Response to Danial Quinn “Where we Went Wrong”
April 25th, 2009
|
| Share |
The following video was found on the site Panearth, which was posted on a comment by Steven Earl Milroy. While it may seem benign on the surface, I honestly can say it is one of the most chilling videos I have seen in a long time. What is so chilling is that people would support this philosophy. I just hope that any support for this belief is out of ignorance of history and the implications of such lifestyle. Those who would stand behind this, even aware of the historical context really take things to another level of cruelty and anti-humanism.
This video was made by Danian Quinn.
First the big question: Did we really go “wrong”? Modern society certainly gets plenty of criticism for its impacts on the enviornment and the fact that people no longer live “simple” and “natural” lives. There may be something to the claim that people have more complex lives with more to worry about. Of course, there’s a need to qualify the word “simple” in this context. If a “simple” life is one where one need not worry about things like bills to be paid, getting to their apointments on time and picking up the dry cleaning because they only have one daily task, namely backbreaking work in the fields and if their only worry is whether they’ll live much longer then one could call that simple, although I’ll take the complex hustle and bustle of modern life over that any day.
Of course, it is certainly true that there has been some impact on resources and environments due to industrialization. Humans cut down old growth forests, and dug up land for minerals. The other side, of course is that a person living in a modern society can reasonably expect to live into their 70’s. Numerous causes of death and misery have been avoided. In industrial societies people rarely die of bacterial infections, which were once the leading cause of death. Those with physical disabilities can lead productive, fulfilling lives, food is plentiful and the common person can even do things like travel to distant parts of the world, experience culture and scientific discoveries and communicate with their family.
And while net consumption of society may have increased, the per-capita impact has not necessarily risen so greatly, especially in light of greater effeciency in resource utilization. Maintaining the current population, or anything near it would not simply be unsustainable, it would be downright impossible – even at an extremely low standard of living. Deindustrialization can result in one and only circumstance: most people die.
It is not simply an issue of modern people having the means to go experience the Grand Canyon, Stonehenge or the ruins of ancient Rome. The very fact that people in modern societies have time to enjoy a movie, a Broadway show or even read a book is a distinct difference from centuries past when the very notion of entertainment, leisure and activities for enjoyment and personal fulfillment were the domain of the extravagantly wealthy.
The Industrial Revolution saw the largest jump in life expectancy and general health of the common person in human history. It also produced a mass migration toward cities and toward unified national societies. In countries where industrialization took root, it killed the last vestiges of tribalism and community isolation. In modern times, the Industrial Revolution has often been cast in an extremely negative light by those like Quinn, who will be quick to point out that industrialization often involved workers who lived in deplorable conditions as well as industries that polluted and consumed resources. While there may be some truth to these claims, they do not tell the full story of the social impacts of industrialization. To us, the tenements of Manhattan and the sweat shops of London may seem like a meager existence, but to those who lived in more primitive conditions, they were far more desirable than a life of digging potatoes in the countryside of Ireland or Poland. The masses of immigrants fled subsistence life to carve out a better existence in an industrial society, but few if any fled factories to find a better life toiling in the fields.
In part this was made possible by improvements in agricultural production which enabled a society to be formed in which most or all citizens are not occupied in subsistence agriculture. When food is so scarce that each person is occupied simply in the act of producing their own food, there is little opportunity for improvement. However, when a farmer can grow enough to feed ten families and not only one, that means that nine others can be employed at something else. The nine others may choose occupations which benefit the system in other ways: a blacksmith to produce plows for the farmer, a merchant to sell the farmer’s crops and the blacksmith’s wares in other areas, a coach builder to produce wagons to transport the goods, a broker to insure the farmer against drought and the merchant against product loss and so on. This is the essence of modern society and it is the only way that any individual can have any measure of choice in how they live their life.
On Tribalism:
Tribalism is the natural first order of human society which forms on its own when groups of otherwise unorganized people are left in an enviornment where they must fight each day to survive. In an anarchical, it offers an advantage for individuals to band together into groups that work to overcome their adversaries, seize land and have some rudimentary allegiance. Of course, such groups are not necessarily fair and democratic. Tribalism commonly involves chieftains who seize power by violence or are given power by their loyalty or relation to those who came before them.
There may be some tribal traits which are inherent to human tendencies, but there is also the natural advantage that it presents. Tribalism can be seen in modern street gangs and the pirates of areas like Somalia. In such circumstances where a cutthroat life is carved out in a land of limited resources and no society, those who do not band together will often be the first to die or be killed. Conversely, tribalism tends to die out when modern societies of plenty arrive. Examples of this can be seen in the Middle East, where tribalism continues to be a strong influence on society in the badlands of Northern Iran and the searing sands of central Saudi Arabia, despite tribalism being generally non-existent in the supermarkets and skyscrapers of Kuwait City or Dubai.
Tribalism is not limited to non-western societies. At one time, Europe itself was filled with marauding bands of Vikings, Celts, Franks, Anglos and others who lived in tribal societies. A return to this came in the middle-ages, where a pseudo-tribal society was formed in the form of small communities of serfs who worked the land under the leadership of noble lords, who passed on leadership to their offspring, just as many tribal chiefs do.
And as for those tribes in Brazil that this guy seems to like so much: They have an extremely low life expectancy and a lifestyle few outsiders would consider so Utopian. It has been alleged that these tribes practice infanticide, although claims have been made that this is fabricated as well. It would not be that unusual if this were the case, however. In many such societies, infants who are physically disabled may be left to die along with those who are too old to care for themselves or too sick. This may seem horrible and immoral to us, but it is important to keep this in context. These societies live in a manner so close to starvation and death that anyone who can’t pull their own weight simply can’t be taken care of. They don’t care for the disabled or those who can’t provide because they can’t. It is a brutal practice which is a necessity in such a brutal lifestyle.
Life Expectancy in Tribal Societies:
- Pre-Colombian North America: – 25-35
- (Extremely high childhood and adolescent mortality. Extremely high incidence of women dying in child birth)
- Isolated Brazilian Tribes: 42 years
- Afghanistan: 44.2 years
- (This is the average lifespan and it’s a bit deceptive since not all people in Afghanistan continue to live in tribal societies. Tribal lifespan is far lower than those living in more urban centers like Kabul, so the average is skewed by this)
It’s worth noting that despite claims to the contrary, these low life expectancies have nothing to do with exploitation by the West or by any kind of internal political corruption. Many of these tribes live isolated from modern society and as they have for hundreds of years. Their life expectancy was always extremely low, by modern standards. Death due to accidents, infectious disease, child birth and other conditions that would be preventable in much of the rest of the world. It is not as if things have gotten worse for such peoples because they have somehow been denied medical care or sanitation. Their sanitation, medical care and quality of life is just as brutal today as it was one hundred years ago and one thousand years ago.
On Agriculture:
“The easiest life of all is going out and Getting What is there already”
“By far those who have the easiest life, the most leisurely life, are those who hunt and gather”
Anyone who believes this should go out in the woods and see how difficult it is to find enough food for a good meal. The reality, of course, is that this is one of the most ridiculous claims around. Sure, picking up food that is already there is easy if by “already there” he means on the shelf at your local supermarket. The society we live in provides us with so much food that a person could pay for a days worth of caloric intake with the money made working for an hour at minimum wage.
Energy expenditure for foraging for food is difficult to quantify, as for one thing, there are plenty of areas where foraging for food is simply not a feasible method of getting by. Temperate areas may have some food available in certain seasons, although winter has historically been an extremely difficult time, even for the best prepared tribes. Without fruit or vegetables, mild scurvy was not uncommon in the winter months.
Even in areas with the best food sources, hunting and gathering is at best, extremely hit or miss. Hunting for food may prove to provide ample amounts of meat, assuming that the parties involved are lucky enough to have firearms, but without such technology, the methods involved may be as crude and dangerous as trying to heard groups of animals off of cliffs, while trying to avoid being trampled in the process.
Of course this is not a sustainable or even remotely feasible way of feeding any kind of sizable population. The Americas (North and South) currently have a combined population of more than one billion people and produce so much food that the two continents are large net exporters of foodstuffs. At the height of pre-Colombian population, no more than one hundred million natives lived on both continents, their population kept low more through attrition than low birth rates.
This is not to say that Native Americans lacked agriculture. Many native American tribes did extensively use agriculture. Of course, such agricultural activities were nowhere near the advanced levels of today’s farming, but it’s interesting to note that the Native American civilizations which achieved the highest levels of technical and cultural development were invariably those which used agriculture to the greatest degree, even exclusively. Likewise, Asian, European and Middle Eastern cultures developed to their maximum level of sophistication after embracing agriculture and leaving nomadic existence behind.
On Population:
There is something very important to note about tribalism, anti-technology, anti-civilization, anti-agriculture and similar schemes. These plans do indeed keep human population in check and in doing so they may reduce the overall human impact. Ironically, such societies have a much greater impact per population member on the local enviornment, but the net impact is smaller due to the lower population.
To see why this is the case one can use the simple example of sanitation in a society. If a modern country like the United States were to give up sewers and septic systems in favor of simply relieving oneself on the nearest tree, the impact on the enviornment would be enormous. Areas of high population density would become heavily polluted by human waste, causing disease, infestations of insects and other pests, pollution to the local water table and extreme effects on the local eco system. However, hundreds of years ago, when pre-Columbian natives lived in the same areas and lacked sewage treatment or septic tanks, the impact was low because there were so fewer individuals spread out over such a larger area.
Population is kept low in such societies, but it is by the most merciless of means. Death is rampant and life expectancy is extremely low. Birth rates are not lowered, but instead the opposit happens. In such societies, women may be pregnant nearly perpetually during the fertile years of their lives. Death during childbirth is extremely common and infant mortality is very high. Such societal dynamics encourage large families with many young children, as a signifficant proportion may not make it past adolescence. For those who do make it to adulthood, death in one’s 20’s or 30’s is commonplace with infectious disease being the number one killer. In some tribal societies those who make it to their 60’s or 70’s may be left to fend for themselves due to the scarcity of resources for the healthy members of the tribe.
It is also not uncommon for tribal societies to periodically be reduced in population due to epidemics of disease or famine, which can be caused by something as simple as a mild drought. Such events occasionally wipe out entire groups, but more often simply reduce the population of those less capable of enduring such stress. In extreme examples, this can lead to a generational gap when such an event wipes out an entire generation of children and infants.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 25th, 2009 at 1:09 pm and is filed under Agriculture, Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, History, Politics, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
April 26th, 2009 at 2:54 am
DV82XL said:
Because, according to him, hunter-gather life living in isolated tribes of families is the superior way of living and he says it even offers more leisure, better community, better happiness etc etc.
I think his vision of tribal life is not the nomads of the Afghan mountains or the backwaters of Brazil. I think his prototype for a tribal society is the group of children who live with Peter Pan on the enchanted island with Tinkerbell.
It’s sheer bull****, but he indicates this is a better way to live and it was better in centuries past. He might as well say “We need to go back to the days of tribalism when we didn’t live in these cold impersonal societies, back when we all danced around the lollypop trees and the fairies gave us gumdrops as they flew two and fro over the happy magic meadow. All our tribes would work to collect the magic amulets to make the potion that allowed us all to fly over the rainbows and to the merry land of tapdancing unicorns. That is what tribal life is all about”
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 2:59 am
This man somewhat reminds me of Emperor Norton the way he can speak endlessly of brainless nonsense that he somehow pretends is scholarly and important. Emperor Norton had more character and originality though. I like Emperor Norton better.
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I don’t know why people think that humankind moving to fossil fuels was a bad thing. Obviously they don’t realize how bad it was before when we burned wood and sometimes whales. I don’t think fossil fuels are perfect but they’re not the daemon they are made out to be. Oil is actually a pretty good fuel because distillates like gasoline burn very cleanly and produce as much water as co2 when they burn.
Your point about sanitation is a good one. Sewage treatment is much better than if an equal number of people just went to the restroom where they pleased. Human waste is distinctly worse than that of most animals in bacterial content. Compared to grazers, omnivores produce much worse waste that can be a health problem. The number of us there is, that would be a horrible thing. At worst we could get by with dugout latrines.
How about if we all farmed the land to feed ourselves? Such an absurd notion is a return to serfdom. It would be better than gathering tho. That was the most idiotic statement on the video. Few environments offer ample food for humans to go out and pick for themselves.
Tribalism is a response to anarchic and harsh conditions. When in such a brutal existence people band together into tribes. When things improve, tribalism becomes obsolete. People live as they do today by choice. Our society offers us choice because it can produce enough for everyone. If people really desired to live in a tribal system, they would organize themselves as such. Gangs are a little like tribes but otherwise people don’t choose to live that way.
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Chem Geek Gregor said:
It’s not that bad. I think any anthropologist would give you many examples of hunter-gatherer tribes that have lived rather idyllic lives for periods of time in certain areas of the world. If population is somehow controlled, and fish, game and wild foods are plentiful, as they were in many areas in pre-industrial environments. It really wouldn’t be that difficult to do, if it weren’t for certain human propensities for selfish actions, like producing too many children, when that is not sustainable.
There is a much bigger issue that underlies this particular eco-fantasy of Mr. Quinn. That is, the ratcheting effect of knowledge and technology. No matter how desirable it may become, turning back the clock on any technological development is pretty much impossible, Nuclear Weapons being a common example. Somehow we need to deal with new technologies, rather than like Mr. Quinn, hide behind some fantasy, to avoid the much more difficult task of using newer technologies to mitigate the effects of some newer technologies.
Regarding this issue, Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons – you ain’t seen nothing yet. There will be anti-matter, pure fusion weapons, easy to manufacture and terrifying bioweapons, EMP weapons that can shut down an entire city or an entire country, space based weapons, genetically engineered superior humans, and one of the toughest – Intelligent Machines. Unless there is some magic in the human brain, we can expect machines to become smarter than humans – and that will inevitably lead to human consciousness either merging with machine intelligence or the end of human dominance over what was once our civilization. But it may well be that it is virtually impossible for a technological civilization to survive – nor is it possible for it to turn back the clock on it’s technological developments in order to survive. There is a Sci-Fi novel, the name escapes me, about an alien civilization that goes through perpetual cycles of destroying itself – than rebuilding and doing it all over again. That indeed may be the resolution to Fermi’s Paradox: Where are all the Alien Civilizations?
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Warren Heath said:
Are you referring to The Mote In God’s Eye, by Niven and Pournelle?
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Warren Heath said:
Doomsayers have predicted the Fall of Man many times, all prematurely, my suspicion is that Vernor Vinge is right: we are approaching the point of a Singularity. Vinge used the term Singularity for a very good reason. It’s an event horizon in the truest sense. Instead of a cosmological event horizon caused by a black hole’s gravitational pull, it’s a social event horizon caused by our inability to extrapolate the trajectory of human civilization beyond a certain point of technological sophistication.
The Singularity, therefore, describes a futurological problem — a blind-spot in our predictive thinking. So most of what you speak of is extrapolation that will be rendered meaningless, simply because we cannot see what we will become, anymore than a medieval philosopher could see the Internet.
Warren Heath said:
The Mote in God’s Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Note to Warren Heath: You posted the same comment on another post which it was not relevant to and I assume this was simply a copy and past error to the wrong page. This same comment was on the post about morgellons.
I deleted it as it seemed obvious to me that this was probably a simple error. If that’s a problem I can restore that. I don’t want to be accused of silencing anyone
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
DV82XL said:
Vinge’s peace war and marooned in realtime are great reads. One thing is that the singularity doesn’t have to happen. There is always the chance that something like this could happen:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2009/04/high-above-bloody-streets-below.html
Dubai is a classic case of something like that beginning, with the rest of us forconstrained by the regulations of the statists who will exempt themselves. Or the gloabal civilisation could just implode like the Western Roman empire did with the economy returning to feudalistic barter in less than a generation.
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
J Carlton said:
See to me that’s just extrapolation based on historical precedent, valid to a point, but The Singularity (frankly I dislike the term, but we are stuck with it) by definition is the point where that breaks down. Sure there are going to be people, like the Dubai set, that think that things are going to progress as always in a straight line, and are buying in to that prediction, but that doesn’t mean they are right. As for total collapse, these things were always local, we have a global civilization the shear weight of which will be able to survive events that take down something as small and disconnected as the late Roman Empire.
By every indication, and despite the laments of the Green’s and the simplicity movement we are moving swiftly into a post scarcity economy and this will only accelerate once everyone pull their heads out of their collective asses and we move to embrace nuclear energy.
But the point is that technology is developing so fast that it is really not possible to see clearly into the future. Hell I grew up on SF and PopSci, and I never saw that one day I’d be doing what I am at this moment, even though I bought into the idea that there was going to be a computer terminal in every home. We have to stop trying to predict the future and start to enable it – more bandwidth and more energy should be our objectives – the future will take us where it wants.
Quote Comment
April 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Finrod said:
Thanks, that’s the book – an excellent read. Battlestar Galactica also had a somewhat similar idea, although a ludicrous, unrealistic version and their resolution on the final episode would have only ensured human extinction (thus the end of the cycle) or a slightly slowed down development of the next cycle.
DV82XL said:
I totally agree with what you’ve stated. We are approaching a future, with numerous technologies converging to a point of potential salvation or catastrophe or anything in between, and it is fun but futile to predict just what that future will be. Between AI, Biotechnology, Nuclear Fusion, NanoTechnology, Artificial Life, and even some potential “black swans” like “The Final Theory of Physics”, SETI or Quantum Consciousness could overwhelm any grandiose pronouncements made by Environmentalists, Politicians or Religious Leaders.
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Phew. Glad I found at least one page linked to this video had some sanity. It scares me that so many people support this crap.
I believe we do not have tribes because we do not need them. When given the opertunity to freely associate people don’t form distinct segrigated groups. There may be some groups and cliques formed, but they’re don’t have hard boundies. I have friends from a few years I don’t talk to much anymore and new friends in different social circles. That is how a large prosperous society functions, we are all connected. I think the idea that people assemble into tribes and bands is something you see in times of despiration and lack of freedom. Tribal life is a survival tactic. It also is very limiting. Tribal life means putting power in unelected lords and being trapped in a community.
This man’s ideals are based on fantasy. He believes the world is full of good food for the taking and people want to live in tribes but somehow are forced not to. He is wrong on both counts.
