Running and Hiding

Collapse is coming. It's already beginning. So-called "civilized" places are the most dangerous right now. The solution? Drop off the grid. Move to a high latitude to take advantage of future climate change. I think the BC coastline is a good spot. Preserve knowledge: buy thousands of terabytes of highly persistent storage and books, and preserve as much science, philosophy, and art as possible. Collect a seed bank. Build a bunker to store it in. Protect it. Build a new society in the wilderness. Off the grid. Devoted to knowledge and peaceful living. Almost like a religious order. Forget the old ways. The Knights of the Eastern Calculus have a new calling, lain. Join us.

ggaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy

> Preserve knowledge: buy thousands of terabytes of highly persistent storage and books, and preserve as much science, philosophy, and art as possible. Civilization brought us this far into this mess, why is any of its art or science worth preserving? If it is, use it to prevent what's coming.

>>9935 it's far past prevention. The dichotomy you set up doesn't exist. Science, philosophy, art, etc. are the only things of worth that this society has created. It must be preserved not only so that we don't lose the knowledge of the past, but also so that we don't repeat its mistakes.

>>9933 That wilderness isnt as wild as you think. Most wilderness areas are government parks and reservations, and are managed.

>>9937 there's plenty of undeveloped land far from cities and towns, which is essentially the same as wilderness.

Hey I'm the department of defense I just spent trillions of dollars for imaging your little hovel and i bunker bomb children's hospitals regularly how u today

>>9939 Why would they care? If we avoid shale/ore deposits there's no economic reason, if we are no threat to them there is no military reason, if we keep quiet enough there is no propaganda reason.

I live in a house full of garbage of various sorts including literally tons of electronics and other stuff, plus lots of books. And i live in a slightly remote place, not too remote but remote enough to not get cought up in a riot when the power goes out and theres a creek nearby, worst case scenario ill carry around buckets of water every day on a cart and live of wild plants. Even if civilization collapses, people will eventually redevelop and maybe if they actually learn something not repeat their mistakes. And civilization is not going to collapse this fast, even if it does not all of it will at once. Dont panic, thats exactly what they want you to do. Keep a cool head and everything will be fine.

>>9938 What you propose is to seek out the last remaining oases on the planet and foul them up as well. You aren't separate from civilization, you are a part of it too. You do not know how to survive off the grid no matter how many survival PDFs you have saved. Unless you plan to preserve your terabytes of data in the form of cave paintings, you are just going to spread the disease further.

>>9948 >What you propose is to seek out the last remaining oases on the planet and foul them up as well. >You aren't separate from civilization, you are a part of it too The goal isn't to preserve nature or to end civilization. Civilization is inseperable from humanity and nature is already dying. The goal is to create a small society that is separate from the one that is falling, and preserve knowledge. >You do not know how to survive off the grid no matter how many survival PDFs you have saved. we can learn.

>>9949 Sorry but the last remnants of the living earth are of greater scientific value for future generations than your cache of data will be.

>>9950 why

>>9933 >Collapse is coming. Civilization is going to collapse, everywhere, worldwide, for unspecified reasons? >The solution? https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/ Flee to New Zealand? I don't know why the doomsday fantasy is so popular. It seems less likely than winning a billion dollar lottery. Running off to the woods just means the warlord will take your stuff and you'll starve in the woods surrounded by other people too cowardly to fight for what's theirs. You'll be the migrant caravan nobody wants, with the added bonus of having no place to go. There's not a lot of untouched wilderness and it will fill up fast with the other fleeing monkeys.

>>9951 Because it is the evidence of millions of years of successful evolution. Civilization is only about 10,000 years old and your stash of whatever it's come up with in the last 500 years, most of that only since the advent of digital media, is a fly turd on the grand toilet paper of life. By the same token, "why" is modern civilization so important that it should e preserved? By your own admission we've dug our own graves on this planet. That's pretty convincing evidence that something was wrong with it. A bunch of NEETs aren't going to reboot civilization with hard drives full of lolicon, vaporwave and weapons manuals from /k/ anyway.

