Is the Internet to blame for the decline of Western civilization?

Is the Internet to blame for the decline of Western civilization?

Other urls found in this thread:

fauux.neocities.org/
fauux.neocities.org/lovelain.html
qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6cb74a0ff1642b263b5f2fef6c29369?convert_to_webp=true
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

LET'S ALL LOVE LAIN

>If you're not remembered, then you never existed.
What did she mean by this?

Television too, all kinds of escapist media that dulls the mind and keeps the public distracted.

Create a goybook account and be tracked by the feds so you'll be remembered after you die.

Duh.

spooky lain thread?

...

What decline? Ultimately the lack of infinite oil will result in the downfall of Western civilization, but right now?

The world is exactly as humanity wants it to be. We only evolved to survive.

No, the French Revolution is.

This. Pretty much the birthplace of the leftist disease. Thanks France.

Yes, just as well TV and any other area where information pools into one source. That's the point.

No, giving women the right to vote and allowing non-property owners to vote were the two biggest contributing factors to the death of western civilization.

Nobody said the two were mutually exclusive.

If you're talking about the image I agree, western civilization shows signs of both kinds of dystopia.

i love that site. good bless that autist.

It's the reason for the decline and for the salvation. Without the internet, there wouldn't be nearly as many western National Socialists as there are now.

What reality would be like if there really wasn't an objective reality.

It was an awesome anime, but so was Dragon Ball Z, doesn't mean we can learn the Kamehameha if we try hard enough.

What site?

They were both right, Orwell feared words would be changed to fit a narrative and that has been correct for a long time.

>not posting the best one

The internet made connecting the dots of propaganda exponentially easier.

These propaganda campaign has been going on since the advent of capitalism.

Not to say capitalism is bad. It isn't. But the vultures and rats have their claws sunk deep into the corpse of free trade, competition, and banking.

There is only one recourse.

We kick them out. We find ourselves. We rediscover what it means to live and survive on our own hard work. We show the world what a community and the cooperation of a nation as a whole can achieve. They will soon follow suit.

Internationalism has to place for the common man because we are competitive beings. No amount of propaganda or brainwashing can change that.

You love and fight for your community, your state, your nation. You don't share outside it. You don't give outside it. You don't trust outside of it.

fauux.neocities.org/

True, but I think the Brave New World side is far more prevalent. Rarely is opinions regulated by force for example, at most you get convicted of some law against racism or whatever which doesn't even result in jailtime.

who /lainchan/ here?

Nah, good bait

really makes you think

The internet is to blame for fucking everything unless someday some wone takes all our fucking computers or something we are fucked

come on brazil, you can trust germany.

I'd argue it's the Industrial Revolution that really caused it.

Before that, the french revolutionary ideals would be restricted to radical nutjob circles and still not spread worldwide and to every country on earth. It was Britain's industrial machine that really brought egalitarianism to the masses.

the Amish are 100% right for rejecting every part of the anglo system

>hard work
>internet addiction

pick one

people who work hard don't spend much time on the Internet like you

It's down to a number of factors: beginning with the Enlightenment, popular sovereignty, democracy, and importantly 20th century post-war liberalism. Television played a huge part in degrading moral and public life, but the internet, especially, which gives voice to the uninformed, unintelligent, whose opinions are crude and harmful and degrade culture and society to a level below mediocrity. These are really the direct result of democracy and egalitarianism.

> the uninformed, unintelligent, whose opinions are crude and harmful and degrade culture and society to a level below mediocrity.

WE are that group. don't kid yourself we're no better.

Sup Forums is the ultimate form of egalitarian degeneracy, yet here we are , preferring Sup Forums to places with strict moderation and exclusivity, which would represent the right-wing more accurately.

In the end we're peasants and should have been illiterate and working the fields, not even having access to anything anyone posted in this thread.

>implying free speech, a greater concentration of weapons in the hands of citizens, greater access to education, and leaders that are chosen by the citizenry rather than birth is bad
wew

Kinda sad that two guys living in the first half of the 20th century knew more about human nature and government than most authors today

Absolutely, OP.

But I won't stop using it. I can't stop using it. Unfortunately we all walk about with the I.V. of inter-connectivity and globalization. We really don't have a choice (unless you literally live in the mountains). Even then we've all left a footprint since the day we were born. We're all on the grid.

It's interesting to look at, considering it was so easy to understand the issues of Wiemar Germany and how it was on the verge of total collapse without the coming of either a far left fascist or far right fascist power... just go to the depths of the dark net and you see a leviathan waiting to be unleashed onto the world. Cultural bastardization and degeneracy. It can already be found on some of the boards here.

