Your Privacy Settings
Our website uses cookies to personalise content, keep contents in your shopping cart and as part of the checkout experience.- Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
- You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
Allow cookies for
Forums > Social Discussion > Should you die?
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
I know that what I am about to say is going to rub very strongly against perhaps every single person that reads it but I have to throw it out their in hopes for some valid response to give my conscience a context I can not seem to find in this corner of the world
But I think as a human race so many people need to leave (ie die), but who should be the first, should I commit suicide for the sake of the world, who is willing to tie their tubes or snip the cord never have children but only adopt the millions of starving children. When does it become my responsibility or yours and how far do you push the bounds of your life or death. And not some race, religion, or creed or financial group. But as a person I truly and deeply love all creatures and Death ladies and gentleman is something that cannot be avoided, and to what extent should it be fought. A prey will run from its a predator, every living creature will fight for its right to survive, but at what point does their come a dire necessity for death. IN terms of relevancy to the rest of the world which we desperatly depend on, we out number it by100x any creature out their. If wolves or lions or locust were to do this on a fraction of the scale we would enforce sactions or actions to control them, look at the koalas on kangaroo island. I geuss the question is why do we spend so much time just trying to get more time. I doctor, or pharmacy looks for any pill to give you that extra year or Triple bypass surgery to see another anniversary, but at the same time the same society promotes foods and activities that will kill them or put them their. I am so confused. I recommend you go to a nursinghome, and watch those so feeble they cannot close their mouth and make you truly question if they are already dead, the delusion, delirious. People who ultimately deserve to die, there are so many examples of things that would make you sick that compelled in me something I have never felt before I have just never seen a creature in such a dire state and to have someone tell me that they must live, they will leave when god will is it or until they want to die. BUT WHO WANTS TO DIE? And how long do you really digress on the lizard or racoon you ran over or the dog you had to bury. And at what point must they no longer wait. I know this has flavors of the Terri Shiavo debate which will quickly become a circular debate, so I will see where this goes.
I know that what I am about to say is going to rub very strongly against perhaps every single person that reads it but I have to throw it out their in hopes for some valid response to give my conscience a context I can not seem to find in this corner of the world
But I think as a human race so many people need to leave (ie die), but who should be the first, should I commit suicide for the sake of the world, who is willing to tie their tubes or snip the cord never have children but only adopt the millions of starving children. When does it become my responsibility or yours and how far do you push the bounds of your life or death. And not some race, religion, or creed or financial group. But as a person I truly and deeply love all creatures and Death ladies and gentleman is something that cannot be avoided, and to what extent should it be fought. A prey will run from its a predator, every living creature will fight for its right to survive, but at what point does their come a dire necessity for death. IN terms of relevancy to the rest of the world which we desperatly depend on, we out number it by100x any creature out their. If wolves or lions or locust were to do this on a fraction of the scale we would enforce sactions or actions to control them, look at the koalas on kangaroo island. I geuss the question is why do we spend so much time just trying to get more time. I doctor, or pharmacy looks for any pill to give you that extra year or Triple bypass surgery to see another anniversary, but at the same time the same society promotes foods and activities that will kill them or put them their. I am so confused. I recommend you go to a nursinghome, and watch those so feeble they cannot close their mouth and make you truly question if they are already dead, the delusion, delirious. People who ultimately deserve to die, there are so many examples of things that would make you sick that compelled in me something I have never felt before I have just never seen a creature in such a dire state and to have someone tell me that they must live, they will leave when god will is it or until they want to die. BUT WHO WANTS TO DIE? And how long do you really digress on the lizard or racoon you ran over or the dog you had to bury. And at what point must they no longer wait. I know this has flavors of the Terri Shiavo debate which will quickly become a circular debate, so I will see where this goes.
Posted:
I think you and my boyfriend need to meet you and him have very similar views.
You might want to break that writing up a little bit btw it was very hard to read.
I think you and my boyfriend need to meet you and him have very similar views.
You might want to break that writing up a little bit btw it was very hard to read.
Posted:
We have a choice on wether we eat those foods and wether we participate in those activities though. We also have a choice on wether we take drugs from the Doctor or Pharmacist.
I'm sure you have taken over the counter drugs at least once in your life time, and eaten junk food. You had a choice to do that.
I work in a rest home, and have seen some EMI residants stay there for lack of space in other homes. You have to remember that they are very very old people, and when things get old they get broken. Its just a case of when something becomes broken beyond repair. i.e death. I'd like to think that when people get to that state they can end their life, just by well, natural causes really. On the other hand if someone can care for them and makes their life at least somewhat better then so be it.
Written by:
I doctor, or pharmacy looks for any pill to give you that extra year or Triple bypass surgery to see another anniversary, but at the same time the same society promotes foods and activities that will kill them
We have a choice on wether we eat those foods and wether we participate in those activities though. We also have a choice on wether we take drugs from the Doctor or Pharmacist.
