what the bible really teaches
1 view
Skip to first unread message
marty
Jun 16, 2010, 5:19:43 AM6/16/10
to Monbiot Discussions
In one of Mobiots' articles he claims his bible says we should
dominate the earth. This is in the Old testament which has been
superseded by the New "testament" (which means agreement).
The sermon on the mount advocates humility, meekness, non violence and
is against materialism and greed. If we followed these precepts we
would not be in the trouble we are today. The problem with most of
organized religion is that it is still under the Old Covenant and
also has been corrupted and no longer represents the teachings of its
founder.
dominate the earth. This is in the Old testament which has been
superseded by the New "testament" (which means agreement).
The sermon on the mount advocates humility, meekness, non violence and
is against materialism and greed. If we followed these precepts we
would not be in the trouble we are today. The problem with most of
organized religion is that it is still under the Old Covenant and
also has been corrupted and no longer represents the teachings of its
founder.
GeaVox
Jun 16, 2010, 5:49:40 PM6/16/10
to Monbiot Discussions
What....?
Old Coven Aunt?
Old Coven Aunt?
John Russell
Jun 17, 2010, 5:43:00 AM6/17/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Monbiot is correct that that's what it says in every bible. Whether it's in
the Old or New Testament is irrelevant; most people from most religions
believe that humans have dominion over the planet. Surely it's clear for all
to see; humans are clearly top dog and have the power (predominantly
fossil-fuelled) to do what we damn well like?
the Old or New Testament is irrelevant; most people from most religions
believe that humans have dominion over the planet. Surely it's clear for all
to see; humans are clearly top dog and have the power (predominantly
fossil-fuelled) to do what we damn well like?
The problem arises when people take this to mean that all other species and
the environment don't matter and what we do to them, and it, doesn't matter.
It's very easy to get into that frame of mind when you live in an
air-conditioned flat in a city and travel by car, train and plane between
other air-conditioned environments and 'places of entertainment'. However,
even from the most anthropocentric viewpoint it should be clear that without
healthy and abundant populations of all other species and a clean
environment in which they and we can exist, humans are in a downward spiral
to destruction.
I suggest the solution is simply to teach our fellow humans to start using
their eyes and observe the evidence before them -- clearly described by
science -- rather than following the teachings of someone who lived on our
planet when there was a world population of around 200 million (less than 3%
of the number that exist today). That's not to say that on some things He
wasn't right, but relying on religion as a guide to do what's right for the
future of our planet will not wash with very many people and is a difficult
position from which to argue the case for caring for the environment.
Best wishes,
JR
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2942 - Release Date: 06/16/10
19:35:00
PAdam...@aol.com
Jun 17, 2010, 7:46:29 PM6/17/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
In a message dated 17/06/2010 10:56:22 GMT Daylight Time,
jo...@winsford.info writes:
The problem arises when people take this to mean that all other species and
the environment don't matter and what we do to them, and it, doesn't matter.
It's very easy to get into that frame of mind when you live in an
air-conditioned flat in a city and travel by car, train and plane between
other air-conditioned environments and 'places of entertainment'. However,
even from the most anthropocentric viewpoint it should be clear that without
healthy and abundant populations of all other species and a clean
environment in which they and we can exist, humans are in a downward spiral
to destruction.
Interesting awakening of environmental awareness in the USA now, re Gulf
oil spill. Alot of hypocrisy, ignorance and nationalistic stupidity is
coming to the surface and being washed ashore along with the oil sludge. Compare
the Bhopal disaster, in which thousands, yes thousands, of people were
poisoned to death, but as they were only poor Indians, the compensation the
yanks paid was miserly. The irony of a Gulf shrimp being worth more than a human
life is not un-noticed.
Easy to blame wicked, reckless, greedy British Petroleum. But, it could
have been any oil company - they are all working to the same standards. But, had
it been Exxon, would we have had the same outpouring of condemnation?
Obama may be right in one respect though. This incident is a watershed in
the way we evaluate environmentally risky engineering projects. Things will be
diferent from now on. Bhopal killed far more than 9/11, but what did Bhopal
change, apart from the population of Bhopal?
