Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Was civilization a mistake?
    #7953823 - 01/29/08 11:29 PM (16 years, 3 days ago)

This article is a really interesting and well argued critique of civilization and an exploration of where we might be headed in the immediate future. It brings up some really good points and I'd like to discuss it with anyone inclined to read it. It's broken into relatively short and easily digested chunks, so fear not!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEternalCowabunga
Being of Great Significance
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 7,152
Loc: Time and Space
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7953919 - 01/29/08 11:47 PM (16 years, 3 days ago)

In the book Ishmael, the narrator says there are two types of people on Earth; givers, and takers. The narrator says that agriculture was the start of the culture of Takers and that the story of Cain and Abel in the bible is actually a story about the conflict between nomadic shepherds and settled farmers. Fascinating.

Civilization is the story of the Takers, and that story could seen be ending as we see the train about to drive right off the cliff... unless a new story begins.

By the way, Cain, said to be the first murderer in and of mankind, was said to be the first person who created evil. Fascinating.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7953935 - 01/29/08 11:50 PM (16 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

At its base, economics is about how people relate with the land and with one another in the process of fulfilling their material wants and needs. In the most primitive societies, these relations are direct and straightforward. Land, shelter, and food are free. Everything is shared, there are no rich people or poor people, and happiness has little to do with accumulating material possessions. The primitive lives in relative abundance (all needs and wants are easily met) and has plenty of leisure time.




Wow...

Quote:

Probably as a result, many foraging peoples are relatively peaceful (anthropologist Richard Lee found that "the !Kung [Bushmen of southern Africa] hate fighting, and think anybody who fought would be stupid").




The myth of the "Noble Savage" has been debunked a thousand times. As a counter-example to the !Kung, I would like to present the Yanomami.

Quote:

as civilization approaches a crisis precipitated by overpopulation




Huh? Malthus? What crisis, exactly?

Quote:

In terms of health and quality of life, civilization has been a mitigated disaster. S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., et al., argued in The Paleolithic Prescription (1988) that pre agricultural peoples enjoyed a generally healthy way of life, and that cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, emphysema, hypertension, and cirrhosis--which together lead to 75 percent of all mortality in industrialized nations--are caused by our civilized lifestyles. In terms of diet and exercise, preagricultural lifestyles showed a clear superiority to those of agricultural and civilized peoples.




It is easy to calculate the nutritional value of past populations by examining their height. The taller they are, the better nutrition they had. As skeletal records show, human beings have been getting taller and taller ever since the rise of civilization. Age of death has been steadily increasing, too. The diet of pre-agricultural people was limited to whatever they could catch. Our modern diet is much more diversified, consistent, and balanced.

Cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, emphysema, hypertension, and cirrhosis are either diseases of old age or related to tobacco and alcohol (or both.) Of course pre-agricultural people did not die of cancer... they didn't live long enough to get cancer!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7954025 - 01/30/08 12:11 AM (16 years, 3 days ago)

The !Kung live in one of the most marginal environments in the world, yet thier diet is incredibly rich, varied and extremely healthy. I think it's more than a little ridiculous for you to assert that the diet of civilized peoples is generally healther or more varied than that of your average hunter gatherer. Ridiculous. The diets of agricultural peoples tend to focus on one or two staple crops with a few secondary additions. Sure, we now have the option of eating a wide variety of foods from all over the world, but the average diet of the average north american is still based rather heavily on processed wheat, corn and sugar. It is widely accepted by anthropologists that the average hunter gatherer lifestyle requires somewhere around 20 hours per week of 'work' while and the rest is leisure time. Food is there for the pickings if you know where and when to get it. Again, the !Kung live in an extremely marginal environment, yet they don't have to work that hard. Hunting is an unnecessary luxury as thier protein requirements are more than fulfilled by the Mongongo nut which grows in abundance. I'd use more examples than the !Kung, but unfortunately they are the prototypical example, and I know more about them than others.

Heinberg is hardly perpetuating the myth of the noble savage. His anthropology is quite reasonable for the most part, although I agree that he probably should have steered clear of the generalization about non-violence.

They didn't live long enough to get cancer? Puhleeease. Most cancer is caused by environmental pollutants. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that without the incredible array of chemicals we come in contact with on a daily basis, we'd probably get cancer a lot less too. :rolleyes:


Edited by NiamhNyx (01/30/08 12:14 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7954176 - 01/30/08 12:53 AM (16 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

They didn't live long enough to get cancer? Puhleeease. Most cancer is caused by environmental pollutants. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that without the incredible array of chemicals we come in contact with on a daily basis, we'd probably get cancer a lot less too.




That is nonsense. Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication. Age is the best predictor of cancer. I don't know why you assume primitive tribes wouldn't come into contact with toxins. Many potent carcinogens come from phytotoxins and other naturally occurring chemicals, such as aflatoxin.

If more "civilized people" got up off their asses and moved around a bit, they probably wouldn't all be dieing of heart diseases.

Quote:

The !Kung live in one of the most marginal environments in the world, yet thier diet is incredibly rich, varied and extremely healthy.




Besides the lack of water, how is their environment marginal? The Mongongo nut is available in massive quantities in every season. They also have access to wild game.

Quote:

The diets of agricultural peoples tend to focus on one or two staple crops with a few secondary additions. Sure, we now have the option of eating a wide variety of foods from all over the world, but the average diet of the average north american is still based rather heavily on processed wheat, corn and sugar.




Most hunter-gather societies also have a few staple foods. For example, Australian aborigines rely mostly on millet, Papua New Guineans rely almost exclusively on sago palms, native hunter-gatherers in California ate almost nothing but acorns, etc.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineprankster
the twin
Registered: 04/25/07
Posts: 96
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7954275 - 01/30/08 01:30 AM (16 years, 2 days ago)

Quote:


Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
It is easy to calculate the nutritional value of past populations by examining their height. The taller they are, the better nutrition they had.




Pygmies, the most well-known group of diminutive humans, whose men on average grow to a maximum of five feet tall and their women about a half foot shorter, were thought to be endowed with their characteristic small body sizes due to poor nutrition and environmental conditions.

But the theories did not hold up, given that these populations—primarily hunter–gatherers—are found mostly in Africa but also in Southeast Asia and central South America, and thereby are exposed to varying climates and diets. Further, other populations who live under conditions of low sustenance, such as Kenya's Masai tribes, are among the world's tallest people.

So what could account for these pockets of people who grow so small?

According to University of Cambridge researchers, the key is the pygmies' life expectancy. "After going to the Philippines and interviewing the pygmies, I noticed this very distinctive feature of the population: very high mortality rates," says Andrea Migliano, a research fellow at Cambridge's Leverhulme Center for Human Evolutionary Studies and co-author of a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. "Then, going back to life history theory, we noticed that their small body size was really linked to high mortality."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-pygmies-evolved-to-be-shorter






Also other factors could have been involved, like adaption to the jungle environment. The Masai tribe (remember the tall skinny jumping people?) live in flatlands.

An interesting thing to note; I once heard this scientist talk about why there exist mini-hippopotamuses and mini elephants or whatever. She claimed that if a larger species was isolated somewhere without any natural enemies, they would evolve to the most energy efficient size which was about the size of a hare.



Edited by prankster (01/30/08 01:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7954882 - 01/30/08 09:30 AM (16 years, 2 days ago)

So I skimmed the article. I agree with much of what I saw.

The question is moot as far as change goes IMO. We have chosen a path and because of our natures it will play itself out. I believe that no cultural breakdown will effect change from picking up the path again. I now believe humanity is another dead end so to speak. Maybe it's meant to be this way.

The life I prefer is a pipe dream of a disturbed sleeper.:sad:

Or as George Castanza sez:(to paraphrase) "This is the world I would create if I was a different person".:tongue:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7955228 - 01/30/08 11:50 AM (16 years, 2 days ago)

Quote:


That is nonsense. Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication. Age is the best predictor of cancer. I don't know why you assume primitive tribes wouldn't come into contact with toxins. Many potent carcinogens come from phytotoxins and other naturally occurring chemicals, such as aflatoxin.




I'm not saying that they never got cancer. Of course, chances are that someone would get it sooner or later as there is the genetic element. The issue here is the compararitive rates.
Quote:

Medical anthropologists have found little cancer in their studies of technologically primitive people, and paleopathologists believe that the prevalence of malignancy was low in the past, even when differences in population age structure are taken into account (Rowling, 1961; Hildes and Schaefer, 1984; Micozzi, 1991).

Eaton et al. [1994] also analyzed the factors involved in women's reproductive cancers and developed a model that indicates that up to the age of 60, the risk of breast cancer in Western women is 100 times the risk level for preagricultural (e.g., hunter-gatherer) women.





Quote:

If more "civilized people" got up off their asses and moved around a bit, they probably wouldn't all be dieing of heart diseases.




You're probably right. But diet is also a definite factor. Wild meat tends to be much leaner than farmed meat.

Quote:

Besides the lack of water, how is their environment marginal? The Mongongo nut is available in massive quantities in every season. They also have access to wild game.




“...extreme isolation and a marginal environment have been responsible for the persistence of this form” (Lee 1969:50)

Quote:

Most hunter-gather societies also have a few staple foods. For example, Australian aborigines rely mostly on millet, Papua New Guineans rely almost exclusively on sago palms, native hunter-gatherers in California ate almost nothing but acorns, etc.




Most hunter gatherers have staple foods, but there is also a much greater diversity of other foods to eat as well. Nearly all hunter gatherers pick and choose what to gather based on preference, and are aware of a great number of less desirable food options that are generally only resorted to during shortages.

Quote:


Eighty-five plant species and 54 animal species were listed by the !Kung as edible.

!Kung ranked their 85 edible plants on basis of taste, nutritional value, abundance, and ease of collecting; mongongo is number one ranked plant food.

Given the tethering effect of water, the !Kung prefer to collect and eat the highest ranked foods that are available at the least distance from permanent water.

During dry season, the !Kung establish more-or-less permanent camps at permanent water and “eat their way out of it.”

(SEE COST CURVE, p. 60).

When roundtrip distance exceeds 12 miles (threshold of overnight trip), the !Kung begin to add less desirable, but closer resources (such as bitter melon, acacia gum, and heart of ivory palm.

During wet season, they move camp once the 6-mile-round-trip threshold, never having to add the less desirable resources.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7960129 - 01/31/08 01:12 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

I'd like to take this discussion in another direction, because, frankly, I don't have enough information to give this topic much justice.

I really don't see much of an argument against civilization per se in Heinberg's article. For instance, he mentions pollution, but I can imagine a civilization that produces no pollution, such as many Native American tribes. Environmental destruction is not inherit in civilization. It has more to do with the expansion of our economy and technology. He actually addresses this point, but fails to account for why it isn't just economics and technology. As technology keeps progressing, civilization may reach a point where its technology is so advanced that it produces absolutely no waste. (The Earthship house is a good example of a nearly waste-free environmentally friendly technology.)

Quote:

Meanwhile, as civilization approaches a crisis precipitated by overpopulation and the destruction of the ecological integrity of the planet, primitivism has enjoyed a popular resurgence, by way of increasing interest in shamanism, tribal customs, herbalism, radical environmentalism, and natural foods. There is a widespread (though by no means universally shared) sentiment that civilization has gone too far in its domination of nature, and that in order to survive--or, at least, to live with satisfaction--we must regain some of the spontaneity and naturalness of our early ancestors.




Again, I think it is easy to imagine a civilized society that embraces shamanism, tribal customs (isn't that what all our holidays are? funerals? weddings? etc?), environmentalism, and natural foods. Living in a city does not prevent any of this, but economic and technological factors do. Did Virginians colonists in the sixteenth century plant almost nothing but tobacco because of civilization or because of economics? If you do not have the means to grow or trade for a variety of foods, then your diet is not going to be varied, regardless of whether you are civilized or primitive.

Quote:

Anthropological and psychological research converge to suggest that many of civilized people's emotional ills come from our culture's abandonment of natural childrearing methods and initiatory rites and its systematic substitution of alienating pedagogical practices from crib through university.




I'd really love to see some research that supports this position.

Quote:

At its base, economics is about how people relate with the land and with one another in the process of fulfilling their material wants and needs. In the most primitive societies, these relations are direct and straightforward. Land, shelter, and food are free. Everything is shared, there are no rich people or poor people, and happiness has little to do with accumulating material possessions. The primitive lives in relative abundance (all needs and wants are easily met) and has plenty of leisure time.




This just seems false. There is no such thing as a free lunch. (Just because you don't have currency doesn't mean everything is free!) The Yanomami have an extremely stratified society and are also extremely uncivilized.

Quote:

The market gives us a numerical answer based on scarcity and demand. To the degree that we believe that such values have meaning, we live in a world that is desacralized and desensitized, without heart or spirit.




(I'm pretty sure desacralized is not a real word...)

