Mary posted the following with my comments below:
> Eric wrote:
> >All of the basic necessities are
> >produced locally (cottage industy?) with an eye on the possible impact on
> >Nature.
>
> Mary wrote:
> If you are willing to do without metals - only then would the above be a
> possibility - nice thought though.
>
> Eric wrote:
> >The focus had shifted from objects (materialism) and technologies
> >(knowledge) to relationships and wisdom. We have learned the meaning of
> >"just enough". We aren't as concerned with our own comfort and
> >convenience as we are with our ability to harmonize with others (humans
> >and other life).
>
> Frank wrote:
> >If we could live like this it would be a greater step for Mankind than
> >landing on the moon! Frank
>
> Mary wrote:
> Sorry, Frank, but it wouldn't - because there are people - on a global
> scale - who will **not** **let** people live this way - they are
> power-mad and swine-greedy. If those of us who are willing to live with
> hardship and deprivation just to be left alone to do *our thing* don't get
> the hell off this planet, we *will* be living with global dictators.
> Genghis Khan was the one that shows up in my distant past history book,
> Hitler was his modern history counterpart - what's going on in Europe RIGHT
> NOW should be an indication to you (if you read) that people are NOT going
> to - *ever* - all play nice, and there are more of those every day just
> as there are fewer places on *this* globe for those who need only the
> space to be alone to be happy.
My thoughts:
What I wrote was a vision of a very distant, perhaps never to be, future
that can serve as a way to help clearify values and philosophies. In that
vision, I DO see metals used very rarely and as the precious gifts they
are. I find this vision useful and not too ridiculous because not only is
it possible, but it was the way things ACTUALLY were for a very, very long
time everywhere, and still is in many places in the world today. The
current trend toward global industrial capitalism and the associated greed
and separation of individual from surrounding context (another, but
interesting topic) has lead us to an escalation of irresponsible behaviors.
Yes, I am aware of the horrors of which humans are capable. Should we
then just give up and give in? I don't know that I have an answer either,
but major philosophical changes would go a long way. With low technologies
and no concentrated fuels at least the scale of our destruction would
change for the better. One person is quite powerless without the masses of
others that give him their power.
By the way, I feel the need to point out an inconsistency in Mary's
statement. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly. My intention in pointing
it out is to help us all see how we reason through things, and help us keep
clearer heads. Mary wrote the following in response to Franks comment.
> Frank wrote: If we could live like this it would be a greater step for
Mankind than
> landing on the moon!
>
> Mary wrote: Sorry, Frank, but it wouldn't - because there are people - on
a > global scale - who will **not** **let** people live this way.
An important word in Frank's comment is "if". Mary said "it woudn't"; I
assume this to mean "it wouldn't be a greater step". Perhaps I am getting
to picky here. Perhaps Mary is saying "it would never happen", not that
"it wouldn't be a greater step". But taken at face value, Mary's comments
do not invalidate Frank's (or mine) because he is talking about what it
would be like "if", not about "whether" it would be or not.
We *ARE* living with global dictators in the form of global corporations.
There *ARE* many people living with hardship and deprivation.
There *ARE* more people not playing nicely every day, and
There *ARE* fewer places on this globe for those who need only the space to
be alone to be happy.
The senario I presented will not bring these about; they are already here.
The question is why do we have them here now? Isn't one of the major
factors that the industrialized world, looked up to and emulated by most of
the rest, values individual selfish greed and pleasure satisfaction over
all else? Isn't the goal to get what you can for yourself? Yes, there may
be some rules, but they are arbitrary and not used consistently by all
players; in a sense, one is free to make up one's own rules. Therefore,
effectively, there are no rules. When a corporation forms a monopoly or a
"dictator" invades new territory, shouldn't we praise them for doing so
well? When this is the game, why are we upset with scrooge-like HMO's and
multi-million dollar law suits? I just heard that McDonald's is the
highest grossing - literally? : ) - restaurant in Japan; shouldn't we
applaud that? I'd prefer a dfferent game.
If there were only 6,000 humans on the earth, they could probably get away
with such folley. With 6,000,000,000 and counting (12 billion in the next
30 years!) we need to decide whether we will just hang on for the wildest
ride in human history, or whether we will at least attempt to steer the
boat away from the waterfall. Telling me how tall the waterfall is only
makes me paddle faster. If someone else steers for the falls, I may just
ship and take my chances.
I guess I'm wandering. So let me reiterate my main points.
*Visions can be useful tools, even if they aren't possible in the
foreseable future.
*Just because there are bad people doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't be
good.
*The status quo is horrible and only getting worse; it's time to do some
hard thinking.
I enjoy the discourse; it sharpens my thinking.
Eric:
