March 28, 2008, Square Haven has ceased updates indefinitely. What you see below is an archived version.

Forums / Nobody cares about society and/or culture!

pixel
or, you could get the old-person 'deluxe' model! with it's own motorized wheelchair, and THREE talking phrases! including 'You no-good hooligans!', 'don't spend that 2 cents all in one place now!', and 'I swear, if your grandpap was still alive, he'd give you such a lickin!'
pixel
Wow... this post has become an incredible mishmash of irrelevant replies, spontaneous speech on squirrels and a small amount of discussion on society/culture.

And I would, in fact (oddly enough given my option of squirrels), like to speak about the small discussion of society/culture. I should actually say question, because this reply is for you Viajera.

You claim that both every-day conveniences (which you claim lessen stimulation) and the American media devolve society. You feel that current day society encourages human beings to find identity in materialistic objects, that it is ignorant and generally stupid. It also seems that you see civilization merely as an attempt (and not a very efficient one at that) to subdue the natural and predominant animalistic behavior of human beings.

Now I am not about to rant and argue that your viewpoints are necessarily wrong, but I am very interested to hear what you believe makes them right?

Why do you see the creation of conveniences like the apple corer as a depiction of the failing trends of a spoiled and sloth society? Some may argue that ease of living is human evolution in itself… that these comforts like grocery stores, white out, seated lawn mowers… and computers… represent the ability of our race to master their surroundings.

And of course there are many, many objects, services, etc. that we do not necessarily need, you are right. But why do you see inessentiality as being such a destructive quality in human devolvement?

We all know that society and civilization (in all eras and in all aspects) is littered with problems. Political leaders are never accepted exclusively, and ridiculous trends and movements will be found in every party’s agenda.

However, there are no perfect systems. You will find more than one person, as unhappy as they may be with the way things are, that will argue that society, no matter how problem ridden, is still essential to productive human life. So I am interested to hear why you look so unfavorably on it and what you might prefer instead? One of the pleasures (and subsequently, problems) with living in the United States is that we are comfortably cushioned in a society where we suffer little problems compared to other areas in the world. It is easy for many American citizens to start pointing out deficiencies in our own system when they forget how life outside the U.S. can be.

So with that being said, I would like to hear you defend your prior statements. Please, tell me why society and civilization is so inefficient and why life’s conveniences, even if inessential at times, devolves the human race. What do you find threatening about an easy going life? And maybe consider that you might be stereotyping the human race by saying that these conveniences are making us all indolent.

I am definitely interested in hearing your response!
pixel
My response is....

MUSTARD-PLUG

that is all.
staff
pixel
Personally I agree with Viajera's point to the extent of gradual devolution of the human race when cushioned by ease of living. It's quite obvious that improved way of life leads to reduced innovation in science and technology, and subsequently in developments spurring further evolution on our behalf. Times of war will help in reducing the amount of people on the planet, as well as increasing competition in scientific development, so in that sense war is a progressive aspect of human communication. Nothing is better than (un)healthy competition.

I'd say that the aspects of materialism are primarily the result of a state of easy living that makes 99% of us irrelevant in the long run. All we do is use up energy and resources with a very low "return on investment" to the human race itself. You'll see that most other species on the planet don't operate this way -- each contributes pretty much the same amount to the development of the species, unless it gets sick or wounded or something. In our case, much of our development over the past century has involved coming up with ways to improve our mediocrity -- by surviving the fate that may have lead to our death through sickness or injury, and essentially condemning ourselves to prolonged existence in the form of a passive, unproductive leech on society.

If extremism were at all a useful way to get on with things (it isn't), then this would be the extremist view I pursue. I don't feel like my life itself is particularly useful to life as homo sapiens in the universe we're desperately trying to find the reason for existence in, as I'm a creative person and those are generally useless in terms of scientific/technological improvement, so there's almost no real reason for me to exist at all other than the implied natural instinct of my parent at some point or another to procreate.
pixel
Aberkong, you just made me really like you :)



FROM HERE, I WARN YOU ALL IN A VERY TALL MANNER, THAT IF YOU'RE CONTENT WITH RAHUL'S MESSAGE (which wonderfully surmised everything I'm about to say), THEN DON'T EVEN BOTHER WASTING YOUR TIME ON MY DRIVEL.

Now have a NICE day! :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose I'll merely be restating all that Rahul had just laid out, but I do feel as if this society is unhealthy. Whereas others struggle in order to just exist and feed their families, we have the luxuries of being able to create these menial objects to occupy our time, which we have plenty of.

In order to produce the one serving (four ounces) of veal for a person to eat, it took twenty-one pounds of grain to bring that to each plate (need the Ethiopian's say more?). How much oil are we having imported so we can get in our cars to run errands, to which some people have such a dependency that they use the car to drive two/three blocks away? Because people make such frequent use of distractions to their personal lives with their 'relaxers' of television and computers, which no one derives any personal gain or satisfaction from, they won't have enough time to keep relations with people or accomplish prior obligations or goals. How much energy is going to be used before there's no more left, with no alternate method available, and then finally take responsibility for our actions?

What of this list do you believe you need?
-cell phone
-television/cable
-computer
-car
-game systems (I know, guys, this is below the belt)
-pre-packaged foods

However much of that list you said you need, reevaluate that list into how much you need it, and how much you're dependent on it. I can almost guarantee that everyone thinks they could not live without a car. At least think of how much it could be put away and one could bike ride, walk, or jog instead? There are no drawbacks; better health, better environment, saved finances, worry, time to let the brain unwind and function at an optimal level, and to be aware.

In frozen dinners trays, soda cans, candy wrappers, etc.... think of the waste from the food containers alone. Take all of your trash from the average day and compile it all together. Now stare at it. Stare at it long and hard. Multiple that amount by 365. Now multiple it by your age in years. Now multiply it by the population of the United States, as we are the number one producers of waste on Earth. I suppose you can factor in what the other countries will add to it. And lastly, as you try to comprehend the vast amount of junk that's enshrouding the earth right now for our conveniences, grasp your head between your hands so it won't spontaneously explode.

I suppose that I'm coming from a stance of trying to impose self awareness. I agree, that despite the condition of any society, culture or political structure, there are always going to be flaws or at least people who aren't happy with how things are run. But a society should operate to the workings of promoting the people instead of promoting the ease of the people.

Television - this beautiful box with such a wonderful array of all sorts of colors and sounds doesn't have many bonuses, in any aspect. When watching television, the mind is put on auto-pilot, but is more aptly described as put in a state of catatonia. The mind shuts down in its cognitive thinking processes, and metabolism (all physiological metabolism; chemical and physical) slows. The brain stocks visual information as more important as opposed to verbal, and all visual info. is given without any interpretation needed at all. Turn off the sound on your TV - I bet you can still give the same account as another person could.

In this line of thought, commercials rely on the presence of the basic instincts of sex, power, and fear. Subliminally, or quite directly, they will state that owning this item will make you more desirable, more powerful/smarter/higher-up on the ladder than others. Or, may simply say that by not owning this product, you run the risk of being unlike everyone else - abnormal. No one likes abnormal; it's like a cancer that will eat away at you until it can be killed. Therefore, we must own more, have more, in order to be more.

Go to a junior high school or listen to some little kids around that age or older quibbling together - what do they seem to think is important? By looking, I see a lot of everyone thinking "Clothes!," yet no one seems to notice that fashion doesn't make up for intelligence. One can adorn themselves in jewelry, chains, boots, and never be satisfied with all they have. Beauty is fleeting and is a wasteful icon.

As a side-note: A person can look beautiful when first seen, but as soon as you find out how stupid or abrasive they are, it's funny how ugly they seem all of the sudden. And the same goes the other way; a person can look non-descript with no inviting features, but when there's a cutting wit and avid enthusiasm discovered, you begin to notice how much a smile will light up their face, or how gentle or passionate their features become. That, and what a shame that it hadn't been noticed before. It's another way of realizing how pointless one's dress is.

In terms of lifestyle, how many producers are there as opposed to consumers? How many make their own bread, yogurt, grow their own food, sew their own clothing, blankets, are nearly completely self-sufficient? Once again, extremist, but maybe that's coming from the standpoint of a culture that has gone out of their way to pad their own existence in every way possible.

As the fat kid who no one liked, I had a lot of time to reflect on other people and how I could be more like them in every way, and how I could make myself better, so I could fit in and have people like me. As I observed, this is what I cultivated from everyone's actions - that they merely had nothing more to entertain themselves with than petty actions or words and had nothing to offer in terms of enriching my life.

If we base our existence in these things which serve as nothing more than depressors as to how our minds could act and what they could become, then we've nothing more than to wait for our death, in that mean time procreate to produce more children in our likeness, and leave it to them to continue in our steps to the devolution of what we could have been, and spiral on to the bottom of our seemingly bottomless pit and inevitable death of all inhabitants of the planet.

And that is my rant for the day. Maybe. B)
pixel
In response to Rahul, I do agree that the human race does not nearly balance their return to the planet in what it takes... however, I do not agree that every other species does. If you are taking a "circle of life" outlook on the ecosystem of the Earth, then sure, every other species gives what it takes by maintaining balance. However Rahul, when comparing every species to our own, I do not see any development whatsoever. It would be only too easy to state that each member of a species, with the exception of our own, contributes the same amount to their development if "development" is considered to graze/feast and die. And to reflect, even if our race, despite given the ability of communication and intelligence, were to relive our most primitive form and merely hunt and die, well I do not think even then would we be adequately making returns on what we take in that respect. By simply using tools and cultivating the land (no matter how primitive) we have already unbalanced the natural order and taken advantage of the Earth.

But the human race is a unique species and given the gifts of thought and speech, there are, subsequently, pros and cons to that. I must agree with Rahul again, and say that very few of us have the privilege (but more often than not, the initiative or even want) of advancing the human species in a meaningful way. With our ability to invent and create, we have introduced materialism and made our race perhaps to dependent on possession and ownership. It is true that most of us live and die, and the only tribute any of us receive for our lives on this planet is a name and date on a slab of stone (which I think is a ridiculous idea anyways). I can not argue that you both are right in your claim that ease of living has devalued the individual in our society, making the average person unproductive and self focused. And it is true, as Rahul put it, that most of us give nothing more to our species with the exception of offspring... which considering the population of this planet, really should be avoided if it can be helped.

But despite the points made by both of you, I feel I must disagree that our species is devolving, even with the increase of ease in living.

Viajera, you point out objects and ask what point do they serve? Do we really need them?

In response to this, you are correct in surmising that we do not need many of the things we believe vital in every day life. However, you are taking a very one sided perspective when pointing to these things we do not necessarily need and the deficiencies of them and then claiming them depressors. The sad thing about evolution and development (the efficient and productive kind that everyone wants) is that it takes many many years to successfully achieve. I mean, sure, average life, as it stands, is pretty sloth like. Given our current society, our races mainstream priorities have shifted to insignificant things like apparel and status, this is true... but these priorities will shift again.

I would like to intervene here to point out that, despite the fact I am countering your responses, I agree with many of the opinions you two have presented... especially with Rahul. For example, I like to playfully petition the idea of Soylent Green, (omitting the idea of feeding our deceased to the starved) and some laugh, occasionally others frown upon it... however, although playful about it, I think an imposed limit of age is a good idea. I would say, to somewhat compliment Rahul, that unlike all other species, our race has a hard time embracing death. I believe that this is a con of our ability to think, for the idea of an end is a difficult thing for our egotistical minds to accept.

Overall, I guess what I am arguing is that it is improper to evaluate the status of society, to look at the ease of living, and even the inessential components of every day life and claim devolution and purposeless living. Sure, it would be great if we could go straight to things like teleportation, a uniform and peaceful society, a conglomerate effort to advance our species and our planet, but these things will not happen overnight. It is unfortunate that we must experience the downtimes in between significant leaps in society and productive discoveries and advances in science and technology, but it would be imprudent to forget that times likes these still provide as a step in the development of our society and play an important role, if only to make us aware of our slacking tendencies. I would like to close with a relevant quote from a movie (that I believe you can parallel much of what we are discussing here with) called Vanilla Sky,

"The sweet is just never as sweet... without the bitter."

Maybe a little dramatic, but I love that quote and it seemed like a perfect opportunity to use it. B
pixel
I mainly focus from what the past exuded as opposed to that of today. By no means has technology regressed, but instead each individual, which on the whole, each makes up a grain of society. Yet I would argue that individuals are taught to be self-centered in thought (e.g. 'How can I get ahead?' as opposed to 'How can I help them get to where they need to be, also?'). Also to say that people have a lower set of moral standards from what used to be, whether it be speech/thought/action or presence.

The easiest way to summarize it is that "With order comes disorder." It is easier to descend than to ascend; fall than get up. For a person of high intelligence to try and succeed at blending with those who are mentally handicapped can be very easy. For this to occur vice versa isn't, because the person really wouldn't have the capacity to comprehend. Manner of speech can say a lot about a person; Old English is much more complicated to speak, but through the centuries, English has been modified to what it is now for easier comprehension by all parties. The worst part is the slang that is dragging it farther down.

staff
pixel
This thread already requires too much reading and thinking. I say we cut it down a bit. Here is a picture of a women's soccer team, straight from the recesses of my imagination:

pixel
This topic got a HELLUVA LOT more interesting. Oh yeah, soceity sucks. 'OMFG L00k @ m1 1337xor ph0n3' or 'I have an iPod even though I won't be even using a quarter of its memory, I still got it coz it makes me cool'.

Call me extreme but I believe that the only way for the world to survive is for some sort of socialist system to arise else we will always be squabbling over money and wrecking the environment and ripping off the less fortunate. Maybe preceeding this a huge war to put everyone back in their place, 'you got the newest, most expensive car? It won't matter when a bomb falls on you, you're fucked liked the rest of us' then people will really realize that money and looks are worth shit all.
staff
pixel
Having just come back from a short period of absence, I choose to take the image that Rahul provided as a summary of the above posts. Cheers Rahul.
staff
pixel
I was reading about that distinctly American invention, the TV dinner (sure, right up there with jazz, isn't it) and how it came into being, and I thought, "Are we really celebrating the banal and insipid?" (I'm exaggerating when I say "celebrate," but I've seen a few too many obits on Gerry Thomas for my taste. Did this guy really want his legacy defined by the Swanson's TV dinner? Who knows.)

Ok, I don't know where I'm going with this. Rahul's spot on!
pixel
I would show a cuter picture, but my newly acclaimed badass status won't let me use attachments :( (Ahem: this is a hint!)
staff
pixel
None of the VIPs have attatchment capabilities. Why not get a photobucket It's fast, free, and simple. Even I use it!



pixel
Nephtis, you confuse me. You write like a male, yet your name implies breasts. Are you a transvestite? :huh:
staff
pixel
Nephtis was an Egyptian goddess, mother of Anubis.

However, Nephtis, in this instance, is an Orbital Frame in the cult hit Zone of the Enders 2. Which, in my opinion, was nowhere near as awesome as Neith.
staff
pixel
How the fuck do you go from Nephtis to breasts? I mean, I'm as oversexed and perverted as they come and I don't see the connection.
staff
pixel
I was wondering the same frakin thing.
pixel
Easy:

Nephtis = Goddess

Goddess = Female

Female = Has Breasts
pixel
See, and it only took him two and a half years of dating me to figure that out B)
pixel
... Me get cookie now? :huh:
staff
pixel
I'd like to make a public display highlighting the difference between the two orbital frames. I apoligise for the shoddy cut-out job of Nephtis there, not only do I suck but I only had a black background image, it wasn't easy. Note the actual breasts of Neith, and the lack of on Nephtis. Nephtis actually looks more like Jehuty, with a larger phallic symbol between the legs.

Neith was cool, but I didn't like the triangle head. Yes, I'm a guy. You'll deal with it I'm sure. I'm not a transvestite, despite this week's building party theme here on campus being basically 'transvestitve night'.

But yes, the main point here is Neith has breasts, Nephtis doesn't. Instead you've got a more prominent phallic symbol. One reason I chose Nephtis, but it was more because I prefer Nephtis generally to Neith, oh and Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner was to me, much cooler than the first title.


pixel
All phallic symbols trace back to the giant Ifrits of Doom. Or the dandelion ifrits.

:o
pixel
Neiths, and Nephtis, and Ifrifts, Oh my. :o
staff
pixel
Let's not forget that discovery of Shiva being a phallic symbol.
pixel
So Shiva is the equivalent of a Hello Kitty vibrator? :huh:
pixel
if so its hardly discreet
vip
pixel
Yeah no one cares about society.
pixel
They do care, only to the extent of Shiva Hello Kitty vibrators
vip
pixel
everyone cares about SVV's!!
pixel
so the summary of this topic is:

no-one cares about society and/or culture
but
EVERYONE cares about shiva hello kitty vibrators

seems right enough to me, albeit slightly depressing
Post a Reply
Please log in to participate in the discussion.
Topic #34 Invisible to nobody Closed to nobody
Login here
or cancel
Forgot your password?