I'm sure you have taken over the counter drugs at least once in your life time, and eaten junk food. You had a choice to do that.
Written by:
I recommend you go to a nursinghome, and watch those so feeble they cannot close their mouth and make you truly question if they are already dead, the delusion, delirious. People who ultimately deserve to die
I work in a rest home, and have seen some EMI residants stay there for lack of space in other homes. You have to remember that they are very very old people, and when things get old they get broken. Its just a case of when something becomes broken beyond repair. i.e death. I'd like to think that when people get to that state they can end their life, just by well, natural causes really. On the other hand if someone can care for them and makes their life at least somewhat better then so be it.
Posted:
i completely agree with you, and regularly upset people by saying similar things. people have to get used to the idea of dying, rather than avoiding it like its not going to happen.
medicine is stretching the boundaries - disease is partly natures method of population control, but because we can fight it, we do. this isnt always the kindest thing to do, but it is done anyway.
i completely agree with you, and regularly upset people by saying similar things. people have to get used to the idea of dying, rather than avoiding it like its not going to happen.
medicine is stretching the boundaries - disease is partly natures method of population control, but because we can fight it, we do. this isnt always the kindest thing to do, but it is done anyway.
Posted:
People are all worried about super bugs that can survive current antibiotics. But as stated above, its natures way of balanceing things. My thoughts are that there will be something like the plague or flu epidemic to reduce the number of humans on the earth.
AIDS can be destroyed if we are cruel and inhuman, but i dont see that happening.
The population of humans on the earth will probably be halfed in the next 20 years. And i see it being casused by a natural thing.
People are all worried about super bugs that can survive current antibiotics. But as stated above, its natures way of balanceing things. My thoughts are that there will be something like the plague or flu epidemic to reduce the number of humans on the earth.
AIDS can be destroyed if we are cruel and inhuman, but i dont see that happening.
The population of humans on the earth will probably be halfed in the next 20 years. And i see it being casused by a natural thing.
Do we sleep when we die?
Posted:
eric mate u need to come back to oz its much brighter over here
a sense of responsibility is something which comes from social programming. when u look at societies history its hardly filled with the behaviour of absolute purity infact lots of it is just the opposite and the values installed by social programming are established by the ppl committing these naughty things soooooo forget it all i say
what is this "death" that can not be avoided? well what is life? life is a perception of an ever changing half truth, what you see before you isnt what is really there. take your blind spot for example evolution kinda fudged that one a little bit, instead of coming up with a good design (like that of an octopus) humans got dumped with a blood vessle coming through the retina. so rather than having a spot the brain wanted to make a nice stable picture of the world for us so it just extrapolates the surrounding area over it.
this is not the only lie our brains tell us about the world around us take pain for example its only as real as you make it, if you lose your arm you can still experience phantom pains (an not just through accidental stimulation as a result of remapping of the brain) but even more crazy is by tricking the minds body map (all smoke and mirrors well mainly mirrors, by providing visual feedback you can overide the associated pain with the phantom action) phantom pain can be relieved.
i wouldnt worry to much nature has a way of finding its own balence when populations get out of control.
eric mate u need to come back to oz its much brighter over here
a sense of responsibility is something which comes from social programming. when u look at societies history its hardly filled with the behaviour of absolute purity infact lots of it is just the opposite and the values installed by social programming are established by the ppl committing these naughty things soooooo forget it all i say
what is this "death" that can not be avoided? well what is life? life is a perception of an ever changing half truth, what you see before you isnt what is really there. take your blind spot for example evolution kinda fudged that one a little bit, instead of coming up with a good design (like that of an octopus) humans got dumped with a blood vessle coming through the retina. so rather than having a spot the brain wanted to make a nice stable picture of the world for us so it just extrapolates the surrounding area over it.
this is not the only lie our brains tell us about the world around us take pain for example its only as real as you make it, if you lose your arm you can still experience phantom pains (an not just through accidental stimulation as a result of remapping of the brain) but even more crazy is by tricking the minds body map (all smoke and mirrors well mainly mirrors, by providing visual feedback you can overide the associated pain with the phantom action) phantom pain can be relieved.
i wouldnt worry to much nature has a way of finding its own balence when populations get out of control.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Posted:
I agree. We're too technologically advanced to remain on this planet without [censored] it up more and more. We're living too long, hunting too much, too good at fighting disease and too terrified by death. Personally I think the best solution would be to return to pre-17th century life, to pick a somewhat arbitrary number. It's going to take a major catastrophe to force survivors to live in a simpler and less technologically defended way. To some extent devolution would be beneficial for us as a species, as well as the world at large.
