Those things inevitably comes with (high-)technology. Technology (the high-tech atleast) is more than just the collection of concrete pieces of tech and processes. It is a way of thinking and living that alienates humans from nature and in the end even themselves. Social media can be seen as sort of the end result of this process, people are having a harder time distingushing real life from the hyper inflated egos created on SM. Our own bodys and lives are being centered around a version of you that is completely alienated from your actual being and doing. We view our bodies as instruments to maximixe our pleasures, and that is the end result of technology, the instrumenalization of what is most sacred (and no, you do not need to be religious to agree that our bodies/minds are sacred because these are the most important things we have, a human is ultimately not more than what it is doing) and the notion that value is derived from utility. These are not things we can fix and then use technology in a "sensible" or "good" way, this is what (high-) technology is in its essence

No, I would disagree on one thing and that is that its technology to blame when it's actually the human vanity and cheap ego boosts that are desired. Take Snapchat filters for an example. This overly complex technology that serves no other purpose but to put a mask on someone's face or straight up improve an existing one. All of that because we didn't like the pixelated cameras of old. And this avatar that exists outside of you , this being is not technology but the manifestation of your own corrupted persona that keeps demanding that technology fixes the unintended problems previous technology had caused

Hasn't the monster of hedonism and narcissism always existed in humanity, and has only now been let out into the real world by the technological alienation described above? Our reliance on nature and our primitive physical duties might have been the only things keeping us from descending into degeneracy for millennia.

It is easy to blame the flaws in our world on human weakness, but the only successful ideologies are those that take humanity for what it is and build a structure around it that amplifies its strengths and mitigates its weaknesses.

I do not blame the technological alienation for unleashing the monster of hedonism and narcissism it is urbanization that is largely to blame as a man seeks comfort where ever he can find it. One forgets he is shaped by the hardships..
Technological alienation occurs when enough of these hedonists and narcissists have festered themselves for enough time and became reliant on said technology.
To me, what you're suggesting is a compromise, a way to accept the humanity with the human weakness and make a plan for a failure. A practical solution rather than an ideological one. However it might taint the idea of the ideal as we already have a plan for when a man regresses to it's hedonistic self.
My suggestion to all of this is that we ought to forgo fixing the problems caused by technology with more technology. The communication problem was solved with phones so why must we add imagery, video, call groups which in return caused their own problems as quality and bandwidth became an issue and in case of hedonists it's exponentially amplified as they demand better and more profound masks, a greater boost to self so they may stand out in their own mind and the minds of other hedonists.

You're right about urbanization, I was thinking about that as just a part of technoogical advance but it does warrant being mentioned specifically. It is amazing how fast urbanization breeds humanism and reliance on government and corporations, in contrast to the humility and self-reliance that rural life produces.

I fail to see how the examples you bring up contradicts anything I said in my post because of these reasons:
1, There is nothing that says that technology as a mindset/world-view is amplifying the worst of the human character. I will elaborate; we do not need to use the form of high technology to exemplify what I'm talking about instead consider mechanized traveling, in this case trains. Before the introduction of these, and similar alternatives, you could only travel by the means of your or an animals labour (this is the best word I can think of, english isn't my first language), this meant that the distance traveled and the effort put into it proportional and the world around you becomes shaped by your actions and *vice versa*. This makes your being-in-the-world and the fact that you are part of something vast and wonderful concrete and tangible, then mechanized traveling came and that started the alienation process (not only that of course). This is the plight of the modern era, the fact that it makes our being-in-the-world something abstract and we lose our connection to both soil, nature and authentic being. This is what is causing hedonism, nihilism and cynism often observed in urbanites (not only).

2, The urban living prevalent today would not be possible, or even something most people would have wanted, without the high-tech that became common around the industrial revolution and forward. without these most people would still be working the fields, blissfully unaware of things like "alienation" and "self-actualization", everything a low-tech farmer does and why he does it is right in front of him. Sure, cities and urban areas have existed in many times, but the Megapolises of the modern era are something the human race never have seen before. Also, this statement makes me wonder if you are urbanites with little experience of rural areas, they are not spared from the plight high-tech brings and this is because (1) is true.

The same thing could be said about language as it is an invention. As hedonists and degenerates use it on a daily basis to spread their rotten thoughts.
Major urban areas existed pre industrialization (mechanisation) and they were just as degenerate. The elite was incestous and hedonistic.

Language is hardly an invention since we have proofed that language, and its usage, is something that is something that is coded in our genetics and that we have a predisposition towards it. Your usage of the word "degenerate" is also proof that you do not view this on a objective level, sure, some of these areas contained large numbers of "degenerates" but there are examples of the opposite too. You fail in giving some reason for me to believe that technological as a mindset does not exist and that it is not the main reason for the behavior of the modern world

And we are not talking elites here, we are talking about society as a whole

a more profound syntax and language constructs. I'm not talking about ur vocal cords here. Or we would all be mumbiling and growling just like all dogs bark.
What I'm giving you is a better reason, where a man tosses his self-reliance in the search of comfort and he can find that in both technology and humans.

