Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

superluminal said:
I completely agree. I can think of another word for unconstrained growth - cancer. We are not satisfied to reach a level of maturity and then live sustainably, in harmony with our resources. And that behavior is now killing us all.
Click to expand...

Roman said:
ecosystems have been collapsing around us for, well, for as long as we've been watching.
Click to expand...


superluminal/ Roman,

Thanks for your posts.


Work has destroyed ecosystems.

On a small planet whose circumference is just 40,000 km work has turned into overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

Most of the 3 billion people living in cities - 50% of world population - are engaged in overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

It is very important to understand the reasons for doing work.

Why do we work?

It is generally thought that people work because - they are smart, intelligent and hardworking. People work in order to feed themselves and their families.

Above reasons are totally wrong.

In the East sages had discovered thousands of years ago that people cannot stop working. People work because they cannot stop working.

Anyone who wants proof of this can try the following. Take leave from work for 10 days. Try to sleep continuously. Try to indulge in pleasure/ entertainment continuously. Try to relax continuously.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work, the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes - they can stop work/activity only under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of restlessness/ anxiety/ suffering into peace. This requires ability and years of effort. A large number of people in the east have tried to do this but very few have succeeded - maybe a few hundred or a few thousand in the entire history. Stopping work is not an option for most people living in this world.

Today 50% of world population - 3 bilion people are living in cities. These people cannot do farming in cities. Most of the people living in cities are engaged in unnecessary work - making things, buying things and selling things - leading to an endless cycle of unnecessary and destructive work.

Our small planet which is only 40,000 km in circumference cannot sustain a city-based industrial society.

A city-based industrial society destroys necessary things for making unnecessary things.

A city-based industrial society destroys animals, trees, air, water and land for making consumer goods.

In a city-based industrial society work turns into overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

Such a society ends up destroying the ecosystems - the very things that have created and sustained life on earth.



sushil_yadav
Corrupt
ePhilosopher
ForeignPolicy
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
 
Last edited:
sushil yadav said:
Think Positive.

Psychologists say -- Think Positive.
Politicians say – Think Positive.
Economists say – Think Positive.
Scientists say – Think Positive.
Everyone says – Think Positive.


Arctic ice is melting – Glaciers are melting – Rivers are drying up.
Think Positive.

Fish population in Oceans is down to 1/3 of what it was 100 years ago.
Think Positive.

Pollution levels are going sky-high and valley-deep.
Think Positive.

There used to be millions of members in most species of Animals and Birds. Now they are down to thousands and hundreds.
Think Positive.

Weather is getting more and more irregular and unpredictable.
Think Positive.



Thinking positive is the height of insanity.
Thinking positive is the height of abnormality.


This is a world that has become completely incapable of feeling Pain, Compassion, Remorse and Guilt.
The planet is getting destroyed moment by moment – and people are thinking positive.


Very soon there will be 1 Animal and 1 Tree left in this world – and people will still be thinking positive.

They will be holding Seminars, Conferences and Global-Summits to save the Environment.


sushil yadav
Click to expand...


This is why when you prepare for the worst, hoping for the best becomes obsolete. When you dont prepare, or can not prepare for any given action, it is that much harder to instill order out of the chaos when a "calamity" hits.
 
If you have a trouble with positive thinking, seek help, try Prozac, it's a positive upbeat world, everything else be damned, gloomy attitude will get you in an unemployment line at warp speed. You got to adjust. For starters try a book (5 stars):

Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet (Hardcover)
by Ph.D. Seymour Garte (Author)

From Publishers Weekly
Garte, a professor of public health, presents a well-researched, clearly written summary of the health of our planet, with histories of lead paint, ozone and various chemicals as well as analyses of human health and planetary health; the prognosis is surprisingly optimistic, and prescriptions are encouraging. While the environmental problems hyped daily on the news are real and ongoing, things have improved -air and water are cleaner, more food is available, life spans are up and infant mortality is down, diseases are better understood and treated-and will continue to improve if efforts continue. Garte points out the fallacies in standard right- and left-wing approaches-the planet is not in imminent danger of imploding, he says, but neither will it be saved by the free market-and shows how most improvements over the past 40 years have been the result of government intervention. Garte's reasoned discussion and compelling, honest tone make this a valuable tool for increasing science literacy with regards to the important environmental issues of the day; Garte's recommendations, to "continue on the paths we have been traveling and finally acknowledge the great progress that we have already made" should put new wind in discouraged environmentalists' sails, while plentiful references, data and illustrations will give skeptics material to think over.