I agree. We're too technologically advanced to remain on this planet without [censored] it up more and more. We're living too long, hunting too much, too good at fighting disease and too terrified by death. Personally I think the best solution would be to return to pre-17th century life, to pick a somewhat arbitrary number. It's going to take a major catastrophe to force survivors to live in a simpler and less technologically defended way. To some extent devolution would be beneficial for us as a species, as well as the world at large.
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
veteran1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Why would devolution benefit us as a species? What's so great about living a short life (30 years or so) in which an even bigger percentage of people than today would be spending all of it in grinding poverty? Where woman would once again be second-class citizens and a significant proportion of babies would die before their first birthday?
The myth of the Noble Savage is just that, a myth. People have always been [censored] their environment up without considering the long-term future - just look at Easter Island for instance. I'm not saying that there isn't massive pressures on resources at the moment, but trying to return to some agrarian fantasy isn't the solution.
Why would devolution benefit us as a species? What's so great about living a short life (30 years or so) in which an even bigger percentage of people than today would be spending all of it in grinding poverty? Where woman would once again be second-class citizens and a significant proportion of babies would die before their first birthday?
The myth of the Noble Savage is just that, a myth. People have always been [censored] their environment up without considering the long-term future - just look at Easter Island for instance. I'm not saying that there isn't massive pressures on resources at the moment, but trying to return to some agrarian fantasy isn't the solution.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Posted:
james is right about that nostalgia stuff...
in answer to your question though, yes we should all die as death defines life and makes it worthwhile. it is also natural and in one sense nothing to be afraid of. however, if people wish to prolong their lives that is their choice. as far as i can see commiting suicide usually doen't help anyone. in general, to have control over when someone dies is facist although there are some notable exceptions and complications surrounding life support...
what i find intersting is that death used to be a public event and often celebrated/honoured as it still is in some countries. in the west however our attitude to death seems to have changed to one of private revulsion and is often glossed over or swept under the carpet and not addressed openly or publicly... or even celebrated as something which is positive and part of the natural cycle of life...
james is right about that nostalgia stuff...in answer to your question though, yes we should all die as death defines life and makes it worthwhile. it is also natural and in one sense nothing to be afraid of. however, if people wish to prolong their lives that is their choice. as far as i can see commiting suicide usually doen't help anyone. in general, to have control over when someone dies is facist although there are some notable exceptions and complications surrounding life support...
what i find intersting is that death used to be a public event and often celebrated/honoured as it still is in some countries. in the west however our attitude to death seems to have changed to one of private revulsion and is often glossed over or swept under the carpet and not addressed openly or publicly... or even celebrated as something which is positive and part of the natural cycle of life...
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
Ed: geek, staffer, past participle122 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Spiralx speaks sense. The concept that modern industrialised man is the cause of global ills is just wrong. The Easter island example is a good one and there are huge numbers of examples all across the world where early agricultural man has used up the resources in his environment and slaughtered all the large fauna in it.
The overpopulation issue and our demand on resources stems from the fact that society as a whole is largely incapable of long-term planning. If early or even modern industrialists had the foresight of seeing a world wracked with environmental problems, perhaps they might have done things a bit differently. And if say early hunter-gatherers in South America has foresight, they might not have eradicated all the large mammals.
If anything, our current position is stronger than our early days because we have the ability to more accurately predict future trends. The information is trememdously powerful, even if those in power eventually choose to ignore it. We can only complain about the state of the world because we have information about the consequences. Early agricultural man had no such information so could not be expected to make plans - for all they knew, everything was renewable.
And this goes for this backlash against modern medicine and those of us who are seemingly rooting for the superbugs to win. Let's be honest here - if you were in Victorian England suffering from smallpox, plague and God knows what else you'd probably be singing a different tune about medical progress. Again, the only reason we're in a position to say that people are living too long/draining resources etc. is that we're not being ravaged by terrible infectious diseases, that we're in a position of privelege. It's a bit like rich kids saying that 'money's not really a big deal for me' - it's because they have it!
And medical advances aren't just about stopping death, it's about stopping suffering - let's not forget that many of the major causes of early death, cancer, infectious disease and so on are about death in an agonising horrible way. Is it any more 'humane' to let people die like this than in a nursing home?
IMO, the thing to do is to recognise how bloody lucky we are to be in our position - to have a world of medicine at our fingertips. We in the West should not rely on medicine as a crutch or as a friend who's got your back - we should attempt to live as healthily as possible, using medicine as a last resort in case things go wrong. I know too many people who say nuts to the consequences now, I'll just get a transplant when I get older etc. Which takes me back to the point about long-term planning. And if things still go wrong, then death should be accepted as a necessary thing, as duballstar said.
Spiralx speaks sense. The concept that modern industrialised man is the cause of global ills is just wrong. The Easter island example is a good one and there are huge numbers of examples all across the world where early agricultural man has used up the resources in his environment and slaughtered all the large fauna in it.
The overpopulation issue and our demand on resources stems from the fact that society as a whole is largely incapable of long-term planning. If early or even modern industrialists had the foresight of seeing a world wracked with environmental problems, perhaps they might have done things a bit differently. And if say early hunter-gatherers in South America has foresight, they might not have eradicated all the large mammals.
If anything, our current position is stronger than our early days because we have the ability to more accurately predict future trends. The information is trememdously powerful, even if those in power eventually choose to ignore it. We can only complain about the state of the world because we have information about the consequences. Early agricultural man had no such information so could not be expected to make plans - for all they knew, everything was renewable.
And this goes for this backlash against modern medicine and those of us who are seemingly rooting for the superbugs to win. Let's be honest here - if you were in Victorian England suffering from smallpox, plague and God knows what else you'd probably be singing a different tune about medical progress. Again, the only reason we're in a position to say that people are living too long/draining resources etc. is that we're not being ravaged by terrible infectious diseases, that we're in a position of privelege. It's a bit like rich kids saying that 'money's not really a big deal for me' - it's because they have it!
And medical advances aren't just about stopping death, it's about stopping suffering - let's not forget that many of the major causes of early death, cancer, infectious disease and so on are about death in an agonising horrible way. Is it any more 'humane' to let people die like this than in a nursing home?
IMO, the thing to do is to recognise how bloody lucky we are to be in our position - to have a world of medicine at our fingertips. We in the West should not rely on medicine as a crutch or as a friend who's got your back - we should attempt to live as healthily as possible, using medicine as a last resort in case things go wrong. I know too many people who say nuts to the consequences now, I'll just get a transplant when I get older etc. Which takes me back to the point about long-term planning. And if things still go wrong, then death should be accepted as a necessary thing, as duballstar said.
Posted:
It would benefit everyone because people in grinding poverty don't screw up the world. Read the thread called "Amazonian Rainforst" to find out what I think about the state of society.
Basically, if you're fighting to surivive, then you're not inventing things like Electricity, and then it goes downhill from there.
I would think that if you asked people "Would you like to save the planet if it cost you the last 20 years of your life?" Then a suprising number would say "Yes". I'd be perfectly happy to live till i'm 40 if it meant we WEREN'T destroying the planet for our kids and grandkids.
Oh, and on the issue of choice, sometimes you don't have any. Say I decide, on environmental grounds, that I don't want to use any form of fossil fuel. Pretty soon I'd be living on a farm. Or... nope that's it. Just a farm. There is no other occupation or place you can live without using fossil fuels of some kind. Even if I did, then I'd be slowly being poisoned by EVERYONE ELSE who do use fossil fuels. Plus the fact that I wouldn't be using farm machinery means that my high production costs would mean that my prices will be higher than any other supplier. People will not buy my food. So, if I choose to save the world in my own small way, pretty soon I'll be destitute.
Nice choices, huh?
Oh, and just because we're living a lifestyle of the 17th century doesn't necessitate a return to their morals. I for one, wouldn't be living an Orthodox Catholic life (which is what was prevalent in Europe) and I don't know many people who would say "Yes, women deserve to be second class citizens again!"
It would benefit everyone because people in grinding poverty don't screw up the world. Read the thread called "Amazonian Rainforst" to find out what I think about the state of society.
Basically, if you're fighting to surivive, then you're not inventing things like Electricity, and then it goes downhill from there.
I would think that if you asked people "Would you like to save the planet if it cost you the last 20 years of your life?" Then a suprising number would say "Yes". I'd be perfectly happy to live till i'm 40 if it meant we WEREN'T destroying the planet for our kids and grandkids.
Oh, and on the issue of choice, sometimes you don't have any. Say I decide, on environmental grounds, that I don't want to use any form of fossil fuel. Pretty soon I'd be living on a farm. Or... nope that's it. Just a farm. There is no other occupation or place you can live without using fossil fuels of some kind. Even if I did, then I'd be slowly being poisoned by EVERYONE ELSE who do use fossil fuels. Plus the fact that I wouldn't be using farm machinery means that my high production costs would mean that my prices will be higher than any other supplier. People will not buy my food. So, if I choose to save the world in my own small way, pretty soon I'll be destitute.
Nice choices, huh?
Oh, and just because we're living a lifestyle of the 17th century doesn't necessitate a return to their morals. I for one, wouldn't be living an Orthodox Catholic life (which is what was prevalent in Europe) and I don't know many people who would say "Yes, women deserve to be second class citizens again!"
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:
I've thought this for some time. Soon something will happen, some cataclysm, whether mad-made or natural, and the population will be thinned out a bit, and we can have some breathing room.
Then we can all become Communists!
I've thought this for some time. Soon something will happen, some cataclysm, whether mad-made or natural, and the population will be thinned out a bit, and we can have some breathing room.
