[QatzelOk]

We're just talking *past* each other at this point.

I'll summarize that if you can't even *distinguish* humanity from all organic life, then there's no way to distinguish 'socially-acceptable', from 'non-socially-acceptable'.

For *you* it has something to do with the threshold of 'artificial'. *Your* default seems to be asking everyone to always be 'in-the-moment', and animalistically, experientially *spontaneous*.

The 19th Century thinkers *believed* that they could eventually *understand what it all means* if only they could categorize everything.

You have been too focussed on categorization in this thread. The answer to whether mankind's *modern germ-killing ways* will lead to the end of our species... is much more important than the categorization of the concepts and vocabulary words that are being used.

And also, you're constant asking what "I" think or what "I" prescribe... is lending a first-person component to a subject that should be debated in the purely theoretical realm with no subjects involved - only concepts. In France, it is considered very bad form to use first person or second person pronouns in a debate or presentation about a concept.

I think the reason that many people would be inclined to categorize the vocabulary or other participants in the debate... harks back to the search for germs to categorize. "Is this concept a germ or a detergent? Is the speaker a germ or a detergent? Is his methodology full of germs, or cleansing and antiseptic?"

[ckaihatsu]

We're just talking *past* each other at this point.

I'll summarize that if you can't even *distinguish* humanity from all organic life, then there's no way to distinguish 'socially-acceptable', from 'non-socially-acceptable'.

For *you* it has something to do with the threshold of 'artificial'. *Your* default seems to be asking everyone to always be 'in-the-moment', and animalistically, experientially *spontaneous*.

The 19th Century thinkers *believed* that they could eventually *understand what it all means* if only they could categorize everything.

You have been too focussed on categorization in this thread. The answer to whether mankind's *modern germ-killing ways* will lead to the end of our species... is much more important than the categorization of the concepts and vocabulary words that are being used.

This is do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do -- you're obviously content to use categorization, concepts, and vocabulary, while criticizing *my* usage of 'categorization'.

Are you *really* going to be prosecuting a *double-standard* here -- ? (gasp)

And also, you're constant asking what "I" think or what "I" prescribe... is lending a first-person component to a subject that should be debated in the purely theoretical realm with no subjects involved - only concepts.

And, *guess what* -- ?

Concepts are the products of *brains*, and brains are typically known for being inside-of *people*.

It's fair to include *you*, the commenter (with your oft-reiterated anti-xenophobia line), along with whatever 'concepts' you may be touting at any given time.

You're hyper-critical of the *slightest* tool-usage, without bothering to address the *power structure*, and its *technologies*, separately -- instead leaning on your McLuhanism crutch that gives you license to smear 'ends' and 'means' together into a gooey mess, since 'the medium is the message', taken literally.

Here's version-one-point-oh of that 'humanities-technology' illustration graphic, from previously -- it's fitting here.


[27] Humanities-Technology Chart

Spoiler: show

---

In France, it is considered very bad form to use first person or second person pronouns in a debate or presentation about a concept.

I think the reason that many people would be inclined to categorize the vocabulary or other participants in the debate... harks back to the search for germs to categorize. "Is this concept a germ or a detergent? Is the speaker a germ or a detergent? Is his methodology full of germs, or cleansing and antiseptic?"

[QatzelOk]

This is do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do -- you're obviously content to use categorization, concepts, and vocabulary, while criticizing *my* usage of 'categorization'.

When *you* asked *me* what *my* definition of "artificial" was - you lent me a great deal of personal space to define what *I* want, what *my* interests might be, what *my ingroup* would like me to say or think. I don't find this an appropriate space to define *me, myself, and my interests*, so I instead provided a story about the reaction of other humans to my sand cities. In other words, rather than expressing my own identity and perceive self-interests regarding a word definition, I shared a real story about the lived experience I had with other animals (including human animals) in order to find a definition in the behavior of other animals.

Concepts are the products of *brains*, and brains are typically known for being inside-of *people*.

Having a brain (and a mouth) doesn't mean that my self interest is in any way a useful or productive part of a discussion of a subject that is entirely out of the range of ingroups and their fabricated realities. So I stray away from first person "feelings" or "perceptions" - and concentrate on the lived experience of other animals in relation to nature.

[ckaihatsu]

When *you* asked *me* what *my* definition of "artificial" was - you lent me a great deal of personal space to define what *I* want, what *my* interests might be, what *my ingroup* would like me to say or think. I don't find this an appropriate space to define *me, myself, and my interests*, so I instead provided a story about the reaction of other humans to my sand cities. In other words, rather than expressing my own identity and perceive self-interests regarding a word definition, I shared a real story about the lived experience I had with other animals (including human animals) in order to find a definition in the behavior of other animals.

'Sand cities' is something that only a *person* / human-being could make, for physiological and social reasons. I don't mean to be 'species-ist', but rather to say that perhaps *that's* your working-definition, 'sand cities', and thus *artificial* -- in *my* book, anyway.

What *I'd* like to know, for the sake of discussion, is whether you'd relent to someone using *driftwood* for *shaping* some of the sand-city contours in such a construction, or whether *that* behavior / action, of using a *tool*, would be too-much, 'artificial', and too inherently *schismatic*, socially.

Having a brain (and a mouth) doesn't mean that my self interest is in any way a useful or productive part of a discussion of a subject that is entirely out of the range of ingroups and their fabricated realities. So I stray away from first person "feelings" or "perceptions" - and concentrate on the lived experience of other animals in relation to nature.

Okay, fair enough.

[QatzelOk]

What *I'd* like to know, for the sake of discussion, is whether you'd relent to someone using *driftwood* for *shaping* some of the sand-city contours in such a construction, or whether *that* behavior / action, of using a *tool*, would be too-much, 'artificial', and too inherently *schismatic*, socially.

Using driftwood is a very easy way to create roadways and canals.

The park ranger told the sand-castle builder to not create any dangerous features that might impact a naked human (this is at a nudist beach) in any way. So that probably means that the park ranger would not object to displacing driftwood.

Contrast this with another important speech:

You ask me to plow the ground. Shall I take a knife and tear my mother's bosom? You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it and be rich like white men. But dare I cut off my mother's hair?

--Anonymous Native America, circa 1880s

Here, an anonymous First Nations is stressing that the agricultural technologies that Europeans are forcing everyone to practice is not, in fact, benign or sacred or *a germ-fighting detergent* at all.

This particular sand-city has lots of sharp objects and deep trenches.

A lot of First Nations were park rangers in their hearts.

[ckaihatsu]

that probably means that the park ranger would not object to displacing driftwood.

What if all plastics could (hypothetically) be replaced with mushroom-based / natural substitutes -- ?

What if all metal could (hypothetically) be replaced with 'glulam', or 'glued laminated timber' -- ? Maybe down the line wood pulp could be produced through *cell culturing*, so that trees would never have to be grown and cut down.

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

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


Ditto for *meat*, and aquaponics may be the way to go, anyway, entirely.

My line here is that Western Civilization has produced and wielded technology in *certain ways*, historically, but now, with *contemporary* technologies the world / society might opt for *shifting gears*, to *less-offensive* types of technology-usage (so as to fulfill modern-type needs for personal technology and standards-of-living).

[QatzelOk]

My line here is that Western Civilization has produced and wielded technology in *certain ways*, historically, but now, with *contemporary* technologies the world / society might opt for *shifting gears*, to *less-offensive* types of technology-usage (so as to fulfill modern-type needs for personal technology and standards-of-living).

Electric SUVs and nuclear power plants on every block... finally, we will be saved by technology (again)?

At one point does *techno-gullibility* enter the conversation?

I mean, 13th Century Christians probably thought "improved rosaries" would stop the plague.

[ckaihatsu]

Electric SUVs and nuclear power plants on every block... finally, we will be saved by technology (again)?

At one point does *techno-gullibility* enter the conversation?

I mean, 13th Century Christians probably thought "improved rosaries" would stop the plague.

This is an inapt *conflation* -- resulting, perhaps, from your pathology-sided *technological determinism* and McLuhanism ('the-medium-is-the-message') line that *itself* conflates technological *means*, with social-authority *ends*.

Why aren't you indicting *Western Civilization*, and its *Christianity*, for the historical 'rosaries' ritual and fetishism -- ?

Instead you're using *religion*, to indict *modern technology* -- that's quite a *stretch* -- (!)

I, for one, would readily *welcome* nuclear power plants (like in France) that provide enough electricity for *everyone*, to the last person, to drive electric SUVs, or whatever, according to their own individual personal discretion.

[ckaihatsu]

*everyone*, to the last person [could] drive electric SUVs, or whatever, according to their own individual personal discretion.

Gotta add that *any* industry -- besides automobiles -- currently in the private sector, could *easily* be superseded in our era of 'Big Data' by simply taking a *centralized* approach, or 'single-payer' (as in 'single payer healthcare').

The private sector *itself* does this 'aggregating' behavior, anyway, as a matter of course -- mergers and acquisitions, consolidations, stock buy-backs, deflation, and also financialization / over-financialization / speculation, on valuations themselves. (All non-commodity-productive.)

The public / public-sector has its *own* interest in not 'over-paying', for runaway profit-making -- as with *energy* pricing these days.

With government-wide *nationalizations* of industry, nationalized Big Data could easily 'administer' over capacity, at least over the data infrastructure itself -- thus centralization. (Also consider present-day Goldman Sachs / 'Government Sachs'.)

This blatant ongoing *mismatch* between [1] actual physical / digital *capacity*, and [2] real-world everyday *deployment* of such, on the whole / total, is the description of a Marxian 'contradiction', since society *should* be able to *optimize* actual capabilities / capacities to real-world usage and consumption, driven by unmet human need (as the independent variable).

[QatzelOk]

... McLuhanism...conflates technological *means*, with social-authority *ends*.

The Gatlin gun lead to the genocide of the Métis in Canada, in order to build a railroad. Without the (new and improved) ability to massacre hundreds of métis from the safety of a secure perch, OTHER less efficient means would have been used. But they weren't because THIS TEK was available. This TEK lead to the genocide (and to the Civil War in the USA).
...

I, for one, would readily *welcome* nuclear power plants (like in France) that provide enough electricity for *everyone*, to the last person, to drive electric SUVs, or whatever, according to their own individual personal discretion

Of course, because these plants would clean up "the germ" of fossil fuel generation of electricty. And electricity cleaned up the germ of candles and early nights to bed, and lack of productivity was, of course, the biggest germ of all.
"With electricity, we can run the mills 24 h a day! Eureka-kaching!"

Here's the latest germ-killing technology:

New guidelines on treating childhood obesity from the American Academy of Pediatrics call for early and aggressive treatment—including weight loss drugs for children as young as 6 and bariatric surgery for youths as young as 13—instead of what they call “watchful waiting or unnecessary delay of appropriate treatment of children.”...

So rather then looking at the terrain (children who sit in the basement playing video games, junk food normalicy, cars create murderous spaces for public play, etc.) the government is looking at technologies like stomach-stapling and drugs for young children.

I don't even have to speculate on the harmful side effects of these technologies. But many other technologies will be required by these stapled and drugged children. Other "germs" will appear and other "detergents" will be sold.

[ckaihatsu]

I, for one, would readily *welcome* nuclear power plants (like in France) that provide enough electricity for *everyone*, to the last person, to drive electric SUVs, or whatever, according to their own individual personal discretion

Of course, because these plants would clean up "the germ" of fossil fuel generation of electricty. And electricity cleaned up the germ of candles and early nights to bed, and lack of productivity was, of course, the biggest germ of all.
"With electricity, we can run the mills 24 h a day! Eureka-kaching!"

Okay, so what-about *candles*, then -- do you find candle 'technology' to be innocuous / benign enough to not-comment on it -- ?

What about emergent *cities* and the need for *street lighting* -- ?

http://www.historyoflamps.com/lamp-hist ... gas-lamps/

[QatzelOk]

Okay, so what-about *candles*, then -- do you find candle 'technology' to be innocuous / benign enough to not-comment on it -- ?

What about emergent *cities* and the need for *street lighting* -- ?

(Please stop using first and second person pronouns in this thread. Thank you. )



Candles obviously permit people to stay up later and work.

Working late hours is a detergent for the germ of "off-time."

Think about who (which class) would be concerned about their slaves having too much time off. The same class (the self-appointed detergents of humanity) would propose stimulants (like coffee, cocaine and bennies) in order to "improve" productivity - to kill the germ of "off time."

[ckaihatsu]

(Please stop using first and second person pronouns in this thread. Thank you. )

No such luck -- *you're* here, and *I'm* here.

Image

Candles obviously permit people to stay up later and work.

Working late hours is a detergent for the germ of "off-time."

Isn't this *presumptuous*, though -- ?

Do people use lighting at night *only* for the sake of staying up later, to work, or should people have access to lighting (by whatever technologies), at their own personal *discretion*, *regardless* -- ?

Think about who (which class) would be concerned about their slaves having too much time off. The same class (the self-appointed detergents of humanity) would propose stimulants (like coffee, cocaine and bennies) in order to "improve" productivity - to kill the germ of "off time."

[QatzelOk]

No such luck -- *you're* here, and *I'm* here.

Yeah, let's *work together* to find some *truths* that we can both benefit from as individuals.
Self-interest is a hell of a master, isn't it.

Isn't this *presumptuous*, though -- ?

Do people use lighting at night *only* for the sake of staying up later, to work, or should people have access to lighting (by whatever technologies), at their own personal *discretion*, *regardless* -- ?

That there are other uses for artificial lighting other than "working more" is irrlevant. This was the driving force behind virtually all tech. "We can make our slaves work harder with it." That there are other *uses* for tech... demonstrates how they are marketed to the slaves.

"With a chain around your ankle tied to other ditch-diggers, you'll never get lost!"


Another germ gets whacked, thanks to thread-God, Mr. Clean.

[ckaihatsu]

(Please stop using first and second person pronouns in this thread. Thank you. )

No such luck -- *you're* here, and *I'm* here.

Yeah, let's *work together* to find some *truths* that we can both benefit from as individuals.
Self-interest is a hell of a master, isn't it.

'Truths' is *idealism*, and I'm not an idealist / liberal / libertarian / whatever -- you're thinking 'Left', and I'm *far-left*.


---

Isn't this *presumptuous*, though -- ?

Do people use lighting at night *only* for the sake of staying up later, to work, or should people have access to lighting (by whatever technologies), at their own personal *discretion*, *regardless* -- ?

That there are other uses for artificial lighting other than "working more" is irrlevant. This was the driving force behind virtually all tech. "We can make our slaves work harder with it." That there are other *uses* for tech... demonstrates how they are marketed to the slaves.

"With a chain around your ankle tied to other ditch-diggers, you'll never get lost!"

What about ARPANET to today's Internet -- ? (Anyone?) (Is this thing on?) (grin)


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

[QatzelOk]

What about ARPANET to today's Internet -- ? (Anyone?) (Is this thing on?) (grin)


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

From a 'germ versus terrain' perspective, the Internet was universalized in order to add another layer of social control over the helot class which almost all of us belong to.

When the banks crash this time, it will be much easier for the 1% to prevent any revolting, and they can find millions of 'crimes' to convict people of, based on their Internet records.

For the 1%, independent voices and free-thinking are 'germs' and so the terrain which is our lives... is casually destroyed via a million cuts.

*Sins* and *thought crimes* are both invented germs that allows the 1% to pollute the terrain with distortions of human behavior.

[ckaihatsu]

From a 'germ versus terrain' perspective, the Internet was universalized in order to add another layer of social control over the helot class which almost all of us belong to.

When the banks crash this time, it will be much easier for the 1% to prevent any revolting, and they can find millions of 'crimes' to convict people of, based on their Internet records.

For the 1%, independent voices and free-thinking are 'germs' and so the terrain which is our lives... is casually destroyed via a million cuts.

*Sins* and *thought crimes* are both invented germs that allows the 1% to pollute the terrain with distortions of human behavior.

helot class

This isn't *antiquity*, Qatzel -- nice *try*, though. But, yeah, may-as-well-be.

I happen to call it the Western-psychology-worldview mindset, which actually lends itself towards being a ^$@%@@! secular *religion*, so there-ya-go.

Conservative reactionary pap only employs knee-jerk *behaviorism*, so it's easily dodged in-flight, as though objective reality itself is grounded in *buzzwords*.

[QatzelOk]

This isn't *antiquity*, Qatzel -- nice *try*, though. But, yeah, may-as-well-be.

Our elite has been using the same playbook for thousands of years. It hasn't changed at all.

I happen to call it the Western-psychology-worldview mindset, which actually lends itself towards being a ^$@%@@! secular *religion*, so there-ya-go.

Conservative reactionary pap only employs knee-jerk *behaviorism*, so it's easily dodged in-flight, as though objective reality itself is grounded in *buzzwords*.

Secular and non-secular religions are both *germ-fighting* strategies.

The 1% has been using cries of *Germs ahoy!* to get their helotsTM to go on crusades ever since the first usurious transaction enriched the clergy or emperors of olde.

Thing is, like germs, humans are biological. 'Death to germs' is inevitably 'death to us.'