Unless your friend knows something *I* don't know (which I
acknowledge that, as far as her field is concerned, she certainly
does) - I would say she is the ULTIMATE optimist! Maybe I'm having
a bad day, but that kind of optimism seems to me to be from another
planet entirely.....
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 28 10:54:30 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950428115647.384;
From: "Jackie Van Brocklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"shana ([EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:56:44 CST
Subject: Re: Salvage Logging Statements
Sorry, Shana - but I am just this MORNING (Fri) receiving your
message! A big hint: "that-day-deadlines" don't really work on
the (national) Internet. It can take a day or two to REACH
everybody. Sometimes I get a message fairly quickly (within the
hour - or that a.m. or p.m.), but usually, it's at LEAST the
next day.....
I would love to have had time to discuss this tho!
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 28 12:15:38 MDT 1995
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 11:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barbara Bliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FWD: RACHEL #348: Warning on Male Reproductive Health
To: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950427165006.3125C-100000@case>
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Faith Freewoman wrote:
> I passed this article on to a friend who is a clinical epidimiologist,
> and was *I* surprised to hear her reaction.
>
> She called me the next day all a-bubble with enthusiasm, and when I
> responded blankly she said, essentially ... "Don't you SEE?!?! This is
> evidence that what we've been working toward is HAPPENING ... the
> feminization of the planet!!! THINK of the possibilities for our
> evolution with reduced (NOT eliminated) testosterone ... less war, less
> territoriality, less ... YOU know. And (here she chuckles) how tidy that
> it should be brought about by the very indivduals who are ravaging and
> polluting our planet; what sweet justice!"
In industrialized nations, feminization my have beneficial effects.
Human population control could become a non-issue. However, for aquatic
species, and other wildlife unable to escape the effects of hormone
mimics, the results may be the same -sterilization and decline of the
species.
If I could make a new effluent permitting discharge rule, it would be
that corporations (including ag) could not discharge what they were not
willing to drink. I think that would take care of the problem, and
balance the impacts among those who could best survive the impacts.
Barbara Bliss
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 28 12:23:37 MDT 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Golden)
Subject: Re: power
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Susan Clayton)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 11:24:33 PDT
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from "Susan Clayton" at Apr 28, 95
8:56 am
Hi, Susan wrote:
>
> I guess I think power is both inevitable and necessary. Inevitable
> because, even if power based on financial or political clout were
> eliminated, some people would still have power based on physical,
> intellectual, or perhaps artistic superiority. Necessary because people
> are not uniformly good-intentioned or in agreement, and if most members of
> a society or community make the choice to live in a particular way, there
> needs to be some way of forcing people who do not make that choice either
> to do so or to leave the community. (This sounds extreme if you're
> thinking about whether homeowners mow their lawn, but not if you're
> thinking about whether a person rapes, murders, robs, etc.) What might be
> the best solution is merely to have power based on legitimate grounds
> rather than illegitimate grounds; to make sure everyone has access to power
> (and it is not passed down from father to son, e.g.); and to have power
> exercised to the minimal extent.
> I think of the power that it is necessary for a parent to have over a
> child. Letting the child do whatever s/he wants is dangerous and does not
> produce an adult capable of restraining her/his impulses. But you don't
> want to control the child all the time, and you do want to offer
> explanations.
> Susan
>
As a parent, I'm not so sure it is power I am using. I try to view
it as guidance. I think of power in child rearing as making them do
something YOU want them to do. Stopping them from running in the house
with a knife(my two year-old last night) is stopping them to protect
them...guidance. I'm not gaining something from stopping them from
hurting themselves. If I forced them to do something they didn't want to
do for my benefit, then that would be exhibiting power over them. Just
because someone has artistic or intellectual
talents isn't the same as saying they have power. Its what they do with
those talents which makes the distinction for me. Do they use it for the
betterment of humanity, or to exploit humanity? Power vrs. contribution.>
When one says that we need to give everyone the access to power, do we
mean everyone should have an equal opportunity to potentially exploit
others?
I agree with you that not everyone is uniformally good-intentioned...But
I think that is learned behavior. We exist in a society that tells us
that competition amongst memers of society is not only good, its natural.
Thus we are rewarded for taking advantage of people (isn't that where
profits come from for instance?).-If people were taught that cooperation
was the value of society, would we have so many bad-intentioned people?
-
-Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
