NationStates Jolt Archive

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

500 years ago seems pretty far. I like vaccines and the whatnot. And the threat of nuclear anihilation is less real than some dudes coming by on a horse and taking my crops that I'd also have to learn how to grow.

I do think that we need to change the way we do things, I'm not a fan of this change, though.

500 years ago seems pretty far. I like vaccines and the whatnot. And the threat of nuclear anihilation is less real than some dudes coming by on a horse and taking my crops that I'd also have to learn how to grow.


dudes like that would be gotten rid of.

Um... no. Go read what life was actually like 500 years ago, it wasn't too much fun and it usually was very short.

Absolutely not. Current technology is flawed because it is shaped according to Trade; it is our system of trade, not the development of technology, that needs to change.

Living in filth, dying of easily preventable diseases, toiling your entire life for meager output...I'll pass, thanks.

Technology is the only thing that will save this planet and our species from the consequences of our existence.

Um... no. Go read what life was actually like 500 years ago, it wasn't too much fun and it usually was very short.

actually it wasnt really that bad you know, life was short because of hardwork, which would wear you down after a few decades, other than that I can't think why the average lifespan would be shorter, disease etc would take its toll, one of the major reasons why women gave birth to so many kids, but what about the good times they had, have you looked at old paintings of peasants etc all getting together for a feast, they were having a great time.
I don't see why we should have to return to the bad times back then, which were bought about for peasants by greedy landlords forcing them to work for rent.
We could do it better for everyone.

500 years is much too few, if that's the direction in which you want to go.

Try pre-agricultural.

-snip-


But, you see, I can have a great time now with even more stuff to eat and to do without all the negatives like brutally hard work, disease, famine, and child mortality.

actually it wasnt really that bad you know, life was short because of hardwork, which would wear you down after a few decades, other than that I can't think why the average lifespan would be shorter, disease etc would take its toll, one of the major reasons why women gave birth to so many kids, but what about the good times they had, have you looked at old paintings of peasants etc all getting together for a feast, they were having a great time.
I don't see why we should have to return to the bad times back then, which were bought about for peasants by greedy landlords forcing them to work for rent.
We could do it better for everyone.
No water sanitation, no sewers really, meaning rampant disease. No large scale travel as getting ANYWHERE was a very dangerous proposition, so the world was a lot more local, meaning much more ignorance and misunderstandings. Women DIED in childbirth, a lot. A lot of babies died in infacy, not due to overwork but poor sanitation and just basic sickness that we now innoculate for (small pox isn't something I want to experiance, thank you).

No communications across the globe, no chance to share knowledge really. No a lot of things.

A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

um, we managed a good level of environmental degradation just fine a mere 500 years back. shit, 500 years gets us to the start of the recent episode of the anthropogenic mass extinction. and have you seen the utter horror of living conditions for humans at the time?

come on now, at least go all the way primmie and have a reasonable benefit to your throwback state.

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

There's always a trade off. Dying of massive infection before the age of 12 because we have no antibiotics vs. dying of skin cancer because we forgot to put on our sunblock. Dying of various cancers because there was no treatment vs. having effective radiation and chemotherapy and eliminating many cancers. Being destroyed by a moderate volcanic eruption because we don't have the means to evacuate (even now there is no protection against a massive one such as occured when Thera blew or will occur when Yellowstone blows). Being unable to feed even your family adequately because the level of agricultural science and technology doesn't even allow for subsistence existence. Gee, do I want to go back to filth, disease and ignorance, to having to shear a sheep, clean the wool, card it, spin it into fiber and weave into cloth just to have on garment (I have cleaned, carded, spun and woven wool, silk, flax and cotton - it's tedious, time-consuming, hard on the hands, especially if you have arthritis, and the return is minimal - it takes a full year to create one garment from the back of the sheep to the back of the person). Do I really want to go back to milking cows, churning butter, grinding wheat etc.? Since most people will be peasants, they'll get precious little benefit from their work since it will go to their "superiors" - they'll die young - of hunger, in childbirth, of injuries and infections. They'll be uneducated, illiterate, easily cheated and oppressed - don't entertain romantic, sentimental and ignorant notions of the glories of the "simple life" it never existed and never will - with all our problems, things are better for the "common man" than they ever were 500 years ago.

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.
By that I mean how would the average person go in todays western world if all the supermarkets shut down suddenly for a year?
After a week of starving you see a plump rabbit in a nearby bush... the peasant you pity so much from 500 years ago would know how to stalk it and be quick enough to catch it, then know how to wring its neck, know how to skin it, gut it, bleed it, then cook it, could you do that?
By the time you learned how you would be almost dead from starvation.
My point here is, you are all supported in a web of service and technology, take that away from you and you are as helpless as babies.
Yes there was disease, superstition, hard work, people never bathing hardly but compared to the enviromental disaster thats coming its pretty damn good.
The clothes might have taken alot longer to make etc but they would have been better made, more love put into the creation thats for sure, today we have manufactured clothes from the third world economies we take advantage of to produce them cheaply.
Also take the dangerous chemicals that are everywhere now cauing our kids to have birth defects and allegies, the clothes again, dangerous synthetic materials such as polyester especially, in case you don'y know if your caught in a fire with something like a polyester bomber jacket on, it will melt on to your body while it still burns, the only way to seperate it from you again is to get it surgically cut from your skin.
We live in a throw away society in the west, the things we buy arent made to last deliberately so we buy more, is it any wonder people are in dept, what kind of people is it making us, where we just throw nearly everything away, we dont learn how to value, because of this we are too materialistic now.
The peasants you pity mighten of had much, but at least they valued what they had, and looked after it.
Can you say the same about your new lawnmower you know will break down somehow within a year, because of cheaply made inadequet parts?

don't entertain romantic, sentimental and ignorant notions of the glories of the "simple life" it never existed and never will

the anthropologists say otherwise

Yes there was disease, superstition, hard work, people never bathing hardly but compared to the mess thats coming its pretty damn good.

What mess? Things have gotten better, and better, and will continue to do so. Every single prediction of doomsday has been completely and utterly false, and always will be...do you know why?

Technology outpaces nature. With each new advance, we're getting a step further ahead in the game and eventually we're going to be so far ahead that we won't even have to worry about environmental damage no matter what we do.

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.

This was true 500 years ago as today, if to a lesser degree.

Furthermore, the technology we had then also enslaved us, starved us, bound us to long hours of toil, destroyed our health, and supported brutal class systems.

If you really want to "go back", why stop at 500 years?

eventually we're going to be so far ahead that we won't even have to worry about environmental damage no matter what we do.

that's plainly insane

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.
By that I mean how would the average person go in todays western world if all the supermarkets shut down for a year?
After a week of starving you see a plump rabbit in a nearby bush... the peasant you pity so much from 500 years ago would know how to stalk it and be quick enough to catch it, then know how to wring its neck, know hoe to skin it, gut it, bleed it, then cook it, could you do that?
By the time you learned how you would be almost dead from starvation.
My point here is, you are all supported in a web of service and technology, take that away from you and you are as helpless as babies.
Yes there was disease, superstition, hard work, people never bathing hardly but compared to the mess thats coming its pretty damn good.
What mess? I doubt that all technology all over the planet would suddenly disapeare overnight. Nor will suddenly losing something suddenly render us all helpless (not to mention that there are a number of people/books that can teach what to do with that rabbit), and not everyone is that helpless.

The point being that technology is man's way of addapting, it it has served us in very good stead since we first thought of banging rocks together and seeing if we couldn't use a sharp stick to kill something.

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.
By that I mean how would the average person go in todays western world if all the supermarkets shut down for a year?
After a week of starving you see a plump rabbit in a nearby bush... the peasant you pity so much from 500 years ago would know how to stalk it and be quick enough to catch it, then know how to wring its neck, know hoe to skin it, gut it, bleed it, then cook it, could you do that?
By the time you learned how you would be almost dead from starvation.
My point here is, you are all supported in a web of service and technology, take that away from you and you are as helpless as babies.
Yes there was disease, superstition, hard work, people never bathing hardly but compared to the mess thats coming its pretty damn good.

The peasant would promptly be hung for poaching because all wild animals belonged to the lord of the manor. If he didn't get hung, he would almost certainly die of parasitic infestation. The technology you decry is one of the supports of our relatively egalitarian society. Women's equality, protection for children, legal protections when accused of crimes, etc., all pretty much grew up with technology that made labor easier, leisure accessible to all and education accessible to most. You can't eliminate technology without pretty much eliminating all the social advances that grew up along with it.

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.

even when me and soheran point out that 500 years back had the same issues?

My point here is, you are all supported in a web of service and technology, take that away from you and you are as helpless as babies.

welcome to the history of humanity for more than a million years

[QUOTE=Usizevl;12684028]The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.
By that I mean how would the average person go in todays western world if all the supermarkets shut down suddenly for a year?

Maybe you would be helpless, I doubt that the majority of Americans, British, Canadians, Europeans in general would be. Most of us know how to plant gardens - some of us know how to spin, weave, tan and work leather, slaughter animals, cure meat, cook. The average person who does a Renaissance Faire does all of this for fun, and because we have the additional advantage of being educated, we can build on it - believe me, we're not as helpless as you would like to believe. The people who would be worst hit by the destruction of technology, believe it or not, would be the third world people (not the first world people) - because they're already subsisting (barely) at the level you describe and without the aid given to them by us (first world) they would cease altogether - dying of disease (AIDs is rampant in those countries), pollution (a river pollluted by human waste is even deadlier than those polluted by chemical waste) and starvation. We would subsist, then thrive, not because we're superior but because we're healthier and better educated. The technology has not made most of us helpless, it has given us education, relative equality and a sense of the value of all human life that did not exist 500 years ago.

=Free Soviets;12684041]even when me and soheran point out that 500 years back had the same issues?

they didnt.



welcome to the history of humanity for more than a million years

your not that bright are you.

your not that bright are you.

haha

The above answers fail to adress that our great moodern technology that we rely on for just about everything, is also killing us and the planet, not to mention how helpless its made us become.
By that I mean how would the average person go in todays western world if all the supermarkets shut down suddenly for a year?
After a week of starving you see a plump rabbit in a nearby bush... the peasant you pity so much from 500 years ago would know how to stalk it and be quick enough to catch it, then know how to wring its neck, know how to skin it, gut it, bleed it, then cook it, could you do that?
Don't need to.

By the time you learned how you would be almost dead from starvation.
My point here is, you are all supported in a web of service and technology, take that away from you and you are as helpless as babies.
:rolleyes:

The point is we have technology, and no, it's not going to be all fried by solar flares or anythign similar any time soon.

Yes there was disease, superstition, hard work, people never bathing hardly but compared to the enviromental disaster thats coming its pretty
damn good.
lolwut?

The clothes might have taken alot longer to make etc but they would have been better made, more love put into the creation thats for sure,
Find someone who cares. And I doubt very much they would be better made, unless you happen to be a noble who can afford to spend a ridiculous amount on clothes.

We live in a throw away society in the west, the things we buy arent made to last deliberately so we buy more, is it any wonder people are in dept, what kind of people is it making us, where we just throw nearly everything away, we dont learn how to value, because of this we are too materialistic now.
The peasants you pity mighten of had much, but at least they valued what they had, and looked after it.
Can you say the same about your new lawnmower you know will break down somehow within a year, because of cheaply made inadequet parts?
I imagine a person in a drought-stricken third world country values every drop of water or crumb of food, no matter how filthy it is. If you want to 'value' your stuff, go ahead, dump what you don't want into the charity bin and be my guest. Not needing to value every single thing is a privilege we (presumably) have here in the West which should be appreciated.

you would, the first thing that would take you down would be no fast food.


[QUOTE] Most of us know how to plant gardens - some of us know how to spin, weave, tan and work leather, slaughter animals, cure meat, cook.

fuck off you do, the average westerner does none of the above, cook yes, and sometimes, how would you be cooking outdoors every night striking a flint for half an hour to get a spark to start the fire, and you have to geta flint, see what I mean, you would be helpless for the first few weeks, by the time you managed to even get a flint to help light a fire you would be nearly dead from lack of nutrition.


The average person who does a Renaissance Faire does all of this for fun, and because we have the additional advantage of being educated, we can build on it - believe me, we're not as helpless as you would like to believe.

you are incredibly naive about how helpless you really are.


The people who would be worst hit by the destruction of technology, believe it or not, would be the third world people (not the first world people) - because they're already subsisting (barely) at the level you describe and without the aid given to them by us (first world) they would cease altogether - dying of disease (AIDs is rampant in those countries), pollution (a river pollluted by human waste is even deadlier than those polluted by chemical waste) and starvation.

your ignoring of course that we made them like that by invading their countrys and taking their wealth.
they were getting by fine without us.
rivers are still getting used for dumping human waste in now, and probably alot more of it.


We would subsist, then thrive, not because we're superior but because we're healthier and better educated. The technology has not made most of us helpless, it has given us education, relative equality

1. Were not healthier, if anything the reverse, have alook at the average western teenager now, the diet he/she lives on, the lack of exercise, the latest generation will be dropping in their mid fiftys from decades of gluttony and cholesterol intake.
2. Better educated haha thats good, despite recent reports putting American and British kids as the most illiterate generation since the second world war, also thanks to txting most have lost the proper use of writing the english language.
3. relative equality, the damaging social politics brainwashing kids in school, to not compete, that their are no loosers, everyone wins rubbish, sorry but if you dont learn how to deal with failure when your young, you will be still be like a kid in your mind when your older.
Not to mention the latest rubbish of teachers not pointing out mistakes for fear of poor widdle johnny getting his self esteem crushed, the education system today is bollocks.



and a sense of the value of all human life that did not exist 500 years ago.

thats because 500 years ago people knew which people had value and which didnt, now we release child molesters and pschos back into society because they must be rehabilitated, but their victims are given nothing except endless appeals to go through in our lawyer run court systems.
and if we value human life so much, then where was the UN when Rwanda happenned, or whats taking place in the middle east and Zimbabwe now?

The OP is so backwards, that I had to read it through a mirror.:rolleyes:

Sure, let's go back to 1507.
child mortality about 50%
life expectancy about 40 years
only nobles and rich merchants being able to afford education
ruling by force, census and birth
wars all over europe and european powers colonising the whole world
analphabetism about 95%
inquisition
hunger
most people working 16 hours a day in the fields
miners working with torch light only without fresh air ducts
people thinking that the sun revolves aroung earth

...

plus, remember that the world population was barely 1Gpeople then. This means that 5Gpeople have to die to achieve this distopia. Would it be too insulting if I'd answer "FUCK THE OP, FUCK 1507" ?

you would, the first thing that would take you down would be no fast food.
Woooooo generalizations!

1. Were not healthier, if anything the reverse, have alook at the average western teenager now, the diet he/she lives on, the lack of exercise, the latest generation will be dropping in their mid fiftys from decades of gluttony and cholesterol intake.
Life expectancies have been steadily increasing for a very long time and continue to do so. Regardless, it's not like the life expectancy in the 1500s was in the forties, no sir.
2. Better educated haha thats good, despite recent reports putting American and British kids as the most illiterate generation since the second world war, also thanks to txting most have lost the proper use of writing the english language.
Uh, at least they can actually write, unlike a Middle Ages peasant.
3. relative equality, the damaging social politics brainwashing kids in school, to not compete, that their are no loosers, everyone wins rubbish, sorry but if you dont learn how to deal with failure when your young, you will be still be like a kid in your mind when your older.
Not to mention the latest rubbish of teachers not pointing out mistakes for fear of poor widdle johnny getting his self esteem crushed, the education system today is bollocks.
What does this have to do with technology?
thats because 500 years ago people knew which people had value and which didnt, now we release child molesters and pschos back into society because they must be rehabilitated, but their victims are given nothing except endless appeals to go through in our lawyer run court systems.
and if we value human life so much, then where was the UN when Rwanda happenned, or whats taking place in the middle east and Zimbabwe now?
Yep. Specifically, non-Christians, peasants, women and a hell of a lot of others had no value.

Now, you're taking my technology over my cold, dead body. However, even if every person on earth cooperated with this scheme to turn back the clock hundreds of years with no resistance, the amount of deaths you would cause would be staggering. Even if you did end up in your fantasy utopia land, where everyone enjoyed their full and rich forty years of life, the chaos in the transition stage from modern civilization would probably kill in the order of billions. It would make the Holocaust or the Great Leap Forward look like a parking infringement.

Damn, Risottia beat me to it.

they didnt.


).


your not that bright are you.

Actually, they faced many of the issues we face now, and they didn't have the technology to deal with them, The Seine River, the Rhine and the Thames were open sewers because untreated human and animal waste were dumped into them - disease, as a direct result of this, was rampant (little things like cholera, typhus, etc) and the technology to treat the diseases and clean the rivers didn't exist.

Forests were clear cut to build ships and buildings (it was noted in the book Mayflower that 75 acres of woodland per day were cut down to support a small town of @ 80 people - to build their homes, outbuildings and town buildings and to heat the homes and cook the food - thats not quite one acre per person per day. I could go on.

You really need to be careful about who you accuse of being less than bright. Pots don't need to be calling kettles black.

Don't need to.

then how will you kill the rabbit?

Are there problems today? Absolutely. We've got loads of problems, ranging from weapons that could devestate life on a global scale, to pollution everywhere, to unchecked global climate change that could also devestate on a global scale, and so on and so forth.

But frankly, life right now is a lot better than it was five hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago. Think about how we're communicating! Even twenty years ago this internet thing was just getting started. We are talking to each other from across the world. We think of the world as small due to our technology, but it is massive--MASSIVE! The knowledge we've gathered about the workings of the universe, the diseases we've cured, the sheer number of problems we've solved is amazing.

But think about the problems in Darfur, or anywhere else in Africa. Take a look at how whole populations are starving, disease-ridden, and otherwise harmed severely. Now multiply those problems by four and toss them out everywhere across the globe, and you've got 500 years ago. It's not pleasant, and I imagine that the original poster would immediately abandon this idea s/he has if s/he actually experienced such a life. The fact that s/he has a computer proves s/he never has.

The answer to our problems now is more technology, not less. Develop clean methods of power generation and industrial production. Develop ways to clean up pollution easily, to control the climate more effectively, to cure the remaining diseases and to otherwise reverse whatever damage we have done to this planet. Right now, we're at a stage where we've got loads of technological goodies but they tend to be harmful...we simply need to develop to where we eliminate the harm.

Will it be easy? No. But will it be worth it? Oh, yes. 500 years from now people may think we of now lived in squalor and utter poverty compared to their own standard of living. We may be considered just as backward as we consider those of the sixteenth century.

Technology is not the problem: it is the solution.

then how will you kill the rabbit?

I'd sit on the blasted thing.

Seriously, stop talking nonsense. You might not like modern society, but, as has already been pointed out, it's not as if 500 years ago was some sort of fairytale paradise.

If you don't like things today, learn to change things today; stop trying to live in Disneyland.

A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

Let's see. A world without 500 years of development. Let's take a thought experiment.

In a flash, every single urban center, house, road, factory, hospitals, vanish. People with pacemakers keel over dead. Mass drownings as damns, ships and sewers vanish, leaving behind lots of water and effluence.

Disease runs rampant as all of a sudden, those vaccines you've been getting? You don't get their benefits anymore. Say hello to smallpox.

Ooh, and lets not forget sanitation and the black plague. Face it, most people in the 1500s were filthy bastards, what with, lack of plumbing and annual baths. They were also superstitious bastards. Garcon! Roll out the kindling wood. There's heretics to burn.

And the biggest, most cardinal sin of all, for suggesting this....

There would be no NSG.

Are there problems today? Absolutely. We've got loads of problems, ranging from weapons that could devestate life on a global scale, to pollution everywhere, to unchecked global climate change that could also devestate on a global scale, and so on and so forth.

But frankly, life right now is a lot better than it was five hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago. Think about how we're communicating! Even twenty years ago this internet thing was just getting started. We are talking to each other from across the world. We think of the world as small due to our technology, but it is massive--MASSIVE! The knowledge we've gathered about the workings of the universe, the diseases we've cured, the sheer number of problems we've solved is amazing.

But think about the problems in Darfur, or anywhere else in Africa. Take a look at how whole populations are starving, disease-ridden, and otherwise harmed severely. Now multiply those problems by four and toss them out everywhere across the globe, and you've got 500 years ago. It's not pleasant, and I imagine that the original poster would immediately abandon this idea s/he has if s/he actually experienced such a life. The fact that s/he has a computer proves s/he never has.

The answer to our problems now is more technology, not less. Develop clean methods of power generation and industrial production. Develop ways to clean up pollution easily, to control the climate more effectively, to cure the remaining diseases and to otherwise reverse whatever damage we have done to this planet. Right now, we're at a stage where we've got loads of technological goodies but they tend to be harmful...we simply need to develop to where we eliminate the harm.

Will it be easy? No. But will it be worth it? Oh, yes. 500 years from now people may think we of now lived in squalor and utter poverty compared to their own standard of living. We may be considered just as backward as we consider those of the sixteenth century.

Technology is not the problem: it is the solution.

Right, and the key to the solution is education and a free society where education and opportunity are open to anyone who wants it, which, as I've said previously, is directly related to the growth of technology.

To the OP - you're a dreamer and, frankly, your dreams are nightmares. You claim a past that never existed. And the present you claim is not nearly as much of a problem as you would like it to be.

You can't have technology without moral evolution. Technology is a tool, but it has to be used appropriately.

You can't have technology without moral evolution.

Hitler.

=Anti-Social Darwinism;12684092]Actually, they faced many of the issues we face now, and they didn't have the technology to deal with them,

they didnt have the threat of nuclear war, chemical war etc because they didnt have that technology... and no they dont face the issues we face today, and vica verca, you really seem to be clueless about how different the times are.


The Seine River, the Rhine and the Thames were open sewers because untreated human and animal waste were dumped into them - disease, as a direct result of this, was rampant (little things like cholera, typhus, etc) and the technology to treat the diseases and clean the rivers didn't exist.

your missing the original point of this thread, they did that because they didnt know better, now we do.
Put the bong down for a sec, and remember I didnt say we would go back 500 years, but have the world now as it was 500 years ago, all you can do is focus on the negatives and ignore the positives of what a cleaner planet it was, not to mention the much healthier eco system.

Forests were clear cut to build ships and buildings (it was noted in the book Mayflower that 75 acres of woodland per day were cut down to support a small town of @ 80 people - to build their homes, outbuildings and town buildings and to heat the homes and cook the food - thats not quite one acre per person per day. I could go on.

lol the amount of forest being cleared today absolutely dwarfs what was being cut down 5 centurys a go.

You really need to be careful about who you accuse of being less than bright. Pots don't need to be calling kettles black.[/QUOTE]


Well his answer had no logic, therefore hes not very bright:)

this is, i think, another abusive missunderstanding of the true meaning of the word. yes there are MANY gratuitous conventionl tecnologies, and likewise attitudes about them, expecting them to be some kind of panacea, that we would indeed be better off without.

but if you eliminate tecnology in the basic sense of the word, its true root meaning, all of our current population excess would be starving, and indeed, it is questionable if any of us would make it through the first good hard winter.

even the most 'primitive' socities used "tecnology" in the true root meaning of the word. that is the knowledge and use of tools. all tools. even fling knives and bear skins! not to mention shovels and pry bars, rakes, hoes plows, et c. ad infinitum.

i don't think i'd throw refrigeration out with the bath water, nor multiple unit narrow gauge railways propelled by stored energy. nor these computers and internet. but i WOULD power all of them from wind, solar, micro-hydro, and perhapse the occsional more exotic. but all without combustion. or consuming non-renewables, and what that didn't produce enough power for, then yes, beyond that we could get along without. precisely as the day will likely come that our very survival will depend upon doing so.

if it doesn't already.

tecnology is in our nature to innovate, but there's nothing in our nature, or anything else, that requires us to remain addicted to extravigant and ultimately self destructive carelessness with it.

nothing wrong with using tecnology to have creative fun with. just so long as it isn't a use in way that is inharmoniously destructive of nature's cycles of renewal we all depend upon. even to exist.

things we could very well do without, and would, or at least would likely, be better for it, are automobiles and our current level of dependence on them. weapons of war of all kinds of course. one way brain washing media like televison, and games you can't creatively modify or extend. the whole credit, insurance and financial services industry and the whole monetary perspective.

there's no reason we can't, instead of trying to impress each other, which gratifys nothing anyway, use tecnology, such tecnologies as are compatable and harmonious, to live closer to earth, and less isolated from remebering that we are a part of, and dependent upon, everything else, and not seperate and appart from it.

=^^=
.../\...

they didnt have the threat of nuclear war, chemical war etc because they didnt have that technology... and no they dont face the issues we face today, and vica verca, you really seem to be clueless about how different the times are.




your missing the original point of this thread, they did that because they didnt know better, now we do.
Put the bong down for a sec, and remember I didnt say we would go back 500 years, but have the world now as it was 500 years ago, all you can do is focus on the negatives and ignore the positives of what a cleaner planet it was, not to mention the much healthier eco system.



lol the amount of forest being cleared today absolutely dwarfs what was being cut down 5 centurys a go.

You really need to be careful about who you accuse of being less than bright. Pots don't need to be calling kettles black.


Well his answer had no logic, therefore hes not very bright:)[/QUOTE]



And your responses have neither logic nor facts to back them up, so you are willfully ignorant and therefore not at all bright.

actually it wasnt really that bad you know, life was short because of hardwork, which would wear you down after a few decades, other than that I can't think why the average lifespan would be shorter,

War, disease from poor sanitation, famine from drought, locusts. Being treated for a cold by a hedge doctor who prescribes acid intake.


disease etc would take its toll, one of the major reasons why women gave birth to so many kids,


Huh????

One of the major reasons why women gave birth to so many kids was that there wasn't anything resembling birth control then. The other major reason was that you needed all the hands you could get on a farm to help bring in the harvest.

And let's not forget massive infant death rates as well as women dying in childbirth.


but what about the good times they had, have you looked at old paintings of peasants etc all getting together for a feast, they were having a great time.


Ahhh yes. Paintings. And angels came down during the various wars of Europe to lead their armies to victory and bless kings.

You fail.


I don't see why we should have to return to the bad times back then, which were bought about for peasants by greedy landlords forcing them to work for rent.
We could do it better for everyone.

Who's this 'we' you're talking about? The association of idealistic dreamers without a clue as how things are?

People 500 years ago are fundamentally the same as people now. Take away all that tech and knowledge, and we'd still be there.

Well, theoretically energy is infinite. We can build as many solar panels or geothermal plants as we like and get as much energy as we need. It obviously costs more, but if you can afford to buy the electrical goods you define as unnecessary you can probably afford to pay for expensive electricity. Anyway, fusion has will get here eventually.

I didnt say we would go back 500 years, but have the world now as it was 500 years ago

Um... you've lost me.

have you looked at old paintings of peasants etc all getting together for a feast, they were having a great time.

ROFLMAO, damn I didn't notice this till Non Aligned States quoted it. Seen any melting clocks lately?

=Philosopy;12684100]I'd sit on the blasted thing.

lol the only thing that would make connection with the ground would be your silly arse, the rabbit would be long gone.

Seriously, stop talking nonsense. You might not like modern society, but, as has already been pointed out, it's not as if 500 years ago was some sort of fairytale paradise.

its not nonsense, it was put up as a hypathetical situation for discussion, get over it.


If you don't like things today, learn to change things today; stop trying to live in Disneyland.

awww diddums. go to bed grumpy old man.

they didnt.


Tell you what. We'll drop you somewhere in the Amazon. If you survive for 5 years, you can tell us how great it is.

=Hamilay;12684118]Well, theoretically energy is infinite. We can build as many solar panels or geothermal plants as we like and get as much energy as we need. It obviously costs more, but if you can afford to buy the electrical goods you define as unnecessary you can probably afford to pay for expensive electricity. Anyway, fusion has will get here eventually.

I doupt it.


ROFLMAO, damn I didn't notice this till Non Aligned States quoted it. Seen any melting clocks lately?



Your talKing about Dali? Thats the painter. He wasnt around back then sweety, he came into art in the 20th C.

thats because 500 years ago people knew which people had value and which didnt, now we release child molesters and pschos back into society because they must be rehabilitated, but their victims are given nothing except endless appeals to go through in our lawyer run court systems.


500 years ago, psychos generally got away because there wasn't anything resembling the police unless they were caught in the act or stopped by their victims.

500 years ago, the women in most societies were seen as property.

500 years ago, people burned you at the stake if they could get a mob to rally around some vague reason. Like say, you're too pretty, or too good at something.

500 years ago, justice systems generally revolved around "I'm the lord, I can do whatever I like. Suck on it you peons"

500 years ago, people like you would probably have become emo poets, run away to some city with big dreams, and died in the gutter.

[QUOTE=Usizevl;12684112]they didnt have the threat of nuclear war, chemical war etc because they didnt have that technology... and no they dont face the issues we face today, and vica verca, you really seem to be clueless about how different the times are.

There is an old saying, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

You're looking at surface differences. Human nature, which is the real issue, remains the same. When you remove technology, you still have to deal with human nature, and frankly, we're a bunch of chimps flinging feces.

I doupt it.






Your talKing about Dali? Thats the painter. He wasnt around back then sweety, he came into art in the 20th C.
I was talking to Cameroi.

The point is that paintings are not a particularly accurate depiction of life.


500 years ago, people like you would probably have become emo poets, run away to some city with big dreams, and died in the gutter.
lol, thread over.

Your talKing about Dali? Thats the painter. He wasnt around back then sweety, he came into art in the 20th C.

I think he was implying that saying it must be true because you saw it in a painting is bloody idiotic sweety.

then how will you kill the rabbit?

Well...you could trap it with this:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w142/Blue_Pheasant/traditionalstylerabbittrap.jpg

or this:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w142/Blue_Pheasant/Livetrap-wooden.jpg

Tell you what. We'll drop you somewhere in the Amazon. If you survive for 5 years, you can tell us how great it is.

lol another grump.
must be fun being a hater

its not nonsense, it was put up as a hypathetical situation for discussion, get over it.
Quite an appropriate spelling mistake.

they did that because they didnt know better

Um, that still happens everywhere today. Runoff isn't so easy to control. We don't die en masse from it today because of modern sanitation, not because we "know better."

If you want to stop choking in your pollution and garbage (and dying from it), sedentary living is probably out, and agriculture is certainly out.

snip

http://shadowmage.plinkomedia.com/images/Admiral-Ackbar-trap.jpg

I think he was implying that saying it must be true because you saw it in a painting is bloody idiotic sweety.

So you put clocks melting like swiss cheese, something thats impossible on the same level as a painting of happy peasants gathered at a feast, something that is- gosh just might have happenned.. and equate it as the same deal.
how idiotic are you?

lol another grump.
must be fun being a hater

Okay, who's puppet are you? I've had enough of this pathetic excuse for a hypothetical situation. "Some parts of technology can be used for bad purposes so it must all be bad and dumped!"

I guess you forget that technology is not just computers and televisions, microwaves and x-ray machines. It's also the wheel, or the scythe, or any other tool we come up with. Want to dump all technology? Go way back to before any civilization at all.

lol another grump.
must be fun being a hater

How old are you? 12? 13? Your level of education and lack of ability to debate seem to indicate that. Of course, I could be wrong, given the quality of some of today's public schools, you could be older, but I doubt it.

You seem to have a pathetic inability to admit to any facts except those that support your opinions and, when presented with a plethora of facts that shred your opinions into tiny little pieces, you ignore them. Congratulations, you bid fair to become an ideologue (and it's no accident that ideologue and idiot are similar).

So you put clocks melting like swiss cheese, something thats impossible on the same level as a painting of happy peasants gathered at a feast, something that is- gosh just might have happenned.. and equate it as the same deal.
how idiotic are you?
Yes. It is impossible to melt clocks. As we all know, metal and/or plastic are always in their solid state and will never be altered by high temperatures. ;)

your missing the original point of this thread, they did that because they didnt know better, now we do.

No we don't. Not if your dark age fantasy's come true. You specified removing both knowledge and tech. So guess what? You're an illiterate bumpkin now.

snip

The way the op talked about catching rabbits, its like people back then ran after them instead of trying easier methods...like a trap.

Um, that still happens everywhere today. Runoff isn't so easy to control. We don't die en masse from it today because of modern sanitation, not because we "know better."


actually its the wide spread use of soap thats bought the death rated down, as using it stopped the spread of harmful germs, soap wasnt around much then, and today its everywhere, wheres all your 'modern sanitation' in Asia , Africa and the middle east?
Try to think outside the western world sometime.

let see how long they last in British Army back then

=Anti-Social Darwinism;12684152]How old are you? 12? 13? Your level of education and lack of ability to debate seem to indicate that. Of course, I could be wrong, given the quality of some of today's public schools, you could be older, but I doubt it.

why should I debate with you, you came out firing unnecessary insults to begin with.
I have no time for net bullys such as yourself, who probably shrink in a real life arguement.

lol another grump.
must be fun being a hater

No. Prove your statement. Otherwise, you're just going "I've got an idea. And cause it's my idea, its' great, never mind facts"

And frankly, you're waffling on the specifics of your proposal even now. How can you expect people to take you seriously?

actually its the wide spread use of soap thats bought the death rated down, as using it stopped the spread of harmful germs, soap wasnt around much then, and today its everywhere, wheres all your 'modern sanitation' in Asia , Africa and the middle east?
Try to think outside the western world sometime.

Soap! Ooh, technology. Bad. Must get rid of soap because it's product of technology.

You're grasp of history is pathetic. The early civilizations in Asia, Africa and the Middle East had a fairly high level of technology, including assembly lines, sanitation, steam driven toys and so on. China invented many things that we use - like gun powder. Please, read more than one book. And grow up.

they didnt

in your own words tell me about the maya, easter island, and the first people on new zealand.

why should I debate with you, you came out firing unnecessary insults to begin with.
I have no time for net bullys such as yourself, who probably shrink in a real life arguement.

I came out with facts that you ignored or belittled because they did not support your silly assumptions. Get over it.

your not that bright are you.

you would, the first thing that would take you down would be no fast food.




fuck off you do, the average westerner does none of the above, cook yes, and sometimes, how would you be cooking outdoors every night striking a flint for half an hour to get a spark to start the fire, and you have to geta flint, see what I mean, you would be helpless for the first few weeks, by the time you managed to even get a flint to help light a fire you would be nearly dead from lack of nutrition.




you are incredibly naive about how helpless you really are.


why should I debate with you, you came out firing unnecessary insults to begin with.
I have no time for net bullys such as yourself, who probably shrink in a real life arguement.
lawl

The way the op talked about catching rabbits, its like people back then ran after them instead of trying easier methods...like a trap.

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

I know how to spin, weave, churn butter, build a trap, skin a rabbit and cook it so the parasites are destroyed. I can cure a ham, plant and harvest vegetables, milk a cow. And I'm a city girl. What can you do?

The fact that I can do these things, does not mean that I wish to be forced to do them because you have angst.

lawl

They were in response to unnecessary insults thrown at me first, of course you dont mention that do you, look I came on here for a reasonable debate about this, if you want to be a jerk then please be one somewhere else little hater.

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

I think I'd be able to build this...

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w142/Blue_Pheasant/traditionalstylerabbittrap.jpg

What can you do?


Cry like a poorly conceived emo poet when reality cruelly rejects his dreams? :P

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

Dude, I could teach you to make a simple snare from odds and ends around you in a forrest in about 5 minutes and how to place it for best results in about 10.

Not everyone is as helpless as you seem to think.

They were in response to unnecessary insults thrown at me first, of course you dont mention that do you, look I came on here for a reasonable debate about this, if you want to be a jerk then please be one somewhere else little hater.
Please quote the insults that they were in response to. And no, 'you are wrong' is not an insult.

Sorry, you can't have a reasonable debate about a scheme that would involve killing the majority of the world's population. Try again.

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Clear English? Sorry, where was that?

Oh, and incidentally, would that be the 'clear English' that you have learnt through modern schooling, in buildings constructed using modern technology, heated with modern power, reading books printed with modern methods?

Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!
Aside from that fact you keep throwing this bloody rabbit about as if it is the most important thing in the history of mankind, ever, you also seem to assume that because people have never done something before, they can never do it.

You have no argument. You're not even asking whether we'd be better without technology - you're stating the exact opposite. "Take away modern technology and look how quickly we'd all die, lololol!!!!"

If you're here for debate, then listen to the entirely reasonable responses you've had and learn. If you're not willing to listen, then don't expect people to take you seriously.

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

I live up in the rural Colorado mountains. While I am hardly free of the trappings of technology--I gleefully enjoy the internet and all the joys it brings, as well as my electronic kitchen equipment and all that jazz--I certainly would know how to take care of myself if I were suddenly bereft of it all. I've taken plenty of survival courses and have even forced myself to take a couple week-long trips deep into the wilderness to try and survive on my own, with not a single hint of modern technology at my fingertips.

I've also been keeping a small garden alive for a few years now, and a larger one inside a greenhouse. For a short while I aided a farm with taking care of livestock as well, including milking cows, churning butter, that sort of thing. Hell, I've even made some of my own clothing.

So, I'd be able to not only survive, but prosper. I'd be a Robinson Crusoe...except better educated and not as racist or British.

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.



if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished


Someone here seems to have failed English comprehension, and it isn't me.

your not that bright are you.

i would like to once again say 'haha' to this

OMG technology is gonna kill us all! Let's go back to when lack of technology was going to kill us all!

more tecnology WON'T "fix the problems". but more APPROPRIATE tecnology and more appropriate USE of the tecnologies we have, COULD.

and as someone pointed out, it's not the tecnologies, it's the cultural values which determine both how the tecnologies are used, and the overall directions they evolve in.

=^^=
.../\...

OMG technology is gonna kill us all! Let's go back to when lack of technology was going to kill us all!

The Ifreann Conclusion: Your thread summarised in one easy package.

The Ifreann Conclusion: Your thread summarised in one easy package.

Pity I only got it in on page 6. If that had been the first reply, this thread would be dead or spam by now.

Pity I only got it in on page 6. If that had been the first reply, this thread would be dead or spam by now.

...your post just started the beginning of page three...

OK build a trap then, were not talking about people back then, its meant to be a hypothetical about how the modern day westener would cope if 16th C living conditions were imposed now. Something you and a few others here somehow failed to grasp despite it being printed in clear english.
Do you know how to build a trap, probably not, so whats your only option, when you have nothing to kill it with except your bare hands, chase it!!!!

my point, that so many adamantly insist upon missing, is that 16th C living conditions, or even 16 C bce conditions, are STILL USING TECNOLOGY.

a flaked stone knife IS tecnology. a DIGGING STICK is tecnology.

cracking nuts with rocks and digging termites out of their mounds with sticks as some none human creatures do is ALSO STILL tecnolgogy.

an no, i'm damd sure not advocating giving up digging sticks, but rather just some of the dumber things we've come up with since then and some of the dumber things we keep insisting on doing with them.

and yes, many of us either know, or could learn, how to get by with simpler and more primative tecnologies then we take for granted, AND STILL, the vast majority of us would starve to death, not because we couldn't learn, but because our current population levels are beyond what those methods could sustain.

now because of this, there WILL come a time, when there will be forced to be a lot fewer of us, as cheep energy based upon consumables is NOT for ever.

and for THIS reason, a combination of tecnologies that avoid reliance on nonrenewable consumables, with lowering human fertility accross the board, without bias or exception, will, if we have sense enough to do so, save an awful lot of us an awful lot of pain when that time comes, which doesn't happen over night, but just might not be all that far away either.

not to mention that our over use of combustion is bringing that day upon us all the quicker.

=^^=
.../\...

Living in filth, dying of easily preventable diseases, toiling your entire life for meager output...I'll pass, thanks.
Congratulations: You just described the vast majority of people living currently in our prescious 'tech world'.

However, lack of goods != lack of happiness - People under what we'd see as duress can be happier than even the elite of our society.

...your post just started the beginning of page three...

All the cool kids use the default 15 posts per page.

Soap! Ooh, technology. Bad. Must get rid of soap because it's product of technology.

You're grasp of history is pathetic. The early civilizations in Asia, Africa and the Middle East had a fairly high level of technology, including assembly lines, sanitation, steam driven toys and so on. China invented many things that we use - like gun powder. Please, read more than one book. And grow up.

boohoo angry old man, I bet you hate kids and yell at them when their playing and shit.
honestly go have a joint and lie down.

Congratulations: You just described the vast majority of people living currently in our prescious 'tech world'.

However, lack of goods != lack of happiness - People under what we'd see as duress can be happier than even the elite of our society.
Um, the third world is that way because it doesn't have technology. You may as well say that democracy does nothing to make the people more free because even in this world with democracy many people still don't have political freedoms. :rolleyes:

boohoo angry old man, I bet you hate kids and yell at them when their playing and shit.
honestly go have a joint and lie down.
lawl, debate lost. Badly and ungracefully, too.

OMG technology is gonna kill us all! Let's go back to when lack of technology was going to kill us all!

lets just pretend that civilisation has never been under more threat since nuclear weapons started being used, prove that the human race wouldnt have survived without advancement of technology as you claim here.

All the cool kids use the default 15 posts per page.

And the smart ones set it to forty.

lets just pretend that civilisation has never been under more threat since nuclear weapons started being used,
Why would we pretend such a thing?
prove that the human race wouldnt have survived without advancement of technology as you claim here.

No problem. Once you prove that technological regression back to the 16th century would be a net improvement for humanity.

QUOTE=Hamilay;12684309]Um, the third world is that way because it doesn't have technology. You may as well say that democracy does nothing to make the people more free because even in this world with democracy many people still don't have political freedoms. :rolleyes:

the third worlds that way because we made it that way by exploiting their wealth, they were happy before we brutally oppressed them, and they had no technology then, try and read some history about Europes empire building one day.



lawl, debate lost. Badly and ungracefully, too.

yeah like you and this dick were even interested in having one in the first place, and how ungraceful have you been, pot- kettle hater.

boohoo angry old man, I bet you hate kids and yell at them when their playing and shit.
honestly go have a joint and lie down.

Ad hominem attacks just make you look childish and are dangerously close to flaming. I suggest you stop.

lets just pretend that civilisation has never been under more threat since nuclear weapons started being used, prove that the human race wouldnt have survived without advancement of technology as you claim here.
I imagine if I kicked you in the genitals repeatedly you'd survive too. Doesn't make it pleasant.

the third worlds that way because we made it that way by exploiting their wealth, they were happy before we brutally oppressed them, and they had no technology then, try and read some history about Europes empire building one day.
a) 500 years ago the third world was already beginning to be exploited.
b) Prove that they were 'happy'. It was no more free or equal than Europe, after all.

No problem. Once you prove that technological regression back to the 16th century would be a net improvement for humanity.

try no nukes destroying the planets ecosystems not to mention us... unless you think thats a good thing for humanity.

try no nukes destroying the planets ecosystems not to mention us... unless you think thats a good thing for humanity.

Strange, I don't think many of us were even alive when the last nuclear weapon was used. And there isn't much of a chance of them being used, what with MAD and all. Try again.

try no nukes destroying the planets ecosystems not to mention us... unless you think thats a good thing for humanity.

As far as I know nukes have yet to destroy humanity or the planet. Unless I'm the only one left and you're all figments of my imagination.

=Hamilay;12684329]I imagine if I kicked you in the genitals repeatedly you'd survive too. Doesn't make it pleasant.
lol if you tried to kick me once in the genitals I would pick you up and bury you face first into the ground, have fun been a quadriplegic for the rest of your life


a) 500 years ago the third world was already beginning to be exploited.

but it wasnt.. exploited.. they were still alot better off, understand?



b) Prove that they were 'happy'. It was no more free or equal than Europe, after all.

no whitemen controlling their lives for one, they had to be.:rolleyes:

As far as I know nukes have yet to destroy humanity or the planet. Unless I'm the only one left and you're all figments of my imagination.

yet is nearly here.

no whitemen controlling their lives for one, they had to be.:rolleyes:

Not having your life controlled by the whiteman doesn't automatically make your life good. Better than the alternative, but not necessarily good.

Um, the third world is that way because it doesn't have technology.

That was exactly my point: While certain technological "advantages" - Coca Cola, cigarettes, booze, cars, whatnot - have made headway into the poor countries most of the time there's a constant lack of expensive technology that could improve the standard of living there (not always though).

My gripe with this thread is that the situation depicted by the OP is infact a real situation for most of the people of Earth.

However, having a refrigerator, cell phone, widescreen TV or a wellpaid job doesn't translate into having a better quality of life or more happiness. One can be happier living in a hand-to-mouth existence than living surrounded by a smorgasbord of things.You may as well say that democracy does nothing to make the people more free because even in this world with democracy many people still don't have political freedoms.FYI many countries labelled as democratic are not, infact, acknowledged democratic by the people. This even goes to US where 'Blame government' or 'Government is evil' are not rare points of view.

Democracy also gives a majority a legitimate right to oppress a minority, so it doesn't make people 'more free' only the majority..especially in a representative democracy with too few instances (generally parties) wielding power.

Strange, I don't think many of us were even alive when the last nuclear weapon was used. And there isn't much of a chance of them being used, what with MAD and all. Try again.

If they can be used, then they will be.

Don't you find it slightly hypocritic using an electronic global communication system to denounce modern technology?

lol if you tried to kick me once in the genitals I would pick you up and bury you face first into the ground, have fun been a quadriplegic for the rest of your life




but it wasnt.. exploited.. they were still alot better off, understand?





no whitemen controlling their lives for one, they had to be.:rolleyes:

Completely missed the point of that one did you? Aggression doesn't make you seem any better. In fact remaining calm helps your argument

lol if you tried to kick me once in the genitals I would pick you up and bury you face first into the ground, have fun been a quadriplegic for the rest of your life

This is the internet. Nobody gives a shit how tough you are in real life.
If they can be used, then they will be.

How do you know?

Don't you find it slightly hypocritic using an electronic global communication system to denounce modern technology?

Why not, its the best way to get the message out, about its dangers that have grown beyond the scope to control it.

yet is nearly here.
People have been saying as much for centuries.

