A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

Unrelenting beauty

27 04 11 - 11:11

There are a couple of schools of worldview regarding life itself. To one group, it is amazing and we need to get to know it; to the other group, it is imperfect and should be more like us.

I'm forever with the first group.

And around us, amazing things do occur.




Former Sony president Norio Ohga recognised the potential of the CD’s superior sound quality from the start.

In the 1970s, sceptics scoffed when he insisted compact discs would eventually replace records.

He insisted the CD be 4.8in in diameter, so that it could contain 75 minutes of music – the amount required to hold one of his favourite pieces, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, in its entirety. - The Daily Mail




Some people experience a sense of transcendent clarity, where the ways of the world and the ways of the mind are in agreement.

They often become thankful, reverent, and dedicate their lives to praising and explicating it.

From this we get the great artists, the divine intellects, and the inspired leaders. They love life first, and only secondarily worry about themselves, so they make more objective and generous decisions.


INTERVIEWER: What is your definition of a Romantic?

HOUELLEBECQ: It’s someone who believes in unlimited happiness, which is eternal and possible right away. Belief in love. Also belief in the soul, which is strangely persistent in me, even though I never stop saying the opposite. - The Paris Review


And you find people bonding with life all the time, discovering an eternal happiness. They find it in the genius of life itself, and in having the ability to participate -- and if very lucky, to glorify -- this wonderful thing called existence, or consciousness, or even life.




A wayward otter turned on its would-be rescuers in Tulla on Monday as it was found wandering up the town's main street.

Farmer Joe Burke and shop owner Mike Hogan first noticed the animal as it passed by on the footpath outside Mr Hogan's window.

Concerned for its safety, they decided to come to its aid. However, the otter clearly had other ideas. - BBC


Perhaps, as Kant states and Plato intimates, we are viewfinders moving through a vast field of data, only some of which we can comprehend and through tripartite interaction (cause->effect/observer) can understand as time and space, and the objects necessarily within.

Perhaps the patterns of reality are greater than the sum of its parts, and that consciousness is not within the electrical impulses of our brain, but a pattern described by them. In such a world mythic imagination thrives, mainly because by finding metaphorical truth, it is more accurate than detail-oriented science.


At bidding of a Will, to which we bend
(and must), but only dimly apprehend,
great processes march on, as Time unrolls
from dark beginnings to uncertain goals;
and as on page o'er-written without clue,
with script and limning packed of various hue,
an endless multitude of forms appear,
some grim, some frail, some beautiful, some queer,
each alien, except as kin from one
remote Origo, gnat, man, stone, and sun.
God made the petreous rocks, the arboreal trees,
tellurian earth, and stellar stars, and these
homuncular men, who walk upon the ground
with nerves that tingle touched by light and sound. - Mythopoeia by J.R.R. Tolkien


Sometimes even it seems as if the world itself dreams and hopes along with us; or rather, is carved from the same dreaming and hoping monism that aspires to be self-consistent and self-adoring, a cycle of endurance that produces endless joy and interesting patterns, thus escaping itself to a higher plane of mathematical beauty.


These grey whales are so friendly that they even don't mind being kissed by adoring tourists.

The good-natured seafaring giants will swim right up to human visitors, who can dip their faces into the sea to plant a smacker on the heads of the huge 40-ton sea mammals, who can be found off the west coast of Mexico.

The whales love a pat on the head and a rub on their smooth and sometimes barnacle-covered 45foot-long bodies. - The Daily Mail




If you find yourself alienated by the stupid, short-sighted, brain-dead, callow, oblivious, solipsistic and crass in humanity, your hatred may be a form of love that is suggesting instead we praise the glory of existence and awareness.

It's easy to get caught in the hatred, and forget its parent, which is this love of life. Perhaps the two should coexist: a love of life, and a hatred of all that threatens it.

After all, that is how you treat anything you love, if you wish it to continue. In this light, burning bulldozers, detonating suburbs, eugenic extermination of idiots, etc. are all loving acts -- and the "loving" acts of tolerating these fools are blasphemy against the beauty of existence.

Things to ponder.

73 comments

Claire
That last paragraph is a breath of fresh air. Beautiful, true words that are a rousing call to arms. Thank you. Claire (Email ) - 27-04-’11 12:14
Dave
Ok, first of all: "to the other group, it is imperfect and should be more like us."

Who is this group? I've never met a member of it. I also don't understand what that's supposed to mean... "life should be more like us"....

No. Life is an abstract concept; we're people. Two completely different concepts, no comparison between them. So there's no possible way someone could want life to be more like us. The idea is simply incomprehensible. Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 16:13
Dave
Also, those are not the only two possible positions, and you know it. One could, for example, think that life is both amazing and imperfect, and that we should work to both understand it and change it.

You know, like normal people. Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 16:14
Dave
"Some people experience a sense of transcendent clarity, where the ways of the world and the ways of the mind are in agreement.

They often become thankful, reverent, and dedicate their lives to praising and explicating it."

These are the same people who "eugenically exterminate idiots", according to you? Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 16:16
Dave
"And you find people bonding with life all the time, discovering an eternal happiness. They find it in the genius of life itself, and in having the ability to participate -- and if very lucky, to glorify -- this wonderful thing called existence, or consciousness, or even life."

I'm not sure what you have in mind as what life is, or means. Perhaps it's something beyond the simple state of something being alive. In any case, I don't think it needs glorification. Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 16:17
Dave
"It's easy to get caught in the hatred, and forget its parent, which is this love of life. Perhaps the two should coexist: a love of life, and a hatred of all that threatens it.

After all, that is how you treat anything you love, if you wish it to continue. In this light, burning bulldozers, detonating suburbs, eugenic extermination of idiots, etc. are all loving acts -- and the "loving" acts of tolerating these fools are blasphemy against the beauty of existence."

Now you REALLY have to clarify what you mean by "life".

Because as far as I can see, eugenically exterminating idiots destroys life, it doesn't protect it.

And "blasphemy against the beauty of existence"? What beauty, exactly? Are you saying all existence is beautiful? In that case, there's no such thing as blasphemy against it (except perhaps true "nihilism", as in wanting to destroy everything, but we know from physics that true destruction is impossible anyway), because anything anyone does is part of existence anyway.

Perhaps you instead mean, the beauty of what *you* would like to exist. In that case, you'll have to do a lot better than that to prove why you have a better idea of what should exist than other people, before you go around eliminating anyone. Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 16:22
Big Jimbo
Dave, you're a fucking idiot.

You don't know how to enjoy this writing, you are not on this level.

Go fuck yourself. Big Jimbo - 27-04-’11 18:40
Big Jimbo
Dave, furthermore, I know for sure you are one of those assholes that walks around complaining about headaches or that you're tired.

You walk into a room and tell me you're tired. Fuck you.

The universe does not care if you are tired or have a headache.

Get over it, try to avoid lethargy and headaches by making better lifestyle choices.

Piece of shit. Big Jimbo - 27-04-’11 18:43
Dave
"Dave, you’re a fucking idiot.

You don’t know how to enjoy this writing, you are not on this level.

Go fuck yourself."

You mean this level?

(Too easy, I know, but couldn't resist.) Dave (Email ) - 27-04-’11 21:30
Grond
"If you find yourself alienated by the stupid, short-sighted, brain-dead, callow, oblivious, solipsistic and crass in humanity, your hatred may be a form of love that is suggesting instead we praise the glory of existence and awareness.

It's easy to get caught in the hatred, and forget its parent, which is this love of life. Perhaps the two should coexist: a love of life, and a hatred of all that threatens it.

After all, that is how you treat anything you love, if you wish it to continue. In this light, burning bulldozers, detonating suburbs, eugenic extermination of idiots, etc. are all loving acts -- and the "loving" acts of tolerating these fools are blasphemy against the beauty of existence."

This essentially sums up the concept of the beliefs behind this site. It does so eloquently and compellingly, expressed with pure conviction and purpose.

The inability to understand it is why most people can never comprehend the idea of things like black metal. They don't understand beauty in darkness, creation in destruction, love in hate.

Your best articles are the ones that directly arise from an unmistakable moment of pure love and wonder for life. Grond (Email ) - 28-04-’11 10:30
Dave
"They don’t understand beauty in darkness, creation in destruction, love in hate."

It's really not that complicated, or that new. It's called "the ends justify the means", and it's a very old idea, and the refutation of the extreme version is almost just as old. Dave (Email ) - 28-04-’11 16:24
Big Jimbo Slimbo
It's really not "the end justify the means".

The end justifies the means excludes the process from means to end, whereas the focus here is on the process itself, which necessarily includes 'darkness'. Big Jimbo Slimbo - 28-04-’11 17:15
Davd
I don't see a distinction.

I'm also not sure what you mean by saying that the ends justfies the means philosophy "excludes" the process. It's true that it doesn't consider that process to be inherently good, but ends-justify-means philosophies don't believe in goodness or badness of actions in general, only of the big picture, which seems to be exactly what this site endorses.

As for the focus being on the process, the proclaimed focus is on "beauty". So unless you actually think that slaughtering retarded people is inherently beautiful in some way, I'm thinking it falls squarely in the ends-justifies-means camp. Davd (Email ) - 28-04-’11 17:46
Big Jimbo Slimbo
There is how a tree grows and there is how man breeds worthless people that it cannot support. If my end is to breed weak man and use him to trudge skulls along a desert road without water, having them die carrying bones and out of exhaustion, then what is this?

But if the means is a tree growing to sunlight, then what is this end?

So it is not issue of end justify means, at all. This is purposeful obfuscation of the feel of the writing.

It is from clouded mind, the need to slap a postage stamp on every envelope, and use an envelope in the first place. Big Jimbo Slimbo - 28-04-’11 18:30
Dave
I'm obfuscating the "feel" of the writing? What does feel have to do with it? I'm trying to talk about the content of the writing, and I think I have been faithful to it to the extent that it can be made precise.

"So it is not issue of end justify means, at all."

Well, if it's not, you haven't said anything that actually shows that.

I really don't understand what this last post is trying to say; I urge you to write more clearly. Dave (Email ) - 28-04-’11 18:42
Dave
Let me, for my part, make my point perfectly clear.

The OP seems to me to clearly fall into the ends-justify-means camp, with the end being a "beautiful" world, and the means (sometimes) including bombing suburbs and slaughter of whoever he considers "idiots".

I was assuming that the OP would not consider the latter acts to be "beautiful" in and of themselves, but rather, necessary to destroy that which "threatens" the beauty that he otherwise sees in reality.

You seem to object to that characterization, but I honestly don't understand why. Dave (Email ) - 28-04-’11 18:47
dumbfuck
some good points from all of you dumbfuck - 28-04-’11 21:47
lvb
Hey Dave do you like Beethoven? lvb - 28-04-’11 21:49
Krieg
Slaughtering retards IS a beautiful act because it exterminates imperfection- a blight upon this world. You are nothing more than a bleeding heart liberal who has a little bit too much time on his hands and tries to justify his pathetic existence by arguing against an underground nihilist website. Faceless office automaton by day and liberal crusader for nitpicking philosophies by night, eh? Beauty is not subjective because there is a standard, just like philosophies are not all valid- just like John Stuart Mill being a progressivist opportunistic faggot and Rousseau officially screwing over the face of modern education. Ever heard of the Golden Mean? Ever heard of high IQ's being a good thing? (Duh) If you somehow perceive the very existence of mongloids as being part of beauty, you are delusional and need to be euthanized with them. What ANUS stands for is the classical (and true) definition of beauty, much in line with the ethics and standards of enlightened ancient cultures such as Ancient Greece or Ancient India. You think retards would have a place there? NOPE- and this is what this grey mush of a modern world needs. Standards- kill the weak and cultivate the strong. Social Darwinism is not only valid, it's reality. If you're a retard, you hold back society. If you are capable, you will get ahead. Simple as that. Yes, bombing a suburb filled with people with low IQ's, losers, drug addicts, and scum is beautiful. It is beautiful to watch them scream as their blackened flesh peels off. It is breathtaking to watch their diseased women have their wombs ripped open and fucked, because they deserve it. The warriors of old revelled in bloodshed and pain, to them, that was also beauty. Do you think they wept at the burning remains of a city they just conquered? They fucking drank to it- case in point, Vlad the Impaler made an art out of slaughtering people that were detrimental to his country- decorative shishkabobs. Who could have thought of it?
But it still all boils down to a radical and old world view of beauty, something a progressivist 'thinker' (I hesistate to use that term. I highly doubt you're a university professor.) like yourself would never understand. You're too busy masturbating over your own self rightousness after DEFEATING DOSE ANUS TROLLS AND FIGHTING FUR DUR RETURDS HURRHURR Krieg (Email ) - 28-04-’11 22:06
T.G.
The target audience is not being considered, although the author should consider illustrating the principles of this article specifically.

"To one group, it is amazing and we need to get to know it; to the other group, it is imperfect and should be more like us."

This is meant to illustrate, albeit very crudely, the difference between the process of adaptation and the justification for the refusal to adapt. The concept is obviously broad, and contains a greater depth than what the author implies.

"Because as far as I can see, eugenically exterminating idiots destroys life, it doesn’t protect it."

This statement seems to be the result of an anthropocentric definition of life. T.G. - 28-04-’11 22:28
Dave
"This is meant to illustrate, albeit very crudely, the difference between the process of adaptation and the justification for the refusal to adapt. The concept is obviously broad, and contains a greater depth than what the author implies."

Perhaps so, but I'm not aware of anyone, other than perhaps true schizophrenics, who "refuse to adapt".

"This statement seems to be the result of an anthropocentric definition of life.

I don't think so. All that it requires is that humans, all humans, are included in the definition of life, not that they be the center of it.

As far as I know, killing people doesn't necessarily save bears. Dave (Email ) - 28-04-’11 23:47
Dave
"Slaughtering retards IS a beautiful act because it exterminates imperfection-"

Well... that is exactly "the ends justify the means".

"Beauty is not subjective because there is a standard,"

Great logic... "Jesus was divine because there is a church"... same principle.

"Social Darwinism is not only valid, it’s reality."

Uh.... huh.... You do know that Social Darwinism is a moral claim, and not a factual one, right?

"Yes, bombing a suburb filled with people with low IQ’s, losers, drug addicts, and scum is beautiful."

Ok, so who checks to make sure the suburb is filled with such people, and doesn't have any of the high-achieving, smart people you'd want to preserve? And what if those people defend the people you want to kill? Dave (Email ) - 28-04-’11 23:55
TD
i love it in anus TD - 29-04-’11 08:15
Levy_Spearmen
There is one law. Mine. Levy_Spearmen - 29-04-’11 11:58
jack
chill out dave jack - 29-04-’11 12:16
Mister Misanthrope
Dave is upset by this article because it implies that love of everything good in life includes hatred of him and everyone like him.

Since he is obvious hipstershit who shouldn't be here, the conclusion he draws is true. Good job! Now if only he'd admit it and stop pretending there are logical holes in the article, we'd really be getting somewhere. Mister Misanthrope - 29-04-’11 13:51
Big Slimbo
Dave is a smart guy and because of this he has trouble reading the writing. Really reading it. He sees it through very thorough, developed layers of abstraction that he has piled on over the years.

This is why he tries to pigeonhole it as 'end justifies means', when the article is much greater in scope than that. Big Slimbo - 29-04-’11 15:03
Dave
"Now if only he’d admit it and stop pretending there are logical holes in the article, we’d really be getting somewhere."

It doesn't have logical holes, exactly, because it doesn't really make an argument. It does, however, have very questionable assumptions and claims, which is what I've pointed out.

"Dave is a smart guy and because of this he has trouble reading the writing. Really reading it. He sees it through very thorough, developed layers of abstraction that he has piled on over the years."

Really now? Well that's how you see it, I guess. The way see it is, I seem to be the only one trying to put the claims on a concrete level.

"This is why he tries to pigeonhole it as ‘end justifies means’, when the article is much greater in scope than that."

You're half right. I did pigeonhole it as "ends justifies means". But I didn't deny that it had greater scope. I only took issue with the first and last paragraph; I don't necessarily have a quarrel with the other stuff.

However, here's another ridiculous claim that I missed on the first pass:

"In such a world mythic imagination thrives, mainly because by finding metaphorical truth, it is more accurate than detail-oriented science."

Well, no, at least not unless you define "accurate" in a totally circular way in order to derive that result. Dave (Email ) - 29-04-’11 16:58
Mister Misanthrope
You're still obviously not seeing the point in the article. The article said "some people see a greater beauty in life and live accordingly," and somehow you found a way to disagree.

Trying to poke someone else's ideas full of holes with deconstructionist logic may potentially impede their ideas from developing, but that action will DEFINITELY not help you to develop intellectually.

I suggest you cool your jets, spend the next few days reading as many of the writings of Prozak as you can, and then spend the next week contemplating those writings.

Then, get back to us. Maybe you'll have learned something. Do it for your own good. Prove you're better than the glorified beet farmer you currently look like. Mister Misanthrope - 29-04-’11 17:10
Krieg
“Slaughtering retards IS a beautiful act because it exterminates imperfection-”

Well… that is exactly “the ends justify the means”.

But the means- the act of killing off such people is enjoyable and productive, therefore, the means justifies the ends also.

“Beauty is not subjective because there is a standard,”

Great logic… “Jesus was divine because there is a church”... same principle

It's sound logic. Jesus was only elevated to his uber celebrity status due to the shameless promotions of his magic tricks through the churches. Just as the classical definition of beauty was solidified by the creation of paradigms and standards that remained constant until the post-modern (and arguably modern) era of our world.

“Social Darwinism is not only valid, it’s reality.”

Uh…. huh…. You do know that Social Darwinism is a moral claim, and not a factual one, right?

Again, you're sticking your head into the ground. It is a factual one- albeit a reality one no one wants to admit. Why do you think mindless office automatons like yourself don't ascend into the realm of a CEO? It's because you don't possess the innate social intelligence to backstab, ass kiss and go to the top OR, you're average looking, of below average height, balding or overweight( society hates the fatties. ;). It's extremely prevalent in our society- did you know that 60% of employers higher people simply based on their looks? Did you know that short people have their job prospects literally halved? Wakey wakey, eggs and bakey bud.

“Yes, bombing a suburb filled with people with low IQ’s, losers, drug addicts, and scum is beautiful.”

Ok, so who checks to make sure the suburb is filled with such people, and doesn’t have any of the high-achieving, smart people you’d want to preserve? And what if those people defend the people you want to kill?

Well, if they defend them, they're obviously flawed, so nuke away. But that is beside the point. You're nitpicking an imaginary and metaphorical scenario. It's like saying how improbable an event like Plato's Cave would be in real life.

And plus Dave, you sound like an art school or a bottom tier university first year philosophy student with your deconstructionist bend. Krieg (Email ) - 29-04-’11 17:32
Dave
"You’re still obviously not seeing the point in the article. The article said “some people see a greater beauty in life and live accordingly,” and somehow you found a way to disagree."

I never disagreed with that part. As I said, I only had problems with certain parts of the article.

"Trying to poke someone else’s ideas full of holes with deconstructionist logic may potentially impede their ideas from developing, but that action will DEFINITELY not help you to develop intellectually. "

Well, that wasn't necessarily my purpose, but you're wrong. Poking holes in someone's argument does indeed help someone develop intellectually. Look at the assignments in a philosophy or debate class sometime!

"I suggest you cool your jets, spend the next few days reading as many of the writings of Prozak as you can, and then spend the next week contemplating those writings."

I actually have, unfortunately, read a fair amount of them. They're just as full of nonsense as the postings here. Dave (Email ) - 29-04-’11 17:45
Dave
"But the means- the act of killing off such people is enjoyable and productive, therefore, the means justifies the ends also."

It's only enjoyable if you're a flawed person. Normal people don't enjoy killing.

"It’s sound logic. Jesus was only elevated to his uber celebrity status due to the shameless promotions of his magic tricks through the churches."

No, it's faulty logic; just because the churches say he did those magic tricks doesn't mean he actually did.

"Just as the classical definition of beauty was solidified by the creation of paradigms and standards that remained constant until the post-modern (and arguably modern) era of our world."

And that doesn't mean that those standards are necessarily objectively true.

"Again, you’re sticking your head into the ground. It is a factual one- albeit a reality one no one wants to admit."

Social Darwinism is the claim that whoever rises to the top deserves to do so. It's not simply the factual claim that certain people have an easier time rising to the top than others. Therefore, it's a moral claim.

"Well, if they defend them, they’re obviously flawed, so nuke away."

Wrong. You could easily have someone defending them, but meeting all the criteria for being a great person described elsewhere in the article.

"But that is beside the point. You’re nitpicking an imaginary and metaphorical scenario."

The OP obviously wishes it weren't imaginary. So I'm pointing out the flaw in supposing that that would be a good thing.

"It’s like saying how improbable an event like Plato’s Cave would be in real life. "

No, it's more like questioning what *would* happen in that hypothetical scenario.

"And plus Dave, you sound like an art school or a bottom tier university first year philosophy student with your deconstructionist bend."

And plus, this added nothing to your argument, only made it look like you have nothing useful to say. Dave (Email ) - 29-04-’11 17:54
Levy_Spearmen
"No, it’s faulty logic; just because the churches say he did those magic tricks doesn’t mean he actually did."

That's all I'm going to read, because you're a big, fat fucking troll. I mean, seriously? Levy_Spearmen - 29-04-’11 19:43
Mister Misanthrope
Dave:

Nihilism is "an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth."

What this site is here to discuss is the Ph.D. level mathematics version of nihilism, but one Playskool level interpretation of nihilism that you should be able to understand is that if ultimately objective reality is too impossibly complex for the human mind to perceive or understand, we may as well believe whatever produces the most beautiful results in reality according to our ideals, without even bothering to analyze the mechanism of getting from belief to action to result but only looking at the constant patterns of belief & result. Analyzing the mechanisms is what brought us sociology and the delusion that we can control situations that our own minds and selves are part of, while almost meatheadedly believing as you thought was best is what brought us Spartans and the Norse and pretty much everything great about the world that is not to be found in the technical aspects. Since we're well stocked in human calculators in the form of gooks, I'd say humanity has its technical game covered and needs no more sociology meddling in the inner workings of its soul.

I would troll you into oblivion, as it doesn't appear that terribly hard to do, but I respect this site enough (despite its alliances lolol) that I'd rather just point out that you most certainly belong to the "other group" that the article refers to. Now don't worry your pretty little head about all of this difficult epistemology, or you won't be able to plow your beet field before sundown. Mister Misanthrope - 29-04-’11 19:55
Dave
"What this site is here to discuss is the Ph.D. level mathematics version of nihilism,"

Example? I haven't seen any mathematics, by any stretch of the imagination, discussed on this site at all.

"if ultimately objective reality is too impossibly complex for the human mind to perceive or understand, we may as well believe whatever produces the most beautiful results in reality according to our ideals,"

That depends on what you want to get out of believing things. Some people would rather believe whatever comes closest to objective reality, even if, as you say, we cannot ever fully grasp it.

Also, observing what the results are (to determine whether they're beautiful or anything else) assumes that we have some grasp on what reality is like anyway, so you can't abandon all hope of perceiving reality objectively anyway.

"almost meatheadedly believing as you thought was best is what brought us Spartans and the Norse and pretty much everything great about the world"

You think Spartans and the Norse were great?

And you think everyone agrees with you?

Meatheadedly believing what you think is best does not always bring great things, as you probably well know.

"and pretty much everything great about the world that is not to be found in the technical aspects. Since we’re well stocked in human calculators in the form of gooks, I’d say humanity has its technical game covered and needs no more sociology meddling in the inner workings of its soul."

Yeah, you're kinda all over the place there.

"I would troll you into oblivion, as it doesn’t appear that terribly hard to do, but I respect this site enough (despite its alliances lolol) that I’d rather just point out that you most certainly belong to the “other group”"

That's exactly what someone who had no arguments left would say.

"or you won’t be able to plow your beet field before sundown."

Geez, what do you have against beets? Did you get force-fed them as a child or something? Dave (Email ) - 29-04-’11 20:35
Mister Misanthrope
If you don't understand the beet farming reference then you obviously haven't read this site enough to pretend your comments should be taken seriously.

Also, if you didn't see the Ph.D. math vs. Playskool analogy then you're completely dense.

Dave, how'd you get to be so dumb dumb dumb? Mister Misanthrope - 29-04-’11 20:53
Lover
Check out Beethoven's 9th, it's beautiful. Lover - 29-04-’11 21:30
Krieg
'It’s only enjoyable if you’re a flawed person. Normal people don’t enjoy killing.'

You're defining 'normal' by modern standards. pre 1900's, duels were commonplace, and satisfactory for the winning party, as were executions. Ever heard of the eagerness of Cockney Londoners to see a criminal die in the gallows?

'No, it’s faulty logic; just because the churches say he did those magic tricks doesn’t mean he actually did.'

You're missing the point. The church set up THEIR version of reality. It's their values- a paradigm that is widely accepted by the masses. However, this is not to say all values are equally valid though. Our reality is only what we make of it.

'Social Darwinism is the claim that whoever rises to the top deserves to do so. It’s not simply the factual claim that certain people have an easier time rising to the top than others. Therefore, it’s a moral claim.'

Stop avoiding the point, Dave. Your complacent retardation is quite ineffectual. Yes, so it's a moral claim as well as a factual claim. Big whoop. It's still reality supported by cold hard statistics. A study by Pingitore, Regina; Dugoni, Bernard L.; Tindale, R. Scott; Spring, Bonnie in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 79(6), Dec 1994, 909-917, states bias against female overweight applicants was present. Yet another case in point:a study by a PhD student Lei Lai illustrates that Asians without social skills will have extreme trouble finding employment. There's really no need for philosophical noodling here Dave, this is reality, moral or not.

'Wrong. You could easily have someone defending them, but meeting all the criteria for being a great person described elsewhere in the article.'

But then that person obviously wouldn't have the values described in the article if he were to defend such scum. So however charming or intelligent he is, he's gotta go- a defective cog in the machine.


'The OP obviously wishes it weren’t imaginary. So I’m pointing out the flaw in supposing that that would be a good thing.'

The 'flaws' you point out are inconsequential to the big picture.

'No, it’s more like questioning what would happen in that hypothetical scenario.'

Alright, fair enough. I let you have this one.

'And plus, this added nothing to your argument, only made it look like you have nothing useful to say.'

C'mon, I enjoy venomous personal attacks. It adds flavor to internet flaming. And besides- troll to troll Dave, nice thick skin you have there. ;) Krieg (Email ) - 30-04-’11 12:26
Dave
'You’re defining ‘normal’ by modern standards. pre 1900’s, duels were commonplace, and satisfactory for the winning party, as were executions.'

Duels yes, systematic slaughter no. Every society has some sort of prohibition against unjust killing, and every society that lasts more then a few years has laws that protect the weak from the strong.

"You’re missing the point. The church set up THEIR version of reality. It’s their values- a paradigm that is widely accepted by the masses. However, this is not to say all values are equally valid though. Our reality is only what we make of it."

That seems contrary to what this site is about, which is that there is an objective reality, which does not change depending on what we think, not even if everyone thinks it.

"But then that person obviously wouldn’t have the values described in the article if he were to defend such scum. So however charming or intelligent he is, he’s gotta go- a defective cog in the machine."

My point was he might have all the qualities praised in the rest of the OP, but not agree with the OP that slaughtering people just because you don't like them is ok. If you only accept people who are both excellent and who agree with you, it's gonna be a very short list.

Not to mention that if you target those people too, you'll inevitably lose, since you'll be declaring war against almost everyone, including most of the strong.

"The ‘flaws’ you point out are inconsequential to the big picture. "

I don't think so, because every imaginable way of making the OP's vision come true will encounter similar hurdles.


"C’mon, I enjoy venomous personal attacks. It adds flavor to internet flaming."

They have their place, but preferable combined with a substantive attack. Dave (Email ) - 30-04-’11 13:36
Dave
"If you don’t understand the beet farming reference then you obviously haven’t read this site enough to pretend your comments should be taken seriously."

I got it; I just thought you might get tired of repeating the same reference after 4 times.

"Also, if you didn’t see the Ph.D. math vs. Playskool analogy then you’re completely dense."

You're right; I did take that one a bit too literally. Point taken. I'd be interested to see what aspects of the writings on this site you think are really Ph.D. level when compared to the "Playskool" version you gave me, because nothing I've read so far strikes me as such. Dave (Email ) - 30-04-’11 13:38
Mister Misanthrope
Well, in truth, Ph.D. level writing on most subjects is horrifically dry. It is such because for any field of science it goes through so much peer review that it becomes little more than a hardtack cake of pure stated observation and some statistical analyses - and in the case of the field of biology, use of the word "elucidate" at least twice in both the introduction and conclusion. Since this website focuses on everything scientific writing eliminates, I'm happy to say that nothing I've seen on Anus has ever descended to the level of Ph.D. writing.

Seeing as the only way you can acquire a nonscientific Ph.D. seems to be to spend an additional seven years agreeing with not just the broad principle but even the most minute details of everything academia tells you to think while paying graduate school level tuition the entire time, I'm confident that nothing written on Anus resembles that sort of Ph.D. writing either.

What gets in the way of myself and others showing you what we find beautiful about this site is your linguistics Ph.D. and your ego. I've already told you what you should do in order to get something out of these writings, but you haven't done it. The rules of academia do not apply here, comment less and read more. Mister Misanthrope - 01-05-’11 14:43
Alan Spirta
Wow, Dave, what a shitstorm. I like it that way. Alan Spirta (URL) - 02-05-’11 02:15
Cargast
Dave, do you have a website or journal in which you construct concepts, ideas, and arguments, rather than simply deconstructing those of others? Cargast - 02-05-’11 09:06
Dave
@Misanthrope, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think advanced academic training, while perhaps not always necessary, is in many cases essential to training one to think clearly about advanced concepts. It is what teaches you to avoid fairly devious logical errors as well as equivocation, both of which I have observed quite a bit on this site. (The prime example of the latter is the constant tension between upholding what the site calls "values", while demonizing "morality", when those are really different names for the same type of statement.)

Granted, my degree is not in philosophy, which is the most relevant field to the issues discussed on this site. But any advanced degree trains one to think more clearly about what one (or others) is actually saying.

@Cargast, No, I do not. Because unlike the authors of this site, I do not claim to have things figured out. That doesn't mean it's not useful, even essential, to point out the flaws in arguments that suggest radical changes to the way we currently do things. Dave (Email ) - 02-05-’11 18:43
Mister Misanthrope
Yeah, but advanced degrees train you to think in the ways approved by academia. The whole point of nihilism is that it denies that there is only one objectively correct way to think, therefore it should be unsurprising that a bunch of hardcore nihilists in the backwoods of the internet don't revere academic mental conditioning.

Speaking only for myself, I've seen up close and personal what mental limitations academics impose on themselves and others. My chosen field is biology, and for a long time I've been an advocate of ketogenic fat based nutrition as being superior to typical FDA approved carbohydrate based nutrition. I was working in a research lab and that topic came up, and all of the other scientists looked to me and said "...Burn fat for fuel? That's not how the body *works*," and refused to humor the idea.

Well, the body works like that just fine. Not only am I living proof in that I've lived like that for years, and that I'm strongly genetically predisposed to do well on that kind of diet, but I have stacks - literal hundreds - of scientific papers from esteemed sources not only affirming that it's plausible, but detailing exactly how and why it's better and what varieties and methods provide further health benefits.

Regardless of what degrees I hold, I now am no longer pursuing scientific research as an occupation because I've found ways to do well for myself that do not involve dealing with self aggrandizing Dilberts.

I learned an important lesson though - even in the heart of even supposedly elite universities, there is a pecking order of authority that is always followed, and if two people disagree, whoever is higher on that pecking order is automatically right - even if it's something as indisputable as biochemistry and not only life itself but the writings of the very department of the very university he works for are rife with examples of how he is fucking wrong. No, he would continue to be "right" until someone higher on the totem pole declared him wrong.

Those with faith in the university system believe, hope, pray or just assume that the ultimate top of the pecking order will always decide in favor of truth regardless of its outcome, but those of us who have been keeping score know that this hasn't been done for years. That's why labs that find racial differences in their results get their funding pulled while the rest of the university openly preaches that the different breeds of humanity are interchangeable economic units despite their obvious physical and mental adaptations for different climates and lifestyles.

The fact is, universities have no allegiance to truth. Instead, their primary allegiance is to themselves – making sure that they stay a respected institution in society and that everyone keeps on believing that they are the only ones “allowed” to know anything. The university game is all about prestige, you should know that. It’s all about making sure that their school is the first one to develop the next technological magic trick, so they can turn to skeptics and say, “well, we made a transgenic parsnip that has pig dicks instead of roots, therefore we are the experts who are always right – and you should give us a lot of money so we can continue being right, because we’re the only ones who can do it and the world will plunge into darkness if you don’t.”

It’s EXACTLY the same thing as churches.

“We are the only ones who can interpret the Divine Will of God, so you’d better tithe your tax dollars into our R01 grants or else nobody will be able to interpret The Will of God for you and you will face God’s Wrath as a consequence. You wouldn’t want that, would you? Don’t believe your forefathers who lived without us, life before us was HORRIBLE AND FULL OF SUFFERING, and you wouldn’t want to go back to that, would you?”

They turn out more magic tricks and get more money and are more trusted as the sole source of viable knowledge, and then they insist – “if you send your children and LOTS of money, we can ordain your children to be a Priest of Science, and then HE will be allowed to be right too! That is of course assuming he agrees with us, 100% of the time.” Then they make it competitive, so only the most hardcore followers and parrots manage to actually acquire the sweet deal that is tenure – unless of course they’re one of the people who came up with the new magic trick, then the universities have to have them on their side. Failure to do so would mean that someone out there in society managed to be a badass and have access to truth from outside the ivory tower, and that would be bad for business to say the least.

Realizing the above about academia was actually part of why I realized nihilism is true at its core – every single body of people that dedicates itself to the pursuit of new truths or even just to the stockpiling of old truths has shown us that if there is one “correct way of thinking,” then it is not available to humanity even if all of its best and brightest and most experienced are put in the same place, even if you throw a lot of money at them.

With that understood, I don’t see how you can think that academics are capable of teaching anything about clear and precise thought. I maintain that all they are good for is partially undoing the brain rot brought on by television and videogames and a paucity of reading – but only partially undoing it, because the same Jews that fund the media networks also run the universities and their agendas remain unchanged from one context to the next. Universities are not an aid to real thinkers, but a burden and a road block. Mister Misanthrope - 02-05-’11 23:24
Dave
You're conflating the particular claims made by academics at a given time with the general training gained from an academic education.

Yes, particular claims are often governed by academic politics. Sometimes this reaches disgusting levels, other times it's just the inevitable level that occurs when the data underdetermines the theory.

But even against this backdrop, it's simply ignorant to say that an academic training doesn't teach people to reason and investigate reality more precisely. That's the way fields develop, and yes, the academic profession is all about an ever-changing view of the world, even when particular claims sometimes outlive their empirical welcome due to politics.

The system is imprecise, but is based on the idea that if a claim (such as one that is at some point standard) is false, it will eventually falsified. There is much encouragement to do so, because the more dramatic a claim, the more positive notice the scholar gets if it holds up.

And no, it doesn't take someone "higher on the pecking order" to convince a high-ranking scholar, or the field he or she is a part of, that they're wrong. Sometimes it's an unheard of grad student's dissertation that completely changes the field.

Your pet issue of fat-burning is no different; if you're right that there's undue prejudice in the field against your idea, then there will eventually be a paradigm shift to your way of thinking. From what you said, apparently there are plenty of scientists that agree with you, just not the ones you were studying with. Sometimes it's like that; different claims are endorsed by different academic circles, until experiments are devised that can settle the matter.

I don't know where you get the idea that the fact that we'll never know the exact "correct way of thinking" means that nihilism is true at its core. This site seems, to me, to be about anything but open-mindedness to the idea that one might be wrong, at least about the various things that the site dismisses out of hand.

As to your last point, again, the system isn't perfect, but academics can indeed teach about clear and precise thought, mainly because it's necessary for what they do for a living. Even granting that there is some politics involved, if you want to write a research article in an advanced field, you have to be able to form an argument for a conclusion, you have to be able to show that your conclusion follows from the evidence you present, you have to show that your evidence is reliable, and you have to be able to show that alternative theories don't do as good a job at accounting for the evidence as yours does. Politics or no, the paper will not be published if it does not at least do this much.

These are not trivial steps; an untrained person cannot do them when the theores involved are intellectually challenging, as is the case not just with science, but with advanced reasoning, i.e. philosophy, as well. There are many pitfalls that an untrained person can encounter, and training helps to avoid them. Dave (Email ) - 03-05-’11 00:36
eric
We are born underwater and set on a course like a seedling projectile....violently disconnected from the source..

the intersections and entanglements are immediate and constant. There is no escape. Karma is written into the fabric of space and time. There is no cheating. We are part of a greater system and part of a greater expression. A flowering explosion. Endless fragments... endless expressions.

The article here as are most on this site are self evidently beautiful to me.

Beware the psychic vampires. eric (Email ) - 03-05-’11 12:49
Cargast
Dave, do you believe that our current, unchanged ways of doing things are flawed? Cargast - 03-05-’11 15:58
George W. Bush
I once had sex with Dave. George W. Bush - 04-05-’11 03:00
Well Muscled Gai
Paleolithic diets are the shit yo. My bench press and dead lift records have doubled yet I'm much leaner than before, and eat less than before, though I can devour two pounds of steak in one sitting if feeling boss enough. Well Muscled Gai - 04-05-’11 04:34
Conan the Librarian
My diet consists of meat, flesh, albumen, lady juice, and the occasional bit of blood if I get thirsty while decapitating my enemies (or those with late returns). Conan the Librarian - 04-05-’11 08:51
Dave
@Cargast, in some ways, but not as dramatically as this site things, and in any case the changes that this site suggests go in exactly the opposite direction from what I would want. Dave (Email ) - 04-05-’11 15:52
Mister Misanthrope
That's the problem though, this site doesn't advocate changing or doing anything. It's more about pointing out that Nature works in predictable ways, and that due to the way humanity's quality has gone down as it grossly overpopulates to us indicates that Nature will not hesitate to allow humanity to bust following its undeserved bloom.

Nature will do what it wishes, and if all of humanity conspired to beg it to do otherwise it would not heed their request. Nature's word is final. Mister Misanthrope - 04-05-’11 17:29
Mister Misanthrope
*undeserved boom Mister Misanthrope - 04-05-’11 17:30
eric
Dave, You are a gargolye set in stone facing away from the trajectory of this articles vision( a path to a collectively better future to those who can sense its refinements) You are attempting to ensnare, siphon, parry blindly and obstruct. You call what lies behind you a dangerous minefield that must be crawled through or avoided... when infact it is that and then some. If it is for there own reasons then do not attempt to obstruct their spirits. Some are motivated before you and beyond you. Do not obstruct them. As for compassion for fellow humans..do not stand there.... run with them... and use the finest skill that you can to lead them on the right path. Look to aikido as an example. Master your emotions to the finest level you can... store your power until you learn how to discharge with more skill and vision. eric - 04-05-’11 18:03
Mister Misanthrope
> Aikido

pls go Mister Misanthrope - 05-05-’11 08:44
Dave
"That’s the problem though, this site doesn’t advocate changing or doing anything."

Wrong. It says it doesn't in some places, but it proves the opposite many times.

For one thing, look at all the phrases that start with "a healthier society would have..."

Then there's the entire "I'd rather have wings" post...

Then there's Oncology...

Need I go on? I could but it's too easy.

Even the rest of that paragraph is hard to interpret as anything but advocating change, or at least placing a value judgment on what we are currently doing.

Nature's predictability, by the way, is a two-edged sword. Yes, it can be viewed as uncaring, in that it doesn't cater to our wishes. But it doesn't act for any specific purpose either, including our demise.

Rather, as you said, it works in particular ways. Recognizing that is exactly how humanity achieved its higher population, its industrialization, and all the other stuff you seem to think are bad things, in the first place.

And given that nature doesn't actually have an agenda, whereas humans do (to survive, for one), I wouldn't bet on humans' demise too quickly.

"Nature will do what it wishes,"

That's the thing; nature doesn't wish anything.

"if all of humanity conspired to beg it to do otherwise it would not heed their request."

That theme has come up several times, and it is a complete straw man. Perhaps it is an apt analogy of some religious groups, especially primitive ones, it is not how current humans are approaching their problems. They don't beg nature, they work with and manipulate nature! Dave (Email ) - 05-05-’11 17:12
the scruddernator
Dave is fighting the good fight. Reconstructed ANUSite here. the scruddernator - 06-05-’11 00:54
Sieg
"Dave is fighting the good fight. Reconstructed ANUSite here"

wears his Che t-shirt with pride

fuck all you stupid assholes Sieg - 06-05-’11 02:19
T.G.
I don't understand what good fight is being fought. The greatest change asked for by this website is the expatriation of behaviors that are not conducive to an organized mindset; being in regular contact with the editor as a writer for the Amerika blog, I feel confident in asserting that this is a fact. Every other seeming conclusion drawn by the website is only an extrapolation of this imperative. The particular disagreement, as far as I am able to perceive it, seems to reside with the assertion that a certain minority or majority of people either are unaware, incapable of, or outright oppose the pursuit of an organized mindset, and I think this is absolutely true.

Nihilism, as espoused by this website, is a sort of ideological dialectic. Despite the fact that there is wide consensus as to the value of unbiased observation, humanity still stumbles over the moral implications of various behaviors that have been emphasized with the rise of industrialization, and at worst even justifies bias by covertly declaring it as lack of bias. Nihilism is an answer to this lack of momentum by encouraging us to focus only on calibrating the results of our actions upon a foundation of unbiased observation, and we should attempt to achieve this in our daily lives before doing attempting to assess the value of existence. I know you're wondering why I assume that 'normal' people don't do this, and I'm not assuming they don't. Truth is worthy of support whether or not it is approved of. Positivism isn't going to save us, as we can't assume it's an objective aspect of either the human condition or natural phenomenon. T.G. - 06-05-’11 05:11
Dave
"The greatest change asked for by this website is the expatriation of behaviors that are not conducive to an organized mindset... Every other seeming conclusion drawn by the website is only an extrapolation of this imperative."

Well, that's not exactly a small amount of changes, is it? And it's pretty questionable why an organized mindset, as you say, should be the most important goal for humanity, one that should be forced upon those who have other priorities.

"Despite the fact that there is wide consensus as to the value of unbiased observation, humanity still stumbles over the moral implications of various behaviors that have been emphasized"

I don't see the conflict. Observation is not the same as behavior. One's observation could be unbiased by moral considerations even if one's behaviors are not.

"Nihilism is an answer to this lack of momentum by encouraging us to focus only on calibrating the results of our actions upon a foundation of unbiased observation, and we should attempt to achieve this in our daily lives before doing attempting to assess the value of existence."

It sounds like nihilism encourages us to act in pursuit of a single goal before carefully assessing our true priorities. Not a good message, in my opinion. Dave (Email ) - 06-05-’11 10:30
eric
" > aikido

Please go"

Lolol words make ill spirited hulk smash...

I was using aikido is an example of an artful and deliberate redirection of force and as something that considers more then the well being of the self in the face of danger.. eric (Email ) - 06-05-’11 11:33
T.G.
"It sounds like nihilism encourages us to act in pursuit of a single goal before carefully assessing our true priorities. Not a good message, in my opinion."

The opposite, actually. In fact, the statement you were responding to was so opposed to your response that I'm wondering if you're being oppositional for the sake of being so. T.G. - 06-05-’11 14:58
Mister Misanthrope
He is being oppositional for the sake of being so.

Go ahead Dave, have the last word. It's all yours. Mister Misanthrope - 06-05-’11 16:40
usurper
fuck off dave usurper (Email ) - 07-05-’11 00:11
Big Jewbo the Slime
Over the past few years, the writings on ANUS have degenerated into pansy self-help books drivel (everything sounds so nice and is so comforting to read and is so happily stuck in its self-satisfied slothliness, it's sickening).

I'm gonna quit the internet 4-ever the next time someone on this site's blog or message board babbles about "going on a trip through the woods with your family" or some bullshit about organic potato farming and euthanizing some 'tards and homos because they unpretty the world to him (tough shit, comrade, you might try not living in Houston, then). Big Jewbo the Slime - 08-05-’11 08:07
Chad in AK
Dave, YOU ARE AN IDIOT :) haha. to 2nd the opinion of others. go click on your DrudgeReport, FOX News, John Hagee or Huckabee bookmarks. you are obviously oblivious. back to the clone room with you. what a moron. Chad in AK - 21-05-’11 00:01
Chad in AK
in my opinion, this was just a simple article describing 2 paths of human life:

a) human life integrating into the environment into which it is born; and

b) human life demanding the environment conform and integrate into the desires of humans. and it is a fundamental question of humanity.

(a) is generally the way of life of primitive native peoples, where the environment is generally preserved for future generations, and when able, the weak/ill are cared for, but not beyond reasonable human efforts within the confines and interactions of the natural environment. its major flaw is that it is easily conquered and destroyed by the men with technology.

(b) is generally the way of the modern techno-industrial man, where the environment is taken from the future to provide for powers and wealth and endless expansion today, and technology/systems are created to demonstrate their power and love in keeping the gene pool alive and breeding despite defects, defying natural selection, creating masses of numbskulls that would easily perish in the natural environment of freedom and independence.

(a) is sustainable and perpetual, unless it comes in conflict with (b). the only hope for (b) in the long run is an escape from Earth to other planets to continue endless expansion and plunder, or alternatively, a technological enslavement system where the masses are completely regulated by an elite in a system of extreme order and control. neither of which seems like a positive outcome for the future of humanity.

there could be a good balance, but it would require a much higher general awareness and IQ of humanity, whereby individuals could prosper independently within self-imposed population guidelines (like 3rd child = tubes tied) without endless plundering and destruction of the environment. in this sense, there is beauty in achieving such a goal regardless of the possible need to add more Chlorine to the gene pool in order to achieve the best of both worlds; a place where one can choose (a) or (b) and neither has any need to interfere or plunder the other. the answer is freedom, which requires some end to endless population growth.

how many chiefs do we have to every indian now? how many useless administrators are living off the backs of those that transform the products of the earth into wealth? they only exist because of all the morons below that are being kept alive due to the power of technologies and plundering systems which defy the natural selection that occurs within the realm of freedom = independence = self-sufficiency = self-responsibility = self-regulation = non-interference = private property. Chad in AK - 21-05-’11 01:04
Dave
@Chad, you are preposing a sharp distinction where none exists. Every human population (and indeed many animal ones) changes its environment to some extent, and conversely every new generation adapts to its environment, albeit one shaped not only by nature but also by previous generations of humans./

The language of "demanding" the environment conform and integrate into the desires of humans is misleading. Humans make it conform, to the extent that they can, and learn to live with it to the extent that they can't, often holding open the idea that future generations will be able to surmount those problems. All of this process can be considered "adapting".

The degree to which the different lifestyles are sustainable is also relative. Low-impact societies have been around longer, yes, but species go extinct all the time, and humans will be no exception, probably for no reason to do with technology. Also, the idea of a) not coming into contact with b) is probably a pipe dream at this point. The cat is out of the bag; people will always want a more comfortable life. (Perhaps we should adapt to that reality as well.)

As for defying natural selection: as I keep saying, there's no such thing. If you could defy it, then it wouldn't be natural selection, now would it.

People can protect the week, who otherwise would die; that's not defying natural selection. That's part of natural selection; natural selection long ago selected for humans who would have an instinct to protect the week of their species.

Of course it's possible to imagine a system of government-imposed eugenics to supress this instinct and breed a better gene pool, as was tried in the 20s and such, but that's not a restoration of natural selection; that's artifical selection more like what we do every day to animals.

As for "creating masses of numbskulls that would easily perish in the natural environment of freedom and independence", you're forgetting that the natural state of humans is not to live in some wilderness environment, any more than a lion's natural state is to live in Antarctica. A human's natural state is to live among other humans, according to whatever cultural conventions those humans have designed. Dave (Email ) - 22-05-’11 20:42
Chad in AK
@Dave

some of your arguments were totally pointless at the beginning, but then you started to make points that had some merit, but nevertheless, your points are generally based on conditioning, and not objective reality. i think that is why people are upset, because you are like a kid that asks "but why?" endlessly to every answer an adult gives him.

--

> albeit one shaped not only by nature but also by previous generations of humans.

you just admit, then dismiss the distinction after saying the distinction doesn't exist.

> Humans make it conform, to the extent that they can, and learn to live with it to the extent that they can’t, often holding open the idea that future generations will be able to surmount those problems.

no. that is the whole point of the article. many humans would like those that you call "humans" gone; because they are like inoperable metastatic cancer; infecting, consuming, spreading, and destroying the host (humanity as well as the environment), crushing all healthy organs by force and expansion, with no concern as to the eventual outcome, as you admit in saying the outcome is for future generations to deal with.

> All of this process can be considered “adapting”.

your version of "humans" think that way. that is your notion based upon your conditioning. you would say a nuclear bomb "natural" because man made it, and man is nature, so a nuclear bomb must be product of nature. and that is why you are barking up the wrong tree here, and making people upset. that is not the objective reality, it is a "human" manufactured reality.

> but species go extinct all the time

you are just barking up the wrong tree. i don't think anybody is interested in a Rush Limbaugh argument here. you refuse to see that you are merely arguing endlessly with conditioning and "human" interpretations. natural extinction events are not the same as the anihilation of species by the systems and technology of man.

> people will always want a more comfortable life. (Perhaps we should adapt to that reality as well)

perhaps you should adapt to the reality of 3rd world countries in Southeast Asia and Africa (as well as many in western and other countries in financial difficulty) where modern systems keep 100s of millions, if not billions, on the suffering edge of starvation and meaningless futililty, whereas they used to be contributing to their tribe, fighting, hunting, fishing, and sitting on the beach eating coconuts, and maximizing their full potentials and experiences (compared to existing in their marshmellow body in a cubicle waiting for the clock to move faster).

> As for defying natural selection: as I keep saying, there’s no such thing. If you could defy it, then it wouldn’t be natural selection, now would it.

you just keep attacking with your stupid humanitarian views, and everybody already knows what they are, but nobody is interested in hearing them or debating them - that is what the rest of the internet is for. you want to play basketball, but you are coming to a football field - and you are just pissing people off because nobody on the football field is interested in playing basketball with you.

> People can protect the week, who otherwise would die; that’s not defying natural selection.

it depends on whether the person can be reasonably sustained in the natural environment, or needs a heart-lung machine, kidney dialysis and food-stamps (a product of theft). you just don't get it. you are just a Limbaugh/Obama mainstream clone.

> That’s part of natural selection; natural selection long ago selected for humans who would have an instinct to protect the week of their species.

wrong. i know of no primitive societies that functioned that way. generally, if you couldn't carry your own weight over the long term, you were left to die, and you accepted your fate.

> that’s not a restoration of natural selection; that’s artifical selection more like what we do every day to animals.

you got everything backwards, and you are just a troll here (not speaking for anyone else or the website, just my view, and i won't bother replying to any more of your comments for all the reasons i have given).

> you’re forgetting that the natural state of humans is not to live in some wilderness environment, any more than a lion’s natural state is to live in Antarctica. A human’s natural state is to live among other humans, according to whatever cultural conventions those humans have designed.

most primitive people worked alone or in groups of 2-3. there's a difference between small bands and tribes, and the all-encompassing over-socialized monolithic megalithic urban Psycho-Industrial-Techno-Society of today that churns out mindless brainwashed numbskulls fit only for utilization as a piece of machinery, spending their "spare time" in surrogate activities in an attempt to fill the void within themselves.

ADIOS Dave, you are a basketball player on a football field, and you really should spend your time finding a basketball court instead of trying to argue football players into playing basketball with you. Chad in AK - 23-05-’11 09:57
Dave
"you just admit, then dismiss the distinction after saying the distinction doesn’t exist."

No. You presupposed that there's something fundamentally different from "the environment into which a human is born" and an environment shaped by humans. There's not; it's usually one and the same environment.

"many humans would like those that you call "humans" gone"

Many humans would like a lot of things; it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

"because they are like inoperable metastatic cancer; infecting, consuming, spreading, and destroying the host (humanity as well as the environment), crushing all healthy organs by force and expansion,"

You're stretching the envirnoment-as-living thing metaphor a bit far here. It does not "crush all healthy organs", whatever that even means. I'm not saying people don't need to be conscious of their impact on the environment, but that is merely a means to an end; the environment iteslf is not a living thing.

"with no concern as to the eventual outcome, as you admit in saying the outcome is for future generations to deal with."

I admitted no such thing. Of course future generations will have to deal, for better or worse, with the consequences of what humans do; that doesn't mean that they're operating without concern. In many cases, they're operating to make it better!

"your version of "humans" think that way. that is your notion based upon your conditioning."

Ad hominem fallacy (look it up if you don't know what it means). You say I'm arguing this way because of conditioning, without addressing the merit of my argument. This is the case with most of the rest of your post.

"you would say a nuclear bomb "natural" because man made it, and man is nature, so a nuclear bomb must be product of nature."

In a sense, that's true, if you define "natural" to mean "conforming to the laws of nature".

The way people tend to use the term "natural" in this context is "arising or capable of arising without the intervention of humans", in which case a nuclear weapon is not natural, but then, neither is a bow and arrow.

Some people seem to want a middle ground, such as a definition for "natural" meaning something like "capable of being made before the industrial revolution", but such a definition is obviously arbitrary.

"natural extinction events are not the same as the anihilation of species by the systems and technology of man."

No, not the same, but only humans care about the distinction. To the universe at large, there's really no important difference. Humans aren't special; that's the whole point of nihilism.

"perhaps you should adapt to the reality of 3rd world countries in Southeast Asia and Africa (as well as many in western and other countries in financial difficulty) where modern systems keep 100s of millions, if not billions, on the suffering edge of starvation and meaningless futililty, whereas they used to be contributing to their tribe, fighting, hunting, fishing, and sitting on the beach eating coconuts, and maximizing their full potentials and experiences "

That's partly the result of colonialism, something I never condoned. But it's not like things were hunky-dory in such places before colonialism. Do you have any idea what the rate of death in childbirth was in those idyllic fishing societies you seem to imagine?

Also, even without colonialism, societies without modern amenities want them. Case in point: Thailand. Never colonized, but just as modern and developing as its neighbors.

"you just keep attacking with your stupid humanitarian views, and everybody already knows what they are, but nobody is interested in hearing them or debating them "

What you just responded to was as far from a "humanitarian" view as you can get. It was a scientific view.

"it depends on whether the person can be reasonably sustained in the natural environment,"

You obviously missed the part of my post that questions your idea of what counts as the "natural environment".

"wrong. i know of no primitive societies that functioned that way. generally, if you couldn’t carry your own weight over the long term, you were left to die, and you accepted your fate."

Oh, so no one tried to heal the sick until modern times? No one took care of their children?

And show me one person who ever "accepted their fate" and was willing to die because they were considered inferior. Dave (Email ) - 23-05-’11 15:50
Chad in AK
http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy/ Chad in AK - 23-05-’11 17:33
Graveland
It's their inferiority that makes them unable to accept their fate. Your point is meaningless, Dave. Graveland - 24-05-’11 15:36


(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.