the statement I'm alive, you're alive is debatable. Being alive is a state of being however, you can be physically alive yet mentally dead. So you could be seen as dead depending on how you look at it.
The mass extinction events in history (of which we know only b/c of civilization) took place long before civilization and were MUCH more lethal in its destructive power. AND they can only be avoided by civilization in the future.
That is, if one makes these assumptions:
That what you call civilization and I call the destructive culture of the West doesn't destroy the biosphere until this future event happens.
That it manages to develope the necessary technology.
I totally agree with you. But it's hard not to feel trapped in civilization. Where are we supposed to start fixing the problem? We're all so deep in it now it's overwhelming. Do you know what I mean?
social relativity , and there are civilizations that are civilized and can co-exist with the planet and all its peoples.... its just doesn't exist...here / yet
I suppose if civilization, is an attempt to civilize an entire nation, which is to say Make all people similar (standard of normalcy) then it will not be in sync with our natural ways of life. We must all be given 100% freedom of expression, however none of this works until the human species rids itself from the parasite which has been holding us down for thousands of years (the individual ego).
To be given 100% freedom of expression we would have to rid ourselves of the acidic corrupt government set into place to so called protect us and make the right decisions for us. I'm not saying get rid of government completely because then it would be total anarchy. But to just change it in some way to where they actually are making the right deciosions for the country and not for themselves. This will probably never happen though.
However, slavery was only the case for some tribes. Have in mind that there was countless tribes in Native America. Slavery was rather the exception, than the norm.
You are right! "I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves." -Columbus
for me, it's never been about idolizing "tribalism." "tribalism" is offered as an example of an alternative.
what i like doing much more than defending "Tribalism" is to attack civilization. it fucking sucks a whole lot. there's nothing good about it.
it causes countless diseases. processed food and over-cleanliness, among other things, lower the immune system. objectively "uncivilized" folks are truly, objectively, healthier than the civilized.
everyone whose brain is too rattled to wake up immediately defends civilization, of course, it's all they know, and it's fully understandable.
it's not that hard to debunk, though - they usually only say "modern medicine, modern medicine, modern medicine." the fact is hospitals are responsible for some large percentage of all deaths that occur inside them, and modern medicine truly is not needed if there is not a presence of modern disease.
it's like, honestly, if civilization is so great... if "uncivilized" life is so terrible...
then how the hell did humans survive for all those hundreds of thousands of years without civilization?
how come, since the advent of civilization, we've seen the development of the worst problems the planet and its living inhabitants could possibly face?
i think it's on you, really, JohnMichaels16, to try to defend the culture you think you need so much.
but maybe if we did take back the land and put wind mills everywhere and have the new batteries that are supposed to store electricity without going bad (without nasty chemicals) would work for a sustainable culture but the probelem is people are to lazy or complacent about doing this on a grand scale and obviously greedy corperation don't want that because of supply and demand.so i was wondering if the was a resistance that support this... would you Z?
"There are plenty of tribes out there right now, what are you waiting for?" Im waiting for the right people. "Ya real sustainable, it ends the first disease that comes through without medicine" Tribes battle all the time? Ask any anthropologist and he will beg to differ. "...the tribes were constantly taking each other as slaves." I think you are mixing the mayans(wich was a civilization, not a tribe btw) with the indians.
Many instances of cannibalism by necessity were recorded during World War II. For example, following the Soviet victory at Stalingrad in February of 1943, roughly 100,000 German soldiers were taken Prisoner of War (POW). Almost all
...of them were sent to POW camps in Siberia or Central Asia where, due to being chronically underfed by their Soviet captors, many apparently resorted to cannibalism."
And by the way. Not everybody is so lucky (like us) that they get the benefits of civilization. To take an example: "According to The Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 by the World Health Organization, 40% of the global population does not have access to excreta disposal facilities, mostly in Asia and Africa."
"Tribalism is what causes freezing to death, starving, and lifespans under 25." Starving to death is actually rare in tribes. If it do occur, it takes out the whole tribe, rather than the many oppressed like in civilization.
without tribalism YOU would not be here right now. without an electrician you would be freezing to death. without the super market you would likely starve to death. You see how shallow your argument is?
humans have been alive on earth for at least 200,000 years, as many as 10 million years, and civilization is only 10,000 years old. civilization has invented countless physical and mental diseases, has invented war and genocide and environmental exploitation as we know it, has invented abuse and mass-death as we know it today.
Oh give me a break, you just made multiple factual assertions with out naming a single source and then you ask me to give mine? Nice try.
Anyway, for the most part I rarely get into detailed arguments on YT comments. I'll cover the bullshit of environmentalism in videos eventually, but I mostly use comments simply to assert my opinion. If I were to get into an argument on comments, it would be with someone much more worthwhile than you.
I like that you said these are undebatables. I agree most of them are. Civilization makes us sick, neurotic, self defeating. But I wrestle with how much of a difference any one person can make. That mindset feeds into the consumer mindset that says you can buy your way into changing the world. When the system is set up to exclude freedom of choice, the only choice is to deceive yourself into believing you have freedom, or recognize that you are trapped.
When does progression from stone axes to bronze tools become unhealthy for our world?
I agree with you, the human mind is only comforable with living in a community of 350-400 people. That is how people used to live. I do however like my toilet paper; in the "uncivilized"part of the human race's existance, the average man or woman could live to be 30 compared to 80 today and a promissed 150 in the future.
Perhaps extended livespans are overrated? What is so great about living until you are 80+? (This week, a brief conversation with an older woman yielded me saying "I dont look forward to being your age" and she replied "I dont blame you" -- What drives this notion that we must live longer? There is no point to "life" .. We just ARE. And whether we are for 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years -- should make little difference in the grand scheme of things. The shorter, the better for the planet.
such a pessimist, good points, but without civilization we have nothing. Its human nature to advance because we as a species are obsolete. Our intelligence sets us apart. Without civilization were would we get food or when your sick were do you go. How do we live as a whole without civilization.
Great vid. Great points. I hope many see this and really think about what it is saying. It isn't until the masses agree that something big can be done. Hopefully it is not to late...
Have you read Ishmael? It seems like you have. I regard it as the most important book I've ever read.
I did not say no war with civilization spin doctor. I said "Without civilization - you have war." I suppose "law" would have been a better term to use than "civilization" , but i think they are very close in representation.
civilization breeds war. there's a lot of stuff out there about uncivilized warfare, and to my knowledge it's very different from how we understand it.
who was it who said the native americans couldn't get war right, because nobody died?
One objection tho - while I think that the current civilizational structure will likely crash and will result in huge cuts to the world population(plus it's current form harms the world),, I also think that the pop would never have passed even a billion without tech survival tools -- such as medicine, shelter, agriculture, etc -- starvation and disease and short lifespans would have been ongoing. Birth control, medicine, agriculture, etc -- many elements of civilization are still good.
I see what you mean and I agree with you - quality is more important. My thought was with birth limitation versus painful death pruning. Current civilizational structuring is very demanding and parasitic on ppl and the world. You have to have a home, you have to work 8hours/day now 7 days a week just to survive - usually need some transport. The expansion dependancy is unsustainable. We do need some infastructure tho - hospitals, schooling, law.
Current structure is deliberately made inefficient and imposing so someone else at the top can make more money. We need some way to ensure development of the fairest and most efficient way to support the infastructure that we want to keep. Tearing down forests for surface dwellings is also extremely inefficient. I would propose atriums/earth-sheltered dwellings - they don't need heating or air conditioning because the temperature is constant and they don't intrude apon the natural surface world.
New forms of solar trees would blend in with the environment and produce (what little needed) power year round for these atriums. Geothermal energy could suppliment heating/water-heating and cooking. More than enuf power left over to recharge your all-electric car capable of detecting road hazards and preventing harm. Food could be grown in or inside atriums for constant food supply. Preserve technix also useful.
You could work partime 3 days a week and still have money left over.
I guess the other problem is reproduction restriction. Popularization of legislation on a global scale - of allowable population density/surface_area of land. A necessary evil to prevent a much worse form of evil.
Do you suppose that the real problem is not necessarily civilization itself, but the structure (and thus operation) of the institutions that make up society (which in all of its complexity, makes up civilization)?
To say civilization itself is the problem is reductionist, and reductionism is always debatable, because it leaves out other facts (thus other possible solutions that could not be realized) because they're flattened in the process of reducing a very complex entity, namely, civilization.
What is the utilitarian value of me sacrificing anything whatsoever for a collection of creatures carrying DNA similar to mine in some distant future?
The planet will survive humankind. Life in one form or another will survive humankind. It is the height of egotism to think we are actually needed here.
How can one possibly justify concern about some future that I will not experience, that will have no impact on me at all, without reverting to esoteric drivel?
what is the utilitarian value of looking at the universe through a utilitarian perspective?
the planet as a life-supporting organism might not survive human life, unless we act now. i'm assuming you don't know the true situation of health on this planet, which is much worse than is portrayed in popular media. it has nothing to do with being "needed here." the question is, do we have the right to make this planet no longer support life?
are you willing to do the work that is necessary to stop industrial civilization from destroying the world to the point that it will no longer support human life?
The concept of devide and rule remains undebatable as it inherintaly refers to one and that is undebatable. Wheather the point is up or down has no relevance at all..
you would eventually, i disagree here, but not in the near future after the system collapses
but this time ppl will do it because they want this structure, not because they have to have a job, so less marketting, and since money will not be the motive, there will be less temptations to become immoral
You might have youtube if somebody deconstructs civilization, but it would only be possible to maintain among a small group of people. WIthout the resources and distribution that a capitalist based civilization provides nobody would be able to successfully maintain a global youtube.
you are so wrong, source forge proves you're wrong... gnu proves you're wrong, i was a computer programmer for 15+ years,
we do it for fun! and if something isn't fun, it's not worth doing at all!!!!!!! (infrastructure is "fun" when you consider that it gives fun a chane to exist)
Just because you are a computer programmer and can make programs doesn't mean you'll have any way to distribute it on a widescale. I flat out said that it would be possible with a small group of people. Remember civilization is gone there for all the huge companies that make up the internet are gone, all the phone companies are gone, hell even the US post. You don't have any distribution or even a current medium to work with. Yet with out any means to communicate you expect success.
but of course you would, i am a software guy, true! but there are those whose love in life is hardware, when everyone is free from work/money making, ppl will do it for fun
i am 100% about this, in fact, since there will be no patents or reasons to delay new technology to still make profit from old ones, you'll have better speeds, and better infrastructure
besides, i don't get your point, you want forever prison ? forever have to ? don't you believe in humans goodness ?
I didn't say that what I wanted I'm just saying that it will be impossible. Without civilization you wouldn't even be able to call people on the telephone. There is no way you could make it global. You might be able to get your entire community of people that live around you, but never global.
What kind of life I want to lead has nothing to do with the fact that it would be impossible to even have the internet globally without civilization. It isn't possible.
I will assume that the question is, which is worth more to ME. The answer is: the Internet. I've seen no evidence to indicate the total collapse of the global ecosystem or the society in which I function in my lifetime. During the (hopefully)few decades that I have left "civilization" should continue to chug along and keep me at the top of the foodchain.
no, the question is not which is worth more to YOU, because who the fuck are YOU?
the question is, which is WORTH MORE. period. the answer is not the internet. the internet couldn't exist without the world. it's a trick question because the internet is part of what is destroying the planet as a life-supporting system.
you're saying "i don't care because it won't affect me." well, you're refusing to acknowledge how it IS affecting you NOW, which is just sad to me.
A nice set of values for a new dawn: genocide. Is that death to all selfish people, or only the elimination of peopel who disagree with you?
I was/am simply trying to find some solid, logical basis for "saving" the planet for future generations. All I am hearing is some quasi-religious altruistic buzz. "Worth" more? How, to whom?
it has to do with not living inside of civilization.
that means all living humans will be healthier, rather than right now we have way too many humans and most of them are very unhealthy and they are destroying the world.
i am not saying that i want to kill people. i am saying, if one is not willing to fight to preserve life, he does not deserve the life he has been given.
I don't get you. I thought women were more complicated, but YOU!!! You're #1 on the "?" meter. It's like you saying that if I don't join the Army, I should die for not protecting Americans & our freedom; our way of life! It is our right to do what ever we want to do with our lives.
Of course it would be 'possible' to have world-wide communications without civilization.
The radio spectrum would be empty of all the pap the civilized 'elite' feel they need to broadcast to the rest.
For a long time all the technical stuff necessary to built a world-wide communication system (of limited bandwidth) will be available in the detritus of civilization. Plenty of time to learn how to make it again.
While making useful semiconductors is difficult, making vacuum tubes is easy.
wow of course all the technical stuff is necessary. Your the second techno geek to get at me. I'm simply talking about the nuts and bolts of the wrold not the nuts and bolts of a machine my friend. You would not have the means or the money. Because without society there is no legal tender to create an internet in the first place. You would still have the know how but you wouldn't have the means. )
I'm simply commenting on the fact that despite this video's coherence and valid point he is using a corporate entity(youtube) that exists in a globably corporate medium(the internet).
It's undabatable that man made God because of ignorance superstition and fear and religion as well as civilazation are the biggest mass murderers that history has ever seen.
Im not going to leave a long ass essay but I think your video and your thoughts are awsome and reguardless of if people agree or disagree at least you are strong enough to put your thoughts out there so props to you homie your certified fresh in my book...and thats undabatable!
Civilization is unhealthy, "The Natural" is the best way? Wow... Neo-Luddite much? Millions of people have died since "civilization" (whatever that means) and millions have died before, millions will die after. Life is not eternal, it dies eventually. Life feeds on life, deal with it. You also say we have agency and we can change it, but that we all necessarily do things differently, so are you in essence refuting your own argument? Also, only a sophist can say "undebatable" as much as you sir.
Ummm, my rebuttal isn't me trying to prove myself so don't make assumptions. I didn't refute, sure... but you didn't make a concise argument either. Primitive tribalism, though efficient and less impactful, is regressive and conservative. I don't see how it could be any better than a civilization that encourages melding of ideas and debate, whereas tribal systems are mainly upheld by religious fundamentalists like the quakers and the Dalai Lama, or are insolvent like the Paris Commune.
Perpetual growth in what way? Empires rise and fall; nature, weather, and mankind have been fighting for thounsands of years. Plagues, natural disasters, war, etc..
Are you asserting some kind of exploitation theory? What exactly is the type of exploitation that goes on, and why is it right/wrong?
Not all human societies are advanced... look at parts of Africa, Asia, South America... all victims of colonialism.
How can you prove an abstract idea like civilization is self-preserving?
the people here who are saying "this is debateable and this isnt" arent even getting the point. You guys need to stop changing the subject and listen. Zack is not issuing a challenge, he trying to teach you something on his free time.
Did you know? You can use old motor oil to fertilize your lawn.
Lol, well you cant really. Quote from fight club that was...mmm yes, talk like yoda now I will.
Anyways, Zack! do you chat on EFnet? I do sometimes. I heard you had been seen there. if your not busy... reply to this so I know your coming and we should meet up and chat there. I would enjoy talking with you one on one. My username is Ymmuipo.
all information is debateable. you don't have to accept the arguments that people use in the debate, but there is no such thing as undebateable information. otherwise how can the human mind develop?
what's not true? my 1st or 2nd comment (or both)? :P
actually it is debatable because people are debating it on this video. not saying that you're right or wrong about the truth as you see it. But not all humans interpret the same information the same way. Debate is how one moves closer to a clearer picture of a given situation. that's all i know (or think i know!).
btw--i do agree with you. earlier, pre-civilized humans didn't give a shit about being naked. now, people go apeshit when they see a tit for a split second on tv during the super bowl. then, watch the football guys knock the shit out of each other moving an oblong ball up and down a field. now that i think about it, it kinda messed up. and i used to play football.
However would't you agree that it is in the human nature to "destroy" ? I mean what I get from your video is that somehow we have to break the cycle and DO something about the issues around us.(by cycle I mean civilization)But by breaking the cycle wouldn't that just lead to more conflict and chaos?
I truly agree with everything you say. However my honest opinion is that many people might see you as cynical and negative. I see you as realistic and raw-yet not something other people want to confront.
hey, all of you: make your OWN videos and spout off your own truths instead of getting mad at zzz33333 for saying what he thinks in HIS videos! what else is he gonna say besides what he thinks is the truth? jeeeeeez.....
So he "thinks" this is the truth? I thought it was all "undebatable". Doesn't that mean that what he says is readily apparent to everyone? Or maybe it means that these are all proven facts, just like 2+2=4. If so, I'd like him to prove these assertions, or at least make an argument. Unfortunately, he gives no arguments and no proofs.
People also laugh and call creationists crazy. Just because people call you a fool doesn't mean you have a new, radical idea they're not ready for. Sometimes you're just a damn fool to begin with.
"Readily apparent" is only apparent to people who can think for themselves instead of parroting off all the crap their teachers and parents taught to them. And incidentally, 2+2 only = 4 in number bases above 4! WAKE UP !! And while I'm at it, GO GET YOUR OWN DAMNED PROOF. Fuck arguments. (I was in a bad mood and picked your comment randomly -- nothing personal, as that would be simply uncivilized. :P *peace*)
And WTF?!?! Why doesn't YouTube actually attach my comments to the @#$@! comments I'm commenting on?!?!@#! DOn't tell me it does -- I'm telling you, it's UN FREAKIN DEBATEABLE. :P
"Fuck arguments." Oh, really? Why are you here arguing then? And I don't need to provide proofs for some one else. Do your own homework. Anyone can make a bunch of stupid statements and then say they are "undebatable". Oh, and while I'm at it, FUCK YOU!
"when living under near-isolated conditions, apart from civilization and the food of civilization, primitive man lives in much better physical condition than does the usual member of civilized society." - Arnold Devries, 1952, "primitive man and his food."
in "the original affluent society," from 1968, Marshall Sahlins explores how most primitive people work an average of 3-5 hours per day to get what they need to be happy and healthy.
We work 8-12 hours a day or more, and few of us are truly happy or healthy.
I don't have time to type the crucial bits from every book I own in here, but i'll recommend some great ones:
name me one human that doesn't live by exploiting nature in one way or another, through eating plants, animals, or just using nature as a resource in general.
No one seems to debate with me about this. I think the root problem isn't civilization but that humans have a sickness in their nature which causes them to create unsustainable and harmful ways of living. Unless we can get rid of our laziness and greed we can't fully overcome.
most humans if not forced to, will be happy not to step on each other.... however, in a global market place, the nice ones lose, so the least moral prosper, as they have less inhibitions about child labour etc.... morever! the avg joe, has not too much money,so he will buy the cheap product, and all in all, the few who are assholed drag the many(!) who are ok, down the drain of moral bankrupcy.... do you agree ?
LOL I don't see that as a debate. Sure I can agree with what you said. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's just a tendency. Good people CAN separate from the system which is being run by the "least moral." We can localize our markets, produce for ourselves and our own communities, etc. The question is WILL WE?
What I am saying is... that the problem is that humans create harmful civilizations. Civilization is one result of our problems. Get rid of it and someone will still be living harmfully... unsustainable civilizations fall and then more return because the root cause of the harm is still there.
i think that as long as we will live in a hierarcical system, ppl will not be hapy, the bottom of the pyramid by design has more ppl, so the masses will never be happy
i wanted to see a revolution (really did) but i think it will not happen.
my hopes are for a (in no order)
scientific, no-money, "flat" society (no pyramid), no-rules, food and water are accessible to everyone.
and that is all
then we will see for the first time, what humans eally want, when they are free!
i can even imagie this happening, in a one world scenario
where your only obligation is that from 18 to 21 you do the housekeeping jobs for the rest of humanity (farming if needed, sewers, house building .... etc) and then you have given your share to the human race, and are free again
i agree civilization is gonna crash and wen it does its gonna try and take us withit
posiden131 7 months ago
i agree with you. Thats undebatable.
MrNiceguy840 10 months ago
the statement I'm alive, you're alive is debatable. Being alive is a state of being however, you can be physically alive yet mentally dead. So you could be seen as dead depending on how you look at it.
e8tmep3 1 year ago
Why is it undebatable?
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
The mass extinction events in history (of which we know only b/c of civilization) took place long before civilization and were MUCH more lethal in its destructive power. AND they can only be avoided by civilization in the future.
That is, if one makes these assumptions:
That what you call civilization and I call the destructive culture of the West doesn't destroy the biosphere until this future event happens.
That it manages to develope the necessary technology.
Ergo: NOT undebatable.
trakkaton 1 year ago
I totally agree with you. But it's hard not to feel trapped in civilization. Where are we supposed to start fixing the problem? We're all so deep in it now it's overwhelming. Do you know what I mean?
Fr0sTiNc 1 year ago
how do you define civilization?
brack1917 2 years ago
look in the related videos! I have one called "definition of civilization."
zzz33333 2 years ago
social relativity , and there are civilizations that are civilized and can co-exist with the planet and all its peoples.... its just doesn't exist...here / yet
DMT1221 2 years ago
Not yet,
and when it does each community will look like an awesome parade / party / love fest of creative expression in all directions.
:)
Celestial perceptual galactic fractal magic
iLoveEverythingAlive 2 years ago
civilization is inherently unsustainable.
if it can co-exist with the planet, it's not a civilization.
zzz33333 2 years ago
I suppose if civilization, is an attempt to civilize an entire nation, which is to say Make all people similar (standard of normalcy) then it will not be in sync with our natural ways of life. We must all be given 100% freedom of expression, however none of this works until the human species rids itself from the parasite which has been holding us down for thousands of years (the individual ego).
Ego must go.
Perception of connectedness must birth.
iLoveEverythingAlive 2 years ago
Comment removed
llBlackDahliall 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To be given 100% freedom of expression we would have to rid ourselves of the acidic corrupt government set into place to so called protect us and make the right decisions for us. I'm not saying get rid of government completely because then it would be total anarchy. But to just change it in some way to where they actually are making the right deciosions for the country and not for themselves. This will probably never happen though.
llBlackDahliall 2 years ago
Very good vid... I'll remind my friends of this.
hillexallen 2 years ago
LOL...i love the end of the vid...
crass770 2 years ago
thats not completely true...there is no such thing as undebatable.
The problem is the paradigma, the system, the orientation of the culture, civilization.
AzoreanProud 3 years ago
three letters .... YEA!!!!
afatnickelrock 3 years ago
so true.
lmn009x 3 years ago
However, slavery was only the case for some tribes. Have in mind that there was countless tribes in Native America. Slavery was rather the exception, than the norm.
Jonase123 3 years ago
You are right! "I saw some with scars of wounds upon their bodies, and demanded by signs the of them; they answered me in the same way, that there came people from the other islands in the neighborhood who endeavored to make prisoners of them, and they defended themselves." -Columbus
Jonase123 3 years ago
JohnMichaels16 is confused, obviously.
for me, it's never been about idolizing "tribalism." "tribalism" is offered as an example of an alternative.
what i like doing much more than defending "Tribalism" is to attack civilization. it fucking sucks a whole lot. there's nothing good about it.
it causes countless diseases. processed food and over-cleanliness, among other things, lower the immune system. objectively "uncivilized" folks are truly, objectively, healthier than the civilized.
zzz33333 3 years ago
everyone whose brain is too rattled to wake up immediately defends civilization, of course, it's all they know, and it's fully understandable.
it's not that hard to debunk, though - they usually only say "modern medicine, modern medicine, modern medicine." the fact is hospitals are responsible for some large percentage of all deaths that occur inside them, and modern medicine truly is not needed if there is not a presence of modern disease.
zzz33333 3 years ago
it's like, honestly, if civilization is so great... if "uncivilized" life is so terrible...
then how the hell did humans survive for all those hundreds of thousands of years without civilization?
how come, since the advent of civilization, we've seen the development of the worst problems the planet and its living inhabitants could possibly face?
i think it's on you, really, JohnMichaels16, to try to defend the culture you think you need so much.
zzz33333 3 years ago
every supposed benefit of civilization cannot exist without massive exploitation, and so it is not objectively beneficial at all.
zzz33333 3 years ago
@zzz33333
hey bro i respect you alot!
but maybe if we did take back the land and put wind mills everywhere and have the new batteries that are supposed to store electricity without going bad (without nasty chemicals) would work for a sustainable culture but the probelem is people are to lazy or complacent about doing this on a grand scale and obviously greedy corperation don't want that because of supply and demand.so i was wondering if the was a resistance that support this... would you Z?
kessest 1 year ago
"There are plenty of tribes out there right now, what are you waiting for?" Im waiting for the right people. "Ya real sustainable, it ends the first disease that comes through without medicine" Tribes battle all the time? Ask any anthropologist and he will beg to differ. "...the tribes were constantly taking each other as slaves." I think you are mixing the mayans(wich was a civilization, not a tribe btw) with the indians.
Jonase123 3 years ago
1. It is just. Everybody gets heard, contrary to the political system we have.
2. Crime is unheard of.
3. Cradle-to-cradle support.
4. It's sustainable.
Look it up, don't take my word for it.
Jonase123 3 years ago
" If you really think tribalism is so great why don't you go live in a tribe"
Well, im working on it.
Jonase123 3 years ago
Just look up "cannibalism" on wikipedia, and you will find out that cannibalism is not something that is unique to tribes.
Jonase123 3 years ago
Many instances of cannibalism by necessity were recorded during World War II. For example, following the Soviet victory at Stalingrad in February of 1943, roughly 100,000 German soldiers were taken Prisoner of War (POW). Almost all
Jonase123 3 years ago
...of them were sent to POW camps in Siberia or Central Asia where, due to being chronically underfed by their Soviet captors, many apparently resorted to cannibalism."
Jonase123 3 years ago
And by the way. Not everybody is so lucky (like us) that they get the benefits of civilization. To take an example: "According to The Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 by the World Health Organization, 40% of the global population does not have access to excreta disposal facilities, mostly in Asia and Africa."
Jonase123 3 years ago
"Tribalism is what causes freezing to death, starving, and lifespans under 25." Starving to death is actually rare in tribes. If it do occur, it takes out the whole tribe, rather than the many oppressed like in civilization.
Jonase123 3 years ago
without tribalism YOU would not be here right now. without an electrician you would be freezing to death. without the super market you would likely starve to death. You see how shallow your argument is?
Im all up for a real debate.
Jonase123 3 years ago
"Civilization is just one way that people live on Earth."
Wrong. Civilization is the ONLY way that people live on Earth in a way that you can actually call living. Everything else is how people die on Earth.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
that's just totally fucking stupid and retarded.
humans have been alive on earth for at least 200,000 years, as many as 10 million years, and civilization is only 10,000 years old. civilization has invented countless physical and mental diseases, has invented war and genocide and environmental exploitation as we know it, has invented abuse and mass-death as we know it today.
let's see some sources.
zzz33333 3 years ago
"let's see some sources."
Oh give me a break, you just made multiple factual assertions with out naming a single source and then you ask me to give mine? Nice try.
Anyway, for the most part I rarely get into detailed arguments on YT comments. I'll cover the bullshit of environmentalism in videos eventually, but I mostly use comments simply to assert my opinion. If I were to get into an argument on comments, it would be with someone much more worthwhile than you.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I like that you said these are undebatables. I agree most of them are. Civilization makes us sick, neurotic, self defeating. But I wrestle with how much of a difference any one person can make. That mindset feeds into the consumer mindset that says you can buy your way into changing the world. When the system is set up to exclude freedom of choice, the only choice is to deceive yourself into believing you have freedom, or recognize that you are trapped.
keithpatter7 3 years ago
When does progression from stone axes to bronze tools become unhealthy for our world?
I agree with you, the human mind is only comforable with living in a community of 350-400 people. That is how people used to live. I do however like my toilet paper; in the "uncivilized"part of the human race's existance, the average man or woman could live to be 30 compared to 80 today and a promissed 150 in the future.
Ap0colyps6 3 years ago
Perhaps extended livespans are overrated? What is so great about living until you are 80+? (This week, a brief conversation with an older woman yielded me saying "I dont look forward to being your age" and she replied "I dont blame you" -- What drives this notion that we must live longer? There is no point to "life" .. We just ARE. And whether we are for 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years -- should make little difference in the grand scheme of things. The shorter, the better for the planet.
icmp 3 years ago
such a pessimist, good points, but without civilization we have nothing. Its human nature to advance because we as a species are obsolete. Our intelligence sets us apart. Without civilization were would we get food or when your sick were do you go. How do we live as a whole without civilization.
chesurfdude 3 years ago
this is really scary.
do you know when the first civilizations were built?
about 10-12,000 years ago.
do you know when humans evolved into what they are?
about 200,000 years ago.
how do you live without civilization? healthily!
zzz33333 3 years ago
undebatably undebatable, let the anti-PR machine choke on the paradox ;-o
jogayot 3 years ago
Great vid. Great points. I hope many see this and really think about what it is saying. It isn't until the masses agree that something big can be done. Hopefully it is not to late...
lily2stinky 3 years ago
Great work! I posted it on my blog.
Misko
miskokinoo 3 years ago
what if what is right for them - encroaches on whats right for you?
Without civilization - you have war.
nosajix 3 years ago
really? no war with civilization?
it's false that civilization invented warfare as we know it? you sure?
zzz33333 3 years ago
THE EARTH NEEDS A BILL OF RIGHTS - GLOBALY
How will this be done without civilization?
nosajix 3 years ago
the question is, really, how will it be done WITH civilization?
and, without civilization, how won't it be done?
zzz33333 3 years ago
Credit needs to go away as well - but that seems to be underway.... the question is who is going to collect?
nosajix 3 years ago
With out civilization, where would the internet be???? - not to mention public welfare.
Do you have family with cancer? maybe a physical handicap?
Civilization MUST not fall but it must be modified greatly with respect for the "uncivilized" and the natural order.
nosajix 3 years ago
most cancers and physical handicaps are caused by civilization.
there is no way civilization can be made "healthier."
zzz33333 3 years ago
Have you read Ishmael? It seems like you have. I regard it as the most important book I've ever read.
I did not say no war with civilization spin doctor. I said "Without civilization - you have war." I suppose "law" would have been a better term to use than "civilization" , but i think they are very close in representation.
Tell me, do you believe in "law"?
nosajix 3 years ago
yeah, of course i believe in law.
i've read Ishmael.
civilization breeds war. there's a lot of stuff out there about uncivilized warfare, and to my knowledge it's very different from how we understand it.
who was it who said the native americans couldn't get war right, because nobody died?
zzz33333 3 years ago
Word.
delibertad 3 years ago
so to beat civilization is to be more civilized than civlization!??????????????
BluntVendetta 3 years ago
huh?
zzz33333 3 years ago
One objection tho - while I think that the current civilizational structure will likely crash and will result in huge cuts to the world population(plus it's current form harms the world),, I also think that the pop would never have passed even a billion without tech survival tools -- such as medicine, shelter, agriculture, etc -- starvation and disease and short lifespans would have been ongoing. Birth control, medicine, agriculture, etc -- many elements of civilization are still good.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
.... we seem to have been trained to think that, the more humans on the planet, the better life is.
who gives a flying fuck what the global population of human beings is?
i don't like my life inside this sick system. and i am surrounded by billions of people who feel the same way.
what elements of civilization are good? why is it good to have more humans on the planet?
let's talk about "quality of life." or, like, "presence of disease."
feel me???
zzz33333 3 years ago
I see what you mean and I agree with you - quality is more important. My thought was with birth limitation versus painful death pruning. Current civilizational structuring is very demanding and parasitic on ppl and the world. You have to have a home, you have to work 8hours/day now 7 days a week just to survive - usually need some transport. The expansion dependancy is unsustainable. We do need some infastructure tho - hospitals, schooling, law.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
Current structure is deliberately made inefficient and imposing so someone else at the top can make more money. We need some way to ensure development of the fairest and most efficient way to support the infastructure that we want to keep. Tearing down forests for surface dwellings is also extremely inefficient. I would propose atriums/earth-sheltered dwellings - they don't need heating or air conditioning because the temperature is constant and they don't intrude apon the natural surface world.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
New forms of solar trees would blend in with the environment and produce (what little needed) power year round for these atriums. Geothermal energy could suppliment heating/water-heating and cooking. More than enuf power left over to recharge your all-electric car capable of detecting road hazards and preventing harm. Food could be grown in or inside atriums for constant food supply. Preserve technix also useful.
You could work partime 3 days a week and still have money left over.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
I guess the other problem is reproduction restriction. Popularization of legislation on a global scale - of allowable population density/surface_area of land. A necessary evil to prevent a much worse form of evil.
SuperiorMind 3 years ago
the problem is civilization. this unfixable death machine needs to come down.
zzz33333 3 years ago
realativism at the begining
RemsUnheardofArmy 3 years ago
bullshit.
zzz33333 3 years ago
okay...
RemsUnheardofArmy 3 years ago
(1 of 1)
Do you suppose that the real problem is not necessarily civilization itself, but the structure (and thus operation) of the institutions that make up society (which in all of its complexity, makes up civilization)?
IntelligentHoodlum 3 years ago
(2of 2)
To say civilization itself is the problem is reductionist, and reductionism is always debatable, because it leaves out other facts (thus other possible solutions that could not be realized) because they're flattened in the process of reducing a very complex entity, namely, civilization.
IntelligentHoodlum 3 years ago
... civilization is not a complex entity. it's just a form of human society that doesn't work.
zzz33333 3 years ago
Good video, but everything is debatable. You can debate out of pure ignorance, but it's still a debate =)
ArabianStallionZ 3 years ago
that's not a debate. that's a pissing contest.
zzz33333 3 years ago
lol I guess you could call it that, but you can still do it.
ArabianStallionZ 3 years ago
anarchy>civilization
TheSavageWiseman 3 years ago
What is the utilitarian value of me sacrificing anything whatsoever for a collection of creatures carrying DNA similar to mine in some distant future?
The planet will survive humankind. Life in one form or another will survive humankind. It is the height of egotism to think we are actually needed here.
How can one possibly justify concern about some future that I will not experience, that will have no impact on me at all, without reverting to esoteric drivel?
TrappedNhere 3 years ago
what is the utilitarian value of looking at the universe through a utilitarian perspective?
the planet as a life-supporting organism might not survive human life, unless we act now. i'm assuming you don't know the true situation of health on this planet, which is much worse than is portrayed in popular media. it has nothing to do with being "needed here." the question is, do we have the right to make this planet no longer support life?
do you know the word "selfish?"
how about "empathy?"
zzz33333 3 years ago
It is undebatable that if one is allowed to unilaterally define his own terms, he can argue any point whatsoever.
Now, what was the question?
TrappedNhere 3 years ago
the question:
are you willing to do the work that is necessary to stop industrial civilization from destroying the world to the point that it will no longer support human life?
zzz33333 3 years ago
The concept of devide and rule remains undebatable as it inherintaly refers to one and that is undebatable. Wheather the point is up or down has no relevance at all..
falconelly 3 years ago
it's undebatable...and I mean it!
Blinkzzz555 3 years ago
Is the undebatability of these statements also undetabatable Mr. Z?
chameleodon 3 years ago
that depends on how much time you have to waste.
zzz33333 3 years ago
I'm Alive and I have PORN , Stop by my PAgE, As long as we have BUSH mmmm We are in trouble ,
CliffDiverMusic 3 years ago
You realize you wouldn't be able to even communicate with people via phone let alone youtube. Without civilization.
missuscake 3 years ago
yes, i realize that.
zzz33333 3 years ago
as long as were clear on that.
missuscake 3 years ago
you would eventually, i disagree here, but not in the near future after the system collapses
but this time ppl will do it because they want this structure, not because they have to have a job, so less marketting, and since money will not be the motive, there will be less temptations to become immoral
yoavzi 3 years ago
You might have youtube if somebody deconstructs civilization, but it would only be possible to maintain among a small group of people. WIthout the resources and distribution that a capitalist based civilization provides nobody would be able to successfully maintain a global youtube.
missuscake 3 years ago
you are so wrong, source forge proves you're wrong... gnu proves you're wrong, i was a computer programmer for 15+ years,
we do it for fun! and if something isn't fun, it's not worth doing at all!!!!!!! (infrastructure is "fun" when you consider that it gives fun a chane to exist)
anyways...
yoavzi 3 years ago
Just because you are a computer programmer and can make programs doesn't mean you'll have any way to distribute it on a widescale. I flat out said that it would be possible with a small group of people. Remember civilization is gone there for all the huge companies that make up the internet are gone, all the phone companies are gone, hell even the US post. You don't have any distribution or even a current medium to work with. Yet with out any means to communicate you expect success.
missuscake 3 years ago
but of course you would, i am a software guy, true! but there are those whose love in life is hardware, when everyone is free from work/money making, ppl will do it for fun
i am 100% about this, in fact, since there will be no patents or reasons to delay new technology to still make profit from old ones, you'll have better speeds, and better infrastructure
besides, i don't get your point, you want forever prison ? forever have to ? don't you believe in humans goodness ?
yoavzi 3 years ago
I didn't say that what I wanted I'm just saying that it will be impossible. Without civilization you wouldn't even be able to call people on the telephone. There is no way you could make it global. You might be able to get your entire community of people that live around you, but never global.
missuscake 3 years ago
it's a "funny" thing
can you prove it ?
i cannot dis-prove it, i admit
but can you prove this ?
is slavery your only idea of a life filled with techonological gizmos....
i don't wish to argue with you, but have a little bit ore faith in the goodness of humans.
and also the god of boredom might convince ppl that they want to do it... not have to
yoavzi 3 years ago
What kind of life I want to lead has nothing to do with the fact that it would be impossible to even have the internet globally without civilization. It isn't possible.
missuscake 3 years ago
so the question is, which is worth more: the internet or the health of the entire planet?
zzz33333 3 years ago
I will assume that the question is, which is worth more to ME. The answer is: the Internet. I've seen no evidence to indicate the total collapse of the global ecosystem or the society in which I function in my lifetime. During the (hopefully)few decades that I have left "civilization" should continue to chug along and keep me at the top of the foodchain.
TrappedNhere 3 years ago
no, the question is not which is worth more to YOU, because who the fuck are YOU?
the question is, which is WORTH MORE. period. the answer is not the internet. the internet couldn't exist without the world. it's a trick question because the internet is part of what is destroying the planet as a life-supporting system.
you're saying "i don't care because it won't affect me." well, you're refusing to acknowledge how it IS affecting you NOW, which is just sad to me.
and you're being selfish,
zzz33333 3 years ago
which is just a dick move.
if you're not willing to sacrifice so that others may live, then you don't deserve to be alive.
zzz33333 3 years ago
A nice set of values for a new dawn: genocide. Is that death to all selfish people, or only the elimination of peopel who disagree with you?
I was/am simply trying to find some solid, logical basis for "saving" the planet for future generations. All I am hearing is some quasi-religious altruistic buzz. "Worth" more? How, to whom?
TrappedNhere 3 years ago
it has nothing to do with killing people.
it has to do with not living inside of civilization.
that means all living humans will be healthier, rather than right now we have way too many humans and most of them are very unhealthy and they are destroying the world.
zzz33333 3 years ago
Umm.. ok. English is not my first language and somehow the "you don't deserve to be alive" threw me off.
TrappedNhere 3 years ago
i am not saying that i want to kill people. i am saying, if one is not willing to fight to preserve life, he does not deserve the life he has been given.
zzz33333 3 years ago
I don't get you. I thought women were more complicated, but YOU!!! You're #1 on the "?" meter. It's like you saying that if I don't join the Army, I should die for not protecting Americans & our freedom; our way of life! It is our right to do what ever we want to do with our lives.
tank331 3 years ago
you think?
nobody has the right to rape me.
isolheim 3 years ago
Of course it would be 'possible' to have world-wide communications without civilization.
The radio spectrum would be empty of all the pap the civilized 'elite' feel they need to broadcast to the rest.
For a long time all the technical stuff necessary to built a world-wide communication system (of limited bandwidth) will be available in the detritus of civilization. Plenty of time to learn how to make it again.
While making useful semiconductors is difficult, making vacuum tubes is easy.
rspiesr 3 years ago
wow of course all the technical stuff is necessary. Your the second techno geek to get at me. I'm simply talking about the nuts and bolts of the wrold not the nuts and bolts of a machine my friend. You would not have the means or the money. Because without society there is no legal tender to create an internet in the first place. You would still have the know how but you wouldn't have the means. )
missuscake 3 years ago
I'm simply commenting on the fact that despite this video's coherence and valid point he is using a corporate entity(youtube) that exists in a globably corporate medium(the internet).
missuscake 3 years ago
i just accidentally removed a comment that i was trying to reply to.
dammit.
zzz33333 3 years ago
It's undabatable that man made God because of ignorance superstition and fear and religion as well as civilazation are the biggest mass murderers that history has ever seen.
sundiatasoulbefree 3 years ago
Im not going to leave a long ass essay but I think your video and your thoughts are awsome and reguardless of if people agree or disagree at least you are strong enough to put your thoughts out there so props to you homie your certified fresh in my book...and thats undabatable!
sundiatasoulbefree 3 years ago
Civilization is unhealthy, "The Natural" is the best way? Wow... Neo-Luddite much? Millions of people have died since "civilization" (whatever that means) and millions have died before, millions will die after. Life is not eternal, it dies eventually. Life feeds on life, deal with it. You also say we have agency and we can change it, but that we all necessarily do things differently, so are you in essence refuting your own argument? Also, only a sophist can say "undebatable" as much as you sir.
Vertigopills 3 years ago
i bet you feel pretty good about yourself.
you didn't refute my argument at all.
my argument is not that civilization causes death,
death is unavoidable.
my argument is that civilization is a less healthy and effective system than primitive tribes.
refute this intelligently with facts and support or shut up and listen.
zzz33333 3 years ago
Ummm, my rebuttal isn't me trying to prove myself so don't make assumptions. I didn't refute, sure... but you didn't make a concise argument either. Primitive tribalism, though efficient and less impactful, is regressive and conservative. I don't see how it could be any better than a civilization that encourages melding of ideas and debate, whereas tribal systems are mainly upheld by religious fundamentalists like the quakers and the Dalai Lama, or are insolvent like the Paris Commune.
Vertigopills 3 years ago
what do you mean by "regressive and conservative?"
civilization does not encourage melding of ideas...????
civilization encourages civilized ideas.
where is your information coming from?
zzz33333 3 years ago
"regressive and conservative" meaning restricting and backstepping, defying and absolving innovation.
Civilization... such a broad term by the way. How do you define it?
Civilization may or may not encourage civilized ideas, it is not a conscious force... this reeks of collectivist dogma.
Myself and stuff I have read...
Vertigopills 3 years ago
civilization is a form of human society based on perpetual growth through exploitation.
all human societies are advanced.
civilization doesn;t encourage civilized ideals? what utter bullshit.
like, name me one piece of "stuff."
zzz33333 3 years ago
Perpetual growth in what way? Empires rise and fall; nature, weather, and mankind have been fighting for thounsands of years. Plagues, natural disasters, war, etc..
Are you asserting some kind of exploitation theory? What exactly is the type of exploitation that goes on, and why is it right/wrong?
Not all human societies are advanced... look at parts of Africa, Asia, South America... all victims of colonialism.
How can you prove an abstract idea like civilization is self-preserving?
Vertigopills 3 years ago
all types of exploitation.
exploitation is inherently wrong.
define "advanced."
i never said "civilization is self-preserving." it isn't.
zzz33333 3 years ago
All types of exploitation... how subjective of you. Anything can be called exploitation from a certain angle therfore your theory is moot.
Exploitation is wrong, but what is exploitation for one person is intelligence to another.
Advanced: access to clean water, knowledge of crop growth, raising livestock, ability to create housing, clothing, and pursue, arts, crafts, etc.
You infer it is because it "encourages civilized ideas" and how better to self-preserve than to discuss in its own form.
Vertigopills 3 years ago
100% of America's rivers and streams are polluted. clean water??
monoculture is not knowledge of crop growth.
i'd say we have less knowledge than other cultures.
zzz33333 3 years ago
the people here who are saying "this is debateable and this isnt" arent even getting the point. You guys need to stop changing the subject and listen. Zack is not issuing a challenge, he trying to teach you something on his free time.
Did you know? You can use old motor oil to fertilize your lawn.
Ninjaburger77 3 years ago
i did not know that.
you can also let your lawn fertilize itself.
zzz33333 3 years ago
Lol, well you cant really. Quote from fight club that was...mmm yes, talk like yoda now I will.
Anyways, Zack! do you chat on EFnet? I do sometimes. I heard you had been seen there. if your not busy... reply to this so I know your coming and we should meet up and chat there. I would enjoy talking with you one on one. My username is Ymmuipo.
Ninjaburger77 3 years ago
dude wait a sec..."undebateable"?
all information is debateable. you don't have to accept the arguments that people use in the debate, but there is no such thing as undebateable information. otherwise how can the human mind develop?
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
ok. forget what i just wrote. i just thought of something undebateble. jack and cokes are delicious and refreshing.
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
i don't think that's true.
but here's something undebatable: civilization is responsible for the destruction of the world.
zzz33333 3 years ago
what's not true? my 1st or 2nd comment (or both)? :P
actually it is debatable because people are debating it on this video. not saying that you're right or wrong about the truth as you see it. But not all humans interpret the same information the same way. Debate is how one moves closer to a clearer picture of a given situation. that's all i know (or think i know!).
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
btw--i do agree with you. earlier, pre-civilized humans didn't give a shit about being naked. now, people go apeshit when they see a tit for a split second on tv during the super bowl. then, watch the football guys knock the shit out of each other moving an oblong ball up and down a field. now that i think about it, it kinda messed up. and i used to play football.
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
civilized humans fear of the naked human body is weird. considering that we are born naked. that's my point. going to sleep now.
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
haha! 'going to sleep'. bad choice of words. going to bed cause i am tired is what i meant!
jeremyjake1988 3 years ago
The majority doesn't have a chance.
DANE842 3 years ago
window of civilization... TV?
DANE842 3 years ago
pain IS a terrific teacher.
DANE842 3 years ago
HELLO! FORMER RICH BUSINESSMAN IN EARLY DEVELOPMENT...go for the gusto.
DANE842 3 years ago
However would't you agree that it is in the human nature to "destroy" ? I mean what I get from your video is that somehow we have to break the cycle and DO something about the issues around us.(by cycle I mean civilization)But by breaking the cycle wouldn't that just lead to more conflict and chaos?
Keldiven 3 years ago
no, it is not in the human nature to destroy. that's factually wrong.
zzz33333 3 years ago
Are you afraid of debate?
pchannell 3 years ago
no.
zzz33333 3 years ago
I truly agree with everything you say. However my honest opinion is that many people might see you as cynical and negative. I see you as realistic and raw-yet not something other people want to confront.
PhorbieOwns 3 years ago
hey, all of you: make your OWN videos and spout off your own truths instead of getting mad at zzz33333 for saying what he thinks in HIS videos! what else is he gonna say besides what he thinks is the truth? jeeeeeez.....
Model68 3 years ago
So he "thinks" this is the truth? I thought it was all "undebatable". Doesn't that mean that what he says is readily apparent to everyone? Or maybe it means that these are all proven facts, just like 2+2=4. If so, I'd like him to prove these assertions, or at least make an argument. Unfortunately, he gives no arguments and no proofs.
pchannell 3 years ago
it's true, i'm not really talking about opinions, i am talking about facts.
it's like, when people said the earth was round, the general public laughed at them and ridiculed them for being so radical and insane.
but, the earth IS round!
so here i am saying civilization is actually really unhealthy and inefficient, and everyone is laughing and calling me crazy..
but civilization IS unhealthy and inefficient!
it's undebatable (unless you re-define the words "healthy" and "efficient")
zzz33333 3 years ago
We can prove the earth is round. You claim that this soft brained crap is fact. NOW SHOW ME! PROVE THIS CRAP! PROVIDE EVIDENCE! MAKE AN ARGUMENT!
pchannell 3 years ago
People also laugh and call creationists crazy. Just because people call you a fool doesn't mean you have a new, radical idea they're not ready for. Sometimes you're just a damn fool to begin with.
SpazzDog 3 years ago
"Readily apparent" is only apparent to people who can think for themselves instead of parroting off all the crap their teachers and parents taught to them. And incidentally, 2+2 only = 4 in number bases above 4! WAKE UP !! And while I'm at it, GO GET YOUR OWN DAMNED PROOF. Fuck arguments. (I was in a bad mood and picked your comment randomly -- nothing personal, as that would be simply uncivilized. :P *peace*)
gruvinnz 3 years ago
And WTF?!?! Why doesn't YouTube actually attach my comments to the @#$@! comments I'm commenting on?!?!@#! DOn't tell me it does -- I'm telling you, it's UN FREAKIN DEBATEABLE. :P
gruvinnz 3 years ago
haha
zzz33333 3 years ago
"Fuck arguments." Oh, really? Why are you here arguing then? And I don't need to provide proofs for some one else. Do your own homework. Anyone can make a bunch of stupid statements and then say they are "undebatable". Oh, and while I'm at it, FUCK YOU!
pchannell 3 years ago
wait a minute, pchannell...
you want me to prove the earth is round?
zzz33333 3 years ago
prove the things you said in you vid. dumb ass. You said you could so DO IT!
pchannell 3 years ago
"when living under near-isolated conditions, apart from civilization and the food of civilization, primitive man lives in much better physical condition than does the usual member of civilized society." - Arnold Devries, 1952, "primitive man and his food."
zzz33333 3 years ago
in "the original affluent society," from 1968, Marshall Sahlins explores how most primitive people work an average of 3-5 hours per day to get what they need to be happy and healthy.
We work 8-12 hours a day or more, and few of us are truly happy or healthy.
I don't have time to type the crucial bits from every book I own in here, but i'll recommend some great ones:
In the Absence of the Sacred by Jerry Mander
Endgame by Derrick Jensen
A Little Matter of Genocide by Ward Churchill
zzz33333 3 years ago
Things are not true just because you say so. Who elected you king of all truth?
pchannell 3 years ago
things are NOT true just because i say so, i agree.
the things that i say do not come from my own mind alone, they come from a lot of different minds and books and studies and experiments.
zzz33333 3 years ago
i agree with a lot of whjat you said, lol made viddy response rather thn type tho
awasteofbandwidth 3 years ago
Man is nature exploiting itself.
TheDevilsAdvocate55 3 years ago
uh, what?
that would be true if all humans lived by exploiting, but they dont.
understand?
zzz33333 3 years ago
name me one human that doesn't live by exploiting nature in one way or another, through eating plants, animals, or just using nature as a resource in general.
You wont, because its impossible.
Understand?
TheDevilsAdvocate55 3 years ago
there is a big difference between eating an animal and exploiting it.
that's why we have two words: "Eating" and "exploiting."
understand?
zzz33333 3 years ago
No one seems to debate with me about this. I think the root problem isn't civilization but that humans have a sickness in their nature which causes them to create unsustainable and harmful ways of living. Unless we can get rid of our laziness and greed we can't fully overcome.
RVqueen 3 years ago
i will happily debate this with you
most humans if not forced to, will be happy not to step on each other.... however, in a global market place, the nice ones lose, so the least moral prosper, as they have less inhibitions about child labour etc.... morever! the avg joe, has not too much money,so he will buy the cheap product, and all in all, the few who are assholed drag the many(!) who are ok, down the drain of moral bankrupcy.... do you agree ?
yoavzi 3 years ago
LOL I don't see that as a debate. Sure I can agree with what you said. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's just a tendency. Good people CAN separate from the system which is being run by the "least moral." We can localize our markets, produce for ourselves and our own communities, etc. The question is WILL WE?
RVqueen 3 years ago
i thought you said "no one wants to debate..." but still....
it doesn't have to be that way in a non money prioented system, in the system we live in, it will stay like this, i think
anyways, i hope some of us will not want to live like this, that is my hope!
yoavzi 3 years ago
wait, RVqueen, are you kidding?
you really think humanity is the problem?
are you saying all humans always live the way we do?
zzz33333 3 years ago
What I am saying is... that the problem is that humans create harmful civilizations. Civilization is one result of our problems. Get rid of it and someone will still be living harmfully... unsustainable civilizations fall and then more return because the root cause of the harm is still there.
RVqueen 3 years ago
ah! i see!
well, yes, i agree. but then again, the snake of every sin lurks within each of us at every moment!
that's the whole thing about consciousness.... you get to make choices!
"timshel"
zzz33333 3 years ago
i think that as long as we will live in a hierarcical system, ppl will not be hapy, the bottom of the pyramid by design has more ppl, so the masses will never be happy
i wanted to see a revolution (really did) but i think it will not happen.
my hopes are for a (in no order)
scientific, no-money, "flat" society (no pyramid), no-rules, food and water are accessible to everyone.
and that is all
then we will see for the first time, what humans eally want, when they are free!
yoavzi 3 years ago
i can even imagie this happening, in a one world scenario
where your only obligation is that from 18 to 21 you do the housekeeping jobs for the rest of humanity (farming if needed, sewers, house building .... etc) and then you have given your share to the human race, and are free again
now this is sustainable, and fun!
just a thought, but an old one of mine
yoavzi 3 years ago