Returning to the thread, the Bible has a consistant theme in both New and
Old Testaments: greed, avarice, tyranny etc are evil which ultimately have no
profit. The Bible is thousands of years old, and has been translated in
language, but not in culture. The distance in time and culture are great, and it
all leaves much to analysis. The Bible can be interpreted just about any
way you want. One thing it makes clear, is that man is not God. What does
dominion mean? Domination and exploitation or responsible stewardship? So much
is open to scholarly debate, not just in terms of idiom and translation, but the
whole method of telling stories and truths in ancient times. Literal account,
soap opera style, or an ancient way of bridging the gap between a tiny educated
minority and the illiterate, superstitious, scared, starved,
diseased masses? We dont denigrate Shakespeare because he lived in another
time. We appreciate his genius, and accept the timeless truth. Perhaps
Shakespeare was a myth and just a collection of writings compiled by a group of
clever politicians. It matters less than the fact that both have stood the test
of time.
God tells those who want to exlploit the natural environment for their own
ends to "go forth and multiply". If there had been a literal translation in
Anglo-Saxon times, then the language would be something far more open to debate
and interpretation, I suspect, but the literal translation would be something
both you and I, John, would seize on, as evidence of justification for our
argument.
I just think that human culture has moved on. If it is to continue to move
on, and not descend into a barbaric fight for finite resources in order to
maintain a status quo that happens to coincide with the largest population free
of disease and starvation that ever existed, then we must use both the wisdom of
the ancients, gathered and refined over a timescale which dwarfs our perception
of history, and our new and expanding knowledge of science. Not easy, and
requires a whole new way of communicating. Any ideas? Allegory or soap
opera?
Patrick
Lila Smith
Jun 18, 2010, 9:07:07 PM6/18/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
The new testament and Jesus is all about caring for those less than: well
anything, to be humble and to care.
However the populations of the world many of them don't give a shite about
anything but them selfish selves, let alone the rivers, mountains and sea's
or the environment.
I know many Christians who can literally speak word for word about the bible
and know it by heart and yes they do believe that we humans were gifted this
earth to rule as we see fit, many don't care about the planet one iota, all
they believe is that the world and planet is only the vessel that we travel
on, their happiness is not of this world but the next.
A very irrational view.......I am a Christian, I do follow the words of
Jesus, however I have now left the church because I cannot for one single
time tolerate these useless Christians with warped thinking......yes they
are nice and friendly etc, but speak of the environment or the destruction
of the planet and they are so uncomfortable and accuse me of thinking
worldly, reminding me that we are only hear until we go to our proper
home........when dead.!
anything, to be humble and to care.
However the populations of the world many of them don't give a shite about
anything but them selfish selves, let alone the rivers, mountains and sea's
or the environment.
I know many Christians who can literally speak word for word about the bible
and know it by heart and yes they do believe that we humans were gifted this
earth to rule as we see fit, many don't care about the planet one iota, all
they believe is that the world and planet is only the vessel that we travel
on, their happiness is not of this world but the next.
A very irrational view.......I am a Christian, I do follow the words of
Jesus, however I have now left the church because I cannot for one single
time tolerate these useless Christians with warped thinking......yes they
are nice and friendly etc, but speak of the environment or the destruction
of the planet and they are so uncomfortable and accuse me of thinking
worldly, reminding me that we are only hear until we go to our proper
home........when dead.!
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2942 - Release Date: 06/16/10
18:35:00
phil henshaw
Jun 19, 2010, 8:05:25 AM6/19/10
to Monbiot Discussions
I think lots of people are confused by the mixed messages that are
inherent in our culture's founding documents and the long history of
living in societies driven by authoritarian rulers that kept them
alive. The Bible is evidently a guide to how to live in such
societies if it survived and remained relevant all this time.
If you think about it, the idea that people are to "be fruitful and
multiply" and "have dominion over the earth" are formulas for how to
be good servants to a master, rather than how to get along with
others. It show a complete ignorance of ecology, for example, and
that in a do-it-yourself world like ours that the things that tend to
survive are good at getting along with each other. Nature's real
question is "do you fit?", not "do you win?"
