/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(896.27 KB 3072x2304 Antipodes_Castaway_Hut.JPG)
Environmentalism and natives Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 18:58:13 [Preview] No. 24678
>>24666
I'll play advocatus diaboli.

Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics. Non-human life is less valuable than ours and is under our administration; it is ours to use for the betterment of our species. Of course, as responsible stewards it is our duty to make use of it carefully so future generations won't be deprived by overuse. And as sensitive stewards we can appreciate the beauty of nature and recognize that some non-human life can feel pain, and adjust our rule over nature accordingly. But the life of some common tree is not worth more than the life of a human; it is not even worth the same.

You can cut down thousands and thousands of square km of virgin Amazon land and you'll still have enough untouched rainforest for every purpose you can think of. The new open spaces have housed wave after wave of settlers adding up to a population in the millions with major urban centers housing international airports and industry. Further south, the acidic soil of the central South American savannah was defeated and its neverending empty flatlands were turned into a global-level breadbasket with several neatly planned cities, a victory of willpower and reason over vacuum.
If not for deforestation, most of those settlers would now live in overcrowded eastern slums. Is that really a better way of life than living as a pioneer in a plot of deforested land? Millions of Europeans left their overcrowded continent to build something new on the other side of the Atlantic for similar reasons, and the conquest of the Amazon repeats this on a smaller scale.

And then there's the problem of national sovereignty. Would you feel comfortable with a sparsely populated porous border thousands of km long with several unstable states? That's what the northern border is. FARC guerillas have crossed into Brazilian territory before. Only a populated Amazon guarantees a safe border.

"It's all greed", you might say. It is true that greed is not the ideal driving impulse for the conquest of virgin land, and sadly it's a driving force. But the economic use of conquered land is not evil per se. It is easy to think so in a Scandinavian country where further economic growth brings little improvement to collective and individual well-being. But that does not mean material prosperity is unrelated to happiness. It just has diminishing returns. As an undeveloped state we are still at a point where economic expansion can have social/imaterial benefits. And within a globalized economy, exporting raw materials and the services and industrial goods produced within the cleared space contributes to overall prosperity, allows other undeveloped states to have their own improvements and, through trade, creates relations of interdependency which bring countries closer together and contribute to global peace.


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 19:05:24 [Preview] No.24679 del
>Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics

dropped


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 19:49:42 [Preview] No.24682 del
I understand your standpoint but I can't make a judgement. I simply don't know the extent of deforestation and the effects of the human activity.


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 20:29:57 [Preview] No.24685 del
I have a simple question for you brazil bernd. When is enough enough?

I dont think there is any original old forrest left in europe for example, everything is replanted and there is no biodiversity. When they cut trees here, they plant new ones. Sure. But there is just one type of tree that is being planted.

Once we realize that we are not separate from the earth but merely guests we can start living again.

This is the catch 22 of every so called civilization that has existed since at least 270 000 years, they think they are superior than universe.


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 20:31:11 [Preview] No.24686 del
>>24682
isnt hungary mostly steppes


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 22:17:54 [Preview] No.24703 del
(164.54 KB 700x473 human-vegan.jpg)
>>24685
>not separate from the earth but merely guests

We are just part of ecosystem as any other species, not guests. For example, beavers with their dams may literally ruin local ecosystem with big casualties, but they considered as something "natural" for some reason, but humans who do same are not.

Thinking that humans are different and must do something special to "preserve" others (or, on other side, to destroy others) is just an anthropocentrism. Same anthropocentrism that is criticized by pro-ecology people who are narcissic inside, because they think that humans are somewhat special and separate from nature.

In reality it doesn't matter, you can't destroy biosphere if you are biosphere, everything, including deforestation and human-driven mass extinction, is just a part of natural evolution process. Although ecological movements are part of this process to, so thinking that "we can do anything and must not care" is also wrong. Every action of humanity will be natural just by definition.


Bernd 04/10/2019 (Wed) 22:24:44 [Preview] No.24704 del
>>24703
Made me chuckle.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 00:18:55 [Preview] No.24706 del
>>24703
What is the purpose of this post?


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 01:46:42 [Preview] No.24711 del
>>24682
I'm not even fully certain of my position, but I felt the antithesis to the usual environmentalist thesis needs to be stated.
This environmentalist site has a lot of statistics:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html
A fifth of what forest cover existed in 1970 has been cut down, but there's a declining trend in deforestation. This is largely because of policy and commodity economics but may also be a late result of another fact: the North is the fastest-growing region and managed to triple its population in thirty years, but its rates of population growth are declining.
Some claimed effects of deforestation are bogus. It's said to be the "world's lungs" because photosynthesis releases oxygen to the atmosphere. Trees also breathe so their net oxygen contribution is minimal. It's also said that soil poverty (a reality) will cause a deforested Amazon to become a desert. Climatologically an actual desert right at the Equator only happens under specific circumstances like Somalia, no amount of deforestationw will stop moisture from the Atlantic. What can happen is a transition to a savannah state.
More realistic concerns are carbon emissions from burning wood and cattle, decreased rainfall elsewhere in the country and the social costs of settlement as it currently proceeds, with Wild West lawlessness and violent land disputes.

