NASA study predicts collapse of global civilization ?

[endlessness]

Can´t find the book online, only the introduction which is full of unreferenced ¨facts¨. Searching on the internet, one can find plenty of criticism to Lierre Keith and her book. But unless you can post the book I guess this is a dead end argument, I´m just basing on reviews on the net.

Fact is, regardless if pigs eat from forests, nearly none of the meat people eat is wild hunted meat, plus, even if it was, its still a fact that pound for pound, animal protein requires more resources than plant protein, since animals digestive system is obviously not 100% efficient in transforming what they eat (not to mention green house gases these animals may produce, etc). This isn´t to say that you cannot eat meat managing wild life, I have not made the sustainability `calculations` to know for a fact, but I think its safe to say that it would be necessarily to not only change the sources but also significantly reduce the amount of meat people eat around hte world to be anywhere near sustainaiblity.

I dont think eating meat is necessarily unethical and that all people should be vegetarians, but I most definitely think the whole world would benefit A LOT if most people would significantly reduce their meat intake and only choose local/wild meats whenever possible, and alternatively, I do think that those that eat too much meat, specially industrial meat (or consume excessively in general) are actually selfishly screwing the planet for all of us. Unfortunately those consequences do not stay within the microworld of the people doing so, but spreads and affects everybody. For those that mostly hunt their meat or get local meat ,thats much better for sure.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

So first, to be clear, this is not an either or. We need to combat capitalism while educating ourselves and those around us as to the various structures of control and oppression that surround us

I think by combating ideas you will archive nothing. Capitalism is an idea, not a solid structure you can blow up or arrest. The idea of combating capitalism sounds to me a lot like the war on terror. An unknown, unidentified enemy that will get you paranoid to the bone.

The latter notion is much better IMO: education and analyzing. Identify and name the structures of control and oppression and come up with solutions. If your analysis is intelligent and razor-sharp others will listen.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

And regarding the industrial technology you like to trash so much, let me remind you that

* solvents, acids, glassware etc.
* limonene and sunflower oil (produced in huge processing facilities, shipped by airplanes and trucks, sold for hard cash)
* the Nexus forum (Windows OS, AMD/Intel processors, optical fibres, data centers)
* analytical equipment to identify molecules in the first place to come up with exaction TEKs
* airplanes that carry the explores/tourists to the Amazonian jungle and the vines back
* bitcoins (a huge array of processors that waste a lot of energy for creating fiat money)

are all capitalistic industrial technology. The whole "DMT scene" relies on capitalistic and industrial technologies today unless people will come up with better models.

You can only avoid industrial technology by moving to a cave or a self-built hut in the woods. But don't use nails for your hut or matches for your fire, they are all products of industrial technology.

The striking surface on modern matchboxes is typically composed of 25% powdered glass or other abrasive material, 50% red phosphorus, 5% neutralizer, 4% carbon black, and 16% binder; and the match head is typically composed of 45–55% potassium chlorate, with a little sulfur and starch, a neutralizer (ZnO or CaCO3), 20–40% of siliceous filler, diatomite, and glue. Some heads contain antimony(III) sulfide to make them burn more vigorously.

Which leads to my solution: refine current models.

E.g. airplanes engines can get cleaner, mining can become less destructive, recycle more, fusion/sun power can replace fossil fuels, psychedelics can be bulk produced in huge labs for minimizing chemical waste, etc. pp.

Cultivated minds will achieve this.

 

[endlessness]

Thats not enough either IMO.

Simply `making things more efficient` does not deal with the root issues that create the problems in the first place. I mean, it must definitely be a part of the solution but I dont think this is what solves the world`s issues by itself.

Say for example you make more efficient cellphone production.. Ok but, do people really need a new cellphone every month? Maybe if that excessive consumption is what`s tackled, it will be much more effective on the long term than just making cellphones more efficiently? Or otherwise for example instead of cellphone, now people will buy the google glasses, which arent as sustainable yet, or whatever.. Know what I mean? Just making more efficient might only switch the probem to another side.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

I do think that those that eat too much meat, specially industrial meat (or consume excessively in general) are actually selfishly screwing the planet for all of us. Unfortunately those consequences do not stay within the microworld of the people doing so, but spreads and affects everybody. For those that mostly hunt their meat or get local meat ,thats much better for sure.

Talk about antibiotic resistance. Which reminds me of another argument against the "back to nature" notion. Is their an effective natural remedy against AIDS or Malaria?

The WHO estimates that in 2010 there were 219 million cases of malaria resulting in 660,000 deaths. Others have estimated the number of cases at between 350 and 550 million for falciparum malaria and deaths in 2010 at 1.24 million up from 1.0 million deaths in 1990.

What are the traditional healers doing against this?

 

[endlessness]

Most antimalarial medication (or other medications in general) are based on natural counterparts which were first used traditionally, such as Artemisia annua and Artemisinin, or the Chinchona tree for quinine. There might also be something for AIDS, who knows.

In any case I don´t think anybody is arguing for return to primitive human organization. Snozz is more arguing that we need to transform our current capitalistic system, which I agree but try to add the idea that it`s not capitalism itself but an inner pattern that manifests as unsustainable/unbalanced/unjust actions, and IMO focusing on this pattern instead of on the idea of capitalism may make it seem less tangible but it can definitely be worked on in practical terms (education, personal actions in daily life, choices of consumption, being healthy, looking for certain types of job if options are available, protesting against injustices, volunteering, work on self awareness, living an exemplary life as much as possible etc), and would prevent that capitalism is just changed for another different unsustainable system if capitalism itself was the only thing that was tackled.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Ok but, do people really need a new cellphone every month? Maybe if that excessive consumption is what`s tackled, it will be much more effective on the long term than just making cellphones more efficiently?

No, they don't need it. But it wouldn't be a problem, if the cellphone production would be waste-free. No carbon emissions, no workers wasted @ Foxconn, full recycling of the old cellphone. The current model however isn't waste-free, therefore excessive consumption is indeed a problem, which will lead to indebtedness and unnecessary e-waste.

But you could improve the building process and recycling process, use open software and replace the workers by robots - which Foxconn et al. already does. I opened my netbook, there's no way a human can assemble this besides tighten the screws.

They can send me a kit, I can assemble my phones and computeres alone, I don't need a worker at Foxconn doing that for me. I also don't buy stuff from Apple. Their design is nice, but why are they glueing in their batteries? You can change the battery in my Asus netbook and send it to a recycling facility if it breaks down. No chance with Apple.

Also recycling cellphones is already current practice. Recycling lithium batteries or rare earth minerals is probably more energy and money-efficient than mining it anew. Keyword: urban mining.

Next step open software: why pay Apple money for apps & iOS, that I can get for free? Linux nowadays is so well designed, you can do most stuff with it.

What I want to say: industrial technology isn't bad per se, it needs to be refined. Some people have fun designing and developing new devices, so don't worry about them. And you can also "renaturalize" mines. Transform them into excavated lakes or pour some soil on them as a top layer. It probably needs a lot of energy, but this could be also solved by technology.

Refine energy production. Don't burn fossil fuels, use fusion reactors. And how do you get enough engineers/physicists for that? Educate children properly. Get rid of ex-cathedra teaching and tap into their natural potential for learning. Some children love growing plants and some children love to play with electronics. Some will be awesome farmers and some will be awesome engineers in the future.

I think their's an synergistic effect between both fields. Eat and get high from plants and come up with new ideas for electronic devices, which could help you designing better plant environments. Because when the first snow falls hops, MJ, cacti and most tropical plants will die. And if you want bananas and oranges in winter you need a plane/ship or a greenhouse, too.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

In any case I don´t think anybody is arguing for return to primitive human organization.

Well, I sometimes got the impression.

Snozz is more arguing that we need to transform our current capitalistic system, which I agree but try to add the idea that it`s not capitalism itself but an inner pattern that manifests as unsustainable/unbalanced/unjust actions, and IMO focusing on this pattern instead of on the idea of capitalism may make it seem less tangible but it can definitely be worked on in practical terms (education, personal actions in daily life, choices of consumption, being healthy, looking for certain types of job if options are available, protesting against injustices, volunteering, work on self awareness, living an exemplary life as much as possible etc), and would prevent that capitalism is just changed for another different unsustainable system if capitalism itself was the only thing that was tackled.

I fully agree with you.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

So first, to be clear, this is not an either or. We need to combat capitalism while educating ourselves and those around us as to the various structures of control and oppression that surround us

I think by combating ideas you will archive nothing. Capitalism is an idea, not a solid structure you can blow up or arrest. The idea of combating capitalism sounds to me a lot like the war on terror. An unknown, unidentified enemy that will get you paranoid to the bone.

Hardly. Capitalism has numerous concrete institutions as well as infrastructure. I've written on this extensively around the forum. Additionally, when I talk about fighting capitalism, it includes understanding the logic of capitalism so that you are not surprised by the easily predictable manifestations. Along this line, you still have not engaged with the point of yours that I rebutted earlier in this thread.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

People like quotes like this, but it really doesn't present much valid historical analysis. American slavery was not changed by being made obsolete. Chattel slavery was openly combated to bring it to an end AND the "new model" actually spread slavery in a variety of forms, from sharecropping to factory jobs and beyond. It sounds nice, but historical evidence does not back it up in a social context. In a scientific context? Perhaps, but that's not the focus of this discussion.

And regarding the industrial technology you like to trash so much, let me remind you that

* solvents, acids, glassware etc.
* limonene and sunflower oil (produced in huge processing facilities, shipped by airplanes and trucks, sold for hard cash)
* the Nexus forum (Windows OS, AMD/Intel processors, optical fibres, data centers)
* analytical equipment to identify molecules in the first place to come up with exaction TEKs
* airplanes that carry the explores/tourists to the Amazonian jungle and the vines back
* bitcoins (a huge array of processors that waste a lot of energy for creating fiat money)

are all capitalistic industrial technology. The whole "DMT scene" relies on capitalistic and industrial technologies today unless people will come up with better models.

Yes and...? We are back to the point you ignored earlier, the fact that you somehow feel this justifies the human and environmental tolls of industrial civilization. Would that millions suffer so that the privileged few might have a few toys and trinkets. This argument is entirely invalid for me, as it is predicated on the domination and oppression of entire populations. I understand that you are somehow comfortable, or even enthusiastic about that. Personally, I think it's horrifying.

You can only avoid industrial technology by moving to a cave or a self-built hut in the woods. But don't use nails for your hut or matches for your fire, they are all products of industrial technology.

You conflate using the products of industrial society with my argument for dismantling that society. This is not about avoiding industrial technology, this is not about dropping out, this is about fighting back. I could not care less about using technology created by industrial society. The havoc its production wreaks has already been wrought. This is not some moralistic argument about the "sin" inherent to industrial tech. This is a pragmatic analysis: Industrial civilization causes the death and suffering of humans and ecosystems. I have no problems with the idea of utilizing industrial tech to dismantle industrial civilization and then making use of whatever leftovers remain.

E.g. airplanes engines can get cleaner, mining can become less destructive, recycle more, fusion/sun power can replace fossil fuels, psychedelics can be bulk produced in huge labs for minimizing chemical waste, etc. pp.

Except what you propose isn't really enough, nor is it how things actually function in the real world. Can we dump the "minimal waste" in your drinking water? Can we refine the iron ores for the "cleaner airplanes" in your backyard? Can we toss the heavy metals into your garden? Can we pump the air pollutants out into your neighborhood? Even if you are ok with this, many people are not, and the fact is that industrial civilization coerces people (entire populations) into accepting these horrors while at the same time destroying ecosystems.

Similarly...

But it wouldn't be a problem, if the cellphone production would be waste-free. No carbon emissions, no workers wasted @ Foxconn, full recycling of the old cellphone. The current model however isn't waste-free, therefore excessive consumption is indeed a problem, which will lead to indebtedness and unnecessary e-waste.

But you could improve the building process and recycling process, use open software and replace the workers by robots - which Foxconn et al. already does. I opened my netbook, there's no way a human can assemble this besides tighten the screws.

This isn't a thing. This is some wild fantasy that you cannot incentivize within a capitalist framework. It is cheaper to pollute and pay the penalties than it is to re-tool a factory. Plus, zero carbon emissions just isn't a thing. All of the things you talk about have to be produced, robots, your fantastical zero-emission technology, the goods themselves. All of this requires extractive resource acquisition (plus refinement, production, and distribution) which is inherently destructive. Again, you cannot do this without killing and poisoning humans and the environment.

What's more, your vision carries inherent horrors for workers. Once you have fired all of the workers (who are only in such abysmally terrible working situations to begin with because capitalism offers no other choice) and ripped the iron ore out of the earth, smelted it down, and created your robot army, how do the workers survive within a capitalist paradigm? You seem to want us to believe the old industrialist propaganda, that the workers will be taken care of by their benevolent former employers (or perhaps you don't care about the workers). If it's the former, we have seen the grim reality of how this plays out: it's not pretty. If it's the latter...well, do I even need to say anything?

You would have me believe that capitalism is a mere idea that has no tangible effects, that can't be localized and identified. Capitalism is a way of thinking. It's a logic to commodifiying the very world we live in. If we understand the absurdities of this logic we can understand the "insanity" that seems to be taking place in the world around us and work to mitigate the horrors it causes. For me, the fact that you rail against my condemnation of capitalism, yet present models that are so far divorced from reality as to be entirely unbelievable (to me, anyway) evidences precisely why an understanding of capitalism and its mechanisms is so important.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Your argumentation is flawed and full of false assumptions. I'll focus on one:

This is a pragmatic analysis: Industrial civilization causes the death and suffering of human ecosystems.

Quite the contrary: Industrial civilization causes the prospering of humankind. No more digging in the mud, food and wealth for everyone. Less and less starvation, longer and longer life expectancy.

Why are African children dying? Not because OF industrial civilization, but because OF THE LACK of industrial civilization. Teach them how to grow food, invent malaria vaccines and build industries, so they don't have to pray to Allah to save them.

A practical advice: create wealth instead of destroying it, the world will become be a much better place.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

This is a pragmatic analysis: Industrial civilization causes the death and suffering of humans and ecosystems.

Quite the contrary: Industrial civilization causes the prospering of humankind.

:?:

This does not even come close to approaching a logical rebuttal.

This would be like me picking your pocket while stating, "I'm not robbing you, I'm enriching myself."

The fact that you also implicitly negate colonialism/imperialism as detrimental forces is quite troubling.

 

[universecannon]

'If the self destructive problems we face are the inevitable product of a seriously compromised state of mind then addressing the symptoms without recognising and treating the underlying cause will be a futile exercise and things will just get worse.'

While I agree we should do all that we can to help better our situation, including buying local when possible, becoming more conscious of what we support through our actions, etc., if Tony Wright, Dennis McKenna and other researchers that have concluded humanity may be suffering from a serious neurodegenerative condition are anywhere near correct, then it is going to take a lot more than that, or the dismantling of capitalism for that matter (not saying we shouldn't, mind you), to reach the core root of our issues. We are essentially like a bunch of dementia patients that have taken control of the psych ward...and are now frantically trying to fix our problems all while utterly failing recognizing the most base level source. Throughout recorded history system after system have risen and fallen, but they all have one common denominator...us.

If there was even a .5% chance that there was a problem with the development of our brain then we should be thoroughly investigating it in order to at least rule out the possibility, because it impinges on virtually everything we think and do, the world we've created, and our very sense of self and being. I think the evidence stacks up way beyond .5%, and our collective psychology and behavior have long been thought by many notable minds throughout human history to be essentially insane. The mere fact that we haven't even looked into the possibility should in itself be setting off some alarm bells, considering the magnitude of our situation...It is bad protocol to presume your instrument of investigation is functional without doing so much as a check. This degeneration is even an almost universal ancient "myth", now conveniently dismissed (any guesses why) found worldwide that traces back thousands of years, if you read Richard Heinberg's work and others. The world we create is in effect correlated with and a reflection of our collective psychology, with those driven by greed, lack of empathy, and a fear-driven need to control the world around them being the most dysfunctional (and those who are inevitably primarily involved in running things into the ground).

Yes, our capitalistic/industrial system does force our hand in the destruction of ourselves and the planet, even if some of us know better and want change, but who put these systems in place and who in their right mind would do (or go along with) such a thing? Humans. Similar questions could have been posed throughout history and the answer would be the same.

This may inevitably sound far-fetched (ever tried convincing a dementia patient they have dementia?) but until this is addressed I don't think we can expect serious long-term solutions to our widespread problems to be implemented, since no band-aid fix of the symptoms will ever get to to the underlying root cause generating it all, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millenia after millenia. As good ol' Albert said, our problems won't be fixed by the same level of thinking that created them.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Yes, our capitalistic/industrial system does force our hand in the destruction of ourselves and the planet, even if some of us know better and want change, but who put these systems in place and who in their right mind would do (or go along with) such a thing? Humans. Similar questions could have been posed throughout history and the answer would be the same.

I hear what you're saying, and frankly, I don't know enough about neuroscience or the evolution of the brain to know if Wright et al have a solid foundation, regardless of whether or not there seems to be explanatory evidence in the forms of myths, science, or otherwise. I'm certainly open to the explanation, but I honestly don't know enough to agree or disagree in any meaningful sense. I have Left in the Dark sitting on my PC and plan on reading it at some point and perhaps that will push me one way or another

That said, I take some issue with your presentation of a "whole" of humanity. When you ask the question, "who put these systems in place and who in their right mind would do (or go along with) such a thing," you (inadvertently, I believe) get at what I mean.

In the simplest form:
Who put these systems in place? People who had the military might to do so.
Who in their right mind would go along with such a thing? People who are coerced into doing so or people who stand to benefit from the suffering of others.

We see resistance to this system all over the place, whenever we look closely. It's not just protesters, arsonists, and revolutionaries. We see resistance in the squatters, the freeschoolers and homeschoolers, the street artists, the shoplifters, the pirates, the hitchhikers, the loiterers, everyone who steals from work, and those engaged in autonomous community organization, to name but a few. We consistently see resistance wherever we find people eeking out an existence on the margins of capitalism.

Many people keep their heads down because they are living under the gun, not because they agree to this system. In fact, there are opinion polls in the US that show overwhelming majorities think that this system, as it currently stands, does not afford them their desires. And that doesn't even encompass the rest of the world, where anti-austerity and related actions have become commonplace. Projecting a singular whole humanity, and one that is brain damaged, invisibilizes much of the struggles that are actually going on around the world and the people engaged in them, imo.

Are we brain damaged in the sense you discuss? I honestly don't know. But I don't find "brain damage" to be a compelling reason to gloss over the historical social causes that played major roles in putting us where we are. And, even if we are brain damaged, when we look at those social histories, it is, imo, fairly clear that there is not a unified "we" that put us in our present social position. Even if we are all brain damaged, there are still clear systems of oppression that are not perpetuated by all and that have been successfully beaten back at times. To me, that's significant enough to make me question how pragmatic the brain damage hypothesis is to this discussion.

Just my thoughts

 

[Ufostrahlen]

This does not even come close to approaching a logical rebuttal.

Well, you need to read the next 2 lines and comprehend them, then you would have your logical rebuttal. But I can't force you to do so.

This would be like me picking your pocket while stating, "I'm not robbing you, I'm enriching myself."

I know you wouldn't say things like this. You would state: „La propriété, c’est le vol.“ :d

The fact that you also implicitly negate colonialism/imperialism as detrimental forces is quite troubling.

I'm doing this only in your imagination. Are you hallucinating?

My conclusion: let's see what the end of the day brings, my reality tunnel is quite well, hope yours alright, too. I'm going to buy food at the supermarket and after that I will think about creating wealth.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

The fact that you also implicitly negate colonialism/imperialism as detrimental forces is quite troubling.

I'm doing this only in your imagination. Are you hallucinating?

Nice ad hominem :roll:

Why are African children dying? Not because OF industrial civilization, but because OF THE LACK of industrial civilization. Teach them how to grow food, invent malaria vaccines and build industries, so they don't have to pray to Allah to save them.

Africans don't need you to teach them how to grow food, nor do they need you to teach them how to build civilizations (I'm going to skip the industries for now). The glib racism in this comment is disgusting. I had ignored it previously, but since you seem so insistant, let's just put that out there.

Africa was host to some of the most prosperous and advanced civilizations on the planet at one point in time. Some of those civilizations engaged in all sorts of behavior that makes my stomach turn, but they were nonetheless established civilizations capable of producing their own food, clothes and shelter and were host to various industries. The factor that changed all of this was so-called "Western" colonialism and imperialism, pillaging Africa for its material wealth and resources and ruining much of the ecology in the process.

Even today, this is still ongoing. The legacies of imperialism and colonialism are alive and well. The components we use in our digital technologies, the crystalline carbon some folks like to wear, and even T. iboga, to name but a few, are resources that are being pillaged from Africa. The wealth accumulation in the so-called "First World" all came from (and comes from) somewhere, and the evidence of its extraction is all too visible.

Additionally, Africa gets to bear the costs of industrial civilization in the form of toxic waste products from digital technologies. Entire waste "industries" have been created by corporations who abdicate all responsibility and liability through insidious systems of dumping and "at-home" processing on the part of those who have no other way to provide for themselves. Again, the byproducts of capitalism and industrial civilization are staring you in the face, yet you insist on ignoring them.

The horrors abound, yet for some reason you seem intent on insisting this is not the case and hurling insults.

 

[joedirt]

I don't think we have to do anything.

I think capitalism is going to be the end of itself.

Look we have 7 Billion people on the planet and the number is growing every day. The challenges to our resources is growing by the day. Already we are seeing rapid ecosystem collapse. permafrost is melting at an alarming rate. Major ice sheet melting..

..and we as a planet basically are doing nothing.

To be perfectly blunt. We have no WAY out of this mess. Nature is going to run it's course and we are going to both deplete and pollute our environment to the point that our populations will capitulate and potentially go extinct. The question is will we put processes into place that destroy all life on the planet? I don't believe we will, but who knows..

I predict out population is going to continue to explode i size until we reach a critical tipping point and then there is going to be a rapid collapse in population size. With wild swings in climate becoming the norm this will effect global farm output and make it even harder to feed everyone.. never mind that we do have enough food to feed everyone because its better to let it rot in grain elevator and take a loss on it than give it away. I hate to be negative about it, but I seriously do not believe our species has what it takes to get out of this mess.

The good news... Its ALL just nature. We humans put ourselves on an entirely too high of a pedestal IMHO

 

[universecannon]

Yes, our capitalistic/industrial system does force our hand in the destruction of ourselves and the planet, even if some of us know better and want change, but who put these systems in place and who in their right mind would do (or go along with) such a thing? Humans. Similar questions could have been posed throughout history and the answer would be the same.

I hear what you're saying, and frankly, I don't know enough about neuroscience or the evolution of the brain to know if Wright et al have a solid foundation, regardless of whether or not there seems to be explanatory evidence in the forms of myths, science, or otherwise. I'm certainly open to the explanation, but I honestly don't know enough to agree or disagree in any meaningful sense. I have Left in the Dark sitting on my PC and plan on reading it at some point and perhaps that will push me one way or another

That said, I take some issue with your presentation of a "whole" of humanity. When you ask the question, "who put these systems in place and who in their right mind would do (or go along with) such a thing," you (inadvertently, I believe) get at what I mean.

In the simplest form:
Who put these systems in place? People who had the military might to do so.
Who in their right mind would go along with such a thing? People who are coerced into doing so or people who stand to benefit from the suffering of others.

We see resistance to this system all over the place, whenever we look closely. It's not just protesters, arsonists, and revolutionaries. We see resistance in the squatters, the freeschoolers and homeschoolers, the street artists, the shoplifters, the pirates, the hitchhikers, the loiterers, everyone who steals from work, and those engaged in autonomous community organization, to name but a few. We consistently see resistance wherever we find people eeking out an existence on the margins of capitalism.

Many people keep their heads down because they are living under the gun, not because they agree to this system. In fact, there are opinion polls in the US that show overwhelming majorities think that this system, as it currently stands, does not afford them their desires. And that doesn't even encompass the rest of the world, where anti-austerity and related actions have become commonplace. Projecting a singular whole humanity, and one that is brain damaged, invisibilizes much of the struggles that are actually going on around the world and the people engaged in them, imo.

Are we brain damaged in the sense you discuss? I honestly don't know. But I don't find "brain damage" to be a compelling reason to gloss over the historical social causes that played major roles in putting us where we are. And, even if we are brain damaged, when we look at those social histories, it is, imo, fairly clear that there is not a unified "we" that put us in our present social position. Even if we are all brain damaged, there are still clear systems of oppression that are not perpetuated by all and that have been successfully beaten back at times. To me, that's significant enough to make me question how pragmatic the brain damage hypothesis is to this discussion.

Just my thoughts

My point there was merely that these ‘systems’ and issues we all become hyper-focused on are ultimately created and perpetuated by the minds of human beings (and often the most deranged of us, at that), not that the whole of humanity or even the majority is equally responsible for putting us here/perpetuating these systems, or that everyone or even most go along or agree with it unquestioningly (Although a sickening amount seem to, more or less, at least where I’m from. And inevitably we've all been coerced into perpetuating it on some level or another, through forced participation). I'm not interested in generalizing about who to lay blame on. And it's certainly true that many people are doing good things though, and I support them all the way, and even participate myself, hence why I said how we should still do everything in our power to better our situation even if I think that, in the larger scheme of things, it is at least in some ways futile by definition if we simultaneously continue to allow a neurodegeneration condition to progress. But the inherent value of the present moment is still here, of course, and good is being done every day all over the world.

To me the theory doesn't necessarily gloss over or invisibilize their efforts or the historical social causes that put us where we are today at all. I actually think it gives those actively fighting against what could be called some of the more unfortunate or extreme products of the condition a deeper level of validation to their causes, and illuminates the ways in which these struggles are connected with each other, the bigger picture of humanity/self, how they came to be in the first place, etc…I don’t think it trivializes their efforts or the very real struggles people face, but reframes them. While we can and should beat back systems of oppression whenever possible, as humans have done in the past and continue to do today, I think we should also address what could potentially be the underlying factor that explains why these systems keep arising time and time again in the first place throughout virtually all of recorded history.

I agree with a lot of what you and endlessness have said though, and learned many things through reading the thread, so I’m glad you guys are having this fascinating discussion. I just felt I’d throw that in there since, if it does turn out to be the case, then we have to re-think quite a lot of things, as its implications would be monumental and by definition very difficult to even begin to comprehend.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Hmmmmm...perhaps I should read "Left..." sooner rather than later. Is there anything else you would recommend on a related note?

And I appreciate the input. As I said, I honestly don't know enough to comment, so perhaps I should have rectified that before giving my input. I suppose now I have a concrete way to see if my thoughts change

 

[Chadaev]

In any case I don´t think anybody is arguing for return to primitive human organization. Snozz is more arguing that we need to transform our current capitalistic system, which I agree but try to add the idea that it`s not capitalism itself but an inner pattern that manifests as unsustainable/unbalanced/unjust actions, and IMO focusing on this pattern instead of on the idea of capitalism may make it seem less tangible but it can definitely be worked on in practical terms (education, personal actions in daily life, choices of consumption, being healthy, looking for certain types of job if options are available, protesting against injustices, volunteering, work on self awareness, living an exemplary life as much as possible etc), and would prevent that capitalism is just changed for another different unsustainable system if capitalism itself was the only thing that was tackled.

Maybe you have written about this elsewhere, endlessness, but it would be good to hear what you think this 'inner pattern' consists of. Is it psychological, spiritual, energetic, political, economic, or if all of the above, how does one identify it and tackle it? How does one know that one is not just reproducing it in a new guise?

What I want to say: industrial technology isn't bad per se, it needs to be refined. Some people have fun designing and developing new devices, so don't worry about them. And you can also "renaturalize" mines. Transform them into excavated lakes or pour some soil on them as a top layer. It probably needs a lot of energy, but this could be also solved by technology.

Refine energy production. Don't burn fossil fuels, use fusion reactors. And how do you get enough engineers/physicists for that? Educate children properly. Get rid of ex-cathedra teaching and tap into their natural potential for learning. Some children love growing plants and some children love to play with electronics. Some will be awesome farmers and some will be awesome engineers in the future.

For this to happen we would have already overthrown the existing .01%, ie, the super-rich banksters, oil barons, drone manufacturers, etc. This is my problem with this kind of rational-technological vision of the future: lots of good ideas, granted, but in what kind of human political context would it become possible? The political context of Halliburton, pseudo-WMDs, and hundreds of thousands slaughtered for shareholder value?

 

[Chadaev]

Yes Please!!! This looks great and I'd love to work some stuff out here, how perfect! There's another Australian Anthropologist who has done some writing on DMT entities and ecological crises, but I can't remember who, at the moment. I have been meaning to get in touch with him for a while as the US uni's were not so interested in my proposed thesis of a similar nature. I'd really love to talk with both of you and I will work on getting some of my ideas on this down so that we can keep this rolling. I'd love to hear some of your ideas and perspectives as well

Very curious to learn who this other Australian anthro might be! But be great to hear more about your ideas.

I just wrote an article for my Russian anarchist friends on 'Bakunin, God and the Teacher Plants'. It's too long to post here, and it's not on the net yet, but if anyone's interested pm me for a copy.

Here's a chunk:

If some on the left fault these substances for being diversions, for producing political apathy, for being marginal, and so on, to the extent that this is true (and it shouldn’t be exaggerated), it has everything to do with who is currently using this ‘spiritual technology’, and with the left’s failure, thus far, to develop a sophisticated relationship with it.

Arguably with the teacher plants we return again to the ancient source of humanisation, to the crucible in which was forged the infant human psyche, with a chance now, individually and collectively, to rehearse a new beginning. Beneath the macabre theatre of the ‘war on drugs’ we can see the motley seedlings of new cultures beginning to sprout. Even an openly psychedelic capitalism may not be out of the question, however nightmarish that would be. Yet the answer cannot be to choose a wholesale return to shamanic culture over capitalist modernity, as if the former were not also plagued by its own blindnesses. On the contrary, to have ‘teachers’ beyond other humans is rather to discover a transcendental reference point which, well employed, could help us to behold the strengths and limitations of all hitherto existing sociocultural forms, from the archaic to the hypermodern.

By the same token, if these substance could help illuminate what we are really struggling for, it would be no true criticism of them to say that they are useless on the picket line. Their temporality, at least for the most part, is not that of daily struggle, it is more the temporality of psychological healing, of cultural innovation, of ideas, of art, of myth. Processes, in other words, which are years, decades, generations in the making, and which give struggle its depth, creativity and endurance.

So why not begin, finally, to build an entheogenic left? I mean a left that incorporates judicious individual and collective sacramental usage of the teacher plants into its own culture. That uses these substances to break from the inertia of capitalist civilisation. That employs them in seasonal rituals to help overcome sectarianism and the competitive narcissism of identity politics by uncovering a kind of intelligibility deeper and wider than those identities. That uses them in retreats and intensives to problem solve for the building of a post-capitalist economy, post-capitalist finance, post-capitalist social structures, post-capitalist gender relations, post-capitalist people. That helps to birth a movement truly in love with this Earth and her life forms, human and non-human, and prepared to give everything to protect them.

 

[SKA]

Thanks for digression NASA, now if you could just go back to study and undertake what you were founded for, space exploration, that would be just great.


Doesn't that strike anyone else here as odd?
That an organisation devoted to space exploration publishes a socio/political/economical study like this? Did they get bored with space exploration at NASA and do they all want to be political/economic analysts & sociologists now? :?: