Beyond 2012: Evolving Perspectives on the Next Age

Beyond 2012: Evolving Perspectives on the Next AgeNever before has a time in history been so significant to so many cultures, religions, scientists and governments.

Beyond 2012 looks past the apocalyptic world view of 2012 and presents a wide variety of evolving perspectives on the next age of global consciousness and techniques for social and ecological transformation.

Topics include Shamanism, Sustainability, Ecological Design, Green Technologies, Alternative Energy Systems, the Mayan Calendar, Psychic Evolution, Synchronicity, and a host of other subjects that deal with the mysteries, wonders and challenges facing all of humankind during this unprecedented age of transformation.

Watch the full documentary now

957
6.26
12345678910
Ratings: 6.26/10 from 19 users.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dean-Edgington/1003719946 Dean Edgington

    Looks like I'm gonna have to don my tie-dyed hemp rags and rub crystals onto my temples while perched on a large spotted mushroom chanting oooooommmmmm for this one.

    LOL, people actually spend time considering and even buying into this mayan calendar, faux-new age nonsense? Get a grip for goodness sake.

  • Irishkev

    Oh crap ! I'm a looser (whatever that is) .

  • Guest

    In most docs i look for the cream, in some it's very thin, in others it's very creamy. This doc just can't get my attention, i keep wanting to go do something else.
    I am sure there are a some good to get out of it, i'll wait and see who finds it.
    I am out!
    az

  • dmxi

    somehow it's very hard to evade this topic when i roam the net(open-minded,of course)for something mysteriously entertaining.now i've consumed nearly everything that's out there(except this one,yet!) & i've only come to this conclusion....let's hope it's true & it'll all end with a bang(with some pretty firework,it'll go down easier for everyone!).most people will rather dig that,than transforming into something higher because that smells like work & change & getting of the couch...& thinking!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mercenarry-ForHire/100000621480223 Mercenarry ForHire

    Did you see the little UFO? Proof without a shadow of a doubt that aliens exist.

    Now all you non believers Gaze upon my! D:<

    I like being silly :3

  • dewflirt

    This is the dawning of the age of A world wide Web of consciousness, think some one should write a song about it. A short one. Not my cup of tea, people with psychic powers might like it though :)
    @ Az, kept sticking my finger in, no cream ;)

  • Malchik

    If the government keeps their fingers out of it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7TU3JBONCVJWOVJOEXW36653IQ Corcoran

    Sorry, wrong topic. Actually i wanted to comment another doc but dont know how to delete the complete comment.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/46F5347J5BNCPJD6QVRX6HIHLA Jamie

    Stopped it at around 4 min, counted over 100 sound edits (to my ears). Any 'truth' is not edited. It seemed far to engineered for my liking..kinda getting used to it tbh, generally speaking.
    Shame really.

  • PaulGloor

    @ AZ
    It gets better around 32 to 43 min and again at 1:06:47, for the rest of it, don't forget your foil hat.
    I have seen some interesting data regarding psychic phenomena, whether its factual or coincidental is still a question in my mind, but either way, I don't think its going to solve any of our immediate problems no matter how hard anyone tries to turn it into science.

  • kolo

    What documentaries like these and so many others before it fail to realize (yes, it's a complete and utter failure) is that humanity, as a collective, cannot rise to a higher standard unless each person is guaranteed immortality. Why? It's very simple really.

    You will never stop wanting until you have forever to want for it. You will never do anything 'good' because greed compels each and every person (me included), rationally so, to get whatever they can before their time runs out. It's the same reason you have children, it's the same reason you do anything at all. We lack a moral compass not because we are sinners or what have you, but because death is a human condition that is currently inescapable.

    As an example: Disagreements of the highest order are settled (usually) by some form of violence, warfare, etc. The aim being to destroy the opposition. Now imagine a world where that wasn't physically possible. You couldn't kill someone that didn't agree with you. What happens then? The colonization of space.

    If you disagree please explain your reasoning.

  • jbriggs_87

    this is cool if ur high enough like i am

  • wald0

    1 part liberal dooms day hype, 2 parts new age b.s., sprinkle lightly with a few staggering facts about the present state of the biosphere- and viola! You have managed to tie your new age b.s. philosophy to something real in the hopeful service of validating fairy tale logic and gum drop rationalism. Come on people, these are real problems that will not be solved by pretending a few odd results conclusively disprove everything we know about cause and effect. Yes there were a few experiments with random number generators and such that yielded surprising results but, that is hardly conclusive proof of psychic phenomenon. I would have to look into the experiments more before I could really discuss them but, I don't remember anyone getting overly excited except for the people that already buy this cr@p. Just like the people that want to take the bible literally get all excited every time some anomalous data seems to disprove evolution these guys get all crazy anytime data seems to suggest there fantasy could be real. It’s like both these crowds just forget all the tons of data collected over the last hundred years or so that doesn't support their beliefs or at least all this is cancelled out in their mind by the one anomaly that may prove them right. That’s not how science works, it is very seldom that any one result will conclusively prove or disprove a whole theory. It does happen at times, when the situation is that "A" can simply not be if we find "B" or vice versa. But generally it is a preponderance of evidence that wins the day, especially if a theory is well founded like evolution or the absence of psychic abilities.

  • Sion88

    Heh, for me it's the reason I do not have children.

  • Earthwinger

    Heya Kolo :)

    I disagree, and here's my reasoning.....

    I don't believe that your description of the human condition is a natural or default state that we're born into or are in any way naturally predisposed too. Rather, I would suggest that it's a very human construct, that's been refined over the course of centuries, by the money masters of this world. Back in the day, the same sorts of people employed overt physical slavery, whereby they seized all the resources, and controlled access to it in one form or another. Slavery never really died though, it's just been perfected to the point now, whereby it's so subtle that people don't even see the bars before their eyes. Western style consumerism is a very deliberate construct, which was designed with the express purpose of keeping us all wanting “stuff” and subjugating ourselves to get it. There's a great documentary on this site, which I strongly recommend, called The Lightbulb Conspiracy, which looks at this subject in detail.

    Our civilization is one big factory, and it's designed by the few, to keep on producing wealth and power for the elites, whilst at the same time, controlling the masses. The education system, which they control, is a form of indoctrination. It provides grist for the mill, so to speak. The mainstream media, which they also own and control, keeps people confused and stupid, whilst dangling the carrot of aspiration lifestyles. The sad reality is, they're lifestyles that very few will ever acquire, and even if they get it, like the obedient little drones that they are, they've been conditioned to never really be happy with their lot, so they'll still want for ever more stuff. I stress again, none of this is natural. If you were to give people an alternative, in which all their basic needs were met, no strings attached, and their wellbeing (as individuals and as a group) depended on mutual support and cooperation, I think it's fairly safe to say that most people would thrive. And this isn't about political “ism's” this is just about life, pure and simple.

    I sincerely believe that people aren't good, or evil, their behaviour is just the product of an engineered environment that's seriously out of kilter with natural law. I don't really buy into the whole morality debate either, it's a pointless exercise, as it also is based on the same screwed up world that we've created, and it's highly subjective. People are just people, and if you strip away all the noise of rampant consumerism and the conflicts that it creates, people (in my experience), just want to get along, and like and be liked, or love and be loved.

    The writer and activist Derrick Jensen once made a comment which made me laugh out loud, as I had experienced exactly the same thing. He was recalling his childhood, and a time when the adults around him, asked what he wanted to do when he grew up. Jensen said he distinctly remembered thinking to himself “well I'd really like to keep on doing what I'm doing, rolling around in the dirt and just having fun” but he knew instinctively that wasn't the answer he was supposed to give. I remember thinking the same thing when it happened to me, but rather than actually say it, I made up some random answer, which I knew they'd be happy with, and sure enough, my response (can't remember what exactly, probably something like a train driver) elicited smiles and a pat on the head.

    The funny thing is, I've not really changed, and I still feel much the same way as a middle aged adult. I don't have a job or much money, but compared to people in the third world, I can hardly call myself poor. I have a roof over my head, most days I have enough food to eat, and all my essential needs are met. I've made some compromises that other people might find unacceptable. For instance, the price of gas in the UK is now such that, a few years ago, I had to choose between hot water and heating, or my broadband connection. Personally, I'd much rather live with just cold water and have an internet connection. Besides, cold water sure wakes you up in the morning! :D

    I can honestly say that I've never really been ambitious. I hated competition as a child, and I hate it to this day, as I believe it brings out the worst in people. I never felt the need to procreate. I aspire to little more than feeling content and sharing that feeling with others. It's been tough at times, with bouts of homelessness and drug taking, both illegal and legal ones. Interestingly, the legal drugs actually made me feel worse than the illegal ones, and almost drove me to suicide. But needless to say, I survived, and now I centre myself by riding longboards and going for long walks with my dog. One of the things I've learned over time is that the more stuff that you desire, the unhappier you become. I don't think I'm any sort of special little snowflake for realising this, I'm just someone who wants to get through life as peacefully and with as few scars as possible, and also hopefully leave a few fond memories of myself behind, in the minds of others. And the easiest way to do that, is just to keep things simple.

    As for mortality, what is there to be afraid of? There was a time when the world didn't have you or I in it, and I don't know about you, but I feel no dread when I try and imagine that foreign land that is the past (pre-me). So why fear the future without you in it? It's really no different. It's the passage from life to death that may be unpleasant, but hopefully, with the right care or by good fortune, that need not be the case. My grandfather passed away after walking to the pub for his midday tipple. He walked the two miles back home, then sat back in his favourite chair for an afternoon nap, and just never woke up again. Dunno about you, but I think he kinda lucked out there. :)

    It's the cyclical nature of life that makes it all so precious, and that's what we should celebrate. It's why the changes of the seasons elicit emotional responses from the poets that reside in us, and why our hearts feel like they could melt at the sight of a newborn. Everything in life has it's time in the sun, and one day everything dies. It's how the universe works, and we're children of the universe. We've borrowed these atoms that make up our minds and our bodies, and one day we have to give them back. That's the deal.

    I just feel very privileged that the universe saw fit to bestow this gift on me. It's been a fascinating ride so far, and I feel there's still a way to go yet before I take on my civic duty of pushing up the daisies. But when the time comes, I like to think that I'll accept it with good grace. Or better still, go in the same manner as my old grandad. ;)

  • kolo

    Just quoting you: "I don't believe that your description of the human condition is a natural or default state that we're born into or are in any way naturally predisposed too."

    My dear, forgive me for being blunt (because that piece you wrote was quite emotionally charged) but death is definitely the default state each person is heading towards and yes, we are naturally predisposed to it. In fact, it's probably the most accurate description of the human condition we have because when you take away the "human construct", death is the only equalizer.

    You bring up the word "natural" several times but as I like to point out we are natural beings of this world (Darwin) therefore anything we do to advance our evolution technologically or otherwise is in essence, natural.

    If you are religious, my argument is even simpler: Why take uncertainty over certainty? If I offer you immortality what is your logic for believing in an afterlife?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Kukowski/100001515201862 Matt Kukowski

    You are talking about this Trans-human and the Singularity thing. The idea that we will use science and technology to control the nature of cells or to replace them with artificial ones to live forever. Then colonize space.

    This is exactly the problem. You can not control nature. When you try, nature always pushes back and makes you more sick. The proof is in GMO foods and mono-culture factory farming. It failed because nature REQUIRES biodiversity. The pests come in and destroy the mono-culture.

    Death is NOT a curse. Death is a blessing as long as one gets to live a full life before death. Even in science, death played a role ... Scientists that held on to old science beliefs literally had to DIE so their ideas died with them, allowing the NEW science to become fore front.

    So, death always allows rebirth.

    If everyone lived forever .. like in your silly Kurzweil Singularity and the fear of death is logically flawed.

  • kolo

    "You can not control nature". Again, you for some reason believe we are somehow not a product of nature.

    We can control our actions. We therefore can control nature to some degree. We will expand that degree of control with time.

    I never assert that death is a curse. Death is a byproduct of evolution trying to better its own design. If we take over for evolution it's still called evolution - even if it was concocted in a lab.

    Fear of death is why everyone strives to live a "full life". This inevitably leads to conflicts of interest because I want to have a "fuller life" than yours.

  • Achems_Razor

    I read it all, a very good post.

  • dewflirt

    There's a cricket match being played behind my house, the sun is blazing through the window and your words waft in, warm as a summer breeze. Delicious :)

  • Earthwinger

    Hmm, you seem to have misunderstood me. Maybe I could have been clearer. You claimed in your OP that greed is the natural state of affairs that drives us all, and it was that, that I was disagreeing with. Of course mortality is natural, I couldn't agree more with your on that, and I felt I'd made that very clear.

    I have no problem with Darwinism and our continued evolution. Of course we should strive to better ourselves. It doesn't alter the fact though, that everything eventually dies, including the universe that spawned us. I think your suggestion that humanity's destiny is to ultimately defy the very nature of the universe, and that humanity's troubles can't be resolved until we achieve it, is a bit of a leap though, to put it mildly.

    As for religion, nah not me. They tried to brainwash me with that when I was a child, I was having none of it though. Dead is dead, IMO. ;)

  • dewflirt

    I think most people fear dying, not being dead. Being dead is much easier than being alive ;)

  • kolo

    Well you can't say greed is not the natural state of affairs. If you disagree you should give away most of your money and live in a tent, off the land, etc. In fact, you really shouldn't even have a computer. But you are compelled, by the notion that your time is limited, to have certain luxuries that I implore you don't forget come at the expense of the unluckier individuals of the world (whom, for the record, have an equal right to enjoy since their time is also limited).

    "It doesn't alter the fact though, that everything eventually dies, including the universe that spawned us." - This is not a fact, it's a theory. Also, you can't assert that "the nature of the universe" is a widely established or accepted fact. So let's not talk about leaps!

    As far as religion, I agree with you there. But I can't prove or disprove religion, so that's not what this is really about.

  • kolo

    I agree, most people fear dying. Not being dead. You can't be afraid after the fact..don't think PTSD works that way.

  • Earthwinger

    “Well you can't say greed is not the natural state of affairs”

    I can say it and I did say it. ;)

    I guess the issue here is how we define greed. I suspect that you and I differ in our definitions. ;)

    I live a modest life, but I see no reason to make it an unhappy one. I've lived in tents in my youth, and busked on street corners so that I could afford to eat. It's tedious and it gets old really quickly.

    For what it's worth, all my computers....yes, shock horror, I have more than one....are all cast offs that were given to me, when friends upgraded theirs. The difference between us is that they work long hard hours so they can have new shiny things, and I'm happy to live with technology with a bit of a patina too it. In fact, I actually enjoy cleaning them up and installing linux on them, so they run like new machines again. And when other friends of mine needs a computer, but can't afford a new one, I'll happily give them one of mine.

    In a few days time, I'll even have a smart phone. An online friend that I've never physically met, knew that I didn't have a phone, so she's sending me her old one. Next thing you know, I'll be sipping skinny latte's with the bright shiny people! :D

  • kolo

    "I can say it and I did say it." - Literally true. The state of the world, however, is a much more pragmatic thing and less about free speech rights. I can comfortably say you might fear dying less than others.

    "I've lived in tents in my youth, and busked on street corners so that I could afford to eat." - This is because some fear dying to a point that others (like you) get trampled on in their pursuit of life. Who wants it more? You might be content, but the vast majority of the world expresses their fear through insatiability.

  • Guest

    a like was not enough...and there was no button for love....
    i'll give a like anyway...but know it's inflated in my mind. What a great piece of words.
    az

  • Guest

    If one believes in infinity does it mean one believes in immortality?
    If one cannot define infinity, then one cannot define immortality.
    az

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    The concept of an "afterlife" is only one apsect of religion. I personally know may people who consider themselves religious or at least spiritual that have beliefs that are not dependent on a afterlife such as "heaven". They may or may not have a "hope" for such a "reward" but its not really the point.

  • kolo

    In any case, spiritualism of any kind begins where our physical limitations end. In other words, they may not necessarily need an "afterlife" but it's enough that they need something to explain away the uncertainty that accompanies death.

    And as I've said before, but just to reiterate: Death spawns uncertainty; uncertainty breeds fear; fear nurtures insatiability. The world is born.

  • kolo

    Infinity is a concept that describes something that has no ending. Defining something that's been conceptualized to not end is paradoxical. It's like finding the corner in a circle. - Paradoxical. My opinion is that it's the theoretical "search" for that corner that defines infinity - not what lies before us at the "end."

    For the record Az, this has been my favorite criticism so far.

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    I have never seen any evidence that "insatiability" results from anything other than being one of the many frailities that are a fact of being human. I have no interest in and see no purpose for trying to convice anyone else of what I choose to believe. Whether you embrace or reject that which is not empirical does not change who you are as a human. This is the fallacy of most of the criticism of faith. Somehow if we reject any hope for more than we can know through the scientific method the world will suddenly become a better place. The sad truth is we are still human and the world will die at some point whether by mans greed or an exploding sun makes no difference. I personally embrace uncertainty as certainty just leaves us and our children waiting to die.

    "A man that is born falls into a dream like a man who falls into the sea. If he tries to climb out into the air as inexperienced people endeavor to do, he drowns."
    Joseph Conrad

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Kukowski/100001515201862 Matt Kukowski

    Yes you are right... anything humans build is of Nature because we spawned from nature and our creations are nature too. I agree 100%

    I love the anime 'ghost in the machine'... which is basically trans human related. (converting tissue into something that does not die)

    I am not saying that we can not try to become robots. But, I think it will fail. What human beings know is a lot... but what we do not know is even greater.

    The number one reason I go back to for not thinking living forever is a good thing is because some people can not take on NEW ideas and so they must die and the ideas with them...

    Again science would not have progressed without death. The BEST scientists years ago could not let go of old theories. So, after they died the NEW updated and more accurate theories took hold.

    This is the very definition of evolution. I am not saying people do not have the right to try new techniques for survival... but at the rate we are destroying the very thing that DOES create us and keep us alive, aka the earth and sun and all the rest.

    Imagine you could live forever... would you change your mind so easy about things? Maybe you have all the time in the world to think about them and maybe change then.

    BUT, this is a selfish view... for you to live forever so that eventually no one else could be born ( due to over crowding...etc )

    Death gives back what you took while alive... all the plants and animals you eat... when you die your body becomes a Sacrament to the soil and of the bugs that feed off you... in turn your atoms will recycle for other creatures to use.

    Separate yourself from nature and base your technology on this idea and nature if going to win.

