Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[nano-bug]

Controlling Weather and the Ultimate Negation of Nature

Technology will ultimately lead to our undoing. Both computers and man will share a symbiotic relationship, such a dependence on each other, that the very concept of human nature will be wiped out.
We may still exist, but in a world, not unlike the matrix. I dont mean to say, humans will be slaves in a simulated world, but that we may opt for a virtual evironment over a natural one. This, I believe will produce a schizoid mentality, not to mention a shattered identity, when questions of "who am I?" become who also are these virtual characters that I've created for myself.
Instead of worshipping a God, we'll send our praise to a computer progammer.
Instead of a computer matching our feelings, humans will be cold and detached and much like a machine. There are many unforseen elements to the virtual world, but I also believe that our concept of time will change, based on the fact that computers can make decisions in billionths of a second, below all our human perception. And the politics of time will seperate us from the true natural rhythms of our planet.

The sad thing is the word "progress" has such a positive connotation and commericals for super sleek gadgets have us believe the future tech world will be paradise. They say its inevitable. And most people adhere to it.

[Dan~]

Technology will ultimately lead to our undoing.

Penis's will ultimately lead to rape?

No, technology is not to blame.
The people who control the technology [these being the corporations and the governments] -- are really to blame.

[nano-bug]

Technology will ultimately lead to our undoing.

Penis's will ultimately lead to rape?

No, technology is not to blame.
The people who control the technology [these being the corporations and the governments] -- are really to blame.

restraints have been placed on the penis: laws, inheirent goodness, social estrangement

speaking presently of technology, it appears all is headed in the right direction. Fast is good. Faster is better. And very little thought is given to TOO fast. Nobody really speaks of of restraints. Speed limits are a sham, because my car can reach speeds that exceed 100

you can look out your windshield and see where you're going, but look to the side and the blur of scenery and see what your missing.

[Hassooni]

i usually do not read internet articles which are so long, but this struck me deep... ive been thinking about this topic a great deal.. and you clearified it for me...

a good 2nd experiment for this wud be

test his emotion, make him a shepherd for 4 years, test it again.

[Deusexmachina]

Why is it necessarily true that technology would lead to our undoing?

If we look to the past, to lesser times. There is no paradise there.
Computers are an evolutionary tool. Like the twig to the chimpanzee or the damn to the beaver? Does the twig lessen the chimpness of the chimp, the damn lessen the animal nature of the beaver?

Does using your computer to post on this forum not stimulate and entice your mind and your emotions? Emotions, intellect, human nature itself can only be enhanced through CAE, through computer assisted experiences.

Virtual environments further our knowledge of read ones. Why else do you think computer modelling and simulations are so useful. From chimp to casual office worker, there is no animal that has such a fanciful relationship with the "natural" rhythms of the Erde.

[nano-bug]

Why is it necessarily true that technology would lead to our undoing?

If we look to the past, to lesser times. There is no paradise there.
Computers are an evolutionary tool. Like the twig to the chimpanzee or the damn to the beaver? Does the twig lessen the chimpness of the chimp, the damn lessen the animal nature of the beaver?

Does using your computer to post on this forum not stimulate and entice your mind and your emotions? Emotions, intellect, human nature itself can only be enhanced through CAE, through computer assisted experiences.

Virtual environments further our knowledge of read ones. Why else do you think computer modelling and simulations are so useful. From chimp to casual office worker, there is no animal that has such a fanciful relationship with the "natural" rhythms of the Erde.

My friend, I'm afraid you've only given this a small amount of consideration. Computers are an evolutionary tool, yes, but evolution will take an even further step, with the human race giving rise no another form. The paradise I spoke of is not realistic, its implied in how technology is sold to consumers. "Easy as a push of a button" No work, like the days in the garden of Eden. A sort of promise to fill.

Technology appeals to us because it might benifit us medically. We all want to be immortal, so technology is seen as our savior. Thats great, but what's overlooked is that all our advancements come from the things like the department of defense, where technologies are developed to neutralize the enemy, if not destroy.

Try to imagine your kids spending all their time learning in a simulated enviroment, so much so that they only exit to eat, sleep, and shit. Try to imagine what it will do to their psyche when they are faced with the natural world, a world where they cannot manipulate pixels. That would be very frustrating, almost torment. Why would they then carry any value into the natural world, and what will happen to the natural world as a result?

I could go on, but I feel too strongly about this topic to keep it short.

[Deusexmachina]

While I don’t think anyone here is announcing the approach of paradise it is true that many processes, many tasks have become easier. The amount of physical required within society has diminished considerably, and many tasks that were once required manual labour are now fully automatic. Working hours as compared to last century have decreased, although it is hard to see how they could fall further still without further technological revolutions.

I guess the bottom line is, things have gotten progressively easier for human kind from industrial revolution onwards. No mythical garden’s of Eden to be found, however things are as easy as pushing a button or ignition.
A 5 minute drive to the store (as opposed to a 5 hour walk) or an automated assembly lines (as opposed to hundreds of workers engaged in tedious repetitive work).

Great strawman argument. I’m so “sure” that every technology advance to date has been the result of evil military R&D. So would you care to tell us how the Toyota Prius Hybrid electric car was derived from American ICBMs? Or how the invention of the machine gun resulted in my Lexmark all-in-one.

Another strawman argument. Technology appeals to us because it does benefit us medically. Immortality may be an ignorant pipe dream, but I for one would like to spend the majority of my life in a reasonable state of health.

Children (including myself) do and have spent the vast majority of their time in front of the television screen watching TV or playing Xbox, or infront of their PCs surfing the net, playing PC games, watching and listening to MP3/5s, DivX and posting to forums such as these.

And I can tell you this, if anything it has enhanced my appreciation of nature (camping, bushwalking, boating and 4Wding Amongst my favourite of activities), and judging by the number of young people also engaged in such (the vast majority) it hasn’t hampered their appreciation either. How else does one explain the rising popularity of environmentalism? I don’t suppose yesteryears materialistic baby boomers have had a change of heart

It is clear that you do feel strongly about this. But you should be careful. Emotion clouds the mind and misdirects intellect, and can result in irrationally decided outcomes. I imagine that we share many common ideals and hopes for the future of the natural world. Would it not be better to identify what elements of the industrial world should remain and which are overtly harmful rather than condemn the whole of humanity to the dark abyss of ignorance?

What solutions do you offer? I would like to hear them. The world really is in need of solutions and positive action, now more than ever!
[/i]

[nano-bug]

While I don’t think anyone here is announcing the approach of paradise it is true that many processes, many tasks have become easier. The amount of physical required within society has diminished considerably, and many tasks that were once required manual labour are now fully automatic. Working hours as compared to last century have decreased, although it is hard to see how they could fall further still without further technological revolutions.

I'm well aware of how technology has "made things easier" This easiness is why people cling so hard to progress. No, I dont want to walk to a water well. Yes, I like taps. But that is not my point. My point is this. . .

industrial age (fast)
information age (faster) Things are pretty easy, ok.
the age your grandchildren will know (TOO FAST)

The great momentum is now. The BLUR is to come.
Your aguement states that faster times aren't so bad, so too fast won't be
too hard to handle either. Have it your way, but your kids won't thank you.

Great strawman argument. I’m so “sure” that every technology advance to date has been the result of evil military R&D. So would you care to tell us how the Toyota Prius Hybrid electric car was derived from American ICBMs? Or how the invention of the machine gun resulted in my Lexmark all-in-one.

I was speaking of the internet and virtual reality, both of which the goverment has had a big hand in.

Another strawman argument. Technology appeals to us because it does benefit us medically. Immortality may be an ignorant pipe dream, but I for one would like to spend the majority of my life in a reasonable state of health.

I was saying that whenever progress is referred to, its always the medical miracles that are brought up. People are sucker for it. So they assume that all technology is good as a result. Rarely do people talk about how living in technical age has a negative impact on the mind, or the decreasing scenarios for face to face activity, which is socially healthy and on the decline.

Children (including myself) do and have spent the vast majority of their time in front of the television screen watching TV or playing Xbox, or infront of their PCs surfing the net, playing PC games, watching and listening to MP3/5s, DivX and posting to forums such as these.

Ever notice how time seems to disappear when playing games. Now imagine being immersed inside a video game. It would be like a casino with no clocks or sunlight for time reckoning. And the computer is making decisions faster than you can track. Lots of room for manipulation.

And I can tell you this, if anything it has enhanced my appreciation of nature (camping, bushwalking, boating and 4Wding Amongst my favourite of activities), and judging by the number of young people also engaged in such (the vast majority) it hasn’t hampered their appreciation either. How else does one explain the rising popularity of environmentalism? I don’t suppose yesteryears materialistic baby boomers have had a change of heart

And yet the air, land, sea are still being posioned.

What solutions do you offer? I would like to hear them. The world really is in need of solutions and positive action, now more than ever!
[/i]

Just because someone recognizes the problem, doesn't mean they are the same person to come up with the solution. It needs a joint effort.

Me, personally, I would call for a national holiday called National Slow Down Day. Also I think civiilization should focus on nothing but food and shelter. That should slow things down.

I'm just glad I'm not gonna be around for the mixed up confusion of simulated worlds.

[nano-bug]

For anyone who is really curious about the negative aspects of technology, this book is the best I've found. Its out of print, but you can still order it.


TIME WARS
(the primary conflict in human history)

By
JEREMY RIFKIN





Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin

[nano-bug]

Neo-luddite

Views

People related to this category claim that technology is a force that may do any or all of the following: dehumanize and alienate people; destroy traditional cultures, societies, and family structure; pollute languages; reduce the need for person-to-person contact; alter the very definition of what it means to be human; or damage the evolved life-support systems of the Earth's entire biosphere so gravely as to cause human extinction or omnicide.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddite


People are scared of SCAREMONGERS

[Deusexmachina]

Too fast for you and me... well you maybe. Have you ever noticed
how fast children adapt to things?

I don't think an extrapolation of fast (okay), Faster (even better), and then some how even Fast equals bad!?! How does that fit the trend?

What would be a blur to us will be slow motion to the fast thinking next
generation. Remember what happened to the Neanderthals? Neoluddilite ROFL.

Here's a little article 4 ya -

From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt)
Subject: Jeremy Rifkin's book
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Date: 18 May 1998 16:27:24 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Path:
news.kth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!newsfeed1.swip.net!news-pen-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!netnews.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail

Lines: 143
Message-ID: <6jq5jc>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.kth.se sci.cryonics:9354

Rarely, a writer has an opportunity to say something about
someone he regards as a true menace to the human future. I
was offered this chance recently (on a very modest scale)
when The Washington Post asked me to review the new book by
Jeremy Rifkin, "The Biotech Century."

I believe Rifkin is the commentator who poses the greatest
threat to attempts to transcend limitations of the human
condition. His book is useful as a catalogue of recent
advances in molecular biology and genetics, but is pernicious
and dishonest in its pretense to be a "guide," when in fact
it is a polemic.

Normally I don't quote my own work online, but in this case I
offer the text of my review, largely because I would like as
many people as possible to know about Jeremy Rifkin. If you
are unconvinced by my evaluation, I invite you to look at his
book for yourself. Anyone who believes in the promise of
technology to improve our lives should be extremely concerned
by this man.

--Charles Platt

-------------------------------------------------------------

Profits of Doom

by Charles Platt


Doomsayers have always been in plentiful supply.
"Resources are scarcely adequate to us," wrote the Roman
scholar Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, "while already
nature does not sustain us. Truly, pestilence and hunger and
war and flood must be considered as a remedy for nations,
like a pruning back of the human race becoming excessive in
numbers."[1] This was around 200 AD, when world population
was under 300 million.[2]
Tertullianus was wrong, Malthus was wrong, and modern
academics have been wrong--most spectacularly when an MIT
study team deduced from a massive computer simulation that
all reserves of lead, tin, zinc, and petroleum would be
exhausted within 20 years. (This was back in 1972.)[3] Still,
the abysmal track record of pessimistic pundits has never
impaired their popularity--which explains Jeremy Rifkin's
lucrative career as a gene-splicing alarmist, even though
none of his horror scenarios has come close to reality, while
research continues safely under severe restraints and
promises huge benefits ranging from cancer cures to new crops
that will fight third-world hunger.
Of course, recombinant DNA raises ethical issues and has
frightening military applications. But in _The Biotech
Century_ (Tarcher/Putnam, $24.95) Rifkin goes far beyond
these specifics. With Old Testament hyperbole he warns of an
impending "second genesis" threatening "a biological Tower of
Babel spreading chaos throughout the biological world and, in
the process, drowning out the ancient language of evolution."
(page 68)
In fact nature already is a chaotic system, and the
"ancient language of evolution" is a risky process of random
mutations. The AIDS virus emerged from one such mutation;
likewise, numerous hereditary birth defects that cause untold
misery. We'd be wise to learn how to inhibit these "natural"
processes merely for our own self-defense.
Rifkin, though, warns that the power to cure defects can
also be used to create superchildren. "'Customized' babies
could pave the way for the rise of a eugenic civilization in
the twenty-first century," he says (page 3). Yet no one
complains, today, if a woman chooses a husband for his
intelligence or his good looks, hoping that her children will
inherit those traits. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to
control this process with less uncertainty?
In March, 1996, UNESCO denied this right,[4] claiming
that "the human genome is the common heritage of humanity."
Thus, women should be forbidden to modify their ova, or men
their sperm, because germ plasm belongs to future generations
of our species, not the person in whom it resides.
Rifkin extends this dubious principle even further,
opposing private ownership even of plant genes, especially by
pharmaceutical companies that extract useful DNA sequences in
third-world countries. He doesn't explain who will pay to
turn these sequences into drugs, test them, and market them
if no one is allowed ownership rights. He simply rejects the
idea. "Life patents strike at the core of our beliefs about
the very nature of life," he writes (page 62).
His view of life, however, is somewhat inaccurate. He
complains that gene splicing alters "our concept of nature
and our relationship to it, reducing all of life to
manipulatable chemical materials" (page 14). But life cannot
be _reduced_ to chemistry; it _is_ chemistry, as was proved
almost a century ago when sea urchins were fertilized with
inert chemicals in a famous experiment at the Woods Hole
marine biological laboratory.[5] Since then we've established
that every cell contains its own DNA program, and currently
we are learning how to modify that program with greater
precision. To Jeremy Rifkin, this seems a threat and an
insult, possibly for religious reasons, though he avoids
mentioning his own faith.
_The Biotech Century_ purports to be an objective guide,
but this is a deliberate deception. Mr. Rifkin makes no
attempt at a fair or balanced assessment, and does not reveal
to the reader his long record of anti-science activism. His
"survey" of the next century is an endless catalogue of
horrors, real or imagined, and he offers no suggestions for
solutions.
If genetic research is impeded, millions of people will
remain hungry or will die unnecessarily. If scare tactics by
doomsayers encourage legislation that outlaws some activities
(such as cloning), the work will move offshore to nations
where fewer safeguards may exist, thus creating greater risk.
Since _The Biotech Century_ encourages these outcomes, it
raises an intriguing question: who is more dangerous, the
scientist seeking to enhance our lives, or the pundit who
promotes unreasoning fear?
Mr. Rifkin would like tighter controls on risky research
conducted by greedy pharmaceutical companies. By the same
logic, he should favor restrictions on reckless doomsayers,
who work without regulatory supervision and profit handsomely
while accepting no responsibility for the social consequences
of their scaremongering.

-------------------------------------------------------------

References

[1] Quoted in Joel E. Cohen, "How Many People Can the World
Support?" (page 6). W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1995.

[2] Same source as [1] (page 77).

[3] Donella H. Meadows et. al., _The Limits to Growth_ (pages
56-61). Universe Books, New York, 1972.

[4] In "Declaration on Protection of the Human Genome," from
UNESCO web page; quoted in "The Evolution Revolution" by
Charles Platt, _Wired_ magazine, January 1997.

[5] Boyce Rensberger, _Life Itself_ (page 9). Oxford
University Press, New York, 1996.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[nano-bug]

Yes, children do adapt to things very well, I'll admit. So there's some hope.

I can't imagine why so many people would be against of exercising caution.

All I can do is wonder what I think I'm gaining from being a doomsday sayer, since nobody around these parts is ready for slow downward shift. Humans love a good risk.

Okay, I guess I'll go watch the movie Too Fast, Too Furious and get entertained by all the death defying moments.

[Hassooni]

where did we go wrong?

[ravencry4all]

Really want to think positive?
Have a happy meal!

There is Teflon in the umbilical cord of newborns.
There is DDT in all fish.
Oil exploration is safe to do in the arctic, but BP didn't have the funds to fix a pipeline only a few miles long.

If the environment continues to deteriorate, living longer will be a punishment.

[shinton]

I like the environment very much. I appreciate it when I walk outside. I enjoy oxygen. I enjoy clean air. Yet, I have to say that when I hear statements like "Total destruction of the planet" I'm always compelled to ask FOR WHOM?

As I understand the historical conditions of the Earth, what we see now isn't always what was. Life, as we now know it, requires the planet to be as it is, however; life is a by-product of the planet itself--provided we don't blow the whole damn thing up in some phenomenal way, it's a pretty safe bet that SOME sort of life will still be kicking. It may be disastrous for US, but there may be some very happy roaches--so--I think a better formulation for such statements revolves around saying something like "We will make this planet hostile to human life."

I know, it may be nit-picky, but I think it's important.

[ravencry4all]

where did we go wrong?

With the Daylight Saving Time. Not kidding.

For corporations nothing is sacred.
Business is a very important part of our life, but only part of it.

We have a rule for the separation of Church and State,
we must have one for the separation of Business and State.

Bill Gates is less then God why should he have more say.

[sushil yadav]

Dear friends,

I have made some additions to the article "Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment". To read the modified article please follow any of these links :

PlanetSave
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt

sushil_yadav

[sushil yadav]

We all need to understand how harmful and destructive the consumer culture is.


Life was never good in the past.

Life will never be good in future.

Life can never be good.


Suffering is a part of life - an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.

There is Physical suffering - There is Mental suffering.

In pre-industrial society there were physical diseases caused by virus and bacteria.
In modern society there are hundreds of lifestyle related physical diseases - Cancer, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity, Multiple Organ Failures.


Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.

We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

[ In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of restlessness/ anxiety/ suffering into peace. This requires ability and years of effort ]

For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products-- a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.

Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop drinking water for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop eating food for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return - once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.

If we live a simple life there is individual suffering - but no largescale destruction of Environment.

If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering - plus largescale destruction of Environment.

sushil_yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
PlanetSave
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt

[ravencry4all]

Dear sushil yadav,

Your reasoning is like no other.
Just kidding.
The way you set up your argument by a simple choice of
'simple life' or 'consumerist life' makes it pointless.
It is about the same then the choice between sleeping outside or in a cave.

[Phil27of79]

death to infints. Your sins will be your reward. I hope the seas really do biols while I'm hidding in a north canadian cave. Us puritians were the choisen people, but your disbelief in santa clause caused him to die. Now I'm stuck toating a empty bag around tring to fill the gap. Soon the sailers will own the antartic.

Who cares about life when death is so much more hopefull. Or we can ignore it and try to get rich in the process. Our only hope now is their really is an armegedon.

[ravencry4all]

Our only hope now is their really is an armagedon.

Your only hope is to get paid for your hard work on ILP.

We are not little children of ToysOfYours to be scared by the invented disasters of Armageddon.
We are guardians of this world and increasingly outraged by it's destruction.

Your statements are so weak that they can't even be called arguments.
They hold no water nor wind nor fire.
If you are chosen, you are chosen for only one thing and I will prevent you from dragging the rest of us with you.

[sushil yadav]

Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, aeroplane, rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.

sushil_yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
PlanetSave
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt

[sushil yadav]

Sushil, I enjoyed reading your comments. I whole-heartedly agree in regards to excess consumerism. When will people learn that buying new clothes or new anything does not lead to happiness. As long as the marketers keep bombarding people with advertisements, then it will continue up until there are no natural resources left.
One of my goals on this rock is to spread the message about the destructive effects of the consumer society. Not many people listen, but one or two do occasionally. Good to know there are some people out there who think the same.

Fent,

You are right about the harmful impact of consumerism on our Minds and Environment.

Today 50% of world population - 3 bilion people are living in cities. The necessary work of growing/producing Food is being done outside cities - in villages and countryside. Most of the people living in cities are engaged in unnecessary work - making things, buying things and selling things. The switch-over from Physical work to Mental work/ Desk job has led to an endless cycle of unnecessary and destructive work.

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.

Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop drinking water for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop eating food for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods.

Industrial Society is destroying necessary things[Animals,Trees,Air,Water and Land] for makng unnecessary things[Consumer Goods].

sushil_yadav

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
FreeInfoSociety
ePhilosopher
Corrupt
ForeignPolicy

[TertiaryMindset.!]

Here, here!

[TertiaryMindset.!]

Here, here!