I take the fun bit entirely Facil though I'm not keen on a lot that passes as such. Inclined to see education as pretty cruel child-minding, mostly. The dogs and cat eat more meat than we do, but I'm not inclined to view them as climate deniers. The Jewish-Xtian ideology stuff extends to concerns on biggly bang as rather 'creationist'. Personally, I suspect much of our ideology comes from heroic rot like the Attic tragedies and their endless repetition in cop series and sci-fi.
World population in 1910 was about 1.7 billion - this is more or less the start of WW1 (Italy fooling around in the Ottoman Empire in what's now Libya and the British invasion of Iraq). With a reasonably sustainable population we made the 'sensible' decision to go to mega-war with the Germans as scapegoat. I am not inclined to this kind of reason or jawbs-groaf politics. You could get a £2500 fine for your banana skin here, but 400 new coal mines in India is OK along with plans to mega-frack the UK. Rest assured I won't be round to take your confession! I guess environmentalism could be fun - our only Green MP starred in an entertaining party political broadcast last week, as a dangerous threat to the politics of promising what you have no intent to deliver (she got herself arrested at an anti-fracking protest). The ins and outs of all this are more than double-edged. I would say, for instance, that the economic control fraud can hardly be discussed because its scriptures are as mythical of any of our 1000s of religions. Our notions of self-reliance and individualism are 'under threat' from this form of ethics, perhaps because the actions required are not symbolic. On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:39:43 PM UTC, facilitator wrote: > > Double edged sword. Because we can do a thing doesn't necessarily mean we > should do a thing. I have always (mostly) argued we should first determine > if we (Humans) are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If we are > simply a species that appears and disappears as a result of the > evolutionary tactic then everything we do or don't do is irrelevant. We > will die off or evolve and prosper and there is no guide other than chance > for any particular direction. We have as little chance of changing the > natural course of events as deflecting plasma from sunspots. > I do hate the constant inference to some religious bent of > Judaism/Christianity as being anti environment. As the story is outlined > the first humans were strict vegetarians and God did not say :"Here is a > garden, go shit in it". I am also tired of the religious left claiming I > am a Climate Change (or insert other politically charged denigration here) > ie: (Global Warming) denier. > "No one EXPECTS the climate inquisition!" > In general, humans, religious and not, have a tendency to confuse power > with responsibility. > This morning I threw a banana peel out my car window on my way to > work. I considered that somewhat helpful to the environment but others > would disagree. I think they might confuse clutter with "Green". I am the > only person on my block of about 20 homes who does not put leaves on the > curb to be picked up. I rather mix them with dirt and have better gardens > as a result. (Leaf blowers should be the first thing banned before the XL > pipeline!) > > I will tell you what is completely missing from environmental ethics. > Fun. Show them how to make things with stuff! I think Native americans > used every part of a kill. Teaching kids how miserable we as humans are is > grotesque. Teaching them that the layer of breathable air around the earth > is about as massive as a thick coat of paint on a classroom globe would be > a better start. If we are unique and somehow important than we need to > start smarter. Chances are we don't have a chance! > > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