Seventeenth century economics...The dismal science rears its ugly head! Supply and demand is a descriptive theory of economics which applies to both "primitive" and "civilized" society.

I don't think there is a great distinction between "primitive" and "civilized." What Heinberg seems to have done is taken every negative aspect of modern Western society and label it as "civilization." Meanwhile, he groups up all the positive aspects of hunter-gather societies and calls it "primitive." Never does he address pre-agricultural societies that are without a doubt undesirable to most people on this planet, such as the extremely violent lifestyle of the Yanomami. Nor does he address the extremely positive sides of civilization. Using his definitions, it is almost impossible to argue against him, because he defines civilization as something inherently bad and "primitivism" as something inherently good.

To me, the only difference between a "primitive" society and a "civilized" one is that the primitive society's economy is structured so that it lacks any entrepots. Without an entrepot, a city is very unlikely to develop, perhaps this development is even impossible. Other than that, I think the differences between societies has more do with their environment, culture, economics, level of technology, and relation to surrounding societies than whether or not they live in cities.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7962430 - 01/31/08 10:05 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Desacralize
to divest of sacred qualities or status




http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/desacralized

:grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962477 - 01/31/08 10:14 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

You stole the honours, Veritas. I was gonna do the same when I got around to stepping up to the plate with a full response. :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7962503 - 01/31/08 10:18 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

Well, I have to make my 15 minutes a day count!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962675 - 01/31/08 10:58 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

You are the queen of beating me to the punch.:tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUbermensch
Hunter gatherer
Male

Registered: 11/27/06
Posts: 403
Loc: Pac Northwest
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7962800 - 01/31/08 11:27 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

I really enjoyed reading that article. Thank you for posting it.

I agree with most of what is written. However, I can picture my ideal when it comes to society and it draws from both the "primitive" and "civilized" as far as Heinberg defines the words. It is practically impossible to revert to that type of society without many people dying.

The way I see things: We as a species are going to continue on a path that separates us from where we originated. We're trying to get to a point where we no longer rely on nature, but we need natural resources to do so. Hypothetically that point may exist, but it seems unlikely that we will reach it before our population peaks and our resources run out.

I also don't think Heinberg takes into consideration that our modern behavioral changes may be advantageous, accustoming ourselves to the new world we are creating. His is an argument of aesthetics and I share his opinion that not relying on technology is more appealing.

Somethings to add to yours and mushman's exchanges...

It's inaccurate to state that cancer is caused by one thing. I'm sure both of you know this despite what you wrote in your earlier posts. Old age is a good predictor, but in the past 50 years there have been a great deal of novel carcinogens for us to enjoy (dioxin, asbestos, acrylimide, etc.) Furthermore, the genetic/heritable basis of cancer has to do with the hindrance of natural mechanisms that correct DNA damage and initiate programmed cell death. Over time, these mechanisms just can't keep up in a sense. Point being: We're seeing higher cancer rates today because of the increase in toxins, shitty food, lack of exercise, and old age.


--------------------
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God has died, and those sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful sin, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7962901 - 01/31/08 11:53 PM (16 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Desacralize
to divest of sacred qualities or status




http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/desacralized

:grin:




Pfft. It has only existed since 1911! Hardly a word at all!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7963109 - 02/01/08 12:53 AM (16 years, 1 day ago)

Ever read Technopoly by Neil Postman?

This book blew my mind. It is an argument against itself.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Edited by Tchan909 (02/01/08 12:54 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ubermensch]
    #7963248 - 02/01/08 02:07 AM (16 years, 23 hours ago)

Ubermensch, I appreciate your post. I should probably qualify this thread with one point: I am not a primitivist. I find a critique of civilization incredibly valuable, but it does not inevitably lead me to the conclusion that the only true solution is for everyone to revert to a hunter gatherer way of life. In large part because this just isn't gonna fuckin' happen. At least not for a damn long time. Heinberg is not arguing in favor of 'going back' to a so called 'primitive' form of social organization, either. He is articulating a valid and important critique that ought to be factored into our thinking about what our options and desires are when it comes to responding to the ecological crisis currently plaguing the planet.

Quote:

The point of a primitivist critique of civilization is not necessarily to insist on an absolute rejection of every aspect of modern life, but to assist in clarifying issues so that we can better understand the tradeoffs we are making now, deepen the process of renegotiating our personal bargains with nature, and thereby contribute to the reframing of our society's collective covenants.




This is a pretty good place to start. It seems ludicrous to be to reject a line of critical analysis because one is averse to what one (perhaps naively) percieves as its sole inevitable conclusion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ubermensch]
    #7963252 - 02/01/08 02:09 AM (16 years, 23 hours ago)

Quote:

Ubermensch said:
It is practically impossible to revert to that type of society without many people dying.






This is pretty much the reason I'm not a primitivist.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7963778 - 02/01/08 08:05 AM (16 years, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

Cancer is caused by mutations caused during DNA replication.




This is the equivalent of saying that running is caused by the motion of your legs.  :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7964314 - 02/01/08 10:58 AM (16 years, 14 hours ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7964567 - 02/01/08 12:03 PM (16 years, 13 hours ago)

I know we have. As I said in that thread:

Quote:

What I posted is that the genetic damage caused by lifestyle and environment IS within our control, and that it is inaccurate to claim that cancer is just "random mutation" as had been posted by several misinformed parties. If we inherit a damaged p53 gene, we are predisposed to developing cancer (unchecked random mutation). If we damage our DNA through the many carcinogenic factors present in the Westernized lifestyle, we are predisposed to developing cancer (unchecked random mutation).

The factor which is within our control is lifestyle. Study after study has shown carcinogenic effects of diet, exposure to toxins and radiation, sedentary lifestyle, stress, and so on. Why do you (and others on this thread) insist upon viewing cancer as something that just happens? There is no such thing as a "drive-by cancering."




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleUbermensch
Hunter gatherer
Male

Registered: 11/27/06
Posts: 403
Loc: Pac Northwest
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7964734 - 02/01/08 12:36 PM (16 years, 12 hours ago)

Normally functioning genes do not always function perfectly.


--------------------
Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God has died, and those sinners died with him. To sin against the earth is now the most dreadful sin, and to esteem the entrails of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ubermensch]
    #7964779 - 02/01/08 12:45 PM (16 years, 12 hours ago)

Can we please not derail this thread with an argument over the precise technical details of how cancer is caused? It isn't exactly the most relevant or interest direction this subject can go.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDroz
Love of Life
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/15/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7965223 - 02/01/08 02:46 PM (16 years, 10 hours ago)

Only from a human perspective can we say that this society type civilization is a mistake.