Dominance is NOT an art of getting along. It's very odd that this
has not been noticed before, but our clear and hard rule for economic
health is in fact to increasingly dominate other things by ever
expanding use of our control to multiply our control. Our tools are
intentionally designed to multiply. We call it "growth", and how
the modern age has done it has been somewhat creative, but it is
unavoidably an ever multiplying conquest of everything else on earth
as well....
phil
inherent in our culture's founding documents and the long history of
living in societies driven by authoritarian rulers that kept them
alive. The Bible is evidently a guide to how to live in such
societies if it survived and remained relevant all this time.
If you think about it, the idea that people are to "be fruitful and
multiply" and "have dominion over the earth" are formulas for how to
be good servants to a master, rather than how to get along with
others. It show a complete ignorance of ecology, for example, and
that in a do-it-yourself world like ours that the things that tend to
survive are good at getting along with each other. Nature's real
question is "do you fit?", not "do you win?"
Dominance is NOT an art of getting along. It's very odd that this
has not been noticed before, but our clear and hard rule for economic
health is in fact to increasingly dominate other things by ever
expanding use of our control to multiply our control. Our tools are
intentionally designed to multiply. We call it "growth", and how
the modern age has done it has been somewhat creative, but it is
unavoidably an ever multiplying conquest of everything else on earth
as well....
phil
Edwar...@aol.com
Jun 19, 2010, 10:49:58 AM6/19/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Phil,
Dominion is not the same as dominance.
Edward
Norwich
jonnyz
Jun 20, 2010, 7:21:06 AM6/20/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Dominance has a long and clearly successful history, both in the
animal world and in the human one.
There has always been exercises in dominance in any social group, as
well as between them. Even the most egalitarian efforts will have some
levels of struggle. This is not meant to be an argument in favour of
the exercise of power, just an observation that it is as natural as
water and air. And the exercise of power is effective for the
individual or group with the surfeit.
I think what we need to consider is how technology has made the
exercise of power increasingly dangerous, finally to the point of
being dangerous to the wielder.
In a barn, the biggest bullies get the most food. That is the nature
of the game. Even within a social group where the bullies yet rely on
the rest of the group, there is room for plenty of violent dominance.
And that has more or less been the same for humans, until recently.
It's only relatively recently that exercises in avarice have become so
potentially threatening to the entire group.
We tend to talk about our political leaders in terms of their
strength, meaning their dominance, I think because historically that's
been valuable in a leader. Recently, in Canada, our media dismissed
Stephane Dion using nothing but the infantile argument that he was a
wimp. The truth in my mind is that he was likely the best prime
ministerial candidate we have seen in my lifetime, someone inclined to
and capable of consensus leadership, and willing to consider making
real changes (he proposed the implementation of a carbon tax knowing
full well how unpopular that would be) and I'm not a supporter of his
party. But Dion's strengths are in patient, rational argument, not
belligerence. Until the public thirsts for thoughtful, measured and
wise leadership, instead of rank aggressiveness....
> > 18:35:00- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
animal world and in the human one.
There has always been exercises in dominance in any social group, as
well as between them. Even the most egalitarian efforts will have some
levels of struggle. This is not meant to be an argument in favour of
the exercise of power, just an observation that it is as natural as
water and air. And the exercise of power is effective for the
individual or group with the surfeit.
I think what we need to consider is how technology has made the
exercise of power increasingly dangerous, finally to the point of
being dangerous to the wielder.
In a barn, the biggest bullies get the most food. That is the nature
of the game. Even within a social group where the bullies yet rely on
the rest of the group, there is room for plenty of violent dominance.
And that has more or less been the same for humans, until recently.
It's only relatively recently that exercises in avarice have become so
potentially threatening to the entire group.
We tend to talk about our political leaders in terms of their
strength, meaning their dominance, I think because historically that's
been valuable in a leader. Recently, in Canada, our media dismissed
Stephane Dion using nothing but the infantile argument that he was a
wimp. The truth in my mind is that he was likely the best prime
ministerial candidate we have seen in my lifetime, someone inclined to
and capable of consensus leadership, and willing to consider making
real changes (he proposed the implementation of a carbon tax knowing
full well how unpopular that would be) and I'm not a supporter of his
party. But Dion's strengths are in patient, rational argument, not
belligerence. Until the public thirsts for thoughtful, measured and
wise leadership, instead of rank aggressiveness....
>
> - Show quoted text -
PAdam...@aol.com
Jun 20, 2010, 7:43:39 AM6/20/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
As Edward pointed out, Dominion is not the same as dominance. Both words
come from the Latin dominus - Lord, or feudal master. But that word itself
derives from domus - home.
The first lords or masters were just tribal leaders. A good clue there what
their original role was. Survival of the tribe - not personal ownership.
Language has become corrupted as has culture, over the ages. If some
Christians now believe that the planet, our domus, is here just for us to trash
and exploit, because we have been granted ownership and power over it, then I
suggest they get professional help in studying the bible.
Patrick
phil henshaw
Jun 20, 2010, 9:33:48 AM6/20/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Like all words, particularly in English, 'dominion' does have lots of
other meanings. My dictionary has #2 as "dominance or power through
legal authority" and #1 as "one of the self-governing nations in the
British Commonwealth". What sense of it are you thinking?
I'm intending to point to the apparent connection between our usual
coping strategy of "serving the master" for getting along in either a
market economy or an authoritarian society. To get along and gain
approval you need to help the owners of the wealth multiply their
wealth, by doing your best to increase your control of ever more of
everything you don't control, to pay the rents. That's my reading of
the phrase "have dominion over", as both promise and threat, in one of
its very consistent uses but unrecognized meanings.
phil
On Jun 19, 10:49 am, EdwardTK...@aol.com wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Dominion is not the same as dominance.
>
> Edward
> Norwich
>
> In a message dated 19/06/2010 13:05:29 GMT Daylight Time,
>
other meanings. My dictionary has #2 as "dominance or power through
legal authority" and #1 as "one of the self-governing nations in the
British Commonwealth". What sense of it are you thinking?
I'm intending to point to the apparent connection between our usual
coping strategy of "serving the master" for getting along in either a
market economy or an authoritarian society. To get along and gain
approval you need to help the owners of the wealth multiply their
wealth, by doing your best to increase your control of ever more of
everything you don't control, to pay the rents. That's my reading of
the phrase "have dominion over", as both promise and threat, in one of
its very consistent uses but unrecognized meanings.
phil
On Jun 19, 10:49 am, EdwardTK...@aol.com wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Dominion is not the same as dominance.
>
> Edward
> Norwich
>
> In a message dated 19/06/2010 13:05:29 GMT Daylight Time,
>
phil henshaw
Jun 20, 2010, 9:46:48 AM6/20/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Well, sure, but saying "it's natural" doesn't say how it's well or
poorly used. My favorite example is that every single complex system
nature creates seems to begin its existence with a long period of
multiplying its control of its environment. That occurs in the
initial growth of anything using its non-renewable seed resource and
germ of organization.
Human gestation begins with a single cell and becomes a hundred
million before being being booted out of the womb and cut off from its
limitless free lunch. Then we cry a lot as we learn how to pay for
further gifts, finally coming into balance with our world by becoming
a contributing member of society (or not).
What I see as the most dangerous, and usual hazard, is not realizing
that the exercise of increasing control of your environment inherently
becomes unmanageable, and that an effective use of power MUST be
responsive to its environment or it becomes madness. (Those whom the
Gods choose to destroy, they first make drunk with increasing power!
Hey, that's us, wow).
Bullies don't seem to win, do they, but become their own undoing?
Isn't the road to their overextending their own positions classically
just by adding to their dominion by %'s.
phil
poorly used. My favorite example is that every single complex system
nature creates seems to begin its existence with a long period of
multiplying its control of its environment. That occurs in the
initial growth of anything using its non-renewable seed resource and
germ of organization.
Human gestation begins with a single cell and becomes a hundred
million before being being booted out of the womb and cut off from its
limitless free lunch. Then we cry a lot as we learn how to pay for
further gifts, finally coming into balance with our world by becoming
a contributing member of society (or not).
What I see as the most dangerous, and usual hazard, is not realizing
that the exercise of increasing control of your environment inherently
becomes unmanageable, and that an effective use of power MUST be
responsive to its environment or it becomes madness. (Those whom the
Gods choose to destroy, they first make drunk with increasing power!
Hey, that's us, wow).
Bullies don't seem to win, do they, but become their own undoing?
Isn't the road to their overextending their own positions classically
just by adding to their dominion by %'s.
phil
phil henshaw
Jun 20, 2010, 10:04:33 AM6/20/10
to Monbiot Discussions
That's interesting. Does that mean "having dominion" is to treat
things as being within your home and castle. If you want to live in
someone else's home and castle you need to be properly domesticated,
is what I'm suggesting. Being a "good agent" of the lord of the town
and master of the house seems to have long been the strict necessity
for being permitted to live within the city walls and be honored with
societal legitimacy, no? Don't we seem to have a remarkably long
standing and involved tradition of being the "good cog in the broken
machine" ?
In ecology, species "have dominion" in their niche, and are save if
they stay within it. It's one of the main strategies for sharing
space and avoiding conflict with others, that lets complementary
species have private spaces that fit together in a stable network.
So, it's natural that humans need a secure domain. That a species
needs a secure domain doesn't necessarily mean its security rests on
having an ever expanding domain, thought, does it?
Haven't people somehow mixed up our measures, left our calculus book
unopened for too long, and confused the rate of expansion of our house
with its size?
phil
things as being within your home and castle. If you want to live in
someone else's home and castle you need to be properly domesticated,
is what I'm suggesting. Being a "good agent" of the lord of the town
and master of the house seems to have long been the strict necessity
for being permitted to live within the city walls and be honored with
societal legitimacy, no? Don't we seem to have a remarkably long
standing and involved tradition of being the "good cog in the broken
machine" ?
In ecology, species "have dominion" in their niche, and are save if
they stay within it. It's one of the main strategies for sharing
space and avoiding conflict with others, that lets complementary
species have private spaces that fit together in a stable network.
So, it's natural that humans need a secure domain. That a species
needs a secure domain doesn't necessarily mean its security rests on
having an ever expanding domain, thought, does it?
Haven't people somehow mixed up our measures, left our calculus book
unopened for too long, and confused the rate of expansion of our house
with its size?
phil
Neil Jones
Jun 20, 2010, 12:47:48 PM6/20/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
phil henshaw wrote:
> Like all words, particularly in English, 'dominion' does have lots of
> other meanings. My dictionary has #2 as "dominance or power through
> legal authority" and #1 as "one of the self-governing nations in the
> British Commonwealth". What sense of it are you thinking?
>
There is no point looking at the meanings of English words. IT IS A > Like all words, particularly in English, 'dominion' does have lots of
> other meanings. My dictionary has #2 as "dominance or power through
> legal authority" and #1 as "one of the self-governing nations in the
> British Commonwealth". What sense of it are you thinking?
>
TRANSLATION.
If we look at the Latin Vulgate for example which is of course not the
original.
The relevant passages are vi 26, 27 28 of Genesis chapter 1.
I follow them with my own attempt at translation
et ait faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram et praesit
piscibus
maris et volatilibus caeli et bestiis universaeque terrae omnique
reptili quod movetur in terra
and he said let us make man from our image and likeness and let him
preside over ( rule over , lead) the sea's fish
and the air's flying creatures and the whole of the earth and all
creeping creatures which move on the earth.
et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum
masculum et feminam creavit eos
And god created man in his image. From the image of god he created him.
Masculine and feminine he created them,.
benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete
terram et
subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris
et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram
And God blessed them saying grow and multiply and fill up the earth and
subdue it and rule over the earth's fish
and the flying creatures and all of the animals which move on the earth.
I would say however, that I am not a religious person and therefore I
see little value personally, what ever
others may think of their religion, in using the mythology of bronze age
middle eastern goat-herders
to guide us in modern environmental problems.
I am not trying to be offensive, so please do not misunderstand me.but
bronze age mythology is precisely
what it is to a non-believer just as we think of the classical mythology
of ancient Rome and Greece.
Neil Jones
Joan Sutherland
Jun 20, 2010, 4:34:55 PM6/20/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
I remember the moment we all knew Dion had enough numbers to get elected! I was in someone's house in Kingston and I whooped with joy, which was awkward because they were Conservatives, pro business and CC deniers. I tried to explain how taking care of the economy and the environment and social justice issues would lead to a healthier society and that i, like you, believed he was THE man to lead us, the only one who wouldn't play political games -well, not all the time. But people have their "beliefs" in place, and it's hard to budge them.
Our federal government is in the most disastrous mess I've ever seen in my life. The best comment I read was in the Globe and Mail, strangely enough, that we've got to detach the government from its corporate lobbiers' grip (or beds) before anything will ever change...
Joan
PAdam...@aol.com
Jun 20, 2010, 7:23:12 PM6/20/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
In a message dated 20/06/2010 15:04:36 GMT Daylight Time,
pfhe...@gmail.com writes:
That's interesting. Does that mean "having dominion" is to treat
things as being within your home and castle. If you want to live in
someone else's home and castle you need to be properly domesticated,
is what I'm suggesting.
I think you fail to see the point. Which is, that we share the earth with
other living beings. Subdueing and domesticating a few other species, and even
pushing some to extinction, does not alter this scientific fact. There are
millions of species of bacteria, fungi, algae, microflora, micro-invertebrates
etc, barely known to most people, without which life could not function. Even
viruses contribute more biomass than the entire human species. We havent even
subdued Japanese knotweed, an invasive and very visible plant.
Being a "good agent" of the lord of the town
and master of the house seems to have long been the strict necessity
for being permitted to live within the city walls and be honored with
societal legitimacy, no? Don't we seem to have a remarkably long
standing and involved tradition of being the "good cog in the broken
machine" ?
An anthropocentric view with limited relevance to biology and
ecology.
In ecology, species "have dominion" in their niche, and are save if
they stay within it. It's one of the main strategies for sharing
space and avoiding conflict with others, that lets complementary
species have private spaces that fit together in a stable network.
So, it's natural that humans need a secure domain. That a species
needs a secure domain doesn't necessarily mean its security rests on
having an ever expanding domain, thought, does it?
Species are constantly evolving and changing. They respond to challenges of
all sorts. Most species have far greater reproductive capacity than vertebrates,
and are able to adapt quicker. . An environmental niche can hardly be described
as "private". Specific, or unique, perhaps. It is constantly being challenged
and the species tested.
Haven't people somehow mixed up our measures, left our calculus book
unopened for too long, and confused the rate of expansion of our house
with its size?
If you want to base your socio-economic policies on the laws of nature,
then I suggest you broaden your horizons regarding nature itself. The laws of
nature are very simple, but often confused with the progress and facts of life.
A common anthropocentric deviation from truth. Which, is what I believe, the
argument about the bible is about.
Perhaps the earth will soon be full of human beings. As a biologist, I
am sure nature will know when there is standing room only, and things will
happen. Famine, pestilence, war etc. Nature will not step in to avert that. Only
humans themselves can, and if they need God's help, they had better understand
the bible, because its the only book he wrote.
Patrick
PAdam...@aol.com
Jun 20, 2010, 7:47:37 PM6/20/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
In a message dated 20/06/2010 17:47:58 GMT Daylight Time,
ne...@nwjones.demon.co.uk writes:
would say however, that I am not a religious person and therefore I
see little value personally, what ever
others may think of their religion, in using the mythology of bronze age
middle eastern goat-herders
to guide us in modern environmental problems
Thanks Neil for the translation. I only got a grade 6 at Latin, just enough
to get by, and I failed in Greek. But, my limited classic education gave me a
great insight into the English language and how to understand and use it.
Do you really think that bronze age goat herders were less savvy at
environmental problems than 21st century bankers? Is contemporary economic
theory based on sound science, not mythology? I dont know for sure, but I am am
quite convinced that the former were more in the real world than the latter.
And, they certainly had enough time to think about things, and their best
intellectual brains were not seduced into the world of money and short term
profit.What use is knowledge without wisdom?
Patrick
Lila Smith
Jun 21, 2010, 3:23:55 AM6/21/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Actually, recently I have watched a
few history programmes Re: Old Egyptian methods and other civilizations
and I found that they were indeed very advanced - Europe thrown into the Dark
Ages would have been a real set back, however modernity has brought about huge
problems regarding unsustainable practices and the use of resources is a
horrific story in itself.
