Nature Onto Man

Look o' Last Men at the land of your predecessors who lived and died on the Po Valley, River Thames, or the Mongolian Steppe. A land that produced titans who roamed across the earth, desecrated populations, loved life, and produced beautiful cultures. What separates us from them? With more humans around, being fed better, and enjoying modern medicine, why hasn't an explosion of culture & love of life happened? In short, the divider is the environment we are surrounded by. The environment is the bedrock of culture; with it divorced from man, culture begins to rot into an indigestible state and sicken people.

Modern man exists in a sterile society that hates life. What other reason would there be for it hating color? Most modern architecture, whether homes in the Midwest or large buildings in Tokyo, Dubai, or NYC, primarily relies on a lack of color, with emphasis on greys and whites. Only in the ruins of previous societies, such as Istanbul or Kyoto, would the reemergence of a varied color palette emerge. While the millennials and the left of the 80s-2010s tried to rectify this by embracing colorful tattoos and hair dyes, the result of this is an uglier state. To try to overcome the symptoms without care for the root of the problem will only lead to us stumbling over and over again.

Another indicator of loving life is a large birth rate. While most would make materialistic arguments regarding the new economic "needs" of people today, the need to breed has always been a constant throughout history. You could argue that with contraceptives, people may enjoy sex without producing children, but most modern statistics show that the amount of sex people have has decreased dramatically.

I believe a fundamental reason why modern society can't recreate beauty is due to how it is too mechanical. When we interact with clocks or phones, we only see gears and chips. In turn, we extrapolate these tiny observations to higher thought. This may be why the notion of "love being chemicals" and other similar assertions emerge. Compare this to someone who grew up near animals and isn't able to pinpoint what makes these animals what they are beyond their essence. Thus would emerge spirituality and other silly notions condemned today. There are thousands of other observations that're also made which influence our thoughts, that should be mentioned, but this is the most important one.

One reason why globohomo culture consistently conquers traditional societies, like the Muslims, is that the culture it created is suited for the artificial environment these regions are surrounded by. Therefore, traditional societies will never stop the entropy of their populations embracing globohomo until it, in turn, becomes a new globohomo that is properly adapted to the new environment. This is like the axial religions managing to displace pre-axial pagan religion. How to become the new globo homo is up to anyone's guess, though.

Perhaps this isn't the best decision, however. Maybe we shouldn't try to continue playing the game that has been set up in the post-WW2 era, and instead try to construct a more human environment. Maybe thousands of 1k pop. communes would be for the best. While people may contest this, saying it isn't economically valuable and that China will outpace America if we choose that path, I am certain that sacrificing economics for a stable society will be best in the end.

I never thought of Istanbul as a colorful place. It's a low, gray city, with some handsome buildings left over from a long time ago. I would say the same for Kyoto, where the oldest buildings you'll see beyond the central quarters are postwar shacks made of wood and corrugated tin (the latter is for siding, which can rust into interesting shades). They were both swept over the past hundred years by similar movements for modernizing cities. There's plenty of concrete. Both are home to some beautiful, austere modernist structures. The bazaars and shotengai are colorful, it's true, but you might prefer Varanasi. Port-au-Prince is colorful—plenty of blacks, but not just grays and whites.

Since you mention it, fertility is holding steady in Haiti, too.

What if, along with thousands of communes, you wanted a stable government? I'll take North Korea as an example, then, where the recent campaigns to wipe out the country's Stalinist architectural legacy and house the masses have resulted in some interesting buildings. I'm not particularly interested in the neo-traditionalist official buildings. I appreciate but don't care much for the glass/concrete on Mirae Scientists Street and the monumental halls of Ryomyong New Town. The residential compounds that are being built are an interesting solution to modern problems, however. I know they look a bit sleek and charmless in the heavily edited official pictures, but glimpses of them in documentary footage suggest the opposite. You could have a garden and a hearth. You would be close to your neighbors, but not too close. The field and factory are within walking distance. These things can be turned out cheaply enough that your son can move into one with his wife. These homes apparently lack cutting-edge insulation, but I hate overheated rooms in winter, anyway.

Port-au-Prince or Pyongyang?

> Port-au-Prince or Pyongyang?

Asks the DMV lady, her voice dripping with smug sass.

You rub your eyes. The room is oddly dark and extremely hot. What is this place? Why am I here?

You remember the scream of the engine, the wind in your hair...

What happened? Your heart sits heavily in your chest, yet you feel oddly weightless.

IMMA AXE YOU ONE MORE TIME. PORT AU PRINCE OR PYON YAN. I AIN GOT ALL DAY

>The bazaars and shotengai are colorful, it's true, but you might prefer Varanasi. Port-au-Prince is colorful—plenty of blacks, but not just grays and whites. Since you mention it, fertility is holding steady in Haiti, too.

I think this is only a testament to the poverty of Haiti rather than their love of life. All societies want to hold modernist cities, and those with colorful or culturally independent cities are of places which lack the means to become them.

> I believe a fundamental reason why modern society can't recreate beauty is due to how it is too mechanical. When we interact with clocks or phones, we only see gears and chips. In turn, we extrapolate these tiny observations to higher thought. This may be why the notion of "love being chemicals" and other similar assertions emerge. Compare this to someone who grew up near animals and isn't able to pinpoint what makes these animals what they are beyond their essence. Thus would emerge spirituality and other silly notions condemned today. There are thousands of other observations that're also made which influence our thoughts, that should be mentioned, but this is the most important one.

this is beautiful anon. thank you.