# The Rebirth of Man (My theory/prediction for the future)



## Sock (Nov 18, 2007)

*Hey this is basically just my ideal image of the future. The essay  is part philosophy, part social critique. I am just wondering if anyone would care to point out some flaw or fallacies in the concept and perhaps add some of their own. Also, would anyone have any suggested reading for a topic such as this? I have read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and I can see in someways how this theory matches up with that. Thanks.    *



             My theory is based around the notion that society and civilization as we know it is disposable and that the sociological progression of man is dependant on the abolition of modern social constructs. What I am attempting to uncover is how man might better himself through such a monumental event. But, I will first explain why such an event must take place.

               It is no secret that man is (or has perhaps become) the destroyer. And by this, I mean we have pitted ourselves against nature, and made the decision to exploit it for our needs. We in many ways resemble parasites: Sucking life from everything around us, consuming and consuming, relying on the earth to constantly provide more and more resources. It doesn’t take an expert to tell you that we can not live like this forever. 

             In fact, this way of life is coming to an end very soon, and we are already facing the consequences of it. You don’t need me to tell you about global warming, deforestation and the pollution of our ecosystems. And although we often think of these things as issues that have been around for a while, things that are slowly killing our planet; the reality of the situation is that (in the retrospective lifetime of Earth) this is a sharp and sudden blow. 

               Every “civilized” nation on the planet is completely and utterly dependent on fossil fuels. They are used for just about everything: Heating and cooling your home, transporting goods, even our fertilizers contain methane gas. As of yet, “alternative energy” is not an option. Virtually all forms of energy (electric or otherwise) are created by the burning of a fossil fuel. If you look into any method of producing energy (from nuclear reactors to solar panels) oil is used to either manufacture and maintain equipment or transport materials. Even the “fuel-cell” (car battery powered by hydrogen) is not practical as the hydrogen is created with the use of methane gas.

               So it is clear: When we run out of oil, mankind will be drastically changed. 

  So why aren’t we stopping this counterproductive behavior? Why aren’t we all riding our bicycles and fighting to end the use of fossil fuels? Why are the products that at least burn fossil fuels at a slower rate are so expensive and difficult to acquire?

  The answer is simple, and is in fact the next reason that I feel modern civilization is reaching the end of its life span. The fate of our planet, and ultimately the fate of our species as a whole are in the hands of “the establishment". One could go on to talk about the social/economic elite and how “less than 100 men control the world”, but I feel that the reality of the situation is much different. Man’s creation (his social construct) has surpassed him. And what we see now is the establishment running and making decisions on its own momentum. Man no longer runs society, society runs man. We have created a “machine” that taps into a certain dark spot in our minds. We all have it, (some more than others) and we all obey (with a few exceptions). A void has been created between man, and mankind.

  So, once thinking under this logic we can make a hypothesis for the future. If man truly has separated himself from “mankind”, and mankind is dependent on resources that can not be renewed, such as oil then what happens when oil disappears? It is only reasonable to conclude that “mankind” disappears with it. But “mankind” here does not mean every man. We are in this case referring to the destructive and wasteful establishment we created for ourselves. And although the “death of mankind” would claim many human lives, it would not claim all.

  And now that this “mankind” as we know it is dead, the living humans are now free to create the new system. I will refer to this as “the Rebirth of Mankind” 

  So, I have outlined now why I believe a drastic change is bound to take place. Now I will attempt to predict what this change might be, and how we could benefit from it.

  As I mentioned earlier, the end of oil would play a massive roll in triggering the “Rebirth of Mankind”. For the obvious reasons (stock market crash, industry becomes impossible etc) but also because of war. And more specifically nuclear war.

  I mentioned above that many people would have to die for the rebirth to begin. A nuclear war could, potentially, cause this. Natural disasters are another likely cause. Without oil, evacuating a danger zone would be impossible. An event such as Hurricane Katrina would lead to unfathomable death. 

  This really is beside the point I am trying to make however. Which is that for man to progress evolutionally we must first regress socially. To the point of (at least temporarily) abolishing society completely. In the words of Terrence McKenna “Culture is not your friend”.

  What I would hope to see, is man finally realizing that he no longer needs society to progress. Man finally finding the ability to live plentifully by his own means. The question is: is man ready for this? Does man have the ability to do so as of yet? 

