Um..I'm sorry, but this is making me crazy.
In the natural world, aggression is almost ALWAYS a threat rather than an
actual harmful act. It is rare for the native flora and fauna to actually
hurt members of their own species: damage to other species is usually a
matter of food, not bad temper. There are two necessities of Life:
Diversity and resources. Diversity always wins out. I know, I know...our
culture supports such ideas as the superior aggressive male with a
harem...but one individual's fathering of lots of babies would reduce
diversity of the species. Nature tends to correct for this...as example,
deer and moose who expend a great deal of energy being aggressive and
sequestering the most females, generally use up their stores of fat and die
of starvation over the winter. The nice guys live longer, and get to mate
too. As for resources, often native "aggression" is just an adjustment which
allows different species to locate in an environment to access enough
resources (food). To see this, just go down to the shoreline where there are
pilings. There will be a ring of mussels on the piling...up too high for the
star fish to get them,but not too high for access to food at high tide. In
the native world, predators must not be too successful. They must be
successful enough to survive as a species,but not such great aggressive
hunters that they deplete their prey.
There are many and varied human cultures, past and present.Some are unusual
in their intra- and inter- species violence, but many are non-violent and in
fact lived in their environment for hundreds...if not thousands...of years
without depleting resources. A discussion of aggression is absolutely
critical: but caution is advised, in that our culture's definition of
behavior is colored by the culture itself. Please see"Bonobo, the forgotten
ape", "The Semai, a nonviolent people of Malaya", and "The Forest People" by
Colin Turnbull among many excellent works. Either testosterone is not evenly
distributed among peoples, animals, and times, or else it is not the main
factor in what we call "aggression". Respectfully, DMadrone.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 30 22:21:14 1997
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
Sun, 31 Aug 1997 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 00:21:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hello Zanne
Dang. I meant to keep lurking!
Castration does not always make a guy harmless. That's why the eunichs in
harems had the whole kit removed...a surgery that increased the mortality
rate, but was nonetheless deemed worth while.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 30 23:24:18 1997
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:28:30 +1000
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 20:32:38 +1000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: helen lobato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: making an anarchic ecofeminist society
Gwendolyn asked "how do we get from where we are now to there" meaning how
do we clean up the mess we, the world are in. The change will be difficult
but it must begin. Our society is unsustainable.We have reached the levels
of economic output and of individual consumption that are beyond what can be
maintained for long to all people let alone our future predicted population
of 11 billion.
We who live in rich countries can only live in our way because we take most
of the worlds resources.We cannot continue to live the affluent way of life
that we do. we must change our lifestyles so that we live well without the
need to further damage and exploit the earth and other people.
Therefore the starting point to change is education of us all. once people
understand that we really have no choice if the race is to continue then the
change can progress. So I think that it is up to us all to spread the word
and show by example what is possible.
You have to start at the grass roots. The people in power have to much to
lose to lead the way. What we need is a conserver society. That is a local
economy which is small scale, cooperative and self sufficient where we can
live modestly where our towns must provide most of our needs from local
resources. It must be a non affluent lifestyle based on needs not on wants.
This does not rule out improvements in technology, hospitals and other
services but there would be more of an emphasis on needs.
I am told that is is starting around the world.It will take decades but it
is the only alternative to the system that we have now. It is on the way to
collapse and we have to be ready with our alternative societies before it
happens.
Zanne asked what we would be boycotting? we would be boycotting all the
unnecessary spending and frivolous entertainment that we partake in today.To
be self sufficient and set up new communities there would be no need for
these distractions. Our lives would become more communal.we would need to
convert our suburbs into regional economies.We would eliminate the need to
travel long distances to work and in fact we would have much more leisure
and of course we would eliminate the unemloyment problems and the horrific
social problems of our present society. A lot of the things that we
presently pay for would be shared responsibilities such as childcare,
elderly care ,libraries, schooling etc. We have no choice but to live the
life we are living which will get rougher rapidly. So we boycott the system.
We make our own communities. How? Find a group of likeminded people.
Perhaps find a piece of good land and start sustainable permaculture
gardens. Convert a building into a shared shed, meeting place, library
whatever and things will grow. They have to. But I think the big thing is
education. spreading the word that we don't have to take what they the
capitalists are dishing out.
Helen
