/lit/ - Literature

>>12050454
I assume you've seen this before, but I think it warrants mentioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUg2tjeoxGo
>i don't attempt to CTRL or influence Society *at all.* it's only individuals, nomads, and their little war-machine clusters that matter.
And when the majority of those individuals seek growth for the sake of growth, when those individuals end up trying to "get theirs" and say "tough luck" to those on the losing end, you sit on the sideline and sigh?
>the Law is death, and gov't/state power also
and so, where do people turn? To their family or their extended family - ethnic or religious, and the tribalist struggles continue. Do you try to counterbalance this at all, or allow it to perpetually rage on?
>when you ask the hardened ideological culture-warriors about this, they usually propose Great Solutions that in the end only result in disaster.
And your answer is that there is no solution. Is that really a superior position?
>mostly the answer is, no, we aren't. b/c we are probably Enchanted.
This is a refusal to consider a solution. Care to justify this?
>in resource scarcity there will be either Unironic Communism or Unironic Fascism, that is, Emergency Solutions.
So why not take preventative measures as soon as possible rather than just allow calamity to take place and sigh? Because acting would be imposing one's will on others? What justifies individuals exerting their will or "war-machine clusters" and not states?
>the metaphysics of *scarcity* drive a shitload of modern political thought, for which the kryptonite is Bataille.
If unchecked, population will rise up to the carrying capacity of the environment - as productivity has increased, this has also. What happens during a dip? Famine, collapse, and suffering. If there's superabundance there's no need to consider the questions of desire, there's no need for conflict whatsoever, because infinitely many beings can be supported and all of their desires satisfied. I don't find that reasonable though, but I'd like to be proven wrong.
>>12050504
>we have more or less jettisoned anything that might look like *refinement* as a kind of cultural imperative.
When there is an abundance, one has no need for quality. When there is scarcity, quality is essential.
>the Optimization Process will happen as it happens
Are you sure? Is there not a possible future where everyone continuously keeps trying to have more kids and is in an eternal competition with others over dwindling resources, which never ends? I would be skeptical of your optimism there.