Was Unabomber right? Will civilization collapse?

Post Reply New Topic

By Epigenetics you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
I don't see how it is relevant.

As for learning moral code. Are you claiming that every individual will follow the much more sophisticated moral code, with ZERO exception? You may even want to argue that EVERY mental problem is due to social conditioning, but how well can we control what happen to EACH person? A pretty big claim, my friend.


Or because people just go around for no reason (as you said) because they have nothing to do?




How about to catch the train or meet somebody on time or simply they value the finite quantity know as time?



I'm not saying there will be ZERO need for maintenence EVER, of course, we canb't achieve perfection, however the need for maintenence will be VASTLY reduced to infantismal numbers. Why? Because things will be built to last. Something that is NOT done today.


You clearly don't understand my objection. We don't have any sharing system now and we don't need to build or maintain one. It is the system that eat the resources, not the thing it shares. If you don't understand space shuttles (which is clearly not a low quality product as you always complain), how about we compare 1000 toasters (or whatever appliance you like) and the truck delivering 100 toasters? Which needs more resources?


OK


You are getting desperate. Things will eventually break and you think we should NOT recycle them? And how how do you define standards for things we cannot foresee (we are talking about 5-10 years or less for computers)?



Are you incapable of taking responsibility for your own thinking instead of projecting all the flaws onto me? I can understand it makes it easier for you to refute me and pass me off as unconvincing and full of hot air if you project certain attributes against me without considering how closed you may be.


Then go back to the drawing board and figure out a concrete, non-stupid system. Then publish it in a peer reviewed journal in economy (don't tell me that the evil capitalists control all journals, that has as much creditably as a young Earth creationist complaining science is biased). I bet you will get the Nobel prize.



Then set me straight. Prove that I am second guessing you by proving what you are implying. I find it quite interesting that the phrase "second guessing" is a statement I have used already on this forum and yet you suddenly start using it as well. I didn't know I insipred you so.



The first statement mentions nothing about the cause of human stupidity. Perhaps you get such impression for the first statement because you never thought that I am turning your lack of nature argument against yourself?

As for last two quotes, that is more than enough to prove you changed definition. What more do I need to say?

Why is it that whenever I'm talking to an RBE's critics and trolls, I ALWAYS get wikipedia articles thrown at me? lol

Of course you don't see how its relevant. You wouldn't. It doesn't support your argument. Ever heard of the phrase "biopsychosocial organism"? The fact that our environment shapes who we are and who and what we become is a no-brainer. I'm sorry if you choose not to see this.



I'm not saying ANYONE will follow ANY set pattern of morality. However one thing that will be consistent across the board is that abhorrent values will eventually ceise to exist due to the fact that they are no longer reinforced by environmental influences.



Nope, I don't. Not directly anyway.



You have got this wrong the second you have assumed that any effort is made to "control" people and their circumstances.



As I have ALREADY explained, when the human race was freed up from the task of having to manually fetch water from a well by the simple technology of irrigation and plumbing, were the human race left with "nothing to do" in that respect? Were people becoming aimless and misguided simply because they didn't have to fetch water anymore?

OR,

Did people dedicate their time INSTEAD to something else, or more worthwhile?

You see, when you apply COMMON SENSE to this, you see technological developments and infrastructure changes designed to automate things as a LIBERATOR of humanity. So instead of having to spend ALL that time doing something manually, it is done automatically. Does that mean humanity suddenly has "nothing to do"? Or is humanity free to pursdue other more fulfilling activities?

Are the richest people the laziest? Are they the ones with "nothing to do" because they have stuff done for them? Far from it. In fact some of the richest people on the planet are some of the BUSIEST people on the planet. You know why they do the things they can do? COZ THEY CAN.



Time is an illusion. And what's the rush anyway? Where's the fire? Why would we be running around like headless chickens in an RBE like we do today?



These are my words. The above paragraph was written by me, and not you. Why are you posting my words as your own? There's a word for that. Its called plageurism.



Really? Why is that?



Obviously the need for more resources goes to the truck delivering 1000 toasters that aren't designed or built to last. All made by 1000 different companies all competeing with each other and cutting corners and manufacturing expenses to make a bigger profit. I assume you're saying the truck delivering the 100 toasters are the high grade, high efficiency toasters that can last MUCH longer and are FAR more durable.



Actually, that is my mistake since I meant to type:

"I never said that recycling is not considered on ALL levels for ALL products."

Interesting that I accidentally leave out one pivottal word and you jump all over it. Of course recycling is intergrated wherever it can be. Don't you think it is counter-productive to the logic of the system NOT to incorporate recycling?