    Now there may be a way to merge both Science and it's mechnical ways with the analog ways of nature and we can live a very long and fruitful life.... but I do not think becoming immortal is going to be all that easy as Kurzweil makes you believe ( he is a great thinker )...

  • wald0

    One is not greedy simply because they have a computer, have and use money, or because they live in a house. Greed is excess- having more money than you could possibly need and wanting more simply for the sake of having more. Greed is living in a mansion, not simply owning a home. And I agree with the others, your generalization of the human condition is very biased toward your own experiences it would seem. I have known many people that were not driven by greed in any way; I don't consider myself to be driven by greed nor to be scared of death. The universe dyeing is only a theory? Come on man, you really don't know much about science at all do you. The universe is headed toward absolute zero and thermal equilibrium; this is the direct product of entropy. Now if you want to deny entropy exists or that it is inevitable in any closed system then it is you that should explain as you are directly contradicting well established science. I think concluding death to be a natural part of life and the natural default state of all living things in the end is a pretty safe assertion. Man has already evolved to a higher standard when compared to his past self- so saying he can't possibly do so until death is no more makes no sense. There is less violence and death in the world than ever before, less suffering and starvation, less disease and war, less oppression and more freedom and collaboration than any other time in the history of the world. All of this achieved while death was still very much an inevitable part of every living creatures existence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Kukowski/100001515201862 Matt Kukowski

    About the fear of death leading to conflicts. well. maybe so. But, those people have not come to terms that they are lucky to be alive and should celebrate that... not fear the end.

    People have lost their connection with the earth and of plants. This is why they fear death. Many people long for death... some fear it.

    I personally do not think we are smarter than Nature. We are Nature but Nature includes MUCH MORE than Human beings... it include everything else as well.

    There are far more problems with pollution and war than worrying about death. There may not BE a world to live forever in if we continue to Control and Trample Nature.

    The idea is not CONTROL, but rather cooperation. Cooperate with Nature and than YES maybe we can work to become immortal... but the way things are going in general, I would not want some ELITE getting control to stay alive forever, so they can enslave us. In other words we are not ready for such power.

    Either way, Nature does not care what you or I think... it just is. So, good luck with the Trans human thing... if anything maybe something can come out of it.

    "What good is a used up world and how could it be worth having."
    - Sting

  • wald0

    " This is because some fear dying to a point that others (like you) get trampled on in their pursuit of life. "

    Or maybe it was simply because she didn't pay her bills, or maybe it was because she has some kind of mental disorder, or maybe it was because she chose to live this way, or maybe it was because .....
    Get the point? Assuming you know why people do the things they do and why society works the way it does accomplishes nothing. Can you conclusively prove that mankind is afraid of death and therefore unable to evolve to a higher standard? It is my assumption that he has already evolved to a higher standard and is still in the process of doing so again. Why should your assumpption carry more weight than mine?

  • wald0

    Infinity describes something with no ending, and what does immortality define? Life without ending, or an infinite life. Az is exactly right, you can't define one without defining the other. Besides that, even though we may one day find a way to stop aging or repair the damage caused by natural life we will never be indestructable. We will always be subject to accidents and so forth that may kill us so quickly and completely that no medical magic could possibly save us, as there isn't much left to save. So man will always face mortality in some way, even if only by misadventure. Now if this is the case then according to you man will never evolve to a higher standard, as he will always have some fear of death. Now once again I assert man has already evolved to higher standards, and that this is very apparent if one simply studies history. But thats beside the point really, my point is that immortality is not only inconcievable but impossible as long as we live in the physical world ruled by the laws of physics.

  • kolo

    "I have never seen any evidence that "insatiability" results from anything other than being one of the many frailities that are a fact of being human." - Death is a fact of being human, and insatiability you say is a fact of being human too. Have you ever considered one might be caused by the other? Which is more certain dying or wanting stuff till you die? You tell me.

  • kolo

    "The number one reason I go back to for not thinking living forever is a good thing is because some people can not take on NEW ideas and so they must die and the ideas with them..." - The number one reason people defend their ideas till the death is because they have nothing else but this one life where they've been working to prove a certain theory or it's there life's work or what have you. They become emotionally attached to that which they are trying to prove and this results in bad science; not better science. If you have forever to delineate the true aspects of something, why become attached to any one theory or idea? Treat it as a work in progress - the manner in which it was intended. Not the holy gospel.

  • kolo

    "Greed is excess - having more money than you could possibly need and wanting more simply for the sake of having more." - For some strange reason, you define greed with money. I define greed as anything you desire. For example, you want to have kids. That's not about money is it? But let's consider if every couple in the world decided to have kids, and as many as they wanted. Sounds like the world we know eh? It's not greedy to want kids is it? But isn't it greedy to say my kids have more of a right to this world than the generations to come?

    "I have known many people that were not driven by greed in any way; I don't consider myself to be driven by greed nor to be scared of death." - You don't consider yourself greedy because you don't see how the basic things you claim to be rightfully yours might detract from what others have. "Greed" always gets a negative wrap because people imagine mansions and cars. The unfortunate thing is people only notice that kind of greed because it's flaunted willingly. The greed you have are the rights you hold. Another way to look at is if your not greedy, your selfless. You have at least a basic desire for self preservation right? But if your selfless, than you do not. Pick.

    Also, if you are not driven by greed, what are you driven by? The pursuit of happiness? The pursuit of knowledge? Being alive? Commenting on this website? Family? Children? Helping others? You decide, and I'll tell you why it's still greed.

    "The universe is headed toward absolute zero and thermal equilibrium; this is the direct product of entropy." - Well with your 100-something year life span you'll never find out will you? At least if we try to become immortal, we'll probably end up answering a bunch of these questions on the way. That's the assumption, at least.

    "Man has already evolved to a higher standard when compared to his past self- so saying he can't possibly do so until death is no more makes no sense. There is less violence and death in the world than ever before, less suffering and starvation, less disease and war, less oppression and more freedom and collaboration than any other time in the history of the world. All of this achieved while death was still very much an inevitable part of every living creatures existence."

    I beg to differ. We've had thousands of years to work on it and while it may be better now than it was in the past, historically speaking, there's always been have's and have not's. And there always will be with death as the equalizer.

  • kolo

    "There may not BE a world to live forever in if we continue to Control and Trample Nature." - No one cares about the world lasting forever because they aren't going to be around to see it. My point exactly. The next step to sustainability is guaranteeing you'll be around to appreciate the fruits of your labor.

  • kolo

    "Assuming you know why people do the things they do and why society works the way it does accomplishes nothing." - I am not assuming, my dear friend, I am simply aware that for all my knowledge and thought, I am still as greedy as anyone ever was but am willing to ask the crucial question: Why am I this way?

    People are still in denial about it. As if they can somehow prove to themselves that they are loftier than that. You can't fix a problem you think you don't have.

  • Earthwinger

    I don't believe that the desire to procreate is in any way greedy. It's nature at it's most primal is what it is. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. ;)

    Granted, there are exceptions to it, like myself. I've never desired children, but I think that's just a quirk of nature manifest in me, it's got nothing to do with greed or lesser degrees of it. :)

    I would define greed as being conspicuous consumption, and I hardly feel that primal urges, inherent in the nature of humanity, fall into that category.

  • kolo

    If everyone thought procreation wasn't greedy what do you get? Over population. Sound familiar? Because it is.

    Also you should define "primal urges" because if I covet something that would biological benefit me am I expressing "primal greediness"? You should also note that primal urges come from a sense of self-preservation (aka not dying).

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    @kolo you say "why become attached to any one theory or idea? Treat it as a work in progress - the manner in which it was intended. Not the holy gospel." I guess the Holy Gospel is whatever you think this "work in progress" is. How do you know anything "was intended"? By your own description everything that happened since the universe began has been a random occurence. If that is so then what would be the "intention of randomness"? (isnt that an Oxymoron)Therefore our existence can only have one of two meanings, absolutely nothing or some type of metaphysical construction. Thinking that humans can take hold of the evolutionary process and turn it into some altruistic process which "pulls itself up by the bootstraps" and spews out a greater purpose than survival of the species is wishful thinking if you are claiming to be a truth seeker.(and we know wishful thinking is not allowed);)

  • kolo

    I would just like to take this chance to thank everyone for their lively input.

    Specifically -

    Earthwinger, wald0, Matt Kukowski, ZarathustraSpeaks, Azilda

  • brian rose

    Odd enough as it is our desire for conspicuous consumption is merely a reflection of the desire to procreate with individuals who have access to resources (you can have all the children you want, but without adequate resources they'll die or have insufficient development).

    I'm not disagreeing with you in fact I completely agree with your assessment. The point I'm hoping to make is that even greed originates because its a relatively successful strategy.

    The way I see cooperation, sharing, compassion, etc. tend to be associated with times of growing resource availability (even today this happens on multiple, independent, stratified levels- look at the conflict in Sudan for instance). In other words, friendly business relations between humans and even mutualistic interactions between species in an ecosystem are merely a reflection of resource availability.

    The flip side of this coin is that resource scarcity results in competition, greed, hording, and all the "negative" aspects of human nature.

    This is again reflected in the interactions of animals in a community, and is technically not a "good" or "bad" thing. It simply is a successful strategy, and successful strategies perpetuate themselves through genetics, epigenetics, and intergenerational learning.

    From a fundamental perspective, there is no such thing as "good" or "bad." An insect eating your crops is "bad" for you, and "good" for the insect. The mass extinction that happened ~65 million years ago was "bad" for everything that died, and "good" for things like... all mammals and birds alive today!

  • kolo

    I would love to get in to the details of this stuff but suffice it to say I do not know. But I want to live long enough to come to some reasonable conclusions. At least more than the "I dont know" I am offering you. But it seems to me a vast majority of people are content with speculation and aren't interested in finding out for themselves. There is only one thing I know that can be analogous to infinity, and that is my curiosity.

  • kolo

    "The flip side of this coin is that resource scarcity results in competition, greed, hording, and all the "negative" aspects of human nature." - Resource scarcity is only defined within some type of time reference. Certain resources are too far or take too long to get to (ie. space) so therefore are considered impractical. Without the time constraints, resources and energy are all around us and constantly available.

  • ZarathustraSpeaks

    I dont know either, but I'm hoping Ridley Scott is going to explain it all to us in the Alien prequel(Prometheus) coming up in June.

  • dmxi

    all statements rely on the human virtue of philosophy & conciousness. no being wants to live with scarcity or die,the driving momentum of all that thrives.but that philosophy is based on the fact,that everything in nature,meaning all physical laws,have two sides:ying & yang,life & death,black & white,darkness & light,male & female,salt & pepper,cats & dogs,health & sickness,hairy people & bald people,twits & twats......but one side is always more benefitting,better,more promising,sexier,profitable,which
    resides in the perspective of the time-being!there is no singularity of conciousness,where all suffer, or love & understand as one,becoming a homogenic mass commune,concentrating on expansion into space.for that to happen,our bodies would have to solidify into intermixing liquids or into electo-magnetic sub-particles with personality,to experience all that,that surrounds us.maybe,keeping in mind that we are just a snapshot of what evolution has to offer,becoming as physically disolved as possible, to intermingle or react to 'unknown' energy sources (soulfood,or soulsynthesis
    as in photohumanism!?) we would transcendend into that life-form,which embraces all, without contempt, feeding of what stars burst out & not wasting space or resources!we're destined, or condemned to never trust our true motives. a fallacy of the free spirit/mind.(anyone,that answers because of my grammar defaults,can kiss me lipnick!i've been living in germany for the last 25 years,so my grammar lacks a little!)

  • http://herzberg.com.ua/ Misha Herzberg

    Great movie, optimistic and motivating. I even made some notes while watching:

    Patience is the fastest way.
    It’s the effort that really matters.
    We’re gonna reveal that heaven was here all the time.

  • Jack1952

    A great discussion. Surprising, since I found the documentary mediocre and at times a little silly and childish.

  • lex lexich

    boooring

  • brian rose

    Do a google search for the term "carrying capacity." You may get some sites referring to how the planet is too full of Homo sapiens, but the concept applies to all lifeforms. Space may have nearly infinite resources, but your average population of elephants marooned on an island will eat all the vegetation leading to "competition, greed, hording, and all the "negative" aspects of [elephant] human nature."

    Our emotions and drives evolved in finite ecosystems. For humans the earth may be one big ecosystem, but for most lifeforms rivers, mountains, deserts, oceans, lakes, savanna (when you adapted to a rainforest), rainforest (when you adapted to a savanna), etc. act as physical barriers that isolate species. As a species uses its resource base (each species in an ecosystem has a niche- another term you should look up) it eventually reaches, even exceeds, the carrying capacity of its environment. Then competition kicks in.

    My post was not merely pertaining to humans. Humans are animals. I have a limbic system, and my dog has a limbic system; therefore, we both feel emotions (fish, for example, do not have a limbic system and are incapable of emotion). I have a pons, amygdala, and brainstem, and therefore, have basic fight/flight response, sex feels good, and a hot stove feels really crappy (Even fish have these behaviors). My point was to confirm and elaborate on Earthwingers statement relating humans and all other animals.

  • wald0

    What you are saying makes no sense, even if mankind does learn to not age he will still have to consume resources to survive . Resource scarcity would be rampant as the human population would go through the roof. How does immunity to desease and the natural processes of aging help you when there is simply not enough food to go around, no more ariable land to cultivate, no more water sources to tap, etc. What happens to the countries that have the really high birth rates, how long would it be before they had to expand their borders if they hoped to accommodate everyone. You do realize that if people never die then even if the birth rate is as tiny as possible eventually you will inevitably face over population. I mean the math is pretty simple, we live on a finite planet with a finite amount of resources therefore if we want to have any children at all at some point some one must die. Otherwise, even if it is a thousand years from now, you are doomed to run out of carrying capacity.

    Death has steered evolution by means of natural selection for millions of years, in fact it was this process that brought your species into existence. Without death evolution will not work, period. If that doesn't show you that it is a necessary and natural part of life in general what would?

  • Richard T

    Infinity refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. Having a recognizable history in these disciplines reaching back into the time of ancient Greek civilization, the term in the English language derives from Latin infinitas, which is translated as "unboundedness".
    In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e. a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities). For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite.

    there is a definition of infinity.. I believe in infinity, and do not believe in immortality - which can also be defined. Sorry not trying to put you down, I just personally really did not like this doc and came across your comment. Anyone who thinks the Mayan calendar 'ends' in 2012 needs to do a few hours of research into how the Mayan calendar works. By no means does it simply 'end' on December 21st 2012 - it keeps on going onto another cycle. I used to buy into the whole 2012 thing, and if you can pull yourself away from all the new age bullshit and do a few hours of reading on your own - it becomes clear 12/21/2012 is just going to be another winter solstice. The guy who wrote this book is a douche bag in my opinion. This sort of thing (climate change) has happened thousands of times on this planet without any human interaction in ways much more drastic than anything we have seen in the past 100 or so years.

  • kolo

    "You do realize that if people never die then even if the birth rate is as tiny as possible eventually you will inevitably face over population. I mean the math is pretty simple, we live on a finite planet with a finite amount of resources therefore if we want to have any children at all at some point some one must die."

    Yes, I realize this. Your assumption that we would be bound to inhabiting just Earth is flawed. Obviously we would run out of stuff if we stayed here but that's the point: We have so many issues because we have this preconceived notion that we MUST for no good reason, stay here and never try to colonize another planet. Why? Why can't we create nanobots that can be imbedded into our skin that would mimic photosynthesis? Why can't we create nanobots that just take the necessary materials we need (food) from the ambient environment? There are solutions to a lot of the problems you posit, but you need to surrender yourself to the notion that we can evolve beyond death. Again, we are natural beings so if we somehow avoid death, THAT in itself is an act of evolution. Our cars, our planes, our bombs, they are all natural and part of evolution. You can't separate the organism from the process. Even this discussion is a form of evolution. Just prove one thing to me: If we lived for thousands of years, and not forever, that that wouldn't be considered evolution.

  • kolo

    There are other planets. We are stuck to this one simply because of our short lifespans and our inability to go very fast/far. This can change with technology.

  • eireannach666

    I saw the word infinity. A lovely and haunting word. A terrible beauty indeed. So why would you pull a definition off of wikipedia and not ref it to everyone who has been through their advanced courses in mathematics, physics,astronomy,etc?Shame on you. I knew i herd textbook terminology.....anywho. thanx for getting me all happy to discuss the infinite. For nothing.

  • dmxi

    a shame that we'll never grasp infinity due to finite intelligence....but the
    symbol 'eight' sums it up perfectly.

  • wald0

    I see, so you some how know for sure that we will create this technology even though nothing even remotely like it exists today. In fact we can't even agree on whether a manned mission to mars is possible at this point, so saying it is certain that we will not only make the trip but also colonize the planet goes far beyond speculation. And yet you seem to think it is me that is making large assumptions. And I am sorry but classical evolution can not happen without death, period. You are confusing psychological evolution with physical evolution, two very different things. And no, coming up with some medical procedure that allows us to avoid aging and desease is not evolution, even if it works by manipulating genes. Evolution by definition has no predetermined goal and is not guided by a conscious agent, it is a random process that is steered by natural selection, which kills off the bad mutations and promotes the good. This conversation maybe a exercise in social or idealogical evolution, but it has no effect on our physical make up and never could. You are redefining words to fit what you want to say, but it doesn't work that way- sorry. Besides, being truly immortal would be horrible beyond belief. After the universe reached absolute zero and entropy is at its highest possible point- all chnage and motion would cease, all chemical reactions would cease, everything would cease and we would be left sitting in a completely dark, utterly cold, motionless blackness. I'll stick with mortality friend, it is the reason life is sweet and passion exists.

  • dewflirt

    Why not just a 0 ? Much tidier than an 8 :)

  • Ideologically_Free

    Perhaps you should further develop your writing skills and live the nomadic life of a writer. You can earn some good coin and still live the life you want.

  • dmxi

    touche(i can't put the l'accent aigu over the 'e'),but the 'eight' has the
    attractive curvage which illustrates the non-linearity more 'picturesque'.
    (typical males,mmmh?)

  • kolo

    "I see, so you some how know for sure that we will create this technology even though nothing even remotely like it exists today."

    The mobile phone, the airplane, transformers, radio - These are all examples of technology that if you suggested could exist 30 or 40 years before their conception you would be considered a nut. So yes, I believe we can create this technology. But with the monetary system in place, there is no value in creating something that cannot yield a profit. Therefore scientific pursuit is not maximized.