This is what many of my peers believe, however. I’m very afraid that it could end up destroying all we have.
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 7:29 am
when I was in school I had a friend majoring in anthropology, he asked me one day how much time I thought the prehistoric people spent “hunting and gathering” – he had been told the answer was about two hours a day. I thought, Wow – can that be right. what are we doing in this rat-race??
well a little (very little) time spent thinking about this reveals the issues noted by most of the commenters above: very few people, living in a nearly perfect tropical setting…
the point is, true or not, this was being taught as true and the implication (especially in the mid 1970s) was obvious – “we have gone wrong.” The implication should have been “so what?” I guess the nitwit in the video never grew up, never realized that those hunter gatherers lived in a different world. Its like someone yearning for the gardern of eden.
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
gman said:
It’s not just “like someone yearning”; that’s exactly what it is.
As Michael Crichton observed and pointed out: “environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.” And here we see a perfect example of the remapping of the Garden of Eden Myth, a powerful tale of the Grace before the Fall.
What is the Grace? Primitive man living in “perfect harmony” with nature, without any of the worries and dangers of our lives today.
What is the Fall? Industrialization, of course, along with everything that we associate with the hassles of modern life.
The one key difference, which I should point out, is that Judeo-Christian belief makes it clear that there is no going back. The Fall is permanent, and mankind will never recover Eden. The best that can be had — in Christian doctrine, at least — is that the death of Christ and belief in him can somehow place us back into that exalted state spiritually, but we’ll never make it back into the garden physically.
The religion of Environmentalism, however, as interpreted by a significant number of its practitioners (including Quinn), teaches that the idyllic state that existed before the Fall can be recovered, simply by returning to the lifestyle and practices that were used before. This is a dangerous proposition, since this mythical idyllic state never existed to begin with.
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
BMS said:
I disagree. In Christianity you’re taught that you must be humble, live to serve god, be extremely apologitic and slightly self-loathing for all you have done wrong and do penance for it. You must free yourself of temptation and not cave to greedy desires. Also, you’re strongly encouraged to make everyone around you do the same.
Failure to do this and you burn. Do it well enough and you are rewarded with a great afterlife. Another persistent belief is that the end is coming and is likely near because we are seeing the signs that come before the Apocalypse. We need to take sides and decide if we want to be saved or suffer on the miserable battlefields of earth in Armageddon.
Environmentalism is the same thing: The end is near. How near? Not sure, but all the signs indicate it is very soon. To the enviornmental lobby, global warming does not mean that things get more difficult or humanity needs to adapt. It is doomsday and it is soon. Peak oil/peak energy/global warming is their doomsday. To them these events are not set-backs they are end alls – the death of humanity. They teach that if you give up your unholy ways and start living a low-energy, low-material, low-standard life then there may still be time for you to be saved when doomsday comes. However, you are running out of time so you must repent now before the end arrives.
By the way: I’m not against environmentalism in the sense of using science and rational thought to control human impacts on the enviornment and to improve resource utilization and the inevitable effects that civilization creates. I’m all for better sewage treatment, better containment or remediation of hazardous waste, preservation of natural areas and species. Also I find coal power appalling and I think we’re becoming way too reliant on natural gas. I also think that some practices of oil recovery and refining are intolerably harmful.
I don’t consider it a philosophical/religious/political thing.
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Is there anyone here who thinks we could have had a renewables-dominated global energy economy if technology had developed differently?
For example, if electric motors and generators had been invented earlier than practical heat engines (so that electricity is popularized when renewables are still the Only Game in Town as far as prime-movers go), could wind and water power have acquired a similar commanding position to that occupied by fossil fuels in our world? (I was inspired in that question by the Gurkani Alam alternate history.)
Or do people here believe that few if any of our technological choices are strongly historically contingent?
Quote Comment
April 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
George Carty said:
No. Renewables would not dominate the global energy econemy because there just ain’t enough energy there to do it. This really doesn’t have to do with technology. Whether you can improve the energy effeciency of a wind turbine by whatever percent doesn’t change the fact that it’s still dealing with a slow moving, light weight fluid with a minimal pressure differential that just does not carry much energy per a given volume.
Inductive generators came around in the 1830’s but didn’t really mature to being able to be major systems for powering anything until the late 1800’s. There wasn’t much reason given that electricity was a curiosity that had limited uses, the most notable being telegraphy.
In telegraphy, electricity is not valuable for its ability to carry energy and power things. It’s valuable because of its speed as a force applied remotely. Aside from that there were arc lights which were only occasionally used, experiments and a few primative motors. Electricity was used to some degree in chemical processes like electroplating.
What makes electricity valuable is that it’s an excellent means of transporting energy. If you don’t have much energy to begin with then electricity doesn’t do you much good as an energy mover. The thing that makes it nice is its easy to carry by thin, simple to install wires and then you can turn it into heat, mechanical energy or light relatively easily. You can transport energy by cam shafts or hydrolic fluids or steam or belts and pullys but electricity makes it possible to do that for considerable distances and with much greater ease.
The only “renewable” energy source that is even worthwhile for development by electricity is hydro power. Wind was used to power things in the past, but it never really cut it for much besides pumping water and slow milling of low volumes of grain. In those cases it was used because it was all that was avaliable to turn a shaft other than having humans or animals do it. (and animals were commonly used).
If we had motors and generators before steam engines the only thing I can think they might find use for would be to allow for mills and factories to be built further away from rivers. Instead of a mill being right on a river with a dam, it might be a few miles away in an area more easily accessed or closer to a railroad… oh wait… no steam engines… nevermind. Well.. I guess you could have electrified rail, but that would be kinda limited by primary energy.
If anything, discovering these things could be done with electricity would have forced the invention of steam engines by creating a despirate need for mechanical energy to drive the generators.
Quote Comment
April 28th, 2009 at 2:50 am
George Carty said:
Impossible to tell. Butterfly flaps its wings and all, but I don’t think it’s possible that things would really be put towards wind and water being the prime movers. Wind is a no-go in general and water works but only where you have it.
There is a belief that if we throw enough money at R&D well somehow change everything and I agree with Buzz that is not the case. no matter how you go about things there’s only so much energy a blowin in the wind and that is the hard limit you’ve got your back against.
In the early days of electricity wasn’t it really used heavily for lighting and not so much for other end uses? or maybe I’m wrong there.
Quote Comment
April 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
George Carty said:
We did, once. Although global just expresses the fact that it occured everywhere on the globe since man was living in small isolated tribes in constant war against each other.
Quote Comment
April 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
George Carty said:
The problem is that you need thin steel plates to make a workable electric motor or the magnetic fields will not saturate. For that you need steel in thin rolled form which requires two thing, A heavy blast, enough to run a Besemer converter and large horse power motors to run the rolls. The Saugus ironworks is a good example of an ironworks before the steam engine and they didn’t have the blast pressure to make steel even if they knew about it. For a really good look at how things connect get James Burke’s “Connections.”
Quote Comment
April 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
George Carty said:
Of course we did have a renewables-dominated global energy economy at one point, based on organically produced fuels, wind and animal power with a bit of hydro. Like now there wasn’t enough to do what was needed which is why humanity moved to coal in the first place.
George Carty said:
Hydro was considered the ideal prime mover for electric generation right from the beginning which is why it was exploited at places like Niagara Falls No businessman would chose to pay for fuel if he did not have to. Again: there is just not enough – the same problem.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Russ said:
I was thinking along the lines of “Changing to a distributed renewables-based electrical system now would be ruinously expensive because our civilization has been built around fossil fuel technology, but could such an infrastructure have been built over a timescale of centuries”?
I’m wondering if the author of the Gurkani Alam site has been taken in by the Lovins mystique — according to the section on energy technology, almost every building (other than places of worship) that can carry a wind turbine does, and almost all bridges host hydro generators in their piers. I can’t see how such extensive use of renewables would be cost-competitive with heat engines, either driven by fossil fuels, or by nuclear energy (which is apparently less used than in the real world, mainly in submarines and spacecraft, despite being developed earlier).
I wonder what a more realistic tech progression would be, given the premise of that alternate timeline (Mughal Empire remains strong and independent, and has an electricity-based Industrial Revolution coterminous with the West’s steam-engine-based one). I couldn’t see them developing steam engines independently (tropical climate eliminates the need to heat buildings, and means much less coal would be burned – mainly just for iron manufacture. Therefore less need for pumps in coal mines.) Perhaps they’d just buy steam engines from the Europeans (while selling their electrical tech in exchange)? Or perhaps being a Muslim country (though much more tolerant of non-Muslims than they were in the real world) they’d learn quite early about the Middle East’s petroleum reserves – maybe internal combustion engines would have been invented much earlier. Or maybe some other type of heat engine, which never became important in the real world…
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
George Carty said:
A distributed renewables-based electrical system is not something that would have grown spontaneously under any circumstances because the technical difficulties would be so great that even had the idea come to fore, it would still be easer to develop a centralized system. Look, any commercial technology will always go for the low-hanging fruit first. With electric power that would mean hydro in the absence of steam anyway, when that had been exploited to the max, I suspect that heat engines would have been developed to provide prime movers for your scenario, before there was any move towards wind and solar. Because the latter are hard to make economic enough for grid use.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
DV82XL said:
That being the case, perhaps in this alternate history hydro would have ended up being used to an extent far greater than it ever was or is, because with lack of any other mechanism to provide large amounts of energy the only way to get it once the good hydroelectric sites were taken would have been to use the less-optimal ones.
