This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Alternatives to Modern Society

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by infoterror, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. infoterror

    infoterror Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I.

    The corrupt and polluted cities of Europe and North-America have vanished as the people started their trek towards south.

    The storyteller says:...the whole world was at the brink of destruction from pollution, population growth, and exhaustion of natural resources.... And even worse, the capitalist decadence was threatening to corrupt the very soul of our northern nation. But then the Hyperborea-society came in... after liberating their own areas, our revolutionary forefathers saw that the world could only be saved under the wise rule of the North.

    A student asks: But where then did the original inhabitants of this region go ?

    The storyteller replies: Krkhhm, cough! ... well ... err .. their number was ...ehh.. reduced.

    http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/page1.htm

    II.

    If the present number of Earths population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth controll, then:
    - Birthgiving is licenced. To enhance quality of population , genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring. So that several birth licences can be allowed to families of quality.
    - Energy production must be drastically reduced. Electricity is allowed only for the most necessary lighting and communications.
    - Food: Hunting is made more efficient. Human diet will include rats and invertebrate animals.
    Agriculture moves to small un-mechanized units. All human manure is used as fertilizer.
    - Traffic is mostly done with bicycles and rowing boats. Private cars are confiscated. Long-distance travel is done with sparse mass transport. Trees will be planted on most roads.
    - Foreign affairs: All mass immigration and most of import-export trade must stop. Cross-border travel is allowed only for small numbers of diplomats and correspondents.
    - Business will mostly end . Manufacture is allowed only for well argumented needs. All major manufacturing capacity is state owned. Products will be durable and last for generations.
    - Science and schooling: Education will concentrate on practical skills. All competition is rooted out. Technological research is reduced to extreme minimum. But every child will learn how to clean a fish in a way that only the big shiny bones are left over.

    http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/idea/

    III.

    The Covenant of Traditional Values

    Whereas, modern society (defined as the collusion between consumerism, democracy, and capitalism) as a design theory and not simply a physical entity has shown its unfitness through long term problems including but not limited to pollution, land overuse, rampant cancers, crime, urban blight, worthless plastic products, meaningless functional lifestyles, and so forth, we the undersigned commit ourselves to a new system of values that will be the underpinning and abstract description of the design of a society to both replace modern society and restore our ancient traditions and ways of life.

    Our goal is not to replace our leaders, or to transfer wealth within our economies, as revolutions do, but to create an entirely different society which is not prone to the failures of modern society. Only structural change will accomplish this. We must both remake little of society, in that our changes will leave most of daily life and most people undisturbed, and we must remake all of it, in that we need a new design philosophy for society and a new way of living.

    Modern society is defined by its preference for quantities, based on the form factor of the individual or the material worth of each unit, instead of internal traits. We assume that because something is defined as a tractor, it will work like all other tractors; we extend this same logic to humans and, needing to justify our absurd assumption, use bureaucratic averages to create expectations of a generic human being with generic behavior. This not only fails to predict our actual needs, but works to shape us as docile and whorelike people of limited personality.

    Our platform contains a handful of major changes in our outlook and methods of civilization:

    1. Leadership by Intelligence and Not Popularity. Modern society is based on a greed empowered by individualism, or the placing of the individual above all else; this is the result of underconfidence on the part of a large number of our people, and their political empowerment allowing them to misappropriate resources to ensure individualism takes precedence over any other thought or value. Consumerism, democracy, and media/popularity are the means by which we make decisions. For the future, we want to have intelligent leaders chosen by a subset of our population that comprises the intelligent and capable in making leadership decisions; instead of democracy, and the consumerist ideal that whatever idea makes money is the best, we would like a community of leaders picking leaders based on what is the best course of action for our society, no matter how unpopular it appears at first (most great ideas are initially opposed by most people, so it is unreasonable to expect that because most people do not like the sound of an idea, it is bad).

    2. Not Equality, but Guaranteed Positions in Social Hierarchy. We are not interested in equality, as with it comes necessary economic and social competition and the resulting instability, because if we are all equal there is no way to stand out except by dominating others. We prefer a good living according to our abilities, such that except in cases of gross incompetence, we are able to work in the positions given to our ancestors and to gain a better living if we are dramatically more competent than others. However, the basis of our new social view is that each person is unique, and we cannot compare a plumber to a bank president and conclude that because one makes more money he is superior; we must each take our position in life and do with it what we can, but not attempt to draw moral decisions based on income and therefore force all of us into a vicious competition that eventually consumes us all. Competition leads to a lack of lowest public standard, in that whoever cuts the most corners wins, and impoverishes more people than it makes rich.

    3. Our Natural Environment is Not a Resource, but a Living Entity of Parallel Value to Our Own Lives. Our environment created us and nurtures us and will remain important no matter how good our technology gets. Its survival is as important as our own. We must cease to see it as raw materials for a society, and see our world as civilization and nature coexisting. To this end, we need to end the cause of all of our environmental woes, which is overpopulation, and to cease dumping toxic effluvia and chemicals into our environment.

    4. Natural Selection Must Regulate Us. Both as individuals and as groups, we need regulation by an external force. We must re-design society so that it disproportionately rewards those who have the balanced traits of intelligence, beauty/strength, and an inherent nobility to their moral thought such that they consider the whole over the individual and do what is right according to the balance of the cosmos. Further, we must enable natural selection to eliminate any community that is so unable to run itself that it perishes from natural (famine, war, disease) causes.

    5. We Must Have Higher Values, Not Inclusive Ones. A fundamental trait of modern society is compromise; we value making sure everyone is heard, that every opinion is aired, and that all people are represented over doing what is best for the world as whole. It is this logic that leads to our unhealthy fascination with the individual, and hence popularity/profit. Our goal is to have higher values so that we constantly envision a better design of not only civilization but an idealized human, and strive toward it. Heroism, natural beauty, transcendence and harmony with nature are more important than any kind of equality or compromise or social popularity. By having higher values, we are always pushing ourselves toward a goal that will make us healthier, smarter and more noble as people. Through this mechanism, we offer people something better with each passing generation, and each set of parents can look on its offspring with pride in both their abilities and the world they will inherit.

    Modern society is based on the individual because the individual is a useful unit for counting power. We do not seek the best answers, but the most popular. Because even a group of highly intelligent people will have contrasting opinions and thus will only be able to find an inclusive opinion that is a lowest common denominator, modern society through democracy and consumerism erodes every good idea into the same old thing. It is incapable of changing itself. It is up to us to change it. By these concepts and actions we, the undersigned, swear.

    http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/activist/
     
  2. speed

    speed Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    5,192
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree with 99% of what is posted here; however, again, Europe does not have the problems America does. By and large Europe is experiencing population decline, and intelligent couples are having only one child later in life, satisfying the natural seleciton component.

    I see a heavy influence of that Finnish Eco-Fascist (well thats how I think of him with what Ive read of his on your website) Linkola in all of these ideas.

    And also, I am a proponent of individualism. You have listed the reasons why corrupt individuals are able to exploit the system--it has nothing to do with their individuality, but rather their lack of moral scruples, and ability to exploit such situations.
     
  3. LORD_RED_DRAGON

    LORD_RED_DRAGON New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,474
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gotham City
    "ANCIENT" SOCIETY

    ("ANCIENT" GREECE/ROME
    "ANCIENT" EGYPTIAN
    ETC ETC ETC)
     
  4. infoterror

    infoterror Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    My argument is that individual morality, and individualism, contribute to this lack of moral scruples by causing people to consider the individual more important than the task at hand. "Don't kill" makes no sense; sometimes you must. "People have a right to free speech" doesn't make sense; what about bomb-making instructions or LSD-making instructions for kids? The individual as king causes us to be in constant conflict and thus to have no moral standard.

    http://www.penttilinkola.com/

    Yes, well, he is a personal hero, along with Ted Kaczynski and Arthur Schopenhauer and Marcus Aurelius and others. I tend to like all things Finnish also, which dates back to an absurd fascination with their death metal (Demilich and first-album Amorphis, Demigod, Beherit, Sentenced, Belial).
     
  5. speed

    speed Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    5,192
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I still see it quite differently. Personally, I find a wide socio-cultural morality that rules the US, not individual morality. The problem is that idiotic individuals believe they are making individual moral decisions, when they are actually following societal forms of moral rebellion or moral choice.

    My dream society is classical liberal in scope. Its leave me alone, and Ill leave you alone; its you fuck donkeys, so what, as long as you dont bother or hurt me, I dont give a damn. Essentially, I pretty much agree with Nietzsche on this topic--but there are so few persons capable of making individualistic moral choices.
     
  6. infoterror

    infoterror Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I think we're arguing different terms. Individualistic morality = measured in terms of the individual, and applied to all. Individual moralities obviously have no impact in a democracy, which has an averaging effect.

    I'm not sure I agree with the classically liberal society. It helps to have guidance when one is growing up. Not all acts should be tolerated. "As long as you don't bother or hurt me" does not address the question of acts that are harmful not to individuals but to abstract entities. In that, there's a large loophole, and it is probable that such societies would breed very self-absorbed people... much as ours does.
     
  7. derek

    derek Grey Eminence

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18,777
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Edinburgh, U.K.
    I read Linkola originally a few years ago, and I must admit his ideas are having slightly more impact upon me these days.

    Aurelius, I have adored since childhood.

    I must concur with infoterror when I say that I believe a classically liberal society will not work. I find them to be self-imploding mechanisms. I'd argue that moderation and rules must be inherent in the running of any society to ensure it never decays beyond saviour. The only problem I do have is who/what this moderation is and how it would be organised.

    Plato and his Philosopher Kings is an idea that always appealed to me, but some elements of that elitist approach always sat uncomfortably with me. Perhaps I am just another nutty liberal, at heart. ;)
     
  8. Freanan

    Freanan Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Esthal - deep under forests alive...
    About liberalism versus autoritarianism:
    If we have a "large" group of humans, ie a whole nation or state in the modern sense i think liberalism is the best, because it is difficult to find a good solution for problems or a good way of life that will be right for each group inside this larger society. So it would be better if people leave each other alone.
    But i think to large societies or states are not very usefull anyway. In a smaller groups that only includes people of the same "micro-culture" with similiar upbringing and similiar feelings, authoritarianism would work much better (actually it would cease to be authorianism in the strcit sense because people would just do what is in their culture and a real dissident or 'rebel' could decide to be ejected from such a small group and found his own group of live alone).

    I agree with most of what you call "traditional values", but i disagree with your dislike of competition.
    Competition belongs to humans and animals alike and trying to restrain it artificially neither makes the world any better nor will people have it without starting another 'crowd revolution', as you call it.
    They will live over the loss of coca cola and mc donald's but not over the loss of something as natural as competition. Apart from that it builds up or shows talent and increases quality.
    I also don't think that plumbers, bankers or scientists have to be bred in a caste system to be be best for their job... For example my family has been chopping wood in the forest for hundreds of years or longer but i am actually better in computer science (and other things) then some people who come from a line of academics - and i don't think that i am "rapidly more competent" then my ancestors, it's just that i was more or less first exposed to science and to books.
     

Share This Page