Are there any other leftists here? 👀

[Taomeow]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I'm quite keen on the idea of harnessing new tech with the purpose of greening the planet - as long as it is a process of return to the natural.  Although of course there is hardly any natural terrain left on earth - we have been terraforming since the neolithic (at least).

 

 

 

I've always doubted this implicitly inclusive "we," inclusive by default due to mere linguistic peculiarities of the language we speak.    Some languages have two versions of "we," inclusive for when you've actually physically been there and exclusive when you weren't.  The dominant modern languages don't have this way to differentiate between "real we" and "imaginary we."  When I hear things like "we went to war in Iraq" or "we sent a man to the moon" or "we won 23 gold medals in the Olympics" or "we put more people behind bars than China" or "we have a military budget greater than the next 7 countries combined," it always gives me pause.  What I know for a fact "we" really do is believe that "we" share in the glory and shame of all deeds "we" are told we're part of as though we committed or accomplished them in our living-room or kitchen and clearly remember how and why. 

 

To think of something someone did that you weren't even close to actually participating in as something "we" somehow did together is habitual -- "we" need to identify with a group of "creatures like ourselves," that's the atavism of natural tribal mentality I was talking about earlier.  Yet  this terraforming thing...  I'm not even sure (don't throw anything heavy) it was humans who started it -- let alone "we."  We are the outcome.  But of what exactly -- there's no "we" to really tell us.  Only "them." 

 

"Them" that have always planted, not trees but this idea that "I" was part of something I have no personal recollection of being part of.  I, me, a member of a particular species, the real me, didn't do any terraforming in one and a half million years (by conservative estimates, some researchers believe "we" pretty much lived like humans closer to two million) and then all of a sudden in a couple hundred years "I" started running amok doing it all over the planet, in places that had no way to communicate with each other simultaneously?..  "They" better sell me the Brooklyn bridge, I'm more likely to be interested. 

[rene]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I'm quite keen on the idea of harnessing new tech with the purpose of greening the planet - as long as it is a process of return to the natural.  Although of course there is hardly any natural terrain left on earth - we have been terraforming since the neolithic (at least).

 

 

As long as we're piling on...

 You're idea of what is natural isn't necessarily natural. You want to 'green' the planet? How about staying out of the way and just letting the planet do what it's gonna do which may or may not include 'greening'. Sans human interference, it will rewild itself. JMO.

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, rene said:

As long as we're piling on...

 You're idea of what is natural isn't necessarily natural. You want to 'green' the planet? How about staying out of the way and just letting the planet do what it's gonna do which may or may not include 'greening'. Sans human interference, it will rewild itself. JMO.

 

 

Good point.

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I'm quite keen on the idea of harnessing new tech with the purpose of greening the planet - as long as it is a process of return to the natural.  Although of course there is hardly any natural terrain left on earth - we have been terraforming since the neolithic (at least).

 

 

 

I am in the process of de - teching  at home . I mean , I am lo-tech as it is, but the tech I do have ( sound system tv phone and this lappie ) can all be stuffed away and not on display, wires and gadgets hidden . When I clean up in the cabin, it looks like a time warp back to 1950  (superficially ) .

 

I even want to go  back  further .

 

I am thinking of getting this alarm clock

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[manitou]

You absolutely have to get it.

[Apech]

Quote

 

Growing multiple crops, rearing different species of livestock and reserving different habitats for conservation could make food supplies more nutritious and resilient to future shocks in the weather, while also creating more livelihoods and regenerating biodiversity.

That may sound like a lot to consider, but many ancient practices managed to achieve this balance with rather simple means. Some of them are even used today. In southern China, farmers add fish to their rice paddy fields in a method that dates back to the later Han Dynasty (25–220 AD).

The fish are an additional protein source, so the system produces more food than rice farming alone. But another advantage over rice monocultures is that farmers save on costly chemical fertilisers and pesticides – the fish provide a natural pest control by eating weeds and harmful pests such as the rice planthopper.

 

 

Feeding the world: archaeology can help us learn from history to build a sustainable future for food

 

https://theconversation.com/feeding-the-world-archaeology-can-help-us-learn-from-history-to-build-a-sustainable-future-for-food-117601?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for August 12 2019 - 1382713005&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for August 12 2019 - 1382713005+CID_0d024e6a79167db48da8cad2f7f0b73d&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=ingenious ways of growing food that work in greater harmony with nature

Edited August 12, 2019 by Apech

[sean]

I appreciate the rewilding instict in its expression as a natural, personal and intuitive counterbalance to clearly inhuman implementations of technology (風水!).

 

I also believe humans are fundamentally inseparable from technology. 🐉 Making tools and towns and poems and machines is what we do.

 

But our technologies do reflect the ideology and character of those with any power to shape them. Hence why we're now often surrounded by terrible modern technology.

 

For example, looking at the technology of cities. U.S. cities and suburbs structurally encode a legacy of hypercapitalist industrialization, racial segregation, white supremacy, unprecedented wealth inequality, and fear of nature and death.

 

 

 

 

Modern cities, and the networks between them, are rarely "human scale" or even lifecentric. They are overwhelmingly bloodless factory and personal-smog-vehicle scale. This entire mess is an aberration, not a progression, of traditional city design patterns (i.e. traditional technologies).

 

 

I think it's rational to be disgusted by all of this and want to imagine something better. Or even to fantasize about simply tearing it all down and starting over.

 

Unfortunately I can't see how anarcho primitivism in the large, as any kind of grand destination, wouldn't require the death of billions of human lives. 😳 At best it also seems to have no ideas for how to move "forward" with this low-key annihilation death wish except to individually move backward, drop out, wait for an apocalypse? At its worst reactionary edges, it also starts intersecting with straight ecofascism. 😢

 

I simply do not buy that human technology is inherently problematic.

 

I also reject the idea of human overpopulation. Last time I did the napkin-math, the entire human population, nearing 8 billion people, could all fit in the U.S. state of Texas with a population density less than Paris, France. The problem isn't "too many humans, a bunch of these fuckers need to die". The challenge is collectively discovering sustainable energy and resource models that help us all thrive in deepening harmony with our beautiful planet.

 

I absolutely love and cherish that some of our ancestors and the still living sought and continue to seek ways to include and nourish bodies and minds of so-called disabled and neurodivergent peoples. Bodies much more susceptible to displacement and death in exclusively pre-agrarian societies. Millions of now living people are only here with us because of very modern technology.

 

The idea that these same bodies would "become strong" over time via some kind of planetary scale loss of modern life and technology I think relies on a misunderstanding of how biological evolution works. "Survival of the fittest" is another way of saying "the 'weak' died off". Social Darwinism is a boring, shitty, unimaginative approach to society. I really believe we can envision and do so much better y'all. Don't give up. 🙏✨

 

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

❤️

 

Sean

 

[C T]

Singapore Changi Airport 

 

 

 

 

 

[manitou]

@sean- your brain is exquisite, and your ideas soar.  I'm kind of honored to know you.

[sean]

27 minutes ago, manitou said:

@sean- your brain is exquisite, and your ideas soar.  I'm kind of honored to know you.

 

 

😂

 

Likewise! ❤️🙏

 

Sean

 

[Taomeow]

I brought up Sumer, which built the first city, in another thread with an eye on this one.  I've been reading up on Sumer in the past few months.  The first and only goal of this "civilized" arrangement, from the get-go, was centralized power, suppression of absolutely everything and everyone standing in its way, and an obligatory monarch on top.  The rest of civilized (the word comes from the same root as "city," "citizen") technologies were always ultimately serving this goal. 

 

I'm not saying we are not creatures of tools and arts.  Pablo Picasso, upon seeing the paintings of the Lascaux Caves dating back 20,000 years, proclaimed, reportedly with tears in his eyes, "We've invented nothing.  They've invented everything."  I don't think I ever saw that many modern works of art that made a deeper impression on me either.  

 

What I'm saying is, tools and arts and sciences can exist on entirely different terms if the goal is entirely different.   

 

There's ample evidence, information about which is not being widely disseminated for some interesting (methinks) reasons, of our ancestors taking great care of the old, injured, sick instead of engaging in any which Darwinism and any which "survival of the fittest" (oh how I despise this bogus doctrine -- almost as much as Darwin himself despised it in private correspondence).  It couldn't be any other way for our species in natural environments, because we are hardwired to care for the absolutely helpless -- more than any animal on earth -- and that's because our young are born the most helpless and the most dependent of all and remain so for much longer than the offspring of any other species.  Which means that we can't have anything else in our makeup that would allow us to keep procreating than the desire and ability to care, absolutely altruistically, for the helpless and dependent.  And a child raised like that is not very likely to turn around and discard the, say, grandparents who are helping raise her own children...  another peculiar trait in our species -- a heavy reliance on grandparenting throughout our "pre-history" -- and this help and social value and usefulness of it is in no way predicated on physical strength of the grandparents' bodies.  They can be (and were) storytellers and teachers and just sources of love and I don't believe prehistory was about discarding and not valuing love.  Not for a second.  Same deal with anyone disabled or otherwise disadvantaged in prehistory.  Only with the advent of civilization and slavery that is its prerequisite did "able-bodied" folks get a special status.  So, no problem there.  I don't think modern medicine helped us survive for two million years prior to the past 100.  I think love did.  And, yes, selfless love too, we couldn't raise our young if we weren't capable of that.

 

I don't believe in "overpopulation" either.  It's the stealing of resources and their greedy and absolutely idiotic mismanagement that makes it impossible for the majority of people on this planet to have a good life.  An example of what I deem idiotic: killing 60% of all wild animals on earth since 1970 alone.  Creating The Age of Chicken -- there's currently 66 billion chickens on earth --- almost 90% of all birds living on our planet today are chickens.  And don't even start me on what monocultural agriculture does to life on earth.  Skinning the planet alive is not "technology."   It's pathology and a death sentence.  

 

Billions would have to die if we were to try to switch to a different way of doing things?  That would be horrible and not worth it.  But I don't see how on earth billions won't die if we don't switch to a different way of doing things.  I absolutely can't begin to imagine how this can be practically not our future, considering that every next century brought wars with percentage of victims an order of magnitude greater than the previous one.  Every. Single. One.  

     

I don't think "eco fascism" is a feature of anarcho-primitivism specifically --  I think it's way more mainstream than that.  But then, I'm not taking my ideas from them to begin with.  They just happen to have noticed some of the things I've noticed, and in that, are different from most ideologies that absolutely don't notice the elephant in the room.  To wit, the inverse relationship between the amount of technology we use and the amount of life shrinking away from the planet.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Walker]

On 8/10/2019 at 10:09 PM, Taomeow said:

 

Laozi was an individual rewilder -- i.e. he wound up going it alone.  (What else do you fellow bums think Daodejing/Tao Te Ching is if not an apology of the natural way and a condemnation of civilization and the so-called "progress?")  But he wrote a book trying to plead his case with the powerful -- and even he failed.  I'm also trying to follow in Laozi's footsteps.  I.e. to write a book to plead my case.  I, too, expect to end up throwing up my hands and riding off through the western gate.           

 

A Daoist joke for ya:

 

Laozi is riding west on his ox. Yin Xi sees him along the way and sez, "Laozi, why do you ride out of the city upon that ox?"

 

Laozi laffs and replies, "I'm just trying to leave all this bullshit behind me."

[Walker]

2 hours ago, sean said:

Unfortunately I can't see how anarcho primitivism in the large, as any kind of grand destination, wouldn't require the death of billions of human lives. 😳 At best it also seems to have no ideas for how to move "forward" with this low-key annihilation death wish except to individually move backward, drop out, wait for an apocalypse? At its worst reactionary edges, it also starts intersecting with straight ecofascism. 😢

 

Sorry to make a selfish request, but when you figure this conundrum out, please send me a PM and let me know, just in case I miss the post.

[sean]

41 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

What I'm saying is, tools and arts and sciences can exist on entirely different terms if the goal is entirely different.   

 

💯

 

Quote

There's ample evidence [...] of our ancestors taking great care of the old, injured, sick [...] we are hardwired to care for the absolutely helpless -- more than any animal on earth -- and that's because our young are born the most helpless and the most dependent of all and remain so for much longer than the offspring of any other species.  Which means that we can't have anything else in our makeup that would allow us to keep procreating than the desire and ability to care, absolutely altruistically, for the helpless and dependent. 

 

Love this. ❤️

 

Quote

Billions would have to die if we were to try to switch to a different way of doing things?  That would be horrible and not worth it.  But I don't see how on earth billions won't die if we don't switch to a different way of doing things. I absolutely can't begin to imagine how this can be practically not our future, considering that every next century brought wars with percentage of victims an order of magnitude greater than the previous one.  Every. Single. One.  

 

I agree billions very well may die if we don't find new ways and rediscover old ones. I just hope we agree an ideal goal at least is that we not simply shrug; that we do anything we can to imagine and move toward alternatives.

 

I have a penchant for melancholy and even outright nihilism in my darker hours. I'm no stranger to depressive realism. But lately I wonder if a dash of delusional hope for a more enchanted living future is not the worst spell to cast from a corner. 🧙‍♂️

 

Quote

I don't think "eco fascism" is a feature of anarcho-primitivism specifically [...]  But then, I'm not taking my ideas from them to begin with.  They just happen to have noticed some of the things I've noticed, and in that, are different from most ideologies that absolutely don't notice the elephant in the room.

 

Agreed! Also, hope my post didn't come across as an attack on your philosophy or anything. I haven't found anything you've written offensive in the way I was addressing at all, and I think there's an important and beautiful dialectic to be had with green anarchism. 💚🌿

 

Speaking of cave paintings: Why are these 32 symbols found in ancient caves all over Europe?

 

Sean

 

[Taomeow]

Thank you, Sean.  Reciprocated.  I didn't see what you've written as anything other than an exchange of perspectives.  Sometimes something like a good spell might come out of that.  

 

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, Walker said:

 

A Daoist joke for ya:

 

Laozi is riding west on his ox. Yin Xi sees him along the way and sez, "Laozi, why do you ride out of the city upon that ox?"

 

Laozi laffs and replies, "I'm just trying to leave all this bullshit behind me."

 

"Besides, nobody else in that city gives a shit."  

[Apech]

I have heard -but have no idea if it is true or not - that the earths population is projected to peak at 9 billion or so and then start to decline.  Increase in material properity and healthcare etc. lead to lower birth rates - as is already happening in western countries.  So perhaps given time thoughts of any kind of human cull will not be the thing - although it is still possible that 'nature' will produce epidemic which will do this - I don't wish for it - I don't believe in the too many people idea either - but it may happen anyway I guess.

 

One move I like is to get away from assessing economic success by GDP and use wellbeing instead and there must be other ways to reframe the objectives of what we do.

[gendao]

On 8/12/2019 at 9:38 AM, Apech said:

Feeding the world: archaeology can help us learn from history to build a sustainable future for food

 

https://theconversation.com/feeding-the-world-archaeology-can-help-us-learn-from-history-to-build-a-sustainable-future-for-food-117601?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for August 12 2019 - 1382713005&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for August 12 2019 - 1382713005+CID_0d024e6a79167db48da8cad2f7f0b73d&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=ingenious ways of growing food that work in greater harmony with nature

Quote

Our recent paper in World Archaeology explores past agricultural systems and how they could help make agriculture more sustainable today.

IOW, organic, pre-colonialist "permaculture" practices...which all got largely wiped out by colonialism.

 

Seriously, Christian colonialism was the big, planetary gamechanger that has led us into the 6th mass extinction, today!  And the more you wake up, the more glaring this becomes!!!

For example, just consider the basic, daily act of taking a shit.  In the aboriginal days, they simply popped a squat in the woods.  This position gave them a deep stretch while also ergonomically pointing their rectum straight down.  And ecologically, it spread seeds from the fruits they ate and also returned fertility to the soil to sustainably close the loop.  So, it was just a win-win across the board!

 

Then enter the humancentric, Christian colonialist, Western civilizers who decide to "civilize" this process by making it more convenient and less "squeamish."  Let's now instead sit (instead of squat) on a stationary toilet and shit into 5 gallons of clean, potable, freshwater.  No seeds or fertility will be returned locally, but instead reseparated out into sludge by a huge treatment plant downstream requiring miles of underground concrete drainage pipes.  And then let's all wipe our asses with Canada's boreal forest!!!

Now, multiply this simple process by several billion colonized people a day...and the damaging effects are absolutely staggering on the planet!

 

Or consider what we do with the corpses of billions of people?  The civilized way is to inject them full of toxic chemicals (for vanity) and then bury or burn them in deforested plots.  Again, this is an incredibly resource-sucking and toxic method that also does nothing to help close the loop sustainably... 

Quote

Toxic chemicals from the embalming, burial, and cremation process leach into the air and soil, and expose funeral workers to potential hazards. And maintaining the crisp, green memorial plots is extremely land-and-water-use heavy.

For this reason, scientists and conservationists have been looking into more eco-friendly ways to die.

"The best way is to allow your body to feed the earth or ocean in a way that is sustainable for future generations," Susan Dobscha, a professor of marketing at Bentley University and editor of an upcoming book about the green-burial industry, called "Death and a Consumer Culture," told Tech Insider via email.

Yes, why not just let our bodies naturally rot aboveground like all other dead wildlife?

 

Etc, etc...

18 hours ago, sean said:

I also reject the idea of human overpopulation. Last time I did the napkin-math, the entire human population, nearing 8 billion people, could all fit in the U.S. state of Texas with a population density less than Paris, France. The problem isn't "too many humans, a bunch of these fuckers need to die". The challenge is collectively discovering sustainable energy and resource models that help us all thrive in deepening harmony with our beautiful planet.

OK here we go again with having to repeatedly debunk this faulty, myopic, Christian/humancentric colonialist argument...

Can 8 billion people fit into Texas?  Sure...and you can also physically fit into a trash can...but can you actually live in one?  Because, a person living the lifestyle of an average American requires almost 24 acres, 10X the world per capita share...whereupon they (average Westerner) alone also uses 125 lbs of resources extracted from there...DAILY!  Still think they can all fit into Texas and want to know how much space humans actually take up - then do the math with THAT ginormous footprint!?

 

So look, the land required to live in isn't just the space your body occupies...but includes all the resources you use as well!   And this includes at least enough arable land to grow/forage the food you eat, water sources, waste disposal, etc, etc...

 

But even if everyone could simply live in Texas with the density of Paris...where would all the displaced wildlife and plants/forests then go?  As there is no room for them in Paris, either.  I don't recall seeing any native prairies or forests there...lol!  Because oh yea, Christian colonialists don't give a f*** about anything but humans, do they?  Hence, they don't even allocate the MENTAL SPACE for them in their plans...much less in physical space.

Edited August 13, 2019 by gendao

[Zork]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

I have heard -but have no idea if it is true or not - that the earths population is projected to peak at 9 billion or so and then start to decline.  Increase in material properity and healthcare etc. lead to lower birth rates - as is already happening in western countries.  So perhaps given time thoughts of any kind of human cull will not be the thing - although it is still possible that 'nature' will produce epidemic which will do this - I don't wish for it - I don't believe in the too many people idea either - but it may happen anyway I guess.

 

One move I like is to get away from assessing economic success by GDP and use wellbeing instead and there must be other ways to reframe the objectives of what we do.

What you mention is called Carrying capacity in ecology.

It could be more or it could be less than 9 Billion. The projections one of our professors did was at most 10 billion. Past that point you have famine, disease and infertility. Projections are all we have in this case as there is no way to properly estimate the carrying capacity of humans on the Earth, due to differences in human societies that have different ecological footprints. That is not only due to lifestyle but it is also based on geographical reasons.

There is only one factor that increases carrying capacity but not indefinitely. Technology.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Zork said:

What you mention is called Carrying capacity in ecology.

It could be more or it could be less than 9 Billion. The projections one of our professors did was at most 10 billion. Past that point you have famine, disease and infertility. Projections are all we have in this case as there is no way to properly estimate the carrying capacity of humans on the Earth, due to differences in human societies that have different ecological footprints. That is not only due to lifestyle but it is also based on geographical reasons.

There is only one factor that increases carrying capacity but not indefinitely. Technology.

 

I think that's different - this is about the natural decline in birthrate arising from individual couples deciding to have kids or not.

[Zork]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I think that's different - this is about the natural decline in birthrate arising from individual couples deciding to have kids or not.

And how does this has nothing to do with population density and the dwindling of resources?

[thelerner]

People may want to create separate threads for some of these tangent ideas.  'Environmental-Problems and Solutions' thread..'Population-Am I alone in my worries?'  and so on.

 

this way subjects can be discussed and found in one place instead of murked up in a the Leftist thread.

 

[Nungali]

On 13/08/2019 at 9:50 AM, sean said:

I appreciate the rewilding instict in its expression as a natural, personal and intuitive counterbalance to clearly inhuman implementations of technology (風水!).

 

I also believe humans are fundamentally inseparable from technology. 🐉 Making tools and towns and poems and machines is what we do.

 

But our technologies do reflect the ideology and character of those with any power to shape them. Hence why we're now often surrounded by terrible modern technology.

 

I have lived in my cabin - one big room with heaps of windows in all the walls, and forest fields mountain and sky all around - that any time I go into a normal room .. even a nice quaint cittage or a mega plush motel room , or a standard domicile ( white plastered board ... 'drywall, I think you call it ) and bright electric lights , I  dot like it . I CAN deal with it for a few days, but thats it !

 

I'm  'ruined'  now !  

 

 

 

Quote

 

For example, looking at the technology of cities. U.S. cities and suburbs structurally encode a legacy of hypercapitalist industrialization, racial segregation, white supremacy, unprecedented wealth inequality, and fear of nature and death.

 

Nature , death, the soul , women  .....anything vaguely 'feminine'  , we seem to be at war on it ! 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Modern cities, and the networks between them, are rarely "human scale" or even lifecentric. They are overwhelmingly bloodless factory and personal-smog-vehicle scale. This entire mess is an aberration, not a progression, of traditional city design patterns (i.e. traditional technologies).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on now Sean - be a good citizen !   ;

 

 

 

Quote

I think it's rational to be disgusted by all of this and want to imagine something better. Or even to fantasize about simply tearing it all down and starting over.

 

Unfortunately I can't see how anarcho primitivism in the large, as any kind of grand destination, wouldn't require the death of billions of human lives. 😳 At best it also seems to have no ideas for how to move "forward" with this low-key annihilation death wish except to individually move backward, drop out, wait for an apocalypse? At its worst reactionary edges, it also starts intersecting with straight ecofascism. 😢

 

Let em die .  We are all going to die ,  naturally .  Its the reproduction we need to get a handle on .  I'm imagining some type of air borne contraceptive virus .

 

Quote

 

I simply do not buy that human technology is inherently problematic.

 

I also reject the idea of human overpopulation. Last time I did the napkin-math, the entire human population, nearing 8 billion people, could all fit in the U.S. state of Texas with a population density less than Paris, France. The problem isn't "too many humans, a bunch of these fuckers need to die". The challenge is collectively discovering sustainable energy and resource models that help us all thrive in deepening harmony with our beautiful planet.

 

yeah but ... gotta draw the line  somewhere ... eventually .  This was my argument on the commune . Some wanted a HEAP of house sites all over the place .  My position was, we have to have some type of limit . So why not make it a comfortable limit  ?  

 

I mean, I suppose a lot of people want to live in a population density like Paris  ... but if you did squash them all into Texas ... what impact on the environment would that make ?

 

Some people  want more industry and deny climate change . MY response is , even if climate change doesnt exist ... who wants to live like this anyway ;

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

I absolutely love and cherish that some of our ancestors and the still living sought and continue to seek ways to include and nourish bodies and minds of so-called disabled and neurodivergent peoples. Bodies much more susceptible to displacement and death in exclusively pre-agrarian societies. Millions of now living people are only here with us because of very modern technology.

 

We got an ancient set of footprints down here , fossilised into the rock , a travelling band of nomads  ,  the footprints show they where with a one legged person .

 

Quote

 

The idea that these same bodies would "become strong" over time via some kind of planetary scale loss of modern life and technology I think relies on a misunderstanding of how biological evolution works. "Survival of the fittest" is another way of saying "the 'weak' died off". Social Darwinism is a boring, shitty, unimaginative approach to society. I really believe we can envision and do so much better y'all. Don't give up. 🙏✨

 

 

Okay .... I'm considering throwing my lot in with Bruce Pascoe   ( a whole revision of Aussie eco agriculture based on indigenous traditions and knowledge  *    ... but boy !  has that got a loooong way to go   (but we started getting there a bit ! ;   its now in school geography curriculum

 

 

 

*     http://theconversation.com/friday-essay-dark-emu-and-the-blindness-of-australian-agriculture-97444

 

 

 

Nowadays part of this is desolate and the 'Simpson's desert' . early explorers  say grain harvested and in stacks  spreading to the horizon . Earky explorers, near dead and dying of thirst come over a ridge to see this, and are met by indigenous people that give them water , grain cakes and roast duck .

 

This grain survives drought , needs no ploughing and doesnt like fertilizer , phosphate kills it . I mean , what else could you ask for ?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Pascoe

 

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nungali

[sean]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Let em die .  We are all going to die ,  naturally .  Its the reproduction we need to get a handle on .  I'm imagining some type of air borne contraceptive virus .

 

Thoroughly abominable take my dude. 😬

 

Sean

 

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Nature , death, the soul , women  .....anything vaguely 'feminine'  , we seem to be at war on it ! 

 

 

Death is "feminine?"  And who gave birth to you?

 

 And how many spermatozoa have you killed since then?  Women only discard 300 to 400 eggs in a lifetime with "wasted' ovulations due to just being women.  Whereas men, in their lifetime, kill 525 billion spermatozoa due to just being men.  In the light of this information you may want to reconsider your "death" attribution.