Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Dear friends,

I have made some additions to the article"Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment". To read the modified article please follow either of these links :

PlanetSave

EarthNewsWire


sushil_yadav

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We all need to understand how harmful and destructive the consumer culture is.



Life was never good in the past.

Life will never be good in future.

Life can never be good.


Suffering is a part of life - an inherent feature of life. Suffering can never be eliminated.

There is Physical suffering - There is Mental suffering.

In pre-industrial society there were physical diseases caused by virus and bacteria.
In modern society there are hundreds of lifestyle related physical diseases - Cancer, Stroke, Diabetes, Obesity, Multiple Organ Failures.


Mental suffering will always exist. It exists in agrarian society. It exists in industrial society. As soon as we stop working we experience mental suffering.

We avoid mental suffering by working ceaselessly.

There is no higher purpose behind work.

People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.

The energy generated by the food we eat forces us to work ceaselessly.

Energy = Energy[Physical Work] + Energy[Mental Work] + Energy[Suffering/ Subjective Experience]

All three energies on the right side are inversely proportional to one another.

When we do hard physical work or hard mental work or a combination of physical work and mental work almost all energy is used up in doing work.

When we stop physical work and mental work the unused energy is experienced as suffering/ anxiety/ restlessness/ discomfort. This suffering is so intense - so unbearable - that most people cannot stop physical activity and mental activity simultaneously for even 2 minutes.

People do not work because they want to work.
People do not work for their family.
People do not work for their nation.
People do not work for any reason.

People work because they cannot stop working.

It does not matter what kind of work we do - whether it is physical work or any kind of mental work. As soon as we stop working we suffer from restlessness, anxiety, uneasiness and discomfort.

[ In Yoga and Meditation the goal is to stop Physical Activity and Mental Activity simultaneously - and then transform the subjective-experience of restlessness/ anxiety/ suffering into peace. This requires ability and years of effort ]

For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products-- a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

When society switches over from physical work to mental work it starts making thousands of consumer goods. People start calling them necessities. They are not necessities at all - 90% of consumer goods that we see today did not exist 50 years ago.

Food, Water, Air, Little clothing, Little Shelter - these are necessities.

Close your nose and stop breathing for a few minutes - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop drinking water for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Stop eating food for a few days - you will then know what necessity is.

Today people are making thousands of consumer goods - not because they are necessities - but because they cannot stop making them. People cannot stop doing work - After switching over to mental work they will keep on making thousands of unnecessary consumer goods. This is the reason why the switch-over from physical work to mental work is so destructive. This is the point of no-return - once this is crossed the destruction of Environment/ Nature is inevitable.

If we live a simple life there is individual suffering - but no largescale destruction of Environment.

If we live a consumerist life there is individual suffering - plus largescale destruction of Environment.


sushil_yadav

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi sushil yadav,
I agree with Baron. Would it be possible for you to give us a Coles Notes version of the original post? I hate long winded posts and references. What are the conclusions of this tome?
........ John

 

This all sounds like propaganda to me, as a species we've never had so much free leisure time, good heath, and ways to express our creativity and intellect.
If you want to deconstruct industrial society and highlight some of the inherent flaws i have no problem with that, but spreading ham-fisted enviornmentalist propaganda isnt going to convince anyone i dont think.
And for the record i do have extreme concerns about our environment and i atempt to live ethically, i just think spreading the idea of industrial society as the bloated ogre and mother nature and serene helpless victim isnt really getting anywhere close to a solution or a handle on the exact problems we have to face.

 

deleted

 

Think about what you're posting...

I have some recent posts that i'd like to address:

shakushinnen - your post serves to help validate shushil yadav's idea that we have short attention spans. If you're interested in the topic, why not read the entire, original, post? Maybe the ideas cannot be properly conveyed in a truncated version or summary. After reading the original post, i think it is essential to read it in its entirety and actually found parts very clever and funny (not to imply that the main idea of the topic is anything to joke about).

heliocentric - You think this is propaganda? And just to let you know, it is NOT TURE that as a species we've never had so much leisure time. Many hunter/gatherer cultures had much more free time on average. Read Daniel Quinn's, Ishmael, for more info on that topic. I think that your view of yadav's posts as "ham-fisted environmentalist propaganda" might be related to the "is-ought problem", first raised by David Hume. Basically, can we always draw reliable conclusions about how the world ought to be based on our knowledge of the way the world is? Your only experience on Earth (for the most part) probably revolves around the industrial world and, therefore, the result might be that you're more likely to feel the need to defend it. However, it is a fact that industrial society is destroying Earth at an alarming rate and will continue to do so until Earth is completely decimated. I think it is safe to say that people's current, collective, efforts to change this fact are laughable and have no real impact. Reversing this trend can only occur with very drastic, fundamental, changes in the way we think. I truly believe that you do try to act ethically, regarding the environment, but do you really think that the world would be saved if everyone on Earth lived the way that you do, currently?

Kmquru - I would like to address the part of your last post where you write, "these types of arguments forget how to manage the rising population - feed, cloth, shelter, etc. Since there is no alternative solution except the utilization of technology, the argument rests on how bad technology is." First of all, stating this, you imply that the human race and all of its desires/needs are far more important than anything else on Earth. Why are the needs of other species not equally as important? Secondly, why do you assume that there is no alternative solution to the problem of population growth except the utilization of technology? Could a better solution not be an emphasis on educating the masses to understand the importance of controlling reproduction instead of just focusing on managing population growth with technology?


Before any of you criticize the main ideas of yadav's posts, please consider these points:

1) If you extrapolate the human race's current trend of destruction, is there any other result except for total destruction unless there is DRASTIC change?

2) Are any of YOUR current ideas about human thought, the environment, or industrial society really going to amount to any noticeable changes in the current trend?

By the way, I'm not attacking any of you! I just really care about the topic and want to help make a difference before it's too late for all of us!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sincerely, Mike

 

Hi Mike,
I apologize for my comments. I should have said nothing, rather than what I did.
John

 

Ok on re-reading what i posted i think i was alittle harsh, i agree industrial society does destroy the evironment, global warming for example is becomming so apparent im actually starting to visably worry about it. Whereas 10 years ago it was just this thing on the peripheral edges of my consciousness that 'might happen' 'maybe'.
So yeah industrial society is causing alot or problems, however the point i was getting across was i dont believe going back to living how we did 500 years ago would really solve anything. It probably would for the wider environent but for humanbeings it would make life 10 times worse than it is now.
I think we have to reasonably balance out the needs of the enviornment with our needs as a species really, this does appear to be the only reasonable compromise that people will accept.
I think the biggest problem we have though is curtailing our inherent instinct to expand, the nature of a social entity is that it will litterally expand and swallow up resources untill eveything is depleted.
Every other organism on the planet exists on the same basis, we just happened to be the species to beat every other species in our expansion drive.
So how do you get an entire species to go against that most primal ingrained instinct? - the instinct to expand. Its like telling men not stop having sex, or people to stop being violent. Its going to be unbelievably tricky i think.

 

This is true insanity. Thinking is bad for the mind? Sure, just like physical activity is bad for your muscles.

Intellegence is a curse? Not if you want to survive.

Everything was fine until intellegence came along? What about the periodic massive extinction events where 99% of all life is wiped off the face of the earth? Were those events caused by intellegent humans in time machines!

Intellegence is a tool. It's the best tool humans possess. The most powerful tool ever to evolve on earth. It holds the key to our future.

The mindless, repetitive labor you are so enamored with is the curse. It is the curse that has finally been lifted from man by the industrial revolution.

If you are so in love with living like a peasant, move to Montana and live in a cabin in the woods. Get off the internet. Stop enjoying the fruits of high tech industrial society if you really believe what you say. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

>> A thinking species destroys the planet. This planet is on the verge of total destruction. ...

No and Yes

We have a planet on the eve of destruction because that is the default option in LIFE's program for human beings (flowers).
see Neil Young's After the Gold Rush
http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.php?hid=Ecl63BdyfL0=
It is known in the race knowledge of the human psyche what our fate is.

All people's biochemistry is toxic, their minds are either racing or dead, fantasy leads the way and all conscience and empathy has been destroyed, ....all proving that LIFE on this hunk of rock is an annual super-organism.

Just lay back and except what LIFE has instore for you. It does help to understand the problems and become more tolerant of your mad neighbours, and accept that for you there is no way out. You are redundant to LIFE's needs...all of you.

 

Man can repair and restore things that have been made by man himself. Car, Computer, Aeroplane, Rocket - if anything goes wrong with these things man can repair and restore.

Man cannot repair and restore Nature/ Environment - because man did not make Nature/ Environment. Once a Forest is destroyed - it is gone for millions of years. One cannot create a Forest in 5 or 50 years - it takes millions of years to make a forest - containing millions of species of animals, insects, birds, plants and trees. Man can create a plantation in 5 or 50 years - not a forest.

The only way to save Environment is by not destroying it - leave it alone - leave it undisturbed. If you destroy Environment you cannot repair and restore it.

sushil_yadav

 

You're advocating the extinction of our species, though you don't seem to explicitely realize it.

Look around you.

See what the species does.

Breathe.

Think.

What you see the species doing....

And breathe.....




That's what the species does.

It's natural.

We cannot disturb an environment. We are part of it. We are an effect of nature. We do not disturb anything. We bend it to our wills, because us having wills is apparently part of nature - since we observe in nature that people have will.

Their will is a response/reaction to...

(wait for it)




...Their perception of their environment.

The nature of time is that things change.

The nature of mind is partly at least - to preserve the moment.


You are naturally of course - trying to preserve the moment that represents a concept in your mind that you hold as sort of subjective ideal.

It's perfectly natural as well that others are doing the same thing and do not share this ideal - and that neither is objectively more valuable than the other....

It's perfectly possible the particular ideal of nature you're promoting is wholly flawed, and it artificially separates itself from nature and denies the nature of change of the universe - the fleeting nature of everything.

It could be that this argument is just a facet of my ego arguing with another facet of it, and that these words are the resultant of a chemical reaction, balancing itself according to nature's inescapable mandate of action and reaction, as encoded via the subjective context of their cumulative and current life's experience and the bio-chemical limitations/abilities (function) of their brain. My mind falls forward into the relational intersections of the ideas that develop a stronger/weaker potential as affected by the context in "focuse" at any time (t). Perhaps yours does too. Perhaps as it does so, it interacts with the environment and in some way - must change it.

I'm trying to understand exactly what's natural.

IMO, it seems to be much more than you're allowing it.

Mind you, I don't think chopping down entire forrests is generally a good idea, unless it's part of the survival/development of the species in which case I say - good luck stopping it - seriously, lol. Go for it.

Further it's really, really unlikely that we could leave the environment alone and maintain our numbers, though over time we'll learn to understand it better or we'll go extinct. Lucily for us, this is exactly what we're fundamentally driven to do: Understand and manipulate our environment.

You're even doing it by asking people not to do it.

Lol.

 

I would largely agree - humans are not separate and distinct from nature. Our bodies are made from the same stuffs as the rest of the planet, and whatever the truths about any spiritual or non physical existence. The physical aspect of humanity is 100 % pure nature and environment.

 

Man is the evolution of nature - even within Hindu philosophy he is the combining of the three gunas.

Nature needs, therefore, man is..


Man is the culmination of the need of nature for itself


therefore, man is desire personified.