In that case maybe Niagra falls would no longer exist because instead of having some of the water diverter, ALL would have been, maybe even with canals dug to bring in more water and lowering the great lakes in the process.
In this alternate history the desperation for power from water would be so great that dams were built in every location where there was any possibility, even if damage to the local enviornment were huge. Huge areas flooded, maybe a series of dams on the Mississippi that would have turned most of Wisconsin and Minnesota into a huge reservoir.
My fictional alternate history:
Wars over oil would be replaced with wars to seize territory where good hydro reserves existed. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Brazil would be the big energy barons of the world and instead of world wars that saw the takeover of France and Poland, there would be wars over the Scandinavia countries with the European powers wanting to control them so they could have their electricity.
Canada is now part of the US. It was annexed during the times of conquest in the late 1800’s. There was no Mexican American war, because nobody cares about the Southwest – except maybe for the Rio Grande. The US took over Canada after many in Quebec objected to most of their province being flooded as part of the massive Saint Lawrence Hydroelectric Project of 1890. Since then the French Canadians have formed their own country by moving further north. The nation of New Quebec is poor because the only land left lacked rivers, but the ingenious citizens, lead by DV82XL are about to change that with the massive Hudson Bay-Atlantic tidal connector project which will make them a hydroelectric power.
The Cold War sees the US watching Russia building a massive trans-Siberian ultra high voltage connector and there is a very sinister implication to this, because we fear that they are planning on invading North America so they can seize our dams and transmit the power back home through Alaska. Russia claims that they only want to purchase electric power on the fair market from New Quebec once they finish their connector, but still, it is scaring the Americans.
The US, however, despite controlling most of former Canada, is not what is today in power. Much of the Territory in the US now belongs to the CSA (Confederate States of America), who won the Civil War. There was never really any contest, because the South had much greater supplies of the major portable, multipurpose power source: Human muscle in the form of slaves. Slavery is still alive and well in the CSA. In the USA, slavery is not entirely illegal, but it’s more restricted. You need a license to own slaves and you need to pay a duty on them each year and have them submit to random health inspections.
Slavery has also made something of a return to most of the old world. If you even questioned the morality of it, most Europeans and Americans would look at you like you had three eyes. “Slavery? What’s wrong with it? We treat them fairly well. How could we possibly have a civilized society without slaves? Who would dig the canals for the hydro systems?”
In the Middle East, Egypt is the only country with a truly massive massive hydro capacity thanks to the Aswan dam, which was built decades earlier and has collapsed twice each time killing hundreds of thousands. After being rebuilt, the Egyptians can dictate their terms to the North Africans and much of the middle east or they pull the plug.
War in Israel is so constant and bloody that it makes today conflict seem very gentle. The prize is the Jordan River. Likewise the Tigress is constantly fought over, but still these rivers don’t have anywhere near the power of the Nile. Egypt becomes a superpower due to its need for a huge military to guard the river.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Nouveau-Québec is already a region, bounded on the south by the Eastmain River, on the west by James and Hudson bays, on the east by Labrador, and on the north by the Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay. The region was formerly part of the Northwest Territories, but was annexed by Québec in 1912. It is the largest subdivision of the province. There are even now major hydroelectric schemes in progress on the rivers flowing into James Bay, especially the La Grande (the ‘James Bay Project.’
Because if there is one thing there is no lack of in Québec, it is rivers.
In your take, I suspect that it would be the northern part of Canada draining into the Arctic ocean, and Hudson Bay that would be the most valuable.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
DV82XL said:
Pointy taken. In any case, the world has been carved up by various powers constantly fighting over land with good water resources and much of the habitable land has been submerged by dams or cut apart by canals.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
drbuzz0 said:
You’re in the wrong timeline pal – the situation you’ve described sounds so bad you must be thinking “What if fossil fuels didn’t exist” rather than “What if electrical devices were invented 100 years earlier”. I think it’s more likely that they’d start with wind and water power, but quickly outgrow it and switch to heat engines of some kind…
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
George Carty said:
It amounts to the same thing George, because the only way electric motors would have predated heat engines, would have been in a world without fossil fuels. Science might be practiced in the pure form, but engineering is a commercial activity, and you just don’t get cases were the more difficult path is taken first.
Wind was available, and was well understood from way back, but because it is intermittent, it was never seriously considered for large-scale electrical generation. It is economics that drives the selection of energy sources and nothing else. I’m don’t think your world would have ever come to pass.
Quote Comment
April 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Industrial Society is destroying necessary things [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things [consumer goods].
“Growth Rate” – “Economy Rate” – “GDP”
These are figures of “Ecocide”.
These are figures of “crimes against Nature”.
These are figures of “destruction of Ecosystems”.
These are figures of “Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality”.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature [Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land].
Chief Seattle of the Indian Tribe had warned the destroyers of ecosystems way back in 1854 :
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you realize that you cannot eat money.
To read the complete article please follow any of these links.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
sushil_yadav
Delhi, India
Quote Comment
April 30th, 2009 at 3:59 am
DV82XL said:
What dictates that the initial deployment of electrical technology has to be “large-scale” though? From a New Scientist article:
Quote Comment
April 30th, 2009 at 4:28 am
George Carty said:
As was mentioned earlier electric motors presuppose a level of metallurgy that would have required processes that needed the sort of power one could only get from steam at that time. Not only that, the implied supposition that steam power was developed for workshop motive power is just not so. They were developed to pump water from mines, a task that any electric motor that could be built with 18th century materials would not be able to do.
The whole article is deeply flawed in that it seem to assume that a given technology develops in a vacuum, independent of other developments outside its field, and this is just not so. The development of electrical technology was dependent on several advances in material and material availability, some of which was directly related to steam, just as steam depended on work done in the field of artillery. There is a certain path of development that these things took, and one cannot postulate a major change in the arrival of one without assuming huge changes in the route that got it there.
As for your leading question: What dictates that the initial deployment of electrical technology has to be large-scale? The answer is economics – it is simply cheaper to amortize the cost over a large group of users, much cheaper than it would be for each to generate their own power.
Like it or not, money always bats last in these matters.
Quote Comment
April 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
It’s a matter of effeciency. Edison was a fan of the idea that there would be a power plant in every neighborhood. This partially due to his relatively low voltage DC system, but it was also something of a design philosophy.
It would likely have been much much worse for the local enviornment if the “distributed” system had been the norm. Wind just plain doesn’t give you the power you need, regardless of how it’s deployed. With the exception of those who happened to be living near a river or stream, everyone else would have the equivalent of a medium sized steam locomotive in their neighborhood chugging day and night to provide power.
Quote Comment
May 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
George Carty said:
I just spent the day at the CT Antique Machinery Association’s Spring power up and I came to some conclusions vis a vis this argument. 1. Early electric motors were neither small nor cheap. They required a lot of labor to construct and the quality of materials available for insulation forces the coils to be larger than current motors. 2. Steam engines could come in any size you want. This makes it fairly easy to size the power for your mill. 3. These engines were available earlier than I thought, high pressure engine being common in the early nineteenth century. 4. The stationary steam engine was efficient enough to remain a viable power source much further into the 20th century than I thought, with examples still operating almost to the current day.
As for small grids becoming common, electrical engineers were aware of the possible ecomonomies of scale obtained by using high voltage ac transmission from the first decade of the 20th century according to source material in the engineering literature that I have seen from that period. The efficiency advantages of larger power plant were also known from the earliest days of electricity. This is especially true because the largest early user of electricity were transit and railroad companies, with industrial and residential users falling far behind as far as usage is concerned. This forces a grid structure because a railroad is spread over miles of line. In fact many of the engineering tools for the grid came about as a result of the New Haven Railroad’s pioneer efforts to electrify. The first grid proposal was written by the New Haven’s chief electrical engineer, William Spencer Murray. There are just too many advantages for distributed electricity not to happen.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
I looked at the Gurkani Alam timeline (I was a bit of a sucker for it – I found appealing the idea of a world where technological progress was faster, and not monopolized by Western cultures) in a bit more detail, and I’m not sure that the metallurgy concerns cited here would a problem, as electric motors and generators were invented about a decade after Watt steam engines. However given that, the emphasis on renewables does seem somewhat strange (why not just use Watt engines to power the generators, giving technogical progress that is faster, but on a course much more similar to OTL).