Then we can all become Communists!
"I believe the cost of life is Death and we will all pay that in full. Everything else should be a gift. We paid the cover charge of life, we were born."
Bill Hicks, February 1988
Posted:
Woohoo!
Woohoo!
Getting to the other side 
Posted:
starting to sound a bit like judge death there
starting to sound a bit like judge death there
UCOF "evolution: Poi -> stick -> hoops -> devil stick -> juggling club -> juggling ball -> crayons."
Supergroovalsticprosifunkstication
In other words, it's the thumps bump
Posted:
One day a real rain will come......wash the scum from the streets
One day a real rain will come......wash the scum from the streets
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:
Yes, a RAIN OF FIRE!!!
And the Spinners will be welcomed by the Angels OF Death and we shall judge The Worthy and The Chavs, and The Chavs will be consigned to the frigid cold depths of Hell, While we rejoice in the Playground of Fire and The Lord of Doubles will teach me all his tricks...
(can I write my own Bible with this material do you think?)
Yes, a RAIN OF FIRE!!!
And the Spinners will be welcomed by the Angels OF Death and we shall judge The Worthy and The Chavs, and The Chavs will be consigned to the frigid cold depths of Hell, While we rejoice in the Playground of Fire and The Lord of Doubles will teach me all his tricks...
(can I write my own Bible with this material do you think?)
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
veteran1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
So what about the environmental devastation caused by primitive peoples across the world?
This is where the agrarian fantasy bit comes in. To live in a 17th century lifestyle means far less efficient farming, which means more people are needed to work on farms, which means that more children are needed, which means that women will have to be having more kids, which means that they'll end up doing nothing but being pregnant and dying earlier due to excessive childbirth and the toll that takes on your body.
To try and say you can separate the two is living in a fantasy world. The higher percentage of time it takes to work to provide your food the less time women will have to do anything. And of course we'd end up back in some kind of feudal system where the rich ruled the poor absolutely.
Written by: Sethis
It would benefit everyone because people in grinding poverty don't screw up the world. Read the thread called "Amazonian Rainforst" to find out what I think about the state of society.
So what about the environmental devastation caused by primitive peoples across the world?
Written by: Sethis
Oh, and just because we're living a lifestyle of the 17th century doesn't necessitate a return to their morals. I for one, wouldn't be living an Orthodox Catholic life (which is what was prevalent in Europe) and I don't know many people who would say "Yes, women deserve to be second class citizens again!"
This is where the agrarian fantasy bit comes in. To live in a 17th century lifestyle means far less efficient farming, which means more people are needed to work on farms, which means that more children are needed, which means that women will have to be having more kids, which means that they'll end up doing nothing but being pregnant and dying earlier due to excessive childbirth and the toll that takes on your body.
To try and say you can separate the two is living in a fantasy world. The higher percentage of time it takes to work to provide your food the less time women will have to do anything. And of course we'd end up back in some kind of feudal system where the rich ruled the poor absolutely.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Posted:
you talk like the 17th century lifestyle is a downward spiral, but wait...didnt we make it thru the 17th centruy and progress to where we are now. im not sayin we should go back there, thats not in any way realistic, but we do need to take realistic views of the situation in order to try and remedy it.
as for the environmental devastation caused by primitive peoples across the world, do you any other examples other than Easter Island? the decline of which was not triggered by their misuse of the environment, but a drop in trade from the Mangareva islands, which then isolated them, exacerbating the impacts the were having on the envoronments. there are cases of environmental damage by 'primative' (i hate using that term) people, but each one is a result of several interacting factors. there are also plenty of success stories.
Icelanders (norse vikings) quickly depleted their forests and farmland. Starvation forced them to adapt by fishing and using thermal energy, and 1100 years later, Iceland still survives. In the 1600s, Japan, with its love of nature, instituted forest management, replenishing its forests. Amazingly, the New Guinea Highlanders learned to practice crop rotation and replanting of forests long before, so-called, more advanced societies. for a good book all about this read "Callapse;how socieites choose to fail or succeed", by jared diamond. its a book dealing with this exact question.
i ges the point i want to make is that, we arent doomed, we dont need to go back to the middle ages, we shouldnt dram about becoming the mythical noble savage. BUT we do have a serious problem on our hands, its really up to us to solve it, before while it is still up to us. i dont have any answers tho, i dont think their are any easy ones, none that are truely realistic with the prevailing morals and values of society. i dont wanna sound all doom and gloom, its not all negative, but we need to address the negative and not focus on the positive while we still can still do something about it.
you talk like the 17th century lifestyle is a downward spiral, but wait...didnt we make it thru the 17th centruy and progress to where we are now. im not sayin we should go back there, thats not in any way realistic, but we do need to take realistic views of the situation in order to try and remedy it.
as for the environmental devastation caused by primitive peoples across the world, do you any other examples other than Easter Island? the decline of which was not triggered by their misuse of the environment, but a drop in trade from the Mangareva islands, which then isolated them, exacerbating the impacts the were having on the envoronments. there are cases of environmental damage by 'primative' (i hate using that term) people, but each one is a result of several interacting factors. there are also plenty of success stories.
