200,000 years of tribalism

is that a good book? im just getting into history.

Docility and amicability to human presence can totally be passed on via genetics. That's how domestication works.

>solar energy

I love the potential just like everyone else, but current solar technology tech, just like smartphones, requires rare earth minerals.

maybe more than just rare metals becoming actually too rare to sustain big civilizations and fossil fuels going the same way, superbacteria becoming too invincible is what is going to kick us back into the stone age at least for a while until maybe some of us develops a natural resistance

>TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US GUISE
>GUYS
>HEY GUYS
>WE CAN KEEP OUR COMPLACENT, TECHOLOGY-DEPENDENT LIFESTYLES IN OUR BLOATED COCOONS FOREVER GUISE
>WE CAN AVOID PHYSICAL HARDSHIP AND MANUAL LABOR FOREVER GUS

Fuck you you weak faggots. You're the reason the human race is fucked.

People who say "lol climate change and resource depletion will wipe out humanity." are dumb s fuck.

The only reason why humanity is facing these problems is because it lives off in a Capitalist scarcity economy that calls for even more production. If anything, far before any natural disaster, conflict will arise over scarce resources like drinkable water, oil, rare earth, if we don't change the way things are going.

It is very unlikely humanity will survive another global conflict, the people who will return to tribalism will be living a hellish existence, or possibly a slow death if a nuclear winter happens.

Agreed. Everyone is so spoiled and comfortable today that it is actually disgusting. They actually believe the way we live is natural. We're getting weaker as a people and fucking the earth by overpopulation, agriculture, and urbanization.

Just read Junger's new book, OP?

I think it's worth a read, though take a certain amount of what he says with a grain of salt

>tfw knowing industrial civilization won't survive the next 200 years
>99% of people think that we'll just colonize mars or something and everything will be awesome forever and technology will always save the day

I feel you, OP. This is the truest meaning of despair.

Go join an Amish community, Ted.

I privately agree with this

All species are fucked. The odds favor oblivion. Most of all species that ever existed have become extinct. Humanity isn't even one of the top 10 hardiest on Earth; some have seen the great dinosaurs come and go.

Even if our descendancy lasts for millions of years: at some point they'll be so different from us we wouldn't identify them readily as members of humanity.

thanks

Humanity will always find a way. Always.

>He doesn't realize that with global communication (internet) and travel (jet planes), once we elect the new Ceasar we will literally conquer the galaxy.

Yeah probably

Stay fucking mad luddites

>new Ceasar
And who would that be?

...

I'm torn on this. Some people just project at what they want the world to be and fit their projection to that. Some hardcore enviromentalist want a collapse (muh nature) so they predict it or at least hope for it
Some technophiles are optimistic because collapse wouldn't fit their worldview
Confirmation bias at work
What will probably happen is serious issues with some resources and structural changes in society because of it, and on the other hand inventions that solve some issues

Both techno-optimism and pessimism + collapse fetish is not helpful to the problems we face

I think all can agree though that we have some major problems

It's simple OP. Humanity is a flawed species, geared toward survival without technology yet having a brain that allows us to build to correct our flaws. Unfortunately, the only solution to this was either to never acquire this level of intelligence (and never enjoy its benefits) or to create something that lacks all the flaws of being a biological being with fixed needs and wants, thus making life and humanity as a concept meaningless, as a perfect being lacks the basic emotions that make life important to begin with.

In the meantime, humanity goes through cycles of boom and bust corrections, which is the best you're going to get if you actually care about progress. It's always been like this anyway; life was not inherently better at any other point in time, we all have our own problems.

I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law

We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody

I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal

>he thinks that there's no grey area between fossil fuel paradise and stone age primitivism

user, post-Westphalian state formation happened long before the first steam engine.

And that isn't getting into geothermal, solar, and wind. Sure, they aren't nearly as cheap as coal and gas, but even a 95% drop in standard of living for the US would leave us ahead of any human society prior to the industrial revolution.

>200.000
>6000
>2500
>300
>100
>dem digits shrinking so fast
Holy fuck. Will we decline or are we just getting started?

Kek. Look at the amount of things we're trying to change about ourselves. It's just the means that are changing - we begin with consumer patterns and social media, then we go on to medicine. Massive genetic modification is just a matter of 1-2 generations.

it's lit

>stop breathing
>save the climate

So what is your alternative and how many billions of people do we need to kill to achieve it?

Yes?

Wipe out urbanites, start by collapsing the chinese economy with a western embargo and stop saving africans.

>no grey area

Sure there is. My idea of a better future is one where people are off their fat asses more. Driving for any distance less than 5-8 miles will be frowned upon, and the alternative being biking. Any healthy person should be able to bike 10 miles in a little over 30 minutes. This is just a small example of course.

The biggest idea is less reliance on a global/national economy for subsistence and less reliance on technology for transportation to get said subsistence. We would need far fewer population levels for this to work, and a much more advanced system for communication technology. Basically, people should expect to subside on what their immediate environments can provide. No, you don't need fucking oranges from Florida in late Fall. If you want oranges from Florida, move closer to Florida. A massive amount of energy is wasted in the name of convenience and mass production. Another step would be to eliminate one-use packaging. Every store should instead be a "bulk" store where you bring your own containers to hold the food you buy, all sealable for freshness, etc, but reusable and thereby eliminating the need for plastics and other disposables that toxify the environment.

Basically, there should be a hierarchy of resources. The things we need the most frequently, food, water, energy, etc should come from as close to the consumers as possible, and things of less importance should come from further away. There is no reason to rely on places far away for your everyday subsistence. How much energy is wasted packaging, transporting and storing food and a shitload of non-essential products from huge distances away to our local grocery store simply for our own convenience and luxury? It's a huge waste.

I know my ideas are full of holes but I get the feeling that that type of thinking is the next step forward if we want to make our lives better for the challenges we face next. If we're going to live capitalist lives we may as well be efficient at it, and use our bodies in the meantime. I'm tired of everyone being so fucking sedentary, it's sickening. Going to the gym doesn't count, if you think it does, you've obviously never worked a proper labor job.

But, desu, do you think that people are willing to give up certain lifestyles? Smoking has become a kind of taboo but it doesn't stop people from smoking. And while fossil fuels are starting to become tabboo, I think most people want to expend as much energy as they do now, just greener.

Yeah, that's the problem. People are addicted to this lifestyle. But if you're ever given the opportunity to live in the wilderness for a few weeks, it changes you. You start to realize that all this shit we surround ourselves with is really superfluous nonsense that doesn't actually make us happy, and instea just blankets us with a sort-of lukewarm complacency. It's pretty sad actually. I felt true ecstatic vibration of joy out when I was living off the land, I don't know why I ever came back. I will be going back soon. This society is seriously deluded, and it's even sadder to see the masses of intellect on the internet be so intelligent on most issues except for anything that challenges their first-world lifestyle. It's pretty scary how many people think that they are truly happy. All thanks to "progress." Progress toward what exactly?

Well shit if you're gonna be like that we might as well take this as far as we can and run it into the ground. Spotted the nihilist.

>Once surface metals and fossil fuels are depleted we'll go back to living the old way.
Kek. At which stage we will be farming the near infinite expanse that is the universe.

No thanks, fuck off Schop

>They actually believe the way we live is natural
Care to explain how it is unnatural? I really hate this school of thought it's so bigoted it's not funny. You think for some reason you are different than the universe? Even though it was he universe who birthed you? What he fuck is wrong with you? Our technology and everything we can do is completely natural - to call it unnatural is just mind boggling. Why do people like you think so small scale? Fuck this earth, as long as it allows us to get off of it - that's all it's needed to do. I mean look at how many stars out there, and you lament over the LOSS OF A SINGLE PLANET?

We are literally a cancer spreading across the universe, it's fucking great. Love it or kill yourself. Do you think cancer hates itself for killing it's host? God no, it simply does what it has to do to survive. Fuck off with your childish sensibilities.

There is literally no evidence to even give you a remote belief in this. You are judging your basis on the fact that everything we have here on earth is all there is in the universe.

Verily, you're a fucking idiot.

You are aware that we Humans have been unnatural since the very first time we learned we could hut better by using sharp objects or forage better by tying small sticks together into baskets. or that the fur of our prey could be used for clothing or that we could muster the strength of fire?
We have been unnatural since even before Homo Sapiens evolved.

Yes, it isn't. It was 200,000 years of it because the best technology we had was a rock.

We still live in tribes now, we have our immediate family, our friends, and our acquaintances. You'd know about the same amount of people living in a tribe.
The only difference is we have incredibly hostile to people we don't know, and we interact with them daily.

Life itself should not exist by natural law with that logic.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD AND SKULLS FOR HIS THRONE!

>You are aware that we Humans have been unnatural since the very first time we learned we could hut better by using sharp objects or forage better by tying small sticks together into baskets.
Wrong, we are still a part of fucking nature. What do you make of Monkeys who use tools to acquire food, it's not fucking unnatural you hippie fuck with. End yourself, now.

What about the Bottle Nose Dolphin which uses sponges to catch it's prey?

What about Orangutans who use leaves as a whistle?

Do you even know what Elephants are capable of?

Again, I am serious here. Fucking kill yourself, do us all a favour. Our superior brain and use thereof is entirely natural and is the apex this planet has to offer. You are dragging us down.

>We are literally a cancer spreading across the universe, it's fucking great.
kek

So when exactly does the use of tolls become unnatural and when does it not?

>implying humanity would leave comfort for living that way

look back at your age count

realize that we are exponentially accelerating towards something utterly inhuman

embrace it user

I'm ready for the upcoming cyber-reality

Not him, but you can see many differences between our modern lifestyles and the conditions we evolved in response to, and the mismatch can be seen in dysevolution. I'm not saying we should go back to being tribal, but taking this into account is likely to be beneficial.

>This thread

>cutting out the full view of the jelly bitches in the background
4shame, it made me twice as hard

Recycling?

What? Are you just salty about having to pay taxes? Jesus fucking Christ. Beta males pay a tax of subservience to the alpha, happy?

>but taking this into account is likely to be beneficial.
Well this depends on what you mean as beneficial. If you think it's more beneficial to die with your planet than it is to spread across the universe and to not die, even when the universe does then yes, it may be more beneficial to stay with the planet - there is no way in hell that is the most beneficial route or human kind though.

This is, of course, assuming we don't destroy ourselves/aliens kill us what ever you want to say.

I think he meant tools

I mean it more in the sense that a total lack of exercise etc is bad for more than just appearance. And I suspect that spending time in forests and nature is beneficial even if it's just a similar effect to meditation/reduced stress, and that the enjoyment of this in some sense imprinted on us. Possibly by a similar mechanism to how the young of many species that are independent from birth seem to indistinctly know some of the basics of how to survive, eg being uncomfortable out in the open, more relaxed in a sheltered location.

Heh, in that case - literally never. Why would it? Why is it unnatural for sentient life to use tools but all other life-forms it's okay?

*instinctively

in a way, it is the complete triumph of autism.

I think the "humanity is a cancer" or "humans are like a big tumor" argument is such bullshit, because whenever someone makes it, like this user, they're missing the point of the cancer analogy entirely. Such black and white thinking.

We are "individual" organisms making up the dense web of life around us we like to call our local ecosystem. Included in this ecosystem are also other mammals, fungi, plants, bacteria, etc. Like I said, you can look at this like cells in a body, working together in a balance. As you may know, no body is an island, it needs not only a competitive and healthy outer environment to draw sustainance from, but the body itself is an ecosystem of different organisms working in /balance/, not /together/ necessarily (think gut bacteria), but in balance with each other. Another analogy for this balance is how most mushroom species are not parasitic, but instead symbiotic. Without mushrooms and many other fungi, forests could not exist. The trees, animals, and insects would be missing a huge component in their web of life. The name of the game is cooperation and balance in nature. Its also equal parts competition, or close to equal parts, make no mistake. This isn't a frilly flowery utopian ideology, I'm just doing my best to interpret nature's behavior, not idolize it. Anyway, my point is that ecosystems act a lot like bodies if you research them enough. They evolve and change just like the living individuals they are composed of. The universe is like some kind of fractal nesting doll. Remember that I am not fucking saying that ecosystems are HUMAN bodies or even that they're literally bodies at all. I'm just saying that the phenomenon that we call bodies are very much like the ecosystems we inhabit if you choose to "pan-out" the "camera" so to speak.

All this is to ask the question, what does the body do when cancer comes, or a disease rages through the body? Other cells try and kill it. T-cells attack certain types of cancers.

I think the "humanity is a cancer" or "humans are like a big tumor" argument is such bullshit, because whenever someone makes it, like this user, they're missing the point of the cancer analogy entirely. Such black and white thinking.

We are "individual" organisms making up the dense web of life around us we like to call our local ecosystem. Included in this ecosystem are also other mammals, fungi, plants, bacteria, etc. Like I said, you can look at this like cells in a body, working together in a balance. As you may know, no body is an island, it needs not only a competitive and healthy outer environment to draw sustenance from, but the body itself is an ecosystem of different organisms working in /balance/, not /together/ necessarily (think gut bacteria), but in balance with each other. Another analogy for this balance is how most mushroom species are not parasitic, but instead symbiotic. Without mushrooms and many other fungi, forests could not exist. The trees, animals, and insects would be missing a huge component in their web of life.

Point being, the name of the game is cooperation and balance in nature. (Its also equal parts competition, make no mistake. This isn't a frilly flowery utopian ideology, I'm just doing my best to interpret nature's behavior, not idolize it. There are predators and prey in nature, a lot of killing, and also a lot of disease and death. However, there has to be a balance for the ecosystem to exist healthily and to thrive.)

Anyway, my point is that ecosystems act a lot like bodies if you research them enough. They evolve and change just like the living individuals they are composed of. The universe is kinda like some kind of fractal nesting doll.

problems present people with the incentive to move forward, not back

Cont'd.

Remember that I am not fucking saying that ecosystems ARE human bodies or even that they're literally bodies at all. I'm just saying that the phenomenon that we call bodies are very much like the phenomenon we call ecosystems. If you choose to "pan-out" the "camera" so to speak, the universe looks very self-similar.

All this is to ask the question, what does the body do when cancer comes, or a disease rages through the body? When a destructive pattern replicates itself, doesn't work with the rest of the flow, consumes resources to create molecules that have no purpose in the body but to exist and grow, and eventually stand to kill the body? Other cells try and kill it. T-cells attack certain types of cancers. Or if you choose to look at medicine as an analogy, we try and cure the cancer.

The fucking point I am making is that we are not inherently cancerous beings. We are necessary pieces of the ecological puzzle just like most other organisms on the planet. And like other pieces of that puzzle, we have the POTENTIAL to become cancerous. But it isn't our fucking destiny.

Also, it is not cancer's nature to just expand forever and grow unendingly. The point is that it either destroys its body, and in turn kills itself (like you predict), or it is CURED, and the organism lives on to reproduce, and keep the web of life going.

We want to cure the problem or, let those bodies die and try to live uncancerously and in a sustainable way. We must engage in a reciprocal manner with our environment. At the moment, most societies are engaging in quite an opposite manner. We do act very much like cancer cells. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Sorry, but you don't Think a technologichal dismanteling would solve much, right?
I meant, when the hunting gathering Indians walked onto the Indian continent about 80% of the bigger animals Went exctint.

I believe that there is some way to use our current technology to create a new type of society and a new way of interacting with our ecosystems, but it is a lifestyle that will require a lot of work, and won't necessarily be easier. I'm not quite sure of how this future looks exactly, but I have a few little ideas. All I know is that a lot of the sedentaryism that we are allowed is made possible by immense amounts of cheap labor overseas, also slave labor, other forms of suffering, and other imbalance across the globe. We depend on that currently as first world nations. I think that we don't HAVE to, though. It might be accomplished by a change in people's thinking and paradigms. They need to realize what an important role they play in their environments. You can look at as an environment as an extension of your body, (or vice versa) really, because without it, you would not exist.

>really, because without it, you would not exist.
No shit, one day we will be creating ecosystems and environments of our own though, we will be changing the way a planet works to suit our own needs. Nothing you have said holds weight as you are talking about the far future without even looking at said far future, you think we will be in the same state in 100 years even though there is about to be another huge explosion in technology (Mars missions and Quantum computing).

There is literally no way you can know what the world is going to be like in 50 years, much like when classical computing became a thing. It sure as fuck is going to be no way near the same state we are in now though.

How about we talk about the book instead?

Ah yes, I suppose you think that we can actually create something as complex as an ecosystem? We can barely understand the complexity of the human brain and you think we have the ability to create something as complex as entire ecosystems without overlooking small details? Why do we even have to create our own environments? Why not just take the fertile and fecund land that we are surrounded by and let it replenish itself a little more. Just a little rest time would do wonders for our planet's biodiversity. Why do we have to come up with a better model of fucking everything? Why can't we just let things run their course instead of putting our slimy fingers all up inside it all the time? I don't understand the arrogance of humanity. There is no fucking need to create your own environments. We were born on a planet that has more than enough nourishment to go around.

As another user, I'd like to add that nothing is "created" by nature and the notion that nature can create is infantile.

Things don't make things. Things exist in different states and observe each other. Nature is just a word some things use to describe a group of things

This is actually fairly accurate.
We've spoilt antibiotics.

I'm trying god damnit, haven't had a need for antibiotics in years. But all these faggots with shittier immune systems than me are fucking it up.

I remember reading that if we were to go off antibiotics entirely for like a decade, then all the resistant viruses would gradually drop their resistance, and after that point even plain old penicillin would work again.

At one stage people had no idea who planes would work. Look at us now.

You are asking for answers to questions we don't have yet, just because we don't have them doesn't mean we will never have them though.

And again, go do some research into quantum computing, it's essentially limitless technology and can store more bits of data than atoms in the universe. Make a big enough quantum computer input all the correct variables and it will tell you what ever you want it to. Within the data set available of course. Quantum computing isn't even the last step, it's the second step in computing, if you think of the classical computer as the first step (which it isn't). We cannot even comprehend the fullest extent of a quantum computer, and more technology will come because of it.

>input all the correct variables

But to recreate a biological ecosystem your variables wouldn't be any were near as accurate you could get in physics, and there's far more occurring than in meteorology.

>I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution.

Im rolling my eyes now..

Literally fight me, faggot.

Domestication works because the population is bred to be more docile, with the more aggressive members of the population being out-bred or removed. As far as I can tell in our society it seems like the angry people are breeding more than the docile sheeple.

And how exactly will we be transporting massive amounts of minerals from space to earth? Can you imagine the amount of energy we will need for this?

Don't! It could be yet another tragic misstep in evolution.

>humans and their actions are special snowflakes and are not part of nature

kill yourself

You don't understand. For instance, if you have the variables leading up to the big-bang the quantum computer (if it were big enough) could then give you a perfect simulation of said universe.

Humans are more than capable of building an engine with physics the same as our universe.
>wouldn't be any were near as accurate you could get in physics
It would be exactly the same, given the input is correct. Seriously, go learn about quantum computing, anyone who even wants to think about the future but leaves that out is ignorant of the technology we have.

Keep in mind, we have a working quantum computer, we just have no clue how to use it.

An actual homosexual wrote this book.

>Can you imagine the amount of energy we will need for this?

Lucky Japan aren't fucking around.

feels like it has been written by a /pol/lack

Don't have to, I run a 5:30 mile and getting faster every day, good luck keeping up babby ;)

Tribalism has been abandoned by China since how long ago? A really fucking long time ago.

Why Being this up? Is China a great place I live?

And a 30 cent bullet moves a hell of a lot faster than than so...

hi Rust.

generic faith and examples of human sacrifice always come out of the woodwork when things get really shitty.

The fastest way to die is to align yourself with people attempting to predict the emperors new clothes.

simple answer for good fortune, have faith.

>Does anyone really believe that the future isn't tribalism?

Yes, but what's important is that the current economic framework is cyclical.

Notice the trend

Decentralized means of production {tribalism} => more and more centralized means of production in the hands of a few elites {Feudalism} => Peak {Capitalism} =>{Decentralized means of production}

But keeping in mind the advent of current technology, i'd say we're pretty much moving towards a very technologically sophisticated classless, moneyless, stateless societies.

States, at least 1000 years form now, will no longer exist.

Forgot pic.