>Почему вместо развития технологий и движения в будущее
Они стали слишком сложные.
Бамп чувственный
Тогда почему общество не работает над общим повышением научной эрудированности людей, чтобы каждому первокласснику было понятно как работает термоядерный реактор, например?
>Заметил ли ты, как много стало колдунов/астрологов/ведьмаков и прочих категорий верунов на твоей борде
Их всегда было много и будет, сейчас их видно потому что тырнет есть, они все туда попёрлись за деньгами а иногда и идейные бывают
>народ ломает вышки 5 G и всерьез кричит о том, что нужно отказаться от цивилизации и вернуться в средневековье
Про вышки 5 g это опять же шизы всякие распостраяют слухи а другие шизы их слушают. Опять же всегда такие были и будут.
>дабы ни дай бох не всрать экологию?
Ну экологию реально не нужно всирать, если не хочешь быть вечно больным и уставшим.
>Почему вместо того, чтобы отказываться от общественного рудимента - религии
Потому что многие люди не знают как им жить + многим нравится идея что после смерти они попадут в рай или что то вроде того
>Почему люди продолжают устраивать войны за выдуманные границы государств, почему и зачем государства вообще существуют лол.
Так это интересы элит, которые кормятся за счёт государств им и нужны войны и прочее а люди обычно от этих войн страдают.
Мимо комнатный философ
Я когда маленький был и в Деус Экс играл тоже думал что аугментации круто
А потом передумал становится ебаным инвалидом просто потому что протез красиво выглядит
Ты можешь обьяснить, как в общем работает реактор.
Но суть в том, что если вникать детальнее, то это выйдет слишком тяжело.
Там много деталей, которые надо изготовлять, как и станки для работы.
А вот отвалится может всё что угодно.
Неговоря о оом, что в ослуживании много отделов с парком обеспечения.
Короче вещи стали слишком тяжелы в обслуживании, а инженера вырастить - очень затратно, не каждый сможет стать инженером даже если выучится.
Надо духовно расти, а не материально. Вот материально - это все эти уровни, усложнения, для повышения характеристик.
Тем не менее, материальное развитие - это всё равно, что птички которые построили гнездо, построить то построили, но ветер и тд легко может разрушить.
Большинство людей заинтересованы исключительно в своем благосостоянии, поэтому технократии не может быть.
>чтобы каждому первокласснику было понятно как работает термоядерный реактор
Никак лол
>Потому что многие люди не знают как им жить + многим нравится идея что после смерти они попадут в рай или что то вроде того
Если повысить уровень жизни и дать каждому живущему смысл, хоть хуйцы деревянные выстругивать, хоть на всеобщее благо работать, то у людей должна появиться тяга к тому, что есть и будет сейчас, а не то что возможно когда-то будет потом, после смерти.
>Так это интересы элит, которые кормятся за счёт государств им и нужны войны и прочее а люди обычно от этих войн страдают.
Так почему все эти элиты до сих пор существуют? Стоит указать большинству, кто виновник всех их проблем, и большинство само эти элиты вздёрнет. Как вообще у людей могут появляться мысли о том, чтобы навредить себе подобному ради виллы на курорте или бутерброда с красной икрой?
Всё из-за плохого образования, которое никто особо не стремится сделать лучше. И это именно в тех частях мира, где рождается больше всего людей.
Да даже с малого начать, как многие аноны пишут что мол "душно", т.е. даже ананас бывает ратует за культ тупости и ограниченности ума, а ты взял такие сложные моменты, хех.
Изначально привить бы на бытовом уровне стремление к развитию и уму, а потом уже говорить о том что ты пишешь, когда как на самых простых слоях тупость как некий абсолютная, а ты за такие сложные вещи толкуешь.
>то у людей должна появиться тяга к тому, что есть и будет сейчас, а не то что возможно когда-то будет потом, после смерти.
