Today I was flattered by someone who asked what it is that I want. Before answering that question, I have to point out that I ultimately don't think it matters much what I want. First of all, my opinion doesn't have much of an influence on anything. Secondly, the things that will happen to us in the decades ahead are pretty much baked into the system by now. There isn't much left to salvage sadly. In the decades ahead, we're going to lose just about everything on this Earth that's beautiful, good and true.
I mean that in the broadest sense of the word. We inherited something beautiful and we managed to squander it. There is no way around it. We're in the process of losing the world's last megafauna and the world's last old growth forests. The world we inherited is perfect, what's limited is our understanding of it. What humans perceive as evil is a necessary part of the natural order. The enlightenment philosophies that look at our universe as a cosmological accident that can be rearranged through technology into a utopia are in the process of creating hell on Earth. We misunderstood what life is about, so now we're going to reap what we've sown.
I look forward to collapse, because I know that what will most likely happen in the decades ahead is a process far worse than collapse. What will happen to us in the decades ahead is the finalization of man's isolation from nature. This is going to be an era of intense suffering. Humans will live in enormous cities and grow isolated from each other. If they engage in labor, it will be highly abstract and completely divorced from anything that could intuitively appeal to a human being. There will be epidemics of suicide and drug abuse, as well as mental illness that expresses itself in the form of pointless mass slaughter.
Most people kept alive will live lives that aren't worth living. Think of the millions of elderly, not just in Europe but soon in China and much of the third world as well, who will be kept alive in spite of having lost their minds and having no sense of autonomy or dignity whatsoever. Think of the millions who will live in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, in dirt floor shacks. Look at West Point in Monrovia and realize that this is the future that lies ahead of us. This is what the population explosion has brought upon us. Nigeria went from 37 million people in 1950, to 182 million today, to 752 million by 2100 according to the United Nations. Feel free to explain to me how these people are going to live dignified lives. It's not going to happen.
The industrial system will destroy the last great natural treasures on Earth in an effort the preserve stability and feed those of us who live in the enormous cities that form the foundation of the industrial power structure. You can look at the death of the Great Barrier Reef as a harbinger of what's to come. Most of the world's megafauna will go extinct as well. We'll lose most of the world's remaining forests too. They'll perish in forest fires or simply be burned as biomass to generate electricity. To reiterate, we're going to lose everything that's beautiful, good and true. Most people will flee into video games and virtual reality to isolate themselves from the real world around them.
Now, when it comes to what I want, I would suggest that our best option right now lies in some form of military coup in a Western nation. A military junta would then rule the nation. The first step that such a military regime would have to take would be to use its biowarfare facilities to develop some sort of biological weapon that will be used to drastically reduce the global population. By what degree would the world's population have to be reduced? This is not simple to say, any number I put on this would be pulled from thin air. It will be necessary however to free up large swathes of land that are currently dominated by humans. To do so will require massive population reduction. The biggest reduction in population will have to happen in developing countries, but all races and nations will be affected to some degree.
If we assume that the world's population has been drastically reduced, the next step would be for the military regime to observe its population and see what can be done for them. For a large share of the population, the only real option would be euthanasia. I'm not suggesting that people would be shoved into gas chambers. Rather, it seems to me that people who suffer chronic illness would be given access to professionals, who would help them look in a honest fashion at what real quality of life remains for them. In many such cases, people would come to an agreement with their medical professional to end their lives in a humane fashion. This sounds far-fetched now, but there are many cultures and eras out there, where it was normal for large swathes of the population to end their lives. The Japanese had too many volunteers for their Kamikaze program, Nazi Germany saw entire villages depopulated when the native Germans committed suicide when the national socialist regime collapsed. If society would acknowledge that it suffers severe overpopulation and that it's patriotic for citizens to volunteer to help address the problem, it would not be difficult to get rid of large swathes of the remaining population.
Such a society would lose millions of its elderly, as well as large sections of its underclass. Most drugs addicts and alcoholics would be given humane means by which to end their lives, as well as most prisoners. Those who suffer mental disorders would be helped as well, in addition to those who suffered severe trauma. Children who were offered up for adoption or grew up with abusive parents would be helped too. I find it difficult to give a clear estimate of how many people we would lose, but I think that anywhere up to a quarter of the remaining global population could be removed in this fashion. Important here is to understand that this should not be seen as a form of cruelty. Instead, we have no place in society for large swathes of people, it is in everyone's best interest to provide such people with a dignified way out.
What would happen to those people who remain? When we have lost billions of people, we can hopefully begin to abandon large swathes of land that are currently used for industrial agriculture. These plots of land would have trees grow on them and as a result begin to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A military regime would be important in this situation, as the economy would be reconfigured in a fashion that makes most people involved in manual labor. People would spend their days planting trees, others would spend their days harvesting food. Most industrial processes would be gradually phased out and replaced by manual labor. Most of our transportation would be slow, as this drastically reduces fuel use. As a result, global carbon emissions would plunge.
The major population centers that have not been wiped out, would be dismantled. Most of the world's people would live in small villages with their genetic relatives, except for a small elite of people who are "gifted" with leadership abilities. What do I mean with gifted people? I am thinking of people who are better than the rest of us in every imaginable aspect. People who are intelligent, contemplative, socially competent, good-natured, physically strong and mentally healthy. Those people would be given a military training and be encouraged to raise large families. They would mostly be tasked with debating among each other the pressing issues of their time. Based on their judgment, policy would ultimately be decided.
Most modern technology would be phased out, or the use would be severely restricted. As an example, it would be forbidden for people to have cell phones or computers inside the house. Most villages would have at most one or two computers, that are mostly used for administrative work. The people would not have any television in their household either. Instead, most people would spend their leisure time involved in some form of creative activity. They would engage in theater, music, dancing or some other form of art. Everyone would take on the role of consumer as well as producer. Many would spend most of their time engaged in nature conservation. They would spend their days giving guided tours to others, removing invasive species and improving the habitat for threatened species.
Waste would be highly taboo in this society. Most people would not own their own refrigerator. It would similarly be rare for people to live by themselves in a house. Instead, most possessions would be shared by villagers. A village might have one or two cars, that anyone is allowed to use when necessary. Throwing away old products would be taboo, every village would have some specialists who can generally fix most broken items. Old men would know how to repair electronics, old women would know how to repair clothing. As a result, resource consumption would be very low. Because everyone is healthy, there would be very little need for brick roads as well, most people would travel by foot or bicycle.
Important to note is that people wouldn't be left isolated, or made to figure things out for themselves. Everyone would have an annual health checkup, to see whether they suffer any potential defect. Healthcare would be rationed, in the sense that most of today's expensive treatments wouldn't be available. Cancer for example, would mean euthanasia, even for children. Most mental problems would be addressed through entheogens. Such entheogens would also be used by caregivers to prepare sick people for the prospect of death. The limited budget for healthcare that would be available would mostly be spent on preventing disease. The main method through which disease would be prevented is by ensuring that everyone participates in society to the best of their ability. There would for example, be zero unemployment. Everyone would be engaged in some sort of activity that fits their talents and desires. Psychologically satisfying manual labor would be more widely available, because machines would be phased out. Sociologists are correct in that most human disease today ultimately has a social cause.
The military would probably have to play a major role in society. In particular, the military would be tasked with the ability to maintain an offensive strike capability. To put it differently, a society that is mostly pre-industrial, does not engage in global trade and is sparsely populated would be easily vanquished by outside forces that seek to extract its resources. As a result, the military would be tasked with maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons, that would be sufficient to annihilate anyone who sought to intervene in their society. This is tragic, but I do not see any other means by which a society like this could be preserved. It would also be necessary to forbid access to foreign media, as industrialized nations would otherwise seek to instigate insurrection among the local population, who never understand what they stand to lose but only see what others have that they don't.
This will be without a doubt controversial among all my right wing readers, but the main tools society will have to use to prevent internal insurrections among the population will be sex and entheogens. Abortion would be legal and socially accepted. Promiscuity within villages between villagers would be encouraged, the legal availability of cannabis and a number of hallucinogens should serve to create the kind of environment where people feel comfortable being promiscuous. Young men who do not have access to young women tend to take up arms, this is what contributes to the chronic bloodshed seen in the Middle East. I experienced directly for myself that most of my anger disappeared when I found a girlfriend. For this reason, it has to be ensured that all men have access to young women. This means cultural changes, that make women less hostile to the prospect of polyandrous relationships. If this proves to be too difficult, the other option that is available is to ensure sex selective abortion. This would be used to get rid of a fair share of male births, perhaps 20% of males would be aborted.
I am well aware that most of these suggestions must seem outlandish, cruel or naive to other people. It is however, the closest thing I see to a solution for our problems. The industrial revolution itself was our main mistake and any society that wants to create lives worth living for its citizens would have to figure out a way to reverse the consequences of the industrial revolution. This will not be simple and will always require a strong military regime that can protect its society against the consequences of the maximum power principle, which tends to cause societies to pursue maximum growth.
If you see a red thread in my scenario of collectivism, you are correct. I don't like to have a strong government, I'm actually a (patient) anarchist, but I think it's necessary to have a strong authoritarian government to face the challenges we will have to deal with. I think that collectivism is necessary to help humans cope with the consequences of technology. Technology has the effect of rendering our own individual decisions wrong, by placing us in an environment where our natural impulses are not what's best for us. As an example, the average human can't be trusted not to eat too much high calorie food that leads to obesity. Technology filled our environment with high calorie food, so now we are dependent on collective decisions to restrict the amount of unhealthy food we're exposed to. We similarly have to be protected against our individual impulse to be lazy, as well as against our individual impulse to seek to take care of everyone. In addition, technology allows individuals to engage in activities that are profoundly harmful to other human beings. As a result, the development of new technologies necessitates the development of government regulation to stop us from inflicting misery upon one another.
Submitted August 11, 2016 at 02:07AM by trigger-expert http://ift.tt/2aMnwQD accountt1234
No comments:
Post a Comment