Hi Ed, Hi Brad, As a species that allegedly evolved according to necessity of survival, it would be logical to presume we practiced a good many rational choices for 1.5 million years to arrive at this point of obsession with our current devolution.
One may well ponder that the resultant destruction course went hand in hand with over-population, for even within recent history the earth was populated by smaller, more environmentally respectful groups. Seculars would dispute that a supreme being is required to keep a moral check on society, though many would agree that if it weren't for religious edicts, the fundamentalists out there would become unbearable. Other seculars might suggest that perhaps religion has been responsible for a vast sum of immorality by virtue of the fact that most religion has traditionally tried to tell people how to think and has, by upholding its holy scriptures, sufficiently impressed upon them that God is judgmental and vengeful. That hell and the devil are real. Deep down, people know that they are not sinners, but basically turn psycho at being told they are, and try to compensate through projections and manifestations which therapists might unravel for decades. Note that since the realization that most religious prophets likely had mental disorders, the scriptures have not actually been replenished. I do believe, however, that people must have found it easier to communicate with the rest of consciousness more easily without white noise, modern societal fears, pressures and so forth. I think religion really screwed things up by misinterpreting the likely meaning of Free Will, which may more wisely be said to be free only when our thoughts and actions are in tune with what will allow all life, including ourselves, to be joyful. This would in all respects necessitate total alignment with the thoughts of an omniscient, loving, kind, giving and forgiving being or consciousness, one who could never force their will upon anyone. Further, the religious requisite of fearing God one's entire life hardly inspires trust that one is loved unconditionally. A supreme being who inspires awe would not want devotion extracted by coercion. If we are indeed God's creations, God already knows us well, and knows that only perfection is possible by Perfection. Though most religious people await a second coming, they may be far better off to rethink the meaning of a second coming to be a re-evaluation or remembering of who we really are, who we will--deep down--to be, then fre! ely choose to respect all life accordingly. There are two ways to look at the earth in particular. One is that of a place of scarcity, the other one of abundance. In order for us to live the reality of the latter, we can hardly disrespect it. Dominion over it should not imply anything but responsible stewardship. Living the other belief has gotten us to this desolate point, and there is no alternative left but for peace. I wonder, since we have no other choice, is it considered arrived at through free will? Will we be doing this over and over till we get it right? Ah, classroom earth! Natalia Kuzmyn All mail scanned by NAV ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Futurework <[email protected]>; Karen Watters Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Ernie Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; George Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] The Revenge of Gaia | Agree with most of what you say, Brad, but I don't think we as a species | have ever done anything because it is the rational thing to do. We seem to | need a supreme being to compell us to want to do things that are "good" | instead of immoral or "sinful". If not God above the clouds then Gaia here | on earth. Perhaps we are genetically structured that way. If so, I think | we can understand it if we consider all of the awful things we have had to | live through since our beginnings. Being alone and feeling helpless in a | hostile universe would have been unbearable at times, and perhaps most of | the time. | | Good to hear from you and regards, | Ed | | | >I do not think one needs to view "the earth" in any kind of benevolent and | >quasi-personal sense | > to "take good care of it". To take good care of the earth can also be | > enlightened (not the guru kind) selfishness. Analogy: As the Rockefellers | > say: | > youhave to treat the workers well today to be | > able to make profits from them 50 years from now. | > | > Remember, Darwinean evolution | > don't give a sh-t about anybody or anything -- it's the natural analog of | > what persons create in the form of "free enterprise" (As Werner Herzog | > titled | > his film about the tragedy of Kaspar Hauser: "Every man for himself | > and God against all.") We need to take good care of the earth | > because we are at its mercy. We are under extortion from the | > mindless bringer of oncogenes and orgasms and everything else. | > Sort of like, if we were taken hostage by | > terrorists, we might find it wise to look out for their well being to | > try to minimize the damage they do to us. | > | > As to the other part about civilization being energy intensive, that's | > just not true. It's large populations, wasteful social arrangements, | > the craving for ever more trinkets, etc. | > that are the energy hogs. Commuting to work in a car for many | > miles adds nothing to the quality of anyone's life above what the | > persons would get if they lived where they work.* Reading (or, even | > better, writing) a book of lasting value does not require hardly | > any energy (expending a day at DisneyLand is what takes | > energy! Or "seeing the USA in your Chevrolet", etc.) | > | > We could have a far higher quality of life if we stopped | > potlatching and multiplying. What a shame it all is.... | > | > \brad mccormick | > | > -- | > * Yes, I remember Arthur's story of the man whose only peace in life | > was during his commute. Maybe in a more human society | > he would have "a way out" of the dilemma that put him there. | > | > | > | > Karen Watters Cole wrote: | > | >> A pessimistic conclusion from the author of Gaia. Note the plea for a | >> powered descent, like the Peak Oil activists who advocate a managed | >> transition to post-cheap energy survival and community rebuilding. kwc | >> | >> | >> *James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may | >> last as long as 100,000 years * | >> | >> | >> *Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain | >> civilisation for as long as they can * | >> | >> | >> *The Independent UK, 16 January 2006 * | >> | >> Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfilment of her vocation; | >> then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he | >> had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young | >> physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed | >> invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police | >> know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try | >> in vain to deny it. | >> | >> | >> Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become | >> hardened to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the | >> awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they | >> had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and | >> the police have no escape from their duty. | >> | >> | >> This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same | >> reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and | >> clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has | >> made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now | >> I, too, have to bring bad news. | >> | >> | >> The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the | >> pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical | >> condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon | >> to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I | >> have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part | >> of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger. | >> | >> | >> Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal | >> does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It | >> was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot | >> for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will | >> worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, | >> but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer | >> the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 | >> degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. | >> | >> | >> Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no | >> longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40% of the Earth's surface | >> we have depleted to feed ourselves. | >> | >> | >> Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global | >> warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This "global dimming" is | >> transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, | >> leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in | >> *a fool's climate*, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this | >> century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of | >> people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains | >> tolerable. | >> | >> | >> By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, | >> we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in | >> charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. | >> If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for | >> keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A | >> task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia | >> so badly, she had freely done for us. | >> | >> | >> To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate | >> your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing | >> kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt | >> and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no | >> replacement for living healthy kidneys. | >> | >> | >> My new book /The Revenge of Gaia/ expands these thoughts, but you still | >> may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the | >> Earth. I think it is because Darwin's vision was so good and clear that | >> it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about | >> the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been | >> little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as | >> well as adapting to it. | >> | >> | >> Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, | >> Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, | >> but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth | >> as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the | >> Earth's skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of | >> products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt | >> instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they | >> were part of the living Earth. | >> | >> | >> So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of | >> change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each | >> community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to | >> sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is | >> energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need | >> the *security of a* *powered descent*. On these British Isles, we are | >> used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental | >> change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the | >> UK. Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large | >> city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are | >> dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny | >> us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas. | >> | >> | >> We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World | >> War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be | >> the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but | >> sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China | >> and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of | >> emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a | >> hell of a climate. | >> | >> | >> Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we | >> do. Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human | >> civilisation the planet has a precious resource. *We are not merely a | >> disease*; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous | >> system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and | >> begins to know her place in the universe. | >> | >> | >> We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us | >> be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that | >> we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We | >> must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a | >> broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember | >> that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home. | >> | >> / / | >> | >> /The writer is an independent environmental scientist and Fellow of the | >> Royal Society. 'The Revenge of Gaia' is published by Penguin on 2 | >> February/ | >> | >> | >> http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece | >> | >> | >> | >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ | >> | >>_______________________________________________ | >>Futurework mailing list | >>[email protected] | >>http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework | >> | > | > | > -- | > Let your light so shine before men, | > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) | > | > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) | > | > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > ----------------------------------------------------------------- | > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ | > _______________________________________________ | > Futurework mailing list | > [email protected] | > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework | | _______________________________________________ | Futurework mailing list | [email protected] | http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
