/kc/ - Krautchan

> Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics

dropped

I understand your standpoint but I can't make a judgement. I simply don't know the extent of deforestation and the effects of the human activity.

I have a simple question for you brazil bernd. When is enough enough? 

I dont think there is any original old forrest left in europe for example, everything is replanted and there is no biodiversity. When they cut trees here, they plant new ones. Sure. But there is just one type of tree that is being planted. 

Once we realize that we are not separate from the earth but merely guests we can start living again. 

This is the catch 22 of every so called civilization that has existed since at least 270 000 years, they think they are superior than universe.

 >>/24682/
isnt hungary mostly steppes

human-vegan jpg
(164.54 KB, 700x473)

 >>/24685/
> not separate from the earth but merely guests

We are just part of ecosystem as any other species, not guests. For example, beavers with their dams may literally ruin local ecosystem with big casualties, but they considered as something "natural" for some reason, but humans who do same are not.

Thinking that humans are different and must do something special to "preserve" others (or, on other side, to destroy others) is just an anthropocentrism. Same anthropocentrism that is criticized by pro-ecology people who are narcissic inside, because they think that humans are somewhat special and separate from nature.

In reality it doesn't matter, you can't destroy biosphere if you are biosphere, everything, including deforestation and human-driven mass extinction, is just a part of natural evolution process. Although ecological movements are part of this process to, so thinking that "we can do anything and must not care" is also wrong. Every action of humanity will be natural just by definition.

 >>/24703/
Made me chuckle.

 >>/24703/
What is the purpose of this post?

deforestat... png
(57.86 KB, 655x1082)

amazon-deforestation-... png
(591.04 KB, 768x512)

 >>/24682/
I'm not even fully certain of my position, but I felt the antithesis to the usual environmentalist thesis needs to be stated.
This environmentalist site has a lot of statistics:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html
A fifth of what forest cover existed in 1970 has been cut down, but there's a declining trend in deforestation. This is largely because of policy and commodity economics but may also be a late result of another fact: the North is the fastest-growing region and managed to triple its population in thirty years, but its rates of population growth are declining.
Some claimed effects of deforestation are bogus. It's said to be the "world's lungs" because photosynthesis releases oxygen to the atmosphere. Trees also breathe so their net oxygen contribution is minimal. It's also said that soil poverty (a reality) will cause a deforested Amazon to become a desert. Climatologically an actual desert right at the Equator only happens under specific circumstances like Somalia, no amount of deforestationw will stop moisture from the Atlantic. What can happen is a transition to a savannah state.
More realistic concerns are carbon emissions from burning wood and cattle, decreased rainfall elsewhere in the country and the social costs of settlement as it currently proceeds, with Wild West lawlessness and violent land disputes.

 >>/24685/
> When is enough enough? 
More than what has already been cleared. I, for one, would cut down the border and river margins (exporting food and ores to global markets directly by ship; you can navigate all the way into Peru) and leave large blocks of preserved land inbetween, with a total deforestation lower than Europe. This is not how it currently moves -deforestation mostly expands south-north from the savannah and through highways. But it can be steered and planned like it was in the past.
Preserving the status quo and telling millions to stay put where they are is unrealistic, and getting those millions to emigrate is out of the question. What's needed instead is a guided and conscious process.
100% deforestation will never happen. A saturation point will be reached and further conquest will be inconvenient. Industrialization and development will then lead to an increase in forested area, as Europe has already witnessed. Policies set in Brasília can set this saturation point higher and make it a better situation.

> I dont think there is any original old forrest left in europe for example, everything is replanted and there is no biodiversity. When they cut trees here, they plant new ones. Sure. But there is just one type of tree that is being planted. 
...and it was worth it! The positive legacy Europe has left for all of humanity far outweighs the value of its primeval forests.

> Once we realize that we are not separate from the earth but merely guests we can start living again. 
Guests have a host. A host has a conscience and can expel the guest. Nature is non sapient matter and, aside from events that happen once in ten thousand years or happen in geologic time, can only overpower us if we're foolish. Because of our overwhelming skill in occupying all biomes, sustaining large populations and molding the environment to our will the steward is a better metaphor. We can be good stewards and cultivate what's under our control cautiously and humanely, or bad stewards who misadminister our resources and cause our own destruction. But we are the stewards and wield power.

> they think they are superior than universe
One way to look at it is  >>/24703/, we're just a species fighting for survival like any other.
Another thought is that some outputs of human societies like art and science have value and it is worth displacing nonhuman life so civilizations capable of producing them can thrive.

d58aaf28aa webm
(3.82 MB, 1280x533 vp9)

 >>/24678/
> But the life of some common tree is not worth more than the life of a human; it is not even worth the same.

How do you know that? What if trees are higher level life species? Trees perfectly can live without humanity, but not otherwise.

 >>/24703/
This is why I like your posts.

 >>/24711/
Will look into that sight.
Right now my concern would be the optimal usage of the freed space.

 >>/24706/
> What is the purpose of this post?

I've expressed opinion that judging environmental issues by some moral or idealistic values aren't good way to do. People often start to discuss value of human/non-human life and to use arguments against and pro nature. I think that this isn't fair because it is all natural process and natural laws.

Although there is nothing wrong with discussion as is.

 >>/24706/

Uh, and actually, I've just been tired after long work day and wrote some random things that got into my mind, nothing serious.

Considering original topic, I don't think that deforestation is a good thing overall just because living in stable existing ecological system is often easier than adapt to changing one (and I just personally like forests). But there are plenty of reasons in OP post that may overcome the negative side of this, and transforming habitat to make life easier is a basic way of life for human.

If easy solution had existed, people already would use it.

 >>/24711/
You equate human happiness and spiritual fulfillment with material possessions. Parroting the ideas that came up with the industrial revolution and later was perfected by the likes of edward bernays. I suggest you go read some Jacques Ellul to get you started. 

 >>/24718/
> I've expressed opinion that judging environmental issues by some moral or idealistic values aren't good way to do.

So nothing is sacred is your point? 

 >>/24719/
> If easy solution had existed, people already would use it.
 
There is an "easy" solution, and that is the destruction of the industrial society and the profit system.

 >>/24742/
> So nothing is sacred is your point? 

Hmm, you may interpret it like this, but I didn't had that in mind.

My point was about separating humans and other nature. Humans are part of nature, and so-called anthropological ecological catastrophes are same thing as natural disaster or extinct events. Don't think that this can be good or bad. Concept of sacredness is ok though, it is also natural thing that shapes biosphere (by influencing human actions).

And that asteroid killed dinosaurs (and many other species too), but that was one big reason why we are here. That event wasn't very environmental friendly, and not even natural from Earth's point of view, but look how it ended.

This can be interpreted as dao-style way about going with the flow, although this is slightly cynical indeed.

world-free-of-relig... jpg
(153.76 KB, 891x960)

 >>/24742/
> There is an "easy" solution, and that is the destruction of the industrial society and the profit system.

Not an easy solution, if you being serious. It also can be seen as catastrophic event for human society. Human nature is about getting much without spending much (i.e. concept of adequate laziness and survival), and smart people will invent that type of society in future anyway, even if you destroy current one. Or you can remove everyone capable of invention, but this solution looks pretty, hmm, hardcore.

Do you think that it's can be done it other way?

Human society actually goes into lowering real consumerism, can't easily say if this intentional or not - more and more "goods" move into virtual space, and demand of real things  grow much less than before. For example, 200-300 years ago most of people desired own land, especially land for farms, Now average person is ok with small flat, some electronic devices and computer games (and large amount of "money", but it is virtual anyway), and having own plot for growing potatoes is rare desire of small part of society. Maybe this is the self-regulating way of slowing down exponential consumption. Although from ethical point of view that society looks pretty bad.

Overall it is all about your optimism, you may see modern life as way to future progressive democratic* electronic utopia or to dystopian cyberpunkish collapse (both things are same I think). I personally care less and less because 1) I can't change anything 2) planning too far is pointless in fast-changing world 3) I'll die someday.

 >>/24742/
> You equate human happiness and spiritual fulfillment with material possessions.
Quite to the contrary, I have made it implicit in the last paragraph of my first post that they are different things but under specific circumstances an increase in one can increase another. It is possible for a very poor population to grow happier once life is made easier and softer by material prosperity. Simple things like having sewage, electricity and running water can make a lot of difference. And for the uneducated, gaining access to knowledge can certainly bring spiritual fulfillment.

 >>/24749/
> And that asteroid killed dinosaurs 
Two wrongs doesnt make a right. We see time and time again that when civilizations start to form, they want to control nature, subdue it. Nature is the enemy. After some time the society collapses because it is entropic. You can see this clearly the last 200 years. Technology has become more and more advanced and more and more complex. With that comes the control over it. One of the first things the bolsheviks did when they took power in Russia was to ban wood stoves and install central heating. See where im going with this?

 >>/24754/
> Human society actually goes into lowering real consumerism
People weren't bombarded with advertising everywhere telling them to buy things they dont need with money they dont have. 

200 years ago people knew that land was valuable. Why do you think its called real easte?

  >>/24755/
> It is possible for a very poor population to grow happier once life is made easier and softer by material prosperity. Simple things like having sewage, electricity and running water can make a lot of difference. And for the uneducated, gaining access to knowledge can certainly bring spiritual fulfillment.

Is this your religion? Sounds to me like it is. The "poor" people (material perhaps) ive met in third world countries were miles happier than any westerner ivet come across. Its just a shame that this system will destroy everything in its path.

 >>/24755/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BOCtu-rXfPk

can you watch that brazil bernd then come back to me and tell me what you thought.

 >>/24760/
> when civilizations start to form, they want to control nature, subdue it
So what? Beavers also change the environment to their liking.

> After some time the society collapses because it is entropic
Only if society is foolish in its handling of resources.

> 200 years ago people knew that land was valuable. 
And that's why they moved out of their overcrowded continent to clear out living space on the other side of the Atlantic.
But 200 years ago urbanization was limited and agriculture inefficient. By making agriculture more labor- and land- efficient industrialization reduced the need for deforestation. Because of this Europe's forest cover is greater now than it was a century ago. 

> The "poor" people ive met in third world countries were miles happier than any westerner ivet come across.
I interact with poor Third Worlders on a daily basis and some are my closest friends. I can tell you they do feel happier with material gains. This is why last year tens of millions of them voted for the proxy of a corrupt former President who would de facto rule the country from a jail cell: because they were happy and nostalgic for the material gains they made during his rule.

> material perhaps
Are you implying they lead more moral and traditional lives, or their culture is more valuable? Funk music should warn you not to idealize them.

 >>/24765/
Watched it. Not bad at all. 
His point about the division of tasks pulverizing responsibility reminds me of the Marxist concept of alienation and has a basis in psychology. But that's not necessarily how it always goes. Legally there still is responsibility, if a dam bursts the engineers working on it can be arrested if their project is found to be faulty. In some chains of production, though workers only do one step of production they can be proud of the final output. And the division of tasks is not merely an economic or technical relationship but also a social one where contacts are made and individuals come to rely on one another, whereas under autarky no such contacts and relationships would have been built.

Attempts to express individual will (the case of Parisians leaving their city on their free time) ending up all the same across masses, urbanites in developed societies feeling despair and loneliness and "tunnel vision" happening when the achievement of a technical solution to the detriment of everything else is the goal are facts.

At the beginning he speaks of the industrial West conquering traditional societies and says it should never have intruded upon their sacred beliefs. No judgement of wheter those beliefs are right is made, those beliefs make them comfortable and shouldn't be touched. Yet near the end he makes judgements and touches on the beliefs and behaviors (optimism) that allow individuals in industrial societies to sleep comfortably at night. Though there's more to that, he seems to believe in the "noble savage" archetype but isn't just a postmodern cultural relativist, he does imply that the beliefs of traditional societies are more truthful and that's what makes them untouchable.

He describes art as something that can bring spiritual fulfillment. And yet art can only exist within a material medium and can only be accessed with a certain level of material prosperity, both for having an education and for paying to be able to witness the artistic item. In a society with no printing press and 90% illiteracy this spiritual fulfillment is unavailable for most.

The psychological and societal results of industrialization are described with some materialistic determinism/fatalism, that the way things are is the one and only possible result of having our technology. On the other hand near the end he also speaks of living with technology and under its effects but being conscious of it. I'd say technology impacts society but this isn't a crude Marxist model where the material infrastructure commands the societal superstructure, it is possible to change the way we face technology and use it in a more constructive, tool-like form. 
He also speaks of using small groups of people. Curiously enough the classical age of mass movements is coming to an end and limited circles are increasing in importance:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/12/05/a-priesthood-of-programmers/

 >>/24776/
 >>/24777/
the problem is that you are looking at it with postmodern materialist glasses. 

 >>/24777/
> In a society with no printing press and 90% illiteracy this spiritual fulfillment is unavailable for most.
I mean come on. Do you really believe this?

 >>/24848/
> I mean come on. Do you really believe this?
A. Literature can bring spiritual fulfillment
B. You cannot read if you're illiterate
C. You cannot read if the words don't materially exist in paper, a computer screen or any other medium
D. Therefore, those who are illiterate and/or cannot access the material mediums of literature cannot derive anything out of it

 >>/24851/
I cannot deny that literature can bring spiritual fulfillment but im biased since im a bibliophile. Maybe we read and write since we dont communicate with eachother?

 >>/24848/
> the problem is that you are looking at it with postmodern materialist glasses.
To me it rather sounds like he thinks about and empathize with the people whose life can be elevated from the struggle for subsistence to a level where they could afford of taking care of the needs of mind and soul instead just the body.
First world environmentalism is very selfish and egotistic in ways. Beside they just do it because they saw some one sided argument (propaganda really) which made them angry and they propelled by their own emotions which they care of but not other people's life, they also can form any opinion very easily since their livelihood and that elevated quality of life they enjoy already isn't in danger.

I should read the whole thread tho, I lost track somewhere.

 >>/24856/
Who says bringing "civilization" will benefit these people? Its an infantile argument.

 >>/24861/
> Who says bringing "civilization" will benefit these people?
Well, surely you can't read that anywhere in my post.

 >>/24856/
> elevated from the struggle for subsistence 
 >>/24863/
> elevated from the struggle for subsistence

 >>/24865/
Ah I see what you think "bringing the civilization" means.
So they don't have the right for education or healthcare? They don't have the right to satisfy other needs than the bare physicals? How do you expect them to understand concept like conserving the environment and other shit if they can barely read? Lots of people in Brasil lives on day-to-day basis do you think it's fine and dandy?
And why do you even care about the jungles there? You don't even believe in global warming which is usually connected to deforestation (as well).

I heard similar opinions from China long time ago. From someone from the private sectors I guess. 
But now their official policy has totally changed and the government only talks about the eco civilization and sustainable development now. The official policy this year still focuses on poverty reduction but the ecology is their new emphasis. 
It's probably because their new city building programs are under review now. The news said the cities they built are ghost towns. 

(I don't know anything about Brazil. I am just talking about the political propaganda in China. )

 >>/24881/
Meanwhile they are renting farmlands abroad in tropical countries I guess their plan is to cultivate lands in other countries and preserve their own rain forest

 >>/24861/
I'm very much grateful civilization was brought here by bold pioneers from a small patch of Europe and believe our existence can be improved by following on their footsteps.

The distant mixed-race offspring of those Amerindians who were here half a millenium ago have in their hands a far better continent than the one their forefathers had.

The Amerindian lived in a pathetic little village whose buildings rotted away in a few years. He had very little social mobility and his tribe only had a handful of occupations. His life was short, crude and brutish and he could perish at random from any disease. He engaged in neverending tribal wars and glorified bloodshed. He liberally and irresponsibly employed fires in hunting - Amerindians were never paladins of environmentalism. The meager production of his village remained there; he could never share it with outsiders and also partake in the fruits of their labor.
He had no knowledge of why anything happened in the environment around him. His worldview on nature and everything else was exactly the same of everyone else in his village and his ancestors. There was no space for reflection and intellectual change: he could not compare his ideas with those of anyone else nor create anything new. All that he had was a tiny shard of ideas, shared with other villages of the same ethnicity but never traded and never discussed, an isolated and unchanging intellectual world. Sure, those ideas made him comfortable with his reality, but at the cost of isolation, ignorance and practices such as eating the flesh of enemies to assimilate their strength.
He had some cultural production, but nothing truly outstanding, and even if it were, nobody else could ever enjoy it because of the village's autarkic nature. The only Amerindian epics are those written about them by outsiders.

His distant children blended together with pale and dark outsiders from far across the ocean through quite physical intimacy and love and built something greater and better. Now the Amerindian's great-great-great-...-grandchild lives in cozy Gothic Petrópolis or gleaming futuristic Brasília. His life is easier, longer and more predictable. Of his morality, I'd say it's superior to the Amerindian's. His existence is no longer isolated and egotistical: his physical and creative labor can contribute to all of mankind's material and intellectual prosperity. His goods may be enjoyed by distant outsiders today, and his scientific or artistic deeds may potentially enrich the lives of foreigners for centuries to come. And this goes both ways. He can know of and reflect on the thoughts and experiences of many others from the distant past to the present. He can even ponder on the legitimacy of civilization, a privilege only those living in civilization have. 
Should he believe that eating corpses makes him stronger so he can sleep better at night (ignorance is bliss), or should he learn and think of something higher even if it doesn't make him immediately happy? Perhaps this transition from savagery to civilization is not one of good-to-bad or bad-to-good but one of childhood to maturity.
I value the works of art produced by those who have conquered this land. It's a good thing the historical process of colonization happened and I can enjoy them. Science, too, but little has been made here. Science has value, like art: I find it beautiful to see man acquiring the raw empirical information which awaits around him and creates theoretical models to understand it. It used to be called "natural philosophy". Science and art are two great reasons to let civilization thrive.

 >>/24883/
Amazon used to have great civilization. There is a first hand book about it.

german-brazilians jpg
(88.53 KB, 960x645)

 >>/24883/

This is pretty beautiful ode to civilization as a concept.

 >>/24886/
There's evidence it had a better-organized population with more intensive agriculture in the distant past, but that was long gone by the time the Portuguese arrived. In any case it was nothing on the level of the Incas or Aztecs.
There are also claims of monumental structures hidden in the jungle, but they should be taken as seriously as the supposed Phoenician inscriptions in Rio de Janeiro or Bosnia's "pyramid".

63 png
(498.86 KB, 827x959)

6215892337 jpg
(80.52 KB, 600x720)

 >>/24905/
You have that all wrong. Those aren't actual Germans.

 >>/24909/
it's a meme

 >>/24886/
 >>/24907/
Didn't we have a discussion on this? I remember looking up the validity of such claims. Hmm, now I can recall an Index article that a Hungarian archaeologist(?) took part in the research of the Amazonian basin's lost civilization and this made me looking up some stuff. Something about patches of black soil instead of the usual acidic and rectangular building remains. I also read about a population of several million that might have been supported with the local agriculture. The civilization collapsed and disappeared not long before the Europeans arrived.

 >>/24909/
It is an interesting question that when is the point when people turns into a certain folk, so basically how ethnogenesis happens. All the component of a folk (genetic characteristics, language, physical and spiritual culture, common historical background) can change and do change. But it is really feels an offtopic here.

 >>/24907/
 >>/24883/
no it wouldnt be first hand source otherwise.

 >>/24909/
> nationality and ethnicity are the same thing

> i live in a NY
> im new yourker

> i live in sweden
> im not swedish

one of our brilliant politicians said and he or maybe it was a she was fully serious that everyone who goes on a subway in sweden is swedish.

testing 💩

 >>/24913/
> patches of black soil instead of the usual acidic
This is a well-known fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

> rectangular building remains
It's hard to find credible sources about building remains on the Internet. Some photographs of pyramid-shaped hills are popular but those are natural formations.

There are also claims that the concentration of human-usable trees (like fruit-bearing species) is higher than what one would expect for a natural forest and this concentration is highest around ancient points of denser settlement. This could be because ancient Amazonian populations molded their landscape into something more convenient to themselves.

casually dropping this gem

https://www.facebook.com/uncleTedKaczynski/?ref=py_c

 >>/24926/
Made me remember to look up the article and stuff I read.

There are already enough people living in earth, I couldnt care less about human  population in general as it's non stop booming.

> Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics. 
Most humans are easily commanded and manpiulated like cattles. Humans are potentially valuable because of their learning capability, ability to use tools and creativity. Most humans don't have these enough, so they are disposable tools that I dont give a fuck about it.

 >>/25680/
< be technophile as a child
< release the Unabomber was right as an adult

5iu56iut7kiyuku1 jpg
(32.64 KB, 320x363)

 >>/25684/
Humans are not disposable tools, they're pockets of potential.
Even below average people can give birth to brilliant individuals. Even below average people can do something great, even if by mistake.
More people means more content.
There's no shortage of space yet. If and when it comes currently uninhabitable terrain can be utilized. Resources are hoarded and misused by the few so scarcity is fabricated. Stop buying into sociopath bullshit or it will bite you in the ass regardless of who you are as long as you're human being.

 >>/25686/
 >>/25686/
>  they're pockets of potential. 
true but most are don't and you don't need to be a genius to tell the difference. 
assuming most humans can reach their potential is nothing but a wishful thinking. 

> There's no shortage of space yet
That's your arbitrary reasoning. When will you complain about space? When entire people of earth live like ants? 

> Resources are hoarded and misused by the few so scarcity is fabricated
Unless you have ideas about reversing this.. Capitalism more or less creates monopolies and rich people who have more resources than others. So don't assume there will be equal shares for everyone. Since more people means even cheaper labor for them, your argument works against you.

 >>/25685/
Kids always grow up.

 >>/25684/
the virgin turk house dweller 

or

the chad turk tent nomad

you decide

 >>/25685/
there is nothing wrong with admitting you have been wrong in your ways

amazonas jpg
(746.85 KB, 1108x742)

Gonna dump a bunch of links here, Amazonas and it's disappeared civilization, black soil and such:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132130-300-long-lost-cities-in-the-amazon-were-once-home-to-millions-of-people/
https://soundsandcolours.com/subjects/books/in-the-footsteps-of-orellana-and-carvajal-22336/
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/research/terra%20preta/terrapretamain.html
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/35/11/2719/5086311
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03510-7
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/321/5893/1214
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2563351?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15301632
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0322-4

my man ellul is here to save you bernds

https://www.facebook.com/JacquesEllulOfficial

 >>/25687/
You don't have to be a genious but you'd have to be clairvoyant. It's not about reaching your full potential necessarily. Just as an example consider how many scientific breakthroughs were accidents. Don't underestimate chance.
You're making a huge leap over a phenomenon of population decline with your logic. But there really is more land available than what you might imagine, that's not arbitrary.
As for the state of things there have been some ways devised but whichever is chosen it won't be easy. However just because it's hard to believe doesn't mean it's impossible. Whatever the case, no matter what you've been told, population control is not in the interest of the population so qui bono?
Even if we remain by capitalistic solutions cheaper labour ends up in cheaper goods and more investments. Look at China.
More people is always more market so yea your wage might suck if you use a beaten trail but you'll have more occasions to start your own business. Reducing population is really not in your interest.