>>9933 In this thread we have established that just moving to the wilderness probably won't work. So what is the solution? We create a secret underwater settlement, after all most of the ocean is unexplored so it'll be relatively incognito. We can probably even produce our own power using the water, and we'll have plenty of food (hope you like fish). Most importantly, it'd be schway as fuarrrk.

>>9952 >Civilization is going to collapse, everywhere, worldwide, for unspecified reasons? open your eyes. Financial markets are already behaving unstably. Climate change is already making measurable impacts on economies. There's manmade earthquakes. Riots are common. People are openly calling for bloody revolution, of various flavors. >I don't know why the doomsday fantasy is so popular. Because it's obvious to anybody who's paying attention that western civilization is at its peak, or near it. >Running off to the woods just means the warlord will take your stuff and you'll starve in the woods surrounded by other people too cowardly to fight for what's theirs. I personally don't have much invested in this toilet of a society. No amount of fighting can fix it. I'd be glad to be rid of it. I think many people feel the same way. >There's not a lot of untouched wilderness and it will fill up fast with the other fleeing monkeys. Doesn't have to be untouched wilderness. Just not somewhere anyone will give a soykaf about when tourism isn't common anymore. >>9953 >Because it is the evidence of millions of years of successful evolution. so will whatever is around after. As will all the bones in the ground. After all, we only know evolution because of that. Anybody coming around immediately after a mass extinction event would have ample evidence in the ground, and if they already knew the theory of evolution it wouldn't be much harder. >Civilization is only about 10,000 years old and your stash of whatever it's come up with in the last 500 years, most of that only since the advent of digital media, is a fly turd on the grand toilet paper of life. and yet there is so much preserved digitally. Photographs, VR, a large portion of surviving books, et cetera. The practice of mathematics and physics are certainly more advanced now than anything prior. People have walked on the goddamn moon. I think those are things that deserve preservation. Do you know why there are almost no records of ancient Egyptian and Sumerian and Indian and Chinese civilizations? Why almost everything we've learned about them is either gleaned from local legend or dug out of the ground? Because records were either not made or not preserved. Imagine a world where we knew about what those ancient civilizations were like. Imagine a world completely unaware of its own history. That's what you're telling me is better. >By the same token, "why" is modern civilization so important that it should e preserved? By your own admission we've dug our own graves on this planet. That's pretty convincing evidence that something was wrong with it. because some of it is good and worth preserving. How is this such a hard concept for you to understand? >A bunch of NEETs aren't going to reboot civilization with hard drives full of lolicon, vaporwave and weapons manuals from /k/ anyway. you're right, they won't.

>>9956 Instead of deflecting with a half dozen flamewar topics, consider that maybe you are wrong. I know that's asking for a lot.

>>9957 I don't agree with OP's premise or some of his responses but you basically just countered with *but no ur rong lol* so I think it might be you who is taking the lazy route in this discussion.

