Thanks mescaline-man!

If our flesh, blood, and bones are made up of the same metals, minerals, and liquids of the earth, realizing that we are interconnected with this planet, extracting from it is like extracting from ourselves. That's why many scholars call techno-industrial progress the death urge(aka ecocide). We're not just killing the planet, we are killing ourselves.

Now ask yourself; are you the one using the computer, or is the computer using you? I mean who is putting in the energy...? I know I've certainly put mine into writing in this thread. I've hit rock bottom on my addiction to technology and the "knowledge" provided by it. Luckily, they say that sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom to realize what's going on and start climbing back up. For all I've found descending into this rational rabbit hole, my ultimate realization is that none of it matters, it's frivolous. The real knowledge comes from our relationship, re-connection, and re-membering with god's natural world.

Yeah I hear what you guys are saying, and I pretty much agree with all of it. I mean I really truly wish that we could stay in a synergy with nature, but when I try to think about it it's like, obviously there's always gonna be change and things just happen, if you're thinking in 100 years then try 10000 or 100000000. And you know actually it doesn't have to throw out the synergy with nature either because there's about an infinite different scenarios that could take place, so obviously there could be some "nice" ones in there where technology, humans, and nature are at peace. Like jaime said the entheogens are waking people up to these realizations of what's really going on in the world, so if we get greed and money out of the equation and replace it with love and leaves, I think technology could become something really beautiful in those hands. It never hurts to have a little optimism.


This I don't understand tho, how is it not a natural life process? It has already happened, so that means that it was a possible scenario to happen, and it did. The universe went from a big bang to this, and now it's like this. If you were an alien studying the evolution of planet earth, they would consider it completely natural, and just be "Oh it's one of THOSE planets."

Techno-industrial progress is not apart of natural selection, it is apart of artificial selection. Artificial selection started with the dawn of agriculture and civilization culminating to this contemporary point of collapse. The most obvious example being bio engineering of crops.

Just b/c it already happened doesn't mean it's a natural happening. If aliens were studying us they'd see techno-industrial progress as an infection or disease.

It is good to be optimistic but we cannot cross the blurry line over to helpless hope.

Remember the mythos hope life lesson of pandora's box? When she opened her box and released all of the evils to the world, hope remained in the box. Hope was seen in good connotation as some sort of lifeline of light (how so if it was in the box of evils?) in the darkness, but in reality it paralyzed action towards evil. Hope did nothing besides provide us with a brick wall of procrastination. It let us off the hook and allowed us to sit around the camp fire and hope the night away. Being birthed into the complicated english language we see hope as a good thing b/c we hear it in churches, politicians, doctors, & families. But really it just allows us to use this word every time we are at a loss of what to do next. Hell with all this time we've had, we were able to create different theories to describe the world or consciousness, imparting our frivolous concepts of "objective reality" to the subjective peoples. Describe the noosphere and invent computers to further the complication of the written world and then prove the possibility of the noosphere using that. All this mental masturbation does is perpetuate the cycle of hope until we sail off the edge into the oblivion of the technosphere or as futurists optimistically call; the OmniPoint or Singularity.

About the stoned ape, the part that always made sense to me was the bit about mushrooms being a catalyst for the development of language. Language is always such a part of tryptamine experiences for me. visible language, cryptic or alien or hieroglyph-like visuals, the way words become some much more alive, more poetic and all that. I'd say Thoth was probably a mushroom. The bee-headed mushroom shaman cave painting that was mentioned earlier in this thread later evolved into the cross of Agadez, which is almnost the same icon as the alchemical symbol for Hermes/Thoth....

"The bee-headed mushroom shaman cave painting that was mentioned earlier in this thread later evolved into the cross of Agadez, which is almnost the same icon as the alchemical symbol for Hermes/Thoth...."

I'm not really versed on the whole jesus mushroom conspiracy, could you explain how these symbols evolved into each other.

Here's pictures for those interested.

Bee-headed shaman:



Cross of Agadez:



Alchemical symbol for hermes (aka Hermetic Cross):



As for thoth, there is is the left eye symbol which is supposed to be a mirror for the right eye of horus.



But as far as a cross of Thoth, that leads to some conspiracy DVD, tarot cards, and some occult network website. Looks like a new age/christian appropriation of Egyptology.

this symbool

More often referred to as the symbol for Mercury, which is the roman name for Hermes.

And I never said anything about jesus, "jesus conspiracy" or any "new age conspiracy". Rather I merely point out three historical icons and mention their similarity and perhaps suggest a lineage. John Allegros theory that jesus was a mushroom has been discussed a few months ago https://www.dmt-nexus.me/forum/d...aspx?g=posts&t=31338

Thoth and Hermes are both gods of writing, of language. When I say 'thoth was a mushroom' I'm merely using colorful language to say that the mushroom experience may possibly have catalyzed the development of language, at some point during humanities linguistic development. The crosses are presented here, not as evidence, but as "interesting".

In that same thread about john allegro and the jesus/mushroom theory you posted this same lineage of symbols...So although you didn't mention it here, I brought it up.

Hermes was not the god of writing or language, that would be Momus and the Muses. Hermes was the god of transitions and boundaries...He was a protector and patron of literature and poety but as well as thieves, herdsmen, invention and trade, athletic and sports.

Mercury in roman mythology was the god of trade...there's two origins from the Etruscan diety Turms as well as Hermes. Both origins were taken for their specification in trade not for writing or language.

I understand now you don't mean this as evidence but as just interesting. That seems to be the problem with most conspiracy theory, hasty generalization.

The problem with this whole language theory of mushrooms is that you posit it appeared from nothing and into it's final form. Not to mention it's dismissal of all other hominids on the planet. Let me remind you that the bee-headed mushroom shaman was found during the neolithic period, which by that time humans were starting agriculture, language just sprung up out of nothing by then? Come on. It has much much older origin, as a long continuity from the animal communication of gestural or vocal sounds, to a socialization tool, some scholars mark this as far back as Homo habilis 2 million years ago. A lot of new evidence has been coming up as well to back up Darwin and Rousseau theory that language emerged from music.

The whole idea that language came from a mushroom is romanticism aimed at psychedelic users. Remember TM said himself it was "consciously propaganda."

I agree with the statement that technology is neutral.

Technology helps us better understand what kind of impact we are having.
We have the technology available to make many things sustainable and environmental friendly.
World Leaders have not taken the initiative to make this a priority.

There are a great number of people working hard every day to make a sustainable and environmental friendly world a reality. Their hard work has resulted in a number of international (and local) proposals for exactly this purpose. As a result of nations agreeing to these proposals and working to improve sustainability I'm fairly sure the so called "green jobs" would be hiring year-round considering the damage we have done and are doing.

Technology has given us humans an incredible boost over our previous abilities. While predictions state that some technologies may be causing irreversible damage, other predictions state the breakthroughs in knowledge and ability that technology may also be bringing.

Technology is scary, sure. We have no idea where it will take us, but the future could be very bright or very dim. I think we need to work on bringing some balance to how we make/use our technology, not put off technology as taboo.

One thing is for certain and has been said by a few already, we need to treat this planet well. We need to look at the evidence of the damage we are doing and make changes to begin healing and giving back. Entheogens do seem particularly powerful at inspiring people in this way, which does provide me with some hope.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau on technology:

"The body of a savage man being the only instrument he understands, he uses it for various purposes, of which ours, for want of practice, are incapable: for our industry deprives us of that force and agility, which necessity obliges him to acquire. If he had had an axe, would he have been able with his naked arm to break so large a branch from a tree? If he had had a sling, would he have been able to throw a stone with so great velocity? If he had had a ladder, would he have been so nimble in climbing a tree? If he had had a horse, would he have been himself so swift of foot? Give civilised man time to gather all his machines about him, and he will no doubt easily beat the savage; but if you would see a still more unequal contest, set them together naked and unarmed, and you will soon see the advantage of having all our forces constantly at our disposal, of being always prepared for every event, and of carrying one's self, as it were, perpetually whole and entire about one."

Actually, quite the opposite, technology disconnects us from understanding our impact. Most people take for granted grocery stores, electricity, gas, water, and have no idea where it comes from, or it's impact on the environment.

I disagree. Technology can be a distraction for some and a tool for others. It's about balance.

People are dying everyday due to lack of basic technology. The Earth is being damaged everyday due to misuse of technology and ignorance of consequences.

As I said before, we have the technology to be environmentally friendly it is just not a priority among the current world leaders. Until our world leaders work towards these goals or our populations begin to demand it, I do think your points have some validity.

Anyways, I try to do my part by hoping and sharing my hopes and views on the environment. There are a number of "green" proposals/initiaties/agreements out there for almost every nation as well as on many local levels. They are worth looking into if you want to help on a short or long-term scale within your community or among the world.

Distraction and disconnect are not the same in this context...I wasn't talking about distractions. I was talking about a disconnect from the technologies origin. Most people just expect to be able to go out and get a hamburger or buy an xbox in the west, w/o understanding how they got it aside from the mirage of money. Therefore a disconnect.

Not sure what you're talking about with distractions and tools. Technology has been devolving us, not evolving us, it's not a tool rather a retardant as finely pointed out by JJ Rousseau. Most technology is a distraction for the western pop, I can't tell you how many times when talking to someone they start texting. All the studies on ADD, anxiety, and screen tech are disgusting.

People are dying everyday b/c of industrial progress that strips them of their basic primitive technology. Great example is Ghana, one of the largest producers of oil, yet all of the people living there can't fish anymore b/c of spills. These people living basic lives don't need more technology, they need the earth that provided abundantly for them before technology decimated it.

How could you say that there's many green proposals and agreements out there. Right now they're building a tar sands pipeline in Texas as well as continued fracking, they're continuing mountain top removal in Appalachia, and British Columbia tarsands are now be shipped over to asia. Not to mention the rest of the resource extraction around the world.

Nobody on an official level is dicussing green policy outside of "clean coal." In fact the state deparment is starting negotiations to extend the war in afghanistan b/c they need to continue to protect the trans-afghan pipeline and lithium mines.

People are dying because of man's greed, not technology. How would you sustain 7 billion people in a tribal society?
we are not a static society. Technology, wisdom and intelligence are tools in your hands, not the cause. The cause is mis-use for greed, ignorance and prepotence. Don't blame the hammer, blame the hand using it.

So technology puts distance between the product people see and what occurred for it to become that product. Technology also allows for these people to easily learn what occurred for it to become that product. (not to mention the drastic improvements to communication and our ability to study processes)

You are speaking in extremes and black and whites that I feel don't apply in the real world. In and of itself that statement is not negative unless the process that creates the product is having a negative impact. Given an environmentally friendly and sustainable product what is wrong with having ample supply that can be exchanged for currency?

Man's greed is of technology, further domestication, comfort compiled on comfort, greed is not independent of it, greed is driven BY it.

Over the past millenia of humanity our bodies have changed very little up until the past 3-10,000 yrs of civilization where science has found thru fossil record degradation. Civilization is only .2% of human history where as 99.8% we spent as hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherer is the way of life that made us, it was the way of life that was evolving us. We are essentially the same hand as those hunter-gatherers, what makes our life different from theirs is that culture has taken off at an exponential rate and has become completely detached from the pace of natural evolution. "Culture is the effort to hold back the mystery, and replace it with a mythology" - Terence Mckenna. So we are running 21st century software, our knowledge, on hardware that hasn't been upgraded but rather degraded. This lies at the core of many of our problems. All of this is b/c our human nature is back with the hunter-gatherer era, where as our knowledge and technology, in other words, our ability to do both good and harm to both ourselves and the world in general, has grown out of all proportion.

All respect but I don't see your point.

We use the same "bodies" because they are perfectly adapted, and we will continue to evolve. I don't see any examples in nature of de-evolution toward a previous state, actually the opposite is true.

We need to use tech better, not to deny it.

Dear VIII,

I'm not speaking in black and white. If anyone is doing that, it would be you. You just contrasted the disconnect from resource refinement to being able to understand that disconnect through technology.... Woopdy wooo!



That's the thing, they ARE having a negative impact. So you are the one trying to pit it as black and white.



Never said anything was wrong with this. I said before that the mirage of money provides the disconnect from third to first world hands. Money would be good in a gift economy and with products that are environmentally sustainable. Yet there are already sustainable products out there but are exchanged by the dollar which in itself is a representation of oil. So it will be rather hard to switch over to this gift-society utopia unless implemented on local levels like what's rising in Greece. Hopefully they can set an example for the rest of the EU and have domino effect on the rest of the collapsing world economy.

MentalAnimal,

You've been in this thread since the start. Did you not see my posts with sources from Cambridge and Durham about brain and body size decrease? As well as photo evidence from Weston Price about nutrition in relation to narrowing and degeneration of skull and dental? How about the amount of degenerative diseases we have today that were non existent in the past 100 years. We've been degenerating and devolving. I can't stress it enough... If you really went through this whole thread w.o checking up on this stuff and researching it yourself how can you give such a bold baseless statement that our bodies are perfectly adapted and we will continue to evolve... COME ON MAN.

You don't seem to understand what devolution is.

Perfect example is how every dog aka canus lupus familiaris devolved from the grey wolf aka canus lupus. Even Chihuahua came from grey wolf, it just devolved downward. It's the devolution of domestication. Same thing with humans since our domestication aka civilization. We've been devolving since then just like the rest of our domesticated food and pets.

I'm not speaking in black and whites I am only trying to give light to the all sides including those you are not showing, fairbanks. I agree, we ARE having an impact. My posts are highlighting the facts that we have the technology to be environmentally friendly and sustainable, but are choosing not to give that path priority. Which means the problem is people, not technology.

Technology does provide a disconnect, but that is the point. Technology increases the speed and efficiency at which we can operate by allowing us to bypass certain steps. The technological choices made up to this point largely stressed speed and efficiency, but not sustainability.

Your stance, if I understand correctly, is we need to eradicate technology and return to hunter-gatherer/tribal societies and if we do not then we are ensuring our own destruction. I believe this to be false. I believe it is possible to utilize technology in a safe and sustainable way. We should not eradicate technology, but we also should not continue on our current path. I believe we must find balance between these two extremes.

Do you believe sustainable technology to be an impossibility? Technology has never "done" anything, we have. We developed and tend to the technology, can we not change how we use it in order to respect our environment? Can we not develop better technologies with these goals in mind? What technologies do you believe may have a place in this world? What technology should be eradicated?