>Your use of the word "only" above is unsupportable. Either-or dichotomy
>thinking is simply a word/concept trap. BECAUSE the situation is as bad as
>...
Tom, I have implicitely excluded an alternative, the one you talk about, because I
thought there was no need to endlessly mention the title of the list. Of course,
you're
right, nature could be the main driving force in the future. I was talking about the
possible scenarios if we decide to stop to ignore it the way we have and try to
remain in control by trying to comply with some of its rules as much as we can.
And on the top of it, I've been simplistic, of course.
Also I don't think that the suffering that we will inflict on ourself through nature
will be
of the same nature as the one which we will inflict on ourself through violence. I
like
the first more, if only because of the disastrous social and psychological
consequences of totalitarism.
I do admit a whole range of alternatives, but if we humans want to stay in relative
control I see a range of alternatives with only two poles. One is "population
management", which I am not fanatically opposed to like many people, and the
other is systematic and radical waste reduction. As usual with those things, none of
the poles alone will do.
As to my preferred alternatives, I'd like us to start with overthrowing the aspects of
the ecologically destructive social machinery which is also oppressing us or
others. This can be envisionned for a while without death camps, starvation in the
cold, etc. but not with the bunch of thieves ruling us (this is not conspiracy theory
because "bunch" here means hundreds of millions of people, most of which are not
secretive). This will not be about tradeoffs but about about liberation. If I see a
fair
amount of that (people united and doing themselves some good), I think I'll be able
to stand the camps, starvation, and my own death without getting too bitter.
Useless dreams...
>I am not advocating "putting biospherics first at the expense of most
>people" Our madness has **already done that** FOR us, we are now only
>discussing our response to the consequences.
Yeah, but we can put it even more first, or a bit less. That's what I meant. I'm not
negating the present and the past.
>The mess itself will force ALL to open an eye at some point (that's part of
>what I was trying to say to Carrol. ;-) So your use of "nothing" is
>inappropriate. Some perceive it earlier than others, is all. I inhabit
>crashlist to scream "wake up!" to those who still have closed eyes.
Sorry, but I still stand with Hallyx and Einstein on this. ;-) I am a believer in the
infinite
power of self-deception, stupidity, etc.
>It's a nice logical argument, Julien, but again it avoids understanding that
>NATURE is the most powerful player. We are about to be reminded of who
>actually "owns" the land.
Tom, here you're abusing your anthropomorphism of nature. Whether it actually
"owns" it or not has nothing to do with the fact that if you let the ones who own the
land on paper control it's use, you're not going to go very far in the ways of
"bioregionalism" (I'm not sure what it means, but I think I get the idea).
>If you begin to understand your own watershed --
>your bioregion -- you increase your chances of mitigating the consequences
>of the crash as they affect you and your grandchildren.
Agreed, obviously.
But in your recent posts you seem to be thinking that if you get to know your
bioregion and all, nobody will come with weapons and a disagreement with your
view. How come you think that individual communities can depart from society and
left alone? I know a small number can, but how do a large number of communities
buy their land and depart from the rest of society? How do they protect themselves
from it when the storm hits? How will isolated communities fight the legions of folks
from the cities wearing uniforms?
>NO! By now your observations of the consequences of the WTO protest at
>Seattle should have demonstrated to you that there is no need to "control"
>them or achieve total power over them.
I'm not much convinced of the effectiveness of Seatle and other protests, even if it
sure lifts up the spirits.
>Have you been ignoring Ghandi, King
>and even Lenin?
Lenin is not an example of influencing without taking control as far as I can see.
Ghandi was involved in a national liberation struggle, which is entierly another
matter. What he has done on social reform is of course great, but has not proven
very effective as far as I can see. King is probably a better example but I don't
know much about American history.
But I think I see your point. My problem with it is that I think attempts at
influencing
rulers only worked because there was a definite prospect for them to lose control if
they aren't careful. So when you say that they "WILL remain in charge", I still see it
as a contradiction with the rest of what you say.
>Just as Butterfly did with Luna,
This reference founds me lost.
> enough (and save a few whales and trees in the process)until
>nature herself explains to them the error of their ways. (opps that sounded
>pretty religionist, sorry.)
I'm not sure they'll ever be convinced. They could ask for, as Talbott puts it,
another technical fix. They could lose control before nature's explanation gets
clear enough. Or not, of course. I don't know the future.
>An acquaintance with a classical education will answer those misgivings. <g>
>Start with Tom Reagan's "The Case for Animal Rights". He sums up the
>diversity of classical thought on the issue in his first couple of chapters.
I was just curious. Got other stuff to read now but thanks for the suggestion.
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