I culled some of the info from the timeline on technological progress in the 18th and 19th centuries and repeated it here, in case anyone would like to try retconning it. In most cases, I give the OTL date for comparison purposes:
1711 – Newcomen steam engine (same as in OTL)
1715 – Leyden jar (1745 in OTL)
1742 – Linkage between electricity and magnetism discovered (1820 in OTL)
1744 – Primitive electric motor (1821 in OTL)
1755 – Electric telegraph (1809 in OTL)
1764 – Watt steam engine (1765 in OTL)
1769 – Steam-powered vehicle (1771 in OTL)
1775 – Commercially-viable electric motor (1832 in OTL)
1776 – Punch-card operated loom (1801 in OTL)
1776 – Dynamo (1832 in OTL)
1777 – Electrical wind turbines (with battery backup) and water turbines
1778 – Primitive electric car (1828 in OTL)
1781 – Electric arc lamp (early 19th century OTL)
1785 – Steam-driven boat
1790 – Transatlantic telegraph cable (1857 in OTL)
1791 – Steam-driven military armoured car
1793 – Telephone (1876 in OTL)
1799 – Gatling gun (1861 in OTL)
1799 – Electric locomotive (1837 in OTL)
1800 – Electric trolleybus (1882 in OTL)
1801 – Steam locomotive (1804 in OTL)
1802 – Alternator (1832 in OTL)
1812 – Machine gun (1881 in OTL)
1830 – Commercially-viable electric car (1881 in OTL)
1830 – Programmable mechanical computer
1833 – Ocean-going steam ship (1838 in OTL)
1840 – Pure-steam warship (1859 in OTL)
1841 – Internal combustion engine (1860s in OTL)
1850 – Electromechanical computer (late 1880s in OTL)
1852 – Computer-to-computer communication via the telegraph/telephone system
1855 – Commercial internal-combustion-engine car (1885 in OTL)
1856 – Mass-produced steam car
1859 – Steam-driven tracked tank
1873 – Steam turbine (1884 in OTL)
1874 – Radio signal (1895 in OTL)
1877 – Discovery of radioactivity (1896 in OTL)
1878 – Fixed-wing powered aircraft (1903 in OTL)
1880 – Mass-produced internal-combustion-engine car (1908 in OTL)
1895 – Radar (1930s in OTL)
1896 – Beginning of quantum physics (1900 in OTL)
1896 – Sonar (1913 in OTL)
1899 – Commercial radio broadcasting (1920 in OTL)
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
George Carty said:
Inventions happen when they do for reasons. No development is discreet in of itself. Each has a history that isn’t immediately obvious. For instance my example of electric power grid coming about because of railroad electrification. That only came about because JP Morgan liked to play around with electricity. Which means that high speed rail only exists because J. P. Morgan was a closet geek. History is made of stuff like this. Every technological development has a network of things behind it and creates a netowrk for future developments. Consider in your case where your alternate timeline that Dynamos were invented in 1776. Not possible. Rubber did not exist as a marketable product in 1776. In fact it wouldn’t exist for another hundred years:
http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofrubbe_rcml.htm
Then there is the problem of machining. The tools to make the parts for a dynamo just did not exist until at least thirty years later. Even then the precision tools and techniques required to make a working electric motor or dynamo just would not exist until the mid 19th Century and only then because the steam engine industry required such tools and precision.
You can’t just break connections and hope to come up with technologie out of whole cloth. Pehaps the best explanation of why is a TV series and book called “Connections” by James Burke. Here’s Burke’s connections to get you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g
The connection related to a technology are not obvious. For instance the mass production of automobiles came about from tecchniques developed by the bicycle industry, which used techniques from New England gunmakers, who developed those techniques because the US Army ordnance dept. had a fetish for interchangeable parts in small arms and spent large sums of money and fifty years to get truly interchangeable parts in firearms and basically created the American Machine tool industry in the process.
In order to understand how a technology comes about you need to understand the process and not just the product.
Some More good stuff:
Appletons:
http://www.history.rochester.edu/appleton/apple.htm
U of Rochester steam engine library:
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/
Westinghouse at the turn of the last century:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/papr/west/westhome.html
And Lindasy books for books on good stuff:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Jcarlton, BSME said:
I remember being somewhat astonished to discover just how much of the Industrial Revolution depended on the machine screw which itself had been developed to address the increased precision needed in navigational instruments like the sextant. High tolerance lead-screws allowed for the development of the machine lath from which most other machine tools sprung.
Quote Comment
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Chief Seattle of the Indian Tribe had warned the destroyers of ecosystems way back in 1854 :
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you realize that you cannot eat money.
Except, of course, that there is no evidence that Chief Sealth (the correct spelling) ever said any such thing. A slaveholder who became a devout Roman Catholic, he skillfully used his oratory and political skills in forming an alliance with white settlers to counter territorial encroachment by competing native tribes.
The speech you cite was written by a Hollywood screenwriter in 1971.
(Hint: If you expect to be taken seriously, spend a couple of minutes thinking rather than regurgitating debunked nonsense in your comments. Also, abusing bold face doesn’t improve credibility.)
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2009 at 12:30 am
(Forgot the whole reason I started to comment…)
If indeed there were such a thing as “cosmic justice” Quinn and the rest of the “noble savage” idealists and neo-Malthusians would have been pushed out to sea on an iceberg long ago.
History is a list of consequences. The Industrial Revolution happened where and when it did for reasons more related to philosophy than innovative potential. Not for nothing did improved nutrition and health, infant survival, abolition of slavery, better quality of life, rising life expectancy and every other benefit of industrialization follow The Enlightenment. Progress and societal advancement occur when minds are free to create and individuals are able to reap the benefits of their labor — exactly what is constrained under tribalism.
Quinn knows this. He simply doesn’t care. He’ll yammer away for rest of his worthless life, never having to live that way while demanding that you must; all the while enlisting the cooperation of the state in ramming it down your and your children’s throats.
You should all see right through him for the greasy dog he is.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Moriarty said:
I think most of the regular readers of this site probably do (except maybe Bruce). Only I might use different terminology, because the author has expressed a fondness of the domestic dog so it might come across as too complimentary.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2009 at 1:50 am
It was a different way to live in the past when death was constant. I can’t imagine it. Today I expect to live to 70 or 80. I had a cousin die at age 30 a few years ago. He died in a car accident. My whole family was hurt by it because they thought he was too young, he didn’t have a full life, he didn’t have kids and he had wanted to and so on.
I can’t imagine what it must be like to live in a world where death occurs normally at any age. If someone is 20 and dies, that is not abnormal. If they are 12, again not abnormal. What would that be like? Would you not form the same kind of bonds with people?
What of death in childbirth? If a woman dies, that leaves her husband to raise the children but how can he when he will likely be busy hunting? is he to take another wife? Maybe this is why women are married off at age 12.
It seems like a miserable way to live. I am grateful that we live in an age where our lives are long and death is not a constant likelihood. Young people in their prime only die every once in a while and most can look forward to a full life. That’s good. I would live in constant pain from who I’d have lost most recently otherwise.
remember that nature is not kind and evolution encourages a species not to live a long healthy life, but just to reproduce as fast as possible, even if that means many lives are lost. Evolution can favor quantity over quality. In that way, it does not care how successful individuals are, as long as enough live to mkae more of the species. Natural is not the way you want things to be!
Quote Comment
May 8th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Among the bought-and-paid-for politicians in Washington, DC, the Greedy Boys of Greenwich and the Wonder Boys of Wall Street, is there one human being in this “Axis of Arrogance and Greed” who will speak out for something other than their own selfish interests?
Who is going to stand up and speak out clearly, loudly and often as President Barack Obama is doing?
Many voices are needed now.
Quote Comment
May 8th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Steven Earl Salmony said:
Uh… well I don’t live in DC, but I do live fairly close to Greenwhich and I’m entirely in favor of pro-buisiness and consumerism and all the other things that go along with it. I am very much in favor of Wall Street, as long as the beurocratic institutions don’t f**** things up with subprime subsidies and so on. Definately pro-capitalism and not afraid to admit that I enjoy things like my flat panel monitors and my BluRay player.
However… as far as speaking on things other than selfishness… This might come as a shock to you, but you’ll notice that on this website you’ll often encounter phrases like “raising the worldwide standard of living” or “improving health” and “enviornmental footprint”
I’ve also been pretty damn candid about my dislike of coal burning, deforestation, water polution, poor water management, unsafe dams and many other things that have little effect on me. Hell, if you ead this article then you might notice that most of what I talk about is things involving ecological management and humanitarian issues.
I’m really starting to get annoyed with this constant strawman attack that those who are pro-nuclear, pro-technology, pro-fertilizer, pro-human civilization, pro-buisiness and don’t buy into the Unabomber Manifesto are somehow greedy and selfish. If I was only concerned with my own needs it would not bother me so damn much that there are people losing their homes in India to underground coal fires or that world heritage sites are being dug up for coal in central Germany.
Hell, if I really just cared about myself, I’d have no problem with the “organic food” movement. Hell, I’m a fat fairly well off American and I know if the world’s food supplies are cut in half, I won’t be the one going hungry!
You know what it is? it’s a sign of weakness this idea that you can’t take on the arguments of someone else so you have to just keep calling their side selfish and dishonest in the hopes that it will eventually stick.
I think I explained why I so strongly disagree with Mr Quinn here and I’d invite you to take apart my arguments and show the flaws you find in them. That is how we can actually have a meaningful discussion!
Quote Comment
May 8th, 2009 at 4:18 am
drbuzz0 said:
Steven Earl Salmony doesn’t read what any of us write here Doc. His comments are just spam in the hope of driving some traffic to his own site. He never engages with anyone, he just shows up, pulls down his pants, takes a dump. and leaves.
