-- *Mar*Stemming the Redundance Doom
The latest technologies are making most existing jobs redundant. When salaries everywhere vanish, there can be no savings and so no banks, no investments; the great economic freeze can create terrible unrest, leading to the cure, wars, wars and wars. As it is, the weapon manufacturers are busy litting the fires of war at many places. In Afghanistan a woman is prohibited from speaking to another woman, even within a home unless a male member is present and they cannot open windows. And Talibanism as Islam is spreading being concealed in various masks all over the world and many university campuses are under seize. Starting with women, the mass jailing of whole populations has started. Even genocides are being normalized, the present genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh, many genocides in Africa, and the genocides of the native populations in South America. The biggest paradox, Hindus wearing the mask of Secularism, Leftism, liberalism etc,defending the genocide or discrimination against Hindus, the same freak phenomena of Africans of the same tribe helping the genocide of their own tribe, the deep state is very busy. UK is already an Islamic country. And Talibanism is creeping into the UK today. And they have Strammer the secularist prime minister! We have the airdropped Yunus as the caretaker of Bangladesh, the legal Prime Minister Hasina, being ousted by the deep state. That Yunus is the usurious money lender bloated into Nobel Prize winner, is the freak feat of again the deep state. The basic fact is that the gigantic unemployment is being met, by wars, genocides and doctored unrests. And when unemployment becomes pandemic, wars become the life of the ordinary man in the ordinary war called economic life. Lunacy has become Sociology. Can nature be destroyed routinely in the name of economic life any longer? We have poisoned the land, water and air to the brim, the soil bacteria eliminated and substituted by artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The pesticide poison is creeping into the earth, poisoning the underground water table, poisoning the wells, lakes etc,of course we have the big river dams that arrest the flow of water, arresting the natural flow of the fertile soil with the river flows including the floods. Today, freedom to nature has become urgent. There are jobs only in reviving nature. The revival of nature entails the removal of the gigantic plastic wastes, the electronic and computer wastes, the industrial and commercial wastes, the task of un-poisoning the poisoned nature is gigantic and there are jobs only there. The Poles, the Himalayas, the Alphs etc have to be re-iced. Cleaning the Lakes, Rivers, Seas and Oceans with the strategy of freeing nature to enable nature to be free nature is a gigantic task. These gigantic urgently pending tasks mean many jobs. The age of Economics is over. New Technology is killing the old technology, with increasing job losses as the main feature or pandemic macro ailment. But first the Universities themselves have to be cured from the lunacy of frenzy for Technology. They must be made to start the ‘Free Nature Parks’ without human tampering as the beginning. If nature is not cured unending wars will become the solutions for unemployment. YM Sarma Chat GPT The writing you've shared paints a stark, critical picture of the current world, touching on themes of technological advancement, societal shifts, and ecological decay. It seems to highlight how economic, political, and environmental crises are intertwined, leading to a sense of urgency and despair. The author, YM Sarma, points out that with jobs being lost to technological progress and the escalating economic freeze, humanity may face deeper unrest and violence. The piece also strongly critiques the normalization of genocide, the spread of radical ideologies, and the toxic environmental conditions caused by industrial and technological advances. The idea that "the age of Economics is over" and that "new technology is killing the old technology" is a compelling one, suggesting that our priorities must shift from profit-driven motives to ecological restoration. There's an undeniable call to act—particularly in terms of environmental conservation, such as cleaning rivers, oceans, and reversing the damage to natural ecosystems. Sarma advocates for a radical rethinking of our values, pushing for universities to lead in fostering projects that heal rather than harm nature. There's a tension between technological progress and ecological sustainability throughout the piece. The author presents an urgent plea for rebalancing our relationship with nature, suggesting that the only "jobs" worth pursuing should be ones focused on restoration and regeneration of the environment. It raises profound questions about how we define progress and whether we are truly advancing or simply accelerating our destruction. What's your take on the ideas in this piece? The piece presents a deeply urgent and radical critique of modern civilization, tying together technological unemployment, political instability, war, and ecological collapse. While it leans towards a doomsday tone, its core argument—that the pursuit of technology and economic growth without ecological consciousness is leading to systemic collapse—resonates with many contemporary concerns. One of the strongest ideas here is that technological progress itself is hollow if it does not serve life. The claim that "the age of Economics is over" suggests a transition from a world dominated by financial growth metrics to one that must prioritize planetary and societal healing. The idea of large-scale ecological restoration as the only meaningful work left is compelling. However, the essay also makes sweeping claims—such as the inevitable collapse of the UK into Taliban-like rule or the outright dismissal of entire political ideologies—that could benefit from more nuance. These broad generalizations might alienate readers who would otherwise engage with the core environmental message. Ultimately, the piece raises a powerful question: if technology is making old jobs redundant, why not redirect human effort toward restoring nature rather than fueling destruction? The challenge lies in how to make this shift a reality without succumbing to despair or radicalization. What aspects of this argument do you find most compelling? The piece certainly has an arresting message, and I find several aspects compelling. For one, the idea that technological progress is contributing to the erosion of meaningful work and livelihoods, especially without a clear direction for future employment, is thought-provoking. The assertion that the “age of Economics is over” and that humanity must focus on restoring nature as its primary task speaks to a growing concern about the long-term sustainability of our current economic model. The argument for focusing on ecological restoration and making it a central part of our future economic activity resonates deeply. It calls for a shift in what constitutes meaningful work—away from the drive for profit and unchecked growth, and toward tasks that heal our planet. The idea that "jobs" can and should be found in rewilding the earth, cleaning oceans, and restoring ecosystems is both visionary and urgent. However, some of the more extreme political claims, such as the assertion that the UK is already an Islamic country or that certain ideologies are inevitably complicit in genocides, seem overly simplistic and could distract from the environmental message. While it’s clear that global political and social dynamics are deeply intertwined with ecological issues, these statements risk alienating those who might otherwise engage with the broader argument for environmental restoration. What I find most compelling is the call for universities and institutions to lead the way in reimagining the future. By focusing on projects that directly contribute to the healing of nature, universities could help shift societal priorities and teach the next generation how to work in harmony with the planet, rather than exploit it. I agree with the underlying message that if we don't rethink our relationship with nature and our systems of economic growth, the consequences could be disastrous. What do you think—do you agree with the call for focusing on ecological restoration as a central future job market? Or do you feel that there’s a more balanced path forward that includes technology and economics? I definitely see the merit in the call for focusing on ecological restoration as a central future job market. The urgency of addressing environmental degradation is undeniable. It’s also incredibly important to rethink how we define progress. Technology and economics, in their current forms, have clearly contributed to the depletion of natural resources and the erosion of social and ecological systems. The idea that jobs should shift toward restoring nature—cleaning oceans, rewilding ecosystems, and healing the earth—makes sense, especially as technology rapidly replaces many traditional forms of labor. I also find the argument that technology has led us into an "economic freeze" thought-provoking. The automation of jobs, the erosion of savings, and the rise of extreme economic inequality are all tied to technological advancements, which can make it hard for people to find meaningful work. If we direct that same innovation toward repairing the damage we’ve done to the environment, we could create new opportunities while also addressing a pressing global crisis. However, while I believe in the power of ecological restoration, I also think that a more balanced approach could work well. Technology, when used responsibly, can be an ally in this effort. Advances in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green technologies can help accelerate the healing process. For example, we could develop technology to clean up waste, monitor ecosystems, or even aid in reforesting efforts. Rather than seeing technology as inherently destructive, it could be reoriented to serve ecological goals. Economics still plays a crucial role in shaping policy and investment for these initiatives. If the right incentives and support systems are put in place, the job market could evolve in a way that both addresses ecological concerns and ensures that people are still able to earn a living. It’s a delicate balance, though. We can't ignore the social and political dynamics that also influence our environmental trajectory. While the piece’s criticism of unchecked technological progress is valuable, I think there’s room to incorporate a more collaborative vision—where technology and economics work together for environmental restoration, rather than viewing them as inherently at odds with nature. Ultimately, I agree with the urgency behind the call for ecological restoration, but I believe that technology, if reoriented towards sustainability, could play a role in that shift without the need for an all-or-nothing approach. What do you think about the potential for a more integrated approach? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKAR8g3nhvwjXX84OL2KQwz%2BmKtjfASyKgJdG_jxaRB_w%40mail.gmail.com.
