Computer Game addiction

[Borachio]

If you honestly believe books, movies, games, music, etc. offer no meaning... well, you just don't get what being a human being is about at all. And I feel sorry for you.

I'm not sure that the purpose of books, movies, games and music is to offer meaning.

Music especially seems to have no intrinsic meaning. But when I read a book I don't generally find the process of reading lends meaning to my life. Should it?

But thanks for feeling sorry for me, in any case.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

'..well, you just don't get what being a human being is about at all...'


That's great.. I'd like to be informed about the meaning of life too.


No computer games addiction. I play more during some periods of time. It fills out time and clears the mind in some way. I don't think it's a great way to spend your time, but it no worse than watching TV.

 

[AdamCrock]

What is the goal of Civilization ? Is it possesing annihilation power to destroy others ? I think not In my opinion the goal of civilization is tourism .... in the end nothing else matters (joke) The goal of Civilization is to create a sociaty that we can all live in .... a good sociaty ....

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Tomorrow I am going for Xmass holidays, no skying, skating, meeting people just six straight days with notebook lying in my bed taking brakes for calls of nature. Wierd? Sure. I enjoy it though and once I am done I will be back to my regular social animal old self and I will like it too. Nice, disciplined, willing and video game free boy.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I am addicted to video games. Nicotine, caffeine, pot, games - in that order.
All of those things in excess every day (or as much as possible.) I have a ton of fun every day. I am allowed to play whenever I want because I am alone.
Life wasn't always this way. Growing up we lived under strict rules, including rationed snacks, TV, and computer games. When I got on my own I was very used to living with various girlfriends (rules!), and we were always poor. Not enough money for tons of pot and game systems. Poor and hungry, but happy as hell - what was that? hmm, wish I could go back.

I lost everything (my life) when I got a job. I bought a PC with my first paycheck, then promptly burned a copy of Quake 2 CTF and booted that mother up. Never looked back. That girlfriend of 5 years is now long gone. We would have kids in high school now, but instead I did this...
And I still continue it. I don't want to stop. I thought that any day now I would get sick of this and go find an internet wife.
I don't even want an internet wife now! I just want to be left alone! Forever! So I can play games! Always!

I have a good job, probably a great job. But the missed opportunities at work have been immense because that would involve working hard at something other than playing games on my time off.

I have suffered so much for my poor choices, but did I forget to mention I have a ton of fun every day!
Keeping my expenses very low, I have steadily built a figurative nest egg consisting of a huge stash of weed, cigs, games, and MtDews. Retire target is age 50.

You sire, are a god amongst men. Hedonism > puny hyoomanz!

Spoiler :

<--- Says the guy who just an hour ago posted Forever Alone in Rants.

 

[Luckymoose]

This is what the humanity probably was just before sinking into civilization. Being most fit animal, at the top of food chain, and all.



And yes, the civilized part of a human being is tiny and dull compared to the animal part.

How does this make sense to you? Civilization serves the purpose of erasing the need to work, to hunt, to build. The end goal is having it be done by something we've created so that human beings have nothing but free time to enjoy art or family, etc. Doing whatever you want is not what animals do. They are in a constant need to find sustenance. Humans have evolved beyond that, and will continue to do so until we are in a post-scarcity society.

It is very human to crave media. The rich have always done it because they had very little else to do. But we are in an age where all levels of society can enjoy media and work very little in comparison to that media consumption time. This is called progress.

I'm not sure that the purpose of books, movies, games and music is to offer meaning.

Music especially seems to have no intrinsic meaning. But when I read a book I don't generally find the process of reading lends meaning to my life. Should it?

But thanks for feeling sorry for me, in any case.

Do you not care for knowledge? What do you do with your life? Do you sit in the forest rubbing sticks together and eating berries or something?

 

[timtofly]

How does this make sense to you? Civilization serves the purpose of erasing the need to work, to hunt, to build. The end goal is having it be done by something we've created so that human beings have nothing but free time to enjoy art or family, etc. Doing whatever you want is not what animals do. They are in a constant need to find sustenance. Humans have evolved beyond that, and will continue to do so until we are in a post-scarcity society.

It is very human to crave media. The rich have always done it because they had very little else to do. But we are in an age where all levels of society can enjoy media and work very little in comparison to that media consumption time. This is called progress.

Do you not care for knowledge? What do you do with your life? Do you sit in the forest rubbing sticks together and eating berries or something?

This seems to be a big point in proving we were created by God. God made it to the point, he just sat back and watched every one else do all the work.

Do you really think that the ancients felt the same way at one point in time and invented a God that did the same thing? That modern humans can come up with games that allow them to be God, seems more than just a product, but hey one is free to dream they are just a product if they want to.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm not sure that the purpose of books, movies, games and music is to offer meaning.

This is an interesting position. Although all these things are commercial products designed to generate revenue (by virtue of the triumph of capitalism), they're also generally designed to provoke an emotional or intellectual response. In a scientific world largely devoid of grand Human narratives, particularly in the post-Post-Modernist environment (itself concerned with the final Balkanization of meaning and the impossibility of really finding it), media in the traditional Romanticist reactionary vein is, along with religion, one of the few things to still claim to even offer meaning, though the final interpretation is usually left in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

 

[sophie]

I'm not sure that the purpose of books, movies, games and music is to offer meaning.

Music especially seems to have no intrinsic meaning. But when I read a book I don't generally find the process of reading lends meaning to my life. Should it?

But thanks for feeling sorry for me, in any case.

Maybe not a "meaning" in the literal sense, but in terms of eliciting an emotional or intellectual response? Absolutely.

How else do you explain: Ulysses, Un Chien Andalou, [Papers Please, Hotline Miami, Proteus, Cart Life, Dys4ia], or NY State of Mind?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

How does this make sense to you? Civilization serves the purpose of erasing the need to work, to hunt, to build.

Surely European colonists were more involved to those activities than North American Indians.

With civilization comes pressure and intense competition. You can't just live under the sky.

And in the modern world capitalists usurp the gain of technological progress through surplus value and other means.

They are in a constant need to find sustenance. Humans have evolved beyond that, and will continue to do so until we are in a post-scarcity society.

Apes did. And used the liberated time to invent tools and early culture. And with property came greed and lust for power. So that modern humans exterminated or driven off all other apes (the same with primitive tribes). And still, when not pressed by civilization, modern apes can live without constant struggle as most other animals, to their pleasure.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

The polarizing and eternal war between hard workers who hate fun and the pleasure-seeking hedonists who love fun is very visible in this thread, it seems.

 

[Luckymoose]

Surely European colonists were more involved to those activities than North American Indians.

With civilization comes pressure and intense competition. You can't just live under the sky.

And in the modern world capitalists usurp the gain of technological progress through surplus value and other means.



Apes did. And used the liberated time to invent tools and early culture. And with property came greed and lust for power. So that modern humans exterminated or driven off all other apes (the same with primitive tribes). And still, when not pressed by civilization, modern apes can live without constant struggle as most other animals, to their pleasure.

What? I am living entirely on the surplus of civilization. I have never had to build a road or school or hospital. It is already in place. Civilization exists to be mutually beneficial. Some people do some things and others do other things. You see? That is why we can sit here on this forum talking about it. I don't have anywhere to be because we share the workload of survival. Animals aren't hippie peace lovers. They rape, murder, and live short, terrible lives. Civilization is an elevation from this terror, from wilderness.

Civilization moves towards a period where competition doesn't matter. Necessities are either so cheap they are an after thought in your spending or they become free. This is the goal. Anyone that thinks otherwise is clueless. Humans are too intelligent to want to go out and hunt deer with a spear when there is a means to automate with slaughter houses and domesticated livestock.

Native Americans were not hippie free runners in the forest. They were awful, warlike people that did some things that made Europeans cringe. Living in the first world means you don't get murdered just because you're from down the road. Civilization is all about order, stability, and progress. I don't need to work because the system is already in place to feed, clothe, and protect me. Thus, I am a full time student that consumes media because I am fortunate enough to live in a period where civilization has granted me this. We're not barbarians, at least not all the time, and we will, in theory, become less barbaric as technology improves and lessens the burden on humanity.

Ergo, a gaming addiction is a modern marvel. You should all be damned proud to be able to game for countless hours into the night. It'll only get better from here.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

What? I am living entirely on the surplus of civilization. I have never had to build a road or school or hospital.

Post-industrial society among other nations is like a capitalist among those who work for him: exploiter. As a non-capitalist you live better than non-capitalists of industrial/agricultural societies. More to that, for you to live easier and better even more, someone in your own society should work harder and live worse.

Animals aren't hippie peace lovers. They rape, murder, and live short, terrible lives. Civilization is an elevation from this terror, from wilderness.

Well, it is a good excuse to exterminate nature, utilize it into civilization, killing those raper murder animals the way they deserve it, the cruelest, without mercy! Right?

But we're about humans... so tell me what happened to Mr. Muammar Gaddafi and then to J. Christopher Stevens? And those two are at the top of your civilization.

What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How did Black people ended up in America and where did the vast population of Native Americans go? What is Auschwitz? Animals just do not know such scale of atrocity!

And how this type of selection &#8211; when your personal traits play no role, because the scale of civilization's activity would throw you or wipe you en masse the way it pleases &#8211; is better than natural selection? Is it humane or at least rational, or at least optimal for evolution, that individuals with Down's syndrome (or other serious hereditary deficiencies) may multiply, mix their genes with the major population, in expense of those who work for them (like non-capitalists of developing nations; not to mention billions of animals needed to be killed for those biologically unfit to live), while the most healthy and fit are killed in wars, sit in prison, discriminated for the sake of equality, etc?

Civilization moves towards a period where competition doesn't matter.

That's why they sanction and bomb your country if it denies to compete (i.e. grow)?

Living in the first world means you don't get murdered just because you're from down the road.

Living in the first world means ten people will be murdered somewhere else. Like when a soldier depressed by spoiled relationship with his wife kills a whole family in Afghanistan.

Civilization is all about order, stability, and progress.

Your body is ordered. Thus making an individual cell nothing and fully dependent.

Progress doesn't need humans at all in your desired future. It will do very well without them with machines. No humans no need for them to do anything animal, biological, live. No human animal factor. No deviances to regress.

Stability is questionable when balance of nature, of biosphere tested and perfected for millions of years is adjusted without a second thought in means of centuries.

 

[AdamCrock]

Apes are humans - just more evolved, even communists are just humans more evolved , unless they think of themselves a higher, better race - that would be bad

 

[Luckymoose]

Post-industrial society among other nations is like a capitalist among those who work for him: exploiter. As a non-capitalist you live better than non-capitalists of industrial/agricultural societies. More to that, for you to live easier and better even more, someone in your own society should work harder and live worse.



Well, it is a good excuse to exterminate nature, utilize it into civilization, killing those raper murder animals the way they deserve it, the cruelest, without mercy! Right?

But we're about humans... so tell me what happened to Mr. Muammar Gaddafi and then to J. Christopher Stevens? And those two are at the top of your civilization.

What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How did Black people ended up in America and where did the vast population of Native Americans go? What is Auschwitz? Animals just do not know such scale of atrocity!

And how this type of selection – when your personal traits play no role, because the scale of civilization's activity would throw you or wipe you en masse the way it pleases – is better than natural selection? Is it humane or at least rational, or at least optimal for evolution, that individuals with Down's syndrome (or other serious hereditary deficiencies) may multiply, mix their genes with the major population, in expense of those who work for them (like non-capitalists of developing nations; not to mention billions of animals needed to be killed for those biologically unfit to live), while the most healthy and fit are killed in wars, sit in prison, discriminated for the sake of equality, etc?



That's why they sanction and bomb your country if it denies to compete (i.e. grow)?



Living in the first world means ten people will be murdered somewhere else. Like when a soldier depressed by spoiled relationship with his wife kills a whole family in Afghanistan.



Your body is ordered. Thus making an individual cell nothing and fully dependent.

Progress doesn't need humans at all in your desired future. It will do very well without them with machines. No humans no need for them to do anything animal, biological, live. No human animal factor. No deviances to regress.

Stability is questionable when balance of nature, of biosphere tested and perfected for millions of years is adjusted without a second thought in means of centuries.

I'm sorry your country picked the wrong ideology.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Post-industrial society among other nations is like a capitalist among those who work for him: exploiter. As a non-capitalist you live better than non-capitalists of industrial/agricultural societies. More to that, for you to live easier and better even more, someone in your own society should work harder and live worse.

While I think you point to something greater here, exploitation of resources isn't going to hurt if you are trying to progress to a more comfortable life.

Well, it is a good excuse to exterminate nature, utilize it into civilization, killing those raper murder animals the way they deserve it, the cruelest, without mercy! Right?

I mean, you COULD look into the history of Russia and find such luminaries as Baron Von Ungern-Sternberg, Vasili Shuisky, and Joseph Stalin.

But we're about humans... so tell me what happened to Mr. Muammar Gaddafi and then to J. Christopher Stevens? And those two are at the top of your civilization.

No, that honor belongs to whatever the r/Atheism declares important.

What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How did Black people ended up in America and where did the vast population of Native Americans go? What is Auschwitz? Animals just do not know such scale of atrocity!

Were your esteemed Kievan princes vying to pay for a meaningless position where they essentially got to clean up horse crap in the Tatar stables? I think animals know quite well how terrible life can be when they see you doing something of that sort.

And how this type of selection – when your personal traits play no role, because the scale of civilization's activity would throw you or wipe you en masse the way it pleases – is better than natural selection? Is it humane or at least rational, or at least optimal for evolution, that individuals with Down's syndrome (or other serious hereditary deficiencies) may multiply, mix their genes with the major population, in expense of those who work for them (like non-capitalists of developing nations; not to mention billions of animals needed to be killed for those biologically unfit to live), while the most healthy and fit are killed in wars, sit in prison, discriminated for the sake of equality, etc?

Uh what?

That's why they sanction and bomb your country if it denies to compete (i.e. grow)?

I'd love to see this happen.

Living in the first world means ten people will be murdered somewhere else. Like when a soldier depressed by spoiled relationship with his wife kills a whole family in Afghanistan.

Happens in history ALL THE TIME dude. I am of course going to fight and defend my lover and family before anything else.

Your body is ordered. Thus making an individual cell nothing and fully dependent.

Explain?

Progress doesn't need humans at all in your desired future. It will do very well without them with machines. No humans no need for them to do anything animal, biological, live. No human animal factor. No deviances to regress.

It happens.

Stability is questionable when balance of nature, of biosphere tested and perfected for millions of years is adjusted without a second thought in means of centuries.

I don't think many deny this

 

[AdamCrock]

I have especially loved the part about Kievan princess ! ^^ Sorry about that but reading Your post reminds me of Queen(she was princess at some point too .... probably) Olga .... or Helga - not sure which witch is right of Kievan Rus ....

 

[Wrymouth3]

I have especially loved the part about Kievan princess ! ^^ Sorry about that but reading Your post reminds me of Queen(she was princess at some point too .... probably) Olga .... or Helga - not sure which witch is right of Kievan Rus ....

You're thinking of Olga, but she was before the Tatar yoke.

 

[AdamCrock]

You're thinking of Olga, but she was before the Tatar yoke.

Yes Queen Olga of Kiev ^^ She was pretty awesome - heard she was of Nordic origins. Anyway after some unruly King of an unpronouncable country slaughtered her husband she burned an entire diplomatic delegation (literally) than she went on a rampage, burned and razed a city and They made her a Saint

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

So the questioning of anthropocentrism, nature exploitation, hedonism, neocolonialism, war, and blah-blah-blah, etc, as fruits of civilization, is turned into Russophobia?

Oh, I am not surprised, it is Civfanatics in all its glory!

Why do you even raise a subject if you do not want to address its issues?