So, You Hate TPTB. Whats your solution?

reply to post by SLAYER69


The only laws I need to follow is

1. Do not kill anyone or hurt them.

2. Don't steal or damage anyone's property

3. Be honest in your dealings with your fellow men and don't swindle them.

Honestly, I don't even know why we need an economic system, I learned truth that is far better than anything that I have ever learned.

only those laws apply to me, no other law applies to me. I own my own stuff and if they do an executive order 12803, then I'd say, "Buzz off!" then if they do an executive order 13037, then I'll say, "Are you higher than God?"

I'm free, and I will forever be free.

Originally posted by firekoral
I can only get that you think that christianity is a "myopically limited" point of view (in which case thats fine thats your opinion, but last time i went to the optometrist i was diagnosed as far sighted.)

Being verbose may make others think you know what you're talking about and can even replicate relevance but not here. And for argument's sake, everyone has a myopically limited view on God, so we aint that different and your point is moot. unless ofcourse....You are God

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I think Gandhi was on to something there...

Being unlike how their faith teaches many people to be isn't just limited to "Christians" but people of all different faiths who suffer from this as well.

So please, I have nothing against true "Christianity" but rather those who call themselves Christians yet walk right by a homeless starving man on their way to a "Church Meeting or ice cream social" etc

There is no solution to TPTB.
If you are in sales, you sell. If you sell your product really well, you advance in your profession. Keep in mind that you are always really selling yourself.
Enter the realm of POLITICS.
You sell yourself. How simple can it be? You are a friggin' prostitute. I am addressing the reality, not what "could" be.
The more clients you have that you please, the more sales you have.
So, TPTB are composed of the most successful prostitutes...no, not exactly. They are simply the prostitutes.

The Powers That Be are those that are PAYING the prostitutes. But wait, aren't we ALL paying the prostitutes? Don't we pay the prostitutes a salary, while they are daily engaged in the game of pleasing the big donors?
Of course we are. We pay the prostitutes, aka our representatives in government, a very good salary with very good benefits, and we therefore share some of the blame. Not all, but some. We as a people don't do our homework on those that "represent" us, and therefore we get what is coming to us.

TPTB, is really us. There is NO solution to US. We are what we are. The only solution is that we give up on "us".
Not really a solution, but definitely the next stage in this evolution.

reply to post by darkl0rd

You want to have a immortal daddy who you think takes care of you..... hey, many children have some fantasy friends, why not you or your neighbour, if it helps to improve your life.... I have no problem with that but never forget that the believes that people have make them vulnerable and that my friend is how you getting exploited by others who does not give a damn about what you believe in. I know this for a fact, because I do the same - I exploit people through their believes and FEARS! Do I feel bad about that? Absoultely not, I even enjoy it.

Ok so your against religion because of its exploitation but you enjoy exploiting ppl in the same way. This is exactly what i am saying we cannot rely on humans to make things right in the end because of ppl like you.... I will keep my faith thank you. Religion is used to exploit ppl but that is our fault it is not the way of the father, we created religion so we contorted to fit our individual agendas. We don't have all the answer or THE answer but I trust that through God it will one day be revealed to me.

I personally find it quite pompous to discredit a higher being.

reply to post by SLAYER69

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” I think Gandhi was on to something there... Being unlike how their faith teaches many people to be isn't just limited to "Christians" but people of all different faiths who suffer from this as well. So please, I have nothing against true "Christianity" but rather those who call themselves Christians yet walk right by a homeless starving man on their way to a "Church Meeting or ice cream social" etc

Agreed 100%

reply to post by firekoral


The only god is the electron. They say god is all around us and all knowing. Well that is the electron.

I give all glory to the electron.

