Thought is the enemy of nature.
What do you mean?
The animal we call human lived
; eons before it experienced thought. Up to that point the animal existed as part of the eco-system . It lived harmouniosly in the system.
It lived in the system were if too many rabbits exist ; there willl be an increase of foxes.When increase of foxes occured a decrease of rabbits happened. The animal we call human lived in that system.
If thought had not showed up the system would not have been altered.
For several decades environmentalists have been warning modern society that ecosystems are getting destroyed - that consumerist lifestyle is not sustainable.
But modern society which was busy chasing progress, growth and development did not listen. It refused to believe there was any environmental crisis or problem. It said science and technology will always find a solution - if earth gets destroyed we will move on to another planet.
In the name of Science and Technology impossible dreams were sold to people in the last few decades.
Moving to another planet would probably rank as the most impossible of all impossible things.
One space shuttle exploded during take off - another exploded on the return journey.
So far man has not been able to go beyond the moon. There is no other life sustaining ecosystem/ planet within our solar system. Outside the solar system planets and galaxies are millions of light years away - billions of light years away.
So when are we moving to a new home ?
Next year - or 5 years later ?
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
StrategyTalk
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
its always amusing, the hypocrisy of those who criticize and pretend to reject that which they cannot even live without-- raging against that which they depend on daily to survive.
posting your hatred of society and technology in an internet forum… 
likely driving in your car, shopping at the grocery store buying food shipped to you from around the world, watching TV, using electricity and modern heating/cooling, buying clothes on sale because they were made cheaply by utilizing labor from halfway around the world, reading newspapers and books printed on trees, wearing your “green” t-shirts which required countless industrial labor, innovation, technological work, energy and time to create… acting outraged and self-righteous about the “evils of industrial society and technology” while counting out dollars from your imitation-leather plastic purse to pay for your latte at starbucks… a funnier spectacle of self-contradiction and pathetic intellectual ineptitude can hardly be imagined.
This is allways the standard rebuttal against arguments that criticise modern society. I’m not saying the poster of OP is right all the way, or in any way, but I do think this particular argument just doesn’t hold. It’s pointless. We are part of our culture, for a large part we can’t help as social beings to live in this world. Living in the jungle isn’t really an option. This doesn’t deniy us the right to criticise modern society and technology. What’s wrong, is constantly complaining about it, In Real Life, when there isn’t a clear cut solution. Then you have to deal with it, just like everybody else.
But what is wrong with discussing it on a message board like this? Can’t we talk about it, and shouldn’t the arguments be dealt with on their own merit? No, because i’m typing this on a computer… Meh.
agreed that usage of certain symbols/methods in order to necessarily criticize those symbols/methods is not contradictory per se. however, the specific case of using advanced modern technology without even thinking, instinctively, unquestioningly, DOES contradict the fundamental argument against technological progress, because it implies that the arguer himself does not understand the relation he enters into with the technology that he is openly refuting or rejecting. it implies that one does not understand ones own argument, particularly when one attempts to refute or reject systems or premises which that individual himself is DEPENDENT on and in fact uses regularly; the fact that the individual himself DOES NOT SEE THIS relation he bears to that which he criticizes is more crutial than the mere fact that he depends upon these things himself, however both aspects render his argument self-contradictory or irrelevant.
and yes, of course we are part of society and have cultures, and that this is a GOOD thing; likewise we should always be evaluating and judging these cultures and societies in terms of values we have, making them better over time. however, this is not the place from which such blatant general attitudes of anti-society, anti-technology arise-- they arise from an emotional reaction of revenge, envy, hypocrisy, ones own inability to even understand that which one tries to criticize. we can certainly point to specific aspects of society, technoology that are problematic, and propose solutions… but the wanton disregard of such systems per se, without defining an alternative, without understanding the systems themselves nor why they obtain, nor the relations one enters into automatically and unquestioningly, IS contradictory.
“acting outraged and self-righteous about the “evils of industrial society and technology” while counting out dollars from your imitation-leather plastic purse to pay for your latte at starbucks” DOES exemplify the condescending and self-righteous ignorant blindness and hypocrisy of these so-called ‘progressive intellectuals’ of our modern times. these people are no more than unthinking parrots, sets of popular, intellectually-empty chiches-- useful tools and sounding boards for mass movements and political power elites.
the funniest part is that these conditioned walking contradictions consider themselves “radical”, when in reality there is nothing less radical that the oversocialized liberal hippies who preach gospels of “industrial society’s” destruction; who could be more useful to society itself, who could ensure society’s reterritorializations and complete marginalization of TRUE movements of REAL change better than the collective unfocused murmorings of millions of such conditioned automatons?
I agree with you that oversocialized hippies as you call them, can be a pain and don’t do much to inspire further dialogue. But pointing the finger at them is perhaps equally fruitless. What I’d like to see for a change is a considered diagnoses of the bad (and the good) influences of modern society and technology on man, because in my opinion there’s at least some incriminating evidence that deserves a better look. As it is now, you generally get, either the unadjusted fool that lives outside of society and the hypocrite hippie who are not to be taken seriously, or the defender of western society who thinks it’s bad form to criticise the society that supports you. Nothing good can come of it, in terms of moving forward and creating solutions to the problems of today.
Maybe… maybe i’m taking this to serious .
Three Times Great,
Mr. Genius, When did I ever justify my use of computer/ internet? When did I ever claim that I am not a part of society that is destroying ecosystems - show me when - show me where.
The topic of my article says - Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment. The words Industrial Society include most people living in cities in this world - you as well as me.
TechnoWorshipper, I find it ironic that you have no concern/ compassion for Environment despite the fact that you owe your very existence to nature/ environment.
Why do you breathe the Air?
Why do you drink the Water?
Why do you eat the Food that comes from Soil? - Why don’t you have Computers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Take all your technology to the Moon - and try producing a single grain of Food without using any natural ingredient from Earth.
In the absence of Nature your grandfather would’nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature your father would’nt have lived.
In the absence of Nature you would’nt have lived.
Show some respect to Nature.
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
StrategyTalk
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
when did i ever say that you considered yourself to not be a part of society? i in fact claimed quite the opposite.
you seem not to understand my argument.
i agree.
where did i say i am a technoworshipper? show me when - show me where.
i have concern for the environment to the extent that to do otherwise would compromise my individual survival and life, in any specific case or manner.
because i am an individual member of a mammalian species which has evolved to extract oxygen (O2) from the atmosphere via respiration in order to provide its cells with energy.
see previous response, except substitute water (H2O) for oxygen.
in addition to providing energy, water is the medium within which most chemical and mechanical process operate, and therefore the body/organs require optimum levels of water saturation to function successfully.
i dont think you can survive on a diet of computers, but youre certainly welcome to try.
what would that prove, if i did?
where did i say i dont respect nature? i respect it the same way every lifeform does, to the extent that i must in order to secure my survival.
you didnt really address or respond to a single point i made, all you did was make false accusations that i worship technology, which i never said and which is untrue, and demonstrate that life evolves with certain conditions for its continued existence, which i never contested and which was never in doubt.
clearly you do not see my argument at all, so how do you expect to critique it?
learn to paint with a finer brush…
Thought is the enemy of nature.
Nature will be destroyed by thought. Any thought will always be against nature. Thought will destroy earth and it will destroy the universe.
Industrial Society has been spreading blatant lies over the years.
“Green Industry”, “Green Technology”, “Ethical Consumerism”, “Sustainable Development”.
These are contradictory terms – these are oxymorons.
Industrialization can never be green – it is impossible.
You cannot save a person after you have killed him.
You cannot save ecosystems after you have killed them for making consumer goods.
When we make consumer goods we kill Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land - directly or indirectly.
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems - all Industrial Societies destroy ecosystems.
It hardly matters whether it is “Capitalist Industrial Society” - “Communist Industrial Society” - or “Socialist Industrial Society”.
Industrial Society destroys ecosystems at every stage of its functioning - when consumer goods are produced - when consumer goods are used - when consumer goods are discarded/ recycled.
Raw material for industry is obtained by cutting up Forests. It is extracted by mining/ digging up the earth. It comes by destroying/ killing Trees, Animals and Land.
Industries/ Factories use Water. The water that comes out of Factories is contaminated with hundreds of toxic chemicals. What to speak of Rivers - entire Oceans have been polluted. Industry kills Water.
Industries/ Factories burn millions of tonnes of fuel - and when raw material is melted/ heated up, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Industry kills Air.
Industrial Society has covered millions of square miles of land with cement and concrete. Industry kills Land.
When consumer goods are discarded/ thrown away in landfills it again leads to destruction of ecosystems.
When consumer goods are recycled, hundreds of toxic chemicals are released into air, water and land.
Consumer goods are sold/ marketed through a network of millions of kilometers of rail / road network and shipping routes which causes destruction of all ecosystems that come in the way.
[b]We have limited resources/ ecosystems on earth which is just 40,000 km in circumference.
If we destroy ecosystems for fewer things the ecosystems will last longer.
If we destroy ecosystems for more things [consumer goods] the ecosystems will finish much sooner.
The fewer things we make the more sustainable we are.
This is common sense - plain common sense - which the so called smart, intelligent, advanced, civilized and developed Industrial Society does not possess.[/b]
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
StrategyTalk
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Krishnamurti?
Don’t neglect that thought can’t end by an act of will. The only thing that ends thinking is the realization of truth, that is, the completion of thought.
When a person is confronted with a lie or a contradiction, the mind goes into gear until it resolves the issue, or it is diverted onto another lie or contradiction. The will has no control over this.
Anyway, who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy? Nature disguises truth, thought reveals it.
I changed the old adage to: The truth will first PISS YOU OFF and then it will set you free.
But back to Krishnamurti. I think what he said is that once you experience truth, thought is trumped. He did not expound mediation but he did agree that thinking inhibited awareness. Thought needs to get out of the way to see truth.
^ lay off the acid.
it may be fun, but it wreaks havoc on your brain and conceptual/cognitive faculties.
Faculties are not being divided. It is entitled, “ILovePhilosophy.com”.
It is not funny at all.
Maybe what you need are comments?
Maybe what we need are freedom.
The one who come to you, is not enemy, but partner.
Philosophy is something more.
I stated, “We are in same school.”
ill be totally honest, i have absolutely no idea what you are saying. not even a clue.
This crazy society did not anticipate “Financial Collapse” until it actually happened.
This crazy society is not going to anticipate “Ecosystem Collapse” until it actually happens.
The way this insane, abnormal and criminal society is running is like :
A car running in a closed garage.
Adding extra floors to a building by removing bricks from the lower floors.
The crash - the collapse - the end is coming.
It is a matter of one or two decades at the most.
sushil_yadav
PowerSwitch
EnviroLink
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment