/cy/ - Cyberpunk

>>2480
The point of the China though experiment was to show just how fragile our supply chain is. There is basically nowhere in the modern world that isn't totally reliant on people continents away for things like food and energy. Modern society simply cannot exist without the worldwide apparatus working at all times. Once things do collapse it will be over before anyone realizes it started. One day there just won't be the latest shipment of food to your area and people will starve. In the before times self-sufficiency was the rule, only the largest cities could get away with importing necessities. Now we have things like plastics with an absurdly complicated manufacturing process being the basic material for all consumer goods. As for soc ail collapse, that IS happening. About a third of the male population is simply not engaging in society. They don't work and spend their days watching tv and jerking off. People aren't forming relationships, marriage and birthrates near extinction levels of low; with millions of third worlders being imported to make up the difference. Most Americans have never had a real friend. And this trend started long before the internet, it's a result of humanity attempting to excise it's tribal nature. One of the few peoples in America to actually retain a healthy society is the Amish. Seriously look into them if you haven't; they basically escaped modernity. They are absurdly more healthy; physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually than the average American because they as their ancestors have for centuries; they live in a way fitting humanity.

>>2482
I'm just going to pop in here and fundamentally disagree with you on nearly every point. Except maybe the short-term fragility of supply chains (which is basically a truism).
I think the core of your misunderstanding is that you are confusing governments and social relations with what is actually the structure and prime mover of modern society: capital flows and capital accumulation. In this way your claim that current societal problems portend of some major systems collapse is both right, on a surface level, and wrong in a crucial way. Since, the collapse of the federal government, although I am deeply skeptical of this, is in no way a collapse of the actual systems of control and domination, which are truthfully in the hands of corporate elite and transnational capital.
It is also in this way that you are only correct to point out the short-term vulnerability of supply chains; the fluidity of transnational capital means it is only answerable to the whims and decisions of separate governments in superficial ways.
Furthermore, your point relating to the desirability of Amish society seems to be far too idealistic, if we put aside the massive concerns most people would have with such a change. Idealistic in that it assumes that by rejecting the cultural forms of capital accumulation we are somehow free of the economic or material domination as well. No, the Amish are free only from the modern cultural manifestations of market forces and have only managed to revive the outmoded face of societal structure, while still in the same boat of economic domination as the rest of us. Not to mention it remains to be seen how long that cultural facade can hold against the revolutionary force of capital.
It is what appears to you as cultural collapse that is in fact the system reordering itself completely in service to its economic ends; not collapse but refinement. It may be worthwhile to wonder just how malleable humans are, and whether this restructuring might not push us too far, but it would be a misunderstanding to see it as degradation at a system level analysis.


As a final note, whatever health benefits the Chinese may have inherited from the generational concentration of Chi will have to be measured against the material demands of global capital on their descendants.

Addendum: any appearance of communist thought in my writing Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2484
This! I have nothing also to add.

>>2468
Rich get richer.
Poor get poorer.
While the establishment that enslaves us destroys the environment.
Meanwhile the establishement tells us its our fault the environment dies and not that one of big corpos.
Those in power can only uphold the current state with retardedly hardcore propaganda and some look through it and others dont.
So its people against people, both h8 society for the same reasons but come from a different argumentation.

>>2487
The system of unequal wealth distribution is, unfortunately, a fairly stable system, and when it is destroyed, it is either semi-permanently replaced by an alternative or it quickly returns, albeit often in a different form.
The problem with modern propaganda is that while it is a lot, it is not of high quality. It mostly consists of variations of the same few stories, combined with a few buzzwords that, if you recognized them and have some degree of pattern recognition, you all know.
The whole destruction of nature thing is indeed pretty bad, but can still be reversed by reforestation and reduction of production.