----------
>From: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How successful the aformentioned people would have been
> sustaining the same human-densities as what the "west"
> attempted past/present to support?
TL:
But this is truly the question Eva. We are not attempting to support any
particular population densities. We are just breeding like mice and rabbits
without any planning or considerations of planet potential support. Our
ecological scientists are trying to tell us that under all our civilization,
certain basics are still the controlling factor - the ability of soil to
grow grains, the cleanliness of water. However, our political and
economical models are totally ignoring these basics and dealing with the
illusions of winning elections and making a profit.
Eva:
What is the point of digging up old recepees that sufficed the requirments
> of past communities?
Thomas:
We have lost our history of survival to the history of events. In other
times, history was a recitation of family trees, movements of the people,
hard times and good times and the relationships that people had with nature
and the animal kingdom. Our history is of military battles, important
people, conquest and loss. It is a false history in the sense that - that
knowledge gives our culture no survival skills. So we approach each problem
as an isolated problem, not from the collective wisdom of our history but a
set of facts and options - which often just sets up another chain of
problems. With all the education we give children today, how many can bake
a cake, sew a shirt, makes some shoes or store some corn. Our knowledge is
the knowledge of style and abstract and should our world experience a
serious setback, good grades will not improve survival value.
Eva:
We have to solve todays problems,
> with todays technology and today's scientific and ethical
> awareness of the importance of the environment.
> We have to respond to our reality, not to a virtual
> world - whether past or imaginary.
Thomas:
And yet this is the point, I feel Ray and I are trying to bring into
awareness. It is our reality that is the virtual world - not the one in the
past. It has no history - it makes assumptions based on studies done in
isolation of a larger scheme, it makes decisions on satisfying interest
groups or political and economic power blocs, it does not have a collective
wisdom of taboos or a council of elders who sit and listen to the worlds
problems. Rather it has highly educated people who know little of life
furthering their individual career paths. Holding positions for a short
time, making decisions that protect their ass rather than holding the
collective good of the people and the planet.
Eva:
>
>
> We need to develop the social structure that is able
> and motivated to be longsighted, coherent,
> consistent, integrated/cooperative for planning
> to cater for the present populations with the
> projected (hoped for?) levelling out of populations.
Thomas:
Yes, I sort of agree with you here. What I would suggest though is a social
structure is not a construct of Socialogy 101. A social structure is an
organic thing that evolves through certain values that are held by a larger
group within the total. Today, those values are being determined by
capitalism and the concept of profit and material gain and by democracy
which has the byproduct of politicians seeking election and winning by
placating other groups such as business. Nowhere in this model is the
collective wisdom of our species being allowed a voice - it is all short
term - expiedient and self centered.
I don't suggest I have any answers except a deep sense that what we are
doing is wrong and that it is leading us and our children to a future of
horrific problems and experiences. And yet daily, I am advised that the
economy is growing, that science has invented the next new miracle.
Today in the paper was a picture of a Japanese machine that can plant rice
without any human operators. It goes up and down the field using a Global
Positioning satellite, I assume it will use fertilizers and pesticides,
probaly also planned without human hands touching them. In ten years, it
will this eliminate the millions of third world families ability to grow
rice because it will be more economically vialble and even more effective
than traditional farming. And yet, there was no announcement along with the
invention to say how the poor of the world will get the rice that is grown -
no transfer of funds so they can buy that abundance. They will join the
army of the unemployed and become a social problem requiring welfare and
laws to keep them from sleeping on urban streets. Yes technology can do
wonders but what are we going to do with all those people who have no money
to buy the goods, and who have no work in an economic system set up to
transfer funds between people based on the production of their labour - when
we take away the need for their labour. And yet, the GNP, will go up, the
stock market will reflect the growth of certain companies and the economists
will tell us that with lower interest rates, more rice machines can be built
and more money can be made.
We need a council of elders to listen to the cries of the human tribe. Not
Phd's and career climbers, but rice farmers and single mothers and lovers of
the planet.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