Icelanders (norse vikings) quickly depleted their forests and farmland. Starvation forced them to adapt by fishing and using thermal energy, and 1100 years later, Iceland still survives. In the 1600s, Japan, with its love of nature, instituted forest management, replenishing its forests. Amazingly, the New Guinea Highlanders learned to practice crop rotation and replanting of forests long before, so-called, more advanced societies. for a good book all about this read "Callapse;how socieites choose to fail or succeed", by jared diamond. its a book dealing with this exact question.
i ges the point i want to make is that, we arent doomed, we dont need to go back to the middle ages, we shouldnt dram about becoming the mythical noble savage. BUT we do have a serious problem on our hands, its really up to us to solve it, before while it is still up to us. i dont have any answers tho, i dont think their are any easy ones, none that are truely realistic with the prevailing morals and values of society. i dont wanna sound all doom and gloom, its not all negative, but we need to address the negative and not focus on the positive while we still can still do something about it.
It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.
Posted:
I have to agree with spiralx here.
Even if we were living a 17th century way of life it would'nt stay that way. We are progressive creatures, always looking for the easier more efficiant way of doing things so we would just advance ourselves again to the stage we are at now and perhaps further.
Do you think a 17th century farmer would like to stay where he is or live in a time when more food can be produced than can be eaten?
I have to agree with spiralx here.
Even if we were living a 17th century way of life it would'nt stay that way. We are progressive creatures, always looking for the easier more efficiant way of doing things so we would just advance ourselves again to the stage we are at now and perhaps further.
Do you think a 17th century farmer would like to stay where he is or live in a time when more food can be produced than can be eaten?
Posted:
How about using the good aspects of 17th century life and avoiding the bad aspects, whilst simultaneously taking the good aspects of modern life and shedding the bad aspects?
A lot of the alleged misery of primitive living was more due to the oppression, slavery and abuse that was prevalent; a lot of the health issues were due to overcrowding/bad sanitation in towns.
Where modern life is concerned, the problems are a lot to do with deep misunderstanding and wrong attitudes- in the west we are in no way short of resources and material benefits, the main thing lacking is an appreciation of just how much we do have and a deeply embedded suseptability to greed and sensitivity to lack of 'status'.
We're led around by peer pressure, marketing pressure and media pressure into chasing after things which are largely superfluous and unnecessary; in the process most of us feel obliged to spend most of our waking lives in jobs we, if we're being honest, consider to be fairly dull and meaningless.
We have a suspicion of simplicity and a deep mistrust of things which do not contribute, or which reverse 'economic growth'.
The fact is that much of the stuff we engage in and put our efforts into, is actually contributing to the waste and misery of much of modern life.
Take the best of the past, the best of the modern; start to drop the worst of both, see the value of simplicity. As a society, recognise that the ultimate aim should not be mere economic growth, but true contentment and happiness- to the extent that economic growth aids that, so be it; to the extent that it hinders it, then it's time to re-assess priorities.
How about using the good aspects of 17th century life and avoiding the bad aspects, whilst simultaneously taking the good aspects of modern life and shedding the bad aspects?
A lot of the alleged misery of primitive living was more due to the oppression, slavery and abuse that was prevalent; a lot of the health issues were due to overcrowding/bad sanitation in towns.
Where modern life is concerned, the problems are a lot to do with deep misunderstanding and wrong attitudes- in the west we are in no way short of resources and material benefits, the main thing lacking is an appreciation of just how much we do have and a deeply embedded suseptability to greed and sensitivity to lack of 'status'.
We're led around by peer pressure, marketing pressure and media pressure into chasing after things which are largely superfluous and unnecessary; in the process most of us feel obliged to spend most of our waking lives in jobs we, if we're being honest, consider to be fairly dull and meaningless.
We have a suspicion of simplicity and a deep mistrust of things which do not contribute, or which reverse 'economic growth'.
The fact is that much of the stuff we engage in and put our efforts into, is actually contributing to the waste and misery of much of modern life.
Take the best of the past, the best of the modern; start to drop the worst of both, see the value of simplicity. As a society, recognise that the ultimate aim should not be mere economic growth, but true contentment and happiness- to the extent that economic growth aids that, so be it; to the extent that it hinders it, then it's time to re-assess priorities.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:
Do you think that a C17th farmer would choose to destroy the world?
And, yeah, do you have any other examples other than Easter Island? And even if you do, that's still only buggering a couple of hundred square miles, compared to buggering EVERYTHING which is what is happeneing today.
And careful what you say about women's role in C17th society, you make it sound like they really *are* second class citizens. We'd all die earlier due to the lack of advanced medicine. I refer you back to my earlier post, and again, I say that living in in a world where life is hard is better than living, no wait, make that DYING in a world where we value convenience above sustainability.
Oh, and Spiderbaby, if there is more food being produced than can be eaten WHY THE BLOODY HELL IS A THIRD (COUNT IT, A THIRD) OF THE WORLD STARVING?????
Do you think that a C17th farmer would choose to destroy the world?
And, yeah, do you have any other examples other than Easter Island? And even if you do, that's still only buggering a couple of hundred square miles, compared to buggering EVERYTHING which is what is happeneing today.
And careful what you say about women's role in C17th society, you make it sound like they really *are* second class citizens. We'd all die earlier due to the lack of advanced medicine. I refer you back to my earlier post, and again, I say that living in in a world where life is hard is better than living, no wait, make that DYING in a world where we value convenience above sustainability.
Oh, and Spiderbaby, if there is more food being produced than can be eaten WHY THE BLOODY HELL IS A THIRD (COUNT IT, A THIRD) OF THE WORLD STARVING?????
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:
Mellow out man use your "inside voice". Theres no need to use the UPPER CASE , i can read the lower case just fine ( sarcasam intentional )
Did you ever hear of the E.U. food mountains??? Countries in the E.U which received farming grants began to produce too much food like milk, butter, eggs and wine so the E.U would buy it from farmers only to keep it in storage and allow it to go off but now heavy fines are imposed on overproducers.
Why didnt they ship surplus food to Africa and other places in need ... i dont know.
Mellow out man use your "inside voice". Theres no need to use the UPPER CASE , i can read the lower case just fine ( sarcasam intentional )
Did you ever hear of the E.U. food mountains??? Countries in the E.U which received farming grants began to produce too much food like milk, butter, eggs and wine so the E.U would buy it from farmers only to keep it in storage and allow it to go off but now heavy fines are imposed on overproducers.
Why didnt they ship surplus food to Africa and other places in need ... i dont know.
Posted:
Man, i never said there was more food being produced than can be eaten.
I said more food can be produced than can be eaten. Farms could produce so much more if they wanted but they are taxed/fined heavily if they do so.
Man, i never said there was more food being produced than can be eaten.
I said more food can be produced than can be eaten. Farms could produce so much more if they wanted but they are taxed/fined heavily if they do so.
Posted:
listen people i cherish life and belive you should hold onto it closely. after death there is nothing. its like being asleep without dreams...forever. thats why i dont think we should worry about this stuff and just keep living life, cause if you waiste it complaining, well then you wasted your life.
listen people i cherish life and belive you should hold onto it closely. after death there is nothing. its like being asleep without dreams...forever. thats why i dont think we should worry about this stuff and just keep living life, cause if you waiste it complaining, well then you wasted your life.
I start it, I end it,
I kill and words will defend it.
Got big plans,
blood stained hands
Wanna put my name on the map.
On my way to save the world.
-Missionary, Operation Ivy
From the Ashes of a Ninja Rise THE HIPS OF RAGE371 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Live up a tree and eat banaanas is the way forward, when we came up with agriculture is when it went all wrong.
Hmmmm tasty tasty fruit
Live up a tree and eat banaanas is the way forward, when we came up with agriculture is when it went all wrong.
Hmmmm tasty tasty fruit
Viva UGLY STAFF
NYC9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
There are very interesting and real answers to that question. Perhaps you should try and find out what they are.
And, if you wanted, you could do something about it.
Written by: Sethis
if there is more food being produced than can be eaten WHY THE BLOODY HELL IS A THIRD (COUNT IT, A THIRD) OF THE WORLD STARVING?????
There are very interesting and real answers to that question. Perhaps you should try and find out what they are.
And, if you wanted, you could do something about it.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Posted:
I am.
Written by: prosparityfire
Who is willing to tie their tubes or snip the cord never have children but only adopt the millions of starving children.
I am.
.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.
veteran1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Perhaps some research into the destruction of megafauna across the world by pre-industrial groups as well as the hugely inefficient means of food gathering..
Returning to a pre-industrial level of technology would simply slow environmental damage, not get rid of it. And require letting billions of people die to get there.
Perhaps some research into the destruction of megafauna across the world by pre-industrial groups as well as the hugely inefficient means of food gathering..
Written by:
Notions that "pre-capitalist" Indians lived in harmony with nature-especially the buffalo-are thoroughly exploded in the new works by these anthropologists and historians. Indians used the tools at their disposal, mostly fire and cunning, to hunt buffalo. "Box burning," a common tactic, involved setting simultaneous fires on all four sides of a herd. The French word "Brul," or "burnt," referred to the Sicangu ("burnt thigh") Sioux division whose survivors of hunting fires were burned on the legs. Charles McKenzie, traveling the plains in 1804, observed entire herds charred from Indian fires. Another favored hunting tactic, the "buffalo jump," involved luring a herd after an Indian dressed in a buffalo skin. At a full run, the brave led the herd to a cliff, where he leapt to a small ledge while the buffalo careened over the edge to their deaths. Either of these methods led to horrible waste and inefficient use of resources.
Returning to a pre-industrial level of technology would simply slow environmental damage, not get rid of it. And require letting billions of people die to get there.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Posted:
Ok, valid point Spider, I'm calm now. (And I was writing at past midnight on the morning of an A-Level at 9.00am so I reserve the right to be stressed...
)
Anyway, point taken about the Can/Being difference, and kudos for saying you don't know. I have problems with food mountains as well, and I have problems with farmers burning their surplus produce.
NYC, rather than being patronising, how about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just sniping?
And did I mention that I am already doing something about it? No, because I don't want to bring in personal accountability to the debate. If I wanted to debate personal accomplishments I could start a thread saying "What are YOU doing to Help Save the Planet?" But I won't because people shouldn't have to justify where they shop, what they buy, what cars they drive and so on and so forth. But for the record, I am trying to do something about it. Part of this is the discussion of the topic on forums...
Yes, valid example SpiralX but it was still the invasion of Capitalist Europeans (Now Americans) that made the buffalo extinct in North America, not to mention an entire culture (native Americans). I repeat that this is destruction on a localised scale, try and point out somewhere a "primitive" people contributed to the destruction of the climate.
Ok, valid point Spider, I'm calm now. (And I was writing at past midnight on the morning of an A-Level at 9.00am so I reserve the right to be stressed...
)Anyway, point taken about the Can/Being difference, and kudos for saying you don't know. I have problems with food mountains as well, and I have problems with farmers burning their surplus produce.
NYC, rather than being patronising, how about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of just sniping?
And did I mention that I am already doing something about it? No, because I don't want to bring in personal accountability to the debate. If I wanted to debate personal accomplishments I could start a thread saying "What are YOU doing to Help Save the Planet?" But I won't because people shouldn't have to justify where they shop, what they buy, what cars they drive and so on and so forth. But for the record, I am trying to do something about it. Part of this is the discussion of the topic on forums...
Yes, valid example SpiralX but it was still the invasion of Capitalist Europeans (Now Americans) that made the buffalo extinct in North America, not to mention an entire culture (native Americans). I repeat that this is destruction on a localised scale, try and point out somewhere a "primitive" people contributed to the destruction of the climate.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Ed: geek, staffer, past participle122 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Quite. It's simply an impractical solution. And let's not forget that the only reason why we're in a position to realise the ills of the world is because of the same technology that people here are condemning. Without modern communication networks, scientific apparatus, satellites etc. would be even know there was a problem? Would we be here discussing it? No! If we revert to a pre-industrial state, we lose all the information that's informing these discussions in the first place.
This 'convenience over sustainability' mentality isn't something that just happened when we became industrialised. Mankind since its conception has always valued short-term gains over sustainabiilty - see spiralx's megafauna extinction examples. Only now, in the technological/information age are significant numbers of people actually advocating more measured long-term goals.
Written by: spiralx
Perhaps some research into the destruction of megafauna across the world by pre-industrial groups as well as the hugely inefficient means of food gathering..
Returning to a pre-industrial level of technology would simply slow environmental damage, not get rid of it. And require letting billions of people die to get there.
Quite. It's simply an impractical solution. And let's not forget that the only reason why we're in a position to realise the ills of the world is because of the same technology that people here are condemning. Without modern communication networks, scientific apparatus, satellites etc. would be even know there was a problem? Would we be here discussing it? No! If we revert to a pre-industrial state, we lose all the information that's informing these discussions in the first place.
This 'convenience over sustainability' mentality isn't something that just happened when we became industrialised. Mankind since its conception has always valued short-term gains over sustainabiilty - see spiralx's megafauna extinction examples. Only now, in the technological/information age are significant numbers of people actually advocating more measured long-term goals.
Posted:
Hang on Ed, you're saying something like this:
"We can see that our technology is damaging the planet."
AND
"The only reason we can see the damage is because of our technology."
SO
"Therefore our technology is good, because we can see the damage that it is causing."
This makes little or no logical sense. I'd prefer not to know about the destruction of the planet if the method that let me know was the one doing the destroying...
Hang on Ed, you're saying something like this:
"We can see that our technology is damaging the planet."
AND
"The only reason we can see the damage is because of our technology."
SO
"Therefore our technology is good, because we can see the damage that it is causing."
This makes little or no logical sense. I'd prefer not to know about the destruction of the planet if the method that let me know was the one doing the destroying...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
© 1998 - 2019 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.