“I think we will outlive every other species on
the planet, even if we have to escape it, leaving a burnt-out cinder behind. “
The meek shall inherit
the Earth. The strong will leave.
“But what I want to
know is why in all of our awesomeness, we don't spend a little of it in
introspection.”
Well, I never did like
the word “we”. Sounds like “Anthem”. You seem
introspective. Therefore, the collective whole is more introspective. You’ve
done your part. Teach your kids.
“you think we are on
the verge of self-extinction”
There’s never been
a more conning successful argument than “pay me now and I will deliver
later”. Sort of blood for promises! The end is near! Repent for your sins
today. Send your checks to… When the theists do this for rewards in the
afterlife, they use guilt. When the statists do this for rewards in the future,
they use force. We have a constitution that protects us from the former but not
the latter. Both are religions. It’s just that the latter doesn’t
call it a religion so it doesn’t fall under First Amendment. When the
Rapture doesn’t happen on the foretold day, excuses are made and the
event is pushed a little bit more into the future but still looming on the
horizon mind you. When the Annual Global Warming Convention is snowed out in
the biggest cold spell in decades, excuses are made. Neither side will admit
the possibility of being wrong. You can’t prove there is not a Hell in
the afterlife just as you can’t prove there is not a Hell in the future.
We cannot go there now so it cannot be negated. Pascal’s Wager is then invoked
along with a false dilemma. The most emotional dramatic speakers win the
argument.
“I'm an anarchist.”
That always seems to have
a bad connotation doesn’t it? Anarchy means against “archies”,
like monarchies, oligarchies, plutocracies, etc. I don’t think it means
zero government. It just means minimal government. Supposedly all governments
have the same common abstract goal: “to minimize conflict”, which
usually results in one entity using force against another. So the government
has to use force to intervene, which causes conflict, but just less than no
government. So the questions become, “what is the minimum” and “who
started the fight?” If you do something that I don’t like, are you
allowed to or not? We have Freedom of Speech, but not Freedom of Volume at any
place and time. I think the government doesn’t care who started it so
long as someone does start it and the government can use that as an excuse to
get involved and grow. Sounds like a conflict of interest. What can the
government do today to cause the people to hate each other? I know from
watching the last few decades of American politics that the two parties in the
government seem to be far more united than their voters. We are divided and so
we are conquered.
To paraphrase the Obama slogan, "we are the ones
we've been whining about".
That’s funny. I
have a feeling that the Obama administration is going to look just like the
Bush administration but with the tables turned. It’s hilarious. Dems
complained about Bush, Reps said, “you need to support our president!”,
and Dems said “he’s not our president!” Now Reps are
complaining about Obama, and the Dems are saying, “just give him a chance
and have hope”, and Reps are saying, “he doesn’t represent
me!” Dems accused Bush about the Patriot Act as an invasion of privacy.
Now Napolitano releases some paper about suspicious groups that are “on the
watch list” and the Reps accuse the same. The final score: PEOPLE 0,
GOVERNMENT 2.
I’m very positive
about the future because the private sector seems to invent and adapt to new technologies
far faster than the government slugs can react. Look at PGP, blogs, cell phone
cameras and recorders, and instant cross references. Politicians are still
dumbfounded when some YouTube shows them saying two contradictory statements with
the same conviction and sincerity to two different voting groups both made in
different cities but both in the same week. They’re still fighting the
previous war. They also hate it when people pull up recordings of their past (when
they were hoping it would be forgotten) and send it out virally.
Politics. You just gotta
love it.
“I hope his [Obama’s] detractors are as
wrong as their arrogant self-rightous blustering implies.”
Whatever laws your political
party passes that benefits you at the expense of the other party becomes
precedent for revenge when the tables turn. And those laws linger for a long
time.
The best way to make “society”
better is to make “yourself” better. Do your part. Set an example.
Rob
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:09
PM
To:
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How many
years left
My contemporary cars get about twice the fuel mileage
that my earlier vehicles did. This is a combination of being lighter,
more aerodynamic, having better drive-train efficiencies, improved combustion
due to combustion chamber design, fuel management, and spark
management. Vehicles with similar weight but (in my case) with 4x4
or AWD get about 50% better gas mileage than their 2WD counterparts from 30-40
years ago. My "economy cars" from the 70's/80's rival
even the hybrids. I have to coast a lot, manage my speed carefully, avoid
sitting at idle, but yes, they clock in about the same as a Prius or even an
Insight, but it takes a lot of care.
I
suppose the same is true in reverse. There are those that apologize for our
greatness and deny that we’ve done wonders yet insist that we could never
be the cause of our own destiny. It’s all a matter of perspective.
I'm usually on your side of the arguement.
I'm a human-chauvanist (thanks to Robert Heinlein) and I think we will outlive
every other species on the planet, even if we have to escape it, leaving a
burnt-out cinder behind. We are wicked-clever, and we *will* find a
way.
But what I want to know is why in all of our awesomeness, we don't spend a
little of it in introspection. Why don't we look at what we are
doing and ask whether we really want to be so exploitative? To hear
one side of the debate you think we are on the verge of self-extinction through
abuse of the planet, but to listen to the other, you would think we are also on
the edge of extinction if we don't exploit every resource to the greatest of
our ability.
For the nuclear-buffs, "what if fission was out of our reach?".
What if nuclear power simply were not an option? Would we *really* be on
the verge of disaster? Sure, it is convenient, but that isn't the same as
saying it is necessary.
The rhetoric of conservative/liberal is mostly
duplicitous and argumentative to me. I'm an anarchist. We have some
choices that other species do not have, that our ancestors did not have for the
most part. We are the smart-ass Hippies who knew it all, who became
Yuppies who knew it all, who are now blaming "them" for FFing
everything up. To paraphrase the Obama slogan, "we are the ones
we've been whining about".
Right now is a *really good time* to take serious stock of our (collective)
situation and put down our "childish things" (another Obamaism?) and
ask ourselves what is really happening in this world and whether we want to do
something different (if we even can). This is environmental,
sociological, economic, political. I hope Obama and his inner circle are
as smart and aware as they (sometimes) appear to be. I hope his
detractors are as wrong as their arrogant self-rightous blustering
implies. I hope the rest of us at least take our role in this
seriously, err on the thoughtful side, take a chance by asking some of the
harder questions (pro and con) and considering what we can and might do about
the answers.
Our parents spent their lives trying to avoid/repair the mistakes their parents
made (depression, world wars, etc.) and we are doing the same I fear. I
hope not to condemn my own children to fighting/repairing from my mistakes
while ignoring their own real plight and opportunities.
I
don’t think you have a choice. If in this universe we destroy ourselves,
our conscious continuity will only live on in those other universe where we
don’t destroy ourselves.
I think you are right. I was merely being
rhetorical. I think multiverse theories are generally moot, no
matter how interesting. I have a thin belief (whatever that means)
that to be conscious is to be able to span and navigate these
possibilities... but I'm not sure I know what that really means.
But I'm sure my ur-selves in their uber-competence
would have found a clever way to escape the worst of it, to live on and
speculate and cogitate and pontificate endlessly.
I think I need to go back to inspecting the lint trapped in my navel now, maybe
I can felt it up into a fresh cover for my yurt... the 20-year warranteed
plasticized canvas is starting to age.
- Steve
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |