Return to serfdom: the path of ecology?

[Ahmed]

The quantitative gain is undeniable, with important nuances (Cf the previous post of Sen-no-sen), but as for the quality of life, the proselytes of "progress" are less talkative on this subject since it is only a question of "material comfort". This additional duration (not to mention the end which has already been discussed), as well as the basic one, is almost entirely absorbed by an objective external to each human: work. This need to alienate one's existence is manifested to a point never before reached in such proportions in history *, since it even affects social categories which were able to exempt themselves from it in the past. The ideology that goes with it is so effective that a number of people are persuaded to "accomplish" it: this is undoubtedly the influence of the school which stirs the imagination of the pupils and directs what remains of it towards the only improvements in the production of the commodity (which is the supreme cult). The extension of leisure does not constitute a counter argument, in the sense that it is a question of "restoring its productive forces" and of consuming (the other side of work).
Our industrial society is disproportionately miserable if we measure it by the yardstick of psychological comfort. In our asocial society, drugs are necessary to support the absence of humanity, whether it is the real drug, that of work (more accepted, by definition) or of a hobby, otherwise it is madness that is in this context a fairly healthy reaction. Hyper-adaptation also remains a possibility, to be linked to this last option ...

* Today we are witnessing a gradual reversal of this trend,without that this changes anything in the imperative of having to sell its labor power.

[Janic]

exdebile

Absolutely.
At least 82 years old, the current life expectancy.
Because living pollution-free and dying at 30 is not really my thing.

one day we would have to stop with this discourse on current or past life expectancy which means nothing about the real longevity ages of the oldest. This age of 30, supposed, is just another fantasy in the discourse of evolution to "demonstrate", falsely, that we are living older, (but increasingly sick).
100 + 2 = 51, but neither the one who died at 2 years old lives to 51 years, nor the one who dies at 100 has lived only to 51 years. You have to be really stupid to make that kind of guess.
It's also stupid that if a motorist stopped for speeding invoked his legitimacy to drive like this to obtain his average of 80 after having driven at 50 in town, plus the traffic jams and that to obtain his average, he must drive so much faster. D & bile, I tell you!

[izentrop]

 
If I understand the authors of this book correctly, they want to bring 30% of the people back to the countryside to use their muscle strength in agriculture. .

Indeed, the above is wrong, because, even with a strong reduction in fossil fuels, technological advances, robotics and biotechnology offer low carbon solutions already developed.

[Janic]

izentrop »27 / 05 / 21, 13: 21

Exnihiloest wrote:

If I understand the authors of this book correctly, they want to bring 30% of the people back to the countryside to use their muscle strength in agriculture. .

Indeed, the above is wrong, because, even with a strong reduction in fossil fuels, technological advances, robotics and biotechnology offer low carbon solutions already developed.

the dream of transhumanism! except that at one point the technique prevails over the human to the point of rendering the latter useless and unusable with its corollaries: mass unemployment at best or rational elimination of unnecessary ... which you are also part of.

[Forhorse]

Because living pollution-free and dying at 30 is not really my thing.

I don't see why you care about your hope of emptiness, you're already expired anyway!

[Ahmed]

Forhorse: telltale slip of the tongue?

[Exnihiloest]

Look well, maybe since the age of the caves and in a few millennia of evolution, man has succeeded in improving a certain number of things, from all points of view ...
He also created some monsters (wild capitalism etc ...). In all this evolution we can find / select space for a world that is much more reasonable and not as caricature as the one you are proposing ...

Do as with vaccines: the benefit / harm calculation.

Your accusation is unfair, since I have not caricatured anything, it is the fundamentalists of your camp who advocate the return to the earth of 15 to 30% of the working population and the use of animal and human muscular force.
Their project is completely grotesque. 15 to 30% of humans who are going to turn the earth with the cart drawn by oxen or cut the wheat with a billhook, that is where the ridiculous is. But I don't hear you moderate their words. I take it that you agree with them. Who is silent consents.

[Exnihiloest]

...
The Amish are a good example, they have one of the highest life expectancies in the world despite a relative rejection of modernity:
...

The Amish are social parasites, they do not live in isolation. They sell their products to ordinary consumers, who can afford to buy them at a much lower price than if everyone were Amish. When everyone was Amish it was the 18th century, life expectancy was under 40, hunchbacks and harelips were not treated, we would die of appendicitis, there were epidemics alongside which COVID would have gone unnoticed ...

[Exnihiloest]

Because living pollution-free and dying at 30 is not really my thing.

I don't see why you care about your hope of emptiness, you're already expired anyway!

I don't see anything from you other than personal attacks. When someone picks up an intelligent reflection on the subject at Forbourrin, thank you for telling me about this first.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Our industrial society is disproportionately miserable if we measure it by the yardstick of psychological comfort.

It is certain that in the days of feudalism, the serf was fairly well off in terms of "psychological comfort".
No time to ask questions, you had to work to survive from day to day, no access to culture so no existential subjects, the rare questions already had their answers by the conditioning of religion which forced him to accept his short life and his condition of servitude, God will give him back a hundredfold, he will have paradise at the end of his days, no information that would open his mind to what is happening elsewhere in the world, catastrophic floods in China or the eradication of an African village by a volcano, he did not care, the serf in France, he was not even aware, the right to abortion or equality between men and women, not no psycho problem either on this subject, the warming up, the cooling down of time, the divine will, no psycho problem either on this subject.

Our societies communicate and are full of information. How could we have "psychological comfort" in these conditions? Ignorance is cool. Knowledge is the complete opposite of "psychological comfort", it requires that we master it or we never go around it.
For the followers of psychological comfort, moreover I see some here who apply the recipe, it is enough to put your head in the sand.