some people may see things like that Molly, lets take that for granted, but to extend this to all humans, no I belive that is wrong.
I'm with the kid, we DO hurt those we love the most, we CAN treat family worse than we treat strangers. We do not all think alike and this relalisation of 'family' I think will make not a lot of differance to the majority. There are many ills in the world and I figure that the fix is really not going to be this simple. On 7 Sep, 16:45, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > The difference that it makes, kid, is that if we truly understand that > we are all related in a way that means what happens to you happens to > me, we see the world differently, we act differently toward each > other, we live differently. Most of us learn this first in our > families, but if we have the misfortune of being born into a family > that does not provide a loving foundation or give us this lesson, it > is up to us to learn it from the greater community (or not.) > > On Sep 7, 10:03 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > my point is.. how does it matter whether one is a relative or not... where > > does this obligation of being good to our relatives come from.. it was the > > accident of birth that made them our relatives... why should that make them > > special... wat if they were not our relatives.. would we behave differently > > towards them? > > > On 9/7/09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > that might be how it feels kid, but someone capable of being rude and > > > indifferent to family is also prone to this behavior in public, > > > although they might be more selective and use the behavior to promote > > > personal agenda... > > > > On Sep 7, 9:35 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > i dont thinkit would.... we can be rude and indifferent to our > > > > relatives like we can be to neone else. > > > > > On Sep 6, 2:50 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Have you ever thought about those to whom you are related? Of > > > > > course you have, but maybe not in this way. > > > > > We all have four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc. > > > > > This geometric progression continues as we go back from generation to > > > > > generation until, in about 1400 AD it equals the entire population of > > > > > the human species at that time. In other words, each of us is related > > > > > to everyone else if we look back far enough. > > > > > Similarly, if we go forward, from children to grandchildren etc., > > > > > making some reasonable assumptions and using the current projections > > > > > for the future human population, our direct progeny will equal > > > > > everyone living in about 2900 AD. If we include in this calculation > > > > > brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins, we will be related to > > > > > everyone living in about 2700 AD. > > > > > So at present we seem least related to friends, neighbors, and > > > > > those in our community and country. But in fact we are all related. It > > > > > is just that it seems now that we’re not. Would it change anything if > > > > > we but acknowledged our relationship to everyone, ancestors and > > > > > descendants? Jim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