How do you mean "standards"? You simply make the best at that point in time while incorporating the facility of interchangeability and accomodating for updates. That's it.



Again with your plageurism. Either that or you REALLY don't pay attention. Or both. You know I'm starting to think that you also are being deliberately dense.



They don't give the nobel prize to ideas that propose an alternative to capitalism. Instead they receive "utopian" "pipe-dream" or "communist" accusations. Even you can't even dispute it properly and resort to using childish words like "stupid". Grow up, will you? We're not on the playground anymore junior, so grow a pair of balls and join the adults.

I don't need to "go back to the drawing board" coz the principles of an RBE are all there, plain to see. The fact that you choose not to see them is not my problem.



Yet again you have plageurised me. Are you really THAT badly out of arguments that you are trying to save face by stealing mine? At the rate you're going you'll ALSO be an RBE proponent before long. Or at least pretending to be one.



*facepalm*

No, your first statement proports that human stupidity is a cause IN AND OF ITSELF.



Not at all. Turning on your previous assertion, whether its intended to give a secondary lesson is STILL backpeddling whichever way you cut it. I'm just recognising that you are twisting definitions to suit your argument. And they are so transparent, I could fool people into walking through them.



ANOTHER non-sequitor. So quoting me and saying nothing proves that I have changed definition? Or does it show that you're rapidly running out of material?

With all that said, just like Janissy, you're clearly misinformed and determined to harp on regardless of how silly you're sounding. Regardless of whether you know you're wrong, you will keep bleating on. And its getting rather tiresome to keep having to address your intellectually weak and lazy arguments that amount to nothing more than a house of cards. Grow up and give this a rest. You cannot disprove and refute something that you are ignorant of.

I posed real problems and you have NO concrete solution whatever. Instead you just repeat the same vacuous big words you call 'principles' and pretend the problem solved. What do you expect the others to dispute your bunch of delusional nonsense 'properly'?

First off I find it interesting that you're only quoting a percentage of what I've typed, second, I have ALREADY spent way too much of my time proporting the concept of an RBE. The fact that you are too pig-ignorant to even go to the websites, and hense not gain a good grasp of the information is YOUR fault, and hense YOUR problem.

What's the matter? Are you ACTUALLY scared to look at the information objectively, because doing so would cause that dormant lightbulb above your head to come on fior the first time in your life, and in doing so, invalidate every previous ignorant and ad hom argument you've had and you fear you will look an UTTER fool?

Its ok, I understand that its hard to consider information as nothing more than information. You have an image and a reputation to protect, and being proven wrong puts that into jeopardy, I understand that. Well, maybe one day you might realise that being proven wrong isn't a bad thing. In fact, you will realise a MAN recognises and admits when he's wrong, but a CHILD continuously argues the same point in an attempot to deny facts and maintain the illusion of infallibility.

It is possible to examine the same evidence as you yet come to a different conclusion. A fruitful debate is impossible if you can't accept that and stop insulting people who disagree.

Of course its possible. However NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING either of you have typed shows one iota of objective research and critical thought into it. No, instead I'm having to spoonfeed you because you clearly STILL hold all the strawmen arguments of anyone who has done SOD-ALL research and yet claims to have the ability to debunk it. This is mainly because you are under the illusion that you can build a comprehensive and as such substantial understanding of something while STILL holding onto your bias and prejudice. It doesn't work like that. You have to drop the childish games.

The websites aren't restricted you know. The videos aren't hidden from those not in the movement. The PDF files are not locked away and only TZM members have the key. Stop being ridiculous.

Not only that, but you are STILL of the delusion and illusion that debate will get you anywhere. You cling onto the debate methodology because you can't let go of the infantile game of there being an eventual winner, and a loser, which is exactly what debate is.

If you think I'm being insulting, then you really need to get you're eyes checked and realise that there is a real world out there that will be FAR more harsh than I could ever be, and that is FAIRNESS. Stop blubbing like infants coz you're erroneous opinions have been disproven and you're being called out for using logical fallacies. Grow up and start DISCUSSING instead of childish debates.

But wait, to discuss, you must be open to information outside of your frame of reference, you need to be willing to engage in decent, mature and open exchange of information, and to actually WANT to learn. As such, judging by your behaviour I can understand how that is too much to ask of you, and so you will only engage in petty infantile debates so you can try to inflate your petty ego.

