spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Noble Realms → Current Events → SHAFTA
This society is crazy that being said for the millionth time.
We "have" a oil crisis, but we build means to use more oil.
We have a war on terrorism, when war is terrorism.
I guess we are simply doomed then. There is only one thing we can do now. Wipe them out. All of them.
Seriously though, I cannot look at our history as a barometer of our future. All that history was under the influence of heavy negative energy. In this instance, I cannot separate the matter and energy fields our consciousness plays in. Both must be taken into consideration to come to some reasonable concensus.
Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying and I feel it too. I'm not denying that humanity seems utterly hopeless. We have had a war going on somewhere on this planet for the past 2,000 years.
All human history in mind, I still stand firm that the world can change. And I admit, I can't fully counter arguments to the contrary when looking at our history.
Here's what it boils down to. Are humans fully in control of their own destiny without external influence? Are the wars always sold to the people on the truth that the Leader just wants more land and more subjects? Are we given feasible alternatives to the machines that are messing up the environment? Are we free from harmful electronics that interfere with brain wave patterns? Are true leaders allowed to take the stage or are they shot in the head?
I'm not making excuses for humanity. I am one and I feel what everyone else feels. This is no love-n-light head-in-sand reaction to reality. Without negative external influence and being shown how much better positive living is, I guarantee that a large portion of humans will change their thinking in quick order.
Imagine if people like those that frequent this board were in leadership positions. Imagine this group made up the one world government and had complete control over all technology and all resources on the planet. Would you not be able to change the world? Would you not be able to figure out a system where every level of intellect and spiritual advancement could play out without the misery we are accustomed to? The thing is, I can. Imagine making some of the same patronizing speaches leaders make today but actually mean it and follow through. Now imagine the shift in the mentality of some human out there that actually sees positive changes instead of more genocide. Are they going to take that shift towards positive and go out and kill their neighbor if they have food to each, their children are safe, and they no longer have to worry about survival?
I don't think you quite got what I was saying. I never said humans were hopeless, just that we're poorly adapted to crowded circumstances, and show it. The problem with what you are talking about (even if it was in any way remotely possible) is that is would inevitably lead to even more people and more crowded circumstances. Unless of course, you would include in your benevolent dictatorship some sort of forced birth control or other, more insidious forms of population reduction.
I also don't by any means think we are doomed. Civilization is doomed, but we are not civilization. You are only doomed if you are incapable of or unwilling to conviece of a life beyond civilization. Personally, I look at it as an opportunity, an expansion of freedom and the chance to live a truely meaningful life and build a healthy community.
I think all this focus on negative influences is more an excuse to escape responsibility. Yes, there are some hideous and malign forces that have an inordinate amount of influence in the world today, but this doesn't change the fact that we are ultimately responsible for the power they have over us. We may not be fully in control of the situation, but we are in control of our response. We can choose continue to play the victim, and therefore strengthen these very negative influences that we are so scared of, or we can take responsibility for our own lives and our own minds, and thereby begin to build a better reality.
Imagine if people like those that frequent this board were in leadership positions. Imagine this group made up the one world government and had complete control over all technology and all resources on the planet. Would you not be able to change the world? Would you not be able to figure out a system where every level of intellect and spiritual advancement could play out without the misery we are accustomed to?
This kind of conjecture is ultimately counterproductive. Aside from the fact that I have very serious doubts about the ability to create any kind of large governing body that wouldn't eventually decay into corruption, when we start thinking all these what if scenarios, we begin to lose sight of what IS. The present is all that ever exists, and is the only place that meaningful action (any action really) can occur, so if you want to make the world a better place, the first step is to honestly percieve and accept the world as it is. Accept it each moment as if you had chosen it, and then all action will be grounded in the infinite wisdom of presence, and will be consequently far more powerful.
I don't think you quite got what I was saying. I never said humans were hopeless, just that we're poorly adapted to crowded circumstances, and show it.
Not necessarily. We are poorly adapted to living a life of slaves. I can live just fine in a metropolis. I lived 2 miles from the center of downtown Atlanta for several years. And I walked to work quite often. Which took me through some poorer neigherhoods. Granted, the concrete, steel, electronic grids and such play havoc on people but humans are very adaptable creatures. I didn't notice hostility. I noticed quiet desperation due to having to wake up everyday to another day of slavery and not seeing an end to it.
Yes, crime rates are high in major cities. But crime could be greatly diminished if the PTB wanted it. Crime is what happens when you back people into a corner. Give them a way out and crime will diminish greatly even in the biggest of cities.
Also, the whole system is built to elicit this desperation. The view I'm seeing from is looking at systems upon systems integrated with more systems. The cumulative effect gives us what we have today. Change the systems to benefit the people and you change the cumulative effect.
Humans are still animals. Most of the subtle inherent soul searching drive has been usurped via religion. Alternative knowledge beyond religion has been kept out of the hands of the common man. I have to factor that in. And given what the system rewards there is not much incentive for the deeper level perspectives. Infringing on others to get ahead is rewarded. Treating others as equals and trying to live peacefully is punished with more laws and infringment from our babies in power.
The problem with what you are talking about (even if it was in any way remotely possible) is that is would inevitably lead to even more people and more crowded circumstances.
Not necessarily. People need to be educated and shown how their actions affect others. I seriously doubt that family with 15 kids thinks that their actions affect anyone else. They live in a bubble. People need to be educated with reality. People need to be educated period.
Unless of course, you would include in your benevolent dictatorship some sort of forced birth control or other, more insidious forms of population reduction.
I'm not talking about a dictatorship. Govern-ment. To govern is to control. I'm talking about a Guidance-ment. And if there was any point to doing so, I would draw up a scalable model of this Guidancement. And we could scale it into the trillions of people.
But most likely, with real education people will see that having so many children actually hurts their own children. And even with longer life spans the birth/death rate would soon even out.
I also don't by any means think we are doomed.
Although that statement was in jest, I did get an overwhelming negative doom-n-gloom feeling from your words.
Civilization is doomed, but we are not civilization. You are only doomed if you are incapable of or unwilling to conviece of a life beyond civilization. Personally, I look at it as an opportunity, an expansion of freedom and the chance to live a truely meaningful life and build a healthy community.
While the rest of the world dies off. If not you, the pollution or something from that civilization you left will get to your children or theirs. That's part reason why I see it as a selfish mentality. I'm not judging you. I'm judging the mentality for myself. I've had the mentality and I now judge it as selfish. I'm not just thinking about me and humanity here. From what I gather, this march of civilizations plays out across the universe. I have an excellent chance right now to gain valuable first hand knowledge that could be useful for others in the future.
I think all this focus on negative influences is more an excuse to escape responsibility.
The "all this focus on" is coming from your interpretation. I'm doing my best to see where the responsibility lies without bias. That objective view allows for greater depths of responsibility by adding more options, a better vantage point and more complex interlacing knowledge. I seek to gain more responsibility not escape it.
Yes, there are some hideous and malign forces that have an inordinate amount of influence in the world today, but this doesn't change the fact that we are ultimately responsible for the power they have over us.
You and I are looking at it from an awake state. If you aren't yet awake you aren't consciously abdicating resposibility.
There's a possible level mismatch here. I can't accurately tell what level you are speaking from when you say "ultimately responsible". As a biological entity I am not responsible for their overwhelming technological power than could kill me where I sit. Maybe you could define which level(s) you are viewing it from so I can meet you on that common ground.
We may not be fully in control of the situation, but we are in control of our response.
What does that response include? Getting angry, shaking your fist in the air, moving into the country? It's subtle but by the nature of the control stucture our responses are controlled to an fairly large extent as well. Another factor I must account for.
We can choose continue to play the victim, and therefore strengthen these very negative influences that we are so scared of, or we can take responsibility for our own lives and our own minds, and thereby begin to build a better reality.
I don't know about you but negative beings (influences) don't scare me. They are my catalyst. I'm thankful for them. Spiritually speaking of course. Maybe you are talking collectively here. Because we certainly aren't playing the victim by uncovering the truth of our reality. In fact, that's a major step in seeking to become even more responsible.
Imagine if people like those that frequent this board were in leadership positions. Imagine this group made up the one world government and had complete control over all technology and all resources on the planet. Would you not be able to change the world? Would you not be able to figure out a system where every level of intellect and spiritual advancement could play out without the misery we are accustomed to?
This kind of conjecture is ultimately counterproductive. Aside from the fact that I have very serious doubts about the ability to create any kind of large governing body that wouldn't eventually decay into corruption, when we start thinking all these what if scenarios, we begin to lose sight of what IS.
I can't see the logic here. What if scenarios are an important step in building a better reality. Did you not think 'what if' I get some land and go live off of it? Have you lost sight of what IS because of this?
The present is all that ever exists, and is the only place that meaningful action (any action really) can occur, so if you want to make the world a better place, the first step is to honestly percieve and accept the world as it is. Accept it each moment as if you had chosen it, and then all action will be grounded in the infinite wisdom of presence, and will be consequently far more powerful.
This is inferring that I do not accept reality as it is. Do you not seek a better reality for yourself? If so, do you not accept the current reality because you seek something better? These two concepts of accepting current reality and seeking a better reality are not mutually exclusive. I'm fairly certain by your posts that you already know this. So I'm not exactly sure what the point is in the above paragraph.
First, lets talk about cities. Do you have any examples of a large scale civilization that was harmonious and benevolent, cause I'd like to hear them. Consider the following:
The report on the Liverpool study mentioned above, includes Robin Dunbar's conclusions:
Humans are primates, too – so do they fit into the pattern established for monkeys and apes? This is the key question which Robin Dunbar sought to answer by using the same equations to predict human social group and clique size from neocortex volume. The results were… ~150 for social group size, and ~12 for the more intimate clique size. He subsequently discovered that modern humans operate on a hierarchy of group sizes. "Interestingly", he says, "the literature suggests that 150 is roughly to the number of people you could ask for a favour and expect to have it granted. Functionally, that’s quite similar to apes’ core social groups."
Interestingly, forager bands tend to hover around that mark of 12 people (with some significant variance), and the line between tribe-level and chiefdom-level society--the line between egalitarian and hierarchical society--is invariably drawn at 150.
This number of 150 continues to pop up in many different contexts. Malcolm Gladwell discusses Dunbar's findings and their implications in The Tipping Point. On a much more off-beat note, David Wong references it in "Inside the Monketsphere":
Yes, the Monkeysphere. That's the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number larger than 150. Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood Sanitation Worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away.
Here we see the essential problem with any large-scale society: we cannot conceive of so many people. It speaks to the very heart of Stalin's cold truism: "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic." Thus, for any society much larger than 150 people, we become neurologically incapable of maintaining an egalitarian society. Hierarchy becomes necessary, yet the human animal is very much adapted to egalitarianism--and in no way adapted to hierarchy. Cross-culturally, we all have some expectations rooted in that egalitarian heritage. We expect freedom, and we expect to be treated as a human being rather than a stereotype. We all feel some negative feeling of stress when these expectations are not met--as they invariably are not met in any large, hierarchical society.
I'm not talking about a dictatorship. Govern-ment. To govern is to control. I'm talking about a Guidance-ment.
I may be crazy, but this sure sounds like government to me, and a pretty strong one too:
Imagine this group made up the one world government and had complete control over all technology and all resources on the planet. Would you not be able to change the world?
I did get an overwhelming negative doom-n-gloom feeling from your words.
That is simply your interpretation, cause I personally am excited about the possibilities opened up by the collapse of civilization. Yes, it is very, very, very tragic that billions will die. But, think of it like this, if your in prison, and you notice the walls are starting to crumble, do you get the heck out and rejoice in your freedom, or do you spend your time wallowing in pity for the poor souls trapped in the basement. Of course you have an obligation to save as many fellow prisoners as possible, but in the end there is only so much you can do. Also, they were in prison anyway, and the only way to save them is to save the prison, and as you already admitted, it is not a very pleasant life that would be saved. If this life is all there is, then they won't notice there death, if it isn't then they didn't really die, but were liberated. Also, when you talk about the pollution of civilization killing my kids, I don't think you realize how quickly the Earth heals itself when we stop damaging it. Those toxins will be broken down and/or buried under layers of sediment in no time
I can't see the logic here. What if scenarios are an important step in building a better reality. Did you not think 'what if' I get some land and go live off of it? Have you lost sight of what IS because of this?