When in fact if we are a mistake, all life is a mistake.

We are unique.

Peace,
Droz


--------------------
Evolution of Time.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebackfromthedead
Activated


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Droz]
    #7965224 - 02/01/08 02:47 PM (16 years, 10 hours ago)

The TV was a mistake.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Droz]
    #7965265 - 02/01/08 02:59 PM (16 years, 10 hours ago)

Quote:

Droz said:
Only from a human perspective can we say that this society type civilization is a mistake.

When in fact if we are a mistake, all life is a mistake.



Peace,
Droz




:thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Droz]
    #7965502 - 02/01/08 04:06 PM (16 years, 9 hours ago)

Quote:

Droz said:
Only from a human perspective can we say that this society type civilization is a mistake.

When in fact if we are a mistake, all life is a mistake.

We are unique.

Peace,
Droz




This is totally meaningless.
Only from a human perspective can we say anything at all, considering we're human. Does that mean we should stop thinking?

Besides, I have a feeling that if plants and animals could weigh in with thier own perspective, many of them would probably be critical of civilization as well, since they're on the losing team pretty much every time they encounter it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7965607 - 02/01/08 04:29 PM (16 years, 8 hours ago)

What seems meaningless to me is to ask if civilization was a mistake. As if we had a choice in the matter and as if we could choose now. Civilization is as human as our brains.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7965939 - 02/01/08 05:50 PM (16 years, 7 hours ago)

Sure, I agree that it's a bit of a pointless question considering we can't exactly take it back. But let's pretend I titled the thread something else.

If we start our discourse with the fatalistic view that things are not going to change no matter what, then it binds our thinking within predetermined confines. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If we begin our discourse with no holds barred, with the willingness to engage in critical analysis of everything, then it frees up a lot of wiggle room in which to figure out how we really want to live and what options truly exist. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to really have a grasp of what our authentic options are unless we are willing to critically analyse even those institutions and ideologies we take for granted the most. Refusing to think critically about something because 'that's just how it is' is a lazy cop out and nothing more.

Quote:


Civilization is as human as our brains.





Sure. But on that token [rape, racism, child abuse] is as human as our brains. What's your point?


Edited by NiamhNyx (02/01/08 05:54 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator
Other User Gallery Ultimate Champion: Blackjack


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7965950 - 02/01/08 05:52 PM (16 years, 7 hours ago)

I often like to think of the example of Easter Island as a metaphor for humanity as a whole. One time rich in vegetation, animals, and resources, the isolated island cut down every last tree for their famous Moai statues, heat, and shelter. After food became scarce, the tribes of the island began killing each other over what little remained and often resorted to cannibalism. About 100 years after the wars began, a new equilibrium was reached by the population. Though only a fraction of the 12,000 people at the peak of the island's existance lived there now, they were able to find a sustainable way of life.

It was a great mystery to the Europeans how an island with no trees, few fish, birds and other animals and only a couple thousand inhabitants could produce such magnificant statues. Some as large as 40ft tall weighing a max of almost 80 tons. These statues litter the island, some smashed and turned over, some standing strong. What was their purpose and how and who built them? After the Dutch discovered the island in the 1700's, genocide, slavery and syphalis spread through the island's 2,000 or so inhabitants and brought about the end for most of the island's original inhabitants, but the mystery remained.

As our society becomes more and more globalized into a single "truth" of consumerism and monetary wealth, I can't help but reflect on what will be left after a new sustainable equilibrium is reached for our population. Peak oil is a truth of the world, society cannot continue down this path of self destruction. Inevitably we will look upon the desolation we have created and rise against our own culture. After a long period of hardships, war, famine, disease, a sustainable equilibrium will be reached. This population of perhaps 500million people or a billion will wonder how on earth we completed some of the most monumental tasks of our time.

The sercophogas at chernobyl. The panama cannel, and the many cities that scatter across the earth may be reclaimed by the earth eventually, but more likely will stand as a testimate to our over achievement and over zealous ambitions. I truely believe that the meek that will inherit the earth and eventually re-explore our planet. These great mysteries of modern engineering and production will stand just as the Moai statutes at Easter Island. Looking over what has gone awry.

I don't believe we can ever completely destroy ourselves. Humanity is too creative, innovated and determined to ever completely wipe itself out, but we might get pretty damn close.



--------------------
"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator
Other User Gallery Ultimate Champion: Blackjack


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ahab McBathsalts]
    #7966046 - 02/01/08 06:17 PM (16 years, 6 hours ago)

I don't think that we can think of civilization as being either right, or wrong in any conventional sense. It is what it is, and we have to look forward into finding real solutions to the problems humanity is about to face rather than looking to the past to see what might have happened if...


--------------------
"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ahab McBathsalts]
    #7966148 - 02/01/08 06:40 PM (16 years, 6 hours ago)

I agree with you. But I don't think that thinking critically about a form of social organization is the same as looking into the past and wondering 'what if.' It's looking into the past and wondering 'what happened? how did we develop in the direction we did? what other ways have people chosen to develop?' And then coming back to the present and asking 'what is worth keeping and what ought to be rejected? how can we apply the insights we've gained from studying the diverse ways people have lived in other times and places to our current situation?' It isn't so much a matter of 'going back' as it is realizing we don't necessarily have to invent something brand new every time we face a challenge. Obviously it would be silly to say "ok, so our culture completely sucks, so let's just all adopt !Kung culture right here and now and everything will be fine." No one in thier right mind would think this is even remotely possible. That's not the point. But sometimes other people have already come up with good ways of dealing with certain specific issues, and we can mine thier wisdom and apply it to our own situation.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator
Other User Gallery Ultimate Champion: Blackjack


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7966201 - 02/01/08 07:00 PM (16 years, 6 hours ago)

No politician will openly say, "Look, society is fucked. In order to preserve our planet and humanity, we need to do a total review what we are doing. Simple luxuries of life such as electricity, the free market system, and basic human rights are going to be ammended for the global effort. In order to preserve our beliefs and knowledge that we have accumulated throughout history we need to make tough choices. These choices will determine who can life and who will die."

the majority of the world will be kept blind of the impending problems, until they cannot be denied from first hand experiance of many of the populations. The problems of humanity's impact on the world are just beginning to be seen, and still they are being utterly denied.

i'm pretty sure we are far more likely to see war on a near apocolypical level to determine who will live and die. It will be an "us" versus "them" problem before a revamping of human behavior.


