Tyranny & the Rise of Technology

kevincarter

I must add that the technological solutions you are proposing are worst that the problem itself.

That’s the history of mankind, a problem arises and then scientists promise that technology will solve it. So they invent something (like fertilizers) and make a bigger mess. So the problem is now bigger and scientists once more promise that technology will solve it. So they invent something new (like GM) and make the bigger problem into a huge one. But once more they promise that technology will solve it, so they invent something new (like population control) and make a huge problem even bigger.

Can’t you see that technology and all its promises its just the carrot tied to the stick? It only adds problems. Can’t you see that?
_________________
When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

gg3

Re. "am I on dope": no, but when I was in hospital recently they had me on morphine drip for a day and some other knockout potion during surgery. Re. "pussy": sorry, I don't have cats, but at least three of my close friends do.

So about those fertilizers: made necessary by increases in population. And about those GM crops: made necessary by further increases in population.

Re. the freedom to breed: No, you have not ever had a right to make more than two babies per couple. One to replace you, one to replace your partner, and that's all. Now strictly speaking, at an earlier stage in this crisis (back in 1960 when there were three billion humans on the earth rather than six point five billion) it would have been possible to just sterilize everyone after they've had their second kid, and thereby avoid going over the edge of the cliff. But we didn't do the snip-and-tie, so now we're going to do the crash-and-burn instead.

Thus, at this point, you do not even have a right to two children per couple, because ZPG still leaves us at double the sustainable population level. In fact at this point, what's sustainable is one child per every two couples. So now we have to pick and choose: who gets to have kids and who does not. If I were King of the World I would set a cutoff point of the 75th percentile in any two categories of human performance: below that point, no babies. Above that point, you can have one. Just one.

And then there's a "spare babies pool," via people who are gay or celibate, which I suppose could go up on a free market so people could bid for the otherwise unused baby-making licenses.

And of course, people who get life-saving medical interventions automatically get sterilized, because in nature they would be dead instead, and thereby unable to reproduce. So we do them the favor of saving their lives, but we darwinize their genes same as nature would have done.

---

So you say, "I want freedom and let nature decide." Guess what? You're going to get your wish. And then you're going to wish you didn't.

kevincarter

mikeh433 · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 201

Do you read Buckminster Fuller? Jim McCanney? Read the Secret History of the World.

Technology advanced enough, shows that we are all billionaires on this planet. Tyranny is another force that you should not confuse with technology.

Tyranny more suppresses technology and science. MacCready successful human-muscle-powered, over-the-English-Channel flight and subsequent Paris to England solar powered flight.

The funny thing is, Secret History of the World seems to show that ancient civilizations had technology superior (or at least completely unknown types) to ours today. Tyranny is what is suppressing science and promoting ignorance.

There is a big reason technology was lost. Wipe out action at a distance huge comet regularly occurring happenings. Note cave findings showing animal enmities skeletons found in same cave(s). Shows they were trying to escape something big and in unnatural co-habitation.

Vatican (and US and others) have recently built expensive observatories in AZ, far south South America and Antartica. They know something but aren't saying and you won't read about it in the news. News is anything BUT what is going on.

oowolf

"Technology" is irrelevant. As Albert Speer (Hitler's Minister of Armaments) learned, technology can facilitate tyranny. As long as hatred exists, technology is just another means of expediting human stupidity. Technology now just makes us collectively more stupid. It is interesting that cultures such as the Kogi developed planetary consciousness, while, for all our so-called knowledge--even the knowledge that we're destroying the world--we continue to look to technologic "fixes" to what is essentially a moral deficiency. We should have been content with the iron axehead and left it at that.

"White man smart but not wise." Ishi

EnergySpin · Fission Joined: Jun 25, 2005 Posts: 2381

Itch · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 30, 2004 Posts: 338

Hey, folks, let's be a little more precise with this "technology" word. Normal people have been properly setting forests on fire, using and making trails, and planting stuff forever. I get the impression, though, that the definition here is referring to technology that the giant death cult uses.

It's obvious that the technology since agriculture was designed to control and kill everything in sight, but it also enabled death cults to cease interacting with real life, and destroyed most of the knowledge that required to interact with real life, for the sake of interacting with their own self-important asses.

Normal cultures interact with everything around them, all the the time. For example, they would learn how animals talk in order to understand what is happening in their area, and often times would lure their preferred animal with specific calls in order to eat it.

Agriculture is the process of killing everything in sight in order to grow nutritionally worthless, often times addictive grass to the miserable society that barely survives it. And then the place becomes a desert. It doesn't do much else. Any kind of technology that derives from a bunch of grass eating retards is created by controlling and killing everything elsewhere or at home, for killing and controlling everything elsewhere or at home. These control and kill technologies keep people interacting with themselves at the expense of everything else. It's evolutionary inbreeding that leads to a dead end.

Yeah, there's all this spying, GM foods, and blah blah blah, but this is a logical extension from mass grass plantations, plows, metal weapons, numbered boxes called "houses," and other crap. Things have been getting more hellish for a while now, which is totally unacceptable.

There's nothing hypocritical about talking crap about some technology while using the already existing products; it would be hypocritical to talk crap about technology and make no effort to withdraw support for the extermination it requires.

This is very difficult that only some strong, disciplined Fark can do. It requires rejecting the constant pressure of of entire society, the risk of getting shunned, fined, arrested, imprisoned, or shot occurs frequently, and only gets worse in the current context. It requires doing the direct opposite of what everyone told them to do for their entire lives. To crap on someone who doesn't instantly "unplug," or whatever the Fark, from hell is sickeningly indecent; it would take years to withdraw. While some of the laws and papers can be avoided, learning how to do so takes time.

The next time I stroll down to some random family's home, rape and murder them in the most horrifying ways imaginable, and steal all their crap, I'll be sure to mention that it all "came from nature" when I'm selling it all on craiglist. Of course, while I'm murdering and raping the family and trashing the place, I'll just repeadly mention that it's for progress, technology, democracy, the environment, survival of the species, or some such crap and they'll think it's totally awesome.

Besides, it's my goddamn freedom, and I won't let the government take that away from me. If they do, I'll show them my displeasure by writing letters to them, and possibly pounding my fist on some hard object. Repeatedly. They had best not Fark with my freedoms. But before I do that, I have to pay some guy money so I can stay in this box and then go to the store and buy some canned bread and aspartame. Thank Fark I'm still free.

And if we're going to be silly about fantasies of controlling people's sex lives for "population reduction," let's be a bit more fun. I, as King God Itch, will decree that at least one week of the year everyone in the world must kill at least one other person. Toddlers must kill two. Why? Cause I'm the Fark King Pope. Everyone must provide evidence they killed someone, and if the people can provide no evidence, or my legions aren't convinced, then they will be killed, too. If someone was sick or just having a bad day, I'll be compasionate and give them a chance to kill two people. This will be done until I find an acceptable number of people left remaining, but I'm a pretty lousy counter, and sometimes lost track, so it'll take a while.

EnergyUnlimited · Fission Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 2987

mikeh433 · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2006 Posts: 201

Mat Simmons slide presentation... The time for denial is past.

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Houston%20Bar%20Association.pdf

Ibon · Last edited by Ibon on Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

If you educated young children from the onset that our planet cannot sustain and survive everyone having unlimited reproductive freedom and that when they grew up there would be restrictions on who could and who could not and all of these rules are in place to enable each and everyone of us to enjoy enough room and space to enjoy fulfilling lives.....then I think none of these children when they grew up would see this as an afront to their freedom. The concept on what is and what is not freedom is a very subjective matter and largely socially conditioned.

In the case of reproduction there is a biological component, with both sexes, probably stronger in most females, toward having children. This desire would need to be tempered by good strong education on the greater good but could be done. After all, we already have religious institutions who try advocate abstinance, and thats the sex for fun part......See if we socially re-engineer our religious institutions to teach that sex for fun is good but reproduction can be an evil in excess then we are taking the first step forward toward a brave new world.

As a parent I actually do teach this to my children. My 15 year old daughter has already been sexually active since a year and is quite
empowered and educated on being in control of her sexual and reproductive freedom. She is very peak oil aware and understands the problems of our over population. Having one or no children is easily a concept she would be able to accept if required under the context of preventing a human die-off. What person properly educated wouldn't be able to easily understand that your personal desire to have a child could be a selfish thing to wish on your very child if in doing so you bring harm to the planet that sustains us.

Again, freedom is subjective and socially conditioned.