[ckaihatsu]

Yeah but easier said than done when you get sick or your kid gets sick and technology is right there to save your life.

Who is going to let their kid starve because "technology bad"?

There is no wrong turn. Darwinism says those who can adapt to change will survive to procreate & protect/provide for their children and those that can't will die off, and this also applies to technological change. If someone can't adapt to new technology their genetics will go the way of the dodo. This is nature's law.

[EDITED]

Isn't it -- 'something' -- when the world's *8 billion* living, breathing, thinking people are expected to passively 'die off' in large numbers due to not being able to 'adapt' to new technology -- ?

I don't think you understand what technology is *for*, UM -- it's not *external* to people (except when under elitist private corporatist control) -- it's made *by* people, *for* people. It's not some runaway beast from the lab, or some sort of 'Frankenstein's monster'.

[QatzelOk]

Who is going to let their kid starve because "technology bad"?

This notion that children belong to their biological parents... is a Modern invention of industry. That we need to have lots of them... is a product of religious programming - another tech.

There is no wrong turn. Darwinism says those who can adapt to change will survive to procreate & protect/provide for their children and those that can't will die off,

This means that if humanity decides to fight off the natural population decline of unfit humans, we will have taken a wrong turn. Nature is supposed to alter humans through biological evolution. This means that we have to let it happen, and if we try to prevent natural evolution - WRONG TURN.

and this also applies to technological change. If someone can't adapt to new technology their genetics will go the way of the dodo. This is nature's law.

This is where you're totally wrong. You can't just slap Darwin's theory onto gadgets and chemicals. Gadgets and chemicals are means to fight against natural evolution - wrong turn city.

***

Isn't it -- 'something' -- when the world's *8 billion* living, breathing, thinking people are expected to passively 'die off' in large numbers due to not being able to 'adapt' to new technology -- ?

How in the world did we get to be 8 billion humans in the first place?

Not only did "technology" bring us there, but our churches and governmental organizations (technologies) forced us to procreate - they attached baby-production to morality and social status. This is NOT natural. Pre-modern bands of humans kept their populations stable.



Technologies have allowed (forced?) mankind to bring its population (and resource consumption) up to extinction levels. This is similar to how the invention of the long-spear destroyed the hunting lifestyle. Only this time, it would be *all lifestyles* that would be destroyed by our technological smorgasborg.

[ckaihatsu]

How in the world did we get to be 8 billion humans in the first place?

Not only did "technology" bring us there, but our churches and governmental organizations (technologies)

No, sorry, I can't agree that *ruling class* institutions like churches and government are 'technology' themselves.

Recall that it's the social-organization *mode of production* that determines what 'level' of technology society can progress-to, 'limited' by the 'level' of scale / magnitude above it. (See the 'History' framework graphic that follows.)

The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the Middle Ages to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time.

The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system which was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (Second Estate), peasants and bourgeoisie (Third Estate).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

---


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

[Unthinking Majority]

[EDITED]

Isn't it -- 'something' -- when the world's *8 billion* living, breathing, thinking people are expected to passively 'die off' in large numbers due to not being able to 'adapt' to new technology -- ?

I don't think you understand what technology is *for*, UM -- it's not *external* to people (except when under elitist private corporatist control) -- it's made *by* people, *for* people. It's not some runaway beast from the lab, or some sort of 'Frankenstein's monster'.

Yes it's by people for people. It has eradicated dire poverty for billions. It has saved countless lives. It has made blind people see. 8 billion people now because of it. But don't worry, the populations with the most people are now shrinking due to technology and their inability to adapt to it. Birth control and abortions are nice until everyone is gone.

Those that can't adapt to a little bit more heat until we go full green will die off like albino deer.

[Unthinking Majority]

This notion that children belong to their biological parents... is a Modern invention of industry. That we need to have lots of them... is a product of religious programming - another tech.


This means that if humanity decides to fight off the natural population decline of unfit humans, we will have taken a wrong turn. Nature is supposed to alter humans through biological evolution. This means that we have to let it happen, and if we try to prevent natural evolution - WRONG TURN.


