The Human Infection And Strain

In this thread I’ve decided to do something a bit different by focusing on civilization’s impact on the natural environment. Some people say the impact is minimum while others say it’s disastrous. Who’s correct and, who is not? This thread we’ll explore that.

First example:

Most humans want to change the world.
Only few humans want to protect the world.

It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently. It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically false. So it is philosophical false.

yeah it’s all going down the shitter.

One can understand the damage intellectually, by looking at statistics and data, as HHH does in the OP.
You can also just feel it. Especially if you have been in relatively undamaged nature. HHH if he goes to Alaska (I think this is happening) will be able to see some relative undamaged nature. Once you have been in healthy woods, you can see how little healthy woods there are. Other woods will feel wrong. If you can try to get into some old growth on protected land. It gives on a base to compare to other chunks of nature. Of course seeing a variety of ecosystems will help, since a conifer forest or a rainforest in a healthy state will look different from temperate deciduous, let along non-forest systems. But actually I think you can develop a feel for what a healthy environment is like. Some people seem to have it built in from birth.

Then a lot of what passes for forest is actually tree farm limited ecosystems. You can see the different between thriving trees and trees that are not healthy. You can see diversity in a glance and realize that much of what passes for forest on maps is actually as simple and damaged as calling a pesticide ridden wheat field a patch of grassland.

It breaks my heart.

I do not mean, I have this sad idea in my mind and I am very concerned and critical of current human impact.

I mean, it fucking hurts to see what is happening.

Changing the world means owning the world.

Humans are part of the world, so if you want to protect the world you have to change the humans. It’s that simple.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple, just because humans are part of the world, and it is false to change the world. … ebris.html

People who lack the necessary blood memory to understand that civilization is the pinnacle of human development, and that what we have today is no civilization at all, but pseudo-civilization that hides the underlying reality of barbarism, cannot understand that the mistake responsible for the modern problem is not that of desire to change Nature – which is fundamentally a noble pursuit – but that of the manner in which people are trying to change Nature.

People who lack the necessary blood memory – that of Neolithic era – can sense that there is something wrong with the modern way of living, but they cannot devise the appropriate solution to the problem. All they can do is oppose the status quo with whatever is opposite to it. In the absence of blood memory necessary to guide their imagination in the right direction, they have no choice but to rely on basic oppositional heuristic.

There are people who are interested in understanding the root cause of the problem, and then there are people who are merely interested in making the pain go away as quickly as possible. The anti-civilization attitude belongs to the latter variety.

The #1 problem in the world is that people interepret problems subjectively and not objectively. They interpret them in terms of suffering, which is a matter of perception, rather than in terms of violence, which is a matter of reality.

You don’t want to change them, you want to eliminate them. By changing them – by making them better – you are rewarding them for their bad behavior. You are effectively telling them “it’s okay to be bad because sooner or later someone will pop up and turn you into a better person”. What this betrays is a lack of sense of justice.

It is liberals and communists who want to change people in order to make them better. They rely on education and gulags, you on the other hand, you rely on genetic engineering. Fundamentally, there is no difference. Again, what this betrays is a preoccupation with pleasure and preservation.

Natural selection favors barbarism. Unless you are into barbarism, it makes very little sense to leave everything up to it.

Hence, we are in need of artificial selection, which is a form of “owining the world”, world here understood in terms of perceptual horizon, not in literal terms, as everything. Let’s say that our present day perceptual horizon covers our planet Earth and no more than that. Owning the world would means owning planet Earth, and no more than that.

Civilization is an attempt to bypass natural selection with artificial selection in order to select for nobility rather than for ignobility (which is what Nature favors.)

This has to be carried out properly lest the civilization deteriorate into a form of pseudo-civilization and a mode of artifical selection that does not favor nobility but its polar opposite, ignobility – that would be our modern so-called “civilization”.

Our modern day “civilization” is extremely natural. That people are artificial – which is to say pretentious, acting out of their character, and in general, narcissistic – is no argument against it since Nature actually favors this sort of artificiality. There is little in this world that is more natural than slavishness.

Nature is such that it forces people – and it does so constantly – to abandon their true selves and become something else, all with the aim to make them survive a little longer.

Outside of the context of civilization, everyone is forced – they have no choice but – to betray their past selves.

They may feel pleasure, they may have a sense of well-being, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are true to their past selves or not. It is only memory – memory of our past selves – that can tell us whether we are true to ourselves or not. If we simply conveniently forget our memory of the past, in the process making sure we suffer no repression, since repression is, believe it or not, a sign that a memory has not been properly forgotten, but has been merely pushed out of the immediate consciousness of thought into the background consciousness of feeling, if we simply make sure we do not fall into the trap of repression which will force us to either suffer or face our memory of the past, we can live our lives perfectly well even though we are not true to ourselves.

Without a shelter that civilization provides us, we can never be true to ourselves and at the same time alive for any significant period of time.

All of this is, of course, only of importance to noble people, to people who want to remain true to their childhood. The author of this topic, on the other hand, has no interest in such a thing, I am well aware of that, and is merely interested in pleasure. He’s just a person who suffers under the modern pseudo-civilized circumstances, and who hopes, either correctly or incorrectly, I won’t be the judge here, for I cannot be the judge here, who hopes that a return to a more natural way of life will bring him pleasure.

I am saying all of this in order to clarify the fundamental differences between my type, that of Neolithic farmers, the Aryans, and his type, that of Paleolithic hunters, the Giants (or as they are also known, Cro-Magnons.)

Make your choice. Whose side are you on?

Ah, there’s that KT bravado within Magnus here. He’s here to tell us of that splendid golden age of what civilization use to be and how we can recover it through civility or order. How very thoughtful, moving, and touching by him. Please note inherent sarcasm of previous sentence here.

Of course I am not very impressed whatsoever. Hey, at least I’m honest.

Please continue, tell us all about the human fall from grace concerning original civility Magnus.

I can’t wait for you to explain all about it to us. :evilfun:

Wait, what about the fall of civil grace Magnus?

How on earth do you hope to recover it within people?

Must we wait for the holy annointed one? :laughing:

Now we’re getting somewhere Magnus. Very good. I didn’t think you had it in you.

Now, how will this noble or civil artificial selection arise and be created?

How will humanity’s fall from civil grace be mended in reviving the past golden era? Make me want to believe.