From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:14:41 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec15.162106.8599@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (Hail Eris) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec15.062017.9630@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes...
>>In <1992Dec14.150930.4887@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
>> 
>>>In article <1992Dec14.070934.19077@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes...
>>>>(This is off the subject of magick, but I think the point is being missed
>> 
>>>What is the point then, Ladislas?
>> 
>>The point is as indicated in the text that followed.  I think we are missing
>>the point because it is not the type of energy that we use/will use, the level
>>of technology or where we get the resources from that will garantee the
>>survival of our civilization.  It is not only a question of economical or
>>industrial survival.  The ecological and social aspects must also be taken into
>>consideration.  Worldwide population should also be considered.
>
>I think that's fairly obvious.
>
>>This civilization is gangrenous.  Like the Phoenix, it must immolate itself
>>to be reborn from its ashes.  The collapse of the roman civilization didn't
>>wipe out all existing knowledge as some fear would happen should ours collapse.
>>I'd say the collapse of the roman civ. paved the way for our civilization.
>>I heard somewhere that when something dies, it favors the birth of something
>>new.
>
>Oh... well then why don't we just throw ourselves on the pyre like the other
>dorks.
>
>>In our century, we have become obsessed with keeping death away at all cost.
>>How many terminally ill patients await their death in sufferings because we
>>might find someday, a way to cure them?  Some are prepared to suffer in the
>>hope that they can be cured.  Some would be content to die but they are
>>robbed of that freedom.  Lately, euthanasia (sp?) as been granted to some
>>people.  My opinion is that our civilization is terminally ill.  Refusing
>>to let it die when its time's up might only cause greater suffering.
>
>Oh yea?  What if you're just another idiot?  Then we allowed out civilization
>to die for nothing.
>
>>>>... problem with the human specy really is: greed.
>
>Some people are greedy... some aren't.
>
>>I sure hope there is.  But don't you think that this is one of those solutions
>>where the whole world must change, as in every human being?
>
>Every human being changes every second... just as the world itself is
>constantly changing.
>
>>It is an interesting tangent to the original subject.  But it would be more
>>at home in alt.save.the.world.
>
>Ah... well then.. what else is there to say.
>
>
>>I find it hard to believe that even magick can have such worldwide effects.
>> 
>>Ladislas.
>
>Then you're not much of a magickian, are you?


Sorry to include so much unnecessary stuff (lack of text editor on this
system).

In MY opinion, the issues of material resources, technology, industrial
capability & etc. ARE the issue here, as well as population.
As far as "social issues" are concerned, our standard of living is what
enables us to have social concerns.
More to what I see as the point of this entire thread; magick, especially
ceremonial magick, is a luxury available only to those with a fair amount
of leisure time. If there were some kind of generalized economic/social
collapse, it is doubtful that many of us would have ANY leisure time for
any activity other than competing with others for limited resources. (See
Somalia). Comparisons with various shamans in hunter gatherer groups &
"priests" in agricultural societies are not valid, as these people made
their livings off of the religious prejudices of those who supported them. 
(The role of the shaman as a doctor is, of corse, an entirely different issue)

The idea of some new culture rising from the ashes of the old is rather
unlikely (unless I missed the meaning).
A collapse of technological infrastructure past a certain point would be 
irriversable. Why? Because we have used up all the resources we would need
to rebuild a new technological culture. This resource degredation is, IMHO,
the most likely vector for a societal collapse.
Energy, for example. To build a complex technological society, you need
some concentrated form of energy. Our present culture relies mainly on
fossil fuels. With our current level of technology we could make the
transition from a fossil-fuel economy to a solar-hydrogen, nuclear, or,
possibly, geothermal economy. If we reverted to a technological level of, say
90-100 years ago, AND take away the easily available fossil fuels (which
we have basically done already), such a transition would be impossible.

Then we have agriculture. What makes our system of agriculture able to 
support so many people? Petrochemicals & energy. If the technological
infrastructure were to decay sufficiently, the farms would not be able
to support people. See Russia, or, more extreme, Somalia.

What about medicine? Well, "holistic" snake oil aside, our "medical technology"
would also be impossible without a large infrastructure to support it.
While there is much to criticise in the medical establishment, stop for a
moment to consider the options. This is certainly an area people take for
granted. Vaccinations, antibiotics, birth-controll- what would the world be
like without these modern conveniences for even one generation? Even one
year for that matter.

What kind of society would "rise from the ashes" of our own? The only type
of society possible would be a pastoral/agricultural one, after a long
cull in the population. Not enough resources available to build an industrial
culture, not enough industry to sustain a technological/information society
such as we have now. Perhaps we could "rise" to the level of the Roman
empire, driving our "economic engine" with wars of conquest & slave labor.
Not the type of existance I would want for my progeny. Nor do I like the
idea of humanity reduced to the level of ignorant farmers, knee high in
cow-shit.

As far as our society being ill, I agree. Something _is_ very wrong with this
system. Population MUST be brought under controll, or forces beyond our
controll (disease, war, famine) will cull the population for us. Ecological
destruction MUST be stopped, preferably reversed, or disaster, possibly
irreversable, will occur (see Ozone layer). There MUST be some sort of 
transition in the energy base of our society. Fossil fuels are running out.
There must also be some effort to learn how to exploit lower grade minerals
for our raw materials, as high-grade ores are running out faster than fossil
fuels. Recycling will help, but not cure the problem. (Related to this problem
is the fact that lower-grade ores produce more pollution & take greater
amounts of energy to utelize). 
One choice in this matter that we _do_ have is the decision to exploit space
based resources. This, of course, would require a tremendous expenditure of
resources. It is possible that stalling for too long on a decision to make
the move to space would make the decision for us; we may not have the resources
to do this in the near future. We may not have the resources to do this now.
The alternative would be stasis. Considering how dynamic human cultures thus
far have been (with the exception of ancient egypt), such an ideally static
social system seems unlikely. 

There are other variables here, namely biotechnology and exploitation of
deep sea resources, but unless the technology for these is developed in
the near future, it will never be developed, for reasons similar to those
listed above. These are likely to produce enviornmental problems of thier
own, considering the records of other new technologies...
Now, let the flamers say what they will, but as a parcticing (and effective,
if I do say so) ceremonial magickian for the last 9 years, I have yet to
_DIRECTLY_ light a room, transport my physical body a significant distance,
produce foodstuffs, teleport or materialize any physical object (well, maybee
once 8-), effectively communicate with people over a long distance (telepathy)
by DIRECT application of will without any physical intervention. I am not
saying that such things are impossible, though I suspect that they are, but
even if they were possible, it seems to me that modern technology is more
effective for such things. Magick _IS_ extremely useful for bringing about
convenient coincidences and changes in consciousness, but as someone once
said,"It is easier to make a man trip and fall under a moving car than to 
levitate the car and drop it on his head"

Sorry to be so cheerful...
-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.magick