Многие просто не хотят принять факт что они умрут и их сожрут черви, ты им хоть все блага мира дай но такие в бога верить не перестанут, наоборот подумают что им это всё боженька дал
>Так почему все эти элиты до сих пор существуют? Стоит указать большинству, кто виновник всех их проблем
Потому что большинству нужно только что б пожрать было и пивка выпить, а все эти рассуждения им не интересны
>Тем не менее, материальное развитие - это всё равно, что птички которые построили гнездо, построить то построили, но ветер и тд легко может разрушить.
А духовное развитие - это отказаться от постройки гнезд просто потому что их может ветром унести? Почему бы не построить гнездо из железобетона, не покорить управление атмосферой и геодезией, в конце концов? Зачем адаптироваться для жизни на планете, если можно адаптировать как жизнь, так и планету, под себя?
Industrial Society and its Future
by Theodore Kaczynski
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial- technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
Feelings of Inferiority
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “Negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They may seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to ours. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self- promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
by Theodore Kaczynski
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial- technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
Feelings of Inferiority
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “Negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They may seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to ours. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self- promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
Так если обеспечить большинству эти самые пожрать и выпить, чем они тогда займутся? Не станет ли это идеальным фундаментом для реформирования сознания людей с внутренней направленности на внешнюю?
Oversocialization
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human being inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial- technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
The Power Process
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the “power process.” This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
Surrogate Activities
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn’t need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.
> чем они тогда займутся?
Большинство хуй пинать будет, очень не многие умеют правильно распоряжаться свободным временм. Мы вот на дваче философствуем, вместо того что бы "реформирования сознания людей с внутренней направленности на внешнюю "
Но почему же я тогда задаюсь этими «сложными» вопросами? Мне никто не прививал интерес к подобным рассуждениям, как и не прививал идеи, которыми в этом тредике делюсь. Мне просто больно жить без смысла в пустом и бесполезном мире, оттого я к ним и пришел.
Как по мне, не существует тупых людей и культа тупости, существует сбитая человеческая прошивка и душевные болезни.
Хорошо, а если я действительно хочу изменить мир и общество в нем, то каким образом мне это сделать? Даже если и идти в политику, то без денег или поддержки олигархов это не удастся, и никто из них не станет поддерживать того, кто первым же законопроектом у всех этих олигархов власть отберёт)
Почитай манифест Унабомбера, сразу все это говно из головы выкенешь. Он математик, поумнее многих в говне моченых будет. Твой любимый технологчиеский прогресс приводт к Чернобылю, Хиросиме и всемирному цифровому гулагу, а не аниме тян с роборуками
Autonomy
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. [5]
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).
44. But for most people it is through the power process having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal -- that self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders. etc. [6]
Sources of Social Problems
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren’t the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small- scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a smallscale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today’s society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today’s industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don’t mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.
Disruption of the Power Process in Modern Society
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is “minimal”; but usually, in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.
Дополню: я верю в то, что в любом человеке есть потенциал, и не важно, на какую деятельность он направлен. Проблема в том, что у большинства нет ни смысла этот потенциал реализовать (ибо за выстругивание деревянных пенисов не платят), ни инструмента для полного его раскрытия (мне крайне нравится система школьного обучения в японии, где существует масса кружков самодеятельности, думаю, это годнейшее решение для осознания и раскрытия этого самого потенциала).
Здрасьте! Это тут обсуждают клмплементацию человечества в зловонную биожижу море LCL?
Ответ простой, ОП: КАПИТАЛИЗМ*". Буржуи не верят в возможность бессмертия. А наука и космос, которые не принесут прибыли в то время, пока буржуй жив, их не интересуют, ведь бизнес в могилу с собой не возьмёшь, и бабки тоже. Какой строй - такие и люди, общественное бытие определяет общественных сознание.
>Чернобыль, Хиросима
На ошибках учатся, ведь. Любые аварии приводят к тому, что технология оттачивается и становится все более стабильной и безопасной, потому политика «держаться подальше от всего что сложно и непонятно» крайне неоправданна. К тому же, даже убитая при разного рода техногенных катастрофах генетика может быть исправлена генетическим улучшением новорожденных людей, а качество жизни пострадавших может быть увеличено если не выше первоначальных показателей, то до нормы техническим развитием, аугментациями, если быть точным.