We are constantly at war in the collective unconscious. It has been figured out. Do not fire guns, swing swords or throw fists to control a person. Attack them in a place where there is little control, and even those who can control it are forced to play the game.

Be strong, fellow Sup Forumsacks.
We're just waiting on the world to end (not to change).

You'd be happier as a peasant in a little village with a beautiful young wife and a career set out to you from birth.

Fact. You cannot debate this.

Even libtards secretly want to regress to their so hated "Dark ages" given how much they love fantasy literature

This.
You should only be allowed to vote if something you hold dear is at stake.

lain is never spooky user.
lain is with us always.

Keep projecting your slave morality onto me faggot. A man chooses, a slave obeys.

Honestly I don't really buy it that the enlightenment and the French Revolution were to blame. After the revolution the French were more patriotic than ever, and it probably would have done Europe good to remain under their control for longer

Western society didn't really start going down hill until after WW2 when nationalism and pride in ones own race became demonized. Maybe turn of the century for the likes of Russia but certain not 1800s.

All of your "choices" are just obeying your impulses and vices.

Too much choice leads to indecisiveness and misery. This is why arranged marriages do so well.

It is primarily due to the utter dependence and integration of consumer technology, where normies blindly submit their information to private corporations and their government in return for few conveniences and fleeting distractions

less to blame, and more as a tool to speed things up

Really?
You would enjoy:
- Crop famines resulting in mass starvation.
- Generally untreatable diseases.
- Likely being stuck in one small town for most of your life.
- Poor nutrition leading to lower lifespan.
- Working tirelessly each day to put food on your plate.
?

Lain is Christian. Fuck muddies and kikes.

fauux.neocities.org/lovelain.html

...

1. The modern world is not without its consequences.

2. Oil is finite, so you'd best be prepared to live like that no matter what.

>no free will
>projecting degenerate actions onto me
"OK"

>too much choice leads to indecisiveness and misery
>he can't rationally make up a decision quickly so he wants someone else to make the decision for him

the internet is just the carrier
we all know the real cause

dropped

The French Revolution brought the damaging influences of democratic and egalitarian thinking into the forefront in the west. Patriotic sentiment alone is useless; we see the mindless patriotism displayed in sports for example, it means nothing. What the Enlightenment values eradicated was the sense of the natural order and hierarchy, in which the monarch was the symbolic standard bearer of moral authority and represented the noble qualities which the common people would have pride in and ideally try to emulate. Also,

>thinking race has anything to do with the problem

Mouth-breathing retard detected.

I let it ruin my life

This is why there's nothing wrong with people's criticisms of Trump supporters for being "mindless idiots"

obviously he's nothing close to a real monarch but the way people worship him is no different than kings were treated 300 years ago, and it's just clearer than ever.

1.Agreed in that there are a greater number of factors controlling your life which you can't control. Disagree since there is far more information available which allows you to better control factors you can.

2. There will be substitutes for oil eventually. It is in the best interests of everyone for a substitute to exist, and there will be high market incentive for someone to find/invent one.

MIT or Harvard?

>Disagree since there is far more information available which allows you to better control factors you can.
What do you mean by this? Antidepressants?

>There will be substitutes for oil eventually.
Do you know how oil was discovered? How little effort it took? Do you know when the last energy tech was discovered and what it was? Do you really think that something as economical as oil has eluded billions of dollars in research, when oil was discovered by accident?

Yes. Without a doubt. Making the internet mainstream was the biggest mistake of western civilization.

Please allow me to elaborate on how more or less, both are correct.

While Huxley feared that nobody would wish to read books; Orwell feared the following consequence- with nobody with desire to read, nobody would defend an offence on books. Nobody would care- censorship would take place with the consent of the people.
While Orwell feared the ends, Huxley feared a means (likely the only means, even then)
Both Orwell and Huxley feared the obfuscation of information and truth. While Orwell wrote of the more classical hiding of truth; Huxley described more sophisticated forms of obfuscation- too much information to drown out truth, false flags and the like. Either makes the truth hard to come by- the actuality of what they feared.
With regards to culture; Huxley's trivial culture is precisely a method of captive culture- once more Huxley describes a means than an end. Divide an conquer is a familiar phrase here- when the culture is trivialised it is easier- or rather much more likely that Orwell's fears come true.
Finally, while Orwell feared negative reinforcements, ie blackmail, and Huxley feared positive reinforcements, ie Bribery, both are means of coercion. Without an absolute 0, bribery is just blackmail of worse outcomes, and blackmail is just bribery of a possible better outcome and yet in the end the results are the same- coercion. And anything we love or hate, either Orwell or Huxley have shown that it can be used to ruin us.

Yes, you can find meaning even in struggle and poverty.
Look around - most people today have no scarcity of food, shelter and heat, better medical care and higher lifespan than ever, yet they are miserable.
I'd say even cavemen had more fulfilling lives than modern people.
Struggle creates spirituality, material prosperity creates only misery.

Suffering comes from desire.

The factors you can control in life you have far more information to do something about.
Are your crops dying? You can look at all the researched diseases, diagnose what is wrong with them and plan an effective solution.
Plus you have plenty of information available in order to learn new skills either online or through social schemes in order to get into a new profession and potentially find a role in which you excel. This helps not only yourself, but the community, as you both benefit.

Sure, Uranium, and nuclear power is one of the largest growing sources of energy production in the world today. China has commissioned hundreds of new plants, and there is plenty of current research into smaller, local scale, reactors. Of course the downside is that it's not an easily portable energy source. Soon, however, battery technology will be sufficient to make electric cars/home storage devices a reality.
Not sure if fusion will be a meme power source, but if not then I don't see any shortage of water around.
Oil is a low hanging fruit, of course, but we can still have an advanced civilization without it but it'll be very different.

Propaganda campaigns can be trace back to ancient Babylon. Don't blame human behavior on capitalism.

I didn't. Read it again Jew.

The internet has been exploited to promote propaganda and "goodthink" on a scale never before seen in history.
But, as the only truly interactive form of mass media, isn't it also our most effective tool of resistance?
Even if most of it is hidden from the masses, isn't there more truth online than you would find anywhere else?

>Are your crops dying? You can look at all the researched diseases, diagnose what is wrong with them and plan an effective solution.
You can still do that without electricity. it's just more difficult.

>Sure, Uranium, and nuclear power is one of the largest growing sources of energy production in the world today.
Uh huh, a full 11% of demand. Got any cost estimates for filling the other 90%? Or any cost estimates for filling the gap fossil fuels are going to leave? Even with renewables, we're looking at needing to replace 70% of the world's current electrical demand. You want to add electric vehicles too? Well shit that just added another 40% at least.

>Soon, however, battery technology will be sufficient to make electric cars/home storage devices a reality.
Gasoline is 13,000 times more energy dense than the best lithium batteries. What technology has improved 13,000 fold in history?

>Not sure if fusion will be a meme power source, but if not then I don't see any shortage of water around.
Fission happens on its own and it's still ungodly expensive. I cannot see any possible way of using fusion to supplant more than 10% of demand.

>Oil is a low hanging fruit, of course, but we can still have an advanced civilization without it but it'll be very different.
You're right. If we can reduce the amount we use, we can afford 100% renewable energy. If we have to build enough infrastructure to replace the 70% we lose from fossil fuels, i think we'll find it just isn't in the budget.

You can't always fight fire with fire. We're essentially betting civilization on nature always having a free lunch for us, instead of being responsible.

Agreed, and yes there are plenty of miserable people around. Aren't there always though? The problems people have, the things that make them suffer, will always be around one form or another.
Except in modern society less of those problems will outright kill you. Though being really fat would be a fate worse than death imo.

Television was worse than the internet, since the users had no control whatsoever over the content.

>Uh huh, a full 11% of demand. Got any cost estimates for filling the other 90%? Or any cost estimates for filling the gap fossil fuels are going to leave? Even with renewables, we're looking at needing to replace 70% of the world's current electrical demand. You want to add electric vehicles too? Well shit that just added another 40% at least.

Renewables are currently a meme. They mostly end up using more CO2 to make and provide measly power returns. There is potential for greater research into making them less shit, but for now they're pretty rubbish.

True it fulfills only 11% of demand. It is viable though. France uses 74% Nuclear energy. There are issues with costs, as there were when oil was first introduced. Economies of scale would be able to make building large numbers of plants far more affordable.

>Gasoline is 13,000 times more energy dense than the best lithium batteries. What technology has improved 13,000 fold in history?

Microchip processing power has done that by almost 5,000,000 times since the 70's. Batteries haven't been so lucky, but they have been increasing in MWh very rapidly. LiS batteries are the newest:
qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6cb74a0ff1642b263b5f2fef6c29369?convert_to_webp=true
>Fission happens on its own and it's still ungodly expensive. I cannot see any possible way of using fusion to supplant more than 10% of demand.

Fusion, if it isn't a meme, would have high up front costs, but can run on specific isotopic compositions of water. Maintainance would likely also be high cost, but again, the more built, the lower the cost.

I agree with you and would dearly love to see renewables do better and wish people would use less. At the moment though they need far more research to be close to viable. Improvements in energy efficient technology will only go so far but yes it is ultimately humans responsible for using energy sustainably.
This is now turning into a malthusian, populo-ponzi scheme thread isn't it.

...

...

...

...

...

>Renewables are currently a meme. They mostly end up using more CO2 to make and provide measly power returns. There is potential for greater research into making them less shit, but for now they're pretty rubbish.
I concur.

>True it fulfills only 11% of demand. It is viable though. France uses 74% Nuclear energy.
France doesn't use that much electricity to begin with. It has a smaller economy than California.

>There are issues with costs, as there were when oil was first introduced
Not really, imo. It's similar but the scale is way different.

>Economies of scale would be able to make building large numbers of plants far more affordable.
No offense, but i consider economies of scale to be a meme of convenience. Take for example, a 747. Will there ever be a time when economies of scale make them affordable enough for everyone to buy one?

>Microchip processing power has done that by almost 5,000,000 times since the 70's. Batteries haven't been so lucky, but they have been increasing in MWh very rapidly. LiS batteries are the newest:
I'm still skeptical. Battery tech butts heads with thermodynamics far too hard. Moore's law died the moment microchips hit thermodynamic limits.

>Fusion, if it isn't a meme, would have high up front costs, but can run on specific isotopic compositions of water. Maintainance would likely also be high cost, but again, the more built, the lower the cost.
Net energy is what makes me skeptical of fusion. The supply chains are just stupid. Deuterium has to be made, at great energy cost. The tritium has a short half life and needs its own fission breeder plants, all with their own supply chains. Every kwh that the supply chain requires subtracts from the actual output of the plant. I don't think anyone has a ballpark for the total cost per kilowatt hour yet. I'm pretty sure it'd be a grisly sum.

The only safe bet is reduction in use. But that's a medicine too bitter for our soft civilization.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

t. Mother Teresa and her Czech Clam Buddy

...

>No offense, but i consider economies of scale to be a meme of convenience. Take for example, a 747. Will there ever be a time when economies of scale make them affordable enough for everyone to buy one?

Do take your point, there are limits to costs for some products. imo the costs for reactor tech are manageable by large businesses and governments, but it would have to be adopted en masse, and you would want to ensure certain countries had limited access to enriched uranium.

>I'm still skeptical. Battery tech butts heads with thermodynamics far too hard. Moore's law died the moment microchips hit thermodynamic limits.

True, thermodynamics does like to fuck things over. Also they depend more on new ion technologies being developed + they've got more complexity (chemical) than chips. Still think they'll pull through though but that's opinion, not fact. Maybe a stepped exponent curve type trend?

>The only safe bet is reduction in use. But that's a medicine too bitter for our soft civilization.

Indeed. Unfortunately being the ever increasing magical entropy generating machines that we are, we're all doomed regardless.
Thanks for the conversation Ameribro. It was nice to actually have one without shitposting for once.

If anything the internet circumvents top-down cultural control.

But its too bad everybody is stuck staring at their cell phones.

Bill, plz, go get your evening aids.

Forgot image.

Partially. It made it much easier for stupid people to get heard and for stupid ideas to spread. It also made it much easier for people to find echo chambers around ideas they like.

>Do take your point, there are limits to costs for some products. imo the costs for reactor tech are manageable by large businesses and governments, but it would have to be adopted en masse, and you would want to ensure certain countries had limited access to enriched uranium.
Enriched uranium requires thousands of centrifuges, commercial power plants cannot make weapons-grade materials, but ones sufficient for dirty bombs would become an issue if we started using nuclear enough to plug the holes.

>True, thermodynamics does like to fuck things over. Also they depend more on new ion technologies being developed + they've got more complexity (chemical) than chips. Still think they'll pull through though but that's opinion, not fact. Maybe a stepped exponent curve type trend?
I don't think anything follows exponential curves. I'd expect a sigmoid curve, one that looks exponential on the short term but eventually flattens out due to diminishing returns. There's only so much energy that matter can hold before it begins to melt.

>Indeed. Unfortunately being the ever increasing magical entropy generating machines that we are, we're all doomed regardless.
Our suffering does lamentably come from our desires.

>Thanks for the conversation Ameribro. It was nice to actually have one without shitposting for once.
Likewise, Irebro. it would be nice if technology had the ability to bring us all together in discourse in spite of our base nature.

We're doomed