--------------------
"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ahab McBathsalts]
    #7966309 - 02/01/08 07:38 PM (16 years, 5 hours ago)

Of course we aren't going to hear a politician say anything like that, but as free agents we are welcome to develop our own thinking. One could even argue that the total uselessness of politicians is an excellent argument in favor of developing our thinking beyond the weak, non-critical norm. I share your sentiment: it probably will get much worse before people open thier eyes and realize how serious it is. But don't you think it's better if at that point people at least some people have already thought about things and have some good ideas on the burner? There is a breaking point in any society at which people are no longer willing to put up with the state of affairs as they are and revolt. I like to think that if it actually came down to war on an apocalyptic level, that there would be a significant counter-movement of resisters who, in the least, refused to participate in it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAhab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator
Other User Gallery Ultimate Champion: Blackjack


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7966425 - 02/01/08 08:12 PM (16 years, 4 hours ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
But don't you think it's better if at that point people at least some people have already thought about things and have some good ideas on the burner? There is a breaking point in any society at which people are no longer willing to put up with the state of affairs as they are and revolt. I like to think that if it actually came down to war on an apocalyptic level, that there would be a significant counter-movement of resisters who, in the least, refused to participate in it.




Ideas such as? Solar power? Hippy living? 86% of energy use in the world is still comming from fossil fuels. We can't just replace all the energy we are using with wind power, and hydro electric. There will be a global energy crisis on a unprecidented scale. Most people don't want to give up the standard of living that we have grown accustomed to. But things like new cars, television, imported pommagrantes in supermarkets and other blatent misuses of resources will become more and more expensive in the market system, until they are allocated to only the richest people in the world while the rest of us die of starvation.

Don't get me wrong. People don't like war. But if the government would likely, at least internally say, "Hey, look, we are going to have half the people in america starve in the coming decade because food prices will increase 10 fold and most people cannot afford to pay. So, we are going to use some of our military arsonal to destroy china and india to ease the global food demand. Sorry about the radiation, but it needs to be done. The alternative is all politician being lynched for misleading the public, utter chaos, destruction and rioting that hasn't been seen before.

Of course the publisiced reasons would be human rights abuses, terrorism, etc etc whatever.

Its a much easier sell to the public to say that china is misusing all the resources of earth and polluting, so we must kill them all and re-appropriate their resources to america then having the problems that come along with poverty (crime,corruption,social unrest,violence) effect not just the bottom 50% of the population of a country, but everyone that needs to live society.

The politicians attempt will destroy other countries and harvest their resources before they severly alter our way of life.


--------------------
"Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Ahab McBathsalts]
    #7966500 - 02/01/08 08:29 PM (16 years, 4 hours ago)

Reading stuff like that makes me want to move.

Seriously though, I would reserve judgment on just how doomed we are... maybe I'm an optimist but I feel like Americans are slowly becoming more aware of the iniquities inherent to our system. The Internet plays a large role. Maybe I'm projecting my own growing awareness of it onto other people, but I don't know, I'm kinda young. Correct me, anyone?


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Edited by Tchan909 (02/01/08 08:29 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7967240 - 02/01/08 11:42 PM (16 years, 1 hour ago)

I think that the biggest loss created by advanced civilization is the sense of being part of a tribe.  We evolved within small social groups, in which everyone was known & the survival of the individual clearly depended upon the other members of the tribe.

Now, though our individual survival in the long term still depends upon the many, many members of our "tribe," the distance and disconnection between the individuals obscures this knowledge.  We start to believe that we, alone, are responsible for our survival--no one else will help us.  This fosters a sense of greed, avarice & mistrust.  We're all "out for #1," with little or no sense of the bigger picture.

In capitalist societies, we attempt to recreate the security of belonging to a tribe by accumulating belongings and power.  My guess is that this does not work (though I have not accumulated either belongings OR power :tongue:).  We still search for the sense of security which can only result from knowing that other people will help you if you need it--that you do not shoulder the responsibilities of this life alone--and that those people will take care of you, not because you pay them, but because they are committed to you.

My observations on this theory over the past several years have led me to start researching co-housing communities.  The idea of purposefully joining a tribal group has great appeal for me, and it seems that these groups are of the same mind.  What do you think about the idea of combining civilization with primativism, and taking the best from both?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimpgl
CrimethINCspecial agent
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 2,462
Loc: california!
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Veritas]
    #7967609 - 02/02/08 04:14 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

:werd: the bay area is amazing for co housing. cant wait to move back


--------------------
omg really?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7967818 - 02/02/08 08:04 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Refusing to think critically about something because 'that's just how it is' is a lazy cop out and nothing more.

Who says I haven't thought critically about this. I've been considering this question longer than you have been alive most likely.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7969146 - 02/02/08 03:11 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

That's very likely. I don't mean to suggest that you haven't thought critically about it. But I encounter a LOT of people who begin and end thier thinking with "we're fucked, what's the point?" That is totally lame.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimpgl
CrimethINCspecial agent
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/07/06
Posts: 2,462
Loc: california!
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7972213 - 02/03/08 09:55 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

me, im a dreamer. a wanderer. i hope for a better future. im the change that i want to see.


--------------------
omg really?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7974144 - 02/03/08 04:59 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
That's very likely. I don't mean to suggest that you haven't thought critically about it. But I encounter a LOT of people who begin and end thier thinking with "we're fucked, what's the point?" That is totally lame.




Well my "critical":tongue: thinking has lead me to the conclusion that by our nature civilization and culture are the only possible outcome of the human experiment.  In my study of human nature which includes myself I can find no alternative to what we are doing. I may not like it, I may not agree with it, but IMO it's here to stay wherever it may lead. Unfortunately I think it will lead to our destruction. Not because culture and civilization is a negative but that humanity (mostly) does not have the heart or skill  for what it takes to make it work to our ultimate advantage.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7974256 - 02/03/08 05:32 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

That's a ridiculous conclusion when you consider that our current form of social organization is relatively young compared to other forms that were the norm for the vast majority of time we've existed as a species. Also, when you study culture change and the collapse of other civilizations, such as the Mayans, it becomes clear that the linear evolution of social organization is nothing more than a foundation myth that underpins and serves as justification for the society we have now. Every culture has such myths. It's a total illusion to believe that this one in particular is true in any objective sense. It's only 'true' so much as we make it true by believing it and behaving accordingly. The linear evolution model is dated and largely rejected by contemporary anthropologists.