And just before you start on your "you call YOUR arguments open to information??" high horse, stop, take a step back, breathe, and realise that you were about to start projecting again. Read through YOUR own arguments and see if you can find anything concrete and irrefutable in them. Coz I can tell you, that you have brought me questions, which is good, but when I answer them, you don't accept the answers, disregard them and keep spouting the same thing over and over. I for one am a veteran of receiving logical fallacies perpetrating themselves as hard-line, cast-iron arguments, but there's nothing of actual substance. and when I break it down, it falls apart. When you leave logical fallacies behind you will notice that people actually start taking you seriously instead of showing you how silly you're being.

If you can leave that behind you, then I will have all the respect, and time in the world for you. If not, then engaging you is a waste of my time.

Given that your are just repeating the same nonsense again and again and not even remotely relevant to what I am saying, what is the point for me to further elaborate?

Which website? I visited project Venus, listened to Joseph Smith's 2011 TEDx talk, etc. and found nothing but baseless assertions and rhetoric. You never refer to any RBE materials that specifically address my questions. Moreover, it is YOU who have the bundle to prove RBE works. Are you really that scared to delude yourself into thinking the answer is 'somewhere' out there and is so powerful that nobody reading it can have any skepticism?

The problem with solar power is that it is the dirtiest form of power ever invented. Do you know why ? Because it gives people false hope. The fact is that the planet is burning up and do you think that a few people installing solar panels on their roofs is going to do anything but be a drop in the bucket as far as the overall energy production? Solar power as a solution to global warming is like a person who gets cancer and chooses quack therapies like drinking cabbage juice when what he really needs is surgery, chemotherapy, and radication therapy.

This whole idea of a low intensity energy source like solar power being a green form of energy is a joke. Only ignorant people buy into it and mainly people who can't do the math but go by their emotions of what they think is a feel good technology. They are simply against a technology that they cannot understand and will only accept a technology that their limited minds can comprehend.

Generation of electrical power by nuclear fission technology is the way to go. It is high density energy without pollution of the atmosphere.

ruveyn

And considering that you already have a vested interest in being ignorant towards this, your failure to see relevance is not suprising.



Right there you have your problem. You can't even get the names right! Joseph Smith? Who the hell is that??

Besides that you are REALLY failing at getting the whole point of this, which is that you're supposed to do this really weird thing, called CRITICAL THINKING, and SELF-RESEARCH? Yea, I KNOW, weeeeird, right? But yea, that IS what is expected of you if you ever hope to understand this direction. No-one is gonna be your guru and do your thinking FOR you, and looking at a couple of videos even if you're actually PAYING ATTENTION to them in an objective way is NOT gonna give you ALL the answers. sheesh, do you HONESTLY expect EVERY SINGLE question to be answered in 1 video? If that's what you think then you REALLY need to find, and get a grip on this weird thing, its called REALITY.



No, you are IGNORANT of the answers that I give, because it isn't exactly wortd-for-word what you WANT to hear. Ergo, you ignore it and blithely claim that I haven't answered properly.



Ok, here goes. This is something I put on another thread when someone tried to hold me accountable for the proving of something I was presenting HENSE demanding me to do the thinking for them:

Sorry, you have failed as an intellectual the second you typed that. That is not an attack. That is a fact. Let me explain.

By attatching me to the task of presenting this information in a format fit to "convince" you, you have cahrged me with the task of changing your perception with my conveyance of the data. In doing so, you have incorporated me into the data itself, seeing as you cannot be bothered to find it yourself, you are charging me with it. And considering your already existing bias of me, you have charged me with an impossible task. Because even if the most persuasive data were presented to you, it would not cause a single twinge of consideration in you. Because I would have presented it. This very act on your part is also a form of ad hominem. Shooting the messenger for not bringing them the message they want to hear.

You prefer to sit there and charge me with the task of convincing you, while doing no thinking of your own. Like a king sat impudently on his throne demanding his court jester to entertain him while making no effort to be accomodating for that entertainment. Such is the way of such a practise. The king is making it impossible to be entertained, because he is not making any effort himself to BE entertained. Thus it is ALL up to the court Jester, who also with the knowledge that his failure will result in his decapitation, is fighting a losing battle.

You are not a king, and I am not your court jester. If you want to understand this, do your own objective research, and your own thinking. You cannot hide behind the "evidence burden" fallacy. I call you out. The burden is OURS TO SHARE. However I have already done my part. I have presented this information in the hope that it would ENCOURAGE your mind to find out FOR ITSELF what is true and what is false. DO NOT charge me with the convincing of your own mind because Its not my job to make up your mind. It is YOURS.