>Цифровой гулаг
А так ли он плох? С позиции употребляющих и продающих наркотики, коррупционеров, мелких воров, убийц, маньяков, душевно больных и прочих вредящих окружающим элементам, конечно, плох. Но на то он и направлен, чтобы изолировать уже живущих опасных для лбщества, а чтобы более таких не появлялось - нужно переписать прошивку людей. Цифрогулаг должен работать на благо общества и вместе с ним, чтобы гулагом не быть.
>Почему вместо того, чтобы отказываться от общественного рудимента - религии
>нерождённых людей
Быстрофикс
Ты не понимаешь, что цифровой гулаг (бредовое слово, лучше использовать аббревиатуру ИТЛ, но не суть) просто будет инструментом в руках элит, причём именно тех, которые есть сейчас, другие ниоткуда не появятся. Это как смертная казнь - давайте убивать преступников, как это круто, верно? Верно, но есть одна беда - применять смертную казнь будут течение правоприменители, которые есть сейчас, да да, теперь кто пытают в ментовке и выбивают показания силой, поэтому топить за смертную казнь - идиотизм
Ну так на то и расчёт, чтобы вводить гулаг тогда, когда элиты будут упразднены, и сами их деструктивные методы и идеи станут порицаться. Речь идёт о новом обществе, анонче, с новыми людьми.
маня о каком будущем ты говоришь? человек не победил рак и ВИЧ. мы банально не развиты.
Потому что рыночек решает. Всегда так было есть и будет, человечество будет копошится в одном и том же говне пока не выпилит себя как вид протонной хуйбимбо-бомбой, отправив в лучшем случае уебищный кораблик на солнечном парусе с историей человечества и расшифровкой генома в космические пердя, где его подберут какие-нибудь аналоги Джав из звездных войн и загонят как модельку за два плутония какому нибудь джаббехатту. Тот прочтет, охуеет от такой вахи и начнет клепать миньки. Такие дела. Я тут со времен вознекновения Шумеров тусую, знаю о чем говорю. Кроме костюмов у людей не поменялось ни-ху-я. И не поменяется, потому что человечество гормонально нестабильные и внушаемые судаки с задачей жрать и ебаться.
Людей ты никак не изменишь, а когда они поменяются уже не будет нужно их воспитывать, строить и контролировать, мы даже представить себе не можем, как и по каким принципам будут жить пост-люди, которые например будут существовать в виде облака нанороботов, которые получают энергию из практически любой материи, которая их окружает, например. А поведение и образ жизни нынешних мешков с мясом не поменять никогда, да и это излишне жестоко, зачем что то требовать от того, кто в лучшем случае проживёт лет 60-80, причём последние 15 из этих 60-80 в мучениях и болезнях?
Могли бы победить, будь у нас больше инструментов и меньше морально-этических и юридических проблем.
>А духовное развитие - это отказаться от постройки гнезд просто потому что их может ветром унести?
Скорее не строить царь-гнездо, или пять гнезд, когда нужно одно.
Так как оное мешает духовному.
В том смысле, что поддержание, сложность увеличивается, больше комнат и тд, больше времени.
С другой стороны, оное нужно если оправдано, хотя бы тем, что там могут другие духовно развиваться.
Вот в техническом развитие сейчас, мное делается для лишь удобств, которые, как я написал тяготят, причем даже материально, так кск денег и ресурсов надо больше на содержание.
лишь малость для прогресса делается, так как экономическая должна быть выгода. Все подразумевает конечную цель.
Банальный интерес дорого удовлетворить ресурсами.
И во всём этом игнорируется духовность напрочь.
Вначале должен быть рационализм. И он должен быть подкреплен духовно, иначе нам и незачем куда то лететь, общаться с инопланетянами и тд - зачем оно если нам им нечего предложить, нам самим оное без цельно, да и дорого рыночку.
Ну и какой тогда толк эту жизнь жить, если даже вероятности перемен не существует? Пиздец, от отчаяния и неприятия окружающего говна просто вздёрнуться охота.
/thread
Как это зачем? Происходящее вокруг очень интересно, есть искусство, вкусная еда, секс, да всё что угодно! Осознавать всю ситуацию тяжело, но надо быть сильным и не ломаться из-за каких то там проблем мироустройства
Вот я в шапке и по ходу треда описал некоторые проблемы и их рациональное решение. Как можно духовно их подкрепить? И что плохого в том, чтобы стремиться к повышению качества потребления? Условно, создать игру с полным погружением, где люди смогут получить всё, что хотят - повысится потребность в электроэнергии - развивать технологию вплоть до метафорической сферы дайсона. По итогу каждый окажется доволен, использование ресурсов будет оправдано, духовное подкрепление не нужно. Что я упускаю?
А что делать, если еда, секс и другие дофаминовые ловушки перестали приносить удовольствие? Мне много лет назад это все не приносит должного душевного насыщения, а когда в моменты слабости начинаю задумываться о причинах его отсутствия, в голове лишь проблемы мироустройства, и от этих размышлений только хуже. Что со мной не так, анон?
Не знаю, быть может нечто биохимическое, откуда мне знать? Попробуй разное, что то обязательно принесёт удовольствие
Смерть не победить, как бы человечество ни пыталось. Да, с развитием технологий средний человек, который может себе их позволить, будет жить чуть удобней, но при этом будут существовать хуёвины, которые способны стереть всех людей за считанные секунды с момента их активации. Я бы не хотел жить в таком мире.
Да уже все, от общечеловеческих радостей до наркоты перепробовал, хе. Пора к мозгоправу, видно.
>Почему вместо развития технологий и движения в будущее, народ ломает вышки 5 G и всерьез кричит о том, что нужно отказаться от цивилизации и вернуться в средневековье
потому что никакого развития технологий нету с 70-х годов. Вместо колонизации марса хавайте цифровой гулаг и хрючево из пальмового масла. Вот и хотят отказаться от цивилизашки потому, что счастья-то никакого прогресс не принес. А так рекомендую почитать манифест Теодора Качинского.
Более-менее не скотскую жизнь - путешествия, нормальное жилье себе могут позволить только жители стран 1-ого мира. Да лол, жилье скоро и они не смогут себе позволить. А в Рашках и Африках удел 95% населения, ровно как и 100 лет назад - работа, работа и отпуск на даче. Вот и ваш (((новучный прохресс)))
Ладно, аноны, спасибо за приятную беседу. Тред закрываю, пошел читать манифест Умабомбера. Спасибо.
>Как можно духовно их подкрепить?
Без духовного, человек будет лишь наслаждать себя, весь прогресс будет доступен лишь верхним слоям - богачам.Так происходит потому, что человек(многие) лишь в этом видит цель существовании - в наслаждении, за которым приходит пресышение, так как интерес может только Бог предоставить, а ее потребление своих же плодов.
Многие видят как живут другие такие, заражаются дурным примером, видят роскошь и стремятся к этому.
Человек живет сто лет и многие исходят из того, что это очень мало, пускаются в разное, но старость и разочарование их поджидает.
>И что плохого в том, чтобы стремиться к повышению качества потребления?
Это то, чем заняты богачи и те, кто имеет достаток. К сожалению, многие приходят к духовному, лишь испытав нужду и осознав, что они - маленькие. Но и это не плохо. И не хорошо. Есть как есть. Я и сам так пришел.
Плохо тем, что отнимает у них время.
Вот стремиться к повышению качества предметов потребления для других людей - лучше. Но человек без духовного подкоепления, будет спрашивать, а зачем ему это, творить доброе, если он может заработать и насытится тем что его влечет. Ведь жизнь конечна, обычно так мыслят.
>духовное подкрепление не нужно
Ну не нужно, так не нужно, я не настаиваю.
Просто пишу, что прогресс не в удобствах.
Вот лопата нужна была. Лом, колесо.
А тысячи видов автомобилей появились от невозможности договорится и разных интересов. А как сложно это поддерживать все. И это только автомобили, за компютеры молчу.
Мысль в том, что прогоресс зашел не туда, да, это всё выглядит привлекательно, но не для тех, кто обслуживает этого Франкинштейна, весь этот киберпанк.
Технический прогресс подразумевает прогресс техники, а не человека.
> Если ресурсы и земли будут принадлежать человечеству в целом, то и войн за них не будет, разве нет?
Нет, они будут принадлежать небольшому проценту тех, кто будет управлять человечеством. Это примерно как с построением коммунизма, вроде бы всем владеет пролетариат, но на деле пролетариат ходит нищий, а все блага - у партийной номенклатуры.
Ага, не заинтерксованы. Даже в средневековье многие властьимущие платили кучу денег алхимикам которые обещали создать эликсир бессмертия.
Потому что прогресс - это неминуемое вымирание человека.
Ты в корне не прав.
>народ ломает вышки 5 G
Никакой "народ" вышки не ломает, это делают отдельно взятые и крайне малочисленные группы экстремистов.
Всегда будет малая прослойка отставших от реальности мракобесов - в СССР до середины прошлого века существовали общины скопцов (что практиковали и во что верили, я думаю, в пояснении не нуждается).
>старшее поколение чтит бесполезные, а порой и вредящие традиции
На то оно и старшее поколение. Чем быстрее идёт прогресс, тем больше разрыв между старыми и молодыми.
В рашке вон страной управляет тип, который всю жизнь общался исключительно с такими же как и он выходцами из спецслужб, а последний раз в магазин за продуктами выходил дай бог лет 20 назад.
>молодёжь все более уходит в традиционализм, эзотерику, и прочий бред
Традиционализм - это ответ тех самых относительно малых групп радикалов на вполне очевидные проблемы, неизбежно следующие за технологическим прогрессом.
Эзотерика же призвание пассивно-агрессивных женщин среднего возраста, пусть верят во что хотят, как-то агитировать за шизотерику они все равно не способны.
>Заметил ли ты, как много стало колдунов/астрологов/ведьмаков и прочих категорий верунов на твоей борде
В большинстве случаев это троллинг, хотя закон По никто не отменял.
>Почему люди продолжают устраивать войны за выдуманные границы государств
Потому, что некоторые народы исторически имеют претензии к другим народам. Русские резали хохлов и пытались захватить их земли и 100 лет назад и 200 и 300 и 400 и 500.
>почему и зачем государства вообще существуют лол
Потому, что разные государства отвечают разным группам интересов, и существуют только в парадигме, которая позволяет держать само государство на плаву с населяющим его народом, у которого тоже есть своё мнение, свои желания и взгляды на жизнь.
Сравни жителей Эстонии, Ботсваны, Австралии, Украины, Мексики и Швейцарии.
У всех этих стран народ в среднем по больнице имеет очень сильно отличающиеся от других взгляды на жизнь, менталитет, ценности и так далее. Так сложилось исторически и как-то насильно менять это - ключ к мировой катастрофе, потому что нехуй ломать то, что итак работает.
>Если ресурсы и земли будут принадлежать человечеству в целом, то и войн за них не будет, разве нет?
Свобода одного заканчивается там, где заканчивается свобода другого. Есть твой дом, есть компания, которая его тебе продала. Есть район, в котором он находится, и этот район подконтролен мэрии города. Сам город подконтролен стране, а она - союзам, в которых она состоит, включая мировые, такие как ООН.
Всё это тщательно смазанный механизм, который был достигнут огромными жертвами в миллионы людей и триллиарды долларов. Ломать этот устой ради каких-то там мнимых идеалов светлого будущего - это путь превращения всего мира в коммунистическую Кампучию, где ничего не работает, жизнь катится в пизду, человеческая жизнь стоит чуть меньше килограмма зерна, а профессионализм считается первым шагом на пути к развращению.
Как-то так.
>Почему люди не могут объединиться под одним флагом ради всеобщего блага?
У всех разное понятие блага. И даже если отсечь откровенных людоедов, то люди всё равно не сойдутся по тысяче ежедневных вопросов. Поэтому разные участки с разными правами и требованиями - лучше и надёжнее, чем одно мировое правительство, которое всех меряет одной линейкой. А отрицание этого факта - это, по сути, заявление о том, что все люди одинаковые, что противоречит не только идеям гуманизма, но и науке, как таковой.
Петух без мозгов, чё ты за инфантильную хуйню высрал, ты живёшь на планете - тюрьме, полностью изолированной от Вселённой, со стёртой памятью, ты здесь будешь страдать и умирать бесконечное количество раз, болезни, голод, бессмысленные войны и прочий абсурд который здесь происходит, все твои душевные муки и самоистязания не прекратятся, пошёл нахуй короче.
Потому что капикализмъ
Потому что ваши ебучие технологии и маняпрогресс не приносят людям счастья!
Трансгуманизм это тупо не гуманно.
Чтобы вести исследования, допустим, по генному модифицированию человека нужно овер дохуя подопытных, а силами добровольцев ты хуй что разработаешь.
Вот и если большим копрорацииям позволят вести испытания на людях, то, правильно, будут тупо закупать рабов с какой нибудь южной америки и африки, а по документам писать что все заебись и все эти люди точно добровольцы.
Соответственно увеличится оборот на рынке работорговли, будут страдать мирные люди... ну ты понел.
Элиты, веками управляющие странами, испугались скачка прогресса, и того, что потеряют свои деньги и власть, если наука, техника и общество будут в том же темпе развиваться еще лет 25. Поэтому приложили масштабные усилия к ликвидации прогресса и откату. Как итог - все завоевания 20 века слиты, теперь, как и век назад, человек не имеет права на жильё, образование, медицину. Всё нужно отвоевывать заново.
К тому же снижение iq - научно доказанный факт, начиная с 70х годов он прекратил расти и снижается на 7-9 баллов за поколение. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect Реализуется сценарий «Идиократии», только в гораздо более ускоренном формате.
Технологии сложные, люди тупые, большинство, включая тебя, кстати, используют свой айфоны, даже не понимая, что за хуйня у них в руках и как она работает. Знания о мире в каждую башку не засунешь, а если и засунешь, толку будет мало, ибо нужно слишком много времени, а эти знания о мире еще понимать надо, а не просто в голове держать.
Мир становится слишком сложным для обезьян, которые эволюционировали, чтобы ебаться и бегать с копьем за антилопой, поэтому они начинают этот мир упрощать, подстраивая под всякие религии, магию и прочую хуету, что помогает довольно легко объяснить все вокруг, либо игнорировать, продолжая занимать всякой устаревшей хуетой, вроде традиционализма и увядая в невежестве, либо вообще ненавидеть, если мозг понять мир не может, но упростить и игнорировать тоже не получается.
И знаешь что? Все будет только хуже, ибо люди умнее не становятся.
Господь Бог всегда разделял, свет от тьмы, землю от воды, женщину от мужчину, белых от чёрных, христиан от иудеев, христиан между собой далее. Деление - это норма. Это и есть процесс развития, даже чисто биологически. А ты предлагаешь всё привести к общему знаменателю. Чтобы что? С чего ты взял, что это вызовет некий скачёк прогресса? А ничего, что прогресс - результат противостояния и соперничества? Куда тебе прогрессировать и зачем, если ты живёшь на всём готовом и если мир вокруг тебя теплохладный, усреднённый и никакой? Как ты вообще поймёшь, куда тебе двигаться, если разницы не будет? Двачеры же тоже сычевать могут просто потому, что им сердобольные родители малину устроили. В противном случае, пришлось бы жопу от кресла отрывать или сдохнуть от голода.