There are countless of examples of cultures existing on one "level" of the supposed band-tribe-chiefdom-state scale that choose, not out of necessity, but out of desire, to move "back" to a supposedly "less evolved" form of organization. The Crow, for example, broke off of another group (forgive me, I forget thier name) who were semi-sedentary horticulturalists and chose instead to develop in the direction of primarily nomadic hunting/gathering.

Your "study" of human nature, which includes you as a primary sample, is limited by the fact that the people accessible for your observations all exist within a specific context, socialized in a specific culture that percieves and relates to the world around itself in a specific way. The context in which people live shapes and largely determines thier values and behaviour. Historical process is a better means of explaining how we got here than "human nature" which is too basic and too fluid to explain the diverse ways in which people elaborate it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7977039 - 02/04/08 09:40 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

That's a ridiculous conclusion

So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more. IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture. I really don't see a major difference in primitive cultures and modern ones except in degree. They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival. Some small ones are or were more benign but are and were easily assimilated and often without violence. Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.

Hey what happened to that tribe that went backwards? I never see them on TV anymore.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7979280 - 02/04/08 06:58 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more.





The issue isn't how many cultures you or I have studied, but the validity of the patterns and theories drawn. The linear evolution model was popular in the early days of anthropology, right alongside theories of biologically determined inequality (racialism), and much of it was used as a moral justification for the theft of native land and forced assimilation. Many contemporary anthropologists have challenged that model and provided better theories that are better backed by the evidence.

Quote:

IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture.




True. What's your point? All human groupings that share a subsistence strategy, language and worldview are cultures.

Quote:

They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival.





There is a difference between status and rank. Status is based on merit, doing things that people respect and appreciate, but doesn't mean that a person with high status has any power to coercively influence the actions of others. Any influence one has associated with status is due to that person's greater knowledge or ability in a certain area. Whether or not thier advice is taken is a matter of the discretion of individuals. Rank, on the other hand, carries with it some ability to coerce others to fulfill one's wishes, and usually some repressive system of control. It's a mistake to confuse the two... although there are hazy areas where one shades into the other. For the record, there have been cultures that don't have status at all, let alone rank.

As for surival, well, uh yes-- humans get together to figure out ways of surviving (and thriving) in the particular environments in which they exist. That is what life is fundamentally about. What's your point?

Quote:

Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.




Tell that to the tribes deep in the Amazon or West Papua, or the folks on the Andaman Islands (who survived that giant tsunami because their oral tradition told them that water receding unusually far from the shore means you should immediately run to the hills.) Or hell, tell that to currently assimilated indigenous folk right here whose grandparents or ancestors fought and died to defend thier own cultures in the face of the European war machine. To omit from your analysis the degree of violence it has taken to demolish or assimilate other cultures as well as the resistance such genocide has been met with flies in the face of good evidence. It's at best simply misinformed to assert that glossy photos of refrigerators (rather than the experience or threat of violence) really swayed anyone to voluntarily jump on the dominant-culture-bandwagon.

It's probable that a more technologically advanced culture with a growth imperative (exploding population demanding more resouces) will be able to muscle smaller groups off thier landbase, or simply assimilate them as forced labor, through sheer numbers/better weapons. It doesn't follow from this that the current state of our culture is the inevitable outcome of 'human nature.' It's more of a historical domino effect. As soon as one group in a region becomes militaristic and threatening, their neighbours either have to muscle up or risk being slaughtered/enslaved. The long term and pre-historically widespread existence of cultures that don't undergo such a transformation is proof that 'human nature' isn't to blame. Yes- humans inherently have the capacity for this kind of social organization but capacity does not equate inevitability.

If you require it, I can send you endless peer reviewed anthropological and archaeological research that undermines the linear-progress model. It just doesn't hold up to the weight of informed scrutiny. :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980015 - 02/04/08 09:05 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Was the IDEA of civilization a mistake back then? No.

Is the reality of civilization a mistake today? Yes.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7980266 - 02/04/08 09:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Well, the idea of civilization may have been considered a mistake by certain elements of the population back when it got started (various times and places.) I'm sure it was percieved as a great idea by the classes that benefitted most. But remember, it's not something that is dreamt up and then brought into being in one conscious step, it's a process that spans across generations, each generation forgetting earlier ways of life and taking for granted the normalcy of the life they know.

I think the exhaustion of the environment has made quite clear the consequences of unlimited growth-- that we simply cannot afford to continue in the same direction we've committed ourselves to. This necessitates a looking back, understanding why and how we came to be where we are. It's a vital part of looking forward and deciding how to live in the present and future.

I just can't abide the attitude that there's no point in this exercise. Ideas change the world all the time. Plato, Hobbes and Locke still resound in our discourse. With climate change and the collapse of fisheries there is a popular resurgence of interest in reimagining our subsistence strategy and worldview. I think it's important to be as clear in our thinking as possible and this requires critical analysis of everything usually taken for granted. I'd really like to try to contribute to minimizing suffering when we finally exceed carrying capacity. :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980705 - 02/04/08 10:46 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

yer such a Malthus wannabe


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7980711 - 02/04/08 10:47 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I don't know how it's possible to "wannabe" someone I've never read. Nice personalism.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7980806 - 02/04/08 11:05 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Can you name any distinct connecitons between what she typed and Malthus' views?


Edited by Poid (02/04/08 11:17 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7980819 - 02/04/08 11:09 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

**she


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7980959 - 02/04/08 11:47 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
I don't know how it's possible to "wannabe" someone I've never read.




You may be unconsciously projecting the archetype of Thomas Malthus.

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Nice personalism.




Thank you. I have a soft spot for personal idealism.

Quote:

Poid said:
Can you name any distinct connecitons between what she typed and Malthus' views?




Carrying capacity. Civilizations overpopulation and doom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7981052 - 02/05/08 12:10 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Hmm. Funny, we talked about carrying capacity today in my archaeology class and Malthus wasn't brought up. It's a simple fact that a finite system can support a limited population while continuing to renew itself. Once a population has exceeded that limit, there tends to be a process of balancing that involves a shortage of resources resulting in a die back. The limit can be raised with increasing intensification of use (such as adding a new, formerly un-utilized resources into the picture) but as the planet as a whole is a finite system, the carrying capacity is likewise finite. If a particular resource is exploited quicker than the rate at which it can replicate itself, it will eventually decline. Peak oil for example? This isn't some obscure or arcane philosophy, it's a simple fact of material reality. Malthus may have been one of the earliest to observe and articulate this, but it's pretty tangible. Common sense.

Specific people can't be archetypes. Archetypes are generalized universal symbols, like 'the hero.'


Edited by NiamhNyx (02/05/08 12:43 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7981359 - 02/05/08 02:12 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Thomas Malthus was one of the first economists to study demographics and population. He is right up there with David Hume, Adam Smith, David Richardo, and James Mill. His most famous work is An Essay on the Principle of Population, which happens to be entirely wrong. (That is no exaggeration.) Thomas Malthus predicted that, because there was a finite amount of food in England and things such as disease and war kept the population in check, the population would remain stable.

"I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations...

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. [By geometrical ratio he means exponential growth.] Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second...

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficultymust fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

The population of humans is not stable at all, nor has it ever been. Due to technological and economic advances, it is constantly increasing. Other organisms have carrying capacities, but because of the amazingly powerful effect of our extended phenotype, there is no foreseeable carrying capacity for us. Nobody can predict where human ingenuity ends.

You can read all of An Essay on the Principle of Population (for free) here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/prppl10.txt


I figured I should throw this in here too:

Quote:

The articles dealing with population growth and energy make claims that are sadly pessimistic, but fortunately wrong. Albert Bartlett takes issue with economist Julian Simon while fawning over Malthus. Readers should recall Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb (Ballantine, 1968; Buccaneer Books, 1995). Thirty years ago, Ehrlich made many of the same arguments as Paul Weisz and Bartlett. Julian Simon made a now−famous wager with Ehrlich regarding the prices of five commodities in the future. According to basic economic theory, the price of goods will increase as the available supply decreases. Ehrlich predicted severe shortages and cost increases. Simon claimed that technology and efficiency would more than make up for increased population and that prices would fall. Ehrlich was wrong; Simon was right. Today, the cost of energy in constant dollars is less, not more, than it was 20 years ago. Throughout the past three decades, it has been Malthusian theory that is in error. Calling Simon "egregious" in his correct prediction does not erase the facts about energy efficiency.




Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/05/08 02:15 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7981855 - 02/05/08 09:24 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Quote:

So you say but I think it's a rock solid guess base on lots of evidence. I've most likely studied as many cultures as you have an maybe more.





The issue isn't how many cultures you or I have studied, but the validity of the patterns and theories drawn. The linear evolution model was popular in the early days of anthropology, right alongside theories of biologically determined inequality (racialism), and much of it was used as a moral justification for the theft of native land and forced assimilation. Many contemporary anthropologists have challenged that model and provided better theories that are better backed by the evidence.

Quote:

IMO any shift to a less organized form of culture is still culture.




True. What's your point? All human groupings that share a subsistence strategy, language and worldview are cultures.

Quote:

They are all based on status of one kind or another and survival.





There is a difference between status and rank. Status is based on merit, doing things that people respect and appreciate, but doesn't mean that a person with high status has any power to coercively influence the actions of others. Any influence one has associated with status is due to that person's greater knowledge or ability in a certain area. Whether or not thier advice is taken is a matter of the discretion of individuals. Rank, on the other hand, carries with it some ability to coerce others to fulfill one's wishes, and usually some repressive system of control. It's a mistake to confuse the two... although there are hazy areas where one shades into the other. For the record, there have been cultures that don't have status at all, let alone rank.

As for surival, well, uh yes-- humans get together to figure out ways of surviving (and thriving) in the particular environments in which they exist. That is what life is fundamentally about. What's your point?

Quote:

Just show them some advertising for hot running water and a full fridge and streets paved with gold.




Tell that to the tribes deep in the Amazon or West Papua, or the folks on the Andaman Islands (who survived that giant tsunami because their oral tradition told them that water receding unusually far from the shore means you should immediately run to the hills.) Or hell, tell that to currently assimilated indigenous folk right here whose grandparents or ancestors fought and died to defend thier own cultures in the face of the European war machine. To omit from your analysis the degree of violence it has taken to demolish or assimilate other cultures as well as the resistance such genocide has been met with flies in the face of good evidence. It's at best simply misinformed to assert that glossy photos of refrigerators (rather than the experience or threat of violence) really swayed anyone to voluntarily jump on the dominant-culture-bandwagon.

It's probable that a more technologically advanced culture with a growth imperative (exploding population demanding more resouces) will be able to muscle smaller groups off thier landbase, or simply assimilate them as forced labor, through sheer numbers/better weapons. It doesn't follow from this that the current state of our culture is the inevitable outcome of 'human nature.' It's more of a historical domino effect. As soon as one group in a region becomes militaristic and threatening, their neighbours either have to muscle up or risk being slaughtered/enslaved. The long term and pre-historically widespread existence of cultures that don't undergo such a transformation is proof that 'human nature' isn't to blame. Yes- humans inherently have the capacity for this kind of social organization but capacity does not equate inevitability.

If you require it, I can send you endless peer reviewed anthropological and archaeological research that undermines the linear-progress model. It just doesn't hold up to the weight of informed scrutiny. :shrug:




You really aren't telling me things I don't realize here. My point being that civilization will continue on it's course as far as I can see and any indigenous cultures will be assimilated into it. This seems pretty obvious to me and examples are everywhere.

To think we can alter this course because a few fringe liberals think we made a mistake is continually disproved by events. If the white man disappeared tomorrow from America I really doubt that Seven Feathers Casino would close down and the tee pee would replace it.

Now of course I'm guessing as I can't know the future. But it looks like the most likely correct guess by all experiential accounts.

Usually people who question civilization and desire it to deconstruct (as I once did) are mostly just unable to accept change and chaos in the march of time. I think you will come to agree with this as you spend more years in observation and experience.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBoots
Disenchanted
Male

Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7981930 - 02/05/08 09:49 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Interesting essay, from what I read. It seems very well that civilization could be an accident, mainly due to my belief that nothing is inherent, therefore, animals may not necessarily be social creatures, maybe it just ended up that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7984421 - 02/05/08 08:36 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The assumption that the population of England would remain the same given finite resources didn't work out because England's resource base was practically infinite. Their project of colonial expansion broadened the scope of resources to exploit and land to ship thier extra population to. Basing my analysis on absolutely nothing but what you have said, I'm going to suggest that his flaw was in discluding these important variables and not in the principle itself. If you take an isolated population in a specific, limited area, with a specific and limited resource base, the principle of carrying capacity applies time after time. It can, of course, be raised with advances in techniques or an expansion of resources utilized. Here on the west coast, in the transition between the Paleolithic and Archaic periods, carrying capacity went from approx 2 people/km2 to 10/km2 because of a shift in subsistence strategies.

