Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Primitive vs. complex


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
DenDanskeFremtid

DenDanskeFremtid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

I yield quite unpopular opinions, and those with unpopular opinions tend to get brutally shunned by the rest of society. Also, those who behave drastically different from the general norms and practices of a forum or other human social group are often brutally shunned.

 

Well, I hope that doesn't happen here. I hope to be welcomed by the fellow human beings at this forum, as I'm giving humanity one last try before just giving up, and moving on to a full life with those who do not despise me.

 

I have been reading my ass up on feral children, yes, sort of like the fictional Mowgli in The Jungle Book, and it amazes me that this kind of thing happens to real, actual people. But the stories about them living with the animals aren't sad so much as they actually make me quite happy. It seems the animals who took care of the human children loved the human more than other humans loved that same human. It makes me really start to question this society's complexity and whether it's really as good as we think it is; were we happier in a more primitive state? It seems to me that the more complex our society gets the worse it gets, global warming, huge animal populations getting killed off by us, millions of fellow humans getting oppressed, social grouping, etc. The animals might be less healthy, yes, but they have the blessing of not knowing any of the things we know, thus leading to a life without real complex cruelty.

 

My first unpopular opinion is that the future being any different from any present in the human sense might just make things worse than they already are. Does "superhuman" really mean "superdiscriminatory" which is equivalent to "supercruel"?

 

Personally, I would love humans if they loved me, but they don't. I LOVE learning about history and human creations (art), but truth be told, most of the people I read about would not enjoy my presence or my existence. Most other animals seem to take very kindly to me, however. I know the noises that get their attention, for example, and they give me what I want, which is love and affection. I have a job that allows me to work with animal species on a regular basis.

 

I'm writing an entire book on humans raised by animals or being with animals and mimicking their behavior, using citations from external sources to support the stories and my theories. I just think many of the feral children should have been left with their animal families. Oftentimes as I read I find many cases of children who are chronically depressed and miserable because they were taken away from the animals they've lived with for all their remembered lives. I think that a raised wolf is a wolf, whether or not they were born wolf. Mentally, they are a wolf, because they've become a wolf. In the wolf pack, they can live in peace, love, and affection, while in the human society, they live in the constant misery of being differential to everyone else and having to be constantly neglected, abandoned, discriminated against, and never truly loved. Love is simple: it just happens. People rarely allow it to "just happen", so it doesn't. Why do you think human husbands and wives have disagreements so much, for example? Answer: Complexity. Since the animals live simple lives, they do not discriminate in such complex ways and thus can find simple happiness with each other. I've learned that, as a human, the more complex you become the more likely it is that you'll be so different from everyone else that you can hardly relate to anyone anymore. And creating superhumans? That just means even more complexity which means even more division and even less love.

 

Of course you're throwing rotten tomatoes at me. Why? Because I'm just another human who you don't like because I threw out some unpopular opinions at you, end of story. Bottom line: I'd rather live with a pack of wild cats than here. The cats can appreciate me just for being nice to them. I most closely identify with felines, dogs, wolves, snakes, raccoons, and capuchin monkeys (interesting fact, one of my best friends is a white-faced capuchin monkey).

 

But I don't know, maybe one or two of you would accept me like the animals can. You never know?



#2
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

I don't think your opinion is too controversial or extreme.  You just seem like a primitivist.  Many people in the world don't like complexity or progress.  You don't seem to be religiously extreme, and seem have come to your conclusion on logical grounds(though faulty logic) so I can at least respect your opinion, while not agreeing with it.

 

As long as you don't support violence to get your means, you can be tolerated, and indeed even conversed with.

 

We have many people here who are very invested in animals and their survival, and a few even support uplifting them(raising their intelligence to human level)


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#3
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

But animals are capable of incredibly cruelty and brutality, and nature is full of more suffering than most human societies. Just watch a documentary about lions or hyenas. 



#4
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

But animals are capable of incredibly cruelty and brutality, and nature is full of more suffering than most human societies. Just watch a documentary about lions or hyenas. 

The difference is that animals don't have the capability that makes us so emotionally human.  That capability is the ability to emulate others' feelings.  The hyena doesn't know that the prey is suffering, all it knows is that it and its family are hungry.  Therefore the hyena is not committing a moral crime.  Humans on the other hand are perfectly capable of knowing that another is suffering, so any harm we cause is morally wrong.


  • caltrek likes this

John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#5
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 232 posts

 

But animals are capable of incredibly cruelty and brutality, and nature is full of more suffering than most human societies. Just watch a documentary about lions or hyenas. 

The difference is that animals don't have the capability that makes us so emotionally human.  That capability is the ability to emulate others' feelings.  The hyena doesn't know that the prey is suffering, 

 

How do you know that? 



#6
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    Fighting Corporations since 2020

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

 

 

But animals are capable of incredibly cruelty and brutality, and nature is full of more suffering than most human societies. Just watch a documentary about lions or hyenas. 

The difference is that animals don't have the capability that makes us so emotionally human.  That capability is the ability to emulate others' feelings.  The hyena doesn't know that the prey is suffering, 

 

How do you know that? 

 

I'm actually reading a book called Who's in Charge: Free Will and the Science of the Human Brain.  Did you know that there's a part of your brain devoted to making up excuses about why you subconsciously did something, and make it seem like it was a conscious decision.


John Lennon dares you to make sense of this

Spoiler

#7
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,694 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

The reason why primitivists should be Singularitarians is the same reason why I support technism: you'll be allowed to do whatever you damn well want to do in an era where machines do all necessary labor. 

You can't be a primitivist today without being an outcast. How do we typically define outcasts? Those who refuse to contribute to society. We don't consider the idle rich to be outcasts because they can actually support whatever it is they want to do monetarily while also feeding money back into the economy. If you're not rich, you don't have that luxury. In your case, time not spent working your life away is considered time you could have spent being productive and helping society function. 

Hippies could never have won because civilization, no matter how alienating, still functions perfectly fine. It used to be that Buddhist monks were considered enemies of the state because they tried to use religion to justify why they sat around in temples all day doing no beneficial work. It took centuries before people decided that their spirituality alone sufficed as a "job."

In places where there's high productivity with fewer working hours (like France, Germany, and Sweden), people tend to be a lot happier rather than more depressed. If anything, more working hours = more depression and alienation. And the reason why people who don't work in places like America, Japan, and Mexico— where people literally work more hours in a week than they don't— get depressed, it's not because they have nothing to do. It's because they are told by society that they should be productive and useful, and they aren't so. 

 

When humans are peripheral towards the function of society, that's when alternative societies will truly arise. If anything, people will flock to them.

 

worth_enough__by_radoxist-d17lyf5.jpg

Worth enough? by Radoslav Zilinsky


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#8
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,970 posts

Interesting introduction.  Welcome to the forum.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users