chemicals are bad !

[VoidTraveler]

That is silly reasoning. Your assumption that synthesized drugs are bad for you doesn't hold up. If I were to give you a capsule filled with Psilocybin you probably wouldn't be able to tell whether or not you had synthetic Psilocybin or extracted Psilocybin.

Perhaps you've come to this conclusion based on how you feel about today's medicines. Many prescription drugs come with a large amount of side effects that are mostly unpleasant. You also know that nearly all medicines are synthesized by pharmaceutical companies. So it is easily to conclude: synthesized drugs are bad because they always have side effects.

But that assumption is wrong. Most modern day medicines have side effects because we don't fully understand how the human body works and why certain chemicals alter the way it works.

Synthetic drugs are no different than natural drugs. Synthetic drugs are usually more pure and might not have the synergy that their natural relatives have due to additional psychoactive substances, but they're not necessarily bad.

 

[The Traveler]

Thinking along the lines of "chemicals are bad" and lumping them all onto one stack is bluntly ignorant. The landscape of average life expectancy has been completely changed due to modern (chemical) medicine.

Also stating that chemical drugs are bad for your mental and physical health is just nonsensical without stating the complete context. It is all dependent on many factors like dosage, amount of dosages you take per timeframe, mixture with other substances, your diet, your physical health, your reaction to certain substances and a lot of other variables. And those factors also come into play when you take 'natural' substances.

devineinmymind, I think that you lump a lot of non-related things into a mixture, make it sounds like they are related and then mix in some extra pseudo-science too, all to just make your point. And by doing that, you make no sense at all.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[devineinmymind]

That is silly reasoning. Your assumption that synthesized drugs are bad for you doesn't hold up. If I were to give you a capsule filled with Psilocybin you probably wouldn't be able to tell whether or not you had synthetic Psilocybin or extracted Psilocybin.

Perhaps you've come to this conclusion based on how you feel about today's medicines. Many prescription drugs come with a large amount of side effects that are mostly unpleasant. You also know that nearly all medicines are synthesized by pharmaceutical companies. So it is easily to conclude: synthesized drugs are bad because they always have side effects.

But that assumption is wrong. Most modern day medicines have side effects because we don't fully understand how the human body works and why certain chemicals alter the way it works.

Synthetic drugs are no different than natural drugs. Synthetic drugs are usually more pure and might not have the synergy that their natural relatives have due to additional psychoactive substances, but they're not necessarily bad.

i suggest u read through the entire thread,i already mentioned wasnt referring to substances like Psilocybin, dmt...and that im not saying all chemicals are bad/unhealthy for u, just the ones i listed. i know bad title but hey got ur guys attention . also glad u mentioned all this talk of pharmaceutacals, never thought about how these substances relate to them, got me thinking bout it.

 

[Purges]

Honestly, I think some drugs are better than others, synthetic or not. For instance I have had some amazing experiences with 2CB, and some rather uncomfortable ones with 2CI - both man made, one far more useful than the other IMO - the only difference being a bromine / iodine atom. Taken in moderation, these compounds are not harmful, and can have a positive effect on one's life. They are only bad if misused.

It was the "big talk" part I didn't get...

By "big talk", i meant the way that things are "bigged up" in the modern society. Take stardom, take boasting, Take my car's got more hp than so and so's, etc. All aaspects of the ego that man loves to exhibit when he has a platform to bounce off when he's seperated himself from nature.:lol:

:!: Nature created the ego, and therefore all products of the ego are natural, including greed / materialism / learning to manipulate your environment etc.

 

[Doodazzle]

he landscape of average life expectancy has been completely changed due to modern (chemical) medicine.

There's seven billion people on the planet!

Extending life and improving life are two different things. There is too much suffering, human and otherwise, on this planet currently.


I'm not weighing in on the "chemicals are bad" vs "chemicals are not bad" debate....I'm just saying that "chemicals keep people (yay more people!) alive longer" is maybe not the best arguement.

Then again....petrol made all this possible. The co2 in the sky, the rapid and cheap transport of goods across the globe, the pharacuetical industry and the whole of mass cunsumerism all brought to you by.....petrol.

Of course chemicals are not "bad". Neither is my chainsaw.

I rarely go sticking my chainsaw into a living organism. Wise, prudent and infrequent usage of this chainsaw has served me well....harsh chems like lye help me make biodiesil.
And 2cb is just fun as all hell.

 

[benzyme]

ignorance wont get u far in this life

speak for yourself, especially when you consider these "good points"

"U dont hear of plant influenced science. science is the product of the ego."

both of those statements are blatantly ignorant. define "influenced" (do you have any idea how many scientists enjoy a cup of coffee or tea before tackling problems that you can't even fathom?), there are several fields dedicated to plant science.
the second one is particularly ridiculous. science is based on objectivity, ego is subjective.

I'm glad you were able to alter your perception that got you rethinking about the world, just remember that plant-derived drugs are also capable of eliciting "bad" side-effects and delusions.