There is a huge difference between envisioning and taking concrete steps towards a better future and daydreaming about the impossible (unless you think you actually have a chance of acquiring such deep control over the whole planet). It is the difference between saying, hmm, "I'm going stop arguing with my wife" and "if I lived on Mars, all my problems would go away."
What does that response include? Getting angry, shaking your fist in the air, moving into the country? It's subtle but by the nature of the control stucture our responses are controlled to an fairly large extent as well.
It is definitely important to fully understand and acknowledge the forces at play here, but once that is done, it is important to realize that we choose to abdicate our sovereignty. We can choose NOT to let the negative forces control us in any way, even when they have a gun to our heads (or when they are putting thoughts in our head). Freedom and fear are like oil and water. We can choose choice (like that phrase?), or we can choose to blame our unconciousness on outside forces and thereby give those outside forces that very power they SEEM to have. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
To clarify that last point, I'm not saying anyone chooses to be effected by negativity, but all of us have the ability to choose not to be, and therein lies our responsibility.
One last thing, when people talk about the "march of civilization" across the universe, I think it is pretty short sighted to assume a high level of physical technology is necessary to have a highly sophisticated and developed culture. If we become masters of our mind and the spiritual realms, why would we need to develop space ships when we can travel in the astral realms anywhere in the universe instantly. Why would we need a bunch of silly crap (like TVs, cars, microwaves, nuclear warheads, etc.) when we could learn to live in harmony and contentment, and deep happiness, with a simple coexistence with our mother (gaia). I think the technology of the future isn't in the physical, the technology of the future is understanding and utilizing the power of raw consciousness. Just because our civilization is on the verge of collapse doesn't mean that our collective development is. In fact, just the opposite is the case, since the coming collapse will force us to adapt and evolve.
Also, let me add one more quote about the whole issue of humans and cities:
The Ju/'Hoansi have no word for "thank you"; to thank someone suggests that their actions were out of the ordinary. Caring for others in band-level society was the expected norm; it was the most selfish act one could come up with. The most effective way to serve oneself was to serve others. Bands very effectively defeated violence, cheating, and other "immorality" not nearly so much by condemning it, as by removing the incentive. Compare this to our own, hierarchical "Cheating Culture." Our survival does not depend on sharing with our small, close-knit community. Not only do the people around us no longer register as "people," beyond our 150-person neurological capacity, neither does their survival affect us in any way. In short, there is great incentive to steal, cheat, lie or commit any of the other "immoral" acts which small, egalitarian groups need not concern themselves with. As a result, we must impose laws, to create artificial disincentives against what is otherwise a very clear endorsement of "immorality." Yet this is an artificial disincentive--laws can be gotten around, police eluded, and so forth. There is no disincentive in the act itself; only in being caught.
So once again, you can't blame everything on the outside forces (unless you blame them for the advent of civilization, which is in all honesty probable). It is in the structure of our civilization (or any civilization). So there are two choices (if you want a peaceful and harmonious culture). Either humans must become the integrated, aware beings that all of us potentially are, or we go back to a traditional cultural structure that naturally brings out the best in us. All I know is that the first one is out of my control, but the second definitely is not (provided that this society collapses, of course).
Ahh! I can't keep up with this thread at the level it is growing! I guess I could have worse problems. . . hehe
As I was driving around this afternoon, I was thinking a lot about the impact of free energy on this whole scenario. That's one thing that would change everything. Then I was thinking, maybe it would just be like slamming your foot down on the accelerator in your car. True, the faster you go, the easier it is for a small mistake to result in catastrophe. On the other hand, just because a car can get up over 120 mph doesn't meet that everybody drives around with their right foot jammed to the floor.
Which lead to the questions of how self-destructive people really are, and where that characteristic comes from. Are humans self-destructive? Yes, absolutely. I don't think anybody is gonna argue that one.
But are humans inherently self-destructive? That's a different question. I tend to think that, left to their own devices, humans do not self-destruct, and they do not destroy each other.
I think humanity suffers from a disease of hyperdimensional parasitisation, and just like any good parasite, these things are experts at hiding out undetected, and causing symptoms which make it appear like something else is going on.
But a good parasite doesn't kill its host unless absolutely "necessary", it only drains life force from it. . . so then I'm thinking just maybe, free energy would just bring us to the edge, magnify everything, and actually make the parasites more obvious and easier to detect.
Just like worms living in somebody's gut, they can only exist if the body is in an energetically depressed state. If it were possible to plug a body into an electrical outlet and recharge it to full power, those bugs would be out of there in a heartbeat. They can't live in a healthy system, only in a diseased one.
In any case, there's something about free energy which is clearly threatening to TPTBs, and maybe the fear that we have of destroying ourselves with it is simply the projection of their fear that we will destroy them.
Which raises the next point: overpopulation.
Well, is overpopulation really a threat? If humans continue to live the way we do then yes. Yet the way we live is based almost entirely on the false belief that there is not enough. (It's amazing how much of the crap in the world comes down to that one thing).
Free energy flies in the face of the very belief patterns that create the system we live in. People are not born with scarcity consciousness, it is acquired through our interaction with the external world, and especially with second-order beings that prey upon us.
The system that we are talking about feeds off of the surplus of resources created by the "not enough" mentality. There's not enough time. Not enough money. Not enough jobs. Not enough food. Not enough sex. And on and on and on. "Not enough" IS the attachment, or parasite, itself.
I'll throw the idea out there that the Earth is capable of supporting orders of magnitude more life that in currently does. All we need to do is stop believing in "not enough" and all of our exploitative self-destructive behaviors that serve these negative agendas fall by the wasteside.
When there is enough, there is no reason to fight. There is no reason to stay in a crappy relationship, or job, for fear that nothing better will ever come along. There is no reason to have to have a $2.5 million dollar house and a $50,000 car to feel secure in the world. There is no reason to squabble over who gets to live on a piece of land that isn't worth a damn anyway.
Free energy allows each individual to become less dependent on the system. Good for individuals. Bad for parasites.
So what if there are a trillion people on the planet if free energy allows us to not only live in areas which we normally wouldn't live (including the massive oceans), but to be able to do that in a way which doesn't negatively impact the whole.
The rest of life on earth will finally be able to do whatever it wants without humans needing to cut trees, kill animals. and dig up rocks, in order to survive. Survival could be guaranteed without the need for humans to prey on other life, which just might close the door for hyperdimensional parasites to prey on us.
People could then finally stop having to spend so much of their lives worshipping the false gods of survival and get on to true spiritual development. Maybe our souls would start deciding that we really don't need to live 100 years to get what we want out of physical life, and then we can accomplish the same in, say 20 years. Long life might become highly unfashionable!
Ultimately, we don't know what would happen if free energy were to become available, but I think we can take a pretty good guess at what will happen if it doesn't.
I'd be willing to take the chance.
Do you have any examples of a large scale civilization that was harmonious and benevolent, cause I'd like to hear them.
You know quite well that we don't have valid verifiable information on other civilizations. Can't use that as a valid counter-point.
I may be crazy, but this sure sounds like government to me, and a pretty strong one too:
Imagine this group made up the one world government and had complete control over all technology and all resources on the planet. Would you not be able to change the world?
That senario presented was used to provoke wider-scale thought. There was nothing in that particular post relating at all to my view of a workable structure. That was taken out of context.
Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood Sanitation Worker.
How much of our brain do we use again?
It seems you use this study to resign yourself that humans don't have very much capacity. I can't agree. Plus it doesn't require the ability to cognate more than 150 people to get along with your neighbors.
Also, when you talk about the pollution of civilization killing my kids, I don't think you realize how quickly the Earth heals itself when we stop damaging it.
Depends entirely on exactly when the civilation collapses and how long it actually takes for Earth to heal itself. Both variables are unknown. So I was incorrect in stating it as an absolute. Neither of us can trully know. I was wrong to even make that a point.
There is a huge difference between envisioning and taking concrete steps towards a better future and daydreaming about the impossible (unless you think you actually have a chance of acquiring such deep control over the whole planet).
Just because I can see a way to fix civilization at a macro-scale as it stands today does not mean I don't see things as they are. Quite the contrary. Again, that senario was used to provoke wider angle thought. You seem to have taken it as me being in la la land thinking about "if I ruled the world" and leaving reality out of the picture. Just because I say something doesn't mean I'm ignoring something that I didn't mention.
It has nothing to do with me getting deep control over the planet. It was to provoke thought about how to fix things as they are now, in reality. The future is open. The odds are certainly in favor of civilization's collapse but it's not a given until it happens.
Also, I'm not arguing in favor of cities as they are currently structured. Because cities suck now doesn't mean all cities have to.
1. There must be some form of governing society which actually works in all respects.
2. No form of government that we currently know about seems to fit that description.
This was what I was responding to with my initial post on this thread. My answer was Councils. I accept that you don't see that working.
It is definitely important to fully understand and acknowledge the forces at play here, but once that is done, it is important to realize that we choose to abdicate our sovereignty.
Abdicate by choosing survival over death? Abdicate by choosing to incarnate in 3d? What level are speaking from? Are you saying that I'm making excuses for humanity at large? That I'm saying we are not responsible just because I understand how we are controlled? It's not a one or the other thing here. It's a scale. Weight being on both sides.
I think it is pretty short sighted to assume a high level of physical technology is necessary to have a highly sophisticated and developed culture.
I didn't say that nor was it inferred. In the same respect, technology can work hand in hand with a spiritually advanced 3d society. So yes I agree that technology isn't necessary. And I see another angle as well.
So once again, you can't blame everything on the outside forces (unless you blame them for the advent of civilization, which is in all honesty probable). It is in the structure of our civilization (or any civilization). So there are two choices (if you want a peaceful and harmonious culture). Either humans must become the integrated, aware beings that all of us potentially are, or we go back to a traditional cultural structure that naturally brings out the best in us. All I know is that the first one is out of my control, but the second definitely is not (provided that this society collapses, of course).
Please stop inferring that I'm blaming everything on something else. I'm not doing that.
I see councils, education, and release of technology for the betterment of humanity as being 'some' of the major components that could possibly achieve a harmonious society of 7 billion humans. I can understand if you don't agree with that. But it seems that you actually do in a general respect. You said "Either humans must become the integrated, aware beings that all of us potentially are". I'm proposing that they can be taught that.
Let me make it clear once more that I understand that with the current leaders any such integration is impossible. But it is not out of the realm of possibility for that leadership to change if we were to get help in removing the leaders above them. To keep that possibility in mind is not concentrating only on that possibility and ignoring reality.
Ok, I have to concede that free energy is a scary thought to TPTB, because it would remove one of their primary sources of control in the physical. Still not sure if that would ultimately lead to their downfall or if they would maintain enough influence in the more subtle spheres to keep our destructive inertia intact, in which case we would undoubtedly destroy much of the life on the planet. Even more importantly to me, you don't seem to be arguing the point that free energy would lead to vastly more people on the planet. Now, even if we could structure a society of trillions in such a way that it didn't destroy the planet, the only way to do that would be megacities, with the countryside at best only for occassional visits. Otherwise too many people would want to live in nature, and therefore nature wouldn't exist. Is that really worth it? Is it more important to have as many people as possible on the planet (and have all sorts of fancy technical gadgets) than it is to be able to sit alone by a babbling mountain stream and listen to a wolf howling at the moon, or spend a day alone on the beach collecting seaweed and puka shell, or, well, be close to the earth in general (and sorry, trillions of people in megacities, and close to the earth don't really match up, connected to the universe and spiritually developed, possibly, but the connection and development would necessarily be mostly between people, rather than with mother nature). Free energy would make us even more disconnected with life on Earth, and I don't see how that could lead to increased harmony, but for the sake of argument I'll accept the possibility.
The ups and downs and uncertainty of this physical existence is part of what makes the experience so exciting and conducive to spiritual growth. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you (tenetnosce) are from a city (or suburbs, or even a small town), and therefore never really had a close connection with nature, and so don't understand what you would be missing. There is nothing that trillions of humans have to offer that could compare to mother nature herself. I have noticed though that people raised in artificial environments don't seem to be able to connect in the same way, though there are plenty of exceptions on both sides of the equation.
So, to sum it up, if free energy exists, I am all for TPTB suppressing it. Yeah, they are doing SOMETHING good for the planet and humanity. Not only that, we already have the capability of connecting to the infinite, and what is that if not free energy. Why develop external devices for that when we could journey within for far more exciting possibilities than anything a megacity could offer, and then return to this realm to live in the bounty and cradling embrace of Gaia? Why should we try to bypass her when she already offers us so much for free?
On second thought free energy would be fine, as long as all those cities were built on some other planet (why not, if the energy was free, what do you need to burden this planet for?). I'm not saying I don't like people, I love people, and love interacting and learning from them. I just love everything else in nature just as much, and don't think humans should have such a large share of the planet.
I guess the megacities could work if they had free energy and didn't destroy the surrounding environment, provided that most people would want to live in them and not bother the few of us roughing it out in the boonies. The problem is, I can't imagine people choosing city life that have had an honest choice. Most people move to cities because they want money (basically, though there are many variations on this single theme). Then their descendants then stay there for the same reason or because they have never experienced a connection to nature and therefore don't value it or understand what nature has to offer compared to nightclubs, restaurants and shopping malls (that and they like to denigrate and stereotype country folk as "simple" because they don't have all the layers of ego bs that are required for city life). If we lived in a spiritually advanced society, people would live in abundance regardless of the amount of physical energy available, because they would realize they don't NEED anything, and the end of desire is the beginning of freedom.
All that being said, I have lived in cities and enjoyed it immensely, they can be a lot of fun, but nothing compares to the serenity and joy that comes from living off the land.
Now, for z3n3rg, what I meant when I said we abdicate our sovereignty (usually unknowingly, granted) is that we do so by listening to the negative thoughts planted in our head, instead of watching and laughing at the antics of the powerless, fearful, pathetic creatures that are putting them there. We abdicate our sovereignty when we let the horrible and cruel things happening all around us get in the way of our spiritual growth. We effectively hand them the reins in little ways like this all the time. Yes, when we choose survival over death (or some other unpleasant possibility, like prison), when it means comprimising our principles or going against what we know to be right. Have you seen the movie the tracker? My favorite scene in the movie is when the Aboriginal tracker refuses to continue on the trail without waiting for the wounded member of the party, even when the leader repeatly whips him and then points a gun to his head. THAT is true power.
Other than that, I understand where you're coming from, and don't really have anything else to say. I may not agree fully, but that is probably because I don't WANT a world with billions of people, so I don't see any point in envisioning how to work it out.
I'm not certain that free energy would necessarily increase the population. The population seems to be held in check more by a low birth rate than a high death rate. If free energy eventually leads to a rising standard of living, then the fact that higher standard of living leads to lower birth rate offers some hope.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you (tenetnosce) are from a city (or suburbs, or even a small town), and therefore never really had a close connection with nature, and so don't understand what you would be missing.
The view from my back yard.
But anyway, I'm not saying that endless urban sprawl, megacities, and unbridled technological development is desireable. I'm just saying that you are assuming that free energy would lead to that. You may be right, but that is just one possible scenario.
The birth rate need not necessarily go up just because free energy is available, it may in fact go down.
limukala:
I certainly understand fully the concepts concerning negative thoughts. Working with these concepts is part of the path for those that can see the path and choose to take it. Unfortunately, most people aren't privvy to these concepts and realizations. They would need to be educated and then they too can make an actual choice on what to do next.
Yes, I understand that level of "true power". No, I have not seen the tracker. Currently, we all compromise in order to get along in the world. I don't 'fully' see that as a bad thing personally because I was willing and still am to give up some of that sovereignty for the quick spiritual growth this hard-core environement can offer.
Ah, I see it's a personal preference on your part. On that level let me be completely honest. I agree completely. I would choose nature over city life in a heartbeat. I would choose less people instead of more. I was born in a city but I feel the connection to nature. I feel the dampening effect concrete has on the planetary vibrations city folk can feel. And that's just one small example of the issues facing cities as they currently are.
I don't really want billions of people either. I don't see the necessity in it. I wasn't thinking about personal preferences when I started posting in this thread. I was just looking at how things are currently and following that.
If I was to create a city I could 'almost' guarantee even you would enjoy visiting. With the supressed technology I could create a harmonious orchestra of nature, community and the more artistic creative pursuits of humanity. No cars, concrete, steel, noise pollution, light pollution, or any of the negative aspects associated with cities of today. Without financial concerns of property value there would be no need for cubed high rise coffins people put up with today. Ironically though, having created such a city I would probably choose not to actually live there anyway. Nor would I choose to live in the country. I would live in transit. I would travel and experience as much as possible. That's my true preference.
How do you post pictures? Cut and paste is about all I know and that doesn't seem to work.
Anyway, here is a site with building technology that I wouldn't mind seeing cities made of (as they would be almost indistinguishable from forest) http://www.archinode.com/bienal02.html
Sorry if I was jumping to conclusions teno.
And yeah, birth rate does tend to go down when standard of living goes up, so who knows. I will readily admit that most of my argument was based on personal preference (but isn't that usually the way with argument, pick a stance you like, and then find the logic to back it up). The other thing is, I feel we have passed some major "tipping points." We have already rocked the boulder loose, it just has yet to pick up enough momentum for people to stop denying it. I don't see how anything short of divine (or extraterrestrial) intervention is going to save our civilization. Once again, this is undoubtedly colored by the fact that this is an overall positive development in my eyes. I am so glad I am alive to see this though, cause no matter what happens, its going to be one hell of a ride (hopefully not too literally).
I think it is more than physical evidence that leads me to this view too, too many prophecies, which have been remarkably accurate up to this point (inka, hopi, mayan) all say that after the first "world turning upside down" (invasion of the white man) a second will follow (age of purification, etc). That alone wouldn't phase me (much), but it is so well backed up by the science. The other (and probably the largest) influence in that regard is Hank Wesselman. Beginning in the mid 80's he started having spontaneous shamanic journeys in which he found himself in the body of a Hawaiian 250 generations in the future (he describes this in the book "Spiritwalker". Through him (he was inside mind and body, so language wasn't a barrier), he learned that the Hawaiians had legends of the "time of contact" in which "americans" came to the islands, bringing many fantastic technological marvels, along with new plants, animals, and people from all over the world. Then, after about 10 generations, they dissappeared, and all the fancy machines stopped working. Voila, massive social unrest, famine and disease were followed by a drastic rise in sea level (way way way beyond what most scientists are predicting, but duh, every time they learn something new about global warming, they revise their estimates upwards, and they still don't take feedback loops into account, let alone the end of global dimming when industry collapses). After a couple hundred generations, they managed to send a colony over to america to find out what happened to the people. The San Joaquin Valley is an inland sea, and the land is covered in rainforest that resembles the Amazon. No people, until they reach the great basin (which is more savannah then), where they find a people that call themselves the Ennu. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like Inuit. So there you have it, North America is in for it, unless you get to the arctic or Hawaii (and even then its gonna be rough).
Now, I loved montalks timeline dynamics article (that's how I found this forum actually) and it makes sense that future time travel is probabilistic, but, if contact this clear (his astral body was fully there, not any fuzziness whatsoever) has been repeated so many times, doesn't that mean the the probability of that particular future is close to 1? Has anyone else read this book? Maybe I should give it its own thread, cause if anyone has read it, I would really love people to discuss it with (and I am getting horrendously off topic now).
Hiya all! Long time no post. .
I just got this link in my mailbox that I feel compelled to share. It is from the Montana senatorial debate on the 9th of this month. This clip is of Stan Jones' closing speech where he specifically talks about the plans already in progress for the North American Union. The entire debate can be found on C-SPAN's site here.
Regardless of what anybody's opinion of this matter is, I think it is imperative that it be discussed openly and that as many people as possible be made aware of it now before any formal agreements are announced.
Noble Realms → Current Events → SHAFTA
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.