 >>/25730/
Reduced population however would mean smaller communities which an individual can digest better, so less people would feel themselves lonely and alienated from society. Also many people might feel they have more impact on their surroundings, and not just too little fishes in too big bowl, this would give more sense of purpose, an elevated level of worth.
Maybe that would do some good for Bernd.

 >>/25730/
 >>/25730/
> heaper labour ends up in cheaper goods and more investments. 
More investments are not for you. Lower class in china are not that affected by those investments, their life quality has changed because their government enforced unpayable tax for chinese citizens who make more than 2 babies. Not having complete retarded economy ministers also helps, but reducing population boom is the thing what helped them. I don't see anything rational in your reasoning, it's just randomized impacts and for some reason cheaper investments (which comes because labour cost is laughable in china) is good for lower or middle class.

 >>/25887/
Not in this day and age. There's too much interconnectivity available through the internet and other media not to mention ease of travel. I think it's better to create a culture of choosing your environment and associations freely.

 >>/25889/
But they are for 'me', just not directly. One of the reasons Poland is slowly catching up to the West because of relatively low labour cost making having factories here lucrative. Wages from foreign capital are money that come from outside and stay inside to drive local economy. Of course investor is the one that profits most but the positive side effects for others are far from negligible.
> their life quality has changed because their government enforced unpayable tax for chinese citizens who make more than 2 babies.

Maybe this will make my point clearer: babies are an investment. It takes a while for an investment to pay off but if you don't invest you keep your money which you can spend on quality of life improvements. Now talking in general which is the more economically healthy practice? Hoarding/spending or investing? Maybe you'll say: "Now they can invest in education." - okay, but they're far behind tech giants, educated workers require higher pay which in turn will cause investors to pack up and move to Africa and in turn economic growth rate to go down. In other words it's only a short term boost.
Genuine, steady economic growth comes mostly through manpower because, again, it's people that create content. At least until robot apocalypse.

1406124540421 jpg
(75.33 KB, 594x609)

 >>/25889/
Oh and one more thing.
That China tax probably came about because commies figured that if things continued that way they wouldn't be able to keep their population down. Again, population control is not in population's interest.

serveimage jpeg
(24.45 KB, 600x600)

> even comparing poland to china

one is industrialising and basically is europe/usa (soviet union too) in its haydays

and the other is some post industrial shithole

question_kot png
(89.24 KB, 353x332)

 >>/25903/
Which is which?

This reminded me the still unread jungle fire posts on the bunker.

We have two similar sounding words: esőerdő (rainforest and/or jungle) and őserdő (primeval forest), peeps often mistaking the two, the simpler one probably have no idea about the difference.

> Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics.

It's a matter of perspective, I would actually say it matters far less, we have enough people as it is and adding more people doesn't actually serve a purpose, particularly more humans in Brazil.

 >>/33190/
> we have enough people as it is and adding more people doesn't actually serve a purpose

What purpose?

 >>/33192/
Soviet-ball makes a good point, there is no purpose to humans at all in the first place, this makes  >>/33190/ your argument invalid. A far better system would be to replace humans entirely with deer and big cats. The deer eat young saplings and expand grassland and the big cats keep the deer population down to prevent total deforestation.

Humans will only be actually useful top predators if and when they can terraform other planets like mars, otherwise they consume more than they are worth. Humans (particularly certain types) over populate, over consume and then starve once the ecosystem they survive on is obliterated.

 >>/33192/
Making anime.

 >>/24703/
Well a natural part of any ecosystem is disease/viruses. When any genus reaches a point of overpopulation they are easily killed off by viruses that spread through them due to their lack of isolation. This process prevents any genus pushing out others and damaging the diversity in an ecosystem, no genus is allowed to be too successful. It could be argued that our prevention of this process is unnatural and has allowed our population to swell well beyond what would be naturally possible otherwise.
Perhaps though when our intellect reaches its' limit to where we can no longer fight ever more complicated mutating viruses, we will succumb to this process.

branch-manager4 jpg
(179.35 KB, 960x960)

 >>/33195/
> Well a natural part of any ecosystem is disease/viruses. When any genus reaches a point of overpopulation they are easily killed off by viruses that spread through them due to their lack of isolation. This process prevents any genus pushing out others and damaging the diversity in an ecosystem, no genus is allowed to be too successful

Yes, diseases are serious factor, but not only them. Predator-prey cycle isn't less serious factor too. In this cycle every peak is some kind of mini-extinction for prey, and then same problem for predator. So, maybe at large time periods there are balance and diversity, but on small time scales it is same catastrophic event that breaks everything and removes diversity, although it is rarely irreversible process (but can be).

Humanity fight with viruses can be seen as same process of adaptation, it is just faster and much effective, but on grand scale it isn't really different than slow adaptation of some dog to some virus. But nature has other ways to reducing human count, like famine cycle (past), wars (still work), fall of birthrates by urbanization (works and would work in future too), ecological problems (humans damage nature and then suffer).

We just don't know how large complex ecosystems work on large time periods, because we didn't had experience with it. We can see "predator-prey-disease" cycle, but we couldn't see some kind of large "sapient_species-rise_of_technology-downfall" cycle (although we predict it). Maybe every technological civilization dies?

Or maybe cycle is different. For example, we may look onto single apple with mold as some kind of ecosystem, and when apple is completely decomposed, ecosystem "ends". But we also may look at apple garden hit by mold, where single apple and it's "death" doesn't "matter", because mold is spreading, and ecosystem still exists even when some apples are destroyed. I.e. humans are mold and Earth is an apple, and spreading to other planets is a part of purely natural "garden disease" cycle. And destruction of Earth ecosystem is just same thing like decomposition of apple in garden, nothing unnatural.

Of course everything is related to person's worldview. For example, religious person or humanist may look onto this process from completely different position.

 >>/33195/
 >>/33198/
There was some idea that abnormal behaviour leads to extinction. For some reason a species behaviour changes, and they don't conform to the norms the environment forces on them, and they die out. And depending on where they stood in the food chain, or how important their existence and activity for other species (liek bees for pollination, or dodos for dodo tree) they can cause a chain reaction and mass extinction.
Maybe this also could act as a "natural" way of population control (with limits and not leading to total extinction). Whatever humanity creates it is part of nature since we are creatures of nature, and we just manipulate the things we found in nature with our ability which was given by nature (some species have gills, some thumbs and abstraction). Even if we can call the stuff "artificial" we talked about this I think. So abnormal behaviour which disadvantageous to our species, like urbanization (which leads to birthrate fall), are also "natural".

 >>/33204/

As I said, this is mostly religious question: what is natural and what is not. For example, Christian worldview clearly states that man is different from nature, he has soul, his mind and body are different things etc. From this point of view, humanity surely can do "artifical" and "natural" things.

Eco-worried people often state that they don't adhere to religion, but their worldview is often the same. Although caring about nature doesn't require to differentiate between human and nature, because there are plenty of reasons to care anyway (opposing reasons exist too).

bhutan-developmen... png
(593.95 KB, 674x781)

> this thread

 >>/35761/
Maybe forests can be utilized in a less-invasive way (most likely that RRT Industries, Ltd. wasn't referring to that but whatever), even 1% of growth it's share in GDP wouldn't be small addition. Modern American soy-hippies are all for this stuff, shouldn't they have some ideas about it? Also why there is no research about it?
I guess, even little disturbance can throw the balance of species off, but should be some middle-road, and not just cut-them-all-bald practices are possible.

 >>/35761/
What are we supposed to do, stay poor forever so you can gloat about the number of forested square km or species on a biome which would otherwise be our living space? You don't even stand to gain anything from it. You're not living in or visiting that place. You're probably not even deriving any enjoyment from learning about its physical geography, despite taking a stand against the existence of a human geography there. How is equatorial America any different from the heavily settled biomes on the continent's Atlantic seaboard? If treating the former as a living space is wrong, isn't that also the case for the latter, in which case the entire conquest of the New World is illegitimate?

39-sao-paulo-brazil-s... jpg
(345.45 KB, 2000x1331)

 >>/35792/
First, what makes you think the continued exploitation of the amazon will make Brazil rich? This is a common idea Brazilians have that cannot possibly ring true, as it is not deforestation that has made any country wealthy.
But about poverty, if this was Brazil's biggest problem, then why does Brazil have lower rates of suicide and anxiety than a built of country like America?
I don't gloat about the amount of space that exists, but I take pleasure from the inherent freedom and beauty that it provides. An endless string of suburbs, skyscrapers, and other human manufactured landscapes is a dystopia.
I derive happiness from not living in a concrete hellworld.
Who is this "we", anyway? The collective Brazilian consciousness?

 >>/35814/
Why are you saging?
> what makes you think the continued exploitation of the amazon will make Brazil rich?
Living standards have risen greatly over the past decades. The 2000s were a golden age for the poor in large part because of the ongoing commodity boom, and the economic miracle of the 70s happened during an intense promotion of settlement of the hinterland. There were, of course, other factors. The larger role was played by the Cerrado, which was subjected to an even stronger process of development. But gringos generally don't care about the Cerrado. 
I'm not saying the present model of development is ideal. What I seek isn't simply maximizing exports but the construction of a new society on new land, to have it dotted with cities and roads as with any other place. It is living space. The "blue banana" in Europe, one of the wealthiest regions in the world, is made of extensively human-transformed land. Deforestation wasn't what made it rich but it happened as settlement intensified. Transforming the land is a precondition for the development of a society within it. 
> why does Brazil have lower rates of suicide and anxiety than a built of country like America?
Development towards the First World should bring about First World problems, yes. It will also discourage the population flow towards the First World, which happens even though the First World is a sadder place to live in. That there is emigration in the first place, though it is modest, is a sign that some citizens feel their lives are lacking, and prioritize whatever comes from living abroad. It should also make citizens happier with their housing and reduce the number of mothers grieving for their sons lost to insufficient healthcare and civil war-like violence.
> An endless string of suburbs, skyscrapers, and other human manufactured landscapes is a dystopia. I derive happiness from not living in a concrete hellworld.
I am not a fan of concrete hellworlds, either, and that is the case for the Greater São Paulo, but not for the state's hinterland which is pleasant to be in. So maybe some of the population living in concrete hellworlds in the Atlantic seaboard should be dispersed to much more pleasant homesteads, small and medium-sized cities deeper into the continent.

 >>/35817/
The citizens only feel their lives are lacking because they know of these far-away lands and are sold on materialistic ideas. From the billboards towering over them to the commercials flowing into their life, and corporate skyscrapers revealing to them a striking wealth disparity.
It is not a matter of inherent needs, but of revealed priviliges.
I understand your point about the hinterland being more enjoyable, after all, it is the norm of humanity to have access to large swaths of nature, but I just can't see spreading out as the solution.
Here in Canada, urban sprawl has been causing much of the farmland to be gobbled up by suburban sprawl. Sure, you have more internal living space than an apartment, but the overall loss of space for the communities in the area is lost.
On a related note, have you heard of Dunbar's number? It might be of interest.

 >>/35828/
Emigration isn't motivated by money alone. For instance, in the case of brain drain there's the strong feeling that some intellectual work is only recognized abroad.
> I understand your point about the hinterland being more enjoyable, after all, it is the norm of humanity to have access to large swaths of nature,
São Paulo's hinterland has more farmland than intact vegetation, it's still densely developed, but the result is pleasant. Even the large cities don't feel dystopic as they are finite.
> Here in Canada, urban sprawl has been causing much of the farmland to be gobbled up by suburban sprawl. Sure, you have more internal living space than an apartment, but the overall loss of space for the communities in the area is lost.
The land being gobbled up isn't just farmland, it's empty land. What's built over it almost always isn't a suburb (as a suburb must have a downtown) but farmland and small-medium cities.
> On a related note, have you heard of Dunbar's number? It might be of interest.
It shows smaller communities are happier. Hence farmers in Mato Grosso should have a happier life than slum dwellers in Rio de Janeiro.

Powerbump

teeth_1 jpg
(115.08 KB, 978x652)

teeth_0 jpg
(107.19 KB, 988x638)

It's sad seeing people without any respect to nature. Since Unabomber and Ellul were already mentioned I don't have much to say. Deforestation and economic use for one do not solve overcrowding problems, it only gives more space for more people and multiplies overpopulation, poverty and misery in the long run. Big cities will always be overcrowded because they are most economically successful. You can unload a chunk of people from big city and move it to the new area, but after some time both will end up being overcrowded or overused (in case it's a farming/industrial area).

This is the exact problem with civilization. A proper settlement self-regulated when dealing with overpopulation. Civilization on the other hands allows you to have overcrowded slums for several generations without dying out and in fact producing even more slums and more people. And this is a train you cannot stop, the more it runs the more troubles it creates, and any attempt at solution does exactly the opposite.

We in fact require less people, not more of them, and more nature, not less of it. There is much space, but all living creatures require their own space, you cannot keep stuffing them together or will have to deal with consequences.

Ideal system for me would be some kind of technologically advanced eco-Utopia with < 1 billion of population where technology is kept in symbiosis with nature, but it requires complex, portable and easy to deploy technology and will probably never happen. People have to seek for balance and symbiosis, because it is always the most successful form of life.

If you just keep going with multiplying population, suffering, poverty and pollution (in other words, scaling the industrial system) you will have to deal with consequences described by Kaczynski and Ellul, plus consequences such as shown in mouse utopia experiment.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

 >>/39792/
> A proper settlement self-regulated when dealing with overpopulation
As expansion into the frontier is verboten, must all the proper settlements be in the Old World and the oldest parts of the New World? What's so special about them? They just by history happened to be settled first. Can't the Old World and the Atlantic coast of the Americas be depopulated more with less depopulation at the frontier?

 >>/39792/
> Unabomber and Ellul 
 >>/39792/
> Ideal system for me would be some kind of technologically advanced eco-Utopia with >>/kc/39792/@24678
> If you just keep going with multiplying population, suffering, poverty and pollution (in other words, scaling the industrial system) you will have to deal with consequences described by Kaczynski and Ellul

This is completely wrong. It's not a population problem, the earth can sustain many more billions of humans. The problem is technology, and our metaphysical relation with technology, or what the greeks called it technê and logos into a single worldview.

For quite some time now the elites has been churning out this propaganda that the world is overpopulated, and with this plandemic they have stepped it on a notch. With AI and robots, humans are not really needed anymore for the elites.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=blVTu_emjsA

Good video about propaganda and technology. Technology cannot exist without propaganda. 

For example. Cars are freedom, when they are the exact opposite.

 >>/39793/
The thing is that with small natural settlements you just don't care where to settle, you can't do any noticeable harm to nature outside of civilization and what comes from it. That being said, what you talk about is inevitable and will happen sooner or later anyway.

 >>/39795/
> Have you really read them
Yes, this is why I point this is for me and that this is Utopia. I think that you cannot go back, simply not possible, this is where Kaczynski is wrong.

You can't even find people alike or form any movement to crash it. People would rather stick to 89iq ideologies that aim for extermination of some specific race than to this one, simply because first grants them the benefits of technology, i.e allows them to fight for whatever they want to without ever looking at the actual problem.

But you always can go further, this is why accelerationism is considered to be new trendy thing, and eco-Utopia is located hundreds of years after the hypothetical accelerationism hypothetically succeeds. And again, hypothetically, so this is nothing more but a dream of mine - a world of post-technology.

> This is completely wrong. It's not a population problem
This is now what I'm trying to say, I'm saying that scaling the industrial system multiplies what is written above, not vice versa. So whoever advocates for more technological solutions ends up multiplying the problem they were fighting with in the first place.

