Ignoring for moment the fact that it may have been unavoidable/unstoppable in a Darwinian sense: Was the Industrial revolution a good or a bad thing for humanity?
Well, average life expectancy is about twice what it was beforehand, the proportion of society that can read has gone up by at least 5 times, and I can shitpost on 4chan instead of subsistence farming.
You tell me.
>>514265
/thread
>fuedalism
>cant vote
>be serf
>punished like slave
>industrial
>can vote
>be citizen
>enslaved with money
>>514232
Probably a good thing in terms of overall human development, though it exacerbated existing class disparities to an extreme degree. That's more an issue with the capitalist system that feeds off industrialism though rather than industrialism itself. Same reason as to why the environmental damages of certain industries is swept under the rug: it's inconvenient to address when attempting to maximize profits for the personal gains of a minority class.
>>514304
The thing about money is the worst it can do is bankrupt you, a king can have you tortured and killed.
>muh degeneracy
has never killed a major state.
>a spook
no spirtualism is a spook, materialism can be measured.
The only bad thing about it is you sorta have to start a family today.
Due almost no relatives and only 2-3 children per family.
There was greater opportunity to lone of the extended family before, with 6-9 children power generation(even if most of them died)
>>514319
A good king would never torture or kill his subjects unjustly.
>degeneracy has never killed a major state.
big kek.
>>514359
>A good king would never torture or kill his subjects unjustly
A king is a creature that feeds off human flesh -Cato the Censor
>big kek
care to name one?
Good. Made war pyric and avoidable.
>>514368
Cato was a degenerate tbqh.
>a major state that was killed by degeneracy
i don't know, maybe you can't say degeneracy killed a state. but innumerable states can and have been affected by degeneracy. the natural state of humans is depraved as fuark, you need strong rulership and discipline to counter-act it. when the people have strong morals and a tough, no-bullshit leader, they can stay clear from degeneracy.
>>514232
Very good.
Removed drudgery from the human existence.
The problems linked to degeneracy in the West aren't due to industrialization.
>>514388
Cato was a degenerate tbqh.
Cato was considered the most "anti-degenerate" man of his time
> you need strong rulership and discipline to counter-act it. when the people have strong morals and a tough, no-bullshit leader, they can stay clear from degeneracy.
I would rather have degeneracy than that shit
>>514359
>A good king would never torture or kill his subjects unjustly.
Except most "good" kings that are historically revered readily killed and tortured purely to enforce fear of their rule. That's pretty standard practice in fact: a king needs the violent coercion to maintain power. "Divine right" doesn't really cut it anymore, and the singular, ultra-centralized position ensures that no man could be a representative of the people in that seat enough to be considered a consistent popular leader.
>degeneracy has never killed a major state.
>big kek
Please, do point to objective cases were "degeneracy" was the sole cause of a state's collapse. Define for me what "degeneracy" is, and try not implying that your very much modern distastes have any actual weight on historical reality.
>>514400
well then, you are a degenerate. i would gladly help my lord cleanse the land by removing you.
>>514265
Basically this
No.
Before the Industrial Revolution I would have been able to attain pussy.
Now, after the IR, I have not been able to attain pussy.
I want to go back to a simpler time.
>>514428
Keep in mind you have presented no reason why "degeneracy" is even bad, much less so bad we need state coercion to fight it
>>514466
>you have presented no reason why "degeneracy" is even bad
>>514475
>I dont have to argue my case because degeneracy!
This isnt /pol/ If you cant make your case go back to your hugbox
>>514492
The very word "degeneracy" means "the process of degenerating; decline."
It is defined as something negative. I don't know if you're trolling or just plain stupid, but either way kill yourself.
>>514514
We both know the word has nuances beyond what your saying, that it is routinely used to refer to issues of morality and perhaps martial readiness.
>>514514
>It is defined as something negative
why does /pol/ think "degeneracy" means "things I don't like"
>>514514
But what does that MEAN in terms of human behavior. Because for the most part, it seems to be used here as "things I don't like, thus must be the root of all societal ills." Tell me, what are things that are OBJECTIVELY degenerate? Can you provide evidence that they have ever been the sole cause of ANY societal crisis or collapse without willfully ignoring other cultural, material, or truly measurable explanations?
>>514540
It's not that they "don't like" it. The things /pol/ dislikes are objectively degenerate. Because yes, I know this will boggle your tiny brain brainwashed since birth by marxist propaganda, but objectivity exists. Some ideas can objectively be classified as degenerate.
>>514540
>taking the blue-pill
>>514533
How problematic.
>>514304
>Calls something degenerate
>Calls ideas he doesn't agree with spooks
>>514557
>Tell me, what are things that are OBJECTIVELY degenerate?
Easy.
Massive foreign immigration is objectively degenerate because it saps the foundation of the state and eventually leads to collapse.