Originally posted by whatsinaname
its quite simple really, firstly, you don't replace anything, you just allow people to be able to live their lives freely and go back to farming communities, getting rid of mass production at least in your community and reducing the utter crazyness of life back down to a manageable level.

as for morals, forget about it, its not going to work or happen. which is pretty much why if and when ww3 happens the above is somewhat of the plan when it comes to the safety of my family and friends. tptb will do whatever and probably not struggle to do so, so the key is to just ignore them and go native, with cannon, else everyone could be stuck in some foul place and 1984 would become a reality, and at that point you might as well shoot me in the face, if you don't get why read the book.

my opinions here, if you wanted a realistic look at things there it is, I don't care about the world as a whole and nor does anyone else, so leave the morals in the bag for the brains to poke at while they try to solve the problem with money.

ed: I don't mean that in a harsh way, but what can we really do for eachother in such a situation, when half of the people would be going crazy or looting. my plan includes neither of those.

edit on 13/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)

If we just went back to being little farming communities there's be a world wide famine and billions would die of hunger. The idea of it is appealing but the reality of it doesn't work. Even food and the way of getting it out to the people is done on a industrial scale and supports 6 billion world wide give or take a few million keeping in mind that the famines in the world today are due to war and mismanagement which have interfered with the food supply in those regions.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


You know you could make a lot of money if you could construct a religion out of electron worship

I think that a centralized, hierarchical power structure will always breed and attract the sort of leaders we could do without, and in the end will always turn out badly....as long as this structure remains we will eventually end up back at square one imo. Small, efficient and mostly self sufficient communities and economies are the way forward, there will undoubtedly be leaders of said communities but they would be held much more accountable on such a small scale, use our technology to create a massive network for these communities to talk and cooperate with each other simultaneously....and without ever having to hand anything over to some distant power structure that is corrupt and simply does not have the capacity to work in your best interests.

Essentially get rid of the state and replace it with a big ass computer.

reply to post by LadySkadi
is that a peter o'neill painting?

reply to post by SLAYER69


These threads are interesting in a sadly reflective way. Your thoughtful question actually represents a class of social problem called a "wicked problem"

* there are different opinions on what "TPTB" are.
* there's no consensus on which agencies are involved and which are innocent.
* there's not a clear definition of "what happens when we shut government down" (idealists, I'm afraid, don't look at what's happening in modern nations like Somalia, where there is no overarching government.)
* the situation in each country is different from every other country
* Since there's no clear concept of who's "TPTB" (does it include their secretaries? Janitors? mail room staff? computer geeks?), there's no clear "stopping point" called "we've thrown all of the bums out of office and we know it."
* every solution has its consequences (you mentioned the wars the Native Americans had. I'd also mention the "drove herds of animals off cliffs to get meat, and many of them were left to rot because the tribes couldn't process the meat" ethic... which isn't animal friendly, as many have romanticized.) No one has actually explored what happens in these scenarios... they just suggest "do away with the government workers" and don't deal with the "okay. You just put 5 million Americans out of a job. Now what?" consequence.
* there's actually no "right" or "wrong" to these, and there's no experiment you can run to test them.

They're not solvable by "tame answers" (I've also seen them called "righteous answers") yet tame answers are the kinds of responses that most people are comfortable with. Your question calls for much deeper thinking and more difficult answers, but most are not familiar with the analysis methods and problem break down methods. You'll get tame and righteous answers from most... but (as I think you already know) none of them are workable.

Somalia and other states where there's a government collapse and almost no government are an excellent example of the most common results of unthinking "kick the bums out" actions. We'll see similar problems rising in Lybia and other North African countries.

Nice little essay at this link

(Yes, I know it's evil of me to throw interesting information at you, but I know you love these curiosities)

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

To begin with, I agree with some of the previous posters who believe the "TPTB" are all of us, as in contemporary society and no more or less dangerous than your neighbors and co-workers.

I also believe "TPTB" are a necessary product of this stage in human social evolution.

We are all complicit in the corruption/tyrannies of our society... however, those with the most power/wealth are surely more dangerous than my neighbors/co-workers. Yes we're all riding the train... but the conductors/engineers run it and they have less reason to stop the whole system than the rest of us do. I wouldn't say Bob the plumber is more dangerous than Eric Prince of Blackwater/Xe, or that Amy the nurse is more dangerous than Dick Cheney/Vladimir Putin.

Also... you're a bit hasty in considering our current society an evolved version of human social structure. Surely it is DIFFERENT than previous human social structures, surely it is TECHNOLOGICALLY superior, it is also superior in scope/size/power... but does that make it a superior evolution of society which ultimately benefits humanity and ecosystems? I'd say no. It's obvious that our civilization has created more problems than solutions and that most of our problems are a result of our switch to totalitarian agriculture, population explosion, and super-hierarchies.

Please read:
www.ditext.com...

The vast majority of the more radical opinions on the matter are kids and young 20 something's acting out their versions of teen angst and idealism, which is a right of passage into adulthood but preaching Anarchy and violent revolution is typically the diatribe of someone who has little clue and even less grasp on what makes a society work.

It's easy/expedient for you to dismiss more "radical" views as childish or naive... projecting some sort of Freudian diagnosis of teen angst onto people who truly seek a better world and knowledge of what is going on. Keep in mind... our society is not some peaceful, everyday, down-home, folksy, everything's-alright fairy tale... an unimaginable amount of violence, tyranny, and insanity goes into creating and maintaining our society; just because we don't see it in our town square doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You must keep in mind... the foundation of our entire society IS RADICAL and extremist in so many ways (both visible and invisible, obvious and elusive); to label detractors as radical/extremist/violent is to be a hypocrite and/or blind. It's also funny how you lump "Anarchy" and "violent revolution" together as if the only aim of Anarchism is violence. If you actually research Anarchism and its various lines of thought, the VAST majority of it is based on trying to understand the world scientifically but with a strong promotion of freedom, autonomy, mutualism, consent/consensus, peace, human/animal rights, ecological sustainability, fairness, equality, and of REMOVING the ability of the few from dominating (whether with power and/or wealth) the many. Is violence a part of Anarchist thought and tactics? Sure. We can also debate (as Anarchists do) whether or not property destruction can really be considered violence (unless some sentient being is harmed). Either way... Anarchism puts its focus PRECISELY on what makes FREE, SUSTAINABLE, NON-HIERARCHICAL AND PEACEFUL societies work. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our civilization is failing at its roots? That perhaps it SHOULDN'T be perpetuated at all costs?


(Cont'd)>>>...

I cant help but feel those from western first world societies who feel the system is broken, their human rights are being somehow violated and they are somehow getting a raw deal are terribly ignorant about the history of human civilization.

If you don't know of people in the first world, whether they're activists or not, impoverished or not, who have been oppressed/violated/abused by the system then once again you are blind. Keep in mind that many people who feel the system is broken ALSO realize that people in some other countries have it far WORSE than we do and that we must ALSO do something about THEIR predicaments if we can. The movement is about solidarity with struggles of ALL people (or species) everywhere... and just because it's hell overseas (or back in time) doesn't make it heaven here/now. There are many battles to be fought and many tyrannies to resist, no matter their relative tyranny. If a tyranny (of whatever stripe) is unacceptable then it's unacceptable and should be remedied, period. A battered wife doesn't (or shouldn't) say, "well... Christine down the street gets hit far more often and with far more force than I do, so I can't really complain, I guess I'm just ungrateful". There's also something to be said about VIGILANCE; which is to say, if we STOP being sensitive/aware of our rights being violated that we will lose those rights to a system which naturally atrophies towards tyranny (which it generally does, without active/bottom-up pushes in the opposite direction).

The quality of living and the civil rights afforded to everyone posting in this thread are far superior to anything the human race has enjoyed in its entire history.

You're kidding me right? I think you need to study up on human PREHISTORY and skip over the tyrannical history of our relatively brief 10,000 year-old civilization. Your statement is so black and white that it cannot be true, nor is it, when one looks at all the facts. People have, whether briefly or lengthily, in large numbers or in small pockets, enjoyed varying levels of freedom THROUGHOUT history. And there's something to be said (especially by actual Anthropologists) of the relatively free lives of indigenous/tribal cultures.

The concept of freedom is not the right to do whatever you choose without consequence, the concept of law is one of the most important tenants of civilization.

Freedom in the context of the state is the freedom to stand or fall on your own device, to voice your opinion publically without worry of consequence.

Freedom does not imply a guaranteed standard of living, free education, accessible healthcare...
That is the place of elected government which in turn necessitates bureaucracy....

The concept of freedom, in its most basic philosophical sense, is to ability to do whatever you want whenver you want without coercion in any particular direction. Now, with that said, I'm not advocating 100% purist freedom... just merely setting the definition of freedom. The concept of law is, ultimately, the ability of a state apparatus to codify what it does not want people to do... and then lays out whatever punishment(s) it sees fit to unleash upon those who break these more/less arbitrary laws.

Freedom in the context of the state is whatever freedom it decides to give you or allow you to practice. Especially in this day and age where every aspect of our lives has been regulated to some degree by the government (or commodified by markets).

A guaranteed standard of living, free education, accessible healthcare and affordable (or free) housing can be considered human rights in such a society and time as ours; we do not live in a vacuum. It is unreasonably difficult for most people to attain these things in our world on their own (even for many in 1st world countries) via the very system which OWNS and doles out such 'services'. Many of these things have been destroyed throughout history when practiced by peoples who do not conform to our ways. For instance- indigenous people generally afford all of these "luxuries" to their members at birth (in their own styles), and they do not put a price tag on it. If there is any price tag, it could be considered to pitch in to the tribe and give support while you get support. However, such a way of life is radically different (and more direct/human/sane) than the system we've devised of mandatory state laws/coercion and abstract/centralized wealth stratification, property-worship and wage-slavery. Bureaucracy (and all of the ills that come with it) are an inevitable byproduct of state-society... they are unavoidable, even if lamentable. That being said... I'd MUCH rather have my coerced tax dollars go to helping me (and others) attain simple human needs rather than be spent on frivolous subsidies to private economic entities and in furtherance of neo-colonial wars. I think that should be common sense in an EVOLVED modern society, no?

.....

(Cont'd)>>>...

The average human lifespan has gone from an average of twenty 5000 years ago to an average of thirty 100 years ago and is currently sixtyseven today.

All due to the medical, environmental and nutritional advantages of modern society and the system we have created aka "TPTB"

That is more/less true. However, if you read my previously linked article (by Jared Diamond) you would have read that, at the beginning of our civilization, the adoption of large-scale agriculture actually DECREASED human lifespans, nutrition, and general health. It was only the most elite (or remote) of most societies who were able to eat/live healthily many times, and it was only until very recently that medical technology/science has begun to improve life for the masses. That being said, industrialization, for all its wonders and solutions (to problems that our society created to begin with), has introduced its own exponentially monstrous set of problems-to-solve into our collective practice/burden. Always a double-edged sword, my friend.

EVEN SO! Studies of hunter-gatherer populations has concluded that life expectancy is skewed by harsh events such as major injuries and infections. Hunter-gatherers who escape such major threats by their 40's tend to live lives well into their 70's-80's and even beyond. It was also found that mixed hunter-gatherer societies who practiced all of their ways EXCEPT with the periodic assistance of basic modern medicine, consistently eliminated most threats to life expectancy and boosted overall life expectancy to levels comparable to first world countries or even higher.

So... modern medical advantages? Absolutely. Environmental advantages? No way. Nutritional advantages? Sure, but only as a correction of our culture's own past mistakes.

In time that will change because it has to, but for know the vast majority of the worlds people depend on it. If mechanized commercial agriculture were stopped tomorrow and people were forced to survive by their own devices billions would starve including most posting on this message board and their families.

Thing is... we're already facing serious collapses of oil reserves, certain resources (including fresh-water), ecosystems, climate, the list goes on. This is all caused, in considerable part, by our gargantuan fossil fuel consumption/use/dependence. So... it's a catch-22... we need fossil fuels to maintain our current framework (and thus survive) but it is surely also the cause of our probably-inevitable demise. Another double-edged sword. People are already starving, people will starve/die off in mass numbers in the coming century (or even decades) due to our collective unsustainable habits. The trick (if I can use so light a term) is to choose the path of least suffering... the lesser evil for humans and the environment (and surely what's good for the biosphere is ultimately good for the human species). That may mean pulling the plug on certain parts (or wholes) of our civilization... and though that may be ugly, we're facing ugly no matter what we do. There's no clean way out of this unimaginable mess we've created. If nothing else... consider the fact that many scientists are calling the current era planet Earth's 6th Great Extinction Event... look it up. It's very likely we do not have time to wait around for a miracle tech/market solution... another double-edged sword that perpetuates the practice of over-consumption/environmental destruction with token reforms to be more "green" and "eco-friendly". Substituting sober scientific presence of mind with an overly-optimistic "we'll figure this out OUR WAY, I know we will" mentality. That's well-meaning but dangerous.


(Cont'd)>>>...

(Cont'd)>>>...

How many proponents of returning humanity to an self sufficient agrarian life style are willing to sign the immediate death warrants of billions?

The strongest, most deeply rooted primal drives of everyone is self preservation and procreation of the species, we are hard wired and not likely to change anytime soon without radical social conditioning and forced medical treatments, so how many are willing to empower a government to enforce such policies?

Once again, many will likely die within the coming century or two no matter what. We are reaching very SERIOUS tipping points, and it won't all pan out like some sci-fi movie (as much as I frakking LOVE sci-fi). We've already signed death warrants by doing exactly what we're doing right now... and we cannot take full blame because humans naturally practice the culture they're born into. It's just a terrible mess, but we should still attempt holistically rational solutions.

The most deeply rooted primal drive of humans (and all animals) is more/less self-preservation, sure. Humans are also very social and we have nearly as much drive to protect those we love (and sometimes even strangers) at our own expense. However, we DON'T have a primal drive to perpetuate our species... that's genetically impossible. A species does not consciously (or even genetically) perpetuate itself except by localized individual or group-level propagation. An entire "species" is simply any sum total of a species wherever they exist and is a byproduct of those individuals... it's more a sum of parts rather than a unified whole. But anyway, humans (and other species) are not inherently DESTINED to overpopulate the planet. Human overpopulation is a function of massive surpluses in food supply (via totalitarian agriculture which erupted 10,000 years ago in the fertile crescent during the Agricultural Revolution, which was the BIRTH of our civilization as a whole and all our subsequent problems) and simply REDUCING overall food supply will eventually decrease overal populations (regardless of the distribution of food amongst our species). We don't necessarily NEED mass die-offs or kill-offs... if we can STAVE-off environmental collapse (and subsequent collapse of our species) we can decrease populations humanely and EVEN with better distribution of food to those masses who NEED it by decreasing the massive overal production of food.

The idea that returning to a aboriginal culture as an improvement to the world we live in today is a hollywood fantasy.

ATS poster mamabeth beautifully expresses an ideal held by many in this eloquent post romanticizing a way of life that never existed...

It depends on how you look at it... aboriginal/indigenous cultures have a FAR lesser (and more beneficial actually) impact upon ecosystems than our civilization does. The main problem is that the world CANNOT sustain all of us living as hunter-gatherers, that is a given. However, we CAN learn many things from those cultures and even ADOPT certain facets (whether broad or specific) of such cultures to improve our footprint on this planet and our lives/liberties/welfare in general.

You say that mamabeth is romanticizing a way of life that never existed... however, it DID and DOES exist in many places and times throughout history! Of course such cultures were not PERFECT, there were always some problems, some levels of violence, some levels of destruction, but once again, nowhere NEAR the level/scope/style of our collective civilization. If you study anthropology and the writings of Anthropologists, you will find that surprisingly, many hunter-gatherer groups ARE quite functional and even well-off/suited.

Get a copy of this book and read it:
www.amazon.com...


(Cont'd)>>>...

(Cont'd)>>>...

A great number of species were hunted to extinction by the early Paleoamericans. The bison, deer etc. survived because their populations were able to absorb and adapt to human predation, not so for the american camel, columbian mammoth or first horses (all of the modern horses in the America's were introduced by the europeans in the 1500's).

Killing for sport? Do people count? How about the massive scale of the blood sacrifice of the mesoamerican tribes which was often connected with sport or the territorial aggressions of the plains tribes warrior culture where it was a game for the strong to take what they pleased from the weak and individual status was measured in trophies like human scalps on the medicine pole?

That's wrong... the extinction of many early American species is controversial, and every new piece of evidence leaves Paleoamericans off the hook of responsibility for killing them off. Even so... once AGAIN, any level of hunting practiced by indigenous cultures was NOWHERE NEAR as destructive and total as was/is practiced by nation-states/civilization.

Once again, there were always "bad apples", tribes or individuals who committed atrocities... nobody is saying tribal life was this noble/perfect utopia. However, tribal life is generally found to be quite fitting for humans and ecosystems, and the people are generally satisfied, well-fed, and lack many mental issues and violence/coercion so endemic to our societies. You can cherry pick a few examples of "omgz killer tribes!!" and try to paint them all with that brush, but it's just not so. Most tribal warfare was symbolic and relatively non-lethal. Even so... casualties in whatever limited tribal battles that occurred around the world helped to keep population levels in a balance. Is it always pretty? No... but tribal warfare is FAR PRETTIER and more humane than our ironically-named "civilized" warfare. Also keep in mind- scalping was a practice that was introduced by EUROPEANS and later picked up by Natives when they battled colonizers.

Regarding wildlife, Just last month a Umatilla tribal member here in Oregon caused a bit of an uproar when he was caught shooting a federally protected golden eagle just to pluck its tail feathers in an ages old, time honored Native ceremonial tradition.

Call it what you will but I see no difference in killing something to spiff up your headdress or totem and killing something to spiff up a blank space over your fireplace. They are equally wasteful and disrespectful to the life of the animal.

While it's regrettable whenever a member of an endangered species is killed for ANY reason, it's still extremely noteworthy that it wasn't the Umatilla that killed off the golden eagle (as with other Native species) but rather invaders. Sure, everyone should now take responsibility for reality and act accordingly by not killing off what's left of endangered species, but to point fingers at a culture which has been as much a victim of our past practices as the golden eagle has is to point our fingers in weak expediency and shirking of our own guilt. And for you to so frivolously refer to a tribe's cultural practices as simply "spiffing up your headdress/totem/blank space over your fireplace" is to be willfully unaware/ignorant of that culture's practices and their history/meaning. Also, do you know for sure that the rest of the eagle was not used for other purposes?


(Cont'd)>>>...

(Cont'd)>>>...

Growing enough food to sustain your family through the winter without machinery or beasts of burden (remember, the europeans brought them) is miserable,back breaking work. It is also a gamble that without modern irrigation and pesticides you will have any crops to harvest.

Hopefully your water from a river is clean and pure, your taking your chances drinking from a lake and are playing russian roulette drinking from a pond. Modern chlorination and other water purification techniques protect us from with all manner of pathogenic bacteria.

That's essentially a myth... there are plenty of people who sustain themselves and/or their family without massive irrigation, pesticides, industrial machinery or even beasts of burden who would not describe it as miserable/back-breaking work. In fact, it's quite the opposite if practiced correctly (and not on large farm meant for monocultural cash crops). Localized/sustainable living is NOT the same as living on a large farm that requires such modern technologies, do you forget that the very existence of these kinds of farms was only made possible WITH such inventions? And that once adopted, it obviously becomes impossible to run such a massive operation by reverting to old ways? Common sense, man.

As for drinking clean/pure water... that was compromised most, ONCE AGAIN, by practices of civilization, large populations, and subsequent pollution of waterways. Of course you take SOMEWHAT of a gamble drinking out of bodies of water... but in prehistoric times, not only could humans count on the water being cleaner, they could also count on very evolved SKILLS of identifying clean water and also on IMMUNITIES built up to various common pathogens in water. This is why an American cannot generally drink the water in Mexico without ill effect but a local Mexican can.

Have you ever baked bread from scratch in your kitchen much less had to pick the weevils out of the grain before grinding the flour to prepare to bake bread that is hard as a stale pretzel because leavening bread with yeast was a european invention?

By making your own clothes you would be tanning hides for buckskin and stitching furs ( is it harmonious with nature kill something just to wear it?). You could embroider animal hyde to your hearts content but linen, i.e. woven fabric of any kind, was brought by the europeans as well.