This is the internet. Nobody gives a shit how tough you are in real life.


you would if you met me.:p

People have been saying as much for centuries.
nukes havent even been around for one century, and the threat with terrorism and China becoming the next world power is more real than ever.
Do you guys ever watch the news?

Ad hominem attacks just make you look childish and are dangerously close to flaming. I suggest you stop.

dont threaten me, if I can be abused then I can give it back, so fuck off.

Why not, its the best way to get the message out...

And there you are. That is the reason why people use technology for any purpose. It's why people use cars instead of draft animals, medicine instead of talismans, etc.

That was exactly my point: While certain technological "advantages" - Coca Cola, cigarettes, booze, cars, whatnot - have made headway into the poor countries most of the time there's a constant lack of expensive technology that could improve the standard of living there (not always though).

My gripe with this thread is that the situation depicted by the OP is infact a real situation for most of the people of Earth.

However, having a refrigerator, cell phone, widescreen TV or a wellpaid job doesn't directly translate into having a better quality of life or more happiness. One can be happier living in a hand-to-mouth existence than living surrounded by a smorgasbord of things.FYI many countries labelled as democratic are not, infact, acknowledged democratic by the people. This even goes to US where 'Blame government' or 'Government is evil' are not rare points of view.

Democracy also gives a majority a legitimate right to oppress a minority, so it doesn't make people 'more free' only the majority..especially in a representative democracy with too few instances (generally parties) wielding power.
Well, if the majority is more free, most people in the country are therefore more free. Well, off topic. I see, I thought you were arguing against technology. My apologies.

It depends how you define standard of living. Obviously poorer people can be just as happy or more than the wealthy, but standard of living is independent of happiness IMO. Of course, it does tend to help.

Completely missed the point of that one did you? Aggression doesn't make you seem any better. In fact remaining calm helps your argument
Well, to be fair, you kind of missed it too- I was trying to say that yes, the human race could 'survive' without technology, but that doesn't make technology bad or unnecessary.

you would if you met me.:p
That's the point. We're not going to meet you, so acting like a hard man will only make you look 12.
nukes havent even been around for one century, and the threat with terrorism and China becoming the next world power is more real than ever.
Do you guys ever watch the news?

His point was that people have been predicting the end of the world for centuries, not that people have been predicting the use of nuclear weapons for years.

And there you are. That is the reason why people use technology for any purpose. It's why people usecars instead of draft animals, medicine instead of talismans, etc.

yes great, all the good things are good, but the warfare and enviromental damage thats come with it is way too serious to be allowed to continue.

nukes havent even been around for one century, and the threat with terrorism and China becoming the next world power is more real than ever.
Do you guys ever watch the news?

And China's rise is related to the evils of technology because...

Well, to be fair, you kind of missed it too- I was trying to say that yes, the human race could 'survive' without technology, but that doesn't make technology bad or unnecessary.

No I understood that. I meant his aggression in his reply to your comment not the aggression involved in kicking genitals

dont threaten me,
I'm not.
if I can be abused then I can give it back,
No, you can't. Flaming is against the rules here, don't do it. If you think you're being flamed then make a thread about it in moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).
yes great, all the good things are good, but the warfare and enviromental damage thats come with it is way too serious to be allowed to continue.
So we should attempt to create more enviromentally friendly technology. And abandoning technology won't get rid of war.

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

lmao, are you one of those ultra-leftist eco-terrorist?

=Ifreann;12684369]That's the point. We're not going to meet you, so acting like a hard man will only make you look 12.

I'm not acting pal I have broken a guys neck and two of his ribs in a fight.
I was threatened first with repeated attacks on my loins, you have no problem with that of course, so go play schoolmaster somewhere else you little twat.


His point was that people have been predicting the end of the world for centuries, not that people have been predicting the use of nuclear weapons for years.

and my point is the danger predicted has a very good chance of happenning in our life times, if you deny its possibility despite the current overwhelming eveidence (huge nuclear arsenals etc) then you must be a fool what more can I say.

I'm not acting pal I have broken a guys neck and two of his ribs in a fight.
I was threatened first with repeated attacks on my loins, you have no problem with that of course, so go play schoolmaster somewhere else you little twat.



Read what you reply to and think about taking the advice. Its good advice

O and I sincerely doubt you have broken a guys neck

yes great, all the good things are good, but the warfare and enviromental damage thats come with it is way too serious to be allowed to continue.
There was no war before modern technology. I understand now. :rolleyes:

No I understood that. I meant his aggression in his reply to your comment not the aggression involved in kicking genitals
Ah, ok.

There's never been a better time to break out this.

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bdehiklqtuyz2&n=Usizevl&c=%23FF0000&t=technology

I'm not acting pal I have broken a guys neck and two of his ribs in a fight.
I don't care. You can't scare anyone here.
I was threatened first with repeated attacks on my loins, you have no problem with that of course,
You misunderstand. The point was that you could survive getting kicked in the crotch repeatedly, but it would be very unpleasant, just like humanity could survive without technology, but as a whole would prefer not to.
so go play schoolmaster somewhere else you little twat.
I'm going to give you some leeway because you're new. Flaming other users is not tolerated here, stop it if you want to continue posting.




and my point is the danger predicted has a very good chance of happenning in our life times, if you deny its possibility despite the current overwhelming eveidence (huge nuclear arsenals etc then your a fool what more can I say.

MAD assures us that nuclear weapons will only be used if a psychopath or someone equally mentally ill gets into power in a nuclear country.

=Ifreann;12684376].
No, you can't. Flaming is against the rules here, don't do it. If you think you're being flamed then make a thread about it in moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).

oh I get it so only your friends can flame people, and people you don't like can't right?
piss off you fraud.


So we should attempt to create more enviromentally friendly technology.

like what nukes that dont pollute as much?

And abandoning technology won't get rid of war.

I never said it would, it would make war fair again, if you wanted to kill someone you had to do it mostly face to face.
not hiding behind a button.

I'm not acting pal I have broken a guys neck and two of his ribs in a fight.
I was threatened first with repeated attacks on my loins, you have no problem with that of course, so go play schoolmaster somewhere else you little twat.
Quick advice for you, from an actual teacher. Go read the one stop rules shop for this forum and haul back your language or else you're going to find out the hard way about wrath of Mod. You're very close to the edge.

and my point is the danger predicted has a very good chance of happenning in our life times, if you deny its possibility despite the current overwhelming eveidence (huge nuclear arsenals etc) then you must be a fool what more can I say.
Oh? Why? They have been around longer than you have been alive (probably quite a bit longer) and we haven't blown ourselves up yet. Tensions among the nuclear powers is at its lowest in half a century. So where is this nuclear attack gonna come from?

There was no war before modern technology. I understand now. :rolleyes:


Ah, ok.

There's never been a better time to break out this.

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bdehiklqtuyz2&n=Usizevl&c=%23FF0000&t=technology

Blaming the tool
Example: I bought an encyclopaedia but I'm still stupid. This encyclopaedia must be defective.

So appropriate.

I never said it would, it would make war fair again, if you wanted to kill someone you had to do it mostly face to face.
not hiding behind a button.

War wouldn't be fair even if it was fought with your bare hands.

If I beat up someone with my bare hands is it still fair if I have 5 friends help me?

oh I get it so only your friends can flame people, and people you don't like can't right?
piss off you fraud.
I'm not flaming you, nor are any other users here. Make a thread in moderation if you think otherwise and let the mods decide.




like what nukes that dont pollute as much?
Nuclear weapons only pollute when used, which hasn't been for quite some time.



I never said it would, it would make war fair again, if you wanted to kill someone you had to do it mostly face to face.
not hiding behind a button.

Nothing about war is fair.

=Dundee-Fienn;12684386]Read what you reply to and think about taking the advice. Its good advice

if hes going to play one rule for me on here and another for everyone else then I couldnt give a shit, in other words he wants me to be a taget that doesnt fight back.

O and I sincerely doubt you have broken a guys neck

I did .

I did .

So you've spent time in the courts then?

I never said it would, it would make war fair again, if you wanted to kill someone you had to do it mostly face to face.
not hiding behind a button.

Um... yay. Instead of dying horribly, they get to die horribly with honour. People should be so grateful. Now, I like Renaissance Faire sort of things, although they don't have them in Australia, but you need to go to less.

I suspect war is a much more clean-cut affair nowdays than in the 16th century, what with smart bombs and all.

Well, if the majority is more free, most people in the country are therefore more free.Not if the ruling majority is infact an absolute minority (or best out of small amount of evils)...but a good catch still :D

It depends how you define standard of living. Obviously poorer people can be just as happy or more than the wealthy, but standard of living is independent of happiness IMO. Of course, it does tend to help.That depends.

If you have define the standard of living as an access to technology that is aimed to improve the quality of life, namely medical tech, water treatment technology and improved food production/gathering/storing/processing technolgies, to an extent, then yes higher standard of living does tend to improve the quality of life.

However, adding McDonalds, X-Box, a car or a holiday in Hawaii into that formula...

I personally think that owning or having an access to more tech-gizmos or things in general doesn't in an absolute sense improve the quality of life: Wanting more is inherently an unhappy state of mind.

dont threaten me, if I can be abused then I can give it back, so fuck off.
No, you can't.

How dare you! Xboxes always improve the standard of living! :mad:

Not so much the items themselves, but if you can afford them your standard of living will be better. It's a fact of life the rich are (physically) healthier than the poor, in general, so if you can afford to buy a gold plated bath tub you'll be better off than most.

Quick advice for you, from an actual teacher. Go read the one stop rules shop for this forum and haul back your language or else you're going to find out the hard way about wrath of Mod. You're very close to the edge.

whatever, fuck off.

Oh? Why? They have been around longer than you have been alive (probably quite a bit longer) and we haven't blown ourselves up yet. Tensions among the nuclear powers is at its lowest in half a century. So where is this nuclear attack gonna come from?

love the reasoning it hasnt happenned yet so obviously according to this logic it never will, brilliant.
Things were alot more stable with Russia and America controlling the nuclear threat, now its everywhere and much more volatile.

No, you can't.

yes I can.

yes I can.
The wittyness of this reply stuns me, I cannot utter a single word anymore.




You were 12?:p

love the reasoning it hasnt happenned yet so obviously according to this logic it never will, brilliant.
Things were alot more stable with Russia and America controlling the nuclear threat, now its everywhere and much more volatile.

MAD is still in affect. Everyone knows that if they so much as ok the use of their nuclear weapons they'll have everyone elses nukes pointed squarely at them before theirs even leave the ground.

yes I can.

You don't get to flame people because you think you're being flamed. It doesn't work like that here.

Um... yay. Instead of dying horribly, they get to die horribly with honour. People should be so grateful. Now, I like Renaissance Faire sort of things, although they don't have them in Australia, but you need to go to less.

Um.. yeah dude..whatever like.. whatever:rolleyes: fuck off twat.
to your point, have you considered the aftermath of a nuclear wars honnour, do try and think just once tonight. compared to the lesser dammage of a medieval battle that rarely involved the civilian populations.

[QUOTE]I suspect war is a much more clean-cut affair nowdays than in the 16th century, what with smart bombs and all.

Do you know what dammage a H bomb can do? your just taking piss now, fuck off.

whatever, fuck off.
I predict you are going to have a very short stay here.

love the reasoning it hasnt happenned yet so obviously according to this logic it never will, brilliant.
Things were alot more stable with Russia and America controlling the nuclear threat, now its everywhere and much more volatile.
Actually I am rather enjoying yours, it runs thus: "OMFG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! BIG, BIG FUCKING BOMBS!" No reason given why it might happen, it just might so we should all just chuck out everything we've built in the last 500 years because YOU bloody well say so.

Give us a reason why you think the world's going to start dropping the big one, or have you not really thought that far yet?

You don't get to flame people because you think you're being flamed. It doesn't work like that here.

does for me.

does for me.

Why? What makes you think that the rules here don't apply to you?

does for me.
Just thought I should offer a quick Fare-Thee-Well before you get kicked out for disregard of the rules. Bye! :D

So you've spent time in the courts then?

some. but not because of that.

compared to the lesser dammage of a medieval battle that rarely involved the civilian populations.

Lololololololol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Plunder_and_foraging

some. but not because of that.

That surprises me since he would have required medical attention for those kinds of injuries and a doctor would have been very suspicious.

Why? What makes you think that the rules here don't apply to you?

what rules, I get flamed and theres no action so Ill just flame back untill Im banned or when the flamings stopped against me, whatever comes first, I came on here to start a debate, instead I ran into a bunch of angry little tossers, who wanted no debate just a war, so suck my dick.

Not so much the items themselves, but if you can afford them your standard of living will be better. It's a fact of life the rich are (physically) healthier than the poor, in general, so if you can afford to buy a gold plated bath tub you'll be better off than most.The rich are not happier was my point - Consider all the indigenous people around the world, are they unhappy because they don't have access to X-Boxes? OTOH do you think being rich, young, famous and beautiful equates to being happy? Think Spears, Lohan, et al...are they really happy even if they have access to everything?

Human mind and body are interesting pieces of equipment, poverty is a matter of perspective: Not being able to buy a new TV is either a point of unhappiness, a relief or "does not compute" to people. A child playing with sticks and stones can be much happier and healthier than the rich kid playing with a computer while eating potato chips.

what rules, I get flamed and theres no action so Ill just flame back untill Im banned or when the flamings stopped against me, whatever comes first, I came on here to start a debate, instead I ran into a bunch of angry little tossers, who wanted no debate just a war, so suck my dick.If you want action for flaming you should report it in Moderation, as has already been told to you.

That surprises me since he would have required medical attention for those kinds of injuries and a doctor would have been very suspicious.

I was gone before the ambulance got there which I called, I watched them put him in it from a block away.

If you want action for flaming you should report it in Moderation, as has already been told to you.

yeah as if there going to help.

I was gone before the ambulance got there which I called, I watched them put him in it from a block away.

Something to be proud of if it happened i'm sure :rolleyes:

The rich are not happier was my point - Consider all the indigenous people around the world, are they unhappy because they don't have access to X-Boxes? OTOH do you think being rich, young, famous and beautiful equates to being happy? Think Spears, Lohan, et al...are they really happy even if they have access to everything?

Human mind and body are interesting pieces of equipment, poverty is a matter of perspective: Not being able to buy a new TV is either a point of unhappiness, a relief or "does not compute" to people. A child playing with sticks and stones can be much happier and healthier than the rich kid playing with a computer while eating potato chips.
All right, all right, I know. My point is related to when standard of living is exclusive to happiness. I don't disagree with you.

Lololololololol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Plunder_and_foraging

thats nothing compared to modern wars, so get some perspective, most battles were fought away from populated areas.

what rules, I get flamed and theres no action so Ill just flame back untill Im banned or when the flamings stopped against me, whatever comes first, I came on here to start a debate, instead I ran into a bunch of angry little tossers, who wanted no debate just a war, so suck my dick.
What debate? You haven't debated yet. You came in saying we should drop all technology and regress 500 years. We've stated why that would be a bad idea and have asked you, repeatedly, why you think the world is going to blow up soon and you've yet to provide ANYTHING to back up your OP.

What did you think we were going to do, fall down on our faces and worship your brilliant idea?

Something to be proud of if it happened i'm sure :rolleyes:

it did happen, a fight is a fight, if you want some thug to beat you up thats your problem, I fought back he lost, I called an ambo, something I doupt he would have done for me, so yes I am proud.

thats nothing compared to modern wars, so get some perspective, most battles were fought away from populated areas.
No, most battles were fought IN the populated areas. Why take an empty field when you wanted the damn town?

Ah, ok.

There's never been a better time to break out this.

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bdehiklqtuyz2&n=Usizevl&c=%23FF0000&t=technology

Reaching Bizarre Conclusions Without Any Information
Example: the car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

Seems like a reasonable conclusion with LG around.

what rules,
These (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) ones.
I get flamed and theres no action
You haven't been flamed, but report it to moderation if you disagree.
so Ill just flame back untill Im banned or when the flamings stopped against me, whatever comes first,
What will that achieve?
I came on here to start a debate
We have been debating you. You haven't been doing much to respond.
yeah as if there going to help.

If you've been flamed the mods will act against whoever did it.

what rules, I get flamed and theres no action so Ill just flame back untill Im banned

Fair enough then. Done.

it did happen, a fight is a fight, if you want some thug to beat you up thats your problem, I fought back he lost, I called an ambo, something I doupt he would have done for me, so yes I am proud.

And at no point between the start of the fight and you breaking someones neck was there an opportunity to get away? I find that hard to believe so don't call it self defence. Its not

..........if it happened of course

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?
That's just what the Free Masons want you to do.

I know how to spin, weave, churn butter, build a trap, skin a rabbit and cook it so the parasites are destroyed. I can cure a ham, plant and harvest vegetables, milk a cow. And I'm a city girl. What can you do?

The fact that I can do these things, does not mean that I wish to be forced to do them because you have angst.:p

thats nothing compared to modern wars, so get some perspective, most battles were fought away from populated areas.
learn about warfare :rolleyes:
No, most battles were fought IN the populated areas. Why take an empty field when you wanted the damn town?
looks like you have

Fair enough then. Done.

Don't you ever wish you had one of those little electrical shock buttons where you could zap trolls from half way across the world?

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

No technology means no computers.
I will quote two things which I have written on the subject before, being fascinated by such an idea.

Over the years we have come to rely on computers for everything. Booking airline tickets, designing new medicinal drugs, testing various mechanical designs, studying scientific concepts in more depth, controlling the machines which process food.
Computers of a sort exist in microwaves, most cars nowadays, media players, radar systems (including those in air traffic control towers, a case where, if their computer systems were to fail, many lives could be in danger), many military vehicles and weapons (including tanks, artillery, helicopters, fighters, bombers and other such things) and thousands of other things besides.
f computers were slowly phased out then present day civilization might be able to survive as it is, although I doubt the likelihood of it being able to.
If, however, they were suddenly brought down (say, by an astoundingly dangerous virus attack) then tens of thousands at the very least might die. Many aspects of life today would not be possible.

Just a few brief points before I write a proper answer later; I feel that I'm suited to answering this question, as I've argued quite extensively on the subject before.

I believe that our dependence on current technology, in particular those of communications, make such a possibility at once less likely and more likely.
Less likely in that in any 'normal' scenario they will aid greatly in our recovery and by that prevent a Dark Age; however, more likely because we are so dependent on the technologies that if they are compromised then human civilization shall collapse.
I also believe that the effects of such a thing happening would have a much more devastating effect than the fall of Rome did; it would be a more advanced Dark Age, but a more terrible one also, as the population of six thousand million people on this Earth almost certainly not be sustained without communications technology functioning properly or even at all.
Oh, we may not have communications technology in combination harvesters and such things, merely having simple computers instead, but we do have such technology basically controlling world finances; can you imagine the effect if the entire London Stock Exchange went down tomorrow; not just the effect on the UK or on Europe, but the effect on the entire world?
And it would not just be the LSE; it would be Wall Street, Beijing and every other stock exchange in the world. The global economy would be shattered, and the depression that followed would almost certainly be much worse than the Great Depression of 1929. Not only that, but it would also be harder to rebuild due to the cost of building up the technology again, but the world population has increased massively since those days.
We could be looking at the deaths of quite literally thousands of millions of people should it happen.

How to best prevent such a possibility?
International efforts to physically and virtually guard communications cables and satellites. Advanced (possibly heuristics based) anti-virus and firewall software.
The power to do anything necessary, up to and including a major physical attack upon the perpetrators, to protect against anyone attempting to bring the whole thing down (interestingly, the American Department of Defense has stated that it is authorised to not only cyber-retaliate upon anyone attempting to bring down Internet's root nameservers but also attack the location from whence the attack comes in an actual bombing run should the cyber-retaliation fail).

Events that could act as triggers...
Triggers of a new Dark Age would be the bringing down of global communications.
The triggers behind that?
Ambitious hackers with no regard for the consequences of their actions. Perhaps a deadly virus accidentally created by a software glitch. Any number of a range of ways in which global communications, and by extension human civilization, could be brought tumbling down in to a new Dark Age.

I intend to write a formal essay on this topic sometime soon.

i'm no primitivist but i do think we ought to be more responsible about the development and application of technology. it seems that over the last 150 years or so our technological advancement has progressed far more than our abilities to manage it's effects and deal with the ethical dilemmas it seems to present.

i'm no primitivist but i do think we ought to be more responsible about the development and application of technology. it seems that over the last 150 years or so our technological advancement has progressed far more than our abilities to manage it's effects and deal with the ethical dilemmas it seems to present.

Only over the past one hundred and fifty years?
I think it's been occurring since civilization began! (Actually, we still haven't been able to manage civilization's effects and deal with its ethical dilemmas... Hmmmm...)

Only over the past one hundred and fifty years?
I think it's been occurring since civilization began! (Actually, we still haven't been able to manage civilization's effects and deal with its ethical dilemmas... Hmmmm...)

well i was more referring to the exponential increase in the rate of technological development that has occurred in that period. there were probably other periods with comparable rates of development, i wouldn't argue against that as i don't know. i'm talking specifically about appliable technology as well, not just science and knowledge as a whole.

It is my belief that technology is part of being human. Without technology, humans would probably go extinct.

Actually, we still haven't been able to manage civilization's effects and deal with its ethical dilemmas...

well, not in a way that is beneficial to people generally, at least

well i was more referring to the exponential increase in the rate of technological development that has occurred in that period. there were probably other periods with comparable rates of development, i wouldn't argue against that as i don't know. i'm talking specifically about appliable technology as well, not just science and knowledge as a whole.

But the exponentially increasing of the rate is due to technology. Each time we make one technological advance it leads to another, or several others or, in the case of the computer, quite literally millions of others.
We can't halt progress but perhaps we can educate ourselves more.
Or just wait until the singularity and hope for the best.

It is my belief that technology is part of being human. Without technology, humans would probably go extinct.

if only because we have largely lost the knowledge of how to survive without technology and our numbers have exceded the capacity of our environment to support us without that technology. we haven't exactly evolved to be 'technological'. physiologically we have barely evolved beyond hunter-gatherers.

I'm just waiting until Deus Ex Machina becomes nonfiction.


Then the fun starts.




So yes - technology is good for me, because I want genetic implants that make me badass. Toiling on a farm with no soap? Not so much.

But the exponetially increasing of the rate is due to technology. Each time we make one technological advance it leads to another, or several others or, in the case of the computer, quite literally millions of others.
We can't halt progress but perhaps we can educate ourselves more.
Or just wait until the singularity and hope for the best.

no we can't halt progress but i think we ought to be more cautious in applying the technologies that we develop. through education, yes, so that as many people as possibe may be able to identify pitfalls. not many scientists taking an idea from the drawing boared to a working model will have sufficient knowledge of all the factors at work to identify and dangers or potential abuses of the technology.

if only because we have largely lost the knowledge of how to survive without technology and our numbers have exceded the capacity of our environment to support us without that technology. we haven't exactly evolved to be 'technological'. physiologically we have barely evolved beyond hunter-gatherers.

*points to his longish post nearer the top of the page*
I believe I mentioned just how much we depend upon computers in it with this: as the population of six thousand million people on this Earth almost certainly not be sustained without communications technology functioning properly or even at all. :D
I have also written other things about the effect it would have on our supporting ourselves in terms of food elsewhere, although I can't remember where. I shall try to find them should they be of interest of to you.

no we can't halt progress but i think we ought to be more cautious in applying the technologies that we develop. through education, yes, so that as many people as possibe may be able to identify pitfalls. not many scientists taking an idea from the drawing boared to a working model will have sufficient knowledge of all the factors at work to identify and dangers or potential abuses of the technology.

Indeed. However, I would argue that it is not so often the scientists that need to but those who buy and then use the technology; national governments, for example.

It is my belief that technology is part of being human. Without technology, humans would probably go extinct.

Yes!

I reckon the OP misses the point: technology is inherent to humanity, and imagining abandoning developing it is impossible.

Yes!

I reckon the OP misses the point: technology is inherent to humanity, and imagining abandoning developing it is impossible.
Technology is just another word for tools, and lots of animals use tools. Drawing a line somewhere between sharpened stones and satellite radio can only ever be arbitrary.

Drawing a line somewhere between sharpened stones and satellite radio can only ever be arbitrary.

there are reasonable ways to distinguish levels of technological complexity. like based on the number and kind of other technological processes required to make some particular piece of technology. a series of technological mining, refining, and manufacturing processes (each predicated on still other technological processes) to get some object is different in kind from banging two rocks together.

there are reasonable ways to distinguish levels of technological complexity. like based on the number and kind of other technological processes required to make some particular piece of technology. a series of technological mining, refining, and manufacturing processes (each predicated on still other technological processes) to get some object is different in kind from banging two rocks together.
But what is the basis for that determination? How is it not arbitrary?

To sharpen a stone requires both raw materials and a tool (another stone). I can improve on sharpening that stone by using multiple tools or by modifying a tool from its original state. Or by being more discriminating in my choice of raw materials.

At what point is something too complicated? And why do you draw the line exactly there?

But what is the basis for that determination? How is it not arbitrary?

the number of technological 'steps' required to do something is a fact of the world.

To sharpen a stone requires both raw materials and a tool (another stone).

unless the second stone is already modified itself, it is not an additional level of technological complexity added to the process.

At what point is something too complicated?

too complicated for what?

Let's see, where would I be without technology? For starters, my eyesight would really suck (no glasses/contacts). But I'm sure I could find my friends by smell (no running water, soap, or toilet paper). My "world" would be a tiny village (no car, plane, would there even be domestic animals?), with no way to know what was going on in other villages (no TV, phone, internet). I'd probably still be plowing fields, gathering firewood (how would I chop down trees without an axe? ), and other chores, while griping that I'm too old for this (though at 40+, I might not still be alive).

I'm voting for "I couldn't live without my iPod"

I crave music, I listen to it all the time. I couldn't live without it. 500 years ago I would have been screwed.

I'm also absolutely fascinated by new stuff, and technical stuff. 1507 just wouldn't be the same.

if only because we have largely lost the knowledge of how to survive without technology and our numbers have exceded the capacity of our environment to support us without that technology. we haven't exactly evolved to be 'technological'. physiologically we have barely evolved beyond hunter-gatherers.

Actually, I believe we have evolved to use technology.

One effect of the fight-or-flight response in humans is the clenching of the hand muscles. I read somewhere that this is to better grip a weapon, like a spear or club.
Humans have been using technology for the whole of our existance. Things like spears, clothing, bows, and the use of fire were developed by our hominid ancestors.

Technology is part of how humans became the dominant species on the planet - because we can transmit complex information from one individual to another, humans can adapt to new circumstances in less than a generation. If something new shows up, we develop ways to deal with it - including new technology - and we spread that knowledge everywhere. Other species require several generations to properly adapt.

Let's see, where would I be without technology? For starters, my eyesight would really suck (no glasses/contacts). But I'm sure I could find my friends by smell (no running water, soap, or toilet paper). My "world" would be a tiny village (no car, plane, would there even be domestic animals?), with no way to know what was going on in other villages (no TV, phone, internet). I'd probably still be plowing fields, gathering firewood (how would I chop down trees without an axe? ), and other chores, while griping that I'm too old for this (though at 40+, I might not still be alive).

what level of 'without technology' are you positing? no axes but yes villages, wtf?

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

Ironically enough you're using a computer to get your message across

wheres all your 'modern sanitation' in Asia , Africa and the middle east?

Many parts of which have very high infant mortality rates and comparatively low life expectancies - and the parts that don't tend to have good sanitation.

And I was talking specifically about the deaths caused by water contamination, not disease in general.

the number of technological 'steps' required to do something is a fact of the world.
But unless you can make some sort of meaningful distinction between two consecutive steps, drawing the line between 5 and 6 (or 12 and 13) is arbitrary. Why do you pick one place in the chain over another?
unless the second stone is already modified itself, it is not an additional level of technological complexity added to the process.
Right, but adding new levels isn't difficult, or even particularly unlikely. Why prevent that?
too complicated for what?
To qualify as a permitted technological advance.

drop technology and severly reduce our survival potential, sounds great

technology isnt some alien beast, its part of life, and it helps us to manipulate reality for our benefit.

I love technology. Technology is amazing. We have to improve social structures and eliminate stupidity, greed and shortsightedness. But its not technologys fault, that lies with its users.

Does anyone but me notice the irony of calling for a total removal of technology while posting on the internet?

Does anyone but me notice the irony of calling for a total removal of technology while posting on the internet?

I think it's been pointed out once or twice, including someone 4 posts above you :p

God no.

Dropping technology would be the most idiotic thing we could do.

If they can be used, then they will be.

Amazing. Where have they been the last 62 years?

look I came on here for a reasonable debate about this

You should have actually started one to begin with then.

Does anyone but me notice the irony of calling for a total removal of technology while posting on the internet?

how do you recommend anti-tech people engage in the mass communication necessary to convince others to voluntarily give up on technology and actively choose negative population growth without making use of the means of mass communication? would you prefer they just skip trying to convince people altogether and move on to causing the mass die off themselves? me, i'll take primmies on the intratubes any day.

Does anyone but me notice the irony of calling for a total removal of technology while posting on the internet?

yea, scroll up a bit

it did happen, a fight is a fight, if you want some thug to beat you up thats your problem, I fought back he lost, I called an ambo, something I doupt he would have done for me, so yes I am proud.

I was gone before the ambulance got there which I called, I watched them put him in it from a block away.

One would think that if one were proud, one wouldn't skulk away.

how do you recommend anti-tech people engage in the mass communication necessary to convince others to voluntarily give up on technology and actively choose negative population growth without making use of the means of mass communication? would you prefer they just skip trying to convince people altogether and move on to causing the mass die off themselves? me, i'll take primmies on the intratubes any day.

Well, I think it a bit hypocritical to talk about the evils of technology as regards pollution, and then go ahead and use a computer, which pollutes the enviroment through the process of being manufactured, through its use of electricity which is produced either through the nuclear means he decries or burning of fossil fuels, and which pollutes the environment when its mercury screen, batteries, and plastics are sitting in a dump somewhere NOT biodegrading.

I love technology. Technology is amazing. We have to improve social structures and eliminate stupidity, greed and shortsightedness. But its not technologys fault, that lies with its users.

I don't see how you can separate social structures from technology... since at least one primary factor in the nature of social structures is the level of technological development, and the existence of modern technology is contingent on certain social structures (the division of labor, specialization, modern methods of production) that often lead to others (alienated labor, class society, the associated structures of hierarchy and subordination.)

Well, I think it a bit hypocritical to talk about the evils of technology as regards pollution, and then go ahead and use a computer, which pollutes the enviroment through the process of being manufactured, through its use of electricity which is produced either through the nuclear means he decries or burning of fossil fuels, and which pollutes the environment when its mercury screen, batteries, and plastics are sitting in a dump somewhere NOT biodegrading.

You didn't answer the question.

What alternative is there for the anti-tech people? We live in a technological society; if they want to change anything, they have to use modern communication.

Primitivism is total rubbish, and I don't feel that such lunacy is worth debating.

I'll give up my MP3 player over my cold, dead body.

Only so I could finally fufill my dream of being the world's first Samurai Gladiator Knight Spartan. *squeel*

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

Imagine technology destroying hundreds of species because of pollution, etc and then saving billions of species when modern lasers destroy a meteor on an impact course to Earth. Entirely plausable...

And technology is getting greener...

Progress just means things get worse faster.

Progress just means things get worse faster.

Nah. You are just giving an example of nihilism...

You didn't answer the question.

What alternative is there for the anti-tech people? We live in a technological society; if they want to change anything, they have to use modern communication.

You could talk to people.

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?

The irony of proposing this on an internet forum...

First of all, if we dropped all knowledge we'd gained during the lat 500 years, we'd probably just repeat the same mistakes. Plus, 1507 wasn't all that great a time anyway.

Yes, I'd love it if technology disappeared! But, I'd rather go back to the times before agriculture started. Agriculture was the greatest mistake in human history. It led to the rise of civilization, greed, warfare (more than just fueding), rich/poor divide, gender iniquality, diminished senses, and a host of other ills.

It seems to me that we have all become too specialised; stripped of electricity and running water most of us wouldn't have a clue. Low tech Self sufficiency seems sensible from an environmental stand point and safer in the case of the day of the triffids, pandemics, climate change and nuclear holocaust.

Yes, I'd love it if technology disappeared! But, I'd rather go back to the times before agriculture started. Agriculture was the greatest mistake in human history. It led to the rise of civilization, greed, warfare (more than just fueding), rich/poor divide, gender iniquality, diminished senses, and a host of other ills.

There was nothing wrong with roaming hordes. :rolleyes:

Would we be better off without it?
How about the planet which is about to turn on us, if we could somehow wish all the modern technology away to avert this, would the consequences be better for us in the long term, if all the knowlege we had gathered over the last 500 years vanished, imagine planes vanishing at 20,000 feet and people falling from the sky etc the immediate consequences would end alot of lives, but compared to the long term benefits, it would be certainly worth it, especially a world with out the daily 24/7/52 threat of nuclear destruction hanging over it.
A world not choking on its own pollution, its own garbage, its rivers and oceans full of life and crystal clean, huge wilderness areas bought back to life.
Would it really be that bad?


Actually today without our technology the world would be in much worse shape. Imagine no sewers. Shit everywhere, terrible diseases because there is no sanitation, ecosystems destroyed because of those diseases. Mass transportation? No. Horses. Do you know how much grazeland a horse needs? Imagine that times 6 billion or so. No available land, overgrazing, horses shit alot more than people. Agriculture would be horrid, no food, more deaths nobody to bury the bodies because they would have to spend all their time farming to produce meager amounts of food, even more diseases, etc. Our world without our technology, would be gone. Instead of arguing about whether or not humans are even actually causing global warming (I mean come on the guy who claimed to invent the internet is saying we're doing it? And so many people believing him... pretty funny) we would just be dead. Actually cars and all this 'pollution' has done the environment good compared to where we were.

Progress just means things get worse faster.

Wonderful first post!

Primitivism is total rubbish, and I don't feel that such lunacy is worth debating.

How do you know it's lunacy if you won't debate it?

Progress just means things get worse faster.

Wanna borrow a razor?

Yes, I'd love it if technology disappeared! But, I'd rather go back to the times before agriculture started. Agriculture was the greatest mistake in human history. It led to the rise of civilization, greed, warfare (more than just fueding), rich/poor divide, gender iniquality, diminished senses, and a host of other ills.


Actually there would be a bigger gender inequality because women being pregnant, without our ease of feeding them would be pretty much shit worthless. They'd have to sit around. And without the low infant mortality rates they'd be sitting around most of their lives. Doesn't sound like equality to me. Besides many social scientists attribute what your discussing to the beginning of slavery, since without slavery humans wouldn't have had extra time for thinking and discovery, though again slavery doesn't seem like a very viable answer.

You could talk to people.

Yes, you could.

If you want to be irrelevant.

Yes, you could.

If you want to be irrelevant.

So communication via technological means makes you relevant?

You didn't answer the question.

What alternative is there for the anti-tech people? We live in a technological society; if they want to change anything, they have to use modern communication.

They can gather people together at rallys to speak to them. They can use word of mouth. They can petition door to door. They can write to every newspaper they can think of.

Plenty of things to do other than use technology to tell the rest of us they want to take our technology away from us.

Actually today without our technology the world would be in much worse shape. Imagine no sewers. Shit everywhere, terrible diseases because there is no sanitation, ecosystems destroyed because of those diseases. Mass transportation? No. Horses. Do you know how much grazeland a horse needs? Imagine that times 6 billion or so. No available land, overgrazing, horses shit alot more than people. Agriculture would be horrid, no food, more deaths nobody to bury the bodies because they would have to spend all their time farming to produce meager amounts of food, even more diseases, etc. Our world without our technology, would be gone. Instead of arguing about whether or not humans are even actually causing global warming (I mean come on the guy who claimed to invent the internet is saying we're doing it? And so many people believing him... pretty funny) we would just be dead. Actually cars and all this 'pollution' has done the environment good compared to where we were.



FALSE! Before technology the human population was much less, which alleviated much of the problems you mentioned. Also, you are not thinking back far enough. Agriculture was a mistake. People should go back to hunter/gatherering societies.

You could talk to people.

how many people can you realistically reach in that fashion?

Actually there would be a bigger gender inequality because women being pregnant, without our ease of feeding them would be pretty much shit worthless. They'd have to sit around. And without the low infant mortality rates they'd be sitting around most of their lives. Doesn't sound like equality to me. Besides many social scientists attribute what your discussing to the beginning of slavery, since without slavery humans wouldn't have had extra time for thinking and discovery, though again slavery doesn't seem like a very viable answer.

Nonsense. Women would still be able to gather food quite well until late stages of pregnacy, also, women would not have another baby until about four years or so after the last baby was born, allowing ample time recover.

They can gather people together at rallys to speak to them.

How will people get to the rallies?

They can use word of mouth.

Not very effective without modern communication.

They can petition door to door.

With what means of transportation? (Sure, you can walk... but it severely limits your range.)

They can write to every newspaper they can think of.

Newspapers use technology.

They can gather people together at rallys to speak to them.

how?

They can write to every newspaper they can think of.

Plenty of things to do other than use technology to tell the rest of us they want to take our technology away from us.

the printing press isn't technology? the trucks the post office uses to pick up and deliver mail aren't technology?

how many people can you realistically reach in that fashion?

I dunno.

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/MarchonWashingtonPhotoAA.jpg

Lots? Dr. King managed it.

So communication via technological means makes you relevant?

It is a necessary, not sufficient, condition.

FALSE! Before technology the human population was much less, which alleviated much of the problems you mentioned. Also, you are not thinking back far enough. Agriculture was a mistake. People should go back to hunter/gatherering societies.

Actually not false if you read his first post 'people falling out of the skies' ... he didn't say go back in time, he said the technology magically dissapears. And to hold people in a certain time and not let them express their creativity is one of the greatest crimes of all. That is tyranny at is worst.

Lots?

How do you think all those people got there?

How do you think they were informed of the rally's existence?

How do you think they were swayed to the rally's cause in the first place?

Nonsense. Women would still be able to gather food quite well until late stages of pregnacy, also, women would not have another baby until about four years or so after the last baby was born, allowing ample time recover.

Where's your proof? Do you know how many kids were had by families of that era and at what rate? 4 years is a long time especially when that child would probably die before that time was over, sending the mother on a depressive spiral perhaps committing suicide. Your thesis is nonsense.

And to hold people in a certain time and not let them express their creativity

I see the first part... where's the second?

Actually not false if you read his first post 'people falling out of the skies' ... he didn't say go back in time, he said the technology magically dissapears. And to hold people in a certain time and not let them express their creativity is one of the greatest crimes of all. That is tyranny at is worst.

I said go back technological and stay there, or, that's what I meant. Oh, and for your information people chose to stay in hunter-gatherer societies for most of human history, 70,000+ years, if I recall correctly. Agriculture and civilization have only been around for about 10,000. I'll stick to the tried and true method.

Excuse me, where are the "what is drop tech" and "Myrth" options?

And to hold people in a certain time and not let them express their creativity is one of the greatest crimes of all. That is tyranny at is worst

I'll stick to the tried and true method.

Are you carving that post on a rock, throwing it into the ocean, where a lonely man blogs all the things you chistle out, which is then copied by a rogue computer program onto these forums?

So technology's bad, except when it serves your personal ends?

I said go back technological and stay there, or, that's what I meant. Oh, and for your information people chose to stay in hunter-gatherer societies for most of human history, 70,000+ years, if I recall correctly. Agriculture and civilization have only been around for about 10,000. I'll stick to the tried and true method.


Except they left that for some reason.... hmmm what could that be? Besides breakthroughs don't happen quickly, you know the wheel, controlling fire, maps, languages, standing upright.... these things are just things you wake up and decide to do if you've never thought of anything like that. And how do you propose doing that? Building a timemachine and forcing everyone to go back in time? Now I don't know for sure but I'ld be willing to bet that after about a week or so people are going to build their machinery, because life in general sucks. We have more free time, more food, more everything.

Actually there would be a bigger gender inequality

not typically, if reality is to be trusted

Writing requires technology. Even if you're just scrawling words in the sand you're using the sand as a tool, as a technological means.

Since it was a march, I would imagine they walked. You know, walking. That thing with the legs that doesn't require gasoline.

And I rather thought that much of the word was passed in the pulpits, by word of mouth, by newspapers (which are not outside of the technological frame of reference he first posited).

Unless I am very much mistaken, writing was a technology that was available 500 years ago.

The printing press also was a technology available in the 15th century, which is as I recall what he thought we ought to go back to.

But of course, that would require giving up modern convenience of instantaneous communication -- which is OMG what he was on about in the first place.

My proof? Read some articles here:

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/massmisery.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whyprim.htm

http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/patriarchy.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/technology.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/agriculture.htm

Also, read books by John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen. (I'm ordering several of their books in the next week or so)

I took a class 2 semesters ago at my university on cultural anthropology. We studied hunter-gatherer societies for quite some time, and it was said that women had a number of means to control their fertility, and the average age differance between children was four years. The textbook we used by written by someone named...Bodley, I believe. We also read numerous articles and watched several films.

not typically, if reality is to be trusted

So your saying women in the 1500's had more rights than they do today? What about Roman times? What about Egyptian times? I don't think so. we've seen women rights develop as technology bridges the gap, and makes physicall differences less (child birth, muscle mass, etc).

My proof? Read some articles here:

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/massmisery.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/whyprim.htm

http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/patriarchy.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/technology.htm

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/agriculture.htm

Also, read books by John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen. (I'm ordering several of their books in the next week or so)

I took a class 2 semesters ago at my university on cultural anthropology. We studied hunter-gatherer societies for quite some time, and it was said that women had a number of means to control their fertility, and the average age differance between children was four years. The textbook we used by written by someone named...Bodley, I believe. We also read numerous articles and watched several films.

So what your arguing is ignorance is bliss? Because they were ignorant they couldn't suffer as much because they didn't know as much? Thats what it boils down to. I'm a bit stronger of a person than that. I prefer to be bogged down by little things like complex thoughts. Like putting a sentence together. that takes technology.

While I like the environment as much as, if not more than, the next person, and agree that some technological advances have only hurt us; getting rid of all technology would not be a good solution.

It takes a lot of land to support even one person. Without the technology to farm this land and all that, millions of people would starve. Billions would die from disease, rampant crime(as this situation would drive people to do things they wouldn't normally, and as it is hard to enforce the law with no technology), and people would just develop technology all over again.

My suggestion to the OP is to take a tarp, flint, pocketknife, and a metal bowl out into your local woods/forest/campgroundareathing, and live off the land for a week. That should leave you feeling un-technological, and probably make you realize how many people would die trying to survive that way.

I wish there was more clean, undeveloped wilderness out there. I wish there was potable water naturally running through streams and rivers. I wish one could see more stars at night and more blue sky during the day.

These are only wishes however.

What we need is cleaner technology, especially dealing with power generation, and a worldwide cap on birthrate. I believe the number one issue facing the world today is population growth. There is too damned much of it.

So your saying women in the 1500's had more rights than they do today? What about Roman times? What about Egyptian times? I don't think so.

That's the result of agriculture.

Real primitivists oppose agriculture.

Since it was a march, I would imagine they walked.

IN THE MARCH, yes.

How did they get TO the march in the first place?

And I rather thought that much of the word was passed in the pulpits,

And how did the church leaders know?

by word of mouth,

You don't get hundreds of thousands of people in DC by word of mouth.

by newspapers (which are not outside of the technological frame of reference he first posited).

But modern distribution of newspapers is.

So your saying women in the 1500's had more rights than they do today? What about Roman times? What about Egyptian times? I don't think so. we've seen women rights develop as technology bridges the gap, and makes physicall differences less (child birth, muscle mass, etc).

have you even been reading the posts you were responding to? 1500s boy ain't here.

FALSE! Before technology the human population was much less, which alleviated much of the problems you mentioned. Also, you are not thinking back far enough. Agriculture was a mistake. People should go back to hunter/gatherering societies.

And how do you propose that without massive die offs hmm?

Except they left that for some reason.... hmmm what could that be? Besides breakthroughs don't happen quickly, you know the wheel, controlling fire, maps, languages, standing upright.... these things are just things you wake up and decide to do if you've never thought of anything like that. And how do you propose doing that? Building a timemachine and forcing everyone to go back in time? Now I don't know for sure but I'ld be willing to bet that after about a week or so people are going to build their machinery, because life in general sucks. We have more free time, more food, more everything.

That, my friend, is the biggest lie about modern civilization. How many hours a week do people have to work to earn money to live comfortably? For some lucky folks its 40 hours or less. For many people, its much more. Sometimes 10-12 hours a day! For hunter-gatherer societies they only had to work for several hours (less than 8) each day for all their needs. The rest (16+ hours) was used for games, socializing, and relaxing. Also, most people on the planet barely make it each day, and live in poverty, or near poverty lines. Its important to look outside your own well of area once in a while.

So what your arguing is ignorance is bliss? Because they were ignorant they couldn't suffer as much because they didn't know as much? Thats what it boils down to. I'm a bit stronger of a person than that. I prefer to be bogged down by little things like complex thoughts. Like putting a sentence together. that takes technology.

wtf are you talking about?

And how do you propose that without massive die offs hmm?

one hopes through some policy of having children at well below replacement level

And how do you propose that without massive die offs hmm?

I'm not. Massive die offs would be horrible but necessary for the health of the entire planet.

But perhaps...maybe if humanity was weened of technology over the course of I don't know, maybe 500 years? But no, that won't work because of the threat facing the planet from global warming...I guess I don't have a solution, but the fact is there are too many people on the planet, and if massive die offs are the only way to preserve the planet, then it has to happen.

have you even been reading the posts you were responding to? 1500s boy ain't here.


thats the point, we're continously moving up socially, not down. If you go backwards you'll only find worse and worse, thats the way society works.

thats the point, we're continously moving up socially, not down. If you go backwards you'll only find worse and worse, thats the way society works.


No! People started out almost perfect in hunter gather societies! Agriculture screwed that up!

How do you know it's lunacy if you won't debate it?

Because I've heard the arguments before, and they're pure, undiluted bullshit. It's nothing more than a immensely tiny group of moralizing westerners who feel guilty about their levels of consumption.