So to sum up, beligerence, accusations and disguised demands will not get you far in this discussion. When demand cast-iron evidence from me while refusing to do ANY objective research is VERY telling. Not only that, but EVEN IF YOU WERE open to such information, then I can tell you all day. Until you actually look for yourself and ARRIVE at a decision FOR YOURSELF, then any information I give you, is MEANINGLESS. Truth cannot be told. It can only be realised. You think that an attitude so DEFENSIVE against a contrary view is gonna be easily swayed by someone that you have ALREADY denounced as wrong, REGARDLESS of the information they provide? *falls on the floor laughing*.

In a way THAT is a form of ad hominem, and intellectual laziness AND intellectual dishonesty. Because you are not considering the DATA SET and instead holding the messenger responsible for its conveyance. It is NOT my job to convince you. Hell, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to convince you. You can ONLY be convinced by YOURSELF. Because it is your OWN thinking that will make this realisation.

No, this is why you need to do your OWN objective research and see for YOURSELF.



I'm not scared at all. If I was, then I would have shyed away from this YEARS ago. It is YOU who is scared to use that grey blob in your skull coz you're afraid that a little common sense and critical thought will cause you to realise that we DO need to move out of the cancerous monetary anti-economic system.

And in doing so you are scared you will look like a fool because you have ALREADY put SO MUCH stock into claiming that I'm talking nonsense. You are scared of thinking because you are scared of being proven wrong. Well let me tell you, you don't need to be scared. Because being proven wrong is a GOOD thing. And its something I wholeheartedly WELCOME in any situation. You know why?

Coz I am not attatched to data, and data is not attatched to me. If I find myself in receipt of inaccurate information, then I simply admit it and take the new information on board. You see, we are taught to incorporate knowledge and beliefs into our personality. That is whjy people a scared s**tless of being proven wrong because to be proven wrong means that they PERSONALLY are wrong. As such new and transforming information is taken as a PERSONAL INSULT.

That's not how I roll, I'm sorry to break it to you. When I'm proven wrong, I admit it, embrace it, and CELEBRATE it. Coz it means I am being educated and improved in my awareness and world-view. I'm not scared. Sorry.

@Adam-Anti-Um

I agree with our binary friend on very few subjects. I do agree that the burden of proof sits with the party making an affirmative claim. It is a quite well established convention of logic. Handing people off with links etc perhaps does not dignify their questions. That said, you have always been forthright and open in aswering my questions, even if I have not agreed with or accepted your responses.

And if said person is only here to beligerently argue against something and is not willing to actually learn? Which Janissy and 01001011 clearly are? Then there IS no discussion.

The reason why you have perceived me to be forthright and forthcoming and honest is because you don't have as much of a negative filter. And as such you see more objectively. And I am whole-heartedly appreciative of that. And you actually have asked earnest questions and actually LISTENED to the answers WITHOUT ennnnnnnnnndlessly arguing the same damn thing even though it has been explained to you several times, several different ways.

Do you HONESTLY expect me to go off on LOOOOOOOOONG shpeels in response to people who can't even be bothered to pay proper attention? No. And as I have already explained the "burden of proof" argument is a form of ad hom. Coz it is the attatching of a person to the data set itself. And data, if it is to be considered, let alone absorbed properly, must be pure and with nothing attatched, no bias, no projections, and no individuals.

I agree that a more cooperative mindset is useful. Some however learn through combat and I don't necessarily mean the opposition. There are people out there who would rather condescend than listen who always like to regard their opposition as the lowest of the low. If however you don't mind or can get something out of it then discussion is not a complete waste. The person you are talking to is not the only person reading what you are saying.

Existence seems to me like a collection of interwoven cycles of expansion and contraction. Things are building and collapsing all the time.

Is 'civilisation' a singular thing? Civilisation and uncivilisation exists in varying degrees across the world. Will our current major conception of civilisation (global, western, liberal democratic, capitalist) go on infinitely? I doubt it.

The only way that an RBE could ever happen is by convincing a tipping-point number of people. The tactic of insulting people for not convincing themselves is not working.

I actually have changed my mind when presented with very good arguments. I had been a lifelong anti-gun person but there are a few posters here who made really good arguments for responsible civilian gun ownership and use and I changed my mind. Gun owners in America have a much lesser battle than proponents of an RBE. They merely need to argue for or against particular legislation. What the proponents of an RBE want is for literally everybody to do literally everything differently. That's going to take a lot more than arguments. That's going to take models that can be showcased and assessed. If you want this to happen, yelling at people that they need to keep reading/watching videos until they agree with you will never accomplish that.