Review
"For people who are put off by all the talk of global warming these days, a new book, 'Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet' by Seymour Garte, Ph.D., gives a balanced and in many ways positive view of the state of the planet. Garte, a professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, goes over both the critical issues still facing man, as well as the often-forgotten progress and positive developments.

Perusing the book, I find the author's messages to be more insightful than I would have expected with a level of optimism that's refreshing. Garte doesn't merely give credit to environmental activities, technological progress and regulatory oversight, but also notes the importance of freedom and democracy to the well-being of the planet, citing the terribly oppressive toll Communism had on the environment in the days of the Soviet Union, which certainly rivals the environmental menace that was Saddam Hussein who we recall set oil fields on fire and just about destroyed the marshlands along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Indeed, the author makes a strong case that the environment is in much better hands with free peoples, so his support for more regulation might seem counterintuitive, but perhaps the truth is that ongoing public debate encourages more gradual changes in law which are essential to improving the environment without having very sudden, negative impacts on society, something that a more tyrannical government is more likely to cause with sudden strict laws.

------------------------------------

Garte is a scientifically illiterate moron with a Ph.D., (I have a book), but he's positive, and that counts for a lot in this world.
 
dixonmassey said:
If you have a trouble with positive thinking, seek help, try Prozac, it's a positive upbeat world, everything else be damned, gloomy attitude will get you in an unemployment line at warp speed. You got to adjust. For starters try a book (5 stars):
Click to expand...

I think what sushil was trying to say is you can be walking off a cliff and still have a positive attitude about it.
 
In a city-based industrial society work turns into overwork, unnecessary work, destructive work.

Such a society ends up destroying the ecosystems - the very things that have created and sustained life on earth.(QUOTE)

MR SUSHIL V IS REALLY ONTO SOMETHING HERE.

Most of our city cafe 'high brow'culture analize this n that to death, cult of celebrity, overzealous fundamentalists of all denominations, advertising & marketing gurus, stock brokers(grand wankers), make over experts, experts in general, etc; is crap, except for communication via the internet off course!

Thank God for our evolving intellect to discern the shit from the perfume; that is the our collective freedom of choice though this probably wont save the 'our beautiful space ship from calamity' so to speak.Who knows? Does anyone care in this vast cosmos but us?

The main problem that is apparent to most is HOW to
'de construct' our present reality and find way of 'doing things' better short of wiping out a large proportion of the human race, by any means (hopefully not me just yet...) and starting over.

Stop breeding for several generations or nature will no doubt come to our rescue...How many times has this happened to evolving human civilizations in antiquity?

On a positive note there is always the opportunity to positive thought and change. Keep punching out there ya all, free intellects we are to the end...
 
seriously though (great crowd, tip your waitress), i think the distinction's only utility is in describing "people did this" but that people did it is not logically distinct from natural occurrence, as people are part of nature. giving real credence to the term 'artificial' in philosophical contexts is IMO, presuming humans are somehow "unnatural" (as to be opposed to nature) is presumptive of something that could render us so.

I think to understand environment, it must be understood that all things within environment are of and subject to its function. If not, there is no discernible function, it is fragmented.

Thus if something is observed that violates one's understanding of environment, the understanding must adjust to compensate for the apparent contradiction. I think that's the basis of scientific thought. If we refuse to research and adjust our comprehension, we must deny what is really happening.

Of course in the discussion of ecosystems, attempting to consider their behavior without particular influences (like people) is a valid course of discussion. Discussing how wrong people are for behaving as they do (generally speaking) is to pretend their behavior doesn't come naturally. I think that is poor judgment. It's much easier, more sensible and more feasible to dissect if you realize it has to be natural. Getting all judgmental and preachy about how bad people suck for wanting to eat and drive places, etc, is a complete waste of time and mental effort IMO. Then again, I suppose for those political animals out there, the manipulators - it's sweet fodder for indoctrination.
 
Roman said:
I meant those who don't see the problem. In previous communications with you, you seemed to think that our wholesale destruction of the environment into useful things was us remaking our environment to benefit us.
Click to expand...

But isn't that quite literally exactly what it is? Of course I give you that if we screw up and make it where we can't survive because of all the remaking, we get what's coming... so it's wise to think a bit about what we're doing. There's also a lot of potential danger in trying to directly manipulate it, as the systems involved are immensely complex.


I find this a little bit of a loony concept, seeing as there isn't much evidence for it. Not any evidence that I've seen, anyway.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. You keyboard for instance, used to be some other compounds found on our planet. Then they got processed and reshaped to form the components of a keyboard, then assembled. What evidence do you require to accept that?


How is that "the planet" doing it? That's like shooting your horses and exclaiming "Jeeze, these are some wild and crazy horses! Look at them bleed to death! I had no idea!"
Click to expand...

Of course, because that's exactly how I think.

Do you think "the environment" can be thought of as a particular object like "my horse"? How do you think that works in the minds of most people? If I chop down a tree to sell for the money to feed my children, am I therefore morally obligated to comprehend and perfectly manipulate the impact on "the environment"?


Fishing stock all over the world, for instance, are being totally depleted by people. Not whales or sharks or x-rays. Our fishing nets. It's a classic- the tragedy of the commons. A simple way to solve it, which has been done in several places, is to give fisherman ownership of the fish stock.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. Problem solved, stop whining.

Oh, yeah, we're not going to be able to save every single golden amazonian tree frog or whatever. That's not what I'm worried about. The unfortunate problem with "people like me" is their near religious belief that the environment is full of intrinsic good and we have to pass lots of laws to protect it. Legislation very rarely provides good results.

[]As you say- we're not really sure what destroying the environment does. But simply because we're unsure what all the pieces do, doesn't mean that they don't do anything.
Click to expand...

So "destroying" isn't changing. Changing isn't the less emotionally charged way to think of it. Of course you'd have me on that. What a loon for not wanting to just get all emotional and whiny, because that would help me understand all this stuff way more better.

Regardless, I try to trust in ingenuity, and hope it is enough to compensate for our apparently inherent behavior because if it isn't we'll perish.

I guess though were that the case, at least there'd be no more little bitches, whining about it instead of innovating for our survival.
 
the Industrial society at the moment does destroy mind and enviroment

and at time it seems to purposely

take sodium fluoride, purposely put in our drinking water and tooth paste

now before some say that " well we need fluoride " your right we do

but it is calcium fluoride that we need , not sodium fluoride
 
thinking said:
the Industrial society at the moment does destroy mind and enviroment

and at time it seems to purposely

take sodium fluoride, purposely put in our drinking water and tooth paste

now before some say that " well we need fluoride " your right we do

but it is calcium fluoride that we need , not sodium fluoride
Click to expand...

sodium fluoride is naturally in (drinking) water.
 
thinking said:
NO SODIUM FLUORIDE is not naturally ocurring in drinking water

this is a pervasive misconception

it is calcium fluoride which is natural in drinking water
Click to expand...

Hmm.. If there are sodium ions and fluoride ions in it..
 
Sushil said:
Such a society ends up destroying the ecosystems - the very things that have created and sustained life on earth.
Click to expand...

This is the same exact argument I used in my environment thread.. maybe there's something in the air...
 
guys/ladies ;

Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous waste containing many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies have proven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. (See opposition's response to Question 4). Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different.

This was proven in a study called, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After this study was completed, this statement was made: " ... this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg from calcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of the compounds of fluoride were noted." (See 3-1: Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. July 1934, page 797). In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxic than natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally different compounds. (Also see 3-2).

Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride is artificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride.

"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses." — Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England.
Click to expand...

is more needed to be said ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top