Posts by Sam Martinez9

ruggedraven36 said:Does that tie back into the whole idea that the actual point of living is just pure survival?

Look, you can't have life without survival, but I'm not convinced survival is the ultimate purpose. Survival is merely the baseline—the first step. Whether there’s a second step waiting for us is something we can only speculate about. And honestly, that uncertainty is exactly what defines our freedom. If our purpose were pre-written, we wouldn't actually be free to define it for ourselves.

velvetbear372 said:To truly grasp the enigma of existence, one has to experience an inexplicable event—not just as a moment in time, but through a realization that reflects back onto your very being. It’s about observing how those around you react—assuming they even witnessed the same thing. If you have the strength, you’ll admit defeat, accept the inexplicable, and find peace with the world's sheer indifference toward the event. Otherwise, you're labeled a madman while the other half remains blissfully unaware (I'm thinking of that second observer, if you catch my drift). Or, perhaps, you emerge as a new genius—much like Darwin or Tesla, who were both branded lunatics before being celebrated by history. This indifference is practically hardwired into our DNA; most people simply can't fathom that someone shaped the very foundation of our reality thousands of years ago—to use a bit of a caricature there—but then again, "does it really matter?"... if you know what I mean.

Not quite; there isn't anything like that etched into the genome. It’s become quite fashionable lately to claim that *everything is written in our genes*, but in my view, that kind of rhetoric just suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.

ruggedraven36 said:Either way, I don't see the distinction you're making between living and the "meaning" of living—unless, of course, the whole point of being alive is just to throw it all away.

From an evolutionary standpoint, though, self-sacrifice isn't some grand philosophical choice; it’s just a reflexive mechanism hardwired into organisms through the process of evolution.

frozengardener7 said:In this world, change is the only constant.

We have to accept the fact that we are changing, whether we actually want to or not.

I agree. However, my view is that since change is an absolute inevitability, we should at least attempt to exert some level of influence over the direction it takes.

James Lee77 said:But that "should" you're using doesn't really talk about being forced, right? I mean, if it were actual force, we'd just have to deal with it, whether we wanted to or not. It feels more like life advice here: "sometimes you should just surrender to the cold phenomenon indifference world." If it was just a necessity, you'd say something like "sometimes the cold phenomenon indifference world just takes over us." But saying "you should sometimes surrender..." implies two things to me. First, that we actually have a choice in the matter, and second, that surrendering is somehow better than holding on—like there's a good way and a bad way to do it. And honestly, I'm just confused why anyone would think there's a "better" or "worse" way when dealing with a phenomenon indifference world.

I don't think we're actually dealing with a phenomenon indifference world—that thing remains constant regardless of what happens. To me, the issue lies within ourselves. There are moments when it’s better for us to push against the current, and other times, perhaps it's wiser to simply surrender to the flow of things.

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

Life itself is a journey, and that journey is really just the process of reinventing who you are.

I find myself thinking back to my time in Chicago, specifically those quiet afternoons spent observing the ebb and flow of the city. There is a certain quality to life there—a rhythm that feels both predictable and entirely unpredictable at once. It brings to mind the way we often attempt to impose order on our surroundings, only to realize that the most meaningful moments are usually the ones we didn't plan for. Much like a slow walk through Millennium Park, some things simply require patience to truly understand. kaže:
The people on these forums are the real deal—the actual community. Everyone else? They’re just advertisers or data miners looking for an easy score. 😁

One could argue that forum members are essentially a commodity, but we’re a very niche type of product. Think about it: if someone gets bored with a specific pair of Nikes, some Levi’s, or even a certain brand of Hershey’s chocolate, those items aren't going to suddenly migrate to a different retailer. They just sit there. But forum members? We have the mobility. If we get tired of one platform, we can simply pack up and move elsewhere.

It’s an interesting thought, really. You could see a retail forum empty out entirely if the users simply decided to stop posting—a vacuum created by their own collective will. But you can't apply that same logic to a sneaker shop; a warehouse full of Nikes isn't going to suddenly vanish just because the shoes want to be somewhere else.

dustystag14 said:Anderson put together a really interesting and worthwhile post here:

So, following that same logic...

We ought to be focusing on the substance rather than the noise...

Because the point isn't who the owner is, it's the quality of that owner.

What's the whole point of an owner? What should their responsibilities look like?

Who happens to be the owner is completely irrelevant as long as we define exactly what an owner is meant to do...

Let's talk about that.

What kind of owner? A capitalist one.

And what should they be doing? Trying to squeeze every last cent out of this forum.

With an owner like that, and us forum users—the literal *customers* paying for the service this site provides—it would likely turn out just as well as can be expected.

Christian Myers said:I personally don't have an issue with it. They deserve a day off to relax and hang out with their families, too. If certain people are really that bothered by it, let's just hold a referendum and let the people decide—that way the outcome would actually be legitimate.

Most workers get one day off, and some even get two.

So, the whole premise that "even retail clerks need a day off" is fundamentally flawed and, frankly, quite silly.

It’s just as foolish to keep dragging out this debate over "non-working Sundays" right on the eve of the elections. Why aren't they bringing up the topic of "reducing the number of federal employees" instead?

Think about it: if they actually pass this non-working Sunday rule, the private sector will likely end up laying off roughly 20,000 people, while the public sector stays exactly as it is—or maybe even grows. And isn't that precisely what we're trying to achieve?

Raymond Thomas7 said:Well, I guess I’m not the only one who saw it that way...
What a strange society we live in.

I went back and reread some of your posts from six years ago. It’s a shame you don’t write much anymore; there was a certain quality to them. I suspect this post might never even cross your radar, though. If it does, I’d be curious to know if there’s anything new regarding the topics we used to dive into. It feels like everything else remains largely unchanged, but I haven't been following closely—mostly because my English isn't quite where I'd like it to be.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

In the past, people succumbed to famine. Today, they succumb to obesity. What's the fundamental difference? It comes down to agency. Your choice is to eat nothing but trash.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

Historically, if a couple had twelve children, nine might die, leaving only three survivors.

The notion that parents watching their children perish were somehow more fulfilled than someone living today seems fundamentally flawed, doesn't it?

Furthermore, people weren't on antidepressants back then simply because they didn't exist.

William Palmer7 said:There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

That isn't accurate. It merely appears that way because warfare technology has advanced; however, I suspect our ancestors would have been just as bloodthirsty if they possessed tanks instead of spears.

William Palmer7 said:Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

Only God knows that for sure.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Primitivism is what exists before slavery, and honestly, even before any kind of symbolic thought. Zerzan leans into that idea of "original purity," essentially calling for a massive step backward.

I understand that perspective, but strictly speaking, there wasn't even a "human" before symbolic thought. Before symbolism, you have chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas—though I believe it’s been proven that they possess their own forms of symbolic cognition as well.

Melissa Stewart6 said:He keeps citing anthropologists, but honestly, it’s hard to say how much weight to give him when his bias is so incredibly obvious.

Culture is actually a relatively recent development. If you look at the timeline, cave art dates back roughly 30,000 years, yet agriculture only kicked in about 10,000 years ago. There is this massive gap between when our IQ levels first allowed for symbolic thought and when we actually started building civilizations. I suspect the missing link in that interval was a fundamental shift in how we relate to the natural world. It’s possible that during this period—to an immeasurable degree—there was a collective hesitation to exert dominance over nature. It might even be that symbolic expression didn't truly take off until the desire for power emerged, likely as an unconscious byproduct of our gradual move toward a division of labor.

