This is the official Freedom4Me thread. F4M, can you please post your anti-civilization posts to this thread instead of the low-content threads? We will be just as happy to debunk and ridicule you in this thread and forego the cluttering up of the low-content threads.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Clayton -
And just to kick things off:
So you've made an entire forum thread to mock me?
I can give you plenty of reasons why I came to the conclusions I did. Only a fool without any critical thinking skills would deny that civilization, agriculture and technology are inherently violent, unhealthy, collectivist and NOT sustainable at all. Fools need some "expert's" studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren't good enough. I don't need an official "scientific study" conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I'd be better off living outside of civ, off the grid and in the least violent state (New Hampshire) so when the state and civ start to collapse and their violence steps into overdrive I know I'll be able to survive w/o having to deal.
Also, for those people who are unable to rely on their own brains for judgment on this matter, the law of life does provide sufficient proof that civ and the state have created their own demise.
No - I'm plenty happy to debate you I just frustrated with your trollish behavior in the low-content threads.
I can give you plenty of reasons why I came to the conclusions I did. Only a fool without any critical thinking skills would deny that civilization, agriculture and technology are inherently violent, unhealthy, collectivist and NOT sustainable at all.
Ad hominem
Fools need some "expert's" studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren't good enough. I don't need an official "scientific study" conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I'd be better off living outside of civ, off the grid
Posting on the Internet is "off the grid" how?? Many of us have put this question to you multiple times, you've yet to directly answer why you are on the Internet if you're trying to be "off the grid".
and in the least violent state (New Hampshire)
We've also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.
so when the state and civ start to collapse and their violence steps into overdrive I know I'll be able to survive w/o having to deal. Also, for those people who are unable to rely on their own brains for judgment on this matter, the law of life does provide sufficient proof that civ and the state have created their own demise.
Law of life?
So you've made an entire forum thread to mock me? I can give you plenty of reasons why I came to the conclusions I did. Only a fool without any critical thinking skills would deny that civilization, agriculture and technology are inherently violent, unhealthy, collectivist and NOT sustainable at all. Fools need some "expert's" studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren't good enough. I don't need an official "scientific study" conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I'd be better off living outside of civ, off the grid and in the least violent state (New Hampshire) so when the state and civ start to collapse and their violence steps into overdrive I know I'll be able to survive w/o having to deal. Also, for those people who are unable to rely on their own brains for judgment on this matter, the law of life does provide sufficient proof that civ and the state have created their own demise.
This makes no sense to me. You shall reject civilization, agriculture, and technology because they are somehow inherently evil to live "off the grid" using the agriculture or technology of civilization in order to survive?
Don't get me wrong I am all for off the grid. I am a huge fan of geographical organization (ie. Israel) . The main economic benefit of geographical organization is the competitive cost advantage inherent in an area with no property taxes, regulations, etc.
Seven *blink* eight *blink* nine billion people cannot live off roots and tubers in the woods.
Personally, I'd like to see civilisation defeat and overcome its greatest enemy - its cancer; the state.
Don't be crazy, obviously they can eat berries too.
First, remove all the shovels....
@F4M: Can you respond to Milton Friedman's claim that no one can make a pencil? Are pencils really the source of evil in the world??
Fools need some "expert's" studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren't good enough. I don't need an official "scientific study" conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I'd be better off living outside of civ, off the grid Posting on the Internet is "off the grid" how?? Many of us have put this question to you multiple times, you've yet to directly answer why you are on the Internet if you're trying to be "off the grid".
Now your making ad hom attacks. When I say it's better for people to leave civ and live self-sufficiently you respond with pointing out me posting on the internet. Non-sequitur.
and in the least violent state (New Hampshire) We've also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.
Have you ever been to NH? How would you know it's not any more libertarian?
This.
Now your making ad hom attacks.
There was no attack against your person in the quote that you provided. How, exactly, was it ad hominem?
When I say it's better for people to leave civ and live self-sufficiently you respond with pointing out me posting on the internet. Non-sequitur.
Non-sequitur means "it does not follow". He is pointing out:
There are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn from this. Either you choose to behave immorally, or you do not believe what you are saying to be true. So, when he points out that you do not act morally as you define it, it is now a non sequitur?
I would think that not only is it very relevant to the conversation at hand, the implicit conclusions do logically follow from the implicit premises.
Freedom4Me73986: Clayton:We've also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.Have you ever been to NH? How would you know it's not any more libertarian?
Clayton:We've also been over the ridiculous claim that NH is some kind of haven of libertarianism.
Aha! Your question does not address his statement! He asserts that NH is not a libertarian haven. You respond with "how do you know it is not more libertarian?" This is irrelevant to his point. It is not a haven of libertarianism. It does not matter if it is more or less libertarian than Massachusetts, California, or Texas. NH is not a libertarian haven. Your question does not address his point.
Re: Law of Life
Wow. No. There is no law of life that says you cannot kill, steal, whatever your competitors in nature. Just no. There are many animals that kill competitors in nature, not just humans. Just no.
@Law of life
Um, maybe I missed something obvious, but don't all predators eat other organisms (thus destroying them)? Hell, even herbivores destroy some of the plants they eat.
@Clayton
The guys point seemed to be that the law of life meant that predators could kill their prey, but they were not allowed to kill other predators, same species or otherwise. Quite a claim, considering there are numerous species that kill animals of the same species and others that are not meant to be food. I guess the lion who kills his cubs in order to have sex with his mate is guilty of breaking the lol (law of life).
The author seemed to be a fairly intelligent person so I can't see how he could have missed such an obvious point - perhaps he's saying that organisms that bring about mass extinctions of other organisms (through poisoning or other methods) for no benefit to themselves (i.e. just because) are doomed to extinction. I guess that could be true but are there any other species than human beings that have, for example, sprayed pesticides. And was it just me or did the section about pest control remind anybody else of MIB?!
Even if that were what he meant, it still doesn't logically follow. That lions kill their cubs, or that ants wage war against each other does not mean they will lead their species to extinction. I mean, if lions can kill their offspring and still be around, wouldn't that be a strong counter-example to extinction based on this law of life?
@F4M: But that's not a law - it's not even a pattern, it's just a unique property. We have other unique properties, such as our ability to engage in complex reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Life
You have to be blind not to understand how civ is killing mankind both DIRECTLY (poisoning us through chemicals, making us dependent on ag to survive) and INDIRECTLY (law of life.) Any article on Infowars or Natural News will tell you that.
You make the claim that civilization is killing mankind. Why, then, is the world population estimated at 7 billion people and growing? This would seem to directly contradict your claim.
The Wiki article mentions none of the specific conditions mentioned by the Quinn reading YT vid. And as far as "evolutionarily stable strategies" goes, there's actually been some research into that and I believe they've proved that there is no single evolutionarily stable strategy - the right strategy depends on the environment.
Why, then, is the world population estimated at 7 billion people and growing? This would seem to directly contradict your claim.
Wrong. Birthrates in most white countries are at an all-time low. The only people in the world who breed like bunnies are the ones who live in places where the average lifespan is way lower.
You do realize that as long as the world population keeps growing, the quoted statement is false? Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
I think this is not the case. For population to grow, every person on average must produce just a bit more than one offspring who gets to mate as well. So if an average person produces 10 offsprings, 8.9 of whom die before reaching age 1, and 1.1 live to age of 15 and then repeat this procreation cycle, then average life span is less than 2 years, while the population grows steadily.
Wrong. Birthrates in most white countries are at an all-time low. The only people in the world who breed like bunnies are the ones who live in places where the average lifespan is way lower. You do realize that as long as the world population keeps growing, the quoted statement is false? Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
Doesn't matter what birthrates are. If the world population keeps growing it will hit its peak soon enough which will cause huge food wars (aggression) once industrial ag finally bottoms out. That's exactly what I've been saying concerning the LoL. Civ enables populations to grow to huge porportions but kills the race at the same time. Civ grows to die. We can feed more people thanks to industrial ag and GMO BUT then you have to deal w/ extreme cases of overpopulation which lead to massive die-offs. Also GMO is death cells being injected in your food. Statist industrial ag destroys topsoil to the point where soon enough ag itself will be dry. More reason I advocate doing away with tech, leaving civilization and learning survial skills.
Biological organisms are a kind of technology, a natural technology. The cell can be described as a self-replicating computer hardware device. The ecosphere is a kind of "economy" or "civilization" and the rules that have arisen within it are a kind of law (law of nature, or law of life, if you prefer). It seems to me that you're committing a genetic fallacy or at least special pleading to single out human-devised technologies, economy, civilization and law as being somehow inherently destructive.
Doesn't matter what birthrates are.
Then why did you bring it up? I mentioned population growth, not an increase in birthrates.
If the world population keeps growing it will hit its peak soon enough which will cause huge food wars (aggression) once industrial ag finally bottoms out.
You need to prove this. This an unsupported assertion.
Civ enables populations to grow to huge porportions but kills the race at the same time.
First part is true. The second part is unsupported.
We can feed more people thanks to industrial ag and GMO BUT then you have to deal w/ extreme cases of overpopulation which lead to massive die-offs.
Statist industrial ag destroys topsoil to the point where soon enough ag itself will be dry.
Unsupported. You also need to define "soon enough".
I am detecting a pattern here. You make a lot of unsupported statements, and then you repeat yourself. That does not mean supporting your statements.
Freedom4Me73986:Doesn't matter what birthrates are. If the world population keeps growing it will hit its peak soon enough which will cause huge food wars (aggression) once industrial ag finally bottoms out.
Gee. We've only been hearing that since world population was less than half a billion.
Here's a video for you.
And, by the way, world population growth is slowing and will continue to slow. Some experts are predicting growth will zero out later this century. Once we cross the zero-growth boundary, there is nothing stopping us from going into negative growth (shrinking population) for the first time in centuries. While this thought may make the Algoreans giddy, the fact is that a population crash is a much more worrisome catastrophe than any population explosion.
Clayton:And, by the way, world population growth is slowing and will continue to slow. Some experts are predicting growth will zero out later this century.
Those "experts" seem to be arriving at those conclusions by very economically ignorant methodology. And in fact that whole thing is incredibly contradictory. I didn't hear the guy in the video say anything about the subject introduced by the title of the article. In fact he spends the entire first half of the video talking about how the birth rate and fertility rate (of Australia, anyway) are going up.
And then something he did mention (emphatically) was that this kind of shift is just a matter of personal preference, and "you can't entertain a situation where governments were making rules about whether you could or whether you couldn't." He elaborates on this for basically the rest of the video saying that the State has no place in interfering and issuing mandates and the like in this area.
Then the entire article below the video goes on to say how "federal and state governments should aim to lift [the retirement age] to 65 by using sticks and carrots to make people put off their retirement, and get retired people to return to work part-time."
This of course as a reaction to the notion that (despite a shrinking population, which, don't forget is supposed to be the subject of the article), "most people will be living in cities, and in developing countries - and they will consume twice as much food and water as the world now produces". This of course—as the conventional economic illiterate wisdom would dictate—"rais[es] serious issues of sustainability."
Seems to me that
1) That article does more to agree with Freedom4Me73986 than refute him.
2) Both he, and the authors of that piece need to watch the video I posted above. (As well as this one.)
Why agriculture is the root of statism
So, once you abandon civilization, you won't use agriculture?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Learn the right gathering skills and I won't need to.
Freedom4Me73986:Learn the right gathering skills
Courtesy of evil civilization, of course.
Freedom4Me73986:Learn the right gathering skills Courtesy of evil civilization, of course.
Freedom4Me73986: Freedom4Me73986:Learn the right gathering skillsCourtesy of evil civilization, of course. Who cares? Will you respond to my arguments without resorting to ad homs?
Who cares? Will you respond to my arguments without resorting to ad homs?
Will you learn the definition of "ad hominem" and quit incorrectly invoking it everytime someone points out the hypocrisy of your entire philosophy?
Pointing out someone's supposed hypocrisy IS an ad hom attack. Will you respond to the videos Ive posted or are you going to ramble on about how I'm using a computer at the moment?
I love how F4M constantly reposts the exact same 2-4 minute wishy-washy YouTube videos like they're some kind of master answer. And this "law of life" stuff. It's a non-concept. The videos compare it to empirically determined physical laws, and offer NO SUPPORT for this argument, besides just repeating the lie over and over again. Is that F4M in that one video? Because the kid makes about as much sense as he does.
Oh, and this repeated assertion that "every civilization that has existed has collapsed". This is utterly false. Civilizations rarely collapse, but States do. Roman "civilization" didn't collapse. The Roman STATE did. The Egyptian civilization didn't collapse, the Egyptian STATE did. And so often, the results of these collapses isn't the result of some massive systemic failure, but rather a weakening, followed by an invasion of another group of civilized or otherwise organized peoples.
When the state collapses it brings part of civilization down with it, doesn't it?
Please note that I don't believe civilization is evil:)