>Элиты, веками управляющие странами
Коммуняка, спок.
Ну если хочешь, хоти, один хуй, маленький человек нихуя не сделает, жди, верь, надейся, принимай то что не можешь изменить
ну если ты не знал, то общее недоверие к системе. к примеру учёные сами виноваты что не вкладывают лишние деньги в свои пиар проекты
Люди хотят быть уникальными уродами. Ничего при этом не делая.
Элита давно изучила все типы уродств и деградации, и умело всем этим управляет. Всех кто жаждет насилие, отправят на войну там все и умрут, секреты вечной молодости, и телепортации давно открыты и изучены. да только "вот люди" решили что "только бог может быть вездесущим и вечно живущим" Это делает вас временными, и по сути ничем.
неисправимая жизнь как ошибка, целиком и полностью вымрет. так как совершает много ошибок
Вот это
>джайнизм
>биосфера
выкинуть, и ЗБС.
Тру
Картинка манямечтателя, пиздос.
Чел, вечная жизнь тебя заебёт, и ты самовыпилишься в конце-концов, а страдания - это то что делает эволюцию возможным, потому что если люди будут кайфовать 24/7Ю то нахуй им что-то менять? А если в воздухе какое-то чувство глобального пиздеца витает, и надо чё-то делать, чтобы он не произошёл, надо прикладывать ебучие усилия, и двигать прогресс вперёд. Без этого механизма, люди просто не будут нихуя делать. Так устроен мозн. Тред не читал.
Потому что люди по природе животные, которые будут лишь преследовать сиюминутные удовольствия, если ты сделаешь им все условия и погрузишь в машину, которая будет только что и делать, удовлетворять их низменные потребности, им внезапно нахуй нечего не нужно будет, как и твой прогресс с космосом, это тоже самое, что мышь с электродом в мозгу в зоне удовольствия и педаль, на которую они лягут и подохнут. Поэтому нужно наоборот, сначала пройти духовный путь, закалиться себя и делать шаги к Человеку с большой буквы, а это всегда преодоление себя и своей низменной природы, а не через потребление говна, как сейчас все и устроено между прочим.
Технический прогресс это продолжение "эволюции". А все что ты высрал про мышление и мотивации- обсирается жидким дрыстом любого школьника, который прочел хоть одну книжку по психиатрии и нейробиологии.
Поссал на еблет ОПхуя и поссал тебе на ебало.
теократ, имморталист
Почему вместо развития технологий и движения в будущее, народ ломает вышки 5 G и всерьез кричит о том, что нужно отказаться от цивилизации и вернуться в средневековье, дабы ни дай бох не всрать экологию?
Почему вместо того, чтобы отказываться от общественного рудимента - религии (самый яркий пример, который могу привести - недозволенность эвтаназии в медицине: сам в меде учусь, и все, без исключения, врачи старшего поколения, говорят что даже смертельно больных нельзя подвергать эвтаназии, потому что это бог даровал им судьбу жить в страданиях; а из менее явных - запреты на генетическое модифицирование людей, и в целом общемировая политика, что какими мы созданы такими мы и должны быть, порицается любая возможность биологического или технического улучшения человечества как вида) старшее поколение чтит бесполезные, а порой и вредящие традиции, а молодёжь все более уходит в традиционализм, эзотерику, и прочий бред? Заметил ли ты, как много стало колдунов/астрологов/ведьмаков и прочих категорий верунов на твоей борде, как они все большими толпами протекают из своего шизозагона в наш любимый /б?
Почему люди продолжают устраивать войны за выдуманные границы государств, почему и зачем государства вообще существуют лол. Если ресурсы и земли будут принадлежать человечеству в целом, то и войн за них не будет, разве нет? Если не будет существовать наций и этносов, то не будет и споров/притязаний/обид/насилия, связанных с ними, нет?
Анон, что происходит с этим миром? Почему люди не могут объединиться под одним флагом ради всеобщего блага? Почему технократии еще не существует?