Incestious Modernity.

Fat Tony! said:
WW1 isn't modern really
Click to expand...
Yeah. We fought in trenches 50 metres from each other. We continued to do so for weeks on end. Roman armies pwned the enemy from 100+ metres with their bows and spears.
 
it's mankinds fate to ultimately rape and serverly injure earth, it's (dare I say 100%) impossible for a society to evolve and be capable of making 100% efficient devices on the first go, or even the 100th go.

Mother earth gave us the chance to stretch out beyond the planet and touch the surface of other worlds so far away the mind cannot even grasp the measurements, we shouldn't pass the chance up.
 
Mother earth gave us the ability to do many things, including the ability to choose to live naturally. I would argue, when humanity isnt living in way that is able to sustain itself and it's environment, that it is unnatural. Unnatural in the sense that it will cause us to die out. As unnatural things cannot exist within nature.

My arguement here is, according to the definition I stated above of what constitutes natural things, is whether Modernity was essentially a natrual phenomenon that occured for humanity or an unnatural one.

I would argue it is an unnatural phenomenon as I beleive more harm has come from modernity than good in the way in which it effects the totality of human survival and it's environment.

Yes, we may have the comforts that technology provides, however at what cost? Is it really worth destroying the planet because people want the comfort of getting to places without walking or because people want the many convieneces plastics provide?

If we want to ensure our survival, we need to seriously question the teleological basis of modernity.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
Mother earth gave us the ability to do many things, including the ability to choose to live naturally. I would argue, when humanity isnt living in way that is able to sustain itself and it's environment, that it is unnatural. Unnatural in the sense that it will cause us to die out. As unnatural things cannot exist within nature.

My arguement here is, according to the definition I stated above of what constitutes natural things, is whether Modernity was essentially a natrual phenomenon that occured for humanity or an unnatural one.

I would argue it is an unnatural phenomenon as I beleive more harm has come from modernity than good in the way in which it effects the totality of human survival and it's environment.

Yes, we may have the comforts that technology provides, however at what cost? Is it really worth destroying the planet because people want the comfort of getting to places without walking or because people want the many convieneces plastics provide?

If we want to ensure our survival, we need to seriously question the teleological basis of modernity.
Click to expand...
You can't just make up a definition of a pre-existing word and use it in a normal conversation! (Though I will admit that most sciences/philosophies/religons spin words all the time)

Pull your head out of a thesaurus and say something useful! I have yet to read a post by you in which you contributed anything, even the ones you started. Using fancy words and catchphrases does not make you seem any more intelligent to someone who knows what's going on.


Are you wiccan? I don't mean that as an offensive term in any way, as wiccanism is a valid religion in my view. Your ideas in this, and most threads I've read of yours, are clearly wiccan. Just in a yes or no question do you worship a fertility goddess?

In regards to your statement which I quoted, death is possibly the most natural process around. Entropy, the simplification of matter and energy, seems to be the guiding process in the universe. Death is part of entropy, as the processes which hold your body together are too complex to last for long.

I too hold that nothing is unnatural.

/rant
 
Do you enjoy putting others down Absinthe? Does it make you feel intellectually superior? Does it make you feel like your proving to yourself that your not dumb? Feels good doesn't it? When you tell others they're ridiculous to prove to yourself you're intelligent.

How about instead of trying to step on others to satisfy your own insecurties, you discuss what you believe about nature and modernity, or what ever it is you believe through the process of moderate hegonomical discourse as this is the most effective way in which a conclusion can be made about the discuss topic at hand.
 
hahahha im such a hypocrite.

Whats a wiccan? I actually can be classified as someone who worships a fertility goddess.

sure, death is a natural process, I agree with that.

Why dont we, try to become less complex in order to ensure our survival to be insync with the process of entropy? Wouldnt that be a more natural way of living our lives instead of trying to survive as long as possible? Have you seen the amount of old people in hospitals these days? LET GO! YOUR OLD!
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
Do you enjoy putting others down Absinthe? Does it make you feel intellectually superior? Does it make you feel like your proving to yourself that your not dumb? Feels good doesn't it? When you tell others they're ridiculous to prove to yourself you're intelligent.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Your topic is based on an exaggerated false dichotomy as I've already explained. If you think I do this for my ego, I won't stop such thought processes.

Arguing that we need to be more "natural" is arguing nothing, as we cannot objectively define what is natural by human standards. You can point to the rest of the natural world if you wish, but it's a rather useless comparison as it's quite obvious that we are unique and not in sync with it. We never have been like any other species. An argument from nature is a vague and fluffy concept that could be used for anything and that's why it's poor. And as far as I can see, there is absolutely no danger for humanity. At least no more than there have been for any previous generation.

Your definition of unnatural is essentially anything that causes harm; a logical non-sequitir.
 
So basically, nature is objectively indefinable hence everything anyone ever says about is false and not worth discussing.
 
I'm saying that an argument about how we need to be natural is poor one. If you want to discuss the welfare of humanity, choose a different subject.
 
Well, we need to recognize that modernity is not some recent development. It has essentially been an ongoing process for mankind as far back as history dates. Granted, there are new dangers because of it, especially in the era of technology. But technophobia is an irrational recourse and attempting to reverse the trend would not only be futile, but I don't see what point it would serve.

As far as I can see, we should stay the course. I believe modernity has done more good for us than bad and I also see it as an inevitability in the species. The best we can do is steer it, ebb it, and control it as best we can. Yeah, we'll risk killing ourselves. We always have.

Modernity may or may not be natural in some grand perspective, but it is an undeniable part of our nature, so it's not going away until we can rewrite our human tendencies. Concern should be expressed behind its motivations and its uses. To pit it as a whole against something else just seems pointless.

BTW sorry for lashing at you. :) I'm an angry man.
 
Okay, you can go live naked in a Forest, we really couldn't care less.
 
errr...okay i pretty much agree, except for the part about how its done more good for us than bad.
 
You're being very small minded about the definition of nature. Saying that trees are natural and cities are un-natural. What about ant-hills, are they natural? Nature just means that things follow guidelines and do as they are "meant" to do. Humans are natural. We are just like fish, or chimpanzees. We do as we do, and that's our course.

You think that being self conscious somehow makes humanity as a whole self conscious and that somehow this collective consciousness is guiding our species willy nilly on a kill/burn rampage. No, humanity is merely following evolutionary trends, looking after numero uno.

Can you think of any species that doesn't ultimately have it's own existence as its top priority? No, that's because that kinda behaviour gets you extincted pretty fast, so you're not around to talk about it. Simple common sense.

Plants dying, thousands of species going extinct, global warming, that's not bad, it's just change. Billions of years ago there was no life at all on the planet. Would you call that a horrible holocaust because the lack of atmosphere and constant meterite bombardment prevented life? How bout the meteor that wiped out everything larger than rats, was that EVIL? No, it was just a chunk of rock, but humans are EVIL because we are individually conscious?

Who gives a crap about life and nature, it's all just self repeating patterns anyways that have existed for the short period of maybe a few billion years ago to present.
 
Frenzy, you are aware that mass apocalypse, extinction and death is a part of the natural cycle? When the first trees respired en mass and the atmosphere started to fill with oxygen, it was a disaster for all the carbon-dioxide breathing lifeforms. These new so-called 'trees' were raping the planet and killing everything.

Now I'm not saying that we should be mindless of the threat to the environment because we, after all, have to live in it - and it'll be us who suffer if we **** it up.
 
Damn those trees! D:

There'll always be something that will adapt to new hostile conditions (except maybe the Sun blowing up), for example rising sea levels. I'm sure some ocean lifeforms will find the benefit in that.

The ozone layer being depleted? Well some species will take advantage of the new UV rays influx.

But yes, it'll be us who suffers from our mistakes. Although I doubt we'd see our own extinction anytime soon. Mass culling, maybe.

But death is part of the natural cycle.
 
death is a part of the natural cycle because unnatural things die out.
 
There you go again with your nonstandard (dare I say "unnatural") definition of "natural." You argue that dinosaurs were unnatural? How so? They were living naturally, then they were killed off by another natural process. You argue that anaerobic lifeforms were unnatural? How so? Before there was oxygen they were living quite naturally... then, another natural process killed them. You argue that anything that became extinct was somehow inherently unnatural? No, the things that die out just either can't cope with the environmental changes (like those caused by an ice age or a meteor) or are introduced to a dominant species... either hunting them to death or using up their food source and starving them to death. That's still natural. You just have a ****ed up idea of what "natural" means. Animals do what is natural for animals. Plants do what is natural for plants. Single-celled organisms do what is natural for single-celled organisms to do. Do you get it? Natural behavior is any kind of behavior that appears in nature. Natural even includes making and using tools.

Our natural advantage, moreso than any other feature, was our incredible ability to learn. We learned to control fire. We learned to carve wood. We learned to control metals. We learned to control electricity. Our natural ability to learn brought about these scientific advancements. Evolution provided us with this ability and, IMO, it would be unnatural for us to deny our only real, natural advantage. We're not the strongest or the fastest. We don't have claws, fangs, or poison. We have mediocre vision and hearing. Without tools we were pretty much relegated to scavenging and we still weren't even very good at that. As such, we may have gone extinct if we hadn't eventually made weapons and fire... which happened to start us out along our current path... whether you like it or not.
 
