just drop out already

[oldsoul]

We don't wait for it to come crashing down or try to overthrow it but rather start building the next thing and leave it behind in the dust. Bitcoin is one example of this. Communities implementing local-exchange trading (LET) systems are another. The centralized government monopoly on issuance of currency still enslaves us all to that system. Because taxes must be paid in currency of whatever sovereignty you belong to.

Capitalism is absolutely the problem. To be more specific, it's our debt-based, fractional-reserve monetary system. Throughout history, almost anything has been used as money, from seashells to giant stone cylinders, but since 1971 modern money is quite literally made of debt. Few understand how the creation of money works in our time, or the implications of it. As Ford said, if people did, there would be a revolution by tomorrow morning. Until we all understand economics and what system we have currently, we'll never regain our collective imagination to have the ability of coming up with something different. If you are not sure about how money is created these days, here is a great video explaining it

Basically our economic system requires perpetual growth in order to not to blow up. The reason growth is required is that our money is created as debt on which interest needs to be payed back, but the interest itself is never created directly. The system always needs to grow otherwise loans go bad, people lose money and chaos ensues. The problem is, we have a finite planet that will never be able to support a system of perpetual growth - despite technology and advances in efficiency, at one point we'll run out of things to monetize and turn in to more debt.

Also, the wealth gap video in the first post, is not due to human greed or hoarding, but a direct result of the system described above. Simply by having money, people can make money (interest) by lending it out. Over time the owners of capital capture a larger and larger share of the assets through interest payments and you get the situation you have today the where financial aristocracy on Park Ave own the rentier assets and create no real wealth, and the debt-serfs toil away to pay rents and taxes.

In ancient times this was understood as unsustainable in the long-term, and so every 7 years there would be debt jubilees where all debt was erased. Now we simply accept this debt-based money as the only option and some decide to "drop out" without fully realizing this is not the way things have to be, it is simply an arbitrary agreement we've all made, then forgotten we've made it.

Gift economies, alternative currency like bitcoin, and Local exchange trading system (LETS) are the best ways forward imo as well as educating everyone to economics. Not everyone can feasibly drop out. And there are some who require electricity for medical equipment or a myriad of other reasons. There is not need to forgo any modern conveniences. We simply have to upgrade our money to one that is not based on slavery, exploitation, and violence. But until people understand the system we have that won't happen.

Here are some great books I highly recommend for anyone interested to learn more
David Graeber - Debt: The First 5000 Years
Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics

Thank you

 

[DeDao]

/me leaves

 

[Praxis.]

In the process now, to an extent. I also recognize there is an escapist attitude associated with 'dropping out'. I'm in the slow process of becoming self-sufficient and as off of the grid as possible; though I hope to be part of a community which actively challenges the status-quo and the powers that be. I think sitting and doing nothing in the face of great evil when you have the power to do so is kind of an evil act in itself. I think profiting off of it is even more of an evil.

I can respect the opinions of those who feel that if you play the game long enough, you'll have enough of an influence to make real change. I think that makes a lot sense, but in my opinion, I don't agree that an individual should profit off of a system that knowingly exploits the planet in the hopes that they may one day be one of the very few people with enough money and influence to create the amount of change needed as quickly as it is. In my opinion, it seems much more logical (and morally responsible) to actively refuse participation as much as possible. This can be done by virtually anyone and everyone at literally any moment.

I think that's part of the whole reason the global situation is as bad as it is...people have placed all of their faith in money. There is no regard for the value of the choices one makes simply as an individual--and it is individuals which make up the collective whole. To me, trying to fix the system with money is comparable to cutting yourself with a knife, and then trying to close the wound with the knife. It's simply never going to work.

Just my opinion though--I think you've all made really good points that are hard to argue, and I agree with a lot of them.

 

[null24]

Good points, all. I'd love to be able to say th rat capitalism is NOT the problem, but the current system of endless generation of capitol, in order to fund more and more of everything for the few while the many suffer is unsustainable.
Money, in and of itself is simply undiferrentiated power. It can be used for good or bad, it's up to the who wield s the power.
However on our current situation those who wield the most power seem uninterested on doing too much good with it.
Out seems to me that we are on a cusp here. Never before have we had such concepts as quantum engineering that could end all poverty and imbalances of resources that cause conflict, and we need MASSIVE amounts of money, human capitol, and energy sources to accomplish this.
Of we can, as individuals, communities and nations all come together towards a goal goal along the lines of world salvation, maybe we will be around awhile. Neighborhood gardens in urban centers, there is no need for everyone to have a garden, or hydroponic setups on abandoned buildings on urban centers are baby steps. That's how I learned to run, baby steps. Let's run.

 

[Handel]

>Capitalism is absolutely the problem. To be more specific, it's our debt-based, fractional-reserve monetary system.

Systems are made of people. Capitalism, oligarchy, etc. are all symptoms of the problem, not the root of the problem. Your problem is that you only see and identify the issue at 1-2 levels deep, while there are more levels to seek out.

The root of the problem is the people themselves, and their mindset. That's why all types of economic or political systems have failed. Each and every one of them. Because of the people, not because, somehow, they all had bad leaders, or bad professionals in key positions.

When Western people want their cake and eat it too, often on the backs of Eastern slaves in sweat shops, then it's not capitalism that's the problem, but their ego and "wants". It's themselves that they have to silence.

I wrote about all this here: http://eugenia.queru.com/2013/07/23/you-get-back-what-you-put-out/

Instead of "fighting the system" head on as you suggest, I highly suggest you check out the first image on my article. Wise words.

As I write at the end of my article, the game is rigged. Fighting it will produce yet another similar situation. The only way to win the game, is to step out of it.

 

[oldsoul]

Vulcan, I agree with you. I never suggested revolution, but mentioned building non-sovereign, decentralized money systems that can't be influenced by a small group, to have in place when the current system stops working.

You say people's mindsets are the root problem, I'd agree attitudes need to change. But, people's mindsets are influenced by the dynamics of the money and political systems they are operating in! Having interest in a money system forces the users of it to compete above & beyond what normally would occur. Read this parable by Bernard Lietaer, it shows really clearly how competition, the requirement of endless growth, and materialism, are structurally embedded into our money system: "The 11th Round": A Revealing Parable On Our Money System

Let us take what you suggest and say it somehow happens overnight:

Grow your own organic food, wear second-hand clothes, use second-hand tools, recycle as much as possible, create your own, local, small-scale companies run by the people, stop watching false entertainment. Do business only with business of that type elsewhere.

Even if this happens globally, everyone still needs money, even if just to pay taxes to the local government. And what is that money based on? Who has the privilege to issue it? This question is the root level of everything. Money in its current form is the primary agent of inequality, injustice, and ecocide.

Dropping out and still using sovereign money for your albeit more minimal needs, misses the point of what power drives human activity. It is not enough to solve the crisis we are facing, and everyone can't do it anyway.

Educate yourself on how money is created, and then imagine money that's based on clean rivers and pristine forests, instead of debt.

 

[Handel]

I don't think we need money at all. Neither taxes. What we need is a system where it's inter-dependent in a more obvious way, and where excess of production is always offered to those in need. I'm working on a societal paradigm that is based on the Flower of Life. Decentralized, without an obvious decision-making body, and yet, when you look at the big picture, it's like an ant colony that gets things done (without the usual connotation of ants being like slaves).

 

[hixidom]

I'm a physics graduate student. I've wanted to be a physicist since the 6th grade. After 5 years as an undergraduate, I've learned more about mathematics, physics, and the nature of reality than I ever thought I would know, and I have access to a million dollars worth of equipment that I am very lucky to know how to operate. I would not have the experience I have or the knowledge I have if I had "dropped out" like I have dreamed of doing so many times. "The system" is composed of millions of people, some of whom want to get rich, but most of whom are aspiring pioneers who are just trying to push technology forward at an accelerating rate and in directions that were inconceivable 20 years ago.

Technology is an organism that needs resources to survive, and it evolves as such in order to develop and process resources more efficiently. I doubt that the needed resources will ever dry up but, if they do, technology will adapt accordingly. Technology is the child of humanity, and while it may thrive at the expense of humans (perhaps much more so in the future), I think that we should be willing to make that sacrifice for our child. Previously existing species are replaced by more evolved ones. That IS natural, and if we're holding on to the idea of Earth as it has always existed in the past, unwilling to accept the changes that are occurring, then we are not acting in accordance with nature, but in opposition to it.

