Reading What Sucks

The Gaia Theory - The Living Makes the Non-Living Livable.

This theory applies to all organisms on Earth except for.........Humans. What the hell is wrong with us?

Nature works. It is a plain and simple fact that nature will do what it needs to do in order to function and survive. Nature means everything, not just earth, but the entire universe as well. We know the universe to be 4.7 billion years old, and how old is human life on earth? As humans we are the most intelligent life on earth by nature of our problem solving and creation abilities, and having that power makes us arrogant. What sucks? It sucks that we are polluting our earth to the point where we will kill it soon. WE are using our resources in such a poor maner that we will have no more natural ones. All of my complaining means and will do nothing but damn it is so crappy that we do this to ourselves.

Nature is not a perfect balance of harmony. Nature is violent, lethal, and always in flux.

I don't question that mankind is the most destructive race that ever walked on this planet, but neither would I assume animal species will cease from becoming extinct if humanity vanished from the face of Earth tonight.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

THe animal species may vanish from earth if humans died, but no matter what nature would continue to thrive. Humans mean absolutley nothing to the universe or nature. We only kill nature.

We kill nature yet we are nature. Hm, interesting :)

As humans we are the most intelligent life on earth by nature of our problem solving and creation abilities, and having that power makes us arrogant.

I think greed in laziness are the real problems. I think most people genuinely care about the environment, but the effort that it takes to live out those convictions is too much for most people. It's far too easy to live the disposable lifestyle.

But hey, there is no absolute right and wrong ;) Who cares if we destroy nature (joking).

Interesting quote from fredrich neitzche. This is from memory, so if it's wrong feel free to correct me!

"What is the ape to man, a laughingstock or a painful embarrasment? And what will be man be to the overman/superman, a laughingstock or a painful embarrasment?"

Just a thought

-mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

Alien8u your so right, i worry about the state of this planet all the time and we are destroying it
It jus shows that peace is not the natural state of
humanity
I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any great
era of peace throughout history when all the people's
of the world lived harmoniously together. and they
definatly aint 2day

Is that why peace, as a concept, is so hard to
achieve? Because it is an un-natural state?
maybe... Even in "times of peace" expressions of the
need for competitive stuff are still found in sports,
work and daily life in general. So maybe it isnt in
natures way?

It isn't Humans way , I have been banging on about how we aren't civilised,
So what are we as a species ??? Still quite like animals in so many ways. Survival of the fittest, self preservation,
I know that I wouldn't lay down my own life for many people, and some animals will do the same for their immediate family,
Still I don't know what it all means, but the trees seem quite friendly :)

i dont have a dream "I HAVE A SCHEME"

My question would be this.. if peace isn't the natural human way, what is? I'd say it's a case of survival but because there are so many more people on the planet and there is much more chance of different groups encroaching on each other that there are threats to the survival instinct all over the place. Maybe back in the stone age (or earlier) when peoples were a lot fewer in number and travelled less distance there were less fights between them. I guess that would mean they were living in some sort of peace, the peace which comes with ignorance. Probably not possible these days. But is there a middle ground?

i dont have a dream "I HAVE A SCHEME"

I truly can't believe that we are the superior beings on this planet. It just seems that we are all so stupid. Take Hollywood for example, also driving as an example. I'm driving all day long and there is nothing really that hazardous, and then I come to Hollywood and my hand is on the horn like a freaking reflex. You also talk to these random people in your working environment and think to yourself, how the majority of us ended up so out of touch with the world. Today I observed a kid who broke a bench at a park and the manager of the park told the teacher, who was supossed to be in charge. The kid repudiates his argument by saying how he sat in the bench a it fell apart. That's not something one sees everyday. Aren't becnhes made to support us. We all knew he was lying yet he went on with the charade. Why?

It is better to be pissed off than pissed on.

No, the universe is not 4.7 billion years old, you must be thinking of the Earth. The universe is more like 10 to 20 billion years old.

The earth is anywhere from 4.5 billion to 5 billion years old, based on carbon dating lunar rocks and meteorites.

Humans have inhabited the Earth in one form or another for 3 million years.

For the last 10,000 years, humans have lived in a different way then they did successfully for 2,990,000 years. Humans changed from a model of hunting, gathering, herding, and small-scale agriculture to a model based on one ultimate objective--growth. Every thing that humans have done for the past 10,000 years serves the end of growth--the way we practice agriculture is where all this starts.