You wouldn't be milking any cows, feeding any livestock (unless you count dogs as livestock) or canning any food.

Domestic livestock (cows,pigs,wool-bearing sheep, goats) and the idea of raising food animals arrived in the new world with the europeans, the pre-columbian natives did not keep so much as a chicken.

Canning is a modern convenience invented by the europeans. Smoking,drying,pickling and salting were the only options available to anyone prior to the 1800's

Once again, you're pointing to civilizations inventions that have solved civilization's caused problems as if they were everyone else's problems too. You also consistently forget the DOUBLE-EDGED SWORDS whereupon a more complex/high-maintenance lifestyle required MORE energy expenditure, upkeep, and work to maintain. Each new "civilized" invention typically presents its own new set of problems-to-solve. Every culture (including indigenous ones) had their own ways of solving their own problems, which upon studying them, many people would be surprised at the genius/ingenious and effective solutions/technologies of so-called "primitive" cultures.

The reality is pre-columbian native life was harsh and brutal, and few died from old age. Most met their end through disease,infection, in childbirth and the at the tip of a spear. The average lifespan was 25 years, how many here are willing to trade 40 or 50 years off of their lives?

That is a myth perpetuated by the Anthropologically uneducated.

Please read about the ORIGINAL affluent society:
www.eco-action.org...
and
www.time.com...



(Cont'd)>>>...

(Cont'd)>>>...

Barring a thermonuclear world war, asteroid impact or similar holocaust, I believe that something like the social utopia depicted in the Star Trek universe is our likely fate in the near term of the next few centuries.

The basic rationale being that shortly we will develop cheap sustainable energy and intelligent mechanization freeing humanity from the necessity of waging war to control finite resources and working for survival in turn allowing all of mankind to pursue greater endeavors (such as the evolution to a type 1 civilasation).

It's fanciful, once again, to long for a sci-fi world as in Star Trek, or our own 'Type 1 Civilization'. I too long for it in some ways as I long, ironically, for a more localized/"primitive" society. Perhaps the best future will be a drastic contrast of BOTH societies in, perhaps, even a hybrid (or at least co-existence) of the most advanced society combined with the most ancient/wild ways of life, both of which will be ultimately sustainable and suitable to respective inhabitants. Of course, this is probably wishful thinking too. We must realize, however, that a model for society which seeks solutions but ignores root problems is doomed to failure. Which is to say, a vision of the future which seeks to escape our modern problems but predicates it invisibly (yet so visibly) upon endless consumption, overpopulation, and exploitation/destruction of resources/ecosystems will only dig itself deeper into its own traps rather than a techno-freedom it longs for. In my heart (and my intellect), I hope that we can have the best of both worlds.
Maybe something like this?

pixdaus.com...

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Unity_99

 

I'm with you, bro

I'm an atheist, and not even really social type of person, but i do recognise that we need to help & support each other in peaceful & mutual co-operation if we are going to survive the next 10 years.
@Darklord; Technology can help, free energy will solve most of the world's problems overnight, that's precisely why it's being supressed.
The new generation of scientists must & will learn that science is merely a tool, that can help or harm us, just like a hammer. We must learn to use it wisely, especially the technologies that are coming in the 'new renaissance'
This one's going to be big!

So you think free enegy is safe eh. Think again, and one sloppy scientist
can destroy a good part of the earth if he slips up.

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
reply to post by darkl0rd

 

Free energy, with free used in general way, can provide the basis for all those things you mention. With advanced energy creation and use we can power more advanced recylcing equipment and localize manufacturing, it can provide the grounding for which to build other technologies around.

So yes free energy by itself is of limited use, but when it is coupled with new and more advanced technologies then we are beginning to see a real solution.

Are you trying to say that when energy availability was not a limiting factor, as was the case from the beginning of the industrial age until recently everything else was hunky-dory?

There will always be something of limited availability and all conflicts and control will be over those of limited availability. If energy is freely available, the technologies to harness them will not be freely available. If they too are simple and freely available, they and their products will stop being points of contention or control and something else will be. After all air is freely available, absolutely essential for survival but no one controls it and no one is grateful it is not being controlled by anyone.