User Controls

Climate Change is a good thing.

  1. #41
    Originally posted by Obbe To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man’s environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

    So who in this Industrial Revolution have you kooks gone after, other than the poor folks?
  2. #42
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe



    Originally posted by Speedy Parker
  3. #43
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ So who in this Industrial Revolution have you kooks gone after, other than the poor folks?

    The two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.
  4. #44
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe The two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

  5. #45
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  6. #46
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe



    Originally posted by Speedy Parker
  7. #47
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  8. #48
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe



    Originally posted by Speedy Parker
  9. #49
    Originally posted by Obbe The two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

    You didn't answer the question. Who in this Industrial Revolution have you kooks gone after, other than the poor folks?

    And promoting social stress and instability in industrial society is called terrorism.
  10. #50
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

    Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.
  11. #51
    the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]
    People that wear glasses are the problem
  12. #52
    Originally posted by Obbe Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.


    Terrorist.
  13. #53
    Elbow African Astronaut
    Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Terrorist.

    She certainly was. Transition could have saved her.
  14. #54
    The Climate Cult is going to destroy the Industrial Society by ignoring the Industrial Society and emptying the pockets of people who already can't pay for their rent and groceries instead. A novel approach. What a bunch of truly reprehensible and evil "heroes".
  15. #55
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  16. #56
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

    Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

    Biden signed an executive order, paragraphs are free now!

  17. #57
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    ^he mad.
  18. #58
    Speedy Parker Black Hole
    Originally posted by Obbe ^he mad.

    Snoopy called, he wants his line back kid.

  19. #59
    Originally posted by Speedy Parker Snoopy called, he wants his line back kid.


    That didn't scare Obbe.
Jump to Top