Also world is overpopulated indeed, and elites would rather prefer cheap cattle workforce ready for whatever job you give them, which happens with impossibly high competition between them. Look at China, they have so many people they don't even value each other, if they have an accident with you they would rather kill you so they don't have to pay for your medical treatment.

 >>/39795/  >>/39799/
I think you guys approaching it the wrong way.
Population control and technology are just tools, like a hammer. If one strikes the his own nail instead of the nail who's to blame? The hammer or the idiot who is hammering his finger?
The problem is people, their behaviour and the mindset which leads to the actions. People needs to be changed for the "better" whatever that may be.

 >>/39810/
No. Industrial technology as a whole exists to enslave people while making them think they're free, by feeding them all this bread and circus. Again, where does that term come from? Rome. They gave all the Germanic barbarians bread, money and gladiator fights to watch so they wouldn't attack Rome. The same thing applies to today's population en masse, it's just that porn, drugs, video games and other "hobbies" exist in place of physical gladiator matches. Nowadays nobody's going to do anything about the COVID hoax as they're all playing video games, fapping to porn, and smoking pot, perhaps pets and TV dramas for old mothers, "theorising" things we already know. COPING mechanisms. 
People are innately a bunch of pathological liars, due to original sin, but never have they been like this, where all they care about is having nonstop entertainment.

 >>/39811/
> Industrial technology as a whole exists to enslave people
First you blaming technology. But then...
> People are innately a bunch of pathological liars, due to original sin
You say people are the problem, and...
> but never have they been like this
You say they can be different.
So how come you start the whole thing with a "No." when your conclusion is the same as mine?
You just don't go that far to blame the slaver and not the shackles.

I disagree that technology would be something inherently bad (or good), it can be used for whatever we want to use it. It's just that, a tool. And without people, the human mind recognizing it as a tool it's just the same as everything else in the universe.
And today I'm gonna bang a piece of metal with a piece of wood to another piece of wood and see if I can make something that I can call a table. Without applying space age high tech things in the equation.

 >>/39812/
Or maybe I'm gonna just lay down in the grass and eat food from there after I threw out all my tables as the symbols of Evil Technology.

antiind PNG
(541.72 KB, 573x456)

antiind2 PNG
(346.38 KB, 568x308)

 >>/39812/
I'm not trying to create a victimhood narrative. Did common people just start the industrial revolution out of a whim? No. But they will defend it to the teeth, as they love their ease and entertainment nowadays. Industrial technology is to blame and 
> I disagree that technology would be something inherently bad (or good), it can be used for whatever we want to use it. It's just that, a tool. And without people, the human mind recognizing it as a tool it's just the same as everything else in the universe.
The reason why industrial technology can't be considered a tool that allowed humans to use it to fulfill their power process is because the industrial revolution doesn't allow men to do anything, at least after they made that technology. They're using mechanical methods to do everything, even cleaning, even making clothes, and thus men become weak. Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of Darwin) admitted that the industrial revolution will turn everyone into these worker bees and thus create this beehive society, where common people are all sterile eunuchs kept in place with bread and circus, and only the top 1% get to fuck all the women. Not my words; that's Darwin's.
> And today I'm gonna bang a piece of metal with a piece of wood to another piece of wood and see if I can make something that I can call a table. Without applying space age high tech things in the equation.
I never called out making tables, just INDUSTRIAL technology.

 >>/39815/
> I never called out making tables, just INDUSTRIAL technology.
You are right. You always bring up the industrial revolution and its curse.
> I'm not trying to create a victimhood narrative
That wasn't my point, and it wasn't my intention to imply this.
I will reflect the other things, before reply more.

stirner-se... jpg
(40.97 KB, 266x427)

 >>/39810/
From the philosophical point of view you have an entity, not a tool.

When you just start building a system, you have it under your control. For the system to survive, it must have the ability to reproduce, and you inevitably expand the system to the point of self-production, because of the benefits it gives to you. You move from human-made, scalable small technology you can build yourself to technology you cannot build yourself, cannot build without complex factories and techniques impossible to replicate alone with human hands.

After it reaches that point, it becomes a separate entity. You don't control it anymore because it reproduces, because it is global, large and complex. It becomes fragmented between so many people it is impossible to stop everyone participating in such a system and impossible to control it. 

Now you have an autonomous system, and over-system consisting of minds of all people participating in it. You become (the banal phrasing) a cog in the machine, not someone who controls the machine. And machine exists solely to create more machines, to reproduce, to sustain itself.

> Wherever a technical factor exists, it results, almost inevitably, in mechanization: technique transforms everything it touches into a machine.

This is not a tool someone holds and controls when it is going to bash. There is no villain you just have to defeat to solve every problem on Earth. Your life depends on lives and actions of thousands of people you never ever seen in your life, you cannot just blame one cog in being an idiot because every single cog depends on each other.

 >>/39810/
> technology are just tools
This is completely wrong and you should apologize

 >>/39799/
Ellul saw technology (technique) as a autonomous force of nature that determined all aspects of human existence. You don't control your smartphone. Your smartphone controls you. 

 >>/39799/
> and elites would rather prefer cheap cattle workforce 

They have that already. In a technocracy humans are not needed. Even if there would be only 400 million people left on earth, robots and AI would do most of the work.

 >>/39811/
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and propaganda.
Aldous Huxley 

Today it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.
Zbigniew Brzezinski

 >>/39817/
I'm blaming all the cogs. That's what I wrote. The mentality and the mindset of people. Not a people. Not a third party outside the people - eg. the Jews. The people. Us.
> From the philosophical point of view you have an entity, not a tool.
But philosophy is not the practice. It's like when they try to explain history with processes floating above everyone heads and behind the scene. But history in practice is the constant decision making of people. This is how things happen, people decide to do (or remain passive, that is an act too) stuff. Yeah, there are circumstances which allows certain actions to take, but the decision to take that action has to be taken by people. And how they decide will depend on their mindset, their mentality, their morale. This can be changed, it's constantly changing.

There are many disputes over useless things. Like which one is better monarchy or republic. Democracy or autarchy. These arguments are all bs, because all can work just fine, if the right people are getting into the right places. And all systems can go to hui because the selection itself is flawed in all the systems.
I see this debate similarly. Technology isn't evil and it isn't our salvation. If we don't change our way of thinking and moral it will drag us down like concrete block around our ankles in the water.

 >>/39815/
A most succinct explanation of the disaster facing us. Extremely well expressed.

1554981973307 jpg
(621.16 KB, 1716x1710)

 >>/39834/
Well, first of all philosophy helps you understand life much better than everything else, and ironically all our great science founders shared this opinion. Your practice, the action you will take depends on your understanding of it. The better you understand what you deal with, the better action you take. Philosophy here is must-have, IMHO.

Philosophy talks in abstractions, and though they may be hard to grasp at first, they explain thing they talk about very well, because the abstractions help you to abstain from cliches, labels and patterns you are used to, which is essential for rational analysis. And here you start to see patterns, but not in form "this is bad and this is good", but in form of patterns that are peculiar to ourselves, life itself or Universe. And there is very different philosophy. Some is just opinions, some help you form your worldview and attitude, some explain phenomenons, such as technological system.

Back to the subject, you cannot change mindsets of people, because technological process itself forms and influences it. It's not mindset to blame, because mindset is just a consequence, not the reason.

Let's begin from the start:
1. Technology restricts our freedom. Your life depends on power generated miles away, on water given to you miles away you have no control over if they fail. You can't step away from pedestrian line while walking except for specific areas, you are tracked, recorded, you have unwritten requirements for successful existence, such as having a car, a phone, fake-happy social networks to prove you are able to communicate with other people. Any "violation" is condemned.

2. Technology must encapsulate all the resources and be distributed among people for successful advancement, i.e globalism and all what comes from it: culture mixing, everything dumbed down for lowest common denominator, etc.

3. Technology must ensure all cogs function effectively. For this to happen we all must be the same, because homogenic mass is most easy to control. You see our race, biological differences, sex, cultural differences being eradicated. SJWs and progressives just play the role of useful idiots in exchange of power they get for imposing such moral standards to the rest of people, but it is the system that benefits from it directly.

Moreover, when people get frustrated with impossibly high moral standards they are being imposed with, SJWs and progressives take all the blame, while technology slowly keeps pushing the exact same thing behind the curtain.

There must be no nepotism, no violence, and you see it today as every notable case of such is being actively socially condemned, while most people won't give a fuck who did what otherwise.

4. Technological system makes people powerless, frustrated. It puts huge amounts of stress, and then makes advancements to raise the plank of stress a single person can take. It suppresses any violent outbursts, is a reason of most mental illnesses there are, it approves SSRIs and normalizes mentally ill behavior.

4. Technology induces capitalism and capitalism induces technology. Everything we own, eat, drink and do depends on technology in this or that way. 

Everything written above has direct influence on us, how we live, act and what we think. The environment of system itself forms our culture and mindset. What we wear, where we go to, what we will do today, everything has technology in it. We are given "benefits" and profit for advancement of technology, so we as people promote technological advancement. Governments MUST advance in technology or will be conquered by another that has the benefits of technology. We must own technology and be compliant with it to survive.

This is not technology that depends on our mindsets, it is technological system that creates the entire mindset. It is a global environment, and unlike natural environment that does not care what you do to it and allows to shape itself to your wish, the system cares and responds and wants to encapsulate and suppress. See the difference?

If you change the mindset of people, technological system will fail, because it is unable to exist in any different environment where people are not restricted and modified. But if it fails, our entire world fails too, it means loss of billions of lives, so people will never give up the technology.

And as I already said, the only way I can see system failing is accelerating it to the point of failure, and may be then we will be able to overcome the enslavement.

 >>/39848/
> philosophy helps you understand life much better 
As long as you don't know much about philosophy. The more you know the more confused you're gonna get if you want to get direction from it. Students of philo depts of unis doing nothing for 5 years just perpetually debating, proving and disproving every major, minor and passing thought philosophy produced during its ~2500 years of history. Which history produced only two person with actual practical impact: Nietzsche and Marx. And everyone coming after them - and history too - proved that those two dudes were more wrong than everybody else.
Philosophy is nice at one point of a man's life but that's over fast and have to step over it.
If you want useful stuff from philosophy, get logic and pass on everything else. Tho logic is not exclusive to philosophy.

 >>/39849/
> Technology restricts our freedom. 
It is not. With technology you can live independently generating your own power. Similar with anything else.
The state, led by the government restricts your freedom, and the state and the government is just that: people, us.
Not technology that tracks us, but people want to track people out of greed (for ads) or to make themselves feel powerful. Now I don't want to step on the toes of religious people but they did that without technology: confession was a device of tracking for example, or when communist regimes made half of the people informers.
And btw you don't have to participate in fake-happy social networks. In fact most old people don't, and the younger generations step over facebook and just stare at e-celebrities. Only people 20-50 are really participating in that. And even those aren't forced to do that, and what's more they loosing interest fast.
> Technology must
That sounds like a presumption.
> successful advancement
Technology does not advancing for 50 years now. Yeah they made smartphones. Ok, they made transistors smaller - but this decade they arrive to the smallest possible transistors and our life won't be any different.
Creation of social networks is that, social, not technological advancement. People saw a possibility and used the technology to make it. Not technology made them do that. Especially since technology isn't a conscious entity like how you wish to present it.
And at this point I have to reach something you mentioned - it's just your abstraction of tools. Technology does not exist, there are manifestations of it - if you will - transistors, computers, jet engines, hadron colliders, whatever. But actually these stuff exists and you make an abstraction to make up this entity which you can blame for whatever behaviour people presents.
But whomster am I arguing with? Swebernd and Danebernd put forward the idea that technology is the problem.
Anyway, I'm gonna reply to this, because you underlined it:
> The environment of system itself forms our culture and mindset.
Zeitgeist existed without modern technology. Just because modern technology is part of our zeitgeist, it doesn't mean that's the moving mechanism of it. That mechanism is always the people and their mind.
Btw people are also part of the environment. And what you do influences the environment. Most people are like a school of fishes. They move toward where the first one turning moves. You can present a behaviour for others to follow. And you can encourage people to do the same.

I still have this  >>/39815/ to reply in earnest sometimes. Today I'm done however.

images jpeg
(10.87 KB, 225x225)

 >>/39855/
> With technology you can live independently
Independently? No, you can't. Why do you think Kaczynski started to mail bombs? With small scale technology, yes, you can live alone in a natural way. But not with big technology such as generators, because they require support and are built with complex tools, you can't find a replacement part in the wild, and if you seek for support you pretty much depend on technology.

You can be a hermit and live alone, but you will never be independent. It does not matter where you go, everything is covered with laws and borders, that exist thanks to technology. Technically, laws and borders are made up by humans, sure. But objectively it is the technology that allows it in the first place, and people must always follow what technology allows to do to survive, if they don't they will be conquered by those who do, so either way they end up in technology. The initial cause. 

Also, we have only one tribe left intact with civilization, and it already seen the helicopters and boats, so not really even intact. There is no place to hide.

> The state, led by the government restricts your freedom
And why does state exist? Civilization started with technology, it started with the first state. State is built on the ability to accumulate power and resources in one place for a long time, which is simply not possible in hunter-gatherer societies with very primitive technology.

> out of greed (for ads)
And why do ads exist in the first place?

> or to make themselves feel powerful
And why do people feel powerless?

> Technology does not advancing for 50 years now
It advances constantly, next serious breakthrough may happen in like 100 years or more, but that does not mean it's stagnant. Consumer technology always advances slowly. You look in a wrong direction, people actively work on genetic engineering and military.

> Creation of social networks is that, social, not technological advancement
Communicating instantly over the globe in real-time mode? For me it is pretty much a technological advancement. This is what turned media so cancerous, and now media basically rules the world, imposing propaganda with quadruple power.

Sure, it is people who make up the propaganda. But you miss that people pursue some interests, goals and actions that exist only within technological system and cannot exist outside of it, such as accumulation of billions of wealth, law enforcement, arms race, geopolitics, et cetera. You miss that technological system creates that need in the first place, and creates many more needs such as an urge to express suppressed emotions, power and freedom, and then we, the people, create the outlets for such people, not looking at why they need these outlets in the first place. We create them because it is the only logical solution that exists within the system itself, within the system which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

> it's just your abstraction of tools
This is why it is an abstraction, because being that large and complex is starts to behave like an entity, serving its own interests. This is what it is about: it does not matter how you change people's mindsets, if they are enslaved by technology they will have to be compliant with it, they must pull the levers and build the machines, they must behave in a way that does not break the system and benefits the system, in other words they must be the slave of the machine - otherwise it will just break.

It is an entity because it is not just a collective of minds that behaves randomly, it is an entity that behaves in a very specific way, produces our whole cultural environment and ensures its survival.

> Zeitgeist existed without modern technology
Technology is not necessary to be modern, modern is just the most easy and obvious to talk about.

Really it feels like we hit the wall here and just look at different directions repeating what we already said, so for me it will be the best to stick to each others opinions and be done with that.

 >>/39862/
Im not going to argue with you but you need to read ellul and mumford. Start with elluls propaganda book. Technology isn't some beneficial "tool" that humans control nor is it to our benefactor.

 >>/39849/
I still have something to this post.
> Governments MUST advance in technology or will be conquered by another that has the benefits of technology. 
Barely any conquering is done these days. It's companies what expanding, competing for workforce and market and they can bring profits to home which is better than a area of problematic shithole.
> homogenic mass is most easy to control
Wrong. The more diverse, the more heterogenic, the easier to control.
> You see our race, biological differences, sex, cultural differences being eradicated
Nod really. Well, only if your only source about the world is imageboard memes. Especially with sex. How do you eradicate sexual differences? You can't. You just see all these attentionwhoring trannies everywhere so you think that's going on global level. And such news that "Swedish parents dressing boys as girls" that's also an insignificant group but it's good for media generating views for themselves, however the topic is dropped right after and media moves on and everyone else forgets. And anyway sex isn't eradicated by that, that's just a boy in girls' clothes.

There are probably more stuff, but I have to go.

 >>/39862/
I still haven't read this post. Yesterday was a busy and stressful one.

 >>/39864/
Now you could talk to someone about stuff you're interested in, and now you shut up? There must be a special kind of hell dedicated to you for sure.

Been thinking alot lately about uncle ted and if he were a spook. To me, it seems he was a spook based on a number of things, but the cream on the pudding is his stated goals which fit nicely into what the elite has been planning for us useless eaters.

"In "The coming revolution", Kaczynski outlined what he saw as changes humanity will have to make in order to make society functional, "new values that will free them from the yoke of the present technoindustrial system", including:

    Rejection of all modern technology – "This is logically necessary, because modern technology is a whole in which all parts are interconnected; you can’t get rid of the bad parts without also giving up those parts that seem good."
    Rejection of civilization itself
    Rejection of materialism and its replacement with a conception of life that values moderation and self-sufficiency while deprecating the acquisition of property or of status.
    Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature
    Exaltation of freedom
    Punishment of those responsible for the present situation. "Scientists, engineers, corporation executives, politicians, and so forth to make the cost of improving technology too great for anyone to try"

Notice this part:

"Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"

This is not something new whatsoever. Lots of elites has been promoting "worshiping" nature, which just means you have to pay your carbon taxes and quit eating meat and become a vegan.

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
Floppyface here offers $100 million for those who come up with a genius idea to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Deadline is 4 years from now.
Plants, the vegetation does that. Where's my 100 mil?

 >>/39923/
> which just means you have to pay your carbon taxes and quit eating meat and become a vegan.
> become a vegan

NEVER

> "Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"

So basically just a rehash of old age paganism that was rampant all over Europe once upon a time

 >>/42531/
I feel like it's just a way for him to shuffle money around so he doesn't pay any taxes for it. Money laundering I think is the word I am looking for?

 >>/39923/
> "Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature"
> This is not something new whatsoever.
Probably that's why it sounds good.

 >>/42535/
I dunno if he needs to do stuff like that. I've no idea about US tax policies and his offshore accounts.

6516516816111 png
(865.67 KB, 579x784)

 >>/42552/
> Probably that's why it sounds good.

I don't think it will be so good when people start doing wicked shit and do daily human sacrifices like actual pagan religions

 >>/42602/
> #not all pagan
> #not all the time

 >>/42602/
Although cutting out the still beating heart of captives for Huitzilopochtli sounds a fun hobby.

svv jpeg
(76.47 KB, 1024x576)

 >>/42665/
Well not every single one, but still. Most people will just abandon paganism in the end regardless

 >>/42666/
> Although cutting out the still beating heart of captives for Huitzilopochtli sounds a fun hobby.

> those trips

Until it's your turn to be in the chopping block. Then it won't be pretty tbh

 >>/42671/
Well many pagan traditions and mythological tidbits were transferred into Christianity. One could argue even the Resurrection is a pagan motif.
> Until it's your turn to be in the chopping block. Then it won't be pretty tbh
Yes, being on the block doesn't sound entertaining at all.

FE Veronica... png
(2.63 MB, 1638x2400)

There are a number of other problems other than  >>/33190/ which I mentioned before actually.

As I mentioned, most people are worthless. However, moreso than this, clearing habitats for the expansion of man and the alleviation of overpopulation is both pointless and short sighted. Pointless for the aforementioned but short sighted as populations tend to hove at a level that their environment can sustain. Cutting down jungles to provide space will only increase that level, you are still going to end up with overpopulation as the underlying issues that cause it have not been resolved, you have just created more residential land to overpopulate.

Additionally, jungles play an important role in climate control and in biodiversity, you threaten the climate and cause the extinction of animals only to create more slums.

If Brazil was a colony of Britain none of this would be an issue. African and South American nations should never have been granted independence.

Monarchless states are the bane of the world.

 >>/42679/
Yahweh himself is a pagan god, just one that evolved with a religion that excluded the other gods.

ScientificAmerican100... jpg
(383.08 KB, 942x716)

2017141.Grid-6x2 jpg
(16.46 KB, 330x225)

Xingu1 png
(298.15 KB, 385x396)

AmazonRoads jpg
(121.56 KB, 212x280)

 >>/24886/
 >>/24913/
This?

Baste_Sade... jpg
(640.44 KB, 892x2230)

 >>/42665/
Philosemitism sounds like such a much better alternative.

 >>/42711/
Haven't seen something in that detail, but probably yes, that.

terra-petra jpg
(231.64 KB, 1024x768)

Someone just having a thread about this on kohl rite now.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/394-2009/digs/8921-digs-amazon-dark-earth
This article says the accumulation of the black soil started 6000 years ago, ~4000 BC. and used consciously as a soil enriching tool from 500 BC by the Pocó and Santarém cultures.
I assume those are two well separable archaeological cultures, named by some locality where they were identified the first time. Pocó predates Santarém, did the latter grow out from the former?

american_scientist jpg
(28.67 KB, 480x480)

Here's another article with a bit moar info. Skimmed it through but still needs a proper read on by behalf.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-some-amazonian-societies-survived-and-others-perished-amid-pre-columbian-droughts/

 >>/42718/
U got an archive or full page screencap?

 >>/42725/
It devolved into a quarrel about "bio"-charcoal. So I did not feel necessary to make a screenshot.

Faszen-egetes-boksa JPG
(386.39 KB, 1024x768)

faszenegetes-szendro-... JPG
(56.05 KB, 417x313)

faszenegetes-szendro-... JPG
(34.66 KB, 417x313)

So what is biochar?
Biochar is just charcoal, they slow burn wood by applying heat to it but not allowing to burst into flames. Essentially the wood itself does not burn, but with high enough heat the long chains of carbohydrates it consist of start to degrade, decomposes into several other things (gases, fluids, solids) one of those is char. In the presence of oxygen, the char bursts into flames as it degrades further and falls apart into its components and finally turns into ashes. This is perfect burning, but without oxygen, after a while the whole wood transforms into char.
What makes it "bio"? The effort to sell everything to greenfags overpriced, even stuff that was used by humanity for thousands of years. Everything "bio-" is better. Biokrautchan is the most eco friendly board on the whole chanverse.

 >>/42731/
Bio-char would imply the existence of non-biological charcoal.

 >>/42746/
It would but there isn't. There is coke, which is made from mineral coal (but mineral coal is also just dead vegetation and animals). They use a bio- prefix to signal it's "healthy". If they would say char, they hype will be less.
Maybe there are different processes to make char, like when one in his backyard slowly smolders a bunch of waste from his garden, or I can imagine "factory made" charcoal, liek putting them into some container which gets heated up enough to turn the wood and stuff into charcoal. But how the end product would differ? And then would the second version be cost effective (one needs energy to heat up something, that needs fuel, with the first method the thing heats itself). Well they probably could sell it for horrible prices (and regulate to death the sale of "home made" char, to kill competition).

You can mine it out of the ground you don't need to make it...

rositas-laughter webm
(689.14 KB, 400x300 vp8)

 >>/42748/

Screenshot 2021-05-24... png
(500.75 KB, 1396x725)

Hmmm. I think we should just nuke the Philippines.

 >>/43778/
Where would dysgenic men go to receive sum fuk?