Cultures that still lived the old way, in accordance with nature, were wiped out or assimilated, and today very few of them still exist. Through famine, pestilence, war, and plague, the human population has grown for 10,000 years.

In nature, populations fluctuate--humankind has excepted itself from the laws of nature, blithely thinking there will be no consequences for this.

When the agricultural revolution turned into the industrial revolution, the rate at which we despoiled the earth accelerated by orders of magnitude. As the use of fossil fuels allowed us to stave off Malthus' discovery of an inevitable food shortage, so also did fossil fuels in agriculture create a food surplus, which in turn guaranteed MORE GROWTH. This vicious cycle will continue until someone puts a stop to it. Now we have industrial monocrop fields in the US whose product is exported to third world countries--yes, you read me right: the US is largely responsible for the Third World populaiton boom.

As more and more people crowded the Earth and forgot how to live, stress, insanity, violent crime, depression, and other "signs of an advanced culture" appeared. As more and more people crowd the Earth for fewer and fewer resources, inevitably these symptoms of our way of life will increase in frequency and urgency.

So, we are lost. Humans are not crap, we are just lost--we have completely forgotten what it means to be human.

Imagine taking a hyena out of the wild and trying to have it as a pet--the animal wouldn't know what to do, and would create havoc. Well, that's what's happening to humans. We have been institutionally told that Jesus or Buddha or Muhammed can tell us how to live, because we have turned our backs on the knowledge that had been there for 3 million years and beyond. The evidence points out that, put in the proper system, humans are just fine, thank you. I think we need to rediscover those systems, the ones that were actually successful.

Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

But If those systems were that good, why did we turn our backs on them?
Why should any being change a good worling system to somethign that doesn't really work, and if it happens anyways, how could the whole species change. A group of people may change a system, but it wouldn't be accepted by so many personsn if the old system was working just fine.

I believe we just changed from one crappy system to another, this one just looks cooler,speaking of things like "everybody can do his best and get the position that fits him. Even a poor little 3rd World child may get Millionaire if he just wants to" It's sounds better than just "hey, you are hunter, you go take food", but i think both systems aren't worthy to live with them.

there are so many people who dream of a "better" society, who write books or create movies about Aliens that are so much advanced. I have never ever seen a movie with many "high-evolved" aliens that live in such a "better" society, there are always just about 4-5...so i think, with this many people on the planet you cant live peacefully together, respecting everybody, it's just not possible, humans are not capable of it.

And also, your beloved old system wouldn't work with this many people, so what should we do? Kill some? But that wouldn't be ethically correct, and we so far advanced humans want to be ethically correct, as long as it's about us.

We could also build space colonies or something like that to exonerate our "beloved" planet, but that wouldn't keep us from reproducing us and we would come back to the same problem.

to really build a better society, the whole humanity would have to get a better consciousness (what a ?#*!! word), but that too is impossible, because this can only happen when everybody has a good life, and to ensure a good life for everybody, we would need a better society. And there are just too many people who feel too good with their life (ok compared to the whole humanity, those are a few people, but the would have the power to help ) and they don't want any change.

Also you couldn't force all people to a new "system", they have to change to it by theirself, because if you force anyone, your system will be razed before it's built. And it takes a whole lot of effort and time to make everybody confess.

and how do you know that those systems were that good? Have you lived back then? You only base your theory on the fact that the humans have lived with that "system" for so many years. Ok, I have to admit that those humans lived more peacefully and that they didn't loot nature like we do. As a matter of fact, we don't kill nature, the whole nature is based on killing to build ne life, what we humans do wrong, is that we loot nature.
But you know why they didn't loot nature? because they froze to death in winter, they got killed by so many dangers and life back then was hard, harder than you imagine. All those old Stoneage humans look nice in museums, but believe me, they would kill there parent's to live in a society like ours. So their whole system was that they just fought for their very existence and so the didn't have the time to loot nature. I think that their "system" just evolved into ours and usually, you can't turn evolution back.

As for me, I only see one possible solution

LET'S CASTRATE HUMANITY It's the only way to a better future i can think of ;-)

cya Magic

P.s. Wow my signature fits this post perfectly ;)

"The wise have always said the same things, and fools have always done the opposite"-Schopenhauer

> But If those systems were that good, why did we turn our >backs on them?