I suggest he goes back to scavenging and foraging to test the water for us. If he ends up better off, we'll join him. If not, we'll keep our modernity.
 
OCybrManO said:
There you go again with your nonstandard (dare I say "unnatural") definition of "natural." You argue that dinosaurs were unnatural? How so? They were living naturally, then they were killed off by another natural process.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs became unnatural after natural processes changed the environement. Look its very logical, If something cannot sustain itself in nature, it becomes unnatural, whether that be carbon breathing organisms not being able to cope with the dominance of oxyggen breathing organism. or wooly mammoths not being able to sustain themselves in an iceage.
 
kirovman said:
I suggest he goes back to scavenging and foraging to test the water for us. If he ends up better off, we'll join him. If not, we'll keep our modernity.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

"Barney RAPES children's minds with the ERECTION of bad singing."

"**FReZNO** RAPES this forum with the ERECTION of spouting 'deep' statements about as deep as a dog pee puddle.

"~~FraNcIs~~'s mom RAPES him with the ERECTION of making him eat his vegetables."

I call that last one Incestuous Dumbassery.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
Dinosaurs became unnatural after natural processes changed the environement. Look its very logical, If something cannot sustain itself in nature, it becomes unnatural, whether that be carbon breathing organisms not being able to cope with the dominance of oxyggen breathing organism. or wooly mammoths not being able to sustain themselves in an iceage.
Click to expand...

But then why are we unnatural by your definition? Seems like humans are sustaining themselves just fine at the moment.
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
Dinosaurs became unnatural after natural processes changed the environement. Look its very logical, If something cannot sustain itself in nature, it becomes unnatural, whether that be carbon breathing organisms not being able to cope with the dominance of oxyggen breathing organism. or wooly mammoths not being able to sustain themselves in an iceage.
Click to expand...
No. They never became "unnatural." Death is natural. Meteors are natural. They died of natural causes. It's part of a natural cycle. Everything that lives must eventually die. Our entire ecosystem, by your definition, must be unnatural because it is slowly heading toward its own demise. When the sun dies almost everything on Earth will follow... that is, if Earth isn't destroyed in the blast. Then, after they are destroyed... you'll call every species ever to have existed on this planet "unnatural" because they will have all died off because of environmental changes. It still won't be true to anyone that doesn't use your definition of natural. The generally accepted usage of natural is: whatever nature produces is, by definition, natural. What you call "becoming unnatural" everyone else calls "natural selection." If you won't use standard, accepted definitions I'm not going to stick around and argue. Alright, I'm staying*... goodbye.

Also, if you hate modernity so much, get off the computer and go live in the jungle. No one is forcing you to live "unnaturally"... whatever that may mean to you. Go. Be one with nature.

* My definition of "stay" is "to remove oneself from association with or participation in"... if you don't accept that... you must be wrong. :p
 
And now we can conclude that Cyber is right and sane of mind and Frenzy is a stupid mongoose and is therefore unnatural in this forum environment.
 
Dinosaurs became unnatural after natural processes changed the environement. Look its very logical, If something cannot sustain itself in nature, it becomes unnatural, whether that be carbon breathing organisms not being able to cope with the dominance of oxyggen breathing organism. or wooly mammoths not being able to sustain themselves in an iceage.
Click to expand...

That is just so much bullshit.
 
I am of the opinion that death is death. I see nothing natural or unnatural about it no matter the circumstances. It is always sad and sorry, but we as natural creatures ourselves experience it and occasionally inflict it. Sad and sorry.
 
It's pretty obvious man is a parasitic species.

Man destroys earth, inhabits Mars, Man destroys Mars, Inhabits Planet X, Destroys Planet X, etc....
 
Dinosaur eats man! Woman inherits the earth! :naughty:
 
This BS definition of natural doesn't even fall under any reasonable concepts.

Things die because they became unnatural? WTF?
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Bingo.

"Barney RAPES children's minds with the ERECTION of bad singing."

"**FReZNO** RAPES this forum with the ERECTION of spouting 'deep' statements about as deep as a dog pee puddle.

"~~FraNcIs~~'s mom RAPES him with the ERECTION of making him eat his vegetables."

I call that last one Incestuous Dumbassery.
Click to expand...

lmao
 
Absinthe said:
This BS definition of natural doesn't even fall under any reasonable concepts.

Things die because they became unnatural? WTF?
Click to expand...

No kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Teta_Bonita
I made contact with a DEMON?!
Replies
4
Views
71
Mr Stabby
Mr Stabby
Ennui
HL2 20th Anniversary Update + Documentary
Replies
3
Views
54
Ennui
Ennui
Terminator
Long time...
Replies
16
Views
1K
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top