There’s this common argument that you can only tame the violence of primitive societies—things like human sacrifice, cannibalism, or slavery—through the introduction of symbolic culture. But I think there's a simple way to debunk that stereotype: organized violence wasn't actually cured by culture; it was actually triggered by it. William J. Perry studied various indigenous groups throughout the Americas and noted a striking contrast between agricultural civilizations and those that remained unmanaged. He observed that while the latter might be seen as "culturally inferior" by certain standards, they lacked the horrific, organized customs found elsewhere. It seems that almost every society on Earth that moved toward a domesticated relationship with nature eventually became prone to organized violence. Meanwhile, non-agricultural societies largely avoided it altogether. Anthropologists have long looked at Native Americans on the Pacific Northwest coast as a unique case study for this rule. Even though they were primarily fishers, they eventually adopted slavery and developed a very rigid social hierarchy. However, even in their case, there was an element of domestication present, such as the use of domesticated dogs and small-scale tobacco cultivation.

Yes, that is accurate. It remains a massive mystery without a definitive answer. Modern humans (*Homo sapiens*) have existed for perhaps 100,000 years, yet for a full 70,000 or even 90,000 of those years, we weren't reading, writing, or behaving in the ways modern civilization dictates.

What caused this? The brain clearly isn't the culprit, as that individual possessed the exact same biological hardware we do today.

Harar suggests he has found the answer in population density. Humans can only truly realize their intellectual potential through interaction with large numbers of others via the exchange of ideas and goods.

So, what prerequisite would be necessary for civilization to vanish? The human population would need to drop significantly, leaving only isolated communities with little to no contact with others. We see remnants of this today in the depths of the Amazon or on remote islands in the Pacific Ocean.

But what kind of life would that entail? Well, there would be no philosophers, no science, no reading books... in short, we would have to surrender a great deal.

Life would be reduced to mere survival: scavenging food and maintaining basic hygiene.

Nowadays, however, we actually have the luxury of choice. If you find wandering through shopping malls to be mindless, you have an alternative—head into the woods, forage for mushrooms, or spend time by a river or the coast. If you think watching American sitcoms is trivial, that's fine too; instead, read philosophy, buy a microscope to study bacteria, get a telescope to observe birds, or buy a small plot of land to grow carrots and parsley.

Melissa Stewart6 said:If you take Zerzan's word for it, technology is what created the concept of slavery by fracturing our once egalitarian, primal communities. Essentially, the "fix" for returning to a sort of original utopia is simply to abandon technology altogether. Zerzan doesn't necessarily think this shift will happen on its own, though; he suggests that our technological civilization will eventually collapse under the weight of its own unsustainability. It’s a bit like how Marx viewed the inevitable downfall of capitalism.

I find myself agreeing on one point—technology certainly facilitated the rise of slavery, yet it was also the very tool that ultimately helped abolish it.

While it’s indisputable that a technological civilization might face a total collapse, the severity of that fallout depends entirely on how much of "humanity" goes down with it.

If technology regresses to a level comparable to the era of ancient slave societies, we risk resurrecting a world defined by masters and servants. If the collapse is absolute, then humanity itself may simply cease to exist as we know it.

As we have already established: there is no such thing as a human being outside the framework of civilization.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, society, tech, and the natural world are always bumping heads and messing with each other—it’s constant. Sometimes tech actually helps us out, but half the time? It’s just straight-up destructive.

You can't really take Zerzan seriously—I mean, sure, they probably threw out some interesting ideas about language and symbols, but that’s about it...

"Technology driving development" is such a load of crap—it’s like an ant trying to tell the world how to run things. It's just not realistic, and honestly, it never actually works out for the community as a whole.

Now this is actually interesting... THE HONEY BEE NETWORK: VOICES FROM GRASSROOTS INNOVATORS

Most one-size-fits-all fixes being cooked up for the "green revolution" zones? They aren't going to do squat for marginalized communities living in fragile environments. There’s basically zero organizational structure out there that actually pushes scientists to work alongside people developing tech with limited reach—it just doesn't exist. If we want tech development and rollout to actually mean something for disadvantaged communities and marginalized areas, international and national research orgs need a massive overhaul. Period.

You can't trust the market, the national channels, or any of those big international networks to actually link up global knowledge hubs. It’s a joke—they fail at connecting people in a way that lets local communities and individuals actually build their own solutions for whatever they need, regardless of where they are in the States.

Look, the Honey Bee Network—even with basically zero resources or experience—just proved that this kind of transformation actually works. Their whole model is about empowering people through sustainable tech development; it’s all about boosting income and survival tools by leveraging local knowledge. They do it through documentation, adding real value, experimenting, and just getting people talking about local innovations. It's legit.

Copyrighted article by Cultural Survival, Inc.

I agree. However, one must emphasize that the ultimate impact of any technology depends entirely on the human element behind it.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, society, tech, and the natural world are always bumping heads and messing with each other—it’s constant. Sometimes tech actually helps us out, but half the time? It’s just straight-up destructive.

You can't really take Zerzan seriously—I mean, sure, they probably threw out some interesting ideas about language and symbols, but that’s about it...

"Technology driving development" is such a load of crap—it’s like an ant trying to tell the world how to run things. It's just not realistic, and honestly, it never actually works out for the community as a whole.

Now this is actually interesting... THE HONEY BEE NETWORK: VOICES FROM GRASSROOTS INNOVATORS

Most one-size-fits-all fixes being cooked up for the "green revolution" zones? They aren't going to do squat for marginalized communities living in fragile environments. There’s basically zero organizational structure out there that actually pushes scientists to work alongside people developing tech with limited reach—it just doesn't exist. If we want tech development and rollout to actually mean something for disadvantaged communities and marginalized areas, international and national research orgs need a massive overhaul. Period.

You can't trust the market, the national channels, or any of those big international networks to actually link up global knowledge hubs. It’s a joke—they fail at connecting people in a way that lets local communities and individuals actually build their own solutions for whatever they need, regardless of where they are in the States.

Look, the Honey Bee Network—even with basically zero resources or experience—just proved that this kind of transformation actually works. Their whole model is about empowering people through sustainable tech development; it’s all about boosting income and survival tools by leveraging local knowledge. They do it through documentation, adding real value, experimenting, and just getting people talking about local innovations. It's legit.

Copyrighted article by Cultural Survival, Inc.

I certainly agree that such a scenario would be catastrophic, but it remains an inescapable reality. Slavery didn't vanish because humanity suddenly reached a moral consensus that subjugating others was wrong; it vanished because slave labor ceased to be economically viable—it was replaced by the efficiency of machines.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

I have to disagree with the anarcho-primitivist stance. I’ve actually laid out my reasoning in a previous post—if you look back through it—but my core contention is simple: some civilizations are objectively better than others, and civilization itself evolves and improves alongside technological advancement.

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

Ultimately, whose fear or comfort is at stake isn't the point; we aren't children who need to hide under the covers. We ought to view the world with as much rationality as possible, setting aside fear, hatred, or tribalism whenever we can.

Regarding his specific points, I honestly don't know yet. My schedule has been quite hectic lately, so I'm only posting this now because I promised I would. I've shared what I currently know, as I haven't had the bandwidth to dive deep into his full body of work. However, I do intend to sit down and study his arguments properly once things settle down.

That is all from me for today.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Rejecting Time

"Can we actually abolish time? Its constant movement acts as both the master and the yardstick of a social existence that is becoming increasingly hollow and technically mediated. Contrary to everything spontaneous and direct, time is making its connection to alienation clearer by the day. This means our renewal project has to tackle the full breadth of their combined power. We can only replace this fragmented way of living with the possibility of a whole, complete life—a life without time—once we eliminate the primary causes of that division.

We have treated time as a substance for so long that today it feels like an indisputable fact of nature, a force existing entirely on its own. Increasing our awareness of time—essentially accepting it—is just part of how we adapt to an extremely materialistic worldview. Time is a constructed dimension and a fundamental building block of culture. Because it is inexhaustible by nature, it serves as the perfect model for governance.

Every ritual is a human attempt to return to a timeless state through symbolism. Yet, a ritual is also an act of stepping out of that state; it’s a misstep that pulls us even further from our goal. The timelessness inherent in numbers is a key component of this evasion, helping to establish time as an unbreakable, rigid concept.

Using the stars, years and their divisions are imposed upon us as instruments of organizational authority. Shaping the calendar is essential to shaping civilization itself. After all, the calendar is the first symbolic artifact used to regulate human behavior by measuring time. But here, we aren't talking about controlling time; it's quite the opposite. It is a process where time traps a person within a world of objective alienation. In such a world, no adult is capable of securing or reclaiming the freedom from time that every child naturally enjoys—and is eventually forced to lose. Training people to accept time is a crucial part of schooling, which is vital for society. As Fraser points out, this conditioning serves as a near-perfect summary of the entire process of civilization."

At its core, time is a physical category; without it, our entire universe simply wouldn't exist. Naturally, humans have this innate desire to exert control over time. We want it to bend to our will, to move in the direction we choose, to accelerate when we’re in a rush, or to grind to a halt exactly when we need a moment to breathe......

So far, we’ve only established the fact that time can move at different speeds.

To push this investigation any further, we’re going to need much more advanced technology. Whether humanity will ever actually develop the tools necessary to manipulate time itself... I honestly don't know.

If we ever do achieve that, we might just end up becoming God. For now, though, we are merely the children of God. And as any parent knows, you spend most of your time making sure your kids don't hurt themselves, kill each other, or cause some massive catastrophe ........

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism, often called anarcho-primitivism, is this radical anarchist movement that calls for a total return to our original, primal communities. It isn’t exactly a mainstream topic here in the States. For decades, American thought has been dominated by Marx, along with some Hegel and Kant—essentially that Enlightenment school of thought that tends to be somewhat favorable toward the state, legal structures, reason, and symbolic thought.

Anarchists and Marxists split ways very early on, and they’ve never truly reconciled, even though they share a common enemy in capitalism. But anarchists don't believe you can build a better society through a communist state. Anarcho-primitivists take it a step further; they reject not just the state, but civilization itself, technology, and—according to people like John Zerzan—even symbolic thought. In his view, alienation doesn't start with class struggle like Marx argues, but with the very invention of symbols and rituals.

Essentially, John Zerzan argues that humans were truly free only in a state of immediacy, before we had the ability to describe anything because language didn't exist yet. From this perspective, the birth of symbols (and words) was the catalyst for both the rise of civilization and the inherent restlessness found within it.

The core argument of eco-primitivism goes like this: civilization isn't necessary, sustainable, or even the right direction. It’s a detour. The "true path" is how we lived for hundreds of thousands of years before organized society ever began. Some anarcho-primitivists openly advocate for violence and attacks on technology—take Derek Jensen, for example, who writes about using bombs to tear down things like dams—though most are content to stick to lectures and writing.

I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

Daniel Chase13 said:Have you guys noticed that the thread about Elvis Presley is constantly sitting right at the top of the subforum? It’s actually hit nearly 20,200 views! 🍿

Which isn't exactly a badge of honor.

For instance, the discussion regarding precipitation levels over at the Department of Natural Science has barely any posts. And it’s likely to stay that way.

The threads that dominate the top of the list are usually kept there by trolls. That doesn't say anything about the quality of the topic, nor does it reflect the caliber of the troll.

Of course, for a troll to function, they need a few naive souls to take the bait—I'll admit, I just fell for it myself—otherwise, the troll would just be talking to himself in an empty room.

Linda Hughes18 said:What’s your take on resuscitation? Are you all for it, against it, or does it just depend on the circumstances?

I work as a nurse at a local hospital, and we recently had to perform CPR on a woman in her 90s because the doctor ordered it. To me, it feels pointless at that age. Honestly, I think she would have preferred to just pass away peacefully, but hey, who am I to make those calls? 🤷

The thing is, I’ve been thinking about it, and I don't even know where I draw the line. At what age does it stop being "saving a life" and start being "prolonging suffering"? When is it actually better to just let someone go? 🤔

So, what are your thoughts on this?

It really depends—not on the circumstances themselves, but on the specific person involved. We are all individuals, after all, navigating our own unique lives and destinies. Because of that, I’ve always felt that you have to approach people on an individual basis rather than applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Society, by its very nature, relies on a framework of established laws to dictate how individuals ought to conduct themselves—essentially defining the boundaries between what is permissible and what is strictly forbidden.

Our society is fundamentally irrational when it comes to these matters. On one hand, we’ll preach endlessly about how life is our most sacred value, yet on the other, we seem perfectly comfortable with the concept of mass casualties during wartime. It’s a strange, jarring contradiction.

I also suspect that the conversation often misses the mark regarding the actual importance of quality of life. In a situation like this—where an elderly woman is enduring constant, debilitating pain and feels she has nothing left to live for—it’s her own personal assessment of her situation. If she truly believes her suffering outweighs any remaining purpose, then I believe society should provide her with the dignity of being allowed to pass away.

Doctors and nurses find themselves in a rather difficult position. Regardless of their personal convictions or how they truly feel about a particular issue, they are strictly bound by the existing legal framework. It isn't really a matter of opinion once you're in the clinical setting; if they step outside the lines of the law, they face severe consequences—ranging from heavy fines to actual prison time. They have to play by the rules of the state, period.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Most extinct languages belonged to small, isolated tribes. There are plenty of those out there, but national languages have much more staying power. It’s often a matter of national pride; take Germans, for instance—they aren't going to adopt English as their official language, even though practically everyone understands it perfectly well.

Then there's the issue of loanwords. Sure, people pick up English terms here and there, but simply borrowing a few words doesn't change the fundamental structure of a language.

I have to disagree. Here is some reading material for you:

Meet the languages that America has forgotten

According to research from the University of Helsinki, over 70 percent of languages in the West fall into the endangered category. While major global languages expand their influence through mass media, certain smaller, isolated ones are slowly fading from the collective consciousness. Because of this, we are bringing you a few interesting examples from the Old Continent.

In the US, according to the UNESCO list, there are a total of 300 languages spoken, and 277 of them are considered endangered. This staggering figure was confirmed by a study conducted a few years ago at the University of Helsinki, which covered a specific region of the Old Continent (excluding Russia and Turkey). Essentially, Finnish researchers concluded that out of 136 languages, only about 30 don't need to worry about their future.

Globalization and the cultural imperialism of "major" Western nations—fueled by mass media and educational systems—are quite literally trampling smaller languages until they vanish entirely. Language death has happened before, but never on the scale we are seeing during the 20th and 21st centuries. It results in new political and cultural shifts. Beyond dying out in the traditional sense, smaller languages sometimes assimilate or merge into larger ones, thereby losing their unique identity. Most minor languages in the West are being rapidly buried under internationalisms and English loanwords, so we are presenting a few that, while perhaps not the most critically endangered, remain relatively unknown.

Here is the full article:

And those are just the languages found in the West. The situation is even more dire for the rest of the world.

Roger Fisher44 said:Why are you asking me? Ask Benetton. Like I said, civilization will likely collapse before any language actually dies out. So, what was the point of those SNV posters then?

I don't need to go running to Benetton; I already understand why they used it and what their endgame was. I was asking you because I wanted to see if you actually had any insight.

But since you’re still stuck on the idea that civilization will fall before a language dies out—there really isn't much point in me asking you anything else. Or telling you anything, for that matter.