    "And no, coming up with some medical procedure that allows us to avoid aging and desease is not evolution, even if it works by manipulating genes. Evolution by definition has no predetermined goal and is not guided by a conscious agent, it is a random process that is steered by natural selection, which kills off the bad mutations and promotes the good." I would like to point out that conscious thought is a product of evolution. Whatever conscious thought yields is a by-product of evolution and in a way, conscious thought becomes the evolutionary process. Instead of genes, plug in thoughts. Bad thoughts and ideas usually get discarded and good ones take hold. For thousands of years we've learned through trial and error, much like evolution. We keep what works, and throw out what doesn't. We don't have a predetermined goal either; most of us don't know what the hell we're living for really, it's just an educated guess. Our only requirement is self-preservation.

    "This conversation maybe a exercise in social or idealogical evolution, but it has no effect on our physical make up and never could." If this conversation led to a breakthrough in gene therapy that somehow allowed us to fly (wild example), wouldn't that be physical evolution that resulted from ideological evolution? My point is a behavioral change brought about my conscious thought can result in evolution. You must first accept that our minds and everything that comes out of it is evolution speaking. This process you speak of that's steered by natural selection has given us the ability to formulate thoughts - so why do you think our thoughts are not a manifestation of evolution?

    "You are redefining words to fit what you want to say, but it doesn't work that way- sorry." - I'm trying to make a logical progression of arguments but yes, I do use the term evolution loosely because I did not mean it in reference to biology in all those cases. Thought that was obvious.

    "Besides, being truly immortal would be horrible beyond belief. After the universe reached absolute zero and entropy is at its highest possible point- all chnage and motion would cease, all chemical reactions would cease, everything would cease and we would be left sitting in a completely dark, utterly cold, motionless blackness." - Then we might say: Let there be light. And the universe unfolds once again. (Not my idea, taken from a short story)

  • kolo

    For the record, I'm not looking to play Devil's advocate, even though it might come across as such. I'm simply trying to refine my perspective through debate and if you happen to convince me that your argument is more sound than mine then I have no qualms about adopting a new perspective. In fact, I welcome it.

  • wald0

    I think her point was not that infinity can not be defined, only that it can not be intuitively understood or even proven to exist outside of the mathematical construct. We may know the technical definition but if you are trying to tell me that your finite existence can intuitively concieve of the nature of infinity, well you are simply not being honest with yourself or us. In fact many many mathematicians believe infinity may only be a logical human construct born out of taking mathematics to its logical conclusion and therefore has no basis in physical reality. As of yet man has never witnessed infinity in nature, so far everything we have come across in the material world had a beginning and will have an end. So how is it you believe so strongly in the physical reality of infinity?

  • http://www.facebook.com/shea.shattuckfaegre Shea Shattuck-Faegre

    Kolo-

    You get overpopulation from greed, but it has little to do with human sexuality.

    Overpopulation, it has been well established, comes from socio-economic conditions that create large gaps between the haves and have-nots. The have-nots have less to look forward to then those of us in the dominant western culture. They lack education, resources, and have unfulfilled basic needs. When a population is educated, they have fewer children. Point.

    Its not because children are bad, procreating greedy, etc, etc. It's because people who are less educated are less likely to have means to either not have children (children, as costly as they are, will take care of their parents later in many cultures) or to choose when and how many children they have (less money = less access).

    Its about funds. That's it. The only moral issue at hand is disproportionate distribution of wealth and resources worldwide.

    And based on your comment, I'm guessing you're moderately educated, i.e. some college, fairly well-off (time to sit around watching documentaries) and very likely white. Why white? Because well-off white boys contribute the vast majority of inane comments.

  • kolo

    Shea-

    "You get overpopulation from greed, but it has little to do with human sexuality." - What? Where did I claim overpopulation was because of human sexuality? I actually agree with you, overpopulation comes from greed. Where does greed/selfishness come from? That's what I'm talking about. EDIT: I see where you got that but I was making an analogy. I was pointing out that having kids is not considered greedy at all, but when everyone claims to have that inalienable right you get exponential growth. Even if all populations were well educated, funded, etc. there will come a point where logic and statistics say we can't support more mouths but the people will not accept it. This is the greed/selfishness I'm trying to expose.

    "Its about funds. That's it. The only moral issue at hand is disproportionate distribution of wealth and resources worldwide." - All I am trying to prove is WHY we have that moral issue. I do not contest that it exists, nor do I contest that unequal distribution of wealth does not exist.

    "And based on your comment, I'm guessing you're moderately educated, i.e. some college, fairly well-off (time to sit around watching documentaries) and very likely white. Why white? Because well-off white boys contribute the vast majority of inane comments." - I have a bachelors in CEE, 600 bucks in my bank account and I'm Arab. Guess again?

  • http://www.facebook.com/shea.shattuckfaegre Shea Shattuck-Faegre

    kolo

    well, I stand corrected... but as I sit here nursing my precious infant son, I can't imagine my life without him.

    It seems like humanity has to reconcile the desire to have children with the desire to only protect and nourish some of those children... once we make the choices to care for the entire planet (mountains, air, fish and people included) I think that the propensity to reproduce won't have the consequences it does now.

    As for the feeling that its an inalienable right to so many... well... I have read that there is a limitation in perspective when it comes to things that we cannot see or experience... basically, other peoples lives, giant trash islands in the ocean, deforestation, etc, etc.. overpopulation...

    For the poor, impoverished folks, or folks who are constrained by culture, there is no choice. They must reproduce if they are to enjoy sex, secure the their future, etc, etc.

    The higher up the foodchain you go, the more absurd it seems to not reproduce, because you have the "means"...

    When the groups look back at one-another, they say "Fuckers. Their reproducing is just [leaving less for everyone else, making more people to feed, making more self-centered assholes,etc etc...]

    So, its hard for someone to see their own actions as part of the problem when so many people must be responsible...

    I myself have two needs to fulfill with having children. 1.)Someone to love and care for (I'd adopt, but its a hairy process and I'm not really eligible for that) and 2.) Someone to inherit my farm.

  • kolo

    Shea-

    "... but as I sit here nursing my precious infant son, I can't imagine my life without him." - I can't say I know what that's like. I hope to one day find out though.

    "well... I have read that there is a limitation in perspective when it comes to things that we cannot see or experience..." -Correct, the limitation in perspective, I posit, is due to our limited lifespan. You said it yourself, you have specifically two desires to fulfill with having kids. Why? Because you won't be around forever.

    It's hard for anyone to see their own actions as part of the "problem" when they only have one life to live.

  • tariqxl

    Too true. A life lesson learned by a predecessor is only, at best, available for misinterpretation by the next generation.

  • wald0

    That is fine Kolo but it is not up to you to decide that the term evolution also means social and psychological change, in fact we already have a term and a whole field of study dedicated to what you are talking about. Look up the word "meme" and study some of Richard Dawkins work on the subject. He uses the anology of physical evolution to discuss exactly what you are talking about but he doesn't call it evolution nor does he confuse its effects with the very real on going process of physical evolution. Once you finish checking that out you should also look into a doc right here on TDF that discusses in scientific detail the fact that humans are still physically evolving. My argument is simple, do away with death and that physical evolution will stop, period. Humans will have the exact same physiological make up until the end of time if you do away with natural selection completely. We live in an ever changing environment we need to be able to physically evolve to fit that changing environment. You live on a finite planet that sits in a universe that will one day die, whether it be from reaching absolute zero (which is the prevailing scientific oipinion), or gravity wins and it all crunches back down to a singularity, or the expansion tears even the most fundamental particles into pieces. Do you really want to be alive for that?

  • wald0

    Oh I see, os if she lived forever somehow all those desires and wants would disappear- give me a break. All that would happen is that she would have more time and chances to make more babies. The desire to procreate is driven by instinct that isn't going to disappear simply because we live forever. Humans still have all kinds of instincts left over from our time in the trees, none of which have been useful for thousands of years now. Why have these instincts not gone away? You want to view humans as logical machines that can turn off thousands of years of instinct when it is no longer beneficial or logical, but it doesn't work that way. Science has proven time and time again that we hold on to all kinds of useless irrational things from our evolutionary past, why would this be any different?

  • kolo

    "My argument is simple, do away with death and that physical evolution will stop, period. Humans will have the exact same physiological make up until the end of time if you do away with natural selection completely." - We can change our physiological make up consciously through scientific methods. We do live in an ever changing environment but that doesn't mean we can't adapt ourselves to that environment. We may be able to do away with the entire human body and inhabit a machine. I agree, the classical notion of evolution is not at play here. I'm saying this because our argument has been reduced to a debate regarding definitions. I want to get back to the point that whatever you call it, if we do away with death, we can still change what we are. We don't need natural selection per say.

    "Do you really want to be alive for that?" - Yes, I want to be alive to see what happens. To observe it. If that is the end of everything I'd like to attempt to understand it. Perhaps even engineer a reversal. I'm not claiming it's possible, I'm simply saying I want to be around for it.

    "Oh I see, os if she lived forever somehow all those desires and wants would disappear- give me a break." - I have a theory that might prove this is incorrect, mathematically. Consider your desire/want as x. Now if you agree that x is indirectly influenced by time (t), you'll deduce that when t increases, x decreases. When t decreases, x will increase. In real world terms: If you have a day to live, your desires/wants become paramount. If you have a million years to live, those desires/wants become less important because you have much more time to get it. For example, if I had 200-years to live, I'd spend my first 100 doing whatever I liked (probably astronomy), and the next 100 leaving a legacy/getting wealthy/attaining fame etc. You will always want things, however the hostility that accompanies "wanting" is removed because time is NOT "of the essence." Our lives are built around a timer that we can't even see. This creates subconscious anxiety which is often exhibited in our dedication to desire happiness.

    "The desire to procreate is driven by instinct that isn't going to disappear simply because we live forever." - I agree, but instinct is subject to change via our genetic code. The technology need only be developed.

    "You want to view humans as logical machines that can turn off thousands of years of instinct when it is no longer beneficial or logical, but it doesn't work that way." - Scientifically speaking, a better understanding of the human mind and the genetic code are necessary before we can alter instinct or even say "It doesn't work that way."

    "Science has proven time and time again that we hold on to all kinds of useless irrational things from our evolutionary past, why would this be any different?" - For the first time ever the code (genes/us) will edit itself based on introspection and not on natural selection. That's why this would be different.

  • wald0

    "....instinct is subject to change via our genetic code. The technology need only be developed"

    Again you are relying on technology to fix the problems you are creating that doesn't even exist yet. Look I am a chemist and I appreciate the rate at which our technology advances every day probably better than yourself. Just a week ago we got our first electron microscope at the university I work for and I got to actually see the crystaline formation of carbon atoms that make a diamond look like a diamond and not a lump of coal. We are capable of amazing things in science but, should we? Thats the real question. The fact that humans are mortal makes us what we are, it makes us human. It creates passion and inspires art that gives us a much better understanding of the world and a much deeper appreciation of the gift that is life. It plugs us into nature in a way that nothing else can, knowing that we will one day return to the constituents of which we are made and that those constituents will then continue their journey through this amazing universe- well thats something that satisfies me deeply. Knowing we only have one time around, one time to experience all the diversity, the sweet agony and intense pleasure of existence. I wouldn't change it for the world and I have lost many loved ones, in fact my father will be leaving us soon most likely. One of my favorite Phds said it this way, " Life is limitation becuase if we could be anything at anytime forever and ever nothing would really have any depth, nothing would really mean anything. Just as we have rules when we play a game for a reason, because without them the players are not forced into cognitive contemplation. Without limitations everything is equal to everything else and nothing is special. You are limited in many arbitrary ways, you are a limitted amount of athelete, you are a limitted amount of susceptibility to cancer, you are a limtted amount of genuise, and a limited amount of mentally ill, etc., etc. This is what gives you your unique identity. Therefore to "be" is to be limited and to be limited brings on suffering, and therefore to exist is to suffer." This was his rationalization for why the Buddhist say to live is to suffer, for why we all at times feel to live is to suffer. I agree with him one hundred precent, to "be" is to be limited. To exist a thing must start and stop somewhere, otherwise it melts into everything else and is not a seperate thing unto itself. The idea of living forever unbounds my existence until it can not be defined any longer as a seperate entity. Anyway, it ha sbeen nice debating with you- you make some excellent points. Welocome to TDF, I don't think we have ever spoken before. I can tell you will be fun to have around.

  • Mark Casper

    after 6 minutes of watching, nothing he said had not been said before. Pretty flaky film, lots of high meaning words, with no serious energy behind it to make it a go.

  • http://twitter.com/misslaneyjade Alayna Dobbin

    im not sure they really had a direct idea that they wanted to put forward. i enjoyed watching but i feel there were too many ideas that wernt very well developed

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6XQ4PDXZ3HKT6ZMNHZB7PCHTPA Michael

    eff all this new age, one world, propaganda.. they lost me at the "go green" san fran garbage! this has NOTHING to do with religion, history, or astronomy... and everything to do with brainwashing you into paying carbon taxes.. yeah.. i care about the planet.. no i'm not paying taxes on the air i breath. JESUS IS LORD!

  • kolo

    "Again you are relying on technology to fix the problems you are creating that doesn't even exist yet." -That's the crux of the issue. Humans don't see the need to develop any technology that doesn't immediately solve a problem (like CERN). Discovering things and creating technology should not be profit-based. The inherent value of a discovery/technology should be based on how much it can benefit humanity. Furthermore, we do not create problems. Problems are a byproduct of the struggle for survival. We tend to solve one problem, and are immediately faced by another. This is because systems are linked and often too complicated for us to understand. Every problem that has ever existed is linked, in some way, to our survival/propagation/desire. I'm not claiming that if we manage to remove those three things we wouldn't have "problems". The only difference is we would have permanent solutions (solutions based in equilibrium) instead of temporary solutions. We like temporary solutions because we are temporary beings.

    "We are capable of amazing things in science but, should we?" - We've tried the opposite. Remember the dark ages? My point is humanity keeps putting bandages on a capsizing boat. We can't even acknowledge that the boat might be sinking because we replace all our deckhands every half-century or so. They can read the past crews logs and diaries but they'll never glean that they need to jump ship to survive. I like this analogy!

    "The fact that humans are mortal makes us what we are, it makes us human." - "Human" is a label, like all other labels we like to use to describe ourselves. It gives us a sense of security, a sense of "we belong" to better cope with the inevitability of death. What I find a little funny is we refer to people that are terminally ill as "dying". We are all dying, my friend. Just because I'm not going anytime soon (I don't know this) doesn't make it any less real or sad. The ONLY difference is time.

    "It creates passion and inspires art that gives us a much better understanding of the world and a much deeper appreciation of the gift that is life." - I don't agree with this statement for many reasons. Firstly, assuming life is a gift necessarily means it has been given to us by "something/someone". That's OK, but it brings religion in to this and no debate can really be had there, at least not anything meaningful. I tend to think living a much greater lifespan would give us a better understanding of the world and inspire us to lengths that cannot be fathomed. For instance, some of the most amazing phenomena that happens in space is only observable over millions of years, such as the collision of two galaxies. Wonder what kind of art, books, movies, etc. that it'll inspire!

    "Knowing we only have one time around, one time to experience all the diversity, the sweet agony and intense pleasure of existence." -Yes, knowing this, makes you not care too much about what happens in 1,000 or 2,000 years until the planet is too hot to live on. You're so enveloped in the here and now. You're also panting heavily because you're in this race to "experience all the diversity". I say: stop running. Let's all stop running.

    "I wouldn't change it for the world..." - It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that that might be the cost of change.

    "Life is limitation becuase if we could be anything at anytime forever and ever nothing would really have any depth, nothing would really mean anything." - Life is the struggle to overcome limitation. Since we cannot overcome our own limitations (death), we focus our lives on all the other limitations we perceive can be overcome (money, friends, love, family, fame, etc). Overcoming these limitations provides us with comfort, because it reinforces the notion that we're in control of our own lives. However, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    "The idea of living forever unbounds my existence until it can not be defined any longer as a seperate entity." -Isn't that what happens when you die? Your existence is unbound and your constituents are no longer a separate entity and you "melt into everything else." So living forever is not that different, I think.

    Thank you for engaging in some mental weightlifting with me. You make some valid points that have allowed me to polish up my theories and make them more argument-resistant. I've been on TDF for a couple of years now but I'm glad to finally be a contributor to the comments. I'm sure our paths will cross again, but until then, thanks for the warm welcome Wald0!

  • kolo

    Jesus and brainwashing not in the same sentence? I feel my oxymoron senses tingling. <-- Highly opinionated statement.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DAOQZIWLP226UYPOIMTJRU6GXY David

    You are an id**t! Watch the whole thing before you act like you have it all figured out.

  • wald0

    Don't be so dramatic. Like I said I am a chemist and love science, I have no issue with technology nor do i wish to live in the dark ages. That said just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Doing away with something as fundamental as death would have enormous ramifications, whether you like to face that or not. Thankfully we don't simply act because we can, and we do try to contemplate the issues WE would be causing by changing the natural order of things. Very little happens in nature that is not necessary, nature has had millions of years to evolve into a system that works beautifuly with its surroundings. All one need do is look around at mans impact on the planet to realize that we are not near as smart as we would like to think. We study things and decide we understand them then we change them and boom, tons of unexpected consquences- many of which can never be rectified. This notion that simply because our consciousness derived from naural evolution anything we do is then also natural is ludicris. Nature has no conscious, it has no preconcieved goal or intention- it is driven by entropy to react chemically and physically with its self, which produces something we call the "natural order". As soon as we step in with our preconcieved ideas and goals and change that order we potentially create huge problems that we are now both responsible for and vernerable to. Now luckily I don't think I will have to worry about this particular issue in my life time, I will die long before we are capable of such things as immortality. So I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. You really haven't addressed a single concern I have presented accept to say we will create more technology to care of that as well. Number one I don't think that is a very compelling answer to the technical aspect of the issues I brought up and two it does nothinng to address the philosophical side of the argument. Man is not a rational being, we are motivated by all kinds of irrational concerns and ideaologies- you must address thi side of the issue if you ever hope to win consensus. Any way, good luck it was nice talking with you.

  • kolo

    "Man is not a rational being, we are motivated by all kinds of irrational concerns and ideaologies- you must address thi side of the issue if you ever hope to win consensus." - I have addressed this issue. In fact, that is the basis for my argument. Man is not a rational being because of death. We are motivated by all kinds of irrational concerns because of death. This is my argument. I'm attempting to link our mortality to all the problems that plague humanity. If you have an example to offer against this idea, please present it. But you have to be specific as in: This [problem] has nothing to do with us being mortal.

  • wald0

    Most humans will tell you they were at their worst behavior when they felt immortal as a teen and early adult. In fact fear of death is not considered by most psychologists to be a prime motivator of human behavior until around middle age. If we have such a horrible fear of death why do we have literally thousands of people willing to die for religion, political ideology, a sense of patriotism, or even just a adrenaline rush? Then we have the suicide folks; don’t seem to be motivated by a fear of death but a fear of living. I mean I can play the game you want to play as well, give me any problem related to human behavior and I will relate it to our desire to compete with others for the affections of the opposite sex. Or we can go with the old right wing conservative favorite- pop culture. Give me any problem related to human flourishing and I will connect it to the bubble gum psychology promoted by our fast food pop culture. It’s all about perception see, and each side can give compelling reasons why they have isolated the evil that is plaguing mankind and a passionate speech about the solution to boot. Yes being mortal has definitely shaped human psychology, that I would not deny. But in my opinion there is no one primary motivating factor to human behavior, no magic bullet that will suddenly make humans peaceful, rational beings. The human psyche is much more complicated than that. I am sure for some people the fear of death is a huge factor in their psychological makeup but, for others not so much. Not only do I not see it as a “cure all” for mankind’s woes but there also is the question of changing what has clearly been the natural order for millions of years. I mean we are already facing environmental concerns because of over population, concerns we can’t seem to solve. So if technology is going to save the day what is waiting on? Being a research scientist and having some experience in this process I would say it is waiting on us to stop placing profits before progress but, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. So at the least you would have to agree that before you could successfully implement such a thing there would have to be a major overhaul of the system that isn’t capable of even taking care of those that currently exist without wrecking the planet. Humans are impatient; expecting them to become patient rational beings simply because they will live forever is a mistake. People will still want to have more than others, to have power over others, to impress the opposite sex, they will still believe in political and religious ideologies, they will still believe in nationalism, they will still form prejudices and preconceptions that will complicate communications, and so forth and so on. Religion for instance offers people much more than a reprieve from death; it explains the universe and gives them purpose, it validates their morality, it gives them a group to belong to and to forge an identity within, etc. Anyway it is apparent we are not going to sway one another on this issue, which is why I have tried to dismiss it several times. I am not being rude I just don’t see the point.

  • kolo

    "If we have such a horrible fear of death why do we have literally thousands of people willing to die for religion, political ideology, a sense of patriotism, or even just a adrenaline rush? Then we have the suicide folks; don’t seem to be motivated by a fear of death but a fear of living." -People do not fear death, per say. I can readily say I do not fear dying. What I fear is the inevitability and uncertainty that accompanies death. Those that commit suicide "understand" the inevitability of death (in the sense that whether they die today or tomorrow it will, without a doubt, happen) and "fast-track" to the end with delusional certainty. If you convince yourself that "something" awaits you after death or something good will come of it, it becomes easy to commit suicide. Why? Because you "believe" with certainty what the end encompasses. However, no matter how strong your beliefs, 100% certainty is a subjective fantasy. Although some will disagree, because they are 100% certain. You can assuage fear through certainty, you see.

    "Cogito ergo sum." - philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes. It means: I think, therefore, I am. His presumption was one of the simplest and most easy to relate to: Humans think. Well, my argument is based on an even simpler presumption that everyone in the world knows to be an absolute certainty and is not open to question: death. I die, therefore, I live. We know only one thing: that death is certain. Therefore, we must live, and to live, entails a plethora of desires and wants. Anything you attach to the certainty of dying (such as an afterlife) will effect the way you "live." You see, simply believing the human "soul" can be immortal (religion) is enough to motivate millions of people to do "good." What might the certainty of immortality do for those that can't "believe?"

    "It’s all about perception see, and each side can give compelling reasons why they have isolated the evil that is plaguing mankind and a passionate speech about the solution to boot." -Right, it's all about perception. I agree. But the difference here is: I am not offering a compelling reason that can't be proven, I am simply saying "dying" is the only thing we know to be certain. Therefore living is the default thing to do. Do you not agree with this reasoning? I would like to reiterate that it is not fear of death that motivates us all, but the fear of what is inevitable and uncertain. If you are certain (ie. religion), there is nothing to fear. That's why religion is so popular and atheism is not. Atheism offers no certainty because faith is not a prerequisite. But with immortality - faith, atheism, and everything in between become moot.

    "Religion for instance offers people much more than a reprieve from death; it explains the universe and gives them purpose, it validates their morality, it gives them a group to belong to and to forge an identity within, etc." - You can't explain the universe and give someone purpose without addressing death. You see that right?

    We can agree to disagree. I'm fine with that Wald0.

  • kolo

    "I mean I can play the game you want to play as well, give me any problem related to human behavior and I will relate it to our desire to compete with others for the affections of the opposite sex. Or we can go with the old right wing conservative favorite- pop culture. Give me any problem related to human flourishing and I will connect it to the bubble gum psychology promoted by our fast food pop culture." - I was offering you a way to end the debate and prove me wrong. I am asking for any problem (anything at all) that CANNOT be related to human mortality. And if you cannot offer a single example, it only reconfirms my opinion that all our problems are linked to human mortality. Is my reasoning flawed? I ask because is that not how scientific theories are handled? If there is even one instance where the theory does not hold, then it must be incorrect. I'm playing the scientific method game, which are you playing?

    Why do we desire to compete with others for the affections of the opposite/same sex? Why does our fast food pop culture promote a "bubble gum psychology?" These questions must first be answered.

  • wald0

    Its like you are a broken record or something. You just repeat the same certainty over and over, never really offering anything more than your opinion. Where are all the psychological studies to back your assertion that man is motivated primarily by the fear of death? I can show you thousands of papers writtten by some of the most reputable psychologist to ever live about how sex is the prime motivator, the desire to pass on our genetic code. This is not a rational desire that will go away because it isn't logical, it is embedded in our primitive brain. We are animals like any other animal and we respond to instinctual drives that we are not even aware of. That's why I do not believe they will go away simply becuase they are no longer logical. And don't think that I didn't notice that you never addressed the issue of why technology isn't saving the day right now and how we are going to change that. How the lack of death will suddenly make people no longer crave power or to be richer than others. How will it allow us to do away with money and social status is beyond me really. Not that I want you to address these points really, your opinion on them would carry no more weight than mine so what is the point?

    No offense intended but you come off a bit like some young, fresh out of college, kid that thinks they know for sure what motivates every action around them. You are playing a game but, you are not aware of that I think. I just got finished telling you I could link any problem you give me in a rational honest way with sex drive. Does that not tell you that simply because you can play the same game and link it to fear of death doesn't mean anything? No, you want to set up some arbitrary mark I must meet and if i can't do so then I have lost the argument according to you. What you refuse to accept is the mark you have set is arbitrary and can/has been hit by many. That doesn't make them right it only proves that just because we can rationalize why this or that fear is the prime motivator of human behavior doesn't make it so. Of course you are convinced what you believe is the truth of it, so was Freud and countless others. They could rationalize everything you threw at them, just as you can. They even had scientific data to back their assertions, something I am sure you could provide if given enough time to research. Notice that through out our argument time and time again you read the phase "in my opinion" in most of my posts- thats a phrase you would do your self a great credit to start using and meaning- in my opinion. And please realize that when debating you do not get to tell your opponent what they must do or what standard they must meet to win, nor do you get to be the judge of when they have hit that mark. In my opinion you haven't proven anything, you have simply made strong assertions based on your opinions or the opinions of others. Further more you have decided to not only participate in the debate but to declare yourself the moderator as well. Not a very inspiring performance, in my opinion that is.

  • wald0

    "If there is even one instance where the theory does not hold, then it must be incorrect"

    No, this isn't how scientific theories are handled. Science goes with the weight of emperical evidence. I can show you many things that seem to contradict evolution but, that doesn't mean evolution isn't a valid theory. I can do the same with the big bang, I can poke holes all in it and show you things it simply doesn't account for that are reality, but it is still a valid theory. They remain valid because the vast weight of evidence says they are correct, even if one or two anomolies suggest they may not be. There are some cases when one result can destory a theory, when "A" simply can not be if we observe "b" then- well you see what I mean. But we are not discussing a material thing that can be measured. Just because you can rationalize that this or that is caused by the fear of death doesn't make it an empirical certainty, surely you realize this. Freud rationalized and proved to his satisfaction through scientific experiments that we are motivated by sex drive, does that mean sex drive is the primary motivating factor behind human behavior though? No, of course it doesn't. You are trying to take a very abstract and complicated problem, human behvior, and turn into something that can be quantified and measured to a certainty, its a waist of time. The only way to empirically prove your point would be to take a cartain amount of people and make them immortal, then isolate them from the rest of mortal man's world and see what the outcome is in say three or four generations. Of course you would also have to isolate a group of people that were still mortal and make sure they had exactly the same experiences and stimuli to see what the real difference in out come is, a control group. Look people can't tell you why they do the things they do, you can't open thier head like a car hood and look inside to see either, so thinking you know for sure what motivates an entire species is really an exercise in hubris if you ask me. Does that mean we shouldn't form opinions, no. It means we should recognize them for what they are opinions, nothing more.

  • wald0

    Look before you say anything let me apologize. I am having a really bad day, someone very close to me died last night and i am just angry at the world. I read what I posted and though I do believe every word of it I also realize it sounds very ugly in ways, I am sorry. I really should not post for a few days until I am back to myself, which is not an ugly perosn. Thanks for the discussion and you do make some valid points. I don't think you have proven anything but, in this area it is really impossible to do so. Like i have already stated people can't tell u why they do things themselves, so the best we can do is make rational assumptions.

  • kolo

    "I am having a really bad day, someone very close to me died last night and i am just angry at the world." - I am terribly sorry for your loss. When I first read your post I decided I was going to use this specific event, and your emotions towards me, to make a point. However, as I reflected, I realized my intent was to spite and not to clarify my opinion. For that, I am sorry.

    Yes, I sound arrogant at times. But isn't that true of everyone that holds a strong opinion? We are both the same in a way. We've battled throughout these comments to try to prove our points without any hope of reward save that of self assurance/glorification. For that, I salute you. Grieve in peace, and again, sorry for your loss.

  • superbany

    What is that flying thing in the sky in 16:45 ?? anyone??

  • Andrew Peterson

    Congratulations you have won the “most repugnant thing I read today” award. May you bare it with the shame it deserves.

  • goesbetween

    Superb! KEEP BEING.....Awaken

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LUQXXV5LX2EM4VP4BFZLEV7XBQ Tony

    Wow - reading these comments is far more 'enlightening' than watching this poorly researched, very boring documentary . . . and by these comments, I think it proves that not even the documentary's core teachings have been learnt and that the WRONG WAY is 'The Way' that has been taken.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000259746432 J Ryan Villaluz

    UFO in 9:25 to 9:30!!!! ????

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    You know what I love is this recent idea of "increased consciousness". Apparently, the folks spreading this nonsense don't even so much as know the definition of the word "consciousness". Something is either conscious, or it is not. There aren't any "levels of consciousness".

    And I'm sorry, but "perspectives" don't "evolve". "Interpretations" might "evolve". "Understanding" most certainly "evolves". But "perspective" is what it is.

    Sounds like word-sorting for the purpose of forming a new religion.

    Besides... We're all gonna die on December 21st, so none of this matters anyhow! LOL!!!!

    But seriously folks.... The only thing I fear is LIVING!! Or more specifically: Living on a planet where the dominant species reproduces unchecked; has no natural enemies; is hell-bent on curing death; all so that it can go on chewing up resources for the sake of it's own entertainment, while beating-down anything that gets in its way; until finally, it has snuffed-out every other species other than itself, and we all go out screaming: "NO FAIR! NO FAIR! THEY SAID WE WOULD GET TO BE SPACEMEN!"

  • vinay chodnacar

    David, I find it difficult to disagree with the latter half of what you say but find it just as difficult to agree with the first half. In your understanding of the definition of consciousness what do you explain of the sub-conscious and un-conscious please ? Do you get my drift ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    "..what do you explain of the sub-conscious and un-conscious..

    Umm... I'll take "Words That Freud Invented" for $500, Alex...

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HIPLOWDQSS44DTB7RW6RLSQ644 Jason P

    If you're going to try to be cute, and especially when referencing a wonderful quiz show that is rooted in fact, you should probably get your facts straight. Locke was the first to write extensively about the conscious in 1690 in his paper "Concerning human understanding", but the word had been around since the 1500's, and was used by Descartes in the 1600's. All of this long before Freud. Jeez.

    The commentary on this forum has gone down hill considerably as it's popularity has grown.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HIPLOWDQSS44DTB7RW6RLSQ644 Jason P

    You didn't really need to add that you're afraid of living. It's quite obvious. You're absolutely terrified of something that is much larger than you. It's too bad, because you are a part of it, but you're probably afraid of yourself as well. You should check out Trutheism. But it proposes it's spiritual findings based on scientific method and fact. Judging from your ignorant Freud gaff, you don't care much for fact. And while your at it, why don't you look at how many species have died off, since the beginning of life. Millions of them, and all before man arrived.

  • dopefire14

    Fact : If We are Not Open to Change We Won't Change, You Have to Want it! You Have to Wan't to Make Yourself, Your World Better and Everything Else Most Important Your Living. That''s Why I Refuse to Settle in this World, I Refuse to Settle and Accept Well this was how the World Was When I Came in it and This is it Now. No. You Cannot Depend on Everything to Happen for You. You Cannot Depend on People to Change. You Have to Change First in Order to Help Others Who Live in Fear without Being Aware of their Own Consciousness. Look at the Word ''Conscience'' - Break it Down to Science. Science is Spirituality Which Comes From Your Mind, Your Brain, The State of Being Aware of an External Object or Something within Oneself. Meaning Knowing How to Express Yourself in Both Ways is Truly Powerful and When Nowadays it's Rare to Be like That Without Being Criticized. No. That's Wrong We Need Common Ground as People to Make this World Better. 2012 - Is Either the End of Ignorance and Awakening Global Consciousness or The Choice to Keep Living in Deception. Your Choice.

  • http://twitter.com/LaurieLacey LaurieLacey

    Actually, what people are often referring to when they say "levels of consciousness," are levels of heightened conscious realization or awareness. For example, in Buddhism, there are various states of Nirvana - in Hinduism and Yoga, there are progressive states of Samadhi. In a sense, they could be called levels, or, at least, a progression into greater awareness (consciousness), if consciousness is defined as awareness. So, in reality, the term, "consciousness," isn't cut and dry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    Consciousness is that which can see. Awareness is that which knows why it must be seen.

  • causeIsaidsob

    This bickering back and forth is interesting. Fact is everyone is entitled to their opinion. Those opinions be it fact or not are unique perspectives. We all want to believe we have the facts but if you didn't experience it yourself and didn't document it yourself how can you be so sure who said what n when? Fact is we are all going on our gut and limited intelligence to decifer this "reality" so it's simply best to respect people's perspective for what it is n stop making it into something it's not.

  • PrioriPete

    True Nature is that which is not forced, imposed, arbitrary, but innocent and free ie; harmless and without harmful consequences. Evolution is the cycle of material development as to the reincarnation of the self. It is when the material entity, or subconscious soul, or self is transformed usually by a miracle or pure principle that the soul transforms the spirit as the material is transcended into being. The awareness is consciousness.

    AT the moment, we are caught in the loop of subjective material developments deteriorated in a static state of affairs.

    That's right, even if we are faced with the truth, our own minds are corrupted to be consciously aware of that reality.. That's why it's ideal for someone who is not always corrupted by material and political developments to have a fair idea of reality. None of those in the documentary qualify. They all have agendas..

  • http://twitter.com/DaveSinewave Dave Sinewave

    yes, 5% of the humanity *-1%* might be on the brink of a higher consciousness. um... actually we are already much more conscious! Hell, people living in Iran and other Western ruined countries are unbelievably conscious! :) On the more serious note, 95% of the world is just living in the cruel reality as it is, and nothing can help them but to change the way we all live upside-down. Change the society upside-down. Capitalism has to be eliminated!

    The author is obviously living in a developed, industrial country, and have no clue how it is for the rest of the world. You Americans are such interesting and so biased beings. Incredible. Nothing exists outside America, huh? Higher consciousness is a new age banana. Help others, and your own countrymen to live normally, rather than dwelling in this completely egocentric bs.

  • http://twitter.com/DaveSinewave Dave Sinewave

    Your religion has made this world a living hell, and it still tries to. Just stuff it.

  • http://twitter.com/DaveSinewave Dave Sinewave

    Are you aware of how many people are barely living in this world? Is that conscious enough for you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1324026670 Adrik Jeffery

    I am sick of all these talks on; Spiritual transcendence. Spirituality has nothing to do with what needs to be done. Materialism is and always will be the driving force of our species. I believe the world needs to work together to create a sustainable society, in which segregation and conflicting spiritual views stop causing conflict. It's obvious that regardless of whether or not global warming happens, the population of the world will reach a maximum soon, and unless we start colonizing(terraforming) planets there is just not going to be enough space for all of us, even if we are all tree hugging, psychedelic tripping, love struck, do-gooders, with the best of moral intentions. Millions will starve; our ego driven idea of the spiritual self being so moral and nice will go out the window, when everyone starts getting hungry, and the idea of having kids becomes taboo.

  • kimsta

    Its simple things every day on a small scale on individual level that make all this happen. As soon as we grasp the key to a fulfilled live, living for others as well as yourself where every human life is valued as equal a change will come. We are so absorbed in the high pace of our current lifestyle just trying to survive that we don't notice and recognize the things that we have and truly hold dear.

    Just a simple shift in thought patterns and outlooks and perspectives can change the course of ones life in a relatively easy way but all these types of changes take time.

    Lead by example.

  • RickI howe

    research =55% of service to others is the tipping pont 45% are materialistic service to self ,see the science as well as the metaphysical data utube davidwilcock333 event horizon prt4

  • mRIDI

    Can u remove Nanobots from your bloodsystem or brain?

  • mRIDI

    just a question if it's possible at all & if so how would u remove them?