You are giving me shitty one-liners that are made to support your views and have zero explanatory value

You managing to drag on the silly point of "Language was not invented or developed" for 20 paragraphs does not make it any less silly.

Empirical proofs are not silly. Our genitic predisposition towards language abilities are more than us having vocal chords

It is not my fault that you lack what only can be described as pop-scientific- tier knowledge in the fields of linguistics

Just because humans are genetically predisposed to "language" doesn't negate the myriad of **inventions** and **discoveries** in this field, you silly goose.
It seems you are just a bit confused about the meaning of these two words in bold. Guess you are a genetic anomaly when it comes to learning language.

this is classical anprim rethoric, muh technology.
>You didn't provide concrete examples
neither have u

also I have already explained my self in the post before that one. cba to do it numerous times just for you to understand what I'm saying

Don't blame the tools, blame the tool-maker.

or rather the tool wielder

The only time international intervention is justified is when one nation is doing something that has a legitimate chance to threaten other nations or the entire world, e.g. irresponsible nuclear development. Other than that intervention has no reasonable justifications.

How do you define intervention, what’s a legitimate threat?

If a nation’s populace invests significant amounts of money in another nation only to nationalise that investment, is that not threatening the other nations well being?

What about persecution of your citizens abroad? Does that change if it’s only their families?

If the countries regime is so unstable that it causes a spike in terrorism and a refugee crisis?

Surprisingly enough, America has all that except the refugee crisis. Why is there no military intervention in America?

Fail to see where America has nationalised foreign investment to any real degree or is persecuting foreign citizens wrongly but I’ll bite. Who do you think is going to attempt a military intervention on america, a country who’s military expenditure is greater then the next 7 highest countries combined?

You just explained what is wrong with your thinking. Nobody will stop America from doing unlawful trash at the moment, neither will America target anything beyond oil-filled 4th world countries.

It is "might is right" principle, with no humanitarian or democratic principles attached. And I fail to see why anyone but neolibs should support this.

America has in the past, what makes you think it wouldn’t do so again? Was Kosovo an oil filled country? North Korea? Cuba?

The reality is that the worldstage has little methods of enforcement beyond might is right, however as America has set itself up to benefit most strongly from a rules based order in which human dignity and democracy is respected and has demonstrated its commitment to upholding that order it seems invalid in this context to say there is no humanitarian or democratic principles attached.

This is also by no means a core, or even orthodox neoliberal position.

I think kazimir was implying modern America and not cold war America in terms of intervention

I see very little difference in “modern” America and “Cold War” America, they are in fact, the same country. That oil money has fuelled radicalism and deplorable regimes creating a greater need to act in the Middle East region then anywhere else in recent times has attracted many non-western nation’s to pivot their ability to act in that region, including China and Russia to varying extents. Clearly then there is an agreement that major powers have implicitly that *some* action must be achieved in the Middle East, but only differ in what form that should take

the only difference I see is that cold war America i cant see any "real" motives

meanwhile modern America claims to be protecting people from dictators and terror groups

when in reality they just want oil and israeli good boy points

Rules based order and Bretton woods takes you 90% there, however your right in saying that a cohesive American grand strategy isn’t really there. One difference with the Cold War is there is no longer another superpower contesting its interests and the domestic politic are more uncertain of the mandate they want their leadership to fulfil. Everyone, including China and Russia are concerned with oil security in the region and in fact in terms of oil and self interest this is not a persuasive argument to analyse us interests with. The us is on the cusp of being a net fuel exporter thanks to fracking but will be unable to export significant quantities beyond canada or Mexico. Oil in and of itself is not really part of the American agenda then right now

Also suez kinda discredits the Israeli good boy points

suez when nasser ruled?

Ye, but there are many occasions where America has clipped the wings of Israel to court other nations. In general that could be a criticism levied at the US, that it’s more willing to consider the interests of potential allies rather than established ones

"Old" America was just attacking the geopolitical boundaries of USSR, proxy wars. There was a reason and it was still not "democratic" or "humanitarian".

The two are hardly mutually exclusive, especially given the Soviet Union saw little need to act in a manner that could be described as humane or democratic. What should be criticised however is the naïveté which has followed american interventions, expecting that states in the wake of such actions will require no reconstruction effort and expecting that in the power vacuum created when troops are no longer deployed to the region that democracy will magically assert itself bereft of any supporting structure or institutions. Or even, as in the forays into Mexico and South America time and time again, recognising the incapacity but eschewing providing any form of civil support, instead simply preparing for repeat engagements to avoid being labelled as imperialistic