>>24685
>When is enough enough?
More than what has already been cleared. I, for one, would cut down the border and river margins (exporting food and ores to global markets directly by ship; you can navigate all the way into Peru) and leave large blocks of preserved land inbetween, with a total deforestation lower than Europe. This is not how it currently moves -deforestation mostly expands south-north from the savannah and through highways. But it can be steered and planned like it was in the past.
Preserving the status quo and telling millions to stay put where they are is unrealistic, and getting those millions to emigrate is out of the question. What's needed instead is a guided and conscious process.
100% deforestation will never happen. A saturation point will be reached and further conquest will be inconvenient. Industrialization and development will then lead to an increase in forested area, as Europe has already witnessed. Policies set in Brasília can set this saturation point higher and make it a better situation.

>I dont think there is any original old forrest left in europe for example, everything is replanted and there is no biodiversity. When they cut trees here, they plant new ones. Sure. But there is just one type of tree that is being planted.
...and it was worth it! The positive legacy Europe has left for all of humanity far outweighs the value of its primeval forests.

>Once we realize that we are not separate from the earth but merely guests we can start living again.
Guests have a host. A host has a conscience and can expel the guest. Nature is non sapient matter and, aside from events that happen once in ten thousand years or happen in geologic time, can only overpower us if we're foolish. Because of our overwhelming skill in occupying all biomes, sustaining large populations and molding the environment to our will the steward is a better metaphor. We can be good stewards and cultivate what's under our control cautiously and humanely, or bad stewards who misadminister our resources and cause our own destruction. But we are the stewards and wield power.

>they think they are superior than universe
One way to look at it is >>24703, we're just a species fighting for survival like any other.
Another thought is that some outputs of human societies like art and science have value and it is worth displacing nonhuman life so civilizations capable of producing them can thrive.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 04:29:06 [Preview] No.24712 del
(3.82 MB 1280x533 d58aaf28aa.webm)
>>24678
>But the life of some common tree is not worth more than the life of a human; it is not even worth the same.
How do you know that? What if trees are higher level life species? Trees perfectly can live without humanity, but not otherwise.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 05:12:48 [Preview] No.24713 del
>>24703
This is why I like your posts.

>>24711
Will look into that sight.
Right now my concern would be the optimal usage of the freed space.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 07:14:52 [Preview] No.24718 del
>>24706
>What is the purpose of this post?

I've expressed opinion that judging environmental issues by some moral or idealistic values aren't good way to do. People often start to discuss value of human/non-human life and to use arguments against and pro nature. I think that this isn't fair because it is all natural process and natural laws.

Although there is nothing wrong with discussion as is.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 07:43:53 [Preview] No.24719 del
>>24706

Uh, and actually, I've just been tired after long work day and wrote some random things that got into my mind, nothing serious.

Considering original topic, I don't think that deforestation is a good thing overall just because living in stable existing ecological system is often easier than adapt to changing one (and I just personally like forests). But there are plenty of reasons in OP post that may overcome the negative side of this, and transforming habitat to make life easier is a basic way of life for human.

If easy solution had existed, people already would use it.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 18:55:01 [Preview] No.24742 del
>>24711
You equate human happiness and spiritual fulfillment with material possessions. Parroting the ideas that came up with the industrial revolution and later was perfected by the likes of edward bernays. I suggest you go read some Jacques Ellul to get you started.

>>24718
>I've expressed opinion that judging environmental issues by some moral or idealistic values aren't good way to do.

So nothing is sacred is your point?

>>24719
>If easy solution had existed, people already would use it.

There is an "easy" solution, and that is the destruction of the industrial society and the profit system.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 19:27:10 [Preview] No.24749 del
>>24742
>So nothing is sacred is your point?

Hmm, you may interpret it like this, but I didn't had that in mind.

My point was about separating humans and other nature. Humans are part of nature, and so-called anthropological ecological catastrophes are same thing as natural disaster or extinct events. Don't think that this can be good or bad. Concept of sacredness is ok though, it is also natural thing that shapes biosphere (by influencing human actions).

And that asteroid killed dinosaurs (and many other species too), but that was one big reason why we are here. That event wasn't very environmental friendly, and not even natural from Earth's point of view, but look how it ended.

This can be interpreted as dao-style way about going with the flow, although this is slightly cynical indeed.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 19:45:37 [Preview] No.24754 del
>>24742
>There is an "easy" solution, and that is the destruction of the industrial society and the profit system.

Not an easy solution, if you being serious. It also can be seen as catastrophic event for human society. Human nature is about getting much without spending much (i.e. concept of adequate laziness and survival), and smart people will invent that type of society in future anyway, even if you destroy current one. Or you can remove everyone capable of invention, but this solution looks pretty, hmm, hardcore.

Do you think that it's can be done it other way?

Human society actually goes into lowering real consumerism, can't easily say if this intentional or not - more and more "goods" move into virtual space, and demand of real things grow much less than before. For example, 200-300 years ago most of people desired own land, especially land for farms, Now average person is ok with small flat, some electronic devices and computer games (and large amount of "money", but it is virtual anyway), and having own plot for growing potatoes is rare desire of small part of society. Maybe this is the self-regulating way of slowing down exponential consumption. Although from ethical point of view that society looks pretty bad.

Overall it is all about your optimism, you may see modern life as way to future progressive democratic* electronic utopia or to dystopian cyberpunkish collapse (both things are same I think). I personally care less and less because 1) I can't change anything 2) planning too far is pointless in fast-changing world 3) I'll die someday.


Bernd 04/11/2019 (Thu) 19:59:11 [Preview] No.24755 del
>>24742
>You equate human happiness and spiritual fulfillment with material possessions.
Quite to the contrary, I have made it implicit in the last paragraph of my first post that they are different things but under specific circumstances an increase in one can increase another. It is possible for a very poor population to grow happier once life is made easier and softer by material prosperity. Simple things like having sewage, electricity and running water can make a lot of difference. And for the uneducated, gaining access to knowledge can certainly bring spiritual fulfillment.


Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 05:40:49 [Preview] No.24760 del
>>24749
>And that asteroid killed dinosaurs
Two wrongs doesnt make a right. We see time and time again that when civilizations start to form, they want to control nature, subdue it. Nature is the enemy. After some time the society collapses because it is entropic. You can see this clearly the last 200 years. Technology has become more and more advanced and more and more complex. With that comes the control over it. One of the first things the bolsheviks did when they took power in Russia was to ban wood stoves and install central heating. See where im going with this?

>>24754
>Human society actually goes into lowering real consumerism
People weren't bombarded with advertising everywhere telling them to buy things they dont need with money they dont have.

200 years ago people knew that land was valuable. Why do you think its called real easte?

>>24755
>It is possible for a very poor population to grow happier once life is made easier and softer by material prosperity. Simple things like having sewage, electricity and running water can make a lot of difference. And for the uneducated, gaining access to knowledge can certainly bring spiritual fulfillment.

Is this your religion? Sounds to me like it is. The "poor" people (material perhaps) ive met in third world countries were miles happier than any westerner ivet come across. Its just a shame that this system will destroy everything in its path.


Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 10:44:20 [Preview] No.24765 del
>>24755
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BOCtu-rXfPk [Embed]

can you watch that brazil bernd then come back to me and tell me what you thought.


Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 13:53:10 [Preview] No.24776 del
>>24760
>when civilizations start to form, they want to control nature, subdue it
So what? Beavers also change the environment to their liking.

>After some time the society collapses because it is entropic
Only if society is foolish in its handling of resources.

>200 years ago people knew that land was valuable.
And that's why they moved out of their overcrowded continent to clear out living space on the other side of the Atlantic.
But 200 years ago urbanization was limited and agriculture inefficient. By making agriculture more labor- and land- efficient industrialization reduced the need for deforestation. Because of this Europe's forest cover is greater now than it was a century ago.

>The "poor" people ive met in third world countries were miles happier than any westerner ivet come across.
I interact with poor Third Worlders on a daily basis and some are my closest friends. I can tell you they do feel happier with material gains. This is why last year tens of millions of them voted for the proxy of a corrupt former President who would de facto rule the country from a jail cell: because they were happy and nostalgic for the material gains they made during his rule.

>material perhaps
Are you implying they lead more moral and traditional lives, or their culture is more valuable? Funk music should warn you not to idealize them.


Bernd 04/12/2019 (Fri) 13:53:27 [Preview] No.24777 del
>>24765
Watched it. Not bad at all.
His point about the division of tasks pulverizing responsibility reminds me of the Marxist concept of alienation and has a basis in psychology. But that's not necessarily how it always goes. Legally there still is responsibility, if a dam bursts the engineers working on it can be arrested if their project is found to be faulty. In some chains of production, though workers only do one step of production they can be proud of the final output. And the division of tasks is not merely an economic or technical relationship but also a social one where contacts are made and individuals come to rely on one another, whereas under autarky no such contacts and relationships would have been built.

Attempts to express individual will (the case of Parisians leaving their city on their free time) ending up all the same across masses, urbanites in developed societies feeling despair and loneliness and "tunnel vision" happening when the achievement of a technical solution to the detriment of everything else is the goal are facts.

At the beginning he speaks of the industrial West conquering traditional societies and says it should never have intruded upon their sacred beliefs. No judgement of wheter those beliefs are right is made, those beliefs make them comfortable and shouldn't be touched. Yet near the end he makes judgements and touches on the beliefs and behaviors (optimism) that allow individuals in industrial societies to sleep comfortably at night. Though there's more to that, he seems to believe in the "noble savage" archetype but isn't just a postmodern cultural relativist, he does imply that the beliefs of traditional societies are more truthful and that's what makes them untouchable.

He describes art as something that can bring spiritual fulfillment. And yet art can only exist within a material medium and can only be accessed with a certain level of material prosperity, both for having an education and for paying to be able to witness the artistic item. In a society with no printing press and 90% illiteracy this spiritual fulfillment is unavailable for most.

The psychological and societal results of industrialization are described with some materialistic determinism/fatalism, that the way things are is the one and only possible result of having our technology. On the other hand near the end he also speaks of living with technology and under its effects but being conscious of it. I'd say technology impacts society but this isn't a crude Marxist model where the material infrastructure commands the societal superstructure, it is possible to change the way we face technology and use it in a more constructive, tool-like form.
He also speaks of using small groups of people. Curiously enough the classical age of mass movements is coming to an end and limited circles are increasing in importance:
https://jacobitemag.com/2017/12/05/a-priesthood-of-programmers/


Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 21:24:50 [Preview] No.24848 del
>>24776
>>24777
the problem is that you are looking at it with postmodern materialist glasses.

>>24777
>In a society with no printing press and 90% illiteracy this spiritual fulfillment is unavailable for most.
I mean come on. Do you really believe this?


Bernd 04/14/2019 (Sun) 23:48:01 [Preview] No.24851 del
>>24848
>I mean come on. Do you really believe this?
A. Literature can bring spiritual fulfillment
B. You cannot read if you're illiterate
C. You cannot read if the words don't materially exist in paper, a computer screen or any other medium
D. Therefore, those who are illiterate and/or cannot access the material mediums of literature cannot derive anything out of it


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 01:19:39 [Preview] No.24854 del
>>24851
I cannot deny that literature can bring spiritual fulfillment but im biased since im a bibliophile. Maybe we read and write since we dont communicate with eachother?


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 05:34:52 [Preview] No.24856 del
>>24848
>the problem is that you are looking at it with postmodern materialist glasses.
To me it rather sounds like he thinks about and empathize with the people whose life can be elevated from the struggle for subsistence to a level where they could afford of taking care of the needs of mind and soul instead just the body.
First world environmentalism is very selfish and egotistic in ways. Beside they just do it because they saw some one sided argument (propaganda really) which made them angry and they propelled by their own emotions which they care of but not other people's life, they also can form any opinion very easily since their livelihood and that elevated quality of life they enjoy already isn't in danger.

I should read the whole thread tho, I lost track somewhere.


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 16:53:44 [Preview] No.24861 del
>>24856
Who says bringing "civilization" will benefit these people? Its an infantile argument.


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 17:20:50 [Preview] No.24863 del
>>24861
>Who says bringing "civilization" will benefit these people?
Well, surely you can't read that anywhere in my post.


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 18:08:28 [Preview] No.24865 del
>>24856
>elevated from the struggle for subsistence
>>24863
>elevated from the struggle for subsistence


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 19:11:16 [Preview] No.24872 del
>>24865
Ah I see what you think "bringing the civilization" means.
So they don't have the right for education or healthcare? They don't have the right to satisfy other needs than the bare physicals? How do you expect them to understand concept like conserving the environment and other shit if they can barely read? Lots of people in Brasil lives on day-to-day basis do you think it's fine and dandy?
And why do you even care about the jungles there? You don't even believe in global warming which is usually connected to deforestation (as well).


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 23:21:03 [Preview] No.24881 del
I heard similar opinions from China long time ago. From someone from the private sectors I guess.
But now their official policy has totally changed and the government only talks about the eco civilization and sustainable development now. The official policy this year still focuses on poverty reduction but the ecology is their new emphasis.
It's probably because their new city building programs are under review now. The news said the cities they built are ghost towns.

(I don't know anything about Brazil. I am just talking about the political propaganda in China. )


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 23:25:49 [Preview] No.24882 del
>>24881
Meanwhile they are renting farmlands abroad in tropical countries I guess their plan is to cultivate lands in other countries and preserve their own rain forest


Bernd 04/15/2019 (Mon) 23:35:38 [Preview] No.24883 del
>>24861
I'm very much grateful civilization was brought here by bold pioneers from a small patch of Europe and believe our existence can be improved by following on their footsteps.

The distant mixed-race offspring of those Amerindians who were here half a millenium ago have in their hands a far better continent than the one their forefathers had.

The Amerindian lived in a pathetic little village whose buildings rotted away in a few years. He had very little social mobility and his tribe only had a handful of occupations. His life was short, crude and brutish and he could perish at random from any disease. He engaged in neverending tribal wars and glorified bloodshed. He liberally and irresponsibly employed fires in hunting - Amerindians were never paladins of environmentalism. The meager production of his village remained there; he could never share it with outsiders and also partake in the fruits of their labor.
He had no knowledge of why anything happened in the environment around him. His worldview on nature and everything else was exactly the same of everyone else in his village and his ancestors. There was no space for reflection and intellectual change: he could not compare his ideas with those of anyone else nor create anything new. All that he had was a tiny shard of ideas, shared with other villages of the same ethnicity but never traded and never discussed, an isolated and unchanging intellectual world. Sure, those ideas made him comfortable with his reality, but at the cost of isolation, ignorance and practices such as eating the flesh of enemies to assimilate their strength.
He had some cultural production, but nothing truly outstanding, and even if it were, nobody else could ever enjoy it because of the village's autarkic nature. The only Amerindian epics are those written about them by outsiders.

His distant children blended together with pale and dark outsiders from far across the ocean through quite physical intimacy and love and built something greater and better. Now the Amerindian's great-great-great-...-grandchild lives in cozy Gothic Petrópolis or gleaming futuristic Brasília. His life is easier, longer and more predictable. Of his morality, I'd say it's superior to the Amerindian's. His existence is no longer isolated and egotistical: his physical and creative labor can contribute to all of mankind's material and intellectual prosperity. His goods may be enjoyed by distant outsiders today, and his scientific or artistic deeds may potentially enrich the lives of foreigners for centuries to come. And this goes both ways. He can know of and reflect on the thoughts and experiences of many others from the distant past to the present. He can even ponder on the legitimacy of civilization, a privilege only those living in civilization have.
Should he believe that eating corpses makes him stronger so he can sleep better at night (ignorance is bliss), or should he learn and think of something higher even if it doesn't make him immediately happy? Perhaps this transition from savagery to civilization is not one of good-to-bad or bad-to-good but one of childhood to maturity.
I value the works of art produced by those who have conquered this land. It's a good thing the historical process of colonization happened and I can enjoy them. Science, too, but little has been made here. Science has value, like art: I find it beautiful to see man acquiring the raw empirical information which awaits around him and creates theoretical models to understand it. It used to be called "natural philosophy". Science and art are two great reasons to let civilization thrive.


Bernd 04/16/2019 (Tue) 09:52:42 [Preview] No.24886 del
>>24883
Amazon used to have great civilization. There is a first hand book about it.


Bernd 04/16/2019 (Tue) 21:26:49 [Preview] No.24905 del
(88.53 KB 960x645 german-brazilians.jpg)
>>24883

This is pretty beautiful ode to civilization as a concept.


Bernd 04/16/2019 (Tue) 22:10:08 [Preview] No.24907 del
>>24886
There's evidence it had a better-organized population with more intensive agriculture in the distant past, but that was long gone by the time the Portuguese arrived. In any case it was nothing on the level of the Incas or Aztecs.
There are also claims of monumental structures hidden in the jungle, but they should be taken as seriously as the supposed Phoenician inscriptions in Rio de Janeiro or Bosnia's "pyramid".


Bernd 04/16/2019 (Tue) 23:28:08 [Preview] No.24909 del
(498.86 KB 827x959 63.png)
(80.52 KB 600x720 6215892337.jpg)
>>24905
You have that all wrong. Those aren't actual Germans.


Bernd 04/16/2019 (Tue) 23:51:55 [Preview] No.24910 del
>>24909
it's a meme


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 05:33:12 [Preview] No.24913 del
>>24886
>>24907
Didn't we have a discussion on this? I remember looking up the validity of such claims. Hmm, now I can recall an Index article that a Hungarian archaeologist(?) took part in the research of the Amazonian basin's lost civilization and this made me looking up some stuff. Something about patches of black soil instead of the usual acidic and rectangular building remains. I also read about a population of several million that might have been supported with the local agriculture. The civilization collapsed and disappeared not long before the Europeans arrived.

>>24909
It is an interesting question that when is the point when people turns into a certain folk, so basically how ethnogenesis happens. All the component of a folk (genetic characteristics, language, physical and spiritual culture, common historical background) can change and do change. But it is really feels an offtopic here.


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 08:56:30 [Preview] No.24914 del
>>24907
>>24883
no it wouldnt be first hand source otherwise.


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 09:14:30 [Preview] No.24915 del
>>24909
>nationality and ethnicity are the same thing


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 09:28:19 [Preview] No.24916 del
>i live in a NY
>im new yourker

>i live in sweden
>im not swedish


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 15:50:28 [Preview] No.24917 del
one of our brilliant politicians said and he or maybe it was a she was fully serious that everyone who goes on a subway in sweden is swedish.


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 15:54:32 [Preview] No.24918 del
testing 💩


Bernd 04/17/2019 (Wed) 19:20:42 [Preview] No.24926 del
>>24913
>patches of black soil instead of the usual acidic
This is a well-known fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

>rectangular building remains
It's hard to find credible sources about building remains on the Internet. Some photographs of pyramid-shaped hills are popular but those are natural formations.

There are also claims that the concentration of human-usable trees (like fruit-bearing species) is higher than what one would expect for a natural forest and this concentration is highest around ancient points of denser settlement. This could be because ancient Amazonian populations molded their landscape into something more convenient to themselves.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 04:46:06 [Preview] No.25680 del


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 05:13:51 [Preview] No.25681 del
>>24926
Made me remember to look up the article and stuff I read.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 09:34:35 [Preview] No.25684 del
There are already enough people living in earth, I couldnt care less about human population in general as it's non stop booming.

>Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics.
Most humans are easily commanded and manpiulated like cattles. Humans are potentially valuable because of their learning capability, ability to use tools and creativity. Most humans don't have these enough, so they are disposable tools that I dont give a fuck about it.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 16:40:30 [Preview] No.25685 del
>>25680
<be technophile as a child
<release the Unabomber was right as an adult


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 16:49:44 [Preview] No.25686 del
(32.64 KB 320x363 5iu56iut7kiyuku1.jpg)
>>25684
Humans are not disposable tools, they're pockets of potential.
Even below average people can give birth to brilliant individuals. Even below average people can do something great, even if by mistake.
More people means more content.
There's no shortage of space yet. If and when it comes currently uninhabitable terrain can be utilized. Resources are hoarded and misused by the few so scarcity is fabricated. Stop buying into sociopath bullshit or it will bite you in the ass regardless of who you are as long as you're human being.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 17:37:04 [Preview] No.25687 del
>>25686
>>25686
> they're pockets of potential.
true but most are don't and you don't need to be a genius to tell the difference.
assuming most humans can reach their potential is nothing but a wishful thinking.

>There's no shortage of space yet
That's your arbitrary reasoning. When will you complain about space? When entire people of earth live like ants?

>Resources are hoarded and misused by the few so scarcity is fabricated
Unless you have ideas about reversing this.. Capitalism more or less creates monopolies and rich people who have more resources than others. So don't assume there will be equal shares for everyone. Since more people means even cheaper labor for them, your argument works against you.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 18:03:03 [Preview] No.25689 del
>>25685
Kids always grow up.


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 18:39:39 [Preview] No.25692 del
>>25684
the virgin turk house dweller

or

the chad turk tent nomad

you decide


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 18:40:01 [Preview] No.25693 del
>>25685
there is nothing wrong with admitting you have been wrong in your ways


Bernd 05/08/2019 (Wed) 22:30:03 [Preview] No.25701 del
my man ellul is here to save you bernds

https://www.facebook.com/JacquesEllulOfficial


Bernd 05/09/2019 (Thu) 22:46:19 [Preview] No.25730 del
>>25687
You don't have to be a genious but you'd have to be clairvoyant. It's not about reaching your full potential necessarily. Just as an example consider how many scientific breakthroughs were accidents. Don't underestimate chance.
You're making a huge leap over a phenomenon of population decline with your logic. But there really is more land available than what you might imagine, that's not arbitrary.
As for the state of things there have been some ways devised but whichever is chosen it won't be easy. However just because it's hard to believe doesn't mean it's impossible. Whatever the case, no matter what you've been told, population control is not in the interest of the population so qui bono?
Even if we remain by capitalistic solutions cheaper labour ends up in cheaper goods and more investments. Look at China.
More people is always more market so yea your wage might suck if you use a beaten trail but you'll have more occasions to start your own business. Reducing population is really not in your interest.


Bernd 05/12/2019 (Sun) 15:49:57 [Preview] No.25887 del
>>25730
Reduced population however would mean smaller communities which an individual can digest better, so less people would feel themselves lonely and alienated from society. Also many people might feel they have more impact on their surroundings, and not just too little fishes in too big bowl, this would give more sense of purpose, an elevated level of worth.
Maybe that would do some good for Bernd.


Bernd 05/12/2019 (Sun) 16:22:36 [Preview] No.25889 del
>>25730
>>25730
>heaper labour ends up in cheaper goods and more investments.
More investments are not for you. Lower class in china are not that affected by those investments, their life quality has changed because their government enforced unpayable tax for chinese citizens who make more than 2 babies. Not having complete retarded economy ministers also helps, but reducing population boom is the thing what helped them. I don't see anything rational in your reasoning, it's just randomized impacts and for some reason cheaper investments (which comes because labour cost is laughable in china) is good for lower or middle class.


Bernd 05/13/2019 (Mon) 05:24:36 [Preview] No.25900 del
>>25887
Not in this day and age. There's too much interconnectivity available through the internet and other media not to mention ease of travel. I think it's better to create a culture of choosing your environment and associations freely.

>>25889
But they are for 'me', just not directly. One of the reasons Poland is slowly catching up to the West because of relatively low labour cost making having factories here lucrative. Wages from foreign capital are money that come from outside and stay inside to drive local economy. Of course investor is the one that profits most but the positive side effects for others are far from negligible.
>their life quality has changed because their government enforced unpayable tax for chinese citizens who make more than 2 babies.
Maybe this will make my point clearer: babies are an investment. It takes a while for an investment to pay off but if you don't invest you keep your money which you can spend on quality of life improvements. Now talking in general which is the more economically healthy practice? Hoarding/spending or investing? Maybe you'll say: "Now they can invest in education." - okay, but they're far behind tech giants, educated workers require higher pay which in turn will cause investors to pack up and move to Africa and in turn economic growth rate to go down. In other words it's only a short term boost.
Genuine, steady economic growth comes mostly through manpower because, again, it's people that create content. At least until robot apocalypse.


Bernd 05/13/2019 (Mon) 05:55:54 [Preview] No.25901 del
(75.33 KB 594x609 1406124540421.jpg)
>>25889
Oh and one more thing.
That China tax probably came about because commies figured that if things continued that way they wouldn't be able to keep their population down. Again, population control is not in population's interest.


Bernd 05/13/2019 (Mon) 06:45:38 [Preview] No.25903 del
(24.45 KB 600x600 serveimage.jpeg)
>even comparing poland to china

one is industrialising and basically is europe/usa (soviet union too) in its haydays

and the other is some post industrial shithole


Bernd 05/14/2019 (Tue) 15:32:23 [Preview] No.25959 del
(89.24 KB 353x332 question_kot.png)
>>25903
Which is which?


Bernd 10/10/2019 (Thu) 21:35:48 [Preview] No.29817 del
This reminded me the still unread jungle fire posts on the bunker.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 07:02:11 [Preview] No.33189 del
We have two similar sounding words: esőerdő (rainforest and/or jungle) and őserdő (primeval forest), peeps often mistaking the two, the simpler one probably have no idea about the difference.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 07:26:36 [Preview] No.33190 del
>Human life matters far more than biomass and forest coverage statistics.

It's a matter of perspective, I would actually say it matters far less, we have enough people as it is and adding more people doesn't actually serve a purpose, particularly more humans in Brazil.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 07:48:52 [Preview] No.33192 del
>>33190
>we have enough people as it is and adding more people doesn't actually serve a purpose

What purpose?


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 08:16:07 [Preview] No.33193 del
>>33192
Soviet-ball makes a good point, there is no purpose to humans at all in the first place, this makes >>33190 your argument invalid. A far better system would be to replace humans entirely with deer and big cats. The deer eat young saplings and expand grassland and the big cats keep the deer population down to prevent total deforestation.

Humans will only be actually useful top predators if and when they can terraform other planets like mars, otherwise they consume more than they are worth. Humans (particularly certain types) over populate, over consume and then starve once the ecosystem they survive on is obliterated.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 08:34:20 [Preview] No.33194 del
>>33192
Making anime.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 08:45:41 [Preview] No.33195 del
>>24703
Well a natural part of any ecosystem is disease/viruses. When any genus reaches a point of overpopulation they are easily killed off by viruses that spread through them due to their lack of isolation. This process prevents any genus pushing out others and damaging the diversity in an ecosystem, no genus is allowed to be too successful. It could be argued that our prevention of this process is unnatural and has allowed our population to swell well beyond what would be naturally possible otherwise.
Perhaps though when our intellect reaches its' limit to where we can no longer fight ever more complicated mutating viruses, we will succumb to this process.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 10:27:13 [Preview] No.33198 del
(179.35 KB 960x960 branch-manager4.jpg)
>>33195
>Well a natural part of any ecosystem is disease/viruses. When any genus reaches a point of overpopulation they are easily killed off by viruses that spread through them due to their lack of isolation. This process prevents any genus pushing out others and damaging the diversity in an ecosystem, no genus is allowed to be too successful

Yes, diseases are serious factor, but not only them. Predator-prey cycle isn't less serious factor too. In this cycle every peak is some kind of mini-extinction for prey, and then same problem for predator. So, maybe at large time periods there are balance and diversity, but on small time scales it is same catastrophic event that breaks everything and removes diversity, although it is rarely irreversible process (but can be).

Humanity fight with viruses can be seen as same process of adaptation, it is just faster and much effective, but on grand scale it isn't really different than slow adaptation of some dog to some virus. But nature has other ways to reducing human count, like famine cycle (past), wars (still work), fall of birthrates by urbanization (works and would work in future too), ecological problems (humans damage nature and then suffer).

We just don't know how large complex ecosystems work on large time periods, because we didn't had experience with it. We can see "predator-prey-disease" cycle, but we couldn't see some kind of large "sapient_species-rise_of_technology-downfall" cycle (although we predict it). Maybe every technological civilization dies?

Or maybe cycle is different. For example, we may look onto single apple with mold as some kind of ecosystem, and when apple is completely decomposed, ecosystem "ends". But we also may look at apple garden hit by mold, where single apple and it's "death" doesn't "matter", because mold is spreading, and ecosystem still exists even when some apples are destroyed. I.e. humans are mold and Earth is an apple, and spreading to other planets is a part of purely natural "garden disease" cycle. And destruction of Earth ecosystem is just same thing like decomposition of apple in garden, nothing unnatural.

Of course everything is related to person's worldview. For example, religious person or humanist may look onto this process from completely different position.


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 19:35:47 [Preview] No.33204 del
>>33195
>>33198
There was some idea that abnormal behaviour leads to extinction. For some reason a species behaviour changes, and they don't conform to the norms the environment forces on them, and they die out. And depending on where they stood in the food chain, or how important their existence and activity for other species (liek bees for pollination, or dodos for dodo tree) they can cause a chain reaction and mass extinction.
Maybe this also could act as a "natural" way of population control (with limits and not leading to total extinction). Whatever humanity creates it is part of nature since we are creatures of nature, and we just manipulate the things we found in nature with our ability which was given by nature (some species have gills, some thumbs and abstraction). Even if we can call the stuff "artificial" we talked about this I think. So abnormal behaviour which disadvantageous to our species, like urbanization (which leads to birthrate fall), are also "natural".


Bernd 12/18/2019 (Wed) 21:26:00 [Preview] No.33210 del
>>33204

As I said, this is mostly religious question: what is natural and what is not. For example, Christian worldview clearly states that man is different from nature, he has soul, his mind and body are different things etc. From this point of view, humanity surely can do "artifical" and "natural" things.

Eco-worried people often state that they don't adhere to religion, but their worldview is often the same. Although caring about nature doesn't require to differentiate between human and nature, because there are plenty of reasons to care anyway (opposing reasons exist too).


sage Bernd 04/09/2020 (Thu) 16:32:48 [Preview] No.35761 del
>this thread


Bernd 04/09/2020 (Thu) 16:49:22 [Preview] No.35764 del
>>35761
Maybe forests can be utilized in a less-invasive way (most likely that RRT Industries, Ltd. wasn't referring to that but whatever), even 1% of growth it's share in GDP wouldn't be small addition. Modern American soy-hippies are all for this stuff, shouldn't they have some ideas about it? Also why there is no research about it?
I guess, even little disturbance can throw the balance of species off, but should be some middle-road, and not just cut-them-all-bald practices are possible.


Bernd 04/10/2020 (Fri) 04:14:51 [Preview] No.35792 del
>>35761
What are we supposed to do, stay poor forever so you can gloat about the number of forested square km or species on a biome which would otherwise be our living space? You don't even stand to gain anything from it. You're not living in or visiting that place. You're probably not even deriving any enjoyment from learning about its physical geography, despite taking a stand against the existence of a human geography there. How is equatorial America any different from the heavily settled biomes on the continent's Atlantic seaboard? If treating the former as a living space is wrong, isn't that also the case for the latter, in which case the entire conquest of the New World is illegitimate?


Bernd 04/10/2020 (Fri) 17:05:06 [Preview] No.35814 del
>>35792
First, what makes you think the continued exploitation of the amazon will make Brazil rich? This is a common idea Brazilians have that cannot possibly ring true, as it is not deforestation that has made any country wealthy.
But about poverty, if this was Brazil's biggest problem, then why does Brazil have lower rates of suicide and anxiety than a built of country like America?
I don't gloat about the amount of space that exists, but I take pleasure from the inherent freedom and beauty that it provides. An endless string of suburbs, skyscrapers, and other human manufactured landscapes is a dystopia.
I derive happiness from not living in a concrete hellworld.
Who is this "we", anyway? The collective Brazilian consciousness?


Bernd 04/10/2020 (Fri) 18:51:38 [Preview] No.35817 del
>>35814
Why are you saging?
>what makes you think the continued exploitation of the amazon will make Brazil rich?
Living standards have risen greatly over the past decades. The 2000s were a golden age for the poor in large part because of the ongoing commodity boom, and the economic miracle of the 70s happened during an intense promotion of settlement of the hinterland. There were, of course, other factors. The larger role was played by the Cerrado, which was subjected to an even stronger process of development. But gringos generally don't care about the Cerrado.
I'm not saying the present model of development is ideal. What I seek isn't simply maximizing exports but the construction of a new society on new land, to have it dotted with cities and roads as with any other place. It is living space. The "blue banana" in Europe, one of the wealthiest regions in the world, is made of extensively human-transformed land. Deforestation wasn't what made it rich but it happened as settlement intensified. Transforming the land is a precondition for the development of a society within it.
>why does Brazil have lower rates of suicide and anxiety than a built of country like America?
Development towards the First World should bring about First World problems, yes. It will also discourage the population flow towards the First World, which happens even though the First World is a sadder place to live in. That there is emigration in the first place, though it is modest, is a sign that some citizens feel their lives are lacking, and prioritize whatever comes from living abroad. It should also make citizens happier with their housing and reduce the number of mothers grieving for their sons lost to insufficient healthcare and civil war-like violence.
>An endless string of suburbs, skyscrapers, and other human manufactured landscapes is a dystopia. I derive happiness from not living in a concrete hellworld.
I am not a fan of concrete hellworlds, either, and that is the case for the Greater São Paulo, but not for the state's hinterland which is pleasant to be in. So maybe some of the population living in concrete hellworlds in the Atlantic seaboard should be dispersed to much more pleasant homesteads, small and medium-sized cities deeper into the continent.


Bernd 04/11/2020 (Sat) 04:22:46 [Preview] No.35828 del
>>35817
The citizens only feel their lives are lacking because they know of these far-away lands and are sold on materialistic ideas. From the billboards towering over them to the commercials flowing into their life, and corporate skyscrapers revealing to them a striking wealth disparity.
It is not a matter of inherent needs, but of revealed priviliges.
I understand your point about the hinterland being more enjoyable, after all, it is the norm of humanity to have access to large swaths of nature, but I just can't see spreading out as the solution.
Here in Canada, urban sprawl has been causing much of the farmland to be gobbled up by suburban sprawl. Sure, you have more internal living space than an apartment, but the overall loss of space for the communities in the area is lost.
On a related note, have you heard of Dunbar's number? It might be of interest.


Bernd 04/11/2020 (Sat) 15:06:42 [Preview] No.35835 del
>>35828
Emigration isn't motivated by money alone. For instance, in the case of brain drain there's the strong feeling that some intellectual work is only recognized abroad.
>I understand your point about the hinterland being more enjoyable, after all, it is the norm of humanity to have access to large swaths of nature,
São Paulo's hinterland has more farmland than intact vegetation, it's still densely developed, but the result is pleasant. Even the large cities don't feel dystopic as they are finite.
>Here in Canada, urban sprawl has been causing much of the farmland to be gobbled up by suburban sprawl. Sure, you have more internal living space than an apartment, but the overall loss of space for the communities in the area is lost.
The land being gobbled up isn't just farmland, it's empty land. What's built over it almost always isn't a suburb (as a suburb must have a downtown) but farmland and small-medium cities.
>On a related note, have you heard of Dunbar's number? It might be of interest.
It shows smaller communities are happier. Hence farmers in Mato Grosso should have a happier life than slum dwellers in Rio de Janeiro.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply