|
well youre welcome i'm sure
glad it made some sense
i DO know what you mean about just saying something to stay
sane
all best
L
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
>
|