Take the example of Easter Island. They had a finite resource base that could not readily be expanded upon and because of bad choices, exploited it beyond carrying capacity. Instead of adapting when things started getting uncomfortable, they continued in the same direction and eventually wiped themselves out. Of course people do adapt most of the time, opting to change thier subsistence strategies. If we decimate our fisheries, we can always fall back on rodents and insects for good, reliable protein. :smirk:

Yes, technological advances most certainly raise the carrying capacity bar, but any finite system has limits sooner or later. I don't see how this cannot be self evident.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Icelander]
    #7984459 - 02/05/08 08:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Icelander, perhaps I should clarify my point of contention with you. It's probably more a matter of nitpicking than anything else, really. I agree that, yes, we will most likely barrel along on our current course for some time into the future. My disagreement is with your assertion that this particular form of social organization is an inevitable product of 'human nature.' Perhaps what you really meant was that replicating the culture one is familiar with is something that people tend to do, is in our nature. If that's what you meant, than I misunderstood and I'd concede. edit: That point anyways. (Not any of the points I made, just thier being directed towards you.)


Edited by NiamhNyx (02/05/08 08:43 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7984906 - 02/05/08 10:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

You know what man, you sound like somebody I know. He committed mass genocide, and was a totalitarian evil mongul. Who are you? And what's more important, why and how?

Stop trying to put people down for no good reason man, that's really not cool.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7984964 - 02/05/08 10:30 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Mushman is just mad that he lost the earlier debate he had with me, because I hunted down authoritative sources for my information and he couldn't be bothered to do the same. Ad hominem attack is a rhetorical strategy that's easy to sink to when you ain't got nothin' better in your arsenal. I'm not too phased by it, don't worry.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7985002 - 02/05/08 10:38 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I really don't know what either of you are talking about and have not committed mass genocide in years.

Quote:

Who are you? And what's more important, why and how?




How am I? I'm fine, thanks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7985007 - 02/05/08 10:39 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Stop trying to put people down for no good reason man, that's really not cool.




Who exactly did I put down?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7985021 - 02/05/08 10:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Mushman is just mad that he lost the earlier debate he had with me, because I hunted down authoritative sources for my information and he couldn't be bothered to do the same.




If you wanted to continue debating that topic, then we can.

Quote:

Ad hominem attack is a rhetorical strategy that's easy to sink to when you ain't got nothin' better in your arsenal. I'm not too phased by it, don't worry.




Was this supposed to be ironic?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7985059 - 02/05/08 10:52 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


If you wanted to continue debating that topic, then we can.




I'm not interested. I just pointed out the fact that I was the only one who actually posted authentic research with citations supporting my perspective, and that you dropped out of the debate after that.

Quote:

Was this supposed to be ironic?




And that was the fallacy of "appealing to ridicule."

Tell me how you think calling me a "Malthus wannabe" can be anything but an ad hominem.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7985091 - 02/05/08 11:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I just pointed out the fact that I was the only one who actually posted authentic research with citations supporting my perspective




I can post citations if you want.

Quote:

And that was the fallacy of "appealing to ridicule."




Thats crazy.

Quote:

Tell me how you think calling me a "Malthus wannabe" can be anything but an ad hominem.




I didn't know we were still debating anything. Generally, "Malthusian" is a term used humorously...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7985125 - 02/05/08 11:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Asking if a sincere point someone makes is meant ironically is not an argument, it is a rhetorical device intented to persuade, and it's fallacious.

Whether it's meant humorously or not, stating that a persons views are essentially indistinguishable from another's is fallacious. Correct me if I'm forgetting important premises, but you essentially said: 'your views are wrong because they are derivative of Malthus and he was wrong about everything.'


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7985353 - 02/06/08 12:40 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Correct me if I'm forgetting important premises, but you essentially said: 'your views are wrong because they are derivative of Malthus and he was wrong about everything.'




I made a joke about you being Malthusian, then explained who Thomas Malthus was to you... If I had known you'd take such an offense to "yer such a Malthus wannabe", then I wouldn't have said it.


Edited by MushmanTheManic (02/06/08 12:48 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7985376 - 02/06/08 12:53 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I guess I misinterepreted your intention. Sorry. On the internet it can be hard to properly interpret the intentions of a comment since it's just words on a screen with no expressive tone to clarify things. Emoticons help a little I guess. I've also been in a self-righteous and argumentative mood for the last few weeks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7985406 - 02/06/08 01:15 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Say what you want, but what you were doing in retaliation is no better than an Ad Hominem argument.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7985432 - 02/06/08 01:32 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I really wasn't trying to argue. Sorry for any misunderstandings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7985918 - 02/06/08 09:13 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Icelander, perhaps I should clarify my point of contention with you. It's probably more a matter of nitpicking than anything else, really. I agree that, yes, we will most likely barrel along on our current course for some time into the future. My disagreement is with your assertion that this particular form of social organization is an inevitable product of 'human nature.' Perhaps what you really meant was that replicating the culture one is familiar with is something that people tend to do, is in our nature. If that's what you meant, than I misunderstood and I'd concede. edit: That point anyways. (Not any of the points I made, just thier being directed towards you.)




Yes that's what I meant. This is a type 13 planet you know.;)


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7988166 - 02/06/08 06:39 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
I really wasn't trying to argue. Sorry for any misunderstandings.




Cool, everyone's friends, like it's supposed to be!

:3some:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: Poid]
    #7988208 - 02/06/08 06:45 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

It's a rare thread indeed that ends resolved, with pleasantries and handshakes. :birthday:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: Was civilization a mistake? [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7988292 - 02/06/08 07:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
It's a rare thread indeed that ends resolved, with pleasantries and handshakes. :birthday:




Yay!!!!! Go team!

:dogpile:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution, Civilization and Jesus Unagipie 1,968 16 10/31/05 02:24 PM
by dr0mni
* Free Association Writing/Environment Thread Evan_1107 1,760 14 07/10/06 11:51 PM
by Evan_1107
* Body Art and the Rise and Fall of Civilization
( 1 2 3 all )
Frog 3,018 48 12/30/04 11:42 AM
by silversoul7
* The Magic of Mistakes SkorpivoMusterion 664 2 07/25/04 12:11 AM
by Anonymous
* War and an alien civilization. Droz 1,520 15 08/22/06 03:51 AM
by Xanthas
* Mistakes Sinbad 861 9 01/16/05 08:50 AM
by Sinbad
* Learning from your mistakes SpecialEd 771 3 01/03/04 06:07 PM
by trendal
* Civilization silversoul7 1,323 16 01/30/04 08:55 AM
by kaiowas

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
7,142 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.05 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 12 queries.