This is where you're totally wrong. You can't just slap Darwin's theory onto gadgets and chemicals. Gadgets and chemicals are means to fight against natural evolution - wrong turn city.

You're wrong. Gadgets were created by mammals. A totally natural process. No different than a bird making a nest out of twigs and brush. The bird is adapting to its environment to survive, procreate, and ensure their offspring survive. Every single animal is fighting to survive for as long as possible, to procreate with the best mates, and ensure their survival. An abandoned bird nest is no different than a discarded plastic bottle, planet earth doesn't have a bias against humans as you do.

Don't give your kids modern medicine when they get a bad infection They will die and so will your genes, you will be extinct. Mine will survive and procreate. This is nature's way. Being smart enough to not use harmful technology is part of the process. Young men playing Playstation all weekend instead of talking to girls will not procreate.

When is this fictional time when humans didn't use technology? It never existed. Even Neanderthals had crude tools and built shelters.

ADAPT OR DIE

[ckaihatsu]

[P]opulations [...] are now shrinking due to technology and their inability to adapt to it.

Would you mind spelling-that-out for me -- ? (You're being vague.)

Maybe you're used to being caught-up in a marketing channel, for your dollars, or else tied to the digital grindstone at work.

Isn't technology supposed to *assist* the end-user -- ? Maybe you're thinking of *1970s*-era tech, and the popularized perils of mechanical *automation* back then -- ?

Birth control and abortions are nice until everyone is gone.

So you're a *pro-lifer* -- ?

You're *anti*-tech when it's about a woman having control over her own body.

[Unthinking Majority]

Would you mind spelling-that-out for me -- ? (You're being vague.)

Tech in the form of condoms, birth control pills, and abortion pill and procedures are shrinking the population. The earth is going to reduce in population eventually. Developed countries are already needing to import people from developing countries to keep up.

So you're a *pro-lifer* -- ?

You're *anti*-tech when it's about a woman having control over her own body.

I'm pro don't kill pre-born babies yes. I am pro fetus having control over their own body. I don't care what a woman does with her own body as long as she isn't murdering another human. There's 2 bodies involved here.

[ckaihatsu]

Tech in the form of condoms, birth control pills, and abortion pill and procedures are shrinking the population. The earth is going to reduce in population eventually. Developed countries are already needing to import people from developing countries to keep up.

*And* -- ?

You're saying that like it's a *bad* thing....

I'm pro don't kill pre-born babies yes. I am pro fetus having control over their own body. I don't care what a woman does with her own body as long as she isn't murdering another human. There's 2 bodies involved here.

No, a fetus is nowhere *near* being able to cope outside the womb, and even then human babies are *still* more highly dependent on their mothers (for nurturing, learning) than the animal-world norm / average.

If it's 'two bodies' then shouldn't *one* of those bodies be on the *outside* of the other to *count* as 'a body' -- ? *I* count one pregnant woman.

[QatzelOk]

No, sorry, I can't agree that *ruling class* institutions like churches and government are 'technology' themselves.

Churches: Literacy, Ceremonial Burial, Emotional Manipulation through rhetoric, Plato's heaven and hell strategy in the Republic, Creating passive slaves for Roman oligarchs....
And most of our modern churches have "sin" - a "germ" that pretends to justify human behaviorism (husbandry).

Government: Literacy, Division of Labor, Weapons, Religion-created passivity, border controls, top-down cultural orders, vaccine passports, prisons, spy organizations, racism
And most governments sell themselves as "germ-killers" (opportunistic "germs" that governments evoke include: inflation, enemies, instability, decline, population decrease, population increase, pollution, wars, other nations)

Do other species have churches and governments? Vaccine passports? Do they kill "germs?"

***

You're wrong. Gadgets were created by mammals. A totally natural process. No different than a bird making a nest out of twigs and brush...

ADAPT OR DIE

Birds don't use chainsaws and nail-guns to build their nests. They use their own, natural bodies. Bodies that have evolved naturally over long periods of time.

And Darwin's "adapt or die" refers to adapting to the natural conditions of the earth, and NOT to keeping-up-with-the-Jones' by buying the latest gadgets and chemicals.

I'm pro don't kill pre-born babies yes.

Before technologies, abortion was the choice of the band, and sometimes occurred AFTER conception. But the idea that "a poor woman with few economic prospects" should logically terminate her pregancy... didn't exist. Income inequality is a result of technologies, not nature. Poor women without prospects... are a creation of technologies, and this forced condition robs women of their agency.

A baby is not "a germ" that needs to be eradicated. But populations that terminate babies that they - as a group - cannot support - are not "a germ" either.

Once again, the abortion *debate* is mostly people seeing germs on the other side of the discussion, instead of looking at the group consequences of over-population.

[ckaihatsu]

Churches: Literacy, Ceremonial Burial, Emotional Manipulation through rhetoric, Plato's heaven and hell strategy in the Republic, Creating passive slaves for Roman oligarchs....
And most of our modern churches have "sin" - a "germ" that pretends to justify human behaviorism (husbandry).

Government: Literacy, Division of Labor, Weapons, Religion-created passivity, border controls, top-down cultural orders, vaccine passports, prisons, spy organizations, racism
And most governments sell themselves as "germ-killers" (opportunistic "germs" that governments evoke include: inflation, enemies, instability, decline, population decrease, population increase, pollution, wars, other nations)

Do other species have churches and governments? Vaccine passports? Do they kill "germs?"

***

Qatzel, you're *definitely* conflating 'means' and 'ends' now. (Speaking of personal 'agency'.)


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show

Birds don't use chainsaws and nail-guns to build their nests. They use their own, natural bodies. Bodies that have evolved naturally over long periods of time.

And Darwin's "adapt or die" refers to adapting to the natural conditions of the earth, and NOT to keeping-up-with-the-Jones' by buying the latest gadgets and chemicals.



Before technologies, abortion was the choice of the band, and sometimes occurred AFTER conception. But the idea that "a poor woman with few economic prospects" should logically terminate her pregancy... didn't exist. Income inequality is a result of technologies, not nature. Poor women without prospects... are a creation of technologies, and this forced condition robs women of their agency.

A baby is not "a germ" that needs to be eradicated. But populations that terminate babies that they - as a group - cannot support - are not "a germ" either.

Agreed.

[ckaihatsu]

(Again.)

Income inequality is a result of technologies, not nature.

---

[T]here is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/

[QatzelOk]

Qatzel, you're *definitely* conflating 'means' and 'ends' now. (Speaking of personal 'agency'.)

No, sorry, I can't agree that *ruling class* institutions like churches and government are 'technology' themselves.

What I did next, after the post above, was to list all the technologies that created our church and our government.

Churches: Literacy, Ceremonial Burial, Emotional Manipulation through rhetoric, Plato's heaven and hell strategy in the Republic, Creating passive slaves for Roman oligarchs....
And most of our modern churches have "sin" - a "germ" that pretends to justify human behaviorism (husbandry).

Government: Literacy, Division of Labor, Weapons, Religion-created passivity, border controls, top-down cultural orders, vaccine passports, prisons, spy organizations, racism
And most governments sell themselves as "germ-killers" (opportunistic "germs" that governments evoke include: inflation, enemies, instability, decline, population decrease, population increase, pollution, wars, other nations)

The Modern Churches use modern technologies towards modern ends. They are one of the earlier examples of psychological manipulation and terrorism, pioneered brainwashing techniques and the Big Lie.

Likewise, Modern governments are the result of modern warfare, modern propaganda, and modern loss of social capital.

Both of these institutions force certain technologies onto the populations they rule over like dictators. "You must drive cars" says the USA government's policies. "You must be sexually frustrated and base your self esteem on Middle Eastern myths and European prejudices" say many modern religions.

Both modern religion and modern governance are... germ killers. Interesting that germ-killing in medicine dates to the era of Machiavelli and those Medicis and the Pope.

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, so at *this* point you're indicating the elite's elitism -- isn't / wouldn't the point then be to *democratize* technology, and not-necessarily to *bury* all technology, as you seem to be suggesting.

[QatzelOk]

Okay, so at *this* point you're indicating the elite's elitism --

It's important to remember this while discussing decisions that have been made by the 1% - like normalizing "germ theory" (in the 1500s) in order to make scapegoating the easy getaway-car of corrupt elites.

isn't / wouldn't the point then be to *democratize* technology, and not-necessarily to *bury* all technology, as you seem to be suggesting.

What does *democratize* even mean in this context? You mean the way that *car transportation* was "democratized" by forcing everyone to drive one with exclusionary zoning and the destruction of mass transit, cycling, and walkable neighborhoods? Is that the kind of democracy you're talking about?

Or perhaps you mean the way mRna vaccines were "democratized" through vaccine passports?

The way wars are "democratized" through propaganda and false flags?

Our germ-killing ways are not democratic, they are top-down.

[ckaihatsu]

isn't / wouldn't the point then be to *democratize* technology, and not-necessarily to *bury* all technology, as you seem to be suggesting.

What does *democratize* even mean in this context?

Not so much the *warfare* aspect in the following history, but rather the *democracy* / availability of machine tools, is the crucial part:

American production of machine tools was a critical factor in the Allies' victory in World War II. Production of machine tools tripled in the United States in the war. No war was more industrialized than World War II, and it has been written that the war was won as much by machine shops as by machine guns.[14][15]

The production of machine tools is concentrated in about 10 countries worldwide: China, Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, US, Austria, Spain and a few others. Machine tool innovation continues in several public and private research centers worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_tool#History

---

You mean the way that *car transportation* was "democratized" by forcing everyone to drive one with exclusionary zoning and the destruction of mass transit, cycling, and walkable neighborhoods? Is that the kind of democracy you're talking about?

Or perhaps you mean the way mRna vaccines were "democratized" through vaccine passports?

The way wars are "democratized" through propaganda and false flags?

I *hear* ya.

Our germ-killing ways are not democratic, they are top-down.

---

[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

---


Also:


inductive vs. deductive reasoning

Spoiler: show

[QatzelOk]

A Case Study:

Will Canada follow the U.S.'s aggressive new approach to treat childhood obesity?
New U.S. guidelines include recommendations for weight loss drugs and surgery for some teens

Dr. Melanie Henderson, a pediatric endocrinologist and researcher at Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montreal, said obesity is a chronic disease affected by environment, socio-economic factors, genetics, lifestyle and more...

Dr. David Ma, professor of health and nutritional sciences at the University of Guelph, worries that following the U.S.'s lead and including recommendations for drugs and surgery in Canada's guidelines could undermine efforts aimed at prevention...

Does this child require drugs and surgery?

This article in today's CBC News, shows the dilemna that doctors face when confronted with germ-versus-terrain theory... in their daily practice.

GERM
In this article, the USA's CDC has recommended that children undergo drug and surgery treatments... in effect, treating childhood obesity as a germ that needs to be obliterated. (Kill that germ!)

TERRAIN
Two Canadian doctors are instead suggesting that Canada focus more on lifestyle, diet, and other factors that cause obesity. (Improve the terrain!)

Germ-killing, of course, drove families out to suburbia to escape pollution, red-lining, and urban decay - all considered germs that could be eradicated with the cure of suburbia. And now suburban kids are obese, so other technologies are being marketed or even... mandated. One product (suburbia) has negative side effects, so another product (surgery-drugs) can be sold to make more cash for other commercial interests.

**Chopping up and drugging adolescents who are obese** when this increased obesity is caused by living in car-enclosed suburban prisons... demonstrates a lot of buy-in for germ theory. This story highlights the lack of wisdom in that strategy, in that surgery and drugs cost money and make a profit for oligarchs (and are therefore recommended), as opposed to more excercise and a better diet (which don't profit oligarchs so are made impossible by suburbia and car culture, two other money-making schemes for oligarchs)... demonstrates how commerce brought us here.

[ckaihatsu]

Qatzel, I'd like to remind you that in your rejection of anything *modern*, you're also having to eschew *written communication* and recordkeeping.

From previously, are you still going to sidestep the development of *writing*, for human culture, to implicitly insist on *oral culture* and *oral histories*, only -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

I have to add, Qatzel, that even *science itself* would be left undiscovered and unused according to your runaway *primitivism*.

Anytime someone encounters a new, unfamiliar situation -- like being 'in the middle of a forest', or 'a flashlight in a dark room' -- the throwbacks of religion and philosophy just won't be of much help for such novel situations.

I developed a framework / taxonomy that's based on the scientific method and can be used for everyday life situations as well:


---


database-type functionality

A Few Tools for Your Computer [March 16, 2022]

viewtopic.php?p=15218131#p15218131

Okay, real quick, here's an example of database-type functionality from this 'universal paradigm' framework example, using a *lookup table*, which is just a text file of information that can be referenced from outside (as according to a single-digit unique code number, per line), for pulling-in that associated / related information -- effectively a *relational database*.

Keep in mind that computers are supposed to *save* us time and effort, so lookup tables (as through Bash) is a way to make sure that we don't have to manually type-in any data *redundantly*.

(An everyday-way of doing this is called 'markup' -- anyone who's ever used *abbreviations* throughout their document, followed by a search-and-replace to fill in the full words or phrases, has used this kind of 'markup' / 'lookup table' approach.)

Here's the taxonomy, and it's also in a text file called '220316 universal paradigm TABLE'.


9. OPTIMIZATION / PERFECTION / FINE-TUNING

8. CONCEIVABLE / IMAGINED / GOAL / WISHFUL THINKING

7. EXPECTED / REASONED / THEORIZED

6. OBSERVED (after) / EXECUTION / HOW-IT-WENT

5. EXPERIMENTATION by SCALE or SCOPE (core, periphery)

4. ACTIVITY / TASK / SOCIAL ORGANIZATION / MATERIAL INPUT-OUTPUT

3. HYPOTHESIS (of new situation) / RESPONSE

2. ANALYSIS (of RELEVANT PAST) / CONFIRMATION

1. OBSERVED (before) / RELEVANT PAST / RESEARCH


And here's the sample data format again, in '220316_index'.

_______________________________________________________________________________
220307 sample entry
____________________________________________________YYMMDD-AND-NOTE-NAME IF ANY
DSC_1459.JPG
_____________________________________________SOURCE PHOTO IMAGE FILENAME IF ANY
1PAST|2YESNO|3AND?|4TASK|5TRY|6GOOD?|7WOULD|8SHOULD|9BEST|0

viewtopic.php?p=15218131#p15218131

[QatzelOk]

Qatzel, I'd like to remind you that in your rejection of anything *modern*, you're also having to eschew *written communication* and recordkeeping.

From previously, are you still going to sidestep the development of *writing*, for human culture, to implicitly insist on *oral culture* and *oral histories*, only -- ?

Even "words" and "speech" are technologies that were invented over time. I'm not sure if these things contributed much to human survivability... remember, words and speech open up "Lying" technology, which is then used to destroy any knowledge that nature might have provided to the species that is trying to survive long-term.

Most animals that have "speech" use simple sounds to communicate simple concepts (danger, loss, GPS, fear, etc.) That we are using complex words in complex concepts now... might not help us survive long-term because other people are using complex ideas and concepts to design bio-weapons.

I have to add, Qatzel, that even *science itself* would be left undiscovered and unused according to your runaway *primitivism*.

Do other species - none of whom have Germ Theory - have their own type of science? If so, we could imitate them in how they pursue it.

[ckaihatsu]

Most animals that have "speech" use simple sounds to communicate simple concepts (danger, loss, GPS, fear, etc.) That we are using complex words in complex concepts now... might not help us survive long-term because other people are using complex ideas and concepts to design bio-weapons.

Are you *really* recommending a Planet-of-the-Apes-like social existence / reality for all of humanity -- ? Experientialism -- ?