Land rights for gay whales and other issues

[Skyweir]

This forum provides a medium for the exploration and discussion of that which threatens the global equillibrium .. in an attempt to restore or more accurately -> 'create' a system of socio-economic .. political and environmental harmony .. if such a thing is possible.

.. in this risk-free environment we are able to postulate ideas and notions from within a purely hypothetical framework.

All ideas will be welcomed .. and undoubtedly there will be debate ..

All healthy debate is encouraged .. in an endeavour to generate a greater appreciation of the relevant global issues.

What are the issues which threaten the global equillibrium? Surely there are many and varied. There are systemic ills that permeate our political economic and legal systems ..

Democratic capitalism is the foundation of the West .. how does it impact on non-western nations? Is it really the answer? What are the alternatives? In reality are there any alternatives? How has this political philosophy impacted on the environment? How do you imagine any political philosophy impacting on the environment?

Do we need to clean the slate and create a new political philosophy .. a new world view?

There are so many questions .. and so few answers .. but here we can explore the infinitesimal possibilities .. even the very bizarre ..

So where do you stand on 'Land Rights for Gay Whales and other issues'??

[Lord Mhoram]

Democratic capitalism is the foundation of the West .. how does it impact on non-western nations? Is it really the answer? What are the alternatives? In reality are there any alternatives?

Look at China. A Communist nation, w/a capitalist economy. The next step for China will be democracy, and no I dont think there are any other alternatives for the non-Western nations. Democracy isnt the greatest thing ever, its the best weve got.

[duchess of malfi]

I'm agreeing with that guy from Boston.
Help me, Lord Sky!

[Fist and Faith]

I think the greatest threat to humanity (if you don't want the easy answer - humanity) is technology. As so many people have noted, we haven't advanced morally/socially as we've advanced technology. And we won't. There's no less hate, fear, and intolerance today than ever.

Unfortunately, technology makes everything easier. True, it makes the good things - things as different as medicine and the distribution of music - easier too. Unfortunately, it makes hurting easier. In the past, wiping out a city took large numbers of men with swords, and a lot of time. Now, wiping out a city takes a much smaller number of men with very efficient guns. Or heck, one big bomb. In the past, an angry kid at school could maybe beat up one student at a time. Now, an angry kid can kill several students and teachers before anybody can figure out what's happening. In the past, people were able to hunt or harvest a species to extinction if they were very motivated. Now, if we're very motivated, we can literally destroy the planets ability to support life. Making it uninhabitable for ourselves is a much easier matter.

We haven't changed, we've just figured out better ways to do damage.

I'm feeling kinda pessemistic now Oh well, that was the question of the poll.

[duchess of malfi]

I had voted for religious intolerance, but I see a large problem for the human race to be intolerance in general. Whether its for people who follow another religion, another way of life, or who belong to another race or gender or sexual orientation. Not to mention a lack of tolerance for other species and their right to exist along side of us...

[Damelon]

6,266,569,180 - The estimated world population, from the U.S. Census Bureau, at the time I'm writing this. Overpopulation is the single greatest problem facing us. Straining resources from forests, to oceans, to freshwater. There are too many people for the resource base.

The forests: All know how fast the Amazon forests are being chewed up.

The oceans: Even twenty-five years ago, the oceans were considered an almost limitless resource. How many species are now in danger from over fishing. Consider the Chilean Sea-Bass. Who heard of that fish even fifteen years ago? Yet it is a slow growing fish, and in just that time it has been seriously overfished.

In the Middle East, add on top of all the other reasons they have to fight each other, a soon to be shortage of fresh water.

6,266,574,132 - The global population estimate when I finished this post 25 minutes later.

[Guest]

thats interesting .. and on one level I would have to agree with you .. and that would be .. given the current level of consumption the planet does not have the resources we demand of it ..

I think there are 2 schools of thought regarding the overpopulation scenario ..

1. that the earth has sufficient 'fundamental or primary' resources to sustain the current and growing numbers of inhabitants.

2. that the earth has not sufficient 'even fundamental' resources to sustain the current level of consumption.

I would guess both are true .. in some respect .. because if you analyse the 2 individual premises one common underlying fact remains ..

Whether the earth has or has not the resources to sustain the current and growing population .. would seem to be moot

.. the more pressing concern would seem to be the rate of resource consumption .. and whether 'IT' [the current level of consumption/'demand'] can be sustained [supplied] by the planet.

So it would seem there may be a number of ways to address this issue ..

a)global population control/management strategies ..
b)consumption control and resource management strategies ..
c)and even the more politically suicidal or harmful strategy of addressing the 'economic imperative' existent in Western societies ..

To each of these approaches there are ethical questions that ultimately arise that demand the most serious consideration and may even require a change in current world view.

I would hazard a guess that if no change is required in this respect .. that no change in our global circumstances will be realised.

HLM stated:

Democracy isnt the greatest thing ever, its the best weve got.

I would agree .. Democracy would seem to be the preferred system of political philosophy we have .. yet if it 'isnt the greatest thing ever' .. what are the flaws and how can they be addressed?

sky!

[Damelon]

The ancient arguements against democracy were:

1. The people were too changeable in their mood to provide a consistant policy.

2. The people could be too easily swayed by demagogues.

Thucydides in The Peloponnesian War wrote about the Athenian's dealings with the island of Melos. Melos was an ally of Athens, and went against Athens on some policy issue, I don't recall exactly what it was. (Its been a few years since I read Thucydides. I'll dig it up and provide a more detailed summary in a later post. ) Anyway, the Athenian Assembly, for punishment, voted that the entire male population of the island should be put to death. The assembly subsequently recanted and sent a ship to recall the first force who had been sent out to enforce the earlier decision.

Modern political theory tries through various ways to limit those impulses. Going into detail would take more time than I have this morning.

[Skyweir]

disappointing .. and it was just getting interesting ..

<hopes Damelon will set aside sometime to continue his expostion>

[Damelon]

Ah Skyweir,

Give me time to put my points together. This thread requires thought. More than I had this morning, and more than I have right now. Let me consult my lore books. and give a semi-coherent answer.

[pitchwife]

Stumbled upon this site, and it pretty much sumarises my beliefs, much better than I would ever be able to express:
www.adelphiasophism.com/naturesrule/w010.html#Kinunity

-pitch

[Skyweir]

mmm .. very interesting pitch ..

Nevertheless a lengthy and diverse topic page .. it would be nice if you were to highlight and summise the particular points you deem most represents the views you like.

In the age of human dissolution of Nature, we can only save ourselves and the planet as we know it by eschewing greed, consumption and wealth in favour of Wisdom—the ability to use what we learn about Nature in such a way as to preserve her rather than progressing her destruction. This requires us to proceed along the road of concern, from concern only for self and our children, beyond concern for our relatives and clan, beyond concern for our province and nation beyond even concern for the whole of humanity, to concern for the kinunity of Nature—the Goddess herself.

Nature is rational not whimsical, not in the sense that she is herself thinking, but that she is able to be understood in a rational way and therefore humans have to exercise their own rational skills to understand her. But this understanding must be gained in such a way that it deepens our humility rather than expands our ego.

Wisdom cannot be egotistical—it is a contradiction. Wisdom requires humility, and our greater knowledge of Nature ought to be accompanied by a greater sense of the marvellous depth and mystery of it rather than unjustified pride in conquest merely because we managed to remove one of her infinite veils.

Because something happens on earth does not mean it is natural. Of course, it is natural in the sense that it occurs at all, but it is a case of the exception that proves the rule. A mother sometimes murders her children, but it is not natural to do so, as few will disagree. The mother that does so is deranged or wants to save her children from a crueller fate.

The worst vices that humans have are unnatural desires—not sexual peccadilloes, like homosexuality, called unnatural vices in former times—but desires like greed, which is an unnatural attachment to something such that excess of it is wanted when sufficient is enough. Wealth and power are the worst unnatural desires being greed for money and for authority.

There are some interesting thoughts here but also some that are not well explained ..

Because something happens on earth does not mean it is natural

well yeah I'd say thats a given

.. there are indeed 'actions of nature' which can be deemed 'natural' .. ie: cyclones, storms etc.. and the rest are most often the result of human activity .. not 'natural' per se. Pretty much a given

Nature is rational not whimsical

this is an intriguing comment .. and to me begs the question .. 'rational in what context'?

This requires us to proceed along the road of concern, from concern only for self and our children, beyond concern for our relatives and clan, beyond concern for our province and nation beyond even concern for the whole of humanity, to concern for the kinunity of Nature—the Goddess herself.

.. this is not too clear .. there would seem to be a pivotal word or words missing ..

I guess it might mean that we should proceed along the road of concern beyond concern only for self and our children???

Apart from these little oddities .. this article is very interesting .. and expresses some very positive views that address the way 'we' view the world we inhabit .. and that in most of the population of the world .. it would seem that 'we' do not view the planet as favourably as the article would suggest we need to.

I agree there needs to be a change of 'mind-set' .. a change in the way we view the 'environment' .. as not just a resource to be exploited but rather the fundamental key to our very existence and survival .. and this might be at the very core of our societal-systemic ills ..

[[Syl]]

I'm with Fist and Faith on this one. I also believe the technology gap is slightly more important than the gap between 1st and 3rd world.

I'm always reminded of the short story By the Waters of Babylon ( www.laspaceview.com/by_the_water_of_babylon.htm ). William Gibson's got it right.

[pitchwife]

it would be nice if you were to highlight and summise the particular points you deem most represents the views you like.

I'm lazy, and it's late... but I'll give it a try, I'll try to make some order in my contradicing beliefs...

The central point in my opinion is this:

In the age of human dissolution of Nature, we can only save ourselves and the planet as we know it by eschewing greed, consumption and wealth in favour of Wisdom.

I think this clarifies it a bit more:

Wealth and power are the worst unnatural desires being greed for money and for authority.
We should take from Nature only what we need and, not only reject excess but be angry that Nature is being exploited so that excess of something can be offerred to us. What is taken to excess is soon discarded, perhaps before it has even been used at all, and is then simply waste. We live in the waste land and, unless we change our ways, it will become the Wasteland.
Wealth can only be seen in relation to its entropic effects. Real wealth is had at minimal cost to Nature but most wealth today is spurious wealth, divorced from the real costs, which in truth outweigh the wealth. That is why geothermal power is wealth but nuclear power is not.

This may clarify the question of "concern only for self etc.":

It is hard to say that human beings have any inclination to preserve humanity, and it is probably, sadly, untrue. People do not think of themselves as being part of the human species and to have any duty to preserve it. They only can see it in the sense of being concerned for their children and perhaps their grandchildren. They want to do their best for them, to give them a greater chance of success in their lives that are the continuation of our own. It ought, though, to be sufficient to persuade people that they should be interested in keeping the world healthy. They might not be able to conceive of their relationship to the whole vast numbers of humanity but they can identify a few generations ahead, and all that has to be done to keep the world healthy for future generations is for each generation to keep it healthy for the next.

I guess the main point here is this: Humans have abandoned thier symbiotic relationship with nature and instead have become conquerors, and nature has become a 'resource'. Yet, if we damage our world, it will damage us back—eventually. So if we want to save ourselves from doom, we must return to live in conformity with nature.

-pitch

[Skyweir]

thanks pitch ..

I agree .. I believe that since the industrial revolution .. as a species we have driven a visceral wedge between the environment and ourselves.

Since that time and arguably even earlier we [as a species] have become only interested in the environment for what it can 'give' us ..

Land to claim and own .. resources to acquire ..

The emphasis the article makes on 'greed' - 'materialism' .. 'power' .. is interesting .. How do we change our emphasis? .. change what is valued? Is our political philosophy in part responsible for what we value? 'power', 'acquisition? .. 'materialism'?

How many think the signs of success in this life are to own a home .. a car .. good clothes .. and all the modern conveniences technology can provide? we work hard to secure well-payed employment .. so that we can provide more and more of the same for ourself and your offspring? How can these same individuals survive under a Western system?

Aren't we all on a rollercoaster ride of consumerism .. and even to those who think they aren't .. I would ask .. about .. Christmas? and what about how we come to the Watch?

There has to be a balance .. it may be impractical to shed all semblance of capitalism, .. but we got to get a better balance .. or re-invent our political and social selves.

[Fist and Faith]

Because something happens on earth does not mean it is natural

well yeah I'd say thats a given

.. there are indeed 'actions of nature' which can be deemed 'natural' .. ie: cyclones, storms etc.. and the rest are most often the result of human activity .. not 'natural' per se. Pretty much a given

Nature is rational not whimsical

this is an intriguing comment .. and to me begs the question .. 'rational in what context'?

I can see both views of this issue. On the one hand, no other <I>life form</I> has the ability (and the inclination?) to make the earth uninhabitable for itself. Whether we destroy the ecosystem by cutting down the forests, bombard the planet with radiation, create a nifty little disease that allows for no immunity, or any other method, if we put our minds to it, we can destroy ourselves entirely. Indeed, although it would be very difficult, we could make earth uninhabitable for any kind of life that is currently here. Out of millions of species, we are the only one with these... uh... abilities. That does seem a little unnatural.


On the other hand, human beings are a part of nature. Our presence on this planet is the result of the exact same process that put every other living thing here - whether you believe that process was creation, evolution, or anything else. We are natural - part of the natural processes - and it is therefore impossible for us to perform an unnatural act. We are just another force of nature. And nature does have other forces that give us pretty good competition in the "I'm the king of destruction" contest. There have been a few mass-extinctions, caused by comets/asteroids, that have wiped out as much as, IIRC, 90% of all life on earth. Individual volcanos have had global impact, filling the atmosphere with dust and ash, causing some degree of starvation. We're all currently very conscious of what fires can do. And tornados, though they only work in small areas, rip any number of animals away from their families and kill them.

Yet life goes on. Sometimes these forces make life go in directions it would not have gone in otherwise. And with our human perspective, we often see the return of life in a damaged area as beautiful and reaffirming. If we REALLY screw up, I wonder what life will come along to fill in the gaps. But I'm not sure we should call it the Circle of Life when non-human forces are at work, but "unnatural" when we direct the action. Human intelligence/awareness, and all the fears/insecurities that come along with it, is just another force of nature.

[Skyweir]

mmm .. interesting perspective F&F

.. though I still have a difficult time viewing 'human actions' like the creation of the atomic bomb for instance .. and its devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki .. as even relatively a 'natural act'

.. or of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster as just another 'natural act' .. and where Chernobyl is concerned .. its ongoing devastating effects on the environment there in terms of genetic mutations and cancers etc.

I agree that clearly as we gained our existence the same way as all else living .. makes us a very 'natural' part of this planet .. but any species is capable of destroying its own environment if the natural order or delicate bio-diverse balance is destabilised .. and one species dominates a specific environment.

So yes .. humans are indeed a natural part of this planet but not all 'human actions' are by implication then also 'natural'.

I worry that thinking otherwise supplies humankind with a rationale/excuse/justification even .. for behaving environmentally irresponsible .. cos its just natural afterall .. and at the end of the day come what may .. life will just adapt to its changed circumstances.

But for this to be true .. there has to be an environment existent able to sustain adaptation and therefore life and thats the very worst fear many scientists share today .. is that if we continue on the path we are on today .. we will extinguish that possibility all together.

[Fist and Faith]

So yes .. humans are indeed a natural part of this planet but not all 'human actions' are by implication then also 'natural'.

I worry that thinking otherwise supplies humankind with a rationale/excuse/justification even .. for behaving environmentally irresponsible .. cos its just natural afterall .. and at the end of the day come what may .. life will just adapt to its changed circumstances.

That is a problem, isnt it. I can't make it all work. Humans (and animals) can die from exposure to many naturally-occurring (heh, meaning something that would exist even if humans never did) things. There are, of course fairly ...tame?... things, things that only effect the person who is in direct contact. Things that are necessary for life, but deadly when in extreme quantities: cold; heat; wind; fire; water; etc. But other things are trickier. The sun and the radiation from trace amounts of uranium in the earth cause the mutations that drive evolution. But they also cause some nasty mutations, as well as cancer.

Yet I would also be disgusted with anyone who tried to use these thoughts as justification for the attitude you brought up.

You know what we have her, don't you? A paradox. We, the lovers of TCTC, are familiar with the the difficulties of a paradox. (And Strange Loops? ) Through natural processes, something has arisen that, in some ways, seems to be outside of nature. We are a part of nature, a natural force, but we need to control ourselves, and not try to destroy nature.

And to get back to the topic of this thread, we are our own greatest threat. Whether or not we should be thought of as a natural force, the only thing other than ourselves that could wipe us out is one of those killer comets/asteroids.

But for this to be true .. there has to be an environment existent able to sustain adaptation and therefore life and thats the very worst fear many scientists share today .. is that if we continue on the path we are on today .. we will extinguish that possibility all together.

Not to use this to support the problem that we just discussed, but, although I said it would be very difficult for us to extinguish that possibility altogether, what I meant was it would be all but impossible. Accomplishing that would require something along the lines of destroying all molecular bonds.

but any species is capable of destroying its own environment if the natural order or delicate bio-diverse balance is destabilised .. and one species dominates a specific environment.

Are you aware of this ever happening? I'm under the impression that no species, other than us, is capable of behaving in a way that would wipe itself out. An evolutionary offshoot of one species might make conditions impossible for the parent species. That's not the same thing, but it's the closest thing I can think of. What do you have in mind?

[Ryzel]

I agree .. I believe that since the industrial revolution .. as a species we have driven a visceral wedge between the environment and ourselves.

Since that time and arguably even earlier we [as a species] have become only interested in the environment for what it can 'give' us ..

Land to claim and own .. resources to acquire ..

This is not a new idea. The new concept here is the concept of 'environment'. Since the dawn of time humans have always been interested in the environment because of what they can gain from it. The problem now is that because of our increasing sociotechnological sophistication we have the ability to aquire a lot more of the environment than earlier. Unfortunately for us our instincts are still geared towards a world where everything we could aquire from the enviroment was that which we could carry with us from place to place, or eat.

Now I wholeheartedly embrace the idea that humanity as a whole should work towards using the planet as a permanent home for themselves, unlike what is going on today. But I see lots of problems with making this happen, most of them caused by the basic nature of humans themselves.

The problem is that whatever we do technology is a Pandoras box that we have already opened. Technology is here to stay, and we have to deal with technology and its effects. It seems very attractive to say that technology is the problem, but it is far more accurate to say that technology creates the problem by making the scale of what we do so much larger, scaling it up to a global scale in fact. Getting rid of technology would rid us of the problems it creates, but it would be just like performing the ritual of desecration in that we would certainly remove the people affected by the problem but we would not remove the root cause of the problem because people would then be free to make new technology later.


Unfortunately I have no solution to this but I think that the logical place to start would be to get everyone to agree that this is a real problem for them and for everyone else.

[Skyweir]

astutely summised

kudos!