<p>I think that when looking back, most people tend to romanticize the past and thus give a rather idealistic, albeit wholly untrue, view of it. It's all well and "return to them good ol' times" until you take a closer look and realize that every era had its own problems. I personally really like the present.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, you did get +1 internet points. A pretty heady prize, but I'll bump it up to +2.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>=] Thank you.</p>
<p>Another thing. A lot of "tribal" societies did not value conservation
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_Mammoth%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_Mammoth</a></p>
<p>are examples that may have gone extinct, partially as a result of tribal practices</p>
<p>Probably not due to...</p>
<p>99% of all species in existence are already extinct. <- Nothing to do with humans</p>
<p>This is very interesting:
<a href="http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm</a>
Yes I know what he did - this does not make his ideas less interesting</p>
<p>
[quote]
OVERSOCIALIZATION</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.</p></li>
<li><p>The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]</p></li>
<li><p>Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.</p></li>
<li><p>We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.</p></li>
<li><p>The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.</p></li>
<li><p>Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.</p></li>
<li><p>We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.</p></li>
<li><p>We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.</p></li>
<li><p>The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>WOOOT GO MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>dont worry human race, i still support you.</p>
<p>What a well-articulated article.</p>
<p>It's true of everyone in general, not just leftists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's the idea i was getting at when i started this thread. of course, the unabomber expressed it much more eloquently.</p>
<p>I'd also like to know--who is he refering to when he says "we"? Were there other members of his group that helped him write the manifesto?</p>
<p>I had no idea people's minds were so warped. We need to stop breeding to save the planet. In my mind that's like saying to keep a house in good shape, it is best to abandon it.</p>
<p>You do realize before industrial revolution, etc. that probably 80% of people were substinence level, with no say in their life or in their government? And you think modern day people have it bad?? </p>
<p>The grass is always greener on the other side.</p>
<p>Did you read the entire manifesto? :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd also like to know--who is he refering to when he says "we"? Were there other members of his group that helped him write the manifesto?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. He was referring to his imaginary group - but it was probably a group that he made up for himself (to make the manifesto sound more like it's the manifesto of a group).</p>
<p>oh, i see.</p>
<p>no, i plan on it, though.</p>
<p>A</a> Modest Proposal</p>
<p>First of all, to those of you who think we're concerned about environmental problems because of the fate of the Earth, it's simply not true. The only reason we care about global warming and the like is because it's so imminent that it has foreseeable consequences on the human race, i.e., we care about it because it's dangerous to us. The human race is unbelievable selfish. We also want to protect whales and gorillas because of their aesthetic value to us. Sadly, most of the public advocates even for 'poor and starving people in Africa' are celebrities looking to 'wear' individual African orphans as fashion statements. </p>
<p>Now, on society.</p>
<p>Society today is based upon the fact that it is in the nature of humans to do things that are considered morally evil. Examples of this are murder, rape, theft, selfishness, paganism (not so much today), trickery/lies, etc., etc. While many of these acts are morally reprehensible for any human being, the assumption is made that all humans will be prone to these things without a moral indoctrination, whether it is done by the Church, the State, the School, or any other formalized institution that happens to have power over a society. This is a good thing, because, while most people are not prone to morally evil acts, some are, and if a large society must exist, it is best to be sure that these urges/drives be countered in everyone, as sort of an 'insurance policy' against crimes that may cause another societal citizen's quality of life to deteriorate. </p>
<p>However, it is in the nature of a society or government that is not under the guidance of the original, visionary leader (if there ever was one) to take advantage of this opportunity to inscribe morals in the minds of their citizens. These indoctrinations can be tiny or severe, but are mostly used to imbue loyalty to the institution that they represent. In America, children say a pledge of allegiance to America every morning. This may be an extremely small thing, however, it is not voluntary for most children, and the passive act of saying (or even listening) to the words of the pledge of allegiance every morning for at least twelve years pretty much brainwashes a child to believe that America is the best country in the world. (I am not saying that America is a terrible country, just not necessarily better, worse, or more free than many of the other countries in the world today, particular northwestern European/Scandinavian countries.) This is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the nature of the child. It could lead some into joining the Armed Forces, some into writing essays and books highlighting America's greatness, and even some into realizing the truth about the brainwashing and becoming enamored with its power, eventually becoming teachers, professors, politicians, or any other profession that gives them an opportunity to shape one's mind. That brings me to the subject of the biggest form of brainwashing in modern America: the public school system. </p>
<p>There are four things that are fundamentally bad about the public school system:
1. It is mandatory. Children are required, by law, to attend some sort of public or private school for most of their youth. This schooling usually takes up the part of the day when children are most active and even inserts itself into a child's time away from school through homework. This takes away almost all of the free time of a child. 'But then, how will she learn?' you ask. People have a natural ability to learn. There were architects and scientists and doctors and farmers and sailors and soldiers and mathematicians and physicists before there was ever public schooling. A child will naturally find her own interests, given that the parents devote enough time to explore them with her (and even if they do not, she will eventually find something that is interesting to her, be it bird-watching, growing plants, or writing stories). If she has time to develop her own interests, she will become vastly more educated about those interests than she would in school because she has the time to devote herself to learning about her interests (whether the learning is from a book or from a forest or from a boat). No, she will not be educated in every single broad field that is required at school, but would she be anyways? Wouldn't she just drudge through the classes with boring subject matter to her, learning what she was forced to and mentally sleeping through the rest? What's the use of spending that time learning a little bit of something that will likely be useless to her as opposed to learning a lot of something that will likely play a role in her future career? Naval architects don't need to know English grammar, novelists don't need to know trigonometry (unless, of course, their novels specifically involve trigonometry), soldiers don't need to know about protein synthesis, deep-sea fishermen don't need to know about the history of the Civil War (unless, of course, it interests them). However, naval architects need to know calculus and preferably how to build a boat. Novelists need to know grammar and plot structure. Soldiers need to know about physical fitness and weapons technology. Deep-sea fishermen need to know about atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns, storms, and marine biology. </p>
<ol>
<li>Teachers are given enormous power (in loco parentis) over large groups of children.</li>
<li>The arbitrary grading system.</li>
<li>It destroys a child's perception of learning and individualism.</li>
</ol>
<p>(I'll continue this later, need to do an experiment in my lab. I just realized I could probably write a fifty page social commentary...)</p>
<p>(continued)
There are four things that are fundamentally bad about the public school system:
1. It is mandatory.......... it is better for members of a society to self-educate or be educated by parents, but this seems to be socially and legally unacceptable in most of the world. Why is it better? Because, as I explained earlier, a child who discovers her interests sooner in life will learn more about that interest, and eventually be a better, more knowledgeable expert in that field when she is ready to have a career (yes, self-educated and homeschooled kids can get into college). I know I am going to be bombarded with "but then she won't be well-rounded," etc., and I ask for an explanation of why your dissension is important, i.e., why is it important to be well-rounded? If a child actually wants to go to school, the facilities to do so should still be available (I imagine that even if it was optional a good portion of the society's children would still attend - it's easier than self-education in many ways for the lazier kids, and many conservative parents will still want their child to attend school). If they can learn in that environment, all the power to them.</p>
<p>I promise you, I won't stay off topic for long.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Teachers are given enormous power (in loco parentis) over large groups of children. "Wait until after class to use the bathroom." "Write a five-paragraph essay." "Pick up that can." A teacher is given almost dictatorial power over a large group of children in an environment that punishes all but obedience. "But my teachers are nice and try to help me learn!" Yes, some are. That is the reason many people choose the job of teaching. But they are still all slaves to the "modern educational technique," which is cramming children into rooms and teaching them a curriculum - teaching hundreds of children the exact same thing every single year. The teachers have the power to decide what the child learns and how she learns it, which is sometimes a good thing. Other school rules are more dictatorial and sinister, such as "no chewing gum," "no eating in the classroom," "you have to work alone/in groups now," "eat this food in this room," "abide by this schedule," "take these classes," "do not join these clubs if your grades are behind," and, in many schools, "wear this uniform." Does that sound like an environment solely created for learning or a prison to you? Teachers are forced to enforce the rules of a school, even if they consider them unfair, or they may find themselves out of a job, and guess what? All of the other schools have similar rules, so sorry, good-hearted teacher.</p></li>
<li><p>The arbitrary grading system.
Kid 1: A. Kid 2: C. Kid 3: C-. Kid 4: B. What is a grade but a letter that judges you based on one person's observations and work? "Grades determine the college you get into, and your future." "Son, are your grades dropping?" "I'm going to have to suspend you from all after-school activities until you bring up those grades." Grades are more often than not unfair. In high school, you can get A's by playing the system (i.e., writing 5-paragraph structured essays instead of original essays, using teachers' ideas because they argued with my own ideas, etc.). But most people don't like to do that. Some people get A's and B's the hard way, and get a "Good boy! Keep up the good work! Lets praise you for your 'intelligence'!", and they're hooked on good grades, taking harder classes for more praise, and eventually submitting to 5-paragraph essays and fill-in-the-blank notes because it's easier and a guaranteed good grade. Those who try to be individual and get bad grades are shamed, and are told that they need to get their grades up. They are punished, by parents and schools. So they learn to conform to the curriculum and start getting rewarded for being mediocre. So it goes.</p></li>
<li><p>It destroys a child's perception of learning and individualism. This is the most important part of my whole argument. You see, a child is born with a little something called 'individuality.' (And again, lab calls... I'll finish at home)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If we look back to when America was founded and look at general intelligence. Its incredibly sad how dumb people are today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its incredibly sad how dumb people are today.
[/quote]
Is that supposed to mean us?</p>
<p>Well no, I mean everybody. Myself included.</p>
<p>I'm going to have to disagree with that one. The founding fathers were just an incredible group of the smartest people of the time. Most of the colonists were just ordinary people and didn't have IQs of 180 on average.</p>
<p>^ Have to disagree with that one.</p>
<p>The average (literate) colonist is far more intelligent than the average everyday American. Can you imagine Americans establishing a new government as successful as the one they formed? </p>
<p>Just the fact that they could read and follow something like the Federalist Papers demonstrates that.</p>
<p>I dunno about the average colonial, but our leaders during that time period were exceptionally shrewd and intelligent, a standard with which our current government seems to fail at on every account.</p>