Quote Comment
May 8th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Steven Earl Salmony said:
I wonder how come it is that people who are ambitious and talented, making their own way and sharing their gifts with the rest of us are considered “greedy” when they want to keep the fruits of their labor, but those that steal other people’s labor, time, freedom and lives are considered almost saints, such as Barry Obama, who is turning into a venal vindictive greedy bully.
Quote Comment
May 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I do not mind when someone disagrees with me on an issue like this and actually I invite them to show me why I am wrong and they are right because I believe that discussion and even arguments on this is how we can resolve things and expand our understanding on both sides. I’ll admit that on a few occasions I’ve even had my mind changed by someone who makes a good argument that I had not considered before. I don’t mind being told that my view is falwed or wrong, but I want to know WHY. I don’t want to hear “you’re wrong and greedy” without someone backing it up. To me it is intellectually empty to call something wrong just because it is.
I think that people who are very confident in their way of thinking should honestly welcome discent the way scientists who are confident an experiment are willing to allow others to examine it for flaws, because it strengthens their side.
Steven Earl Salmony does not fall into the catagory of people who have simulated me to reexamine how I see things and it’s a shame someone like that can’t rise to the challenge of facing off and giving some mental stimulation by defending things. I don’t mean any mallace but I believe he is wrong in many ways and I’d like to hear him defend that, because I’m not afraid to defend my side.
Isn’t the whole idea of freedom of speech and open dialog that those who agree and disagree can do battle with their words instead of battle with their swords? I realize it can be considered rude to provoke a political debate out of place, but a blog that tackles this is exactly the place for such debate to happen.
Quote Comment
May 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Moriarty said:
Mental work is injurious to the mind and planet.
Life was never good in the past.
Life will never be good in future.
Life can never be good.
Suffering is a part of life – an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.
There is Physical suffering – There is Mental suffering.
In pre-industrial society there were physical diseases caused by virus and bacteria.
In modern society there are hundreds of lifestyle related physical diseases – Cancer, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity, Multiple Organ Failures.
Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.
We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.
There is no higher purpose behind work.
People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.
The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.
Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]
All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.
When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.
When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense – so unbearable – that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes – they can stop work/activity only under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.
People work because they cannot stop working.
It does not matter what kind of work we do – whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.
[ In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of restlessness/ anxiety/ suffering into peace. This requires ability and years of effort ]
For most people the choice is between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.
Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.
When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.
After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products– a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).
When we make consumer goods we kill Animals/ Trees, Air/ Water and Land – directly or indirectly.
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems – all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.
It hardly matters whether it is “Capitalist Industrial Society” – “Communist Industrial Society” – or “Socialist Industrial Society”.
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning – when consumer goods are produced – when consumer goods are used – when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.
Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.
Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. Industry kills Water. What to speak of Rivers – entire Oceans have been polluted.
Industry/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.
Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.
When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.
When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.
Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.
Today 50% of world population – 3 bilion people are living in cities. The necessary work of growing/producing Food is being done outside cities – in villages and countryside. Most of the people living in cities are engaged in unnecessary work – making things, buying things and selling things. The switch-over from Physical work to Mental work/ Desk job has led to an endless cycle of unnecessary and destructive work.
When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all – 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.
Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter – these are necessities.
Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes – you will then know what necessity is.
Stop drinking water for a few days – you will then know what necessity is.
Stop eating food for a few days – you will then know what necessity is.
Today people are making thousands of consumer goods – not because they are necessities – but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work – After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. Industrial Society is destroying necessary things[Animals,Trees,Air,Water and Land] for makng unnecessary things[Consumer Goods]. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return – once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.
If we live a simple life there is individual suffering – but no largescale destruction of Environment.
If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering – plus largescale destruction of Environment.
The nature of mental work is such that man has to do new mental work every day- in fact he has to do new mental work every moment- Man cannot repeat in the next moment the mental work that he has already done in the previous moment.
A mathematician cannot solve the same problem of mathematics every day- once he has solved it he will be forced to take up a new( unsolved) problem. Even when he is solving one particular problem he has to move from one step to another – there is a continuous change involved — there is no constancy at any stage.
An engineer cannot design the same machine again and again –once he has made a machine he will try to make changes/ design a new one.
A writer cannot write the same article every day- he will be forced to write something new every day/ every moment (This is also the reason behind endless discussions/ debates/ arguments).
Discussions, Debates and Arguments.
Let us examine how much discussion we are collectively having in Industrial Society every day.
Millions of pages in print – newspapers / books / magazines.
Millions of web-pages on internet every day.
Now add to this all the conversation (discussion) we are having through radio / television / telephone and several other media every day.
And add to this all the discussion we are having through face-to-face interaction.
The volume of discussion per individual in one week is greater than the total discussion someone living in pre-industrial society would have in his entire life.
There is too much discussion in modern society.
Discussion is not solving our problems – discussion itself has become a problem – a gigantic problem.
A society that does mental work will discuss itself to destruction [extinction]
A society that does mental work will argue itself to destruction [extinction]
A society that does mental work will debate itself to destruction [extinction]
A society that does mental work can never stop discussions / debates / arguments – it is impossible. It will discuss / debate / argue till the last moment of it’s existence.
Discussions / Debates / Arguments – these are creations of a society that has switched-over from physical work to mental work.
Discussions / Debates / Arguments – these are diseases of a society that has switched-over from physical work to mental work.
Discussions / debates / arguments can end only in agriculture-based societies that do physical work.
We cannot do physical-work and mental-work simultaneously.
There is an inverse relationship between physical-work and mental-work.
If one is high [more] the other has got to be low [less]
If we want to do physical work we have to reduce mental activity by the same proportion.
If we want to do mental work we have to reduce physical activity by the same proportion.
There is very little discussion / debate / argument in societies that do physical work – ie, agriculture-based societies – And this is the reason why they are millions of times saner than industrial societies.
Change is an inherent feature of mental work.
Since change is an inherent feature of mental work – a society that does mental work can never be at peace with itself – it is impossible.
A society that does mental work will always be restless.
Only those societies that do physical work [agriculture and related activities] can find contentment and peace.
As long as cities exist we can neither save the environment nor the mind.
To save the [ remaining ] environment from destruction man will have to
return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].
To save the mind from mental diseases man will have to return back to physical work [ smaller communities ].
Criminality and Abnormality.
Industrial Society has collectively killed billions of Animals and Trees [ Remember - plant and animal species developed over a period of millions ofyears]
It has also killed most of Water and Air [ Please note - polluting Water and Air is equivalent to killing Water and Air ]
The soil was not fertile when the earth was created. It became fertile – very slowly – over a period of millions of years. And look what man has done – He has covered millions and millions of hectares of land with cement and concrete. All the land that has been covered with cement and concrete has been killed.
Man has stockpiled thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear material and nuclear waste which is going to remain highly radioactive and carcinogenic for the next thousands of years – and which has already leaked into the environment hundreds of times.
There is an arsenal of 50,000 nuclear missiles that can destroy the planet several times over.
What could be more criminal than this.
What could be more abnormal than this.
Lawyers and Judges are trying to catch a few criminals.
They don’t realize the entire Industrial Society is criminal.
Psychologists and Psychiatrists are trying to classify a few people as abnormal.
They don’t realize the entire Industrial Society is abnormal.
The claim of “science and technology” of curing cancer is a joke. “Science and Technology” can never cure cancer – it is impossible. “Science and Technology” is the cause of cancer. Most of cancer is caused by toxic chemicals – carcinogens. Industrial Society has flooded the ecosystems with toxic chemicals. Most of the Farm Land has been poisoned with pesticides due to Industrial Agriculture. The Land – The Air – The Water – the entire food chain is contaminated with thousands of man-made toxic chemicals which did not exist before industrialiation. There are hundreds of man-made, toxic chemicals in the blood, bones and tissue of humans. There are toxic, man-made chemicals in the placenta of new born babies. Industrial Society is causing millions of cancer every year. Out of these millions of cases, “science and technology” is able to treat a small percentage – a few thousand cases – through surgery, radiation and chemotherapy etc…And these treatments can hardly be called real treatments because the toxic chemicals which are the root cause of cancer still exist in the environment. This is also the reason why there is a high rate of relapse/ recurrence after cancer treatment. An Industrial Society can never prevent high incidence of cancer, because it is flooding the environment with chemicals all the time.
Industrial Society is collectively making millions of tonnes of weapons and explosives [of all kinds] every year – and then it wonders why there is so much violence in this world.
Big Mystery.
If you make millions of tonnes of weapons and explosives on earth they are going to be used on earth – they are not going to be used on Mars.
The entire Industrial Society is a terrorist.
The Military-Industrial-Complex is the real terrorist.
Science and Technology is the terrorist.
Make things
Buy things
Sell things
This is not the purpose of life.
Destroy Shopping Culture.
No one deserves more.
Everyone deserves less.
Life can sustain on earth only when everyone has less.
There was a time when Man knew nothing about the number of species and millions of species existed.
Today Man knows the names of millions of species and nothing is left of the species.
It took millions of years for millions of species to slowly come into existence on earth – and man has decimated all other species.
After destroying millions of highly-developed species on earth Man is today searching for a few molecules of life in outer-space.
If a few microbes, a few molecules of methane / water are found on Mars – it becomes the newspaper headline.
They call it progress.
The following is about to come true.
Nature can exist
(1) before man.
(2) after man.
(3) not with man.
Destruction of environment can be divided into two parts – destruction of environment for producing food – and destruction of environment for making thousands of consumer goods. In pre-Industrial Society people destroyed environment primarily for food. In Industrial Society people are destroying environment for food and consumer goods. If we want to save environment we will have to bring down the second to the minimum level by not making all unnecessary consumer goods.
Environment can be saved only if we stop production of most [ more than 99% ] of the consumer goods we are making today.
Environment cannot be saved by recycling.
The attempt of an industrial society to save the environment by recycling is like shooting someone 10,000 times and then trying to save him by taking out one bullet.
Time is running out for this planet.
Regarding Industrialization there is an important point to be noted. Modern Industrial Society has existed for 100 years – 200 years – 300 years. When we compare this period with the total duration for which human society has existed on earth this period is so short – so small that it almost does’nt exist. It is almost zero.
Humans have spent more than 99% of their time on earth in non-industrial societies.
Non-industrial societies have sustained on earth for thousands of years.
Industrial society has destroyed all ecosystems within 200 – 250 years.
Material things don’t bring peace and happiness. Today billions of people have got things which even Kings did not have in the past. Car, computer, television, fridge, telephone – no King ever had these things. But people are still restless and unhappy.
Industrial Society is consuming psychiatric drugs/ sleeping pills by tonnes and tonnes.
A very large percentage of the population is surviving on precription drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.
One-third of the population has become fat like elephants.
People talk about increase in lifespan. What is the use of increased lifespan if people have to resort to Drugs, Alcohol and Cigarettes to pull through life. And just wait a few more years – the average lifespan will soon become zero – human life will cease to exist on earth.
Consumerist-Lifestyle is just not sustainable. If we do not immediately return to living a very simple and frugal life then very soon there will be no human life on earth. We would need several planets[earths] to sustain the present lifestyle.
The Military-Industrial Complex is all set to destroy whatever life and environment that remains on earth. There is a reason why the two World Wars happened in the recent past and not 1000 years ago.
It was not possible to have world wars 1000 years ago. World Wars became possible only when Science and Technology developed aeroplanes, ships and other carriers which could transport millions of troops and millions of tonnes of weapons[once again a creation of science and technology] from one corner of the globe to another.
And today one does’nt even need all these to fight a war. One just needs to move finger-tips to launch missiles that can destroy the planet several times over.
Right at this moment there are several countries fighting wars with one another. There is internal war going on in almost half of the the countries of the world. All these wars are being fuelled and sustained by billions of tonnes of weapons produced by the Military-Industrial Complex every year.
And it is going to get worse and worse every day.
If you kill one person they call it murder.
If you kill a few hundred they call it terrorism.
If you kill a few million they call it war.
Science and Technology has made this world [millions of times] more violent and unsafe than before.
Science and Technology has produced billions of tonnes of weapons and explosives – chemical, biological and nuclear weapons – millions of tonnes of Radioactive material [ which will soon be used to make dirty radioactive bombs - which are going to contaminate the environment for hundreds and thousands of years]. Science and Technology is the real terrorist.
Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies have labelled a few Environmentalists as EcoTerrorists.
What are the charges against Environmental Activists? – Destruction of property? – endangering human life?
The Military Industrial Complex is doing much more damage to property – it is going around carpet bombing entire countries – flattening entire countries. The Military Industrial Complex is endangering much more human life – it is actually killing – killing millions in War/ Violence – directly or indirectly.
Who is the real Terrorist? – Environmentalists or Industrial Society?
The human race has been destroying/ killing animals, trees, air, water, land and people from the very beginning of civilization. Science and Technology has increased this destructive capacity millions of times.
Every citizen of Industrial Society is using hundreds/ thousands of consumer goods.
Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land – directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]
The per capita killing of animals, trees, air, water and land in Industrial Society is hundreds of times/ thousands of times greater than that of pre-industrial society.
Every citizen of Industrial Society is a serial killer – serial killer of animals, trees, air, water and land.
Those who produce consumer goods are killers.
Those who sell consumer goods are killers.
Those who buy consumer goods are killers.
Before Industrialization humans killed Environment primarily for Food, Clothing & Shelter. After industrialization humans are killing environment for Food, Clothing & Shelter plus [thousands of unnecessary]Consumer Goods.
Industrial Society is destroying necessary things[Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land] for making unnecessary things[Consumer Goods].
The Military Industrial Complex has killed millions of people in War/ Violence. It has decimated all plant and animal species. It has destroyed all ecosystems. It has polluted and poisioned the Sky, Land and Oceans. It has raped and plundered “Mother Earth” in the name of Progress and Development.
The crimes of “Military Industrial Complex”are millions of times greater than the crimes of Environmentalists.
Comparing the crimes of Environmentalists with the crimes of “Military Industrial Complex” is like comparing the Lamp with the Sun.
The entire Industrial Society is a Terrorist.
Science and Technology is the Terrorist.
Military Industrial Complex is the Terrorist.
Culture of Consumerism – culture of making, buying and selling is the Terrorist. Consumerism kills ecosystems – Consumerism is the biggest act of violence against nature.
Think Positive.
Psychologists say — Think Positive.
Politicians say – Think Positive.
Economists say – Think Positive.
Scientists say – Think Positive.
Everyone says – Think Positive.
Arctic ice is melting – Glaciers are melting – Rivers are drying up.
Think Positive.
Fish population in Oceans is down to 1/3 of what it was 100 years ago.
Think Positive.
Pollution levels are going sky-high and valley-deep.
Think Positive.
There used to be millions of members in most species of Animals and Birds. Now they are down to thousands and hundreds.
Think Positive.
Weather is getting more and more irregular and unpredictable.
Think Positive.
Metal everywhere – Concrete everywhere – Plastic everywhere.
Think Positive.
All local cultures have been destroyed in the name of consumerism and globalization.
Think Positive.
Thinking positive is the height of insanity.
Thinking positive is the height of abnormality.
This is a world that has become completely incapable of feeling Pain, Compassion, Remorse and Guilt.
The planet is getting destroyed moment by moment – and people are thinking positive.
Very soon there will be 1 Animal and 1 Tree left in this world – and people will still be thinking positive.
They will be holding Seminars, Conferences and Global-Summits to save the Environment.
There is an important point which the human-species needs to understand. People think they can save the Environment by doing something.
We can never save the environment by doing something.
It is overactivity that has destroyed environment in the first place.
Human-species is the only one out of millions of species that has indulged in overactivity on this planet [ And for this very reason the human speciesis going to exist on earth for the least amount of time]
And it is not Mild Overactivity – It is Excessive Overactivity – Exponential Overactivity.
We cannot save the environment by doing something.
We can only save it by doing less of what we have been doing – much less of what we have been doing.
If we want to save environment we will have to reduce human activity [overactivity] by 99%.
A person is being stabbed repeatedly at regular intervals – every hour.
Some people are trying to save the victim.
The sane way to save is – you first stop the attack – you prevent the attack.
What these insane people do – they allow the attack to be continued. They don’t stop it — they don’t prevent it.
Instead, what they do – They say we are going to save the victim by using technology – the best technology – the best medical care.
Bring this technology – Bring that technology.
Bring this technology – Bring that technology.
They give the victim the best technology – the best medical care.
In the meantime the stabbing continues – every hour – even while the best medical care is being given.
One can imagine the fate of the victim.
Ecosystems are getting destroyed due to production of consumer goods.
Every consumer good is made by killing animals, trees, air, water and land – directly or indirectly. [ more killing of nature takes place when consumer goods are used and discarded]
Industrial society is destroying necessary things – animals, trees, air, water and land for making unnecessary things – consumer goods.
The sane way of saving ecosystems is – you stop production of consumer goods – you reduce production of consumer goods to the minimum level.
But the insane Industrial Society continues producing consumer goods [ in fact production is being increased every day]
The insane response of Industrial Society is – We will save the environment with technology – the best technology.
Bring this technology – Bring that technology.
Bring this technology – Bring that technology.
In the meantime production of consumer goods continues – 3 billion people living in cities are continuously engaged in – making , buying and selling of consumer goods – killing the ecosystems moment by moment.
One can imagine the fate of environment.
Height of Insanity…….Height of Abnormality.
Destroy consumerism….. before it is too late.
Destroy Industrial Society…..before it is too late.
The Illogical Logic of Man.
A few birds have got infected with bird-flu and Man has started killing millions of birds.
They say birds are a threat to humans.
Sometime ago there was Mad Cow disease and Man started killing hundreds of thousands of cows.
They said cows are a threat to humans.
Ever since Man came into existence – millions of humans with infectious diseases have transferred such diseases to millions of other people – and will continue to infect millions more in future.
Such people are a threat to rest of the people.
Man should follow the same logic here and kill all infected people.
It is Man who has killed millions of people in Wars and other forms of Violence – and can kill millions more any time in future.
Man should follow the same logic here and kill all people.
It is the human species which is the greatest threat to humans and all other life on this planet – In fact the human species is the only species which is a threat to all life on Earth.
Man has decimated all Animal and Plant species – polluted the Sky and Oceans – and poisioned every square inch of earth.
In a mere 200 – 300 years Industrial Society has destroyed all that Nature laboriously created over a period of millions of years.
Humans pose the greatest threat to other humans.