The loosening of sexual mores is objectively degenerate because it leads to falling birthrates, hedonism and a subsequent decline of population. This then leads to leaders allowing massive foreign immigration.
Just off the top of my head.
>>514584
Why did you ignore the pic he posted?
>>514572
how is immigration bad? Falling birth rates are often the mark of a higher standard of living and better education rate, so as a trade off its pretty good
>>514566
Idk lad sounds like a buzzword to me
It's an oversimplification too, just like how people used to think empires fell due to decadence and not due to many factors beyond control
>>514232
Depends at what stage. Arguably it isn't finished. Was pretty shitty at the start, and in its prehistory. Its a lot better now, and will probably be even better by the time we die.
Unpopular opinion:
There were always degenerates. You had degenerates in Roman times, Medieval times, Modern times and so on.
Degeneracy is mostly due to ignorance, in my opinion.
People think happiness is physical pleasure and that a good life is one with a lot of physical pleasure. Mostly because they didn't read Plato's and Xenophon's Socratic works, Aristotle, the Stoics and so on.
So, they become weak, pleasure seekers.
If people were taught that virtue leads to fulfillment, you wouldn't have many people thinking this creature is a hero:
http://www.vice.com/read/the-woman-from-the-calgary-stampede-threesome-reminds-us-that-women-can-do-whatever-they-want
Or having a fucking threesome for Wiz Khalifa tickets.
You would have less people like Charlie Sheen having a life of excess and saying "Winning" while on the verge of breakdown.
>>514572
So that makes them degenerate Is what typicallyfollows after, and not in the actual act itself?
I guess that means we should stop all people from ever breeding, clearing farmland, and/or having electricity, because those things help destroy the earth and the excess population causes war and strife to occur, as well as leading to resource competition. Because those things are "objectively" the cause of societal collapse.
>>514572
>Massive foreign immigration is objectively degenerate because it saps the foundation of the state and eventually leads to collapse
That of course suggesting that the state is an absolute, objectively good entity. It also implies that all modern states are based on some objective quality of its people rather than a result of political circumstance in the wake of 19th and 20th century nationalism. You could have mass migration from Austria to Germany and you probably wouldn't be much of an issue despite being, as you said, massive foreign immigration.
>The loosening of sexual mores is objectively degenerate because it leads to falling birthrates, hedonism and a subsequent decline of population. This then leads to leaders allowing massive foreign immigration.
Falling birthrates isn't even a terrible thing if the current population suits societal needs. Let's be honest here: you take issue that there are less white children being born.
Hedonism is likewise a subjective term. It describes no observable human condition and is applied entirely based on relative stance and personal understanding.
Neither of these are necessarily even related to each other or to "sexual promiscuity," but rather to the material circumstances of the developed world where labor is low-valued and it becomes most advantageous to rear smaller numbers of children than more (quality over quantity). This does not result in a need for immigration: immigration was going to happen anyways so long as there financial incentive to do so to attain workers for lower wages. You're talking about systemic issues and diverting the attention towards individuals who have no power in the matter as though their individual behavior is the deciding point. Their behavior means nothing because we live in a system where the individual means nothing.
>>514664
Here, i illustrated degeneracy for you. didn't read most of your post though. sorry.
>>514664
The funny thing is, Epicurus actually advocated living modestly, as extravagance caused you more suffering in the long run.
>>514700
>Hedonism is likewise a subjective term.
No, it is not. Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the most important good.
>>514232
started out good. slowly became a system of enslavement.
now technology is used to enslave instead of liberate. the lie of progress is made apparent when you consider the destruction of the enviroment, the rampant mental illness, rising suicide rates, DNA damage from gentoxins that extends for generations, the consolidation of technology and thus power by the globally wealthy, things too numerous to mention.
the general direction of this civlization is towards implosion, not progress. people cannot see this because they think progress is either an economic system or illogical political fuckery such as identity politics.
they are willfully ignorant of the brokenness around them, and that's exactly why things are not getting better. i've spoken to people, and many of them just want a small plot of land to grow their own food and build a home, clean water, and a family. that isn't much to ask for, yet it is exceedingly difficult to obtain when you're in the system
>>514743
i like you anon.
>>514707
Epicurus did, but most hedonists are not really Epicureans. I personally don't know any.
Most people have some form of utilitarianism as their moral code.
>>514610
>how is immigration bad?
Because immigrants are foreigners and eventually destroy the host country.
>>514693
>So that makes them degenerate Is what typicallyfollows after, and not in the actual act itself?
No, what I call degeneracy are the acts which lead to collapse.
>I guess that means we should stop all people from ever breeding, clearing farmland, and/or having electricity, because those things help destroy the earth
I'm not talking about the earth you fucking idiot. I'm talking about society. Jesus Christ grow a brain.
>Because those things are "objectively" the cause of societal collapse.
Agriculture causes societal collapse? Are you a nigger?
>>514700
>You could have mass migration from Austria to Germany and you probably wouldn't be much of an issue despite being, as you said, massive foreign immigration.
Germans and Austrians aren't as foreign as muslims and blacks. That is the crux of the issue.
A morrocan won't have much trouble immigrating to Tunisia either.
>Falling birthrates isn't even a terrible thing if the current population suits societal needs
It is because a state cannot sustain itself with a declining population.
>Let's be honest here: you take issue that there are less white children being born.
I'm not white, I'm of japanese origin. Keep your racist assumptions to yourself.
>Hedonism is likewise a subjective term.
No it's not. Read a fucking book other than Adorno.
And kill yourself afterwards.
>>514592
Wasn't really relevant to the discussion, but here we go. Hold on to your angus:
>people becoming unhealthy is degenerate
That implies that all health-related issues are entirely within one's control, and that an individual's health concerns should be entirely the responsibility of that individual. It entirely ignores the conditions for why people become unhealthy in the first place: overworking leaving them with little time to exercise, low income leaving health food options off the table, poor benefits meaning that preventive health measures cannot be taken, thus emerging health problems cannot be addressed until they become life-threatening and increasingly resource-costly to treat.
>people's birth rates drop is degenerate
This is a phenomenon that has only emerged within the last century or so. If the needs of the society are met with the number of people already present and there is no desire among the populace to increase reproduction, then there is no issue.
>having your men and women become so repulsive to the opposite sex is degenerate
That's a personal choice, and has little weight on the society as a whole. Just because you don't like the way someone looks does not mean that they are the cancer killing society: it just means you're not going to pursue romantic or sexual interactions. The world is a diverse place; even the most sexually-frustrated, uptight, straight edge person can find someone with similar ideals. There's no need do force those individual ideals onto others.
>having your young adults still dependent on their parents is degenerate
A bit of correlation not being causation here. Young adults being dependent on their parents longer is largely result of a job market issues and other barriers that I'm sure I'm sure you've heard enough about to not have to go at length about. It's a sign of a larger systemic issue, not itself being the cause of systemic dysfunction.
1/2
>>514784
>the job market
didn't realized you were this spooked.
>>514592
>having homosexuals spread aids like wildfire is degenerate
While tragic that the AIDs pandemic got it's start in the gay community in the West, they are not the cause of the disease. Things like bugchasers are exaggerated heavily, and the lack of education on protection and prevention of the disease's spread only exacerbates the issue. Additionally, from a pragmatic standpoint, using this as an excuse to persecute gays is not going to solve anything: pandora's box is open and is ripping through all demographics of the world population.
>having drug culture is degenerate because it fucks productivity and health and chances to reproduce or take proper care of kids
Drug culture largely exists as a byproduct of the prohibition. It exists as a counterculture that lacks the outlets for education as to the specific detriments of drug use, potentially what moderate use can look like (ie. social alcohol consumption), and lacks the medical support to treat addiction in cases where it does occur.
2/2
>>514784
>That implies that all health-related issues are entirely within one's control,
Well yes they are. Nobody forces you to shove burgers down your throat every single day.
>low income leaving health food options off the table,
Untrue. This is what I call a "liberal myth"
>This is a phenomenon that has only emerged within the last century or so.
Once again, untrue. It happened in Ancient Greece. It happened in Rome. It happened in the Caliphate. The common denominator? It happened during their phase of decadence.
To quote the greek historian Polybius (who wrote this as the first roman legions were threatening Greece) :
>"In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us…. For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury."
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post. It's late where I live and you're quite obviously a braindead moron who won't have his opinion swayed. All I can recommend is that you read any book written before the 1960s.
Bye
>>514823
HOL UP
>While tragic that the AIDs pandemic got it's start in the gay community in the West, they are not the cause of the disease.
They are literally the cause of the disease in the west. It got introduced by a gay air steward who liked to go to africa and get sodomized by big black dicks, then go to san francisco and sodomize little white bois.
cont.
>>514771
>I'm not talking about the earth you fucking idiot. I'm talking about society. Jesus Christ grow a brain.
Except humans need the earth to survive idiot. Likewise, you can't have civilization if the earth is total shit
>agriculture causes societal collapse
Some might argue overeliance on agriculture for food has caused more deaths than anything else in history
>Are you a nigger
Aaaand ad hominem. Just when I think you had a half decent arguement
>>514843
>Except humans need the earth to survive idiot.
Completely irrelevant. That's like saying "civilization needs sunlight to survive, and since the sun is going to die out then YOLOSWAG".
I'm talking about society, only society. Can your tiny brain wrap itself around that concept?
>Some might argue overeliance on agriculture for food has caused more deaths than anything else in history
Once again, this is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. STOP SAYING IRRELEVANT THINGS REEEEEEEE
>Aaaand ad hominem
That's not an ad hominem, that's an insult, you stupid nigger. Learn the difference between the two.
>>514860
So according to you, gays having buttsex is a cause for a civilizations downfall and must be stopped, yet overeliance on agriculture causing millions of deaths in famine isn't relevant?
Explain to me how you come to this genius conclusion
>>514956
>Dear sir, allow me to dismantle your argument, but not before I've completely misrepresented it, of course.
>>514860
Also
>I'm only talking about society
And what I'm saying is society relies on things like stable populations on top of a favorable environment to survive, yet this is somehow irrelevant compared to muh sexual morals
>>514828
>Nobody forces you to shove burgers down your throat every single day.
No, but when you don't have many other cost-effective options, you eat what you can afford.
>Untrue. This is what I call a "liberal myth"
For the relation between eating habits and poverty:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full
For relation between exercise habits and poverty:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/
>Once again, untrue. It happened in Ancient Greece. It happened in Rome. It happened in the Caliphate. The common denominator? It happened during their phase of decadence.
Again, I think you mistake correlation with causation. Less children being born usually is a sign that the material conditions of the society had improved to a point where there was less need for increasing population. Hell, when it came to places like Rome, less population growth, especially among the citizens, would have been to their benefit in that it would have meant lesser need for expansionist policies to continue funding increasing population and public services. And don't give me crap about "muh pure ROMAN legions," because those were dead long before the population decline began.
Additionally, there's a new factor today as to why people often have less children. Historically, you had many children because they were to act as caretakers for their parents when they grew old. With more robust social security and other social safetynets, there's less incentive to have children for such economic purposes.
>They are literally the cause of the disease in the west.
The disease started in deeper parts of Africa early in the 20th century. There have been cases of AIDs popping up in many places around the world prior to "patient zero." While he certainly did a lot to expedite the spread of the virus in the US, he was not the sole cause: he was just the catalyst that caused enough cases that we had to look at all the disease cases and realize there was a common cause.
>>514964
I think you explained it quite well.
"Degeneracy" is what you define it to be and any attempt to contradict what you define it as is immediately refuted as irrelevant.
Also, good job on calling out people's "spooks" while basing your entire arguement around a spook you created.
>>514833
>Nobody talked about persecuting gays you fucking idiot
Then what's the point of labeling gays as "degenerate" then? Is the point is to hold a hugely diverse group of people accountable for the mismanagement of a few simply on shared sexual preference?
>Drug culture largely exists as a byproduct of the prohibition
Nobody made a big deal about cannabis before it was made illegal: it was no different than tobacco or alcohol. It was used all around the world by all walks of life. Now it's illegal, and potheads are all over the place because it's become countercultural to indulge in that drug's use.
>This is my last post.
Good. Back to >>>/pol/ with you.
>>514969
Why are you arguing with this guy?
People like this are the one constant of human civilization. As far back as we have written records we have people bitching about how retarded the current generation is and how things were so much better in the past, usually along with some sinister warnings of civilizational collapse
an argument on 4chins is not going to end a trope that is literally as old as society
>>514664
>Degeneracy is mostly due to ignorance, in my opinion.
>People think happiness is physical pleasure and that a good life is one with a lot of physical pleasure. Mostly because they didn't read Plato's and Xenophon's Socratic works, Aristotle, the Stoics and so on.
So, they become weak, pleasure seekers.
>>514232
nothing has changed in the last 1000 years for the europeans. the modern europe is just feudalism in a different. the main difference is that before the feudal could not have total control over the people living in the rural areas and the forest and mountain area. with the coming of capitalism and its centralized currency, now a greater percentage of people are enslaved than ever before under feudalism. even people living in rural areas and forests and mountains are not immune from the effects of this disease.
the only thing that has changed is for areas outside of europe that ever had a feudal tradition. like the much of the middle east, but most importantly afghanisttan and pakistan reagions.
there are people in this thread that kings kill and in slavery to money you will just loose everything you own. this is not a sign of things getting better. people who are free have to be killed but people who are already in chains are only punished for their infractions. when the masters of money do not like the actions of someone, all tey have to do is to make it very difficult for that person to earn a good living and they have neutralized the threat from this person. in the past the kings had to kill people to accomplish that. in other words in the past people were much more free than they are now.
>>514232
this is just a meme
People who genuinely care about the environment or poor working conditions do so for higher moral reasons which means they also see the good that science brings. They do not conclude that everything must be torn down, which would be the reaction of someone trying to be edgy or having a hissy fit.
>>515060
Humans were always pleasure seekers moron.
>>515175
Lucifer, pls.
>>514304
degeneracy is a spook
>>515172
Jesus Christ, is Isambard wearing three coats at once?