  I would have to say as a whole: no we can not do this. Certainly there are men who have intelligence to progress on their own, without the help of institutions and government funding. But it is not the norm. My hope is that this ability becomes the norm by the time Rebirth begins. What this would mean, is that people all over the world would be living (perhaps in small tribal like settings), working not only to survive but to better themselves, but to rebuild technology as well. The result would be: Fewer men, more man power. And by this I mean what would take thirty men before may now take only one. A tribe of one hundred men might do the job of an entire city.

  I know this has been a very long, broad rant so I will offer a summary and conclusion now. It is my belief that modern society serves one purpose, and that is to equip man with the information he needs to advance on his own. Once this is achieved I think society will be crushed, and peeled away by nature, leaving man to rebuild himself. I went on to explain that in this fashion man would be more inclined to use his knowledge and skill and we would see a higher concentration of progressive thinkers.


----------



## JohnN (Nov 19, 2007)

hmm I am not sure I follow your argument...

I do not believe that modern society only exists to equip man with information to advance on his own. Man is not an island. We are social beings and society creates a forum for us to interact as social beings. I think your perspective is too individualist. Culture does have value and so does society. The rebirth of mankind will likely take a catastrophe but oil running out is not one of them. We will adapt and change but not be reborn.

I would say in history its probably only the end of the roman empire, the enlightenment and the 2nd world war that has led to a rebirth. I have my doubts about oil.


----------



## Sock (Nov 19, 2007)

I don't necessarily think society should be abolished forever. But rather our idea of what modern society is and what it should accomplish for us. In short, I think we need to stop expecting someone else to push us along, and instead become an active part of history. 

     I think perhaps I stressed oil depletion a bit much. It might have been a bit distracting. But it is not oil that would cause the rebirth, but the turmoil and chaos that would come from not having it. Wars, panic etc. 

     Anyhow, thanks a lot for the reply. Appreciate it.


----------



## JohnN (Nov 21, 2007)

So you are arguing for more individualism. Fair enough. 

I think humans achieve more when they work together than as individuals. No man is an island etc etc. The basis of my reasoning is philsophical. I think individualism is a myth anyway. Everyone depends on someone else. Whether its the Policeman to protect you or Electronic Engineer to design your ipod. 

If you take your argument one step further it seems you are asking for anarchy. Or at least a very strict Libertarianism. In which case I suggest you read John Rawls who rightfully argues that while Libertarianism is possible, its unfair. 

Society makes the world a fairer place. That's why I think we need to keep it. The current model may not be the best. But abolishing it, is out of the question.


----------



## impactblade (Nov 21, 2007)

Sock said:


> *Hey this is basically just my ideal image of the future. The essay is part philosophy, part social critique. I am just wondering if anyone would care to point out some flaw or fallacies in the concept and perhaps add some of their own. Also, would anyone have any suggested reading for a topic such as this? I have read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and I can see in someways how this theory matches up with that. Thanks. *
> 
> It is no secret that man is (or has perhaps become) the destroyer. And by this, I mean we have pitted ourselves against nature, and made the decision to exploit it for our needs. We in many ways resemble parasites: Sucking life from everything around us, consuming and consuming, relying on the earth to constantly provide more and more resources. It doesn’t take an expert to tell you that we can not live like this forever.
> 
> ...


 
i disagree with your point here, we are not utterly dependtant on it, by this i mean although we do put a large ammount of dependency into it, we do have other methods. 

i know its also a fossile fuel, but coal is an alternative to oil, maybe not the best one, but it is still there. 

if nessicary (sorry cant spell nessicary ) we can find other modes of transport , and generating power. 

for example many of us do still walk, cutting out the need for cars by walking would get us somewhere , and bicycles are useful.

there are many alternative ways of generating power , aside from fossile fules. for example wind power, hydro power, and solar power. 

these may, not always work and would be costly, but i think this shows that there are many alternatives to using oil, meaning that, once the oils out, it isnt the end.


----------



## Sock (Nov 21, 2007)

> If you take your argument one step further it seems you are asking for anarchy. Or at least a very strict Libertarianism.


The political structure would be what is known as _libertarian-socialism_, which sounds like a contradiction but it makes sense once you read more about it. Certainly my ideal society, check it out.



> there are many alternative ways of generating power , aside from fossile fules. for example wind power, hydro power, and solar power.


But to manufacture the generators that make these things possible, we need oil. Factory costs, transportation, etc.


----------



## JohnN (Nov 22, 2007)

I've never heard of libertarian-socialism, I will check it out.


----------