first, forget the religious order bit, it's only going to play on the emotions of the members, and that's no way to preserve good reason, which is more important than preserving good knowledge, because it takes good reason to distinguish good knowledge from bad knowledge, Pythagoreans were essentially a (Mathematical, no less) knowledge cult, but they had their share of supersticions like some numbers being evil or masculin or femenin or otherwise synaesthetically confused. second, don't try to preserve all knowledge, because it takes too much space, and don't try to preserve it on electronic storage media, because it requires more special equipment to decode. instead preserve a distillate of knowledge, something smart people will b able to derive much else from. Mathematically, Bertrand Russel's Principles of Mathematics covers a great deal, almost everything, in about half a thousand pages, but it doesn't cover any of the young subjects, serious study of Probability started about three half centuries ago and only became mathematical about three quarter centuries ago. Computers began long ago, when various calculating devices were devised, some built, but maybe only a century ago were they actually studied, only a few decades ago did they become popular. Categories only existed for about one half century, and hasn't yet matured, but is already a contender to the next big thing in the foundations of mathematics. those and other subjects will need more than Russel's Principles. also, Russel's Principles is very philosophical, there need to be some technical drills to master out skills in addition to the philosophical understanding. philosophically, there have been so many thinkers, so many thoughts, it would be unfair to not capture them all, but this might take too much space. perhaps the massive space consumption by philosophy will have to be dealt with, perhaps philosophical taste will have to be exercised, if the latter, beware not to share your actual taste too much with too many others, for then there will be too much of the same stuff preserved. again, it's more important to have smart people, reasonable people, well cultured people, and some distillate of the ideas. the arts are certainly going to be based on peoples tastes, there's too much of it to even try to preserve it all, at least for any one settlement, but if the cultured people, smart people, reasonable people or the world did their parts, formed their settlements, preserved their slice of high culture, and maybe even coordinated with other such settlements, we could actually have a fighting chance. you know where you can find smart people? reasonable people? cultured people? educational establishments such as colleges, universities, research institutes, cultural establishments such as museums, galleries, archives,, there are probably more i do not have at the top of my mind. even with just these, we have a great deal of people that understand the value of cultural preservation, or will at least be able to understand the value of cultural preservation if it is explained to them in a clear and reasonable way (i.e. no persuasive tricks used, e.g. the steps of the argument are permissible in their belief system and antecedent of the argument is established in their belief system). then it's a matter of each person convincing two other people, and things will grow geometrically, at which point they all organize, or more likely, have already mostly organized, multiple societies, civilizations, geographically overlaying each other, but effectively independent of each other while remaining cooperative (because the greater the amount of people working together, the more powerful their synergy is), with their own values, codes of conduct. imagine if each person was able to survive in absolute solitude, and was even able to defend himself from other people who might attack him. if that were the case, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today. your employer not properly compensating you? you can always go into hermitage. if you're organized into a labor union, you can all strike and worst case scenario, all go into hermitages, or even start your own businesses with all the employees that quit their undercompensating jobs (but don't forget about the value of proper management, cause that was a huge mistake of marx, which is why the economies taking his ideas usually didn't succeed). some business holding a natural monopoly jacking up the prices? you don't really need their products or services, because you can survive in hermitage. if you're organized into a consumer union, boycott the product. if it's not a natural monopoly, go to the competition or be the competition. being the competition is especially nice because you can charge just below the monopoly price (read: profit greatly, read: this is important as an incentive for people to break up unnatural monopolies) for a short while before the price starts to adjust to market price. see what other problems you can solve by always having the possibility to go into hermitage.

>>9958 If you carry your thread off to climate change, it is you who ended rational discussion.

>>9960 >you >your I'm not the OP and climate change was part of the premise, not some tangent someone went off on. If you're a climate change denier though you may have stumbled onto the wrong website. We like science here.

>>9961 I overlooked that in the opener. I'll excuse myself now. Arguing with nuclear wage slaves is never productive.

I've been thinking for a while that maybe the best condition for the human race is as small bands of hunter-gatherers. In terms of lifstyle, diet, and social connections, that seems to be the way we are most happy. Maybe after the apocolypse happens and most of the human race is gone, a few will be left to continue the human race this way.

>>9963 Looks like someone found out how to know what is good for people outside of himself but failed to publish the results of his research. let's all follow this one person besides ourselves who knows the secrets to each of our happinesses!

>>9964 > let's all follow this one person Which one? Also try reading some anthropology texts. I know that may be beyond you so try wikipedia, they have a simplified English version and everything.

>>9959 I don't think there's much difference between religion and science, at least psychologically. The important point is that we would carry ourselves like a religious order. Like a monastery. >don't try to preserve it on electronic storage media, because it requires more special equipment to decode this is a good point, for really long term preservation something like microfilm would be better.

You wont be able to rally lainons anywhere till you get famous. at the core of most on this chan they still want recognition from the society they hate, and are looking for someone who is accepted and yet refuses anyways. even past that you have a bunch of chronically lazy and oddly pacified people here. il honestly be more concerned when people stop being censored or pushed into far corners of the internet. Still I respect and wish the same. Id definitely have trouble rallying lainons as id accept into our little tribe all who feel they are oppressed, in fact ideally it would mostly be comprised of minorities which might deeply upset some choice lainons. I simply wouldnt trust the white man with a western mind as a white man with a western mind to rebuild the society. Might just do the exact same thing. Hence id delegate leadership pretty early on and if I had a choice itd be to a friend I have from Africa. I trust them and their unique intelligence a lot. They also are pretty which I think is pretty essential for a leader. The underlying principal and laws would be focused on ourselves sadly which I hope that itself wouldnt lead to repetition. Still in the ruins of this society I think it will be too dangerous to not have intense tribal loyalty at the start. Individual religions and beliefs would be respected but I would push for a new religion or at least universal truth we all have faith in and unite under. This too though would eventually schism as all religions have and the societies based on them weakened. there would definitely be a mandatory meditation actually, that might be a good start. Meditation is the foundation almost of all religious practices from the prophets of the abrahamic religions to the east. They may meditate seeking whatever god and enlightenment they believe in but all would have to meditate. if we are lucky maybe itd be true that they all are ultimately many paths to the same thing. I dont know man its certainly a lot to think about hence why id let someone else lead. But yeah the current society mind lets say is so self destructive theres no way it wont collapse soon. Im almost seeing a dystopian future where we all literally want to die not just in a haha funny way, and are like excited as fuarrrk to be wiped out. Thats how sick I think the western hivemind has shown itself to be, and im no stranger either im a part of it. Wish I could rip it out of my head honestly.

>>9965 Was there another? >try reading some anthropology texts Which? Try reading about humor. Simple-English Wikipedia's Humour's OK.

>>9971 honestly I wasn't betting on much luck convincing lainons of this. Most are too materialistic, funnily enough. But it's fun to talk about.

>>9972 > Try reading about humor. Wait... that was supposed to funny somehow?

>>9975 >>9964 was obviously roasting >>9963 for thinking he knew what was good for anyone other than himself. at the least >>9963 assumed that human happiness was what was good for humans, which is not necessarily so. he also assumed that spending most of your day killing and eating other living things or rummaging for food would make humans happier. >>9964 merely pointed out that if he knows what is best for humans and he knows how humans can achieve that best, then if he wants to be taken seriously, he should have said more than what is best and the way to get what is best, he should have convinced us beyond the shadow of a doubt that that really is the best, and that that way really is the best way to achieve the best. otherwise we would have to trust him, and if we trust him without questioning him, without knowing whether what he says really is so, then we are blindly following, if he were to tell us to kill a large portion of the human race, then we, trusting him, would do it, and we would be just following orders. and as we all ought to know, for your own safety, and i'm not versed in the minutiae of international law, but "just following orders" was rejected multiple times as a defense and did not prevent the international government from murdering some people they accused of some crimes.

>>9973 to expand on some things after I chewed on your post for a bit: I agree that intense loyalty and religious/spiritual unity are key. Obviously it must be a belief system that is introspective and makes no claim that is true "just because it is", and it must have no hierarchical structure. Leaders and guidelines are okay, but not authority. Otherwise it would just end up like Catholicism, and the knowledge we worked to preserve would be distorted or lost. However, if you focus too much on "do what is good for your people" it could lead to a toxic us-vs-them mentality. Also, having a small population could lead to inbreeding and intense familial bonds that override good sense and empathy. I think there is a solution: we could discourage procreation. Obviously not mandatory celibacy, but we could normalize vasectomies. Instead of maintaining the population through childbirth, we could rely on taking in people from outside, particularly orphans. This would lead to good relations with neighbors, as we'd be feeding and clothing their weakest, and it would also make the community less insular, which is good for a wide variety of reasons. I also think psychedelic drugs, in the right context, could be a very beneficial cultural element. A society where most adults have seen and felt the psychedelic experience would be a much kinder, more utilitarian, more thoughtful society, I reckon. I'm glad other people have these kind of thoughts, it's good not to be alone.

>>9959 >you know where you can find smart people? reasonable people? cultured people? educational establishments such as colleges, universities, research institutes Top fuarrrking kek. Universities have some of the dumbest people alive, and they're the worst kind of idiot, the kind that hasn't even managed to grasp the fact that they're stupid. >If you're a climate change denier though you may have stumbled onto the wrong website. We like science here. Not a denier of climate change, but try bringing the Rind study up here. Watch the feminists kvetch about science proving them and their jealousy-based beliefs about morality wrong. People who shout the loudest about loving science are usually the first to try to get science derezzed when it says something they don't like. Look what happened to Alessandro Strumia for pointing out the simple fact that science has mostly been advanced by men. The academic community has been a fuarrrking joke for a long time. Efforts such as this to preserve knowledge are likely to fail because people won't agree on what needs to be preserved. This is ignoring the fact that climate catastrophe is probably going to be a great deal worse than the media is telling people. There's a very damned good chance that nobody will survive no matter what measures are taken.

>>9983 You only support the Rind Study because it supports your pro-pedo agenda. You're no more scientifically minded than them.

What makes you think the same wouldn't happen in that society? How many societies evolved independently, yet resulted in what we have today? I think we're fuarrrked either way.

>>9933 >The solution? Drop off the grid. That's part of the reason why society collapsing, people are only interested to know, understand and fix things in their scope. Since they refuse to see outside of their scope, they need things below and above them to understand and control them. This constant turning inwards makes the world layered, or even networked like a corporation as new layers of glue and management need to be added to connect the ever-smaller scopes.

>>9986 The grid is fragile is bound to have severe and practically irreversible issues. It is far more vulnerable than people think and the alternative energy sources revolve around rare earth metals which leads to more issues involving pollution and refinement as well as nuclear power which require constant maintenance and supervision. Any absence of workers will result in catastrophe. I know going off the grid has its issues especially the parts about rare earth metals for solar panels and certain batteries but going off the grid is not the reason for society going down. Society and civilization would still exist if more people were off the grid. I argue they would do better since people will be less likely to take things for granted and to waste resources on great quantities of luxury.

>>9984 I didn't go whining to the government about how somebody did a study that disproved something I believed and call for it to be censured, did I? It's not very difficult to be more scientific than that.

>>9988 Can we have one goddamn thread that isn't derailed by your agenda? How did we go from OP to this so quickly? That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

>>9989 >That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it. No, this actually deserves to be answered. Some liberal glitterboy had another bout of yelling "I fuarrrking love science" and someone answered that with the obvious fact that liberals hate science and attempt to have it censored at every opportunity when it disproves their bullsoykaf, which is always. There are more than a few members of the tech/science community who are tired of hearing this soykaf from liberals, and if it hadn't been me telling him off, someone else would have done it anyway. These are not the people who should be in charge of deciding what to preserve in the event of societal collapse. But who is? I can't claim to know that. But whatever, had to flip that dude the bird. Continue on with the regularly scheduled discussion of how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

>>9990 When you see a sign that says "wet paint" do you touch the paint anyway?

>>9990 Wait, so you're the pedo AND the climate change denier? The plot thickens...

>>9987 My point is mostly that there is no "off the grid". There is just a consumer lifestyle product going by that name but it's really just DIY. There probably was an off the grid 70-80 years ago but it's gone. As you have pointed out if the grid goes unmanned things collapse in ways that will fuarrrk up those who are "off" all the same - perhaps they'll go a week, a month, or a year longer. >>9990 >>9992 I don't know what this is about, but the answer (at least on this board) seems to be self-moderation. When writing a post, if your reasoning involves internet or political groups, political or software ideology, or any kind of hype social thing, either as the root cause or solution to anything, simply discard your post. If you feel that your post does actually have value, try cutting these things out until they are not the cause, solution or main point of anything. Do not use these buzzwords in your posts and do not reply to, react to or quote posts that do. Politics, ideologies, etc do not exist. They are vague phenomena emerging on top of other, real phenomena. They cannot be used effectively to describe, predict or understand anything. It is safe to ignore and not use them, you will not lose out on any insight or perspective. Meanwhile this will raise the quality of the discussion and help others also ignore the noise. Once the community can reliably ignore noise, the noise will probably get bored and leave. If someone feels an unstoppable need to create such vagueness by littering a thread with politics and ideology, they and the other posters can both know that the post in question is noise. Strive to create good posts, not noise.

>>9985 Because it will be qualitatively different. There are societies which have aspects of this already. They're just not dominant. As evidenced by the idiots denying climate change in this thread, people are already willfully ignorant of the world around them. The advantage of having scientific knowledge is that we will be technologically advanced and therefore more able to defend ourselves, at least once external society has truly fallen. >>9983 >Efforts such as this to preserve knowledge are likely to fail because people won't agree on what needs to be preserved. We can solve that by simply having a lot of storage and having people who are more interested in creating the new society than advancing their petty causes. Anyone else is irrelevant. >There's a very damned good chance that nobody will survive no matter what measures are taken. people have survived and even thrived in the absolute harshest conditions, even before the advent of modern technology. Even if 85% of the world is totally uninhabitable(which I would call a rough estimate), 15% of the world still will be survivable. The only things that could change that would be something unexpected, like nuclear war or enough methane deposits under the poles to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The second one is a lot less likely. I am confident that some form of humanity will survive climate change. >>9986 the problem is that people try to control things that they don't need to, and other people have grown complacent. I myself am guilty of this. It's the exact opposite of what you describe. >>9990 I'm not a liberal, and if you want to swim in the nile go make your own thread.

>>9977 I agree with you on drugs but thats also a dangerous line. Don't want to become the Manson family. I agree with you on removal of "us vs them", and didn't consider how toxic that might be. I slightly disagree on hierarchical structure, though I can't think of any alternative. However all the more reason to try i'd think cause when i'm not able to think of alternatives I imagine it's something dangerous this society has engrained in me. It may help to start with an ideal and that is ideally every person is fully understanding of their needs and abilities and exercises them fully. Thus no need for a societal ladder, every person can be trusted that they will never overstep their boundaries because they recognize it would hurt themselves more than anyone. We wouldn't worry about people not doing their part because they have made it perfectly clear what they can do and that they will do it. This is ideal for many reasons, one among them being that a flaw of hierarchy is putting things on people that a) cannot understand them and b) cannot realistically accomplish them. Under this mindset that wouldn't happen as what one can currently accomplish is clear and it would be obvious that putting on them something they cant accomplish would just hurt everyone. Obviously this is or at least seems like a longshot. Still I only say it as a starting point because we can perhaps then think of things that would enforce this structure.

>>9992 This comes off as an attempt to smear somebody by associating their unrelated views with climate denialism. >>9983 specifically doesn't deny the existence of climate change. >>9997 >The only things that could change that would be something unexpected, like nuclear war or enough methane deposits under the poles to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The second one is a lot less likely. I consider both of these things very likely.

>>9962 Called it. Look at this thread. Just a shouting match. Nuclear advocates ruining another ib.

>>10015 I think the fact global nuclear war hasn't happened already is actually a huge testament to human empathy, imo. methane deposits... there's really no reason to believe one way or another yet. They'd need to be *huge* to cause a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect, and historically they haven't been that huge. Earth has been without ice cap before.

>>10008 that's certainly the ideal. How we could make that state of affairs socially stable, I have no idea.

I have a place I can run to. It's not "off grid" as it has power, but it does have its own well and it's in the woods.