Humans pose the greatest threat to all other life on earth.
The so-called Rational and Civilized Man should follow the same logic here – and destroy the entire human race.
Please note :
If you indulge in Factory Farming – If you torture the birds – confine millions of them in prison like conditions – depriving them of Sunlight and the freedom to walk and fly – you are creating an environment for the spread of virus and disease.
Lifestyle of Mass Destruction.
Destruction is an inherent feature of Development.
Progress = Destruction of Nature.
Development = Destruction of Nature.
We can have Sustainable Lifestyle.
We cannot have Sustainable Development.
Development can never be sustainable.
Sustainability and Development cannot exist together.
Development and Sustainability are opposites.
Development and Sustainability are contradictory.
Sustainable Living is associated with consuming less – being satisfied with a simple and frugal life.
Development is associated with never ending desires – always wanting more.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Constancy.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Sameness.
Sustainable lifestyle requires Repetition.
Development is associated with Change.
Development is associated with New.
Development is associated with Transience.
Industrial Societies can never be sustainable – When you make thousands of consumer goods you kill Nature – you kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land.
“Growth Rate” – “Economy Rate” – “GDP”
These are figures of “Ecocide”.
These are figures of “crimes against Nature”.
These are figures of “destruction of Ecosystems”.
These are figures of “Insanity, Abnormality and Criminality”.
A Society that does mental work [city based] can never be sustainable – it will keep on making consumer goods – destroying the environment moment by moment.
Only agriculture-based societies that do physical work can be sustainable.
The term Sustainable Development is like the terms
Stationary Walk.
Silent Talk.
Wakeful Sleep.
Dark Sun
Gentle Torture.
Dry Rain.
Peaceful War.
Infinite growth and development on a tiny planet that is just 40,000 km in circumference? – Industrial Society is insane.
Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket – if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.
Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment – because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed – it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years – it takes millions of years to make a forest – containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years – not a forest.
The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it – leave it alone – leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.
No Multi National Company can manufacture the Amazon Rainforests.
No MNC can manufacture Rivers and Oceans.
No MNC can manufacture Mountains and Deserts.
No MNC can manufacture milions of species and fertile soil.
No MNC can manufacture the Sun.
The glaciers have melted. Arctic Ice has melted. Man can use all his Technology – all the Refrigeration and AirConditioning Technology but he will not be able to recreate the glaciers and Arctic Ice.
Many species of wild animals used to have hundreds of thousands/ millions of members. Now it is down to a few hundred/ a few thousand. Which MNC is going to restore the animal population to its original level?
The Oceans have almost been emptied of all large Fish. Which MNC is going to bring the Fish back in the Ocean?
Man has hunted down several species to extinction after Industrial Revolution. Which MNC is going to make them reappear?
There was a time when Man used to say –
I work in order to feed my family.
I work in order to put Food on the Table.
Today man is putting a lot more than Food on the Table.
Cars, Computers, ipods, Aeroplanes, 200 TV Channels, Luxury Yatchs, Caribbean Vacations, Palatial Homes, Video Phones, Designer Clothes, Designer Drugs, Cosmetic Surgery …………… The list is endless.
Man is putting thousands of consumer goods and services on the Table.
There is too much weight on the Table.
And the Table has begun to creak.
The more you put on your table the more you take out from the mouths of Animals and Birds.
The more you put on your table the more you kill Animals and Trees.
The more you put on your table the more you kill Water, Air and Land.
The more you put on your table the more you kill Mountains and Valleys.
The more you put on your table the more you kill the Sky and Oceans – the Rivers and Lakes.
There are so many things on the Table that one can barely see the Food.
We need just a few things to live.
And we are making thousands of things.
Billions of people are engaged in making, buying and selling of thousands of consumer goods.
Destroy Shopping Culture.
Go back to Simple Living.
Go back to putting just Food on the Table.
sushil_yadav
Delhi, India
Quote Comment
May 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
sushil yadav said:
Jeez, man… life ain’t that bad. No, suffering can’t ever be eliminated completely. However, at least for me, it’s not something that’s constant. I don’t think most of those around me are suffering constantly either. Occasionally something really bad happens like the loss of a loved one or whatever.
Not everyone agrees life can’t ever be good. I tend to think that for many it is pretty good and that it can continue to be improved and that for others whose life is not so good, it can be improved.
I was just watching TV about a half hour ago during which time I was neither suffering nor working. I was just leisuring.. flipping channels and hanging out with the dog.
Quote Comment
May 9th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
sushil yadav said:
What a crock of dung.
I have yet to see a more obvious bit of human-hatred in print to date. We are because we think jerk, it’s what elevates us from the rest of the other animals and has given us the capacity to better ourselves, something no other creature on this planet can do. Does that give us a greater responsibility for this world? Of course it does, but only because we need the environment to function for our own survival. We have no moral obligation to stop our progress simply because it offends the aesthetic of idiots like you, who anyway stuff their bellies with food others have grown.
You may wish to resign membership in the human race, but recognize it is because of your shortcomings as a person, and your inability to adapt – not because there is anything the mater with the modern world.
You’re nothing but a failure trying to spin that failure into something noble. You may be fooling yourself, but you don’t fool me.
Quote Comment
May 9th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Indeed a complete load of crap, but there are a few parts I find especially wacky and/or idiotic:
sushil yadav said:
In general this is because we live long enough to die of things like cancer and stroke. Of course, there’s the lifestyle end to it, but nobody forces you to eat a lot of high calorie food. Having ample food is better than the alternative.
sushil yadav said:
I don’t do Yoga or Meditation and yet I am not in a state of constant misery or anxiety and suffering. I work and when I’m done working I kick back and enjoy some relaxation time. It’s not that hard to do and does not take years. I know plenty of people who do the same.
sushil yadav said:
All society changes ecosystems. Ecosystems change themselves even if we leave them alone. Nature is in a constant state of flux, although as humans we may not live long enough to see it complete. No matter how hard you try to avoid changing an ecosystem it will change or be “destroyed”. You can keep your hands off it and then all of a sudden a red tide or a beaver dam or a forest fire changes or “destroys” it with no human input.
sushil yadav said:
You can’t kill land. It’s not alive. You can’t kill air. Air is a mixture of gasses. It doesn’t die.
sushil yadav said:
Believe it or not, some people actually like their jobs. Not necessarily to the point that they would do it without being paid, but I have had jobs that I really liked and found rewarding. Unfortunately the one that comes to mind as being the most enjoyable I had was for a limited period of time.
Not everyone is so EMO as to hate everything in the world.
sushil yadav said:
Amazingly, this jackass is sitting at a computer talking about how much using ones mind sucks and how great it would be to live in a world of physical work. If this assclown loves backbreaking work more than mental stimulation why the hell is he at a keyboard and not outside digging a ditch?
sushil yadav said:
And yet, you continue to type about how much of a problem discussion is. Why don’t you just go dig a ditch or catch malaria or something else equally noble? Nobody even cares about this idiocy.
sushil yadav said:
Uh… perhaps actually blowing up others with them as opposed to just keeping them in silos.
sushil yadav said:
Actually there’s not that much violence, especially in industrial countries. Hell, I live in the quintessential consumer country and I’ve never known anyone whose died due to homicide. I haven’t been in an actual physical altercation since I was in the first grade.
Compare that to the tribal non-industrial lands of places like Afghanistan, Somalia and so on. It’s a damn bloodbath there. It was once that way in most western societies too. We had bands of pillaging Vikings and Goths and Franks and Saxons who would burn villages and so on. The European Countries fought constantly 200 years ago and further back.
Then industrialization came and that generally was reduced, quite dramatically actually.
sushil yadav said:
You go first.
sushil yadav said:
Extinction is the norm. And man has certainly not decimated all other species. In many cases, the opposite has happened. Go ask the humble Norway Rat how mankind has helped or hurt it.
sushil yadav said:
Well, not everyone is so unhappy. I mean damn, you’re the most miserable person I’ve crossed paths with in a LONG LONG time.
sushil yadav said:
No, it was not possible to have a single world war, since no single culture could access all the world. Thus, the Romans were busy slaughtering Europeans while on the other side of the world the Aztecs and Mayas were killing on their own turf and the Chinese and Mongols were fighting it out as was Feudal Japan.
There was not just a single “world war” everyone was fighting and were lucky to go through more than few years without some major bloodshed.
sushil yadav said:
Nope.
sushil yadav said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah… I can’t even keep up on this it’s so offensively idiotic.
I can’t understand why this guy is on a computer talking about how he hates technology (and discussion LOL how’s that for a paradox) and hates humanity. You;d think the logical thing to do is just to off himself since that’s apparently the only thing that could help.
Quote Comment
May 10th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Doc can you correct the misspelt tag in your last comment?
Hopefully crap like this will wake up people on the Left who earlier forgot just why they were opposing capitalism in the first place (namely for its exploitation of human beings, not exploitation of the natural world), and thus got duped by the misanthropes.
Quote Comment
June 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
DV82XL said:
I mentioned the concerns mentioned here in a comment on the Alternatehistory.com forum – the author of the timeline basically said that he only mentioned the major technological developments in order to leave space for other parts of the timeline, and that one should assume that the minor increments are still there as in OTL.
Quote Comment