 

[Handel]

Funny you wrote this. Just half an hour ago, I was discussing with my husband that the worst thing that ever happened to Man was civilization. I was educating myself about the Sumerians, the first serious human civilization on this planet. "Their system"? Exactly the same as the one today. With debts, contracts, a huge legal system, ruling classes, wars, misery, and inequality.

In contrast, "wild" tribes are usually living in peace with each other, as long as they respect each other's borders. They're free of money, and dos and donts. They're often closer to Godhead and the spirit realms than civilized people are -- something that was entrusted to priests to do it on their behalf. The Kalahari bushmen are such a great tribe, some American Indian ones too.

Sure, the Sumerians got "technology" in exchange for their slavery (often, literal slavery). They had surgeons instead of shamans, and they had architecture. But they gave up both their soul, freedom, and daily peace of mind for the "security" of a modern society (sounds familiar?). And don't let me start on how bad grains are for your health -- the food they were mostly eating (most tribes didn't eat these very often). Every part of their life got downgraded.

No, I don't think that today is that much better in the grand scheme of things. Sure, we have more conveniences, and everyone is allowed to study the sciences, but that's only because there's a demand for it BY the ruling class (which still runs the show). As for slavery, we're still slaves to money and to a crazy legal system: one pays $1 mil for copyright violation for a DVD, that will require a lifetime to repay, while Goldman Sachs paid a small fine for far greater crimes that they could make within 1 minute in the stock market. And don't give me the usual "yeah, our system is not perfect, but it's better than in the past". It's not better. The same principles that ruled Sumerians, rule us today.

I started my professional career as a computer programmer. I moved to Silicon Valley, even. Today, I see a much bigger personal advantage in going back to my motherland, and work the land of my father in our mountain village. Grow my own food, have my own hens. I'd know exactly what I eat, what I drink. I'd have peace of mind, waking up every morning and listening only to the river that runs in the valley below. Or I'd listen to the goats and sheep and their bells, everyday at 6 AM, taking the rocky road to the mountain top to feed themselves. This is to me true freedom, and true living. We evolved in Nature, so it's the only place that can give me a boost me to advance spiritually.

As for your argument that "if we don't evolve technologically, eventually we will get evolved-out", I reply to you: "so what?"

Why such an attachment to the human race? It's just one intelligent race among trillions. Based on DMT reports, we're not even perceived to be that smart either.

My goal is to reach the Source. If at the time I happen to be living in a jungle eating fruit that fell off a tree, or while meditating on the Space Station around Mars that I was posted, why does it make a difference? If my soul doesn't re-incarnate again as human, or it re-incarnates in a more spiritually-evolved race on another planet until I pay off my karma, it ultimately doesn't matter if we had technology or not. Extinction is also part of the game, but the soul lives on.

As I said, my goal is to reach the Source and become One with it, permanently. If someone is not ready for total ego-loss, then they would pursue preservation of themselves, their species by utilizing further advancements in technology. I'm personally done with it. I'm over that phase. I need something completely different now. I need total peace.

 

[hixidom]

"if we don't evolve technologically, eventually we will get evolved-out"

What I was trying to say is that "technology" is the thing that will replace us. It will become sentient and achieve levels of intelligence and consciousness incomprehensible to humans. It will have its own sense of creativity, culture, and society, and its own dreams for the future of this planet and others that will probably not involve undoing itself by "going back to nature". Such computers may exist by the end of my lifetime, but only if humans devote a lifetime to developing such technology.

Such technology is the next step in the expansion of consciousness. It is not just OUR legacy. When I think of the progression of life and consciousness on Earth, I see it pointing in the direction that technology is going. The Earth is of no concern to me: It's just gases and minerals and primitive species like us that haven't done much more than simply toil in the mud for the span of our entire existence...until now. If all life on Earth is destroyed in pursuit of more advanced forms of consciousness, so what? Consciousness was just a fluke anyway, and the worst that can happen is the reversion of Earth to lifelessness which, as far as I can tell from other planets, is the truly natural planetary state. Downgrading technology is no more natural than destroying all life on Earth. If you don't see that technology happened naturally just like everything else, then we have different definitions of "nature". It's not just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand of time. Rather, it is the force that requires things to change, thus pushing the universe (and life on Earth) through more and more "advanced" stages of development. Nature is not one of those stages in particular, it is not stagnant. Nature is change. If you prefer the way things were in the past, that's fine, but it is no more natural than the way things will be in the future. The state of things right now is as nature has decided them to be.

I am also trying to reach the source, I'm just going in a different direction to do it. I am trying to explore and understand consciousness by synthetically creating it. I also want to be at peace, but so does the universe, and it allowed all of this to happen. In one way or another, the advancement of technology is part of a physical relaxation process. I want to understand how that is possible before pulling back, and understanding requires me to push forward into the unknown.

 

[Handel]

> "technology" is the thing that will replace us

I don't agree with this.

> It will become sentient and achieve levels of intelligence and consciousness incomprehensible to humans.

Hehe... funny that you say this, because as I mentioned earlier, I was a computer programmer. One of my first jobs was working on an AI system. This was my opinion a few years ago on AI: Eugenia's Rants and Thoughts

Today, I'm even less optimistic about it. I believe that consciousness on beings comes from the Source, and so AI will never reach that level of sophistication. There might be mechanical beings out there that are very intelligent (some DMT users have encountered them), but that's probably because their creators managed to infuse a soul in them, OR, they're thousands of years ahead of us technologically and they mix and match spirituality and technology somehow.

In any case, unless the machines kill us to replace us for good, I don't think we will be incorporating them into us, unless it's been forced unto us by the government. I mean, sure, up to a point, we can have machine parts (for medical reasons, or as convenience addons), but I don't think we will be unsitting our soul for a mechanical counter-part. We'd still be humans in the essence of things.

>Such technology is the next step in the expansion of consciousness.

You're trying to artificially expand consciousness to people who might not be ready for it. This always comes with a price. Ever thought why some of these "bad aliens" from the bad DMT trips exist at all? I'm willing to bet that half of these civilizations played such cards as the ones you dream about, and failed.

> The Earth is of no concern to me

If you think that you can migrate to another planet to destroy all of its resources over there too, think again. There are others who won't let you continue this destructive path forever. This Galaxy, in the 3rd Dimension of things, is in the midst of war between the aliens that are service-to-self (that you're going to reach, consciously or not), and the service-to-others civilizations. You'd be in the mist of all of this, and you won't have the upper hand either, because many other alien species will whoop your a$$ in a flinch.

Not to mention that your technology might not be enough to prevent natural diseases from viruses that are endemic to the said planets, but not to your system. We couldn't even handle properly the viruses in America in the 1500s, do you think we can handle a completely alien planet?

>If all life on Earth is destroyed in pursuit of more advanced forms of consciousness, so what?

You're sharing this planet with other species, you're not the boss of this planet. You have no right to destroy the chance of these other species to evolve, just so you can push your selfish agenda. How can you expand your consciousness if you have the guilt of destroying a planet and its inhabitants? Guilt brings fear, fear brings the void. NOT the Source. Are you so blind to not see this? That you're going down a path of destruction of your surroundings, in your quest to "expand consciousness"?

>Consciousness was just a fluke anyway

No, it wasn't. All things eventually go back to the Source, even the "lifeless" rocks. We're biological beings, so this type of consciousness is better suited for us. Plants have a different one, bacteria different yet, and even rocks, a different yet. But they all evolve.

> I am trying to explore and understand consciousness by synthetically creating it.

You're trying to command it and manipulate it. You're trying to play God. I'm simply trying to BE it. I concern not myself of its physical properties or how to use it to my advantage in the physical world. I have little interest in the physical world anyway.

Our biological form is able to reach Source with enough meditation. So why take dangerous shortcuts like the ones you propose? What is the hurry?

Use technology as a way to get by (I'm not fundamentally against it), not to get in your way of your natural evolution. Every 26,000 years, we go through a Milankovitch cycle. On the supposed Apocalypse day of 21st December 2012, we just moved to the Age of Aquarius. Leading to that day, specific radiation penetrated Earth. Our DNA and all other matter here, received the choice of upgrading themselves, or perish (in the grand scheme of things).

Believing or not to these New Age beliefs, my point is, consciousness upgrade is going to come naturally on Earth. It might take a few hundred years before "activated" people have enough children to populate Earth and make a difference, or a few thousand years following a more traditional belief of Evolution, but it will come. No need for chipsets and wiring.

 

[Doodazzle]

>Capitalism is absolutely the problem. To be more specific, it's our debt-based, fractional-reserve monetary system.

Systems are made of people. Capitalism, oligarchy, etc. are all symptoms of the problem, not the root of the problem. Your problem is that you only see and identify the issue at 1-2 levels deep, while there are more levels to seek out.

The root of the problem is the people themselves, and their mindset. That's why all types of economic or political systems have failed. Each and every one of them. Because of the people, not because, somehow, they all had bad leaders, or bad professionals in key positions.

When Western people want their cake and eat it too, often on the backs of Eastern slaves in sweat shops, then it's not capitalism that's the problem, but their ego and "wants". It's themselves that they have to silence.

I wrote about all this here: http://eugenia.queru.com/2013/07/23/you-get-back-what-you-put-out/

Instead of "fighting the system" head on as you suggest, I highly suggest you check out the first image on my article. Wise words.

As I write at the end of my article, the game is rigged. Fighting it will produce yet another similar situation. The only way to win the game, is to step out of it.

I read your article and agree with a lot of your points. Probably all of them. Still....you believe you are talking about a cause, when you talk about people "wanting".

I think this wanting is rather another symptom. You talk about various political systems that have failed....

You also posted this

The model i have been building is based on a model that has a long proven record. the tribal model. Various tribes have worked using various systems. Certain tribes are arranged in democratic, communal, socialist, whatever....any of these systems can work--on a small scale. None of them serve humanity when implemented on a large scale.

The actual cause, in my considered opinion, is centralized production, centralized power. Chickens can form a pecking order of up to 50 chickens--more than that and you have to cut their beaks off. the pointy bit anyway. A village of 200 can run in healthy fashion....a nation however, well, look around you. The beaks have been cut and not much health nor real happiness to be found.

Sorry for the delayed response....and for not addressing everyones comments here--I am actively in the process of dropping out right now and have little time for internet.

I do not wish to be a consumer--in any way, nor to serve the centralized power and production monopolies that are killing all the good stuff in the world. Protesting and revolution hold no attraction for me. Did you know that there are actually people on this world who think it is a good thing to replace life with AI? And that technology is nature, a part of evolution? Wow, wake up and feel the life force, get out into real nature, get some vitamin D and be alive. Technology is of course a part of nature...when you use hand tools and have a conscious mind using this tech anyway. Stuff that comes from factories aint nature, it's kliffothic, malfunctioning and insane.

 

[hixidom]

Wow, wake up and feel the life force, get out into real nature, get some vitamin D and be alive.

I have done all of those things and enjoy doing them. Even so, I have received a different vision of the future. It may take a lifetime (or more) of work for my vision to be realized, but I enjoy pursuing it too much to drop out, and I won't give up just because it is hard. If you aren't willing to put in the effort required to accomplish a goal, then it will indeed seem impossible to you. We have different goals and that's fine, but if your plan is to drop out of technological society, then you forfeit your say in the future of technology and your predictions in that regard are meaningless.

 

[Handel]

>The model i have been building is based on a model that has a long proven record. the tribal model.

I don't think it has to be a tribal model with only 200 people in it. A small town is equally well-organized and run with up to about 5,000-6,000 people. I've lived in such a community in Greece, and everybody knew everybody else, it went smoothly. Even the few policemen we had, sat in the cafes all day chatting with other people, they had no real job to do (these days are gone now that the economy is in the toilet, and there's crime because of it).

>The actual cause, in my considered opinion, is centralized production, centralized power.

Agreed. In my model, based on the flower of life, there is no centralized power, but rather a web of communities, working on different aspects of various bigger projects that span many communities. This is the only way to have both a healthy ecosystem and permaculture living, WITH the creation of high technology (e.g. something as complex as spaceships or medicine).

 

[Doodazzle]

Wow, wake up and feel the life force, get out into real nature, get some vitamin D and be alive.