 

[The Traveler]

he landscape of average life expectancy has been completely changed due to modern (chemical) medicine.

There's seven billion people on the planet!

Extending life and improving life are two different things. There is too much suffering, human and otherwise, on this planet currently.


I'm not weighing in on the "chemicals are bad" vs "chemicals are not bad" debate....I'm just saying that "chemicals keep people (yay more people!) alive longer" is maybe not the best arguement.

And you think that 100 years ago people did not suffer? And how about 500 years ago? 1000? 100.000? Do you really think this is due to the AMOUNT of people? Will we suffer even more if there is one more person born? And do you know that only a very small part of these 7 billion people ever get chemical medicines?

So do you still think that this suffering is caused by medicine? Or do you recognize that this has another cause? Something called greed beyond conscience maybe?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[sidefx]

CHEERS ENDLESSNESS

That was a mad read about he South African shamans and 2-cb.

I my self hold high any substance which can bring forth enlightened states, either after the expression and dance, or the journey itself.

I suppose i do consider NATURAL entheogens with the most high.

But i love me some chaotic Synthetics. I love Ketamine and LSD and 2ce

 

[Doodazzle]

he landscape of average life expectancy has been completely changed due to modern (chemical) medicine.

There's seven billion people on the planet!

Extending life and improving life are two different things. There is too much suffering, human and otherwise, on this planet currently.


I'm not weighing in on the "chemicals are bad" vs "chemicals are not bad" debate....I'm just saying that "chemicals keep people (yay more people!) alive longer" is maybe not the best arguement.

And you think that 100 years ago people did not suffer? And how about 500 years ago? 1000? 100.000? Do you really think this is due to the AMOUNT of people? Will we suffer even more if there is one more person born? And do you know that only a very small part of these 7 billion people ever get chemical medicines?

So do you still think that this suffering is caused by medicine? Or do you recognize that this has another cause? Something called greed beyond conscience maybe?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

You asks me 10 rapid-fire questions like that......hmmmm. Syioll, I'll try.

(I'll condense your first 4 questions into one answer)

Yes people suffered during all ages of human life on this planet. Suffering is a big part of what life is all about. Needless suffering, however, is indeed something we should all work towards limiting. I believe we should all work towards that anyway, really, it's more of an aesthetic preference.


The AMOUNT of people certainly has an effect on the AMOUNT of suffering. We are wasteful creature and harmful towards our environment...our lives create suffering, not just in our species, but in other species around us.


Are you enraged at me for some reason? I scroll up to read your comment and...it seems that way to me. I am making my own observation, trying to avoid value judgements as best I can and merely offering up an opinion. I re-read my statement and see absolutely nothing that could cause such apparent rage. You should ask yourself where that anger is coming from.

You yourself stated that life expectancy has been increased due to chemical medicine.

Do remember that I never claimed chemicals to be bad. My preference for natural objects, natural environs, minimized suffering rather than maximized suffering and natural medicines are all aesthetic preference.

My question: what about quality of life? This is not a simple matter....I could go on for hours on that matter, if I had the inclination.

My other question: is extending human life a good thing?

This place is getting mighty crowded.



Greed beyond conscience is one thing, certainly it is one thing that we can easily observe and point to example of.


I can think of a LOT of examples of "greed beyond conscience" right now that would serve to support what I'm saying...big pharma, du point and the oil companies all do some very greedy things, whilst bringing more suffering into the world and coincidentally making our habitat more and more synthetic.



What is the ideal human population for this world? I suppose that number would go up and down depending upon how we choose to conduct business. 7 billion + people....depending on petrol for everything....

Utterly unsustainable and full of needless suffering.

 

[christian]

Sure it can be "argued" that shrooms, caapi, viridis, etc , contain chemicals. However these have been used, etc, 100's or even 1000's , or even more years before "science" or the idea of "chemicals" even existed. I'll leave it to that for now. Goodnight and god bless,. :thumb_up:

 

[benzyme]

what on earth does that have to do with anything? stychnine has also been used for thousands
of years.
you guys are arguing that "natural" chemicals are better than "synthetic" ones, which quite frankly, is bs; and a case against science is purely ignorant, you have no case because it provides a better model for determining answers than your idealized plant-induced stupor. so what do you propose instead of science, plants and superstition? shall we revert back to the dark-age and all wear loin cloths too?

yea, that sounds like a good proposition. I think I'll unlearn everything that gave me an idea that we were closer to understanding some of the most complex human diseases and afflictions, and instead, I'll call them "demons", and I'll swing from vines and drink water pooled from banana leaves and hunt salamanders and rodents

badnight and satan damn :thumb_dow

 

[devineinmymind]

"U dont hear of plant influenced science. science is the product of the ego."

both of those statements are blatantly ignorant. define "influenced" (do you have any idea how many scientists enjoy a cup of coffee or tea before tackling problems that you can't even fathom?), there are several fields dedicated to plant science.
the second one is particularly ridiculous. science is based on objectivity, ego is subjective.

