Throckmorton Blowfart Esquire IV, 33° An(archist) ([info]bitches_tyrone) wrote,
@ 2008-05-28 11:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
So many symptoms, so little time.
I find little hope for a better future when a world of people continually act as if minor inconveniences were the end of the world, and put them off and ignore them only to have them pile up and multiply, morphing these once minor problems into possibilities of future catastrophes.

The same goes with a world of people that value human wants over the needs of all other nun-human life on this planet. Mindsets of the types that subject all value to human use have little value to me. Value of only these things perceived to be of use to humans is a death call for those that are not of said use, as those other things only take up space for these valued things, and therefore must be done away with. This destroys redundancies, creates homogeneity (it's efficient!), forges weak links in the chains that sustain us, and has already been the end of many a thing. What will stop such from being the end of many of us? I mean, when you poison your waters, desertify your crop land, overfish the oceans, dam up the rivers that fish spawn in, deforest rainforests, pollute the air, start using less efficient fuel methods all the while consuming more and more energy, and on top of that breed like fuck, where can you expect to get?

Many pay lip service to progress, but act as if there's no tomorrow.
Not that there's any contradiction here. Funny thing, though, that those that believe their end is near, and those that believe in the nearness of infinite abundance, both act with this same reckless abandon. But why, when you say the end is nowhere near, yet at the same time see that this infinite abundance seems further and further away, less and less attainable, why continue such beliefs that fly in the face of any and all evidence contrariwise? what is the reason for this? Does not the progression of disaster increase daily?



(Post a new comment)


[info]ne0romantic
2008-05-28 04:30 pm UTC (link)
Well this is why Bush is so interested in the space program, right? Screwing up *this* planet and then calling it oblivion is really very short-sighted. ;) (seriously I'm in pretty much complete agreement with your point but am paralyzed by the popular 'but what the #*%( can I do about it?' feeling.)

(Reply to this)

what is the reason?
[info]ne0romantic
2008-05-28 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Ok, I have a better comment now.. .sorry to be so wordy.

Of course people who believe the rapture is neigh cling to their beliefs because they make them feel good. It's a much happier picture if we're all going to be embraced by God than if we've screwed ourselves over and are digging the hole deeper by the day. They've built their whole lives on they're system of beliefs and they don't want to except reality.

Now what can we do to wake these people up? Nothing without turning into 'the bad guys.' The beliefs these people cling to which cause them in this case to act with reckless disregard for their future are *religious*... and thus magic and protected. People get very angry when you try to mess with someone's religious beliefs. These people ruin the environment, cling to their ignorance, and I've witnessed organized child abuse excused as religion as well. Again, I'm at a loss for what, if anything, can be done about any of this... because people get *very* mad when you question their religion... and even third parties will see you as evil if you try to do this... Ok... I've blathered on enough.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]square721bt
2008-05-28 11:35 pm UTC (link)
My guess is that Chiggles is referring more to the singularity - the technological rapture. In some ways the same arguments still apply just as well.

Chiggles, how do you tolerate other people? Almost everyone is like this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]bitches_tyrone
2008-05-29 12:59 am UTC (link)
The singularity was in part what was being spoken of, but moreso just technological advances, leading to some future utopia. Many believe in the latter, while having no knowledge of the former.

I tolerate other people because to not do so would lead to increased anger, then hate, and what some would be willing to label insanity. I heard the other day people make lavish arguments in favor of globalism, but claim a libertarian future preposterous. I thought this ridiculous. There are few values outside of 'enjoying life' and 'having a good time' that others and I share.

I hold no belief in right and wrong, good and evil, and am about to the point where if somebody said "how can you believe such and such?" I'll respond with "see, if I were to wake up tomorrow and there were six billion people less on this planet, I would not even flinch, have no pangs of sadness. I do not value the life of a human above the life of an ant or even a fly, you claim Reason ultimate, yet believe in the sacredness of human life above all others, so how much can we really have in common?"

But, if you care to see a back and forth between myself and Curtis about technology & singularity, world problems, etc., here it is (it's not short, but think many of my points are made there, [I recommend it!]): http://bitches-tyrone.livejournal.com/39905.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]square721bt
2008-05-29 10:45 am UTC (link)
I'll give it a read at some point. I have a surface familiarity with anarcho-primitivism and the reasonings behind it already, however.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]bitches_tyrone
2008-05-29 12:09 pm UTC (link)
ah yes, anarcho-primitivism. perhaps in the past i thought it quite ideal, and it influences my thought to this day for sure. it has the deepest and widest scope of criticisms i've yet seen (not that i've seen many besides those). it probably informed many of my arguments in that linked post, but i've never ever thought of anarcho-primitivism as the solution to the world's problems. but just because it is not the solution does not nullify its arguments.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]bitches_tyrone
2008-05-29 01:14 am UTC (link)
I was speaking little about religion, and moreso in the belief of progress to whatever teleological end (singularity, technological utopia, marxism, ideology in general, though the rapture works too). Teleology is so goddamned boring.

I no longer have interest in waking people up; I've tried too many times and the payout has been nil. There are signposts everywhere for most people to see if only they'd be willing to listen to something unpopular for a change and open their eyes, but so few do. Attempting to save these unwilling to change is in my eyes a waste of time, and I've long done away with saviors anyway. Many of those in need of a deus ex machina are the blind followers, and are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. I used to be averse to using the word 'sheeple', but the inability of numerous persons to listen to anything unpopular is decreasing this inhabition.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]restless_coder
2008-05-29 07:59 pm UTC (link)
For what it's worth, your guidance has helped shape my world view quite a bit. I'd enjoy discussing many of these topics in more detail with you in person some time. I think there are many things upon which we agree, though not all.

"I hold no belief in right and wrong, good and evil"
Nor do I to a large extent.

"I do not value the life of a human above the life of an ant or even a fly"
See, I value the human more only because my personal interaction with a human is, generally speaking, more personally enjoyable than with an ant or a fly. But there are undoubtedly exceptions.

"I no longer have interest in waking people up; I've tried too many times and the payout has been nil."
I have interest, but observe that many have tried on much grander scales than us (e.g., Derrick Jensen) and largely failed.

Mainly, I am filled with powerful apathy and confusion when I consider the circumstances of our existence (on nearly every level). The only thing I really know how to pursue is personal happiness, and even that not very effectively. I have no grounding for "higher" values that might guide any sort of "moral" behavior otherwise. Should we help other people, or other life in general, just because they are suffering? To what end?

Rather pathetically, my philosophy at the moment boils down to something Jack Sparrow said in the first Pirates movie: "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]bitches_tyrone
2008-05-29 11:04 pm UTC (link)
"For what it's worth, your guidance has helped shape my world view quite a bit."
Fool! No, thanks though. Really. I'm much less in the anarcho-primitivism thoughts than I used to, but as stated in response to another comment above, the criticisms still inform much of my thinking.

"See, I value the human more only because my personal interaction with a human is, generally speaking, more personally enjoyable than with an ant or a fly. But there are undoubtedly exceptions."
Maybe it's just due to what's been going on lately, and also in part due to my being locked up for seventeen days or so now, but people can really really annoy me sometimes. As do flies. Some humans don't, and ants rarely do.

"Mainly, I am filled with powerful apathy and confusion when I consider the circumstances of our existence (on nearly every level)."
Same here. However, I'm becoming less apathetic here and there, and am starting to want to kick my ass in gear more and more. But again, being locked up for fortnights on end, not so conducive to completing (m)any goals that require exercise and outdoors knowledge. Those old words of "think global, act local" are close'ish to how I've been planning my future. Anything else is just looking for a savior to come and save us, for that american movie ending where everything is righted and the good guys win, some single superhero setting things right again.

"The only thing I really know how to pursue is personal happiness, and even that not very effectively."
I've long let personal happiness and joy trump just about any other aspect in my life, even to the neglect of friendships. I find myself much less sympathetic, but this has been leading to greater honesty, I feel. Group happiness is something else.

"Should we help other people, or other life in general, just because they are suffering?"
It depends on what you mean by help. Catching a man a fish I hardly consider helpful. On the other hand, assisting others in cultivating skills and knowledge (teaching them how to fish) to foster lessened dependency I'd more likely consider helpful. Mind you, I don't believe in this 'should', but that's mostly semantics.

"To what end?"
To help themselves.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what is the reason?
[info]restless_coder
2008-06-16 08:21 pm UTC (link)
Assisting others in cultivating skills and knowledge (teaching them how to fish) to foster lessened dependency I'd more likely consider helpful.

Sure, I understand this point. My question, though, was: "Should we help other people, just because they are suffering?" I also appreciate your objection to the word "should," so I'll rephrase: "Do we have a moral imperative to help those who are suffering?" With this clarification, it seems obvious that the answer is completely dependent on your moral framework. Why should I reduce the suffering of others distant from me? Why should I help others to more effectively survive and reproduce when there are already far too many people in the world?

I guess what I'm saying is that I have been working on reducing my moral framework lately. I want to become a "moral minimalist." Ultimately, there is no right and wrong, just a whole world of possible actions of varying difficulty. The trick is to accurately judge how much effort each action takes, versus how much it will benefit my personal goals—cost-benefit analysis, opportunity costs, however you want to think about it. I suppose some might consider this attitude vaguely sociopathic, but in practice it rarely equates to directly harming others.

So when I said I wasn't very effective at pursuing personal happiness, what I meant is that I often don't feel very effective at the cost-benefit analysis. I read "The 4 Hour Work Week" by Timothy Ferriss recently and it made me question whether I shouldn't make some more serious lifestyle changes to escape from local maxima, if that makes any sense.

Anything else is just looking for a savior to come and save us, for that american movie ending where everything is righted and the good guys win, some single superhero setting things right again.

The thing is, I don't even know what "right" or "win" or "good guys" mean. If you mean some super genius scientist discovering cheap, efficient energy, and thus staving off societal collapse for a few more decades or even centuries, why is that good? From your posts I gather that you value life in general (but not particularly humanity), so you would not necessarily view such a discovery as "good" anyway, right? From that perspective, the best you can hope for is that civilization slows down but doesn't collapse, and that we impose much stronger environmental regulations to keep the planet from getting too much more fucked up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…