I have done all of those things and enjoy doing them. Even so, I have received a different vision of the future. It may take a lifetime (or more) of work for my vision to be realized, but I enjoy pursuing it too much to drop out, and I won't give up just because it is hard. If you aren't willing to put in the effort required to accomplish a goal, then it will indeed seem impossible to you. We have different goals and that's fine, but if your plan is to drop out of technological society, then you forfeit your say in the future of technology and your predictions in that regard are meaningless.

Trying to imply that I'm not willing to work for my goals...or perhaps I misread you, but you repeat the term 'drop out' and mention how you won't give up just because it's hard....all that is just silly man. I'm no slacker, but thanks for the thinly veiled attacks on my character

I am encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives, rather than accept the garbage that's being handed to them. At this point in history, you take responsibility for your own life, you man up, or woman up, and cease to be a consumer...or you find yourself on the wrong side of the image below. Just take what's handed down to you from on high....none of what's being handed down is any good at all. But hey, that's much easier, isn't it? You don't have to think for yourself or do any real work. You are even saved from having to deal with any real human interaction, sheeet, it just gets easier and easier.

 

[Mr.Peabody]

I respectfully disagree that it is one or the other, nature or civilization/consumerism. We can have a thriving society, while still protecting the environment. The big problem is, it has not been tried! For much of industrialized history, little thought was given to how the environment is affected. There has been great progress, though. Look back to the 60's and 70's and see how nasty it was. A lot has been done, but of course a lot more must be done.

I also disagree with the idea of returning to the fields, which is essentially sending us back centuries. Yes, that life had its own magic, but I don't find it appealing. I love growing plants, but I sure as hell do not want to be a farmer. It's not out of laziness; it's about time. The modern conveniences we have have freed us in many ways. At the moment, I know so much more about certain things, like physics, our place in the cosmos, etc. than 99% of humans throughout history! I love how much knowledge is available to me, and how much time I have free to pursue it. How incredible is it to think that you exist because a star many times larger than our sun, billions of years ago, exploded and created all of the heavy elements in your body? Everything about you was once just floating out in space, and because of countless, nearly infinite number of chance occurrences, you are sitting there reading this. We are able to know this because as a whole, society has been freed of the daily drudgery required to survive in a natural existence. This is tangible progress, and a milestone in the ascent of human consciousness.

I know you advocate for electricity as a luxury, but I ask, what is so bad about electricity? Well the answer is, for the moment, it's the source of the electricity. Does it make sense that in the US 80% of our electricity comes from coal and gas? I don't think so. There are other forms, but if the electricity we use comes from renewable sources, there is really no problem with it. Use it! It's a wonderful thing! The sun gives us more energy than we could ever use, if we can figure out how to make the technology more efficient. If we recycle almost everything (which theoretically is possible) then what is the issue with consuming? It actually ceases to be consuming, when looked at as a whole, and becomes a cycle.

To me, the answer is culture. Yes, I realize that is the same thing you are trying to argue, as well!

What I see which is often overlooked, is the deepest part of this issue. It's what underlies this whole argument: where do you see the destiny of humanity? Is it just the status quo, likely leading to a large-scale catastrophe? Is it a return to a more primal existence, living sustainably on this planet? Or, is it exploring the heavens?

The last one may seem too far off to seem feasible at the moment, and perhaps I am just a dreamer, but that is the one that seems most appealing to me. The Universe is so vast, and we are so limited in understanding on our tiny planet. There is so much out there for us to see and discover. My hope is that one day we can more or less leave this world as a species, and turn it in to a wild life preserve. Until that point, it is obvious that we would have to learn to live sustainably and in harmony with nature. Otherwise we will never get there!

So, my view of the cultural shift is one that as a goal, we put humanity out in the stars. If we could see ourselves as one species, with one singular, noble goal such as this, it is quite possible we could achieve greatness. The first few steps needed would be worldwide sustainability, and the ending of hunger.

I think it is possible, but I fully accept as a possibility that I have my head lodged firmly in my ass.

 

[jamie]

if everyone just did one thing, like get rid of the lawns and surround they're homes with permanent polyculture food gardens it would make a BIG difference. Think about all the wasted space our "advanced" culture has created. For a culture that has access to so much knowledge we have been really stupid about using the resources that are like 5 feet from out front step.

 

[Doodazzle]

You don't have to be a farmer. We need....shoemakers, builders, clothes makers, hunters, soap makers, dancers, singers.

Your post is well thought out and I agree with a lot of it--but if i boil it down and extract it's essence, I think what i'll have drying at the bottum of my pyrex is this: I want to save the planet, but i'd hate to be inconvenienced.

the notion that going 'back to the fields' is a step backwards is just wrong.

the notion that technology can fix the problems that technology causes seems dangerously wrong and absurd to me.

I respectfully disagree that it is one or the other, nature or civilization/consumerism

See the thing is, it's like this--you can't buy "green". Well, not from a grocery or department store. You can't manufacture "sustainable".

I know you advocate for electricity as a luxury, but I ask, what is so bad about electricity? Well the answer is, for the moment, it's the source of the electricity. Does it make sense that in the US 80% of our electricity comes from coal and gas? I don't think so. There are other forms, but if the electricity we use comes from renewable sources, there is really no problem with it. Use it! It's a wonderful thing! The sun gives us more energy than we could ever use, if we can figure out how to make the technology more efficient. If we recycle almost everything (which theoretically is possible) then what is the issue with consuming? It actually ceases to be consuming, when looked at as a whole, and becomes a cycle.

No way man, you are bargaining. You see the end of your present lifestyle and the end of the civilization you were raised in--both are dead and dying, and you are going through the stages of denial and of bargaining. recycling? What's wrong with that? really? The smoke stacks are a big part of the problem--running the plastic garbage through the smokestacks again...it's just not workable. Solar enegry? What's the footprint in maing them panels? Can you go out into the woods and make me a solar panel? no. you can't.

I can however go out into the woods and make you a windmill. Or a water mill. I'm good with a chisel and good with a saw, hammer, hand-brace, man, i got mad skills. Direct mechanical transfer, no electricity involved.

 

[jamie]

"At the moment, I know so much more about certain things, like physics, our place in the cosmos, etc. than 99% of humans throughout history!"

Sure you understand certain things in a more rational materialist context, but I would think that there are certain things that our ancestors understood far better than we do as well that are entirely applicable today..and there is a whole lot of science and physics involved in biodynamic polyculture that I bet most scientists don't even understand cus they never got involved in it. It is all just relative to where you are at.

 

[jamie]

"What I see which is often overlooked, is the deepest part of this issue. It's what underlies this whole argument: where do you see the destiny of humanity? Is it just the status quo, likely leading to a large-scale catastrophe? Is it a return to a more primal existence, living sustainably on this planet? Or, is it exploring the heavens?"

If exploring space means we continue to destroy nature as fast as we can to procure resources to fulfill some deluded transhumanist agenda than I would say I would rather just stay here and fix the problems we have and explore other avenues.

Why does it have to be either or? WHy cant we fix our problems here and learn to live in a different way? We have a long long long long time before our sun goes nova. Life cant live on earth forever unless we move the planet or something, which might be possible. I don't think we are going to go off into space and survive to well if we don't have a homebase to go back to.

I would like to see humans polyculture the entire planet, get onto sustainable green technologies and apply biomimmicry to the design of our technology and design so that it fits in with the surrounding ecosystem. Then we get on to free energy(and yes I think it is possible and will happen)..then we go out and explore space in ships that we terraform(so they are like little planets we fly around with fully intact ecosystems that can sustain us, and then we terraform other planets. We bring the life force of gaia with us to the stars. Not as some kind of transhumanist walking computer systems but as humans.

I would also like to see this all done without the pyramid style class systems as well. I would like to think that we will move past all of our current bullshit and move towards the stars as an egalitarian civilization. I just currently don't see us being there so we obviously have problems that need to be addressed. Until the entire power structure and energy grid is entirely decentralized the idea of an even more technologically integrated future looks like a pretty bleak and freaky future. Even if we had something like free energy is it really going to be free for us? Who gets to control all of this?

When you go off into space to live in colonies it starts to sound even worse..who is in charge? Will the current power sturcuturs simply carry over into that kind of a future? I would rather those people just leave the earth colletivly for the stars on they're own in that case and leave the planet alone for the rest of us to evolve ourselves in peace.