the quality of that survival", will transcendence be possible ? And transcendence to what ?
The basic, primary instinct of mere survival, even of a guality survival, won´t be enough. It is enough for animals, it might have been enough for our ancestors, but it is not enough for a higher type of wo/man.
Yes, there are obstacles blocking our path of evolution, and the main is our deep-rooted, deep-seated conditioning about what we are and what we should value most.
The crucial question is: Can we de-condition ourselves? Can we awaken to our true nature and potential ? Can we attain full awareness and wisdom ? Can we regenerate, resurrect to a new life and a new meaning ?
Can we create a Kingdom of Heaven on this Earth !?

Nikola Tesla theories of Free Energy -- http://www.free-energy.ws/tesla.html
Radiant Energy and Cold Electricity -- http://www.free-energy.ws/radiant.html
Zero News, Tesla Free Energy Receiver -- http://www.tO.or.at/tesla/tesfree.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jun 30, 2006, 06:03 PM
Post #38


Unregistered









QUOTE(Guest @ Jun 28, 06:37 AM) *

If we look back four or five thousand years, it is uncertain whether there has been much, if any, progress in intelligence and the art of living.


I wonder if you really believe this. Five thousand years is a long look back, and you'll have to forgive me if I have a hard time believing you have a clear view back this far. If I were to throw caution to the wind, then I would say yes we have made great progress in intelligence and the art of living. Even a short time ago our ability to live at all was severely curtailed -- our lifespans are far greater than they were. Is it really so uncertain than the arts and sciences both have advanced a great deal?

I do not look at the world through rose-colored glasses. We have a practically infinite potential for still greater advancement than we have so far achieved. Our ability to survive in a hostile environment has improved but we are still subject to large-scale natural disasters and the limitations of single-planet-habitation. We advance in many dimensions at once -- Technologically; Socially ; Culturally ; Spiritually.

QUOTE
Unfortunately, nowadays we have limited standards of measure for progress -- mainly technological and economic: the more we produce and the more we consume, the better we think we live.


Some of us perhaps do have such a limited view of progress such as this, but there are over six billion people on this planet and there are many ideas and agendas. Technology and economy are highly valued by the people whose jobs depend on them, and rightfully gain much attention in the media. As a result we sometimes forget that there are other things going on, but other things -are- going on. If you would like to say that consumerism is out of control then I would have to aggree with you. I think we are handling our technological prowess very irresponsibly right now, but if you look at the situation clearly you will notice that this capable basically happened YESTERDAY in the grand scheme of human history. We are in an adolescence and if you think our current state is at all an indication of our ultimate or even near-future state, well, that's extremely unimaginative.

QUOTE
You write, "We must learn how to transcend this ..." Right !
But, if, as You write, " our standard of value is survival and the quality of that survival", will transcendence be possible ? And transcendence to what ?
The basic, primary instinct of mere survival, even of a guality survival, won´t be enough.


What we must transcend - what I stated previously - is our willingness to damage our environment for the sake of short-term survival advantage. Just a moment ago in the grand scale of human history, this was not even a relevant issue. We had no ability, no piece of technology, that could severely damage our environment. Its only since industrialization that we have discovered the danger of our own potency, and it is up to us now to find a new equilibrium with the planet.

Survival comes first, then everything else. When I say quality of survival, I use the word quality in a very big way. I don't just mean food in our mouths and mediocre television. I mean real survival and real quality of life. All of the arts and endeavors that make survival worth fighting for. Mere survival is not good enough for us. No limitation is good enough for us. But what have we without a beating heart?

QUOTE
The crucial question is: Can we de-condition ourselves? Can we awaken to our true nature and potential ? Can we attain full awareness and wisdom ? Can we regenerate, resurrect to a new life and a new meaning ? Can we create a Kingdom of Heaven on this Earth !?


Yes.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jul 02, 2006, 05:33 AM
Post #39


Unregistered









"Forbidden History", edited by J.Douglas Kenyon
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jul 02, 2006, 01:56 PM
Post #40


Unregistered









QUOTE(Guest @ Jul 02, 05:33 AM) *

"Forbidden History", edited by J.Douglas Kenyon


I googled this book and found it deals with subjects I am familiar with and touched on earlier in the thread. It deals with the possibility that high-technology civilizations have existed on Earth in the distant past - the Atlantis scenario, though I am not sure if the book in questions deals with Atlantis in specific.

If such civilizations existed, then they failed in some way. The question is raised: Is industrialization and high-technology always folly, resulting only in suffering? The OP might agree that this is the case; some posters in this thread might disagree.

If such civilizations existed, then we must reconsider what we mean by the word "progress". It may be that there is practical progress; The progress that a given civilization engages in over the course of its history, but that there is no metaphysical progress; There is always one step forward and one (or more) steps back.

While it may seem like this sort of view destroys our common idea of progress, it only takes one example of a successful civilization to break the pattern of failure. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

I would like to invite the quoted guest to explain why he mentions the book _Forbidden History_ and how he thinks it relates to the OP, so that we might discuss that relation.


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jul 02, 2006, 04:20 PM
Post #41


Unregistered









Immanuel Velikovsky, "Mankind in Amnesia"

Paul LaViolette, "Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jul 03, 2006, 02:53 PM
Post #42


Unregistered









-.-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jul 03, 2006, 02:56 PM
Post #43


Unregistered









I'm sure these are all very interesting books, but I'm unclear on the utility of posting their titles in this thread. Perhaps a thread on alternate history is needed, the guest might like to start one. I'm sad to see this thread degenerate and would like to see actual discussion relevant to the OP. But whatever. If somebody wants to push their own agenda and hijack the thread what can one do?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Jul 03, 2006, 05:18 PM
Post #44


Unregistered









Your lamentation hijacks Your own will power and intellect, G !
"What can one do?" A Lot ! If one can. Can You provide some sound arguments ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
C
post Jul 04, 2006, 04:22 PM
Post #45


Unregistered









QUOTE(Guest @ Jul 03, 05:18 PM) *

Your lamentation hijacks Your own will power and intellect, G !
"What can one do?" A Lot ! If one can. Can You provide some sound arguments ?


I've provided many sound arguments throughout this thread. Its ironic to see that question from someone who posts a book title with no accompanying explanation or arguments as if its some kind of ultimate rebuttal. Do you have anything relevant to say?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 14, 2006, 05:55 AM
Post #46


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

[In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness into peace. This requires ability and years of effort]


For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he
began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products--
a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago. Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return - once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.


sushil_yadav

PowerSwitch
StrategyTalk
ePhilosopher
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 05:36 AM
Post #47


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE
This is about the link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.



I'd like to make a minor distinction if I might. It may help.

This is about the link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society, which is actually supply driven, is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 10, 2007, 07:41 PM
Post #48


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.

sushil_yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 10, 2007, 08:02 PM
Post #49


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



QUOTE(cerebral @ Jun 19, 2006, 10:07 PM) *

If you don't like civilization, then go back to the jungle or forest



I find it ironic that you have no concern/ compassion for Environment despite the fact that you owe your very existence to nature/ environment.

Why do you breathe the Air?
Why do you drink the Water?
Why do you eat the Food that comes from Soil? - Why don't you have Computers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Take all your technology to the Moon - and try producing a single grain of Food without using any natural ingredient from Earth.


In the absence of Nature your grandfather would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would'nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would'nt have lived.

Show some respect to Nature.

sushil_yadav

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 10, 2007, 08:08 PM
Post #50


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



QUOTE(cerebral @ Jun 20, 2006, 10:29 AM) *

Faster society based on mental work does not imply emotions cease or that the planet dies but quite the contrary. Just because you like hugging trees or are incapable of thriving in today's environment doesn't mean you need to impose that weakness on everyone else. Why would people want to start going backwards like you suggest. You falsely claim that people become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps and a lot of other nonsense but what you really mean is that you are simply incapable of adapting and thriving in today's environment, and so you're afflicted with a classic case of Sour Grapes. Life is about moving forwards, overcoming, evolving. Have you forgotten that or just never learned it?



Thoughts and Emotions are interlinked - but different things - totally/ completly different.

Words can be spoken - words can be read - words can be heard. Visuals can be seen.

Emotion is a subjective-experience. Other examples of subjective experience are taste, smell, touch, headache, stomach pain.

One can understand the difference this way :

When we eat an apple we can feel the taste of apple. Apple can give us the taste of apple - but apple is not taste.

If we pour apple juice into a glass - the glass will not feel the taste - it does not have the ability to feel taste.

If a person eats an apple he will feel the taste - because he has the ability to generate taste from apple.

Words/ Visuals can evoke, intensify and sustain emotions - but words/ visuals are not emotions.



In every field there is easy work/activity and difficult work/activity.

In mathematics there is easy mathematics and difficult mathematics. Everyone can add 2+4 within microseconds. A PhD level problem of mathematics would take hours [or more] to solve - and that too only by someone who has spent 20 - 25 years learning mathematics upto PhD level.

Same way in the field of emotions there are easy emotions and difficult emotions. Easy emotions are evoked within nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds - anger, lust, fear, pleasure, entertainment and excitement are some examples. These emotions are associated with fast breathing and heart-rate. These emotions don"t require gaps between thinking to evoke, intensify and sustain. These are the emotions that can be found everywhere in today's fast society.

Then there are difficult emotions - which require ability and years of effort to develop - emotions associated with pain, compassion and peaceful states of mind are some examples. These emotions are associated with slow breathing and heart-rate. These emotions require freezing of thought - freezing of visuals and words - huge amounts of gaps between thinking - to evoke, intensify and sustain.

[Fast emotions =emotions associated with fast visuals/fast words/fast breathing/fast heart-rate.
Slow emotions=emotions associated with slow visuals/slow words/slow breathing/slow heart-rate.
Rate of thinking=number of visuals/words processed per minute.
Gaps between thinking =gaps between visuals/ words/ sentences.]

sushil_yadav
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 10, 2007, 08:23 PM
Post #51


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



QUOTE(cerebral @ Jun 20, 2006, 08:33 PM) *

We need to start colonizing other planets anyway. If we confine ourselves to earth and its ecosystems, then we run the risk of catastrophe and extinction just like the dinosaurs. I do not believe it likely that we will destroy our ecosystems any time soon. Human science and technology progress has priority over all else, even if it means some ecosystems bear some burden. You can preach all you want about saving the ecosystems, but for me and others like me there are bigger fish to fry. You can call us cancerous. Yeah we are from one perspective. We are the universe unfolding. Nothing can stop that. All your pleas to halt progress will come to naught. Don't believe me? It's happening right now.


So we are going to move to another place in the Universe.
When are we going?
Where are we going?

So far man has been able to reach only the Moon. Outside the solar system planets are millions and billions of light years away. Forget about going to other planets - so far man has not even found another place where life is possible. One space shuttle exploded during take off. Another exploded while coming back. Transporting humanity to another planet is probably the most impossible of all impossible things.

On earth we had huge quantities of Air, Water, Fertile Land, Animals and Trees - things which create life - things which sustain life. After destroying all these precious things on earth man is dreaming of living on another planet.

Keep dreaming

sushil_yadav
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 11, 2007, 03:57 AM
Post #52


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(sushil_yadav @ Jun 20, 2006, 03:40 AM) *
[I am seeking help from volunteers in spreading this message far and wide]
If the above is the limit of your marketing skills, you are not going to go very far with your idea. Maybe you should join a company and get some experience. Hey, you might find you like it.

QUOTE(sushil_yadav @ Jun 20, 2006, 03:40 AM) *
Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive.
Do as I say but don't do as I do. How did you write and send your messages above? This reminds me of the pop stars flying in on airplanes and helicopters, to a concert with a message telling me to reduce my carbon emissions. Shove it!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 11, 2007, 09:52 AM
Post #53


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(sushil_yadav @ Jul 10, 2007, 09:08 PM) *
Then there are difficult emotions - which require ability and years of effort to develop - emotions associated with pain, compassion and peaceful states of mind are some examples. These emotions are associated with slow breathing and heart-rate. These emotions require freezing of thought - freezing of visuals and words - huge amounts of gaps between thinking - to evoke, intensify and sustain.

Very nice. I like this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Jul 17, 2007, 08:26 PM
Post #54


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 11, 2007, 04:57 AM) *


QUOTE(sushil_yadav @ Jun 20, 2006, 03:40 AM) *
Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive.
Do as I say but don't do as I do. How did you write and send your messages above? This reminds me of the pop stars flying in on airplanes and helicopters, to a concert with a message telling me to reduce my carbon emissions. Shove it!


I am not using the computer for fun.
I am not using the computer for business.
I am not using the computer to promote technology.

I am using it for a cause - for saving environment. If the environment were not getting destroyed I would not need the computer to spread the message.

Yes, I am using the computer - but I am using very few other things.
How many consumer goods are you using?
Would you like to compare your Ecological Footprint with my Ecological Footprint?
Let us find out who is a bigger burden on earth.

sushil_yadav
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 17, 2007, 09:24 PM
Post #55


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Calculations based on the ecological footprint of individuals is only one way of determining the sustainability of a technological society. And many believe that it is a flawed methodology, based on a simplistic calculation:

"... the ecological footprint theory is disputed by some specialists who argue that applying the earth's carrying capacity to human populations is flawed. Humans, the critics argue, "can and do increase the carrying capacity of their environment to meet their needs", for example in the case of renewable energies. Moreover, they say, carrying capacity has limited relevance when resources can be traded to make up for their scarcity. Additional uncertainties include calculation methods to evaluate land space needs or the lack of distinction between land uses that are sustainable and those that are not ... http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/.../article-131513"

Also, maybe you should focus your own attention on home ground - see below.

China's carbon footprint
China, now the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, will play crucial climate role
By Matt Crenson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sunday, July 08, 2007

NEW YORK — It's China's turn on the climate hot seat.

Last month, energy analysts announced that China's booming economy has propelled it past the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the atmospheric pollutant that is primarily responsible for global warming. China emitted 8 percent more carbon dioxide than the United States in 2006, according to a report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Eugene Hoshiko ASSOCIATED PRESS

During the next five years, China expects to complete at least one new coal-fired power plant a week. Coal releases more carbon dioxide than any other source of energy - and supplies two-thirds of China's power.

The milestone has reignited a perennial debate between developing and developed countries: Who should take responsibility for preventing catastrophic global warming?

Developing nations have insisted that rich Western economies take the lead in shifting to a low-carbon economy, since they are the ones who have pumped most of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to date. But there is little disputing that if China, India and other rapidly modernizing countries grow in the same unsustainable way the West has over the past 150 years, catastrophic global warming will result.

''Without the participation of the United States, China and India — the main emitters — we will not stop global warming,'' Japanese Environment Minister Masatoshi Wakabayashi said last month at a meeting in Singapore of the World Economic Forum on Asia.

Unfortunately, those three countries — along with Australia — traditionally have been the major holdouts against an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Australia and the United States refused to join the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires developed countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

China and India agreed to sign the accord only because, as developing countries, they have no responsibility to limit their emissions.

Officials in China and India say that economic development must come first.

''It is a fact that more and not less development is the best way for developing countries to address themselves to the issues of preserving the environment,'' Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said recently.

But India and China aren't helping the environment when they build coal-fired power plants and shun mass transit for auto-centric transportation.

Coal releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other energy source, and it supplies two-thirds of China's power. Over the next five years, China expects to complete at least one new coal-fired power plant a week.

In India, where several automakers are competing to provide affordable cars to the country's enormous middle class, there were 300,000 cars registered last year in Delhi alone. The government acknowledges that it expects the country's carbon dioxide emissions to more than quintuple by 2031, which would put India about where the United States is now in terms of emissions.

Governments in developing countries are not completely blind to the importance of taking steps against global warming.

''As a developing country of responsibility, China attaches great importance to the issue of climate change,'' a report on the nation's climate change program has declared. The report laid out a plan to increase energy efficiency 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2010.

But that effort, even if it succeeds, will do little to slow the growth of China's carbon dioxide emissions.

China emits nearly three times as much carbon dioxide as it did in 1990. Its emissions will double again by 2030, according to projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As Chinese officials are quick to say, the country lags behind developed countries in per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

China pumps about 10,500 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per person annually, compared with 42,500 pounds for the United States. And much of the growth in China's emissions results from the manufacture of goods for export.

Developed countries also have failed to take significant steps toward cutting their own carbon dioxide emissions. President Bush's recent proposal for international negotiations on carbon dioxide reductions was interpreted by environmentalists as a mostly empty gesture, an attempt to forestall any meaningful agreement on global warming by leading industrialized nations.

Democrats in Congress have largely abandoned hope of enacting major global warming legislation before the end of Bush's term. About the most they can hope for is an increase in fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon, thanks to legislation that passed the Senate in June and is pending in the House.

The European Union has been more aggressive than the United States in committing to carbon dioxide reductions, signing on to the Kyoto Protocol and committing this spring to a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020.

But meeting that commitment has been difficult. The European Commission reported last month that its member nations had reduced carbon dioxide emissions just 2 percent since signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. At that rate, it is highly unlikely Europe will reach the 8 percent reduction the protocol requires by 2012.

That means that a decade after Kyoto, no major economic power has actually done anything significant to confront global warming.
--

ps As an honest and uncompromised individual, I can state quite categorically, that I DO use my computer for fun (although not games), for business and to promote technology. These are the types of reasons why computers have been developed over the years and have become available for individuals such as yourself to use to promote your own dogmas.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 17, 2007, 09:47 PM
Post #56


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



pps I forgot to mention the population explosion ...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Aug 17, 2007, 06:27 PM
Post #57


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



Hey Hey,

So now you are worried about growth of Industrialization and Consumerism in India / China and its impact on Environment.

Who set the ball rolling?
Who started the whole process of Industrialization, Consumerism and Globalization?

It was not the East - It was the West.

You are also worried about large population in India and China.
How did the population in India and China increase to this level?

World population was less than 1 billion in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus. When man made medicines/ antibiotics he created disaster - population increased very rapidly.

Two things that have destroyed Environment are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism. Science and Technology is responsible for both these problems.

In the absence of Science, Technology, Industrialization/ Industrial Revolution the two problems of overpopulation and overconsumerism would not exist.

Stop blaming the East - It is the West that is responsible for the present situation.


sushil_yadav

PowerSwitch
StrategyTalk
ePhilosopher
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 17, 2007, 09:56 PM
Post #58


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



I would not say that all aspects of industrial society destroy the mind (or rather spirit) and environment. The purpose of technology is to make fulfilling our needs easier and more efficient, thus allowing more time to enjoy nature. Technology has gotten a little out of hand nowadays and aims not only to fill our needs but our wants and THAT is dangerous. An industrialized society has created a world of materialists.

For those who take the "love it or leave it" stance, I would say you are one of such materialists. I would gladly retreat to a simplified life, IF ALL OF THE DAMN FORESTS WEREN'T DESTROYED!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sushil_yadav
post Sep 08, 2007, 01:47 AM
Post #59


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
From: India
Member No.: 5329



Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [Consumer Goods].

When we make consumer goods we kill Animals/ Trees, Air/ Water and Land - directly or indirectly.

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.

It hardly matters whether it is "Capitalist Industrial Society" - "Communist Industrial Society" - or "Socialist Industrial Society".

Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.

Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.

Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Industry kills Water. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted.

Industry/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.

Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.

When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.

When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.

Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.


"Growth Rate" - "Economy Rate" - "GDP"

These are figures of "Ecocide".
These are figures of "crimes against Nature".
These are figures of "destruction of Ecosystems".
These are figures of "Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality".



sushil_yadav

PowerSwitch
StrategyTalk
ePhilosopher
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Sep 08, 2007, 06:14 PM
Post #60


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Finally someone who agrees with me smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th December 2014 - 11:25 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog