Yeah. All im saying is in a post industrial world there would need to be a lower population. The powers that be would never allow such a society. We'd have to take it.
I've been called worse. ЁЯШВ Becoming a de-industrialised society will require some kind of collapse or cataclysm. I would love to live closer to nature again. I miss her.
тАЬIt is only when we are aware of the earth and of the earth as poetry that we truly live.тАЭ
You and I and Paul all want to arrive at that same place. It's the transition that's so troubling. Like Darren Allen, I think it's going to be awful. I hope I'm wrong and we glide down. A population adjusting naturally to resource availability is the endpoint. Back to natural fluctuation. As it should be.
To use the "scout" metaphor, when we see a major agenda item being shared by the ruling class and supposedly anti-ruling class groups, it is a red flag. I am not drawing a conclusion, I am just looking at the facts. I don't have a "side."
But it's not the same, is it? The ruling class are not anti-industrialist at all, just pretending to be in order to gain social license for their Fourth Industrial Revolution digital slave system agenda. This is one of the main points in the article, in fact.
I didn't say that they were. But the ruling class and what you are calling anti-industrialists seem to share an end point goal of reducing the human population by (pick your number) say 95%. The ruling class is going to accomplish that goal by genocide and mass sterilization, how do anti-industrialists propose to get there? Might the two groups form a coalition over that shared goal? Given the mass betrayal of most "radicals" that we have witnessed in the last 3 years to the interests of the the Globalists, it doesn't seem far fetched to me. Just reference how the environmental movement has been coopted in the last 3 decades. And it is relevant to note that the environmental movement has long had a sinister Malthusian tendency, as in the popular book the "Population Bomb" by ruling class toady Paul Ehrlich.
To live as a de-industrialised society however would require a huge drop in population.
I see it the other way round. In a post-industrial world, reproduction rates would naturally adjust to the resources available.
Yeah. All im saying is in a post industrial world there would need to be a lower population. The powers that be would never allow such a society. We'd have to take it.
Yep. It's the most unpalatable truth of all. Someone will be along shortly to bellow "ecofascist" at you.
I've been called worse. ЁЯШВ Becoming a de-industrialised society will require some kind of collapse or cataclysm. I would love to live closer to nature again. I miss her.
тАЬIt is only when we are aware of the earth and of the earth as poetry that we truly live.тАЭ
тАХ Henry Beston
You and I and Paul all want to arrive at that same place. It's the transition that's so troubling. Like Darren Allen, I think it's going to be awful. I hope I'm wrong and we glide down. A population adjusting naturally to resource availability is the endpoint. Back to natural fluctuation. As it should be.
Paradoxically, this is where the Globalists and the Anarcho-primitivists agree.
What do you mean? Did you read the article properly?
My comment was intended as a reply to Dollyboy.
Oh, OK
To use the "scout" metaphor, when we see a major agenda item being shared by the ruling class and supposedly anti-ruling class groups, it is a red flag. I am not drawing a conclusion, I am just looking at the facts. I don't have a "side."
But it's not the same, is it? The ruling class are not anti-industrialist at all, just pretending to be in order to gain social license for their Fourth Industrial Revolution digital slave system agenda. This is one of the main points in the article, in fact.
I didn't say that they were. But the ruling class and what you are calling anti-industrialists seem to share an end point goal of reducing the human population by (pick your number) say 95%. The ruling class is going to accomplish that goal by genocide and mass sterilization, how do anti-industrialists propose to get there? Might the two groups form a coalition over that shared goal? Given the mass betrayal of most "radicals" that we have witnessed in the last 3 years to the interests of the the Globalists, it doesn't seem far fetched to me. Just reference how the environmental movement has been coopted in the last 3 decades. And it is relevant to note that the environmental movement has long had a sinister Malthusian tendency, as in the popular book the "Population Bomb" by ruling class toady Paul Ehrlich.
But the environmentalist movement has been co-opted into a pro-industrialist direction, not an anti-industrialist one!
They have found a way to live with that cognitive dissonance. Therapy works!