Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Modernity is not universally sustainable

Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 22, 2010, 07:29:50 PM
I believe some major shared concerns in our time can be resolved through parallelism, or allowing independent development to take place around the world. Apply a non-interference pact similar to the Prime Directive from Star Trek fiction.

Problems
* overpopulation
* urban sprawl
* overcommercialization
* extreme income disparity
* loss of languages and cultures
* habitat loss
* resource depletion
* ecocide
* pollution

What we have instead is the reverse: we insist, as a universal moral imperitive, that everyone, everywhere, has to be brought into an affluent North American lifestyle. The past after all, as the implied narrative informs us, was composed of 100% Pure Horror, Ignorance, and Inhumanity.

If the United States alone uses the majority of the planet's resources, but has only 6% of the world's population, our moral imperitive to upgrade 5 billion lifestyles, barring significant required technological advancements, is mathematically impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Not every group is ready to responsibly, consistently maintain and advance a modern state of living. For some, their best fit for the long-term yet is hunter-gather, for others, perhaps something resembling Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages. Yet, this is unequal, and in some ways inhumane, but it is the only realistic resolution available within our finite space.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 22, 2010, 09:16:47 PM
Some people consider it taboo to even consider that there are too many people in the world. On another forum just 5 minutes ago I posted this:

There definitely does need be less of us, but genocide is unnecessary

And I got this response:

How thickheaded are you? What is your scientific basis for believing that there actually are too many of us?
Stop being such a Eugenics pseudo science puppet. Seriously...

Oh and I have never mentioned eugenics on that user account at all. Surpsingly agressive response.
"Necessity knows no law except to conquer."
- Publilius Syrus

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 22, 2010, 10:42:41 PM

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 01:35:16 AM
I disagree.

What we have instead is the reverse: we insist, as a universal moral imperitive, that everyone, everywhere, has to be brought into an affluent North American lifestyle. The past after all, as the implied narrative informs us, was composed of 100% Pure Horror, Ignorance, and Inhumanity.
This line of thinking assumes said moral imperative is more than totally hollow, which I do not think it is. Just like the astronaut goes on television commercials saying "if I did it, anybody can" to placate youth without hope with false-hope, similarly the ruling elite placate the masses with false ideals and moral imperatives. The ruling elite is not stupid, yet the steps they take to meet said ideals are ludicrously ignorant, as to use a common example there already exists enough food production to feed the planet. The moral imperative is just a sham to permit non-action, to disguise non-action as action; a lie so big that it is believed because the alternative is unthinkable.

It may seem odd why the current ruling elite would not privately wish the moral imperative they public affirm to actually succeed, if indeed the moral imperative is feasible given proper action towards it. But it is not a matter of retaining the status-quo and merely expanding it to the less-fortunate parts of the world, for the status-quo is not feasible. It is not, as much as the ruling elite would like to have us believe, as if the ideal is already manifest in certain parts of the world. Rather, in order for the ideal to manifest worldwide, it is precisely those counter-productive, financially-lucrative areas which the ruling elite control and prosper from that would need to be eliminated/reformed in order for the ideal to be realized - oil industry, healthcare industry, tobacco industry, drug prohibition, etc, etc.

The crucial point to realize is that the human resource is one of the most precious, and cultivating its potential through rehabilitating poverty-stricken countries may produce a deficit of wealth in the short term but in the long term will produce a substantial net gain of wealth.

Of course it could be argued that along racial lines certain countries are not capable of being truly productive on a global level. That is a separate debate. I just think it's a fallacious argument to assert such a position based on all the shit the ruling elite is up to. When considering the arguably negative impact of such things as immigration, it is important to keep in mind how vastly superior than the negative impact of immigration is the negative impact of the ruling elite - all the excruciatingly simple things that could effect a world of positive change but that are simply never carried out and, moreover, that are constantly persecuted, directly or indirectly, by the ruling elite. It is also worth considering the extent to which the perceived hopelessness of this situation and resulting emotions such as anger or hate caused by the ruling elite can impact the lives - and productivity - of impoverished citizens, including often immigrants.
www.TheMetalDiscourser.com
The universe is naked, attack its corpus, take a real stab at your life and let the blood flow — RIP the sound of the very fabric tearing.

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 01:47:11 AM
I believe some major shared concerns in our time can be resolved through parallelism, or allowing independent development to take place around the world. Apply a non-interference pact similar to the Prime Directive from Star Trek fiction.

Problems
* overpopulation
* urban sprawl
* overcommercialization
* extreme income disparity
* loss of languages and cultures
* habitat loss
* resource depletion
* ecocide
* pollution

What we have instead is the reverse: we insist, as a universal moral imperitive, that everyone, everywhere, has to be brought into an affluent North American lifestyle. The past after all, as the implied narrative informs us, was composed of 100% Pure Horror, Ignorance, and Inhumanity.

If the United States alone uses the majority of the planet's resources, but has only 6% of the world's population, our moral imperitive to upgrade 5 billion lifestyles, barring significant required technological advancements, is mathematically impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Not every group is ready to responsibly, consistently maintain and advance a modern state of living. For some, their best fit for the long-term yet is hunter-gather, for others, perhaps something resembling Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages. Yet, this is unequal, and in some ways inhumane, but it is the only realistic resolution available within our finite space.

I agree with your suggestion but it's a few hundred years too late. Or maybe even later than that. From ancient times up until the 17th century, a country like India had about a 30% share of the world GDP with all trade routes leading or passing through there. Various kinds of materials, not to mention mathematics and sciences(relatively recently, the first rockets were used by the South Indian ruler Tipu Sultan in the 18th century against the British - the next instance was in the 20th century) spread from there to enrich the world(rocket propulsion isn't particularly enriching in warfare, though) and slowly, vice-versa. Such exchanges have taken place for a long time. Where does one draw the line, what is too modern? When the population of over 6.5 billion becomes 12? We're so far down this path we can hardly hope to turn back. No food, just cell phones... that'll do the trick.

But the only reason for continuing "interference" is a monetary profit motive. No fucking moral imperative. That's as much a cause as gerbils causing lightning. Next we'll be selling a human lifestyle to penguins and bears and putting sanctions on them when they reject it.

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 01:59:12 AM
Of course it could be argued that along racial lines certain countries are not capable of being truly productive on a global level. That is a separate debate. I just think it's a fallacious argument to assert such a position based on all the shit the ruling elite is up to.

Many of those considered world elite are of low bred peasant caste become merchants who thanks to industrialization and technology fell into wealth and thus great power. They aren't a traditional elite and their attitudes show as much.

Biological determinism is very much at work here. So are religions like rural Amish life and some branches of Islam.

If we are to consider the probability that speciation for us occured in parallel on different continents during different times in natural history, then allowing for parallel development for different groups based on their evolutionary histories is a better fit. If we only allow for the prevailing single source common modern human ancestor belief, then universal modernism is a better fit, but then the results we see today would not show such persistent, disparate extremes, despite decades of generous aid relief, for generations on end: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8--1
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 03:38:51 AM
If we only allow for the prevailing single source common modern human ancestor belief, then universal modernism is a better fit, but then the results we see today would not show such persistent, disparate extremes, despite decades of generous aid relief, for generations on end: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8--1
You seem to be suggesting that aid efforts to third-world countries are generally well-crafted, well-run endeavors. I would completely disagree on this point. Money always comes with strings attached, it has to be spent in specific ways exclusively, and it practically never gets to the people.

You can find a lot of info about it on Third World Traveler.

Personally I view basically all forms of patriotism as garbage, right alongside rooting for your sports team - you ain't playing on the team, and any investment you have in 'your' team's success is escapist fantasy. You are specifically a part of the whole, not the whole itself; a unity is only truly a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place, and what is the most fundamental and essential is the parts, often even in spite of the whole. I am very critical of culture, and preserving culture, because if it can't stand on its own and survive then perhaps it is not worthy to survive, perhaps it is simply not good enough. That being said, I think the customs of a healthy, unique culture are typically remarkably strong and resilient, but become more prone to extinction as they become protected, coddled, trivialized, as they start to decay from within (there are of course exceptions, such as cultures that place paramount importance on pacifism and as a result risk being overcome by physical oppression, although it could be argued that still the spirit of the culture would live on as its knowledge has already been passed down to other cultures).

If we are to consider the probability that speciation for us occured in parallel on different continents during different times in natural history, then allowing for parallel development for different groups based on their evolutionary histories is a better fit. If we only allow for the prevailing single source common modern human ancestor belief, then universal modernism is a better fit
I understand the outline of your hypothesis here, but I do not understand the connections you have made to support it.

www.TheMetalDiscourser.com
The universe is naked, attack its corpus, take a real stab at your life and let the blood flow — RIP the sound of the very fabric tearing.


Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 03:56:57 AM
Mismanagement and corruption are always present in industrialized, affluent parts of the world too. If it's more present in developing nations - why? Why, if mismanagement and corruption are more present during the industrial development phase of nations do some pull through and others falter? I'm not buying the mismanagement and corruption single cause. Human diversity is prominent enough to account for paths to modernity or paths to collapse in the attempt. This concept dovetails with Prof. Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Thus, the ongoing pursuit of global scale modernization is unsustainable not just for difficulties with fuel and water scarcity, but with the people making the attempt. Much of the world should remain primitive and unexploited for multiple reasons and not deemed tragic and backward by the usual moralists.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 23, 2010, 04:26:29 AM
Why, if mismanagement and corruption are more present during the industrial development phase of nations do some pull through and others falter?
Who has faltered? If with power comes responsibility, then considering how much 'power' or capacity have the first world nations compared to the third world nations, and considering how poorly the first-world nations wield themselves, I would not be so quick to point the finger at the third-world nations as being those who have "faltered".

Furthermore, historically a nation's success - it's continued existence - is often contingent upon the result of the warfare in the region, but by modern moral and philosophical standards military might does not necessarily a great nation make.
www.TheMetalDiscourser.com
The universe is naked, attack its corpus, take a real stab at your life and let the blood flow — RIP the sound of the very fabric tearing.

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 25, 2010, 01:29:17 AM
Children come to literacy. Literacy doesn't come to children by sitting them in front of books and requiring they learn to read.

Something similar has been taking place with the so-called modernizing. Erecting free hospitals, railroads and schools in the midst of hunter-gatherer or medieval people creates a sustained state of semi-collapse rather than upward and onward progress. They'll come to these things in their own way and in their own time, regardless if they experience the very same setbacks of mismanagement, corruption or frequent wars experienced by those who have completely modernized (without any foreign aid by the way).
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
February 28, 2010, 03:20:57 AM
Proposition: let nature take the reigns, but understand how it works, and then operate within its parameters. This beats struggling against symptoms that keep returning, which is the modern way.

Quote
Norway's model is surprisingly straightforward.

• Norwegian doctors prescribe fewer antibiotics than any other country, so people do not have a chance to develop resistance to them.

• Patients with MRSA are isolated and medical staff who test positive stay home.

• Doctors track each case of MRSA by its individual strain, interviewing patients about where they've been and who they've been with, testing anyone who has been in contact with them.

``We don't throw antibiotics at every person with a fever,'' says Haug. ``We tell them to hang on, wait and see, and we give them a Tylenol to feel better.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/01/11/1420165/norway-conquers-infections-by.html
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
March 02, 2010, 04:52:12 AM
Quote
John Gray, a political scientist and philosopher at the London School of Economics, spent the 1980s as a Thatcherite and most of the 1990s as a supporter of Tony Blair and the British New Left. Now, he's stopped taking sides and believes that all of modern politics adds up to a delusional and impossible utopian enterprise that will end not just in failure but in a global-scale tragedy.

Quote
"In all of these accounts, history is told as a coherent narrative, and nothing is more threatening than the idea that it is a meandering flux without purpose or direction."

Quote
Every attempt to improve human lives will fail, says Gray. Overthrow a dictatorship, and a civil war results. Make people mobile by inventing the internal combustion engine, and the environment gets wrecked. Discover the atom, get the bomb.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/10/utopia-politics-gray-oped-utopia08-cx_mm_0410gray.html

meandering flux = life struggle + entropy
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Modernity is not universally sustainable
March 02, 2010, 01:54:24 PM
Hey, great news this John Gray. I hope this book sells.
You're quite hostile.

I got a right to be hostile, man, my people been persecuted!