thank you, lawrence for giving more back to my little "blurb" than i really put into it. sometimes, i just have to say something to stay sane, perhaps, so i try, even when it's just a little unformed piece of what i really wish i could say. (or rather, what little bit of it can be said/written). anyway, thanks so much, cause i got a lot from what you've said here.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Lawrence Upton wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >Date: Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:21 AM > >Subject: incrementalism > > I don't think youre going to have any argument with many here for at least > some of that sentiment > > but I'd like to respond on a couple of things > > your observation of _high "background" mortality of wars and other human > catastrophes that claim lives at random. the risk of death is continually > there_ > > i wonder why suicide bombing has just taken hold, because this has been > going on for ever. I don't have statistics so I can make no comparisons; but > my suspicion would be that the pillage and rape attitude of _to the victor > the spoils_ has decreased > > a lot of the killing is not random, though opportunistic killing and maiming > may seem random if one is its victim or aware of one > > random killing used to be done by the system, the earth, just as propagation > was - seeds everywhere, as many as you could manage, whether you were a tree > or a human... > > that's gone for many of us - the need for large familiies to ensure one or > more survived diseases we didn't know abour > > but I don't, for instance, see any sign that AIDS even at the period of > greatest fearful response to it, led anyone to suicide killing > > random killing now is often technological - the ability to bomb massively > without risk to the bomber is won at the expense of accuracy > > I could go on, but I think that's enough to illustrate how I am thinking > about your idea - it's an interesting idea, but I don't go for it > > I'd suggest a modification > > which is that with the abstraction of the idea of technology from the many > technologies and the clear success of much technology against indices set, > there has grown an idea that we can somehow negate mortality > > i am an example of it myself > > 100 years before i would have died in 1953 (i think it was); and yet here i > am resenting my own mortality still - 56 and wanting more > > technology will be able to do less and less to aid me in my plans for > immortality, but potentially plenty to manage growing infirmity; and that > too will give me pause to reflect that it is all unfair > > the way it has been - he not busy being born is busy dying - has been > deferred > > the success of technology, hoiwever, may be measured by many indices; and > some of them are not hopeful - there are too many of us, for a start; and > the technology has side effects, though you may be more or less inclined to > worry depending on where you live > > the ABUNDANCE you speak of always has been there potentially - whence would > have come Eden and other images but from that observation > > science has given us it at a price > > i ate like a renaissance prince yesterday with nuts from brazil, dates from > turkey etc; and I havent paid the consequence bill for the air miles > > and with it, abundance under capitalism, comes that persisting mix of belief > in science and alchemy > > alexander downer, foreign minister on my radio from australia, oh brave new > world, proposing the solution to our problems without the slightest idea of > what that technology is > > it's all right, my lord, i shall merely take these flood waters and the > buildings blown down by high winds and convert them into non greenhouse > emitting fuel... would you like some gold while i am at it > > and so australia and other countries will spend money designing a box, with > most of the human energy going into deciding whether to have 1 or 2 buttons > to press; and then they'll pass it to someone else and say build that > > challenged that it's too late, theyll produce statistics to prove that the > teething problems have been overcome > > certainly i agree that we should all think differently > > but all of us > > all > > saying which i send you this email > > L >