what on earth does that have to do with anything? stychnine has also been used for thousands
of years.
you guys are arguing that "natural" chemicals are better than "synthetic" ones, which quite frankly, is bs; and a case against science is purely ignorant, you have no case because it provides a better model for determining answers than your idealized plant-induced stupor. so what do you propose instead of science, plants and superstition? shall we revert back to the dark-age and all wear loin cloths too?

yea, that sounds like a good proposition. I think I'll unlearn everything that gave me an idea that we were closer to understanding some of the most complex human diseases and afflictions, and instead, I'll call them "demons", and I'll swing from vines and drink water pooled from banana leaves and hunt salamanders and rodents

badnight and satan damn :thumb_dow

another topic maestro mckenna can explain much better than i can.

 

[benzyme]

mckenna had some interesting theories, I've read his books and was a fan, but he was also well off his rocker. a lot of his theories he derived from a plant-induced stupor. all fun and good, but theories are fundamentally worthless without sound evidence to back them up. he proposes a lot of pseudo-scientific thoeries in a philosophical context, with no method of testing them; this is what religions do.
science provides the best method we have for creating a model to test theories and provide evidence that anyone could reproduce and observe for themselves. the interpretation of results can be twisted out of context, by businessmen and politicians, but that has nothing to do with the method itself.

rather than parroting his theories, maybe do some critical thinking for yourself. I assure you, it's not a "bad" thing.

 

[devineinmymind]

:roll: i see so ur one of those if i cant physicaly see it or feel it here in this reality and measure it than it doesnt exist. So your proposing every vision any of us ever had or knowledge we have gained or shamans have gained are pure hallucination and a result of the brain under a "plant-induced stupor" .Myb theres things out of our sense of perception that we just cant pick up on because were not tuned into that frequency, like a radio. Myb psychadelics are what tune us into these other frequencies were not able to pick up on without them. Myb this other reality these psychedelics reveal to us are just as real or more real than this one. Myb this universe is way to complex to put into a scientific theory. I dont know the way the universe operates but i know its not as cut and dry as science wants us to believe, taking a good cup of aya or a nice heroic dose of shrooms should b enough evidence to see that

 

[benzyme]

maybe you're underestimating my experience...

sure, I'm scientific, but I know there are some phenomena that cannot be explained by the scientific method. my favorite is the 'astral projection'.


I've done so-called "heroic" doses of shrooms, and massive amounts of LSD, to the point where I got bored. I've experimented with all sorts of plant-based entheogens, so I can tell you with confidence, you likely will not find universal truth in them, nor "enlightenment".
so before you try to convince me otherwise, know that I've already been there, several times.


this is a vacuous post, going nowhere fast. we have several members which observe the scientific method everyday, and you are basically insulting our intelligence with contradictory claims and anecdotes. you will learn with more life experience, that idealistic
views are subject to change in the face of "real-world" experiences. accept theories with a grain of salt, and keep your belief system dynamic.

 

[arcanum]

mckenna had some interesting theories, I've read his books and was a fan, but he was also well off his rocker.

rather than parroting his theories, maybe do some critical thinking for yourself. I assure you, it's not a "bad" thing.

:!: I'm not sure you are justified in labeling the man " well off his rocker" I think all active users of DMT et al. are on thin ice with that type of accusation. He was certainly more entertaining to listen to than the average scientist. While the physiological aspects of the experience are probably better quantified via scientific methodology, I'd say the pyschological-spiritual aspect is well beyond the reach of science for the forseable future.

Religion is faith, the believer will never need science to justify it, I can't recall who said it but a well known astrophysics expert once said " My two favorite books are "Contemporary astrophysics" and "The Bible". If the astrophysics treatise isn't updated in 5 years, only the Bible will be worth reading"

 

[benzyme]

the difference is, the bible has been revised several times over, like a rumor, with no references, and no citation of errata... therefore, out of context and dubious. blind faith based on superstition should not even be considered in an argument, kthnx.

 

[jamie]

Mckenna stated over and over that his thoeries were just that-theories. He made it clear that he did not want people to take him so seriously and admitted more than once up front that he was an explorer, not a scientist and that he did not know any more than ayone else.

Often in threads like this Mckenna gets taken out of context by people who maybe read a book or 2 and have not listened to all of his lectures etc..calling him "maestro Mckenna" is also just rediculous and he would have HATED that..he did not want to be remembered in this way.

 

[christian]

the difference is, the bible has been revised several times over, like a rumor

Exactly. The Bible could be a complete utter load of lies for all we know. However the psychadelic experience isn't some make believe junk that is hard to believe. Seei'ng is believing. Science may not be able to prove the importance of dreams, or these un measurable realms, but they exist and are important for humankind. Probably a lot more than the latest moon mission!

 

[benzyme]

agreed.

enter the difference between subjectivity, and objectivity...
this becomes a whole other discussion