"We" didn't collectively turn our backs on anything. The very first agriculturalists who practiced agriculture in the modern fashion, that is, to exterminate all rival species and focus on growth, well, they were fruitful and multiplied, to use biblical parlance. No species in nature has an answer for a hostile, unchecked and growing population--what do you think cancer or any other infestation is? What normally would happen if, say, lions grew in population, would be there were too many lions and not enough food, and the ecosystem would regulate the numbers back down. What mankind has done with the current civilizational system is to forestall this from happening--but how long can we do this, and what are the repercussions?

Once early agriculturalists had the numbers on their side, it was easy to expand their territory and take over other lands. This culture was an anomaly that started in Mesopotamia--of the thousands of other cultures to have come and gone on this planet, this was the first one that took over the land like this. In fact, once they needed more land for more crops to feed more people, they HAD to acquire more land and then spread like a virus, unchecked. Everyone knows that the "advancements" of our civilization over the past 4-5,000 years all find root in agriculture. These "advancements" have collectively endangered the health of the planet, and made murder (war) possible on an impossible scale, among all the other horrors of modernity--all of which is unimaginable to an isolated tribal society. Until recently, people in our culture never questioned that this lifestyle was worth the tradeoffs, nor were they even aware of what they were surrendering. People who lived in accordance with nature were viewed as savages, and history was viewed as something that began with the emergence of the first civilizations, rather than something that went back many millions of years, back into what was viewed inaccurately as a horrible existence in "nature, red in tooth and claw."

>I believe we just changed from one crappy system to >another, this one just looks cooler,speaking of things like >"everybody can do his best and get the position that fits >him. Even a poor little 3rd World child may get Millionaire >if he just wants to" It's sounds better than just "hey, you >are hunter, you go take food", but i think both systems >aren't worthy to live with them.

No, our system was not crappy, you can look at any small-scale society (if you can find one) and see that. What our culture calls "primitive" has worked for 3 million years, and the people of these cultures are usually very happy, at least uintil intercourse with our culture. Plus, they work much less than we do! The image of them struggling in the wild is not accurate. They have tried and true systems as old as time that we have forgotten.

>there are so many people who dream of a "better" society, >who write books or create movies about Aliens that are so >much advanced. I have never ever seen a movie with many >"high-evolved" aliens that live in such a "better" society, >there are always just about 4-5...so i think, with this >many people on the planet you cant live peacefully >together, respecting everybody, it's just not possible, >humans are not capable of it.

Well, we have already had thousands of "better" societies appear and disappear from this planet. Humans are capable of much more than our cultural mythology would have you believe. This culture claims that we are evil by nature and that we require salvation. That corruption and murder and rape are inevitable symptoms of the human condition. Well, if this is the case, then how come the incidences of these things spiral upwards in our civilization and are so low in small scale societies? Could it be that they have something right and we have something wrong?

>And also, your beloved old system wouldn't work with this >many people, so what should we do? Kill some? But that >wouldn't be ethically correct, and we so far advanced >humans want to be ethically correct, as long as it's about >us.

Why would it not work with so many people? Has it ever been tried? What exactly do you think I'm suggesting?

What I'm suggesting is a return to locality, not the abolition of technology and the return to life in the jungle. What I also suggest is a radical re-thinking of our place on the planet--to realize that we are not the rulers of the earth, but merely citizens of it. I suggest we stop creating food surpluses--we aren't doing starving populations of say 40,000 people living on lands meant to support 10,000 people any favors by sending them food. It's a biological law--if you have enough food for a larger population, the population will grow. We've tested this theory for 10,000 years, and each year, we've grown. Right now, we are producing enough food for 7 billion people, so it should be no surprise that soon our population will exceed this number.

>We could also build space colonies or something like that >to exonerate our "beloved" planet, but that wouldn't keep >us from reproducing us and we would come back to the same >problem.

Reproducing is not the problem. Reproducing unchecked and absolving ourselves as a species from nature's population controls is the problem. It is possible to reproduce at the same rate as the death rate--this would be a stable population, or ZPG (zero population growth). This is what happened with coexisting tribes for millions of years before the advent of our cultural forefathers.

>to really build a better society, the whole humanity would >have to get a better consciousness (what a ?#*!! word), but >that too is impossible, because this can only happen when >everybody has a good life, and to ensure a good life for >everybody, we would need a better society. And there are >just too many people who feel too good with their life (ok >compared to the whole humanity, those are a few people, but >the would have the power to help ) and they don't want any >change.

Well, our options as a species are a) change or b) die. Plain and simple. There's a lot of supposition and speculation in what you say, also, that I won't address.

>Also you couldn't force all people to a new "system", they >have to change to it by theirself, because if you force >anyone, your system will be razed before it's built. And it >takes a whole lot of effort and time to make everybody >confess.

I'm also not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. Awareness of the problem and the solution would hopefully be all that was needed. The current system will fall apart sooner or later, and hopefully we will learn from its mistakes, if we aren't wiped out when it comes tumbling down.

>and how do you know that those systems were that good? Have >you lived back then? You only base your theory on the fact >that the humans have lived with that "system" for so many >years. Ok, I have to admit that those humans lived more >peacefully and that they didn't loot nature like we do. As >a matter of fact, we don't kill nature, the whole nature is >based on killing to build ne life, what we humans do wrong, >is that we loot nature.

>But you know why they didn't loot nature? because they >froze to death in winter, they got killed by so many >dangers and life back then was hard, harder than you >imagine. All those old Stoneage humans look nice in >museums, but believe me, they would kill there parent's to >live in a society like ours. So their whole system was that >they just fought for their very existence and so the didn't >have the time to loot nature. I think that their "system" >just evolved into ours and usually, you can't turn >evolution back.

This is nonsense. "Evolution" is what put the systems these small-scale societies were using so successfully in place. As for small-scale socieities not being happier than ours, just ask any anthropologist and he will tell you the same thing--they are MUCH happier than we are. They accept the fact that some of them might die any given season--they think it's odd that we stave off death and fear it so much. I know the systems are better because I know they have lower stress levels, more happiness, and less crime, and because these systems have worked for 3 million years whereas ours has brought us to the brink of global devastation after only 10,000. I didn't have to live "back then" because there are still small-scale socieities today. The comfort and luxury in which our species resides is totally unnecessary--those cavemen wouldn't want to live like us because they wouldn't understand our lifestyle. Once exposed to it, we become "spoiled" and think that we are above living at nature's whim--which is not true.

>As for me, I only see one possible solution

>LET'S CASTRATE HUMANITY It's the only way to a better >
>future i can think of ;-)

You jest, but birth control (in a method other than castration, of course) is a vital piece of the puzzle.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

IMO, this debate could not be continued when magicdead's and mclaincausey's arguments are each presuming a certain philosophy.

To add my two cents in, I say that who cares what happens to the world because of humans? We do control the growth and extinction of practically all aspects of nature. We are on top of the food chain. And as with any species, those on the top of the food chain survive.

Here I am presuming a belief in the theory of evolution. We have what it takes to get what we need to survive. And survive we shall. Until the day when we are no longer on the top of the food chain, when a new, or old but improved, species manages to be able to take over. When that happens, humans will die out. And this new species will survive.

This is the nature of the world. Things die. Things live. No one questions how "crap" the dinosaurs at the top of the food chain must've been to eat everyone else, and claim territory for themselves. We know that it's what they did in order to survive.

Yes, you may argue, the dinosaurs did not have intelligence (as far as we know), but the intelligence they had was no different from our intelligence. This is what it takes to survive, so do it.

It's natural selection. Humans have been naturally selected to be the most superior species, and what makes it even better is the fact that we've become so superior that we even control future selections.

I have no doubt that the human race will end. By worrying what humans are doing to the earth, people are actually worrying about what humans are doing to something that they rely on. No Earth, no humans.

My advice? No need to fret about it. Do what I can to help the environment for as long as I'm alive. Maybe as long as the next generation or two is alive. After that? I don't care.

The world changes. The world has always changed and will always change. It's not of importance whether the changes are good or bad. I just accept them and worry about my own life.

Which world is Plato in?

"IMO, this debate could not be continued when magicdead's and mclaincausey's arguments are each presuming a certain philosophy."

I don't know what philosophy you think I'm presuming, but what I say is mainly based on evolutionary biology, anthropology, and history.

"To add my two cents in, I say that who cares what happens to the world because of humans? We do control the growth and extinction of practically all aspects of nature. We are on top of the food chain. And as with any species, those on the top of the food chain survive."

Yes, but what other species seeks out other species and tries to wipe them out? Yes, nature has species that are enemies. But not once did the lions say "let's wipe out all the jackals, we're tired of them stealing our kills." In fact, no human culture likely ever participated in this type of activity until the birth of our strange brand of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent. If you are going to use laws of nature to justify what humanity does, then be consistent. You seem to be extolling mankind's delusion that he is fit to decide which species should exist and which should not as a virtue. Well, since we've taken this decision in our hands, it has taken us only 10,000 years to devastate the Earth in a way that is absolutely mind-boggling when you consider the stability of the many millions of years prior.

"Here I am presuming a belief in the theory of evolution. We have what it takes to get what we need to survive. And survive we shall. Until the day when we are no longer on the top of the food chain, when a new, or old but improved, species manages to be able to take over. When that happens, humans will die out. And this new species will survive."

Evolution is fact. The delusion that mankind is the pinnacle of evolution and that evolution is a story and not an ongoing process is foundational in the delusion that man is the ruler of the earth. We have had what it takes as a species to survive, but to assume that we will continue doing so, especially when faced with evidence of unsustainable growth, is foolish. What makes you think the Earth has what it takes to sustain us indefinitely? We cannot make food out of nothing. Furthermore, we are facing a water crisis as well as a fossil fuel crisis. What you say about the humans "dieing out" is what faces us right now. My argument is that humans are a perfectly fine species, and there is no reason for us to kill ourselves off--this fate can be avoided.

"This is the nature of the world. Things die. Things live. No one questions how "crap" the dinosaurs at the top of the food chain must've been to eat everyone else, and claim territory for themselves. We know that it's what they did in order to survive.

Yes, you may argue, the dinosaurs did not have intelligence (as far as we know), but the intelligence they had was no different from our intelligence. This is what it takes to survive, so do it.

It's natural selection. Humans have been naturally selected to be the most superior species, and what makes it even better is the fact that we've become so superior that we even control future selections."

Humans are not "superior" by any means. The fact that we THINK we can "control future selections" is laughable. An alien species viewing us would likely be quite amused by our mythologies: that our species is the culmination of a biosphere that has existed for hundreds of millions of years, when we have only been there for a fraction of that time. A species that thinks its fit to rule nature, but in doing so has brought the earth to the brink of devastation.

"I have no doubt that the human race will end. By worrying what humans are doing to the earth, people are actually worrying about what humans are doing to something that they rely on. No Earth, no humans.

My advice? No need to fret about it. Do what I can to help the environment for as long as I'm alive. Maybe as long as the next generation or two is alive. After that? I don't care."

It's not about just "squeaking by," and it's not about subsistence, which is what you describe. It's about making the world a better place while we are here, and thereby ensuring it will be a better place for future generations. And if you care about the next generation, then you should realize that they care about the generation after that, and by extension, so should you, and this goes on into posterity. In other words, if I really love my grandson, then I will do all I can to help him make the world a better place for his grandson, because I understand he feels the same way. Besides, there's no way to gauge our rate of destruction of the resources that enable us to survive in order to make it last x number of generations.

"The world changes. The world has always changed and will always change. It's not of importance whether the changes are good or bad. I just accept them and worry about my own life"

Yes, the world does change. But now it's or turn to change, or die.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Jun 11, 2003.

But If those systems were that good, why did we turn our backs on them?
Why should any being change a good worling system to somethign that doesn't really work, and if it happens anyways, how could the whole species change. A group of people may change a system, but it wouldn't be accepted by so many personsn if the old system was working just fine.

The questons put forth are very hard to answer, as the origins and process of cultural change are shrouded in mystery. After studying anthropology and the processes of modernity vs primitive, the only answer I could give you would be that a peolple would only abandon their culural patterns, way of life and means of subsistence if forced to. Why would people work more that was neccesary to fulfill their needs? why produce a food surplus at all? These are other question that may help shed some light on our debate.

oh yeah, man is not inherently evil, that is part of the teachings of our culture and salvationist religion.

Mclaincausey is well versed in this subject, I agree with his statements. I wonder what he, or any one else thinks of terence Mckenna arguements that the modern patriarchial state is the result of the lack of entheogenic substances in human diet.

The earth is anywhere from 4.5 billion to 5 billion years old, based on carbon dating lunar rocks and meteorites.

Quick point - you cannot carbon date lunar rocks and meteorites.

For one they probably don't have any carbon.

Also even if they did carbon dating relies on measuring the amount of radioactive carbon 14 present in organic matter after it dies - the reasoning is that this will gradually reduce after death of the organism as respiratory action will refresh the amount of carbon 14 present in an organism to a base level. This carbon comes from the atmosphere. The moon does not have an atmosphere nor life. Diito for the meteorites.

Hence, no carbon dating.

The earth is anywhere from 4.5 billion to 5 billion years old, based on carbon dating lunar rocks and meteorites.

Again, you cannot carbon date lunar rocka and meteorites.

It was radioactive dating, I misspoke. Why split hairs...

Ewige Blumenkraft!

It was radioactive dating, I misspoke. Why split hairs...

For some reason it appeared that post was after my last one - why I don't know but it was stupid on my part.

Not all humans are crap, as we all know, but it is our knowledge that makes us do this. We can't help it. It is are natural instincts, not to destroy nature but industrilize. If we found a better way in the beginning, we would have went with that. That fact is, we don't like change, so of course we are not going to change out system. It would be too much of a hassle. Blame evolution, ok, so it went to far, but what are we going to do about it.

I forgot who said this but here, "With great power comes great responsibility," which is the earth. We didn't necessarily screw up because most of out goals is to live our life. Most of us don't think about the future earth because we won't be living in it, so why bother. It's not the motto I go by, but so is life.

It is better to be pissed off than pissed on.

I forgot who said this but here, "With great power comes great responsibility,"

Erm... Uncle Ben - from Spiderman?

Another quick point - evolution is not fact. It remains a theory until it can be proven. To be proven requires more than one lifetime - it could take many, many years until we see it happen to a species.

I think evolution is actually already taking place in the current group of homo sapiens sapiens species. We're already progressing from the 44+2 chromosome stage to the 46+2 stage (so-called "christ-consciousness" level), so, soon enough, we'll be, psychologically and mentally speaking, different beings from what we are now (technocentric versions of the previous 42+2 beings)

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

This post was edited by Magnifico on Jun 12, 2003.

You've completely lost me there.

Firstly I don't quite see where this whole 46->48 chromosome thing has come from. Sounds like it's pulled straight out of someone's ass to be frank. I see no evidence for an increase in the number of chromosomes humans have.

Secondly an increase in the number of chromosomes does not indicate progression nor complexity - shrimps have 254 chromosomes. Are you less complex than a shrimp? Would you consider yourself less evolved?

Thirdly use of technology would not be evolution since you are modifying a current genetic template outside the remit of what evolution is defined as - which is a genetic change in organisms due to aggregrate effect on a species from their environment. In other words we'd be engineered, not evolved.

Barnes, I don't know what the hell you are talking about with the chromosomes...

For a very good, well thought-out argument about why humans have "gone bad" in the last 10000 years, I suggest that you read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Its central theory is something like mclaincausey's, but developed a lot more. It is a very good book.

Personally, I agree with mclaincausey: ever since the Agricultural Revolution, humans have thought they alone rule the earth, and have departed from millions of years of evolution in trying to master nature, instead of living with it.

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

Daniel Quinn is an excellent starting point, as Anduril points out. Also, the Sierra Club has published a book of serveral essays called The Case Against the Global Economy: And for a Return to the Local" that is a great primer on the dangers of globalism, including deregulation, overpopulation, exploitation, environmental devastation, and critical resource shortages. Anarchists consider globalism to be the inevitable outcome of a Capitalist empire, so we also consider the dangers brought about in our modern era to be inevitable within the confines of our system, and we also forsee worse times ahead. The term "Globalism" is synonymous with, and is in fact a euphemism for, "empire."

A system that rewards unchecked greed is a system that inevitably places, as Noam Chomsky put it, "Profits over People." Tribal systems, conversely, place importance on the individual. The capitalist mentality has lead to all kinds of devolution and decay in society--hence causing people to conclude that "humans are crap." But the good news is that the system is one that is flawed, one that brings out the worst in humans--we are capable of much greater things, if we are just put into the right system.

There is also a great book called Resource Wars, but I forget the author. Exploring the symptoms of Anthropocentrism is important, but exposing and reevaluating our mythologies and delusions regarding our status as a species, particularly with relation to other species, is more foundational and important.

There is a growing outcry of alarm and protest against transnational corporate hegemony and the consequences of blind profiteering. We Anarchists and neotribalists have been warning unreceptive ears about these issues since the ancient times, but it now appears that events are focing us to face these issues or face global catastrophe very soon. If only had people started listening sooner--I hope it isn't too late.

Neotribalists see these ills as symptoms of a misconstructed civilization, rather than as causes. Also, Anarchists think that society makes humans, not the other way round--a misconstructed society leads to unstable, dangerous, and warmongering people, instead of the cooperative pack animal that humans are in a tribal, non capitalistic, Anarchistic element.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Jun 13, 2003.

An alternative to neotribalism that would work (I am sure you won't like it, but it is viable): combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism. First, move to protect the environment, and to improve third world countries' economies. Remove sweat shop labor and the like. Set up social benefit programs in advanced countries that help those who are not privilidged. This would narrow the gap between rich and poor. There would still be a heirarchy (which I see as a necessary part of any human society -- I know you disagree, but thats what I see), but it would be less rigid, less stratified.

Anarchism sounds OK in theory, but it won't work. The main reason being this: anarchist societies don't focus on production, but capitalist ones do, so capitalist societies will always have more of everything. Capitalist leaders will always want to stay in power, so if they see an anarchist group getting too powerful (which I doubt will ever happen, but who knows), they could quickly eradicate it with their superior production (production wins wars, and you know that -- if you disagree, look at WWII). This is a worst case senario; I don't even think a large anarchist community could sustain itself for more than a few generations.

I think that we should implements a direct democracy eventually (when logistics are sorted out). Just like anarchism, this, too will not happen, but thats my alternative.

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

An alternative to neotribalism that would work (I am sure you won't like it, but it is viable): combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism. First, move to protect the environment, and to improve third world countries' economies. Remove sweat shop labor and the like. Set up social benefit programs in advanced countries that help those who are not privilidged. This would narrow the gap between rich and poor. There would still be a heirarchy (which I see as a necessary part of any human society -- I know you disagree, but thats what I see), but it would be less rigid, less stratified.

Anarchists believe that expoitation is part and parcel of Capitalism, and based on 5000 years of observation, I think we're right. More evil has been perpetrated in the name of Capital than any other thing, in every single culture in which it has existed. Capitalism and exploitations cannot exist with one another, and Capitalism and liberty and equality also are irreconcilable.

Anarchism sounds OK in theory, but it won't work. The main reason being this: anarchist societies don't focus on production, but capitalist ones do, so capitalist societies will always have more of everything. Capitalist leaders will always want to stay in power, so if they see an anarchist group getting too powerful (which I doubt will ever happen, but who knows), they could quickly eradicate it with their superior production (production wins wars, and you know that -- if you disagree, look at WWII). This is a worst case senario; I don't even think a large anarchist community could sustain itself for more than a few generations.

It is more than OK as a theory, and has worked before in history--Revolutionary France and Spain.

Anarchism, as I have argued in another thread, actually [i]increases[/i production. I certainly don't have all the answers, and that's one of the best things about Anarchism as a formal political theory--that it remains open to suggestion. But a free society is feasable.

I think that we should implements a direct democracy eventually (when logistics are sorted out). Just like anarchism, this, too will not happen, but thats my alternative.

The reason a direct democracy will not happen is because we live in a Capitalist system in which power is centralized--those in power will use their military might to prevent this from happening. We are already slouching towards a police state--when that finally collapses, it is my hope that Anarchism will be given a chance.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Your grammar was rather flawed, but ill try to make my way through it.

"What sucks? It sucks that we are polluting our earth to the point where we will kill it soon. WE are using our resources in such a poor maner that we will have no more natural ones. All of my complaining means and will do nothing but damn it is so crappy that we do this to ourselves."

why dont you do anything for the earth? its pretty obvious that your postings here arent helping enough. one would think its time to "take it up a knotch", that is , if you have the will to do so.