How people cannot realise
how badly we are ants scouring the earth for anything that is usable
and leaving behind shocking environmental problems is beyond me.
As for me, I am rather like a
stunned mullet really due to realization and the powerlessness it brings when
discussing resources, its as if it is our god given right to just rape and
pillage the earth, to attempt to make people actually relate pollution with
resource overuse is like hitting ones head against a brick wall.
A huge majority of people certainly
cant see the forest for the trees.
Organic
Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2952 - Release Date: 06/20/10 18:36:00
phil henshaw
Jun 21, 2010, 8:26:16 AM6/21/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Neil,
That's very informative, but since we do speak English, part of what
we're trying to understand is the English meaning of the mythology our
culture is founded on. In total it appears that the Roman idea of
"home" and the bible's (several times translated) world view of man's
role on earth, are consistent with modern usage of "having dominion
over" to mean "control". Isn't the modern institutional definition
of "economic stability" as "expansion by regular %'s", and so
continuous "fruitful multiplying control" of the world around us, also
completely consistent with the biblical admonition? Isn't that all
rather consistent??
phil
That's very informative, but since we do speak English, part of what
we're trying to understand is the English meaning of the mythology our
culture is founded on. In total it appears that the Roman idea of
"home" and the bible's (several times translated) world view of man's
role on earth, are consistent with modern usage of "having dominion
over" to mean "control". Isn't the modern institutional definition
of "economic stability" as "expansion by regular %'s", and so
continuous "fruitful multiplying control" of the world around us, also
completely consistent with the biblical admonition? Isn't that all
rather consistent??
phil
phil henshaw
Jun 21, 2010, 8:54:39 AM6/21/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Lila,
But isn't the biblical admonition precisely to treat the world as our
servant, and to "domesticate" everything as fast as humanly possible,
AS IF following an instruction from a profit maximizing ruler (calling
himself God) speaking to his domestics? The mystery is why we
believed it in the first place and clung to it for thousands of
years..., given how completely that story contradicts the visible
evidence that nature works by things taking care of themselves and
finding ways to complement and fit together.
The emotional problem humans have is what's hard to peg down, whether
it's just being so easily seduced by self-importance or what. The
clear evidence is that we DO define economic stability as our
economy's rate of exponential expansion, and are all admonished to
follow the Biblical model in fact, and be good domestics serving those
in power by becoming ever more productive in advancing their aim of
taking every more control of everything in sight, and get showered
with gifts for it.
That we don't see where those growing gifts come from (AND even most
"greens" are really not curious about the fairly easily traced
connections) is the puzzle. The only satisfying explanation I've
come to is that consciousness presents our cultural roles AS reality,
and we fail to recognize that consciousness is actually a cultural
reconstruction of what our senses tell us, following our cultural's
traditional models.
It does seem to fit, doesn't it? That our cultural ideal is still
to behave like the domestics of some dead kings from impossibly long
ago.. to get showered with approval from all around.
phil
On Jun 21, 3:23 am, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Actually, recently I have watched a few history programmes Re: Old Egyptian methods and other civilizations and I found that they were indeed very advanced - Europe thrown into the Dark Ages would have been a real set back, however modernity has brought about huge problems regarding unsustainable practices and the use of resources is a horrific story in itself.
> How people cannot realise how badly we are ants scouring the earth for anything that is usable and leaving behind shocking environmental problems is beyond me.
> As for me, I am rather like a stunned mullet really due to realization and the powerlessness it brings when discussing resources, its as if it is our god given right to just rape and pillage the earth, to attempt to make people actually relate pollution with resource overuse is like hitting ones head against a brick wall.
> A huge majority of people certainly cant see the forest for the trees.
>
> Lila Smithwww.windwand.co.nz
> Taranaki Tourism Websitewww.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
> Organic Kitchen Gardening
> Mob 021230 7962
> 06 7512942
> 122 Ngamotu Road
> New Plymouth
> New Zealand
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: PAdams3...@aol.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: what the bible really teaches
>
But isn't the biblical admonition precisely to treat the world as our
servant, and to "domesticate" everything as fast as humanly possible,
AS IF following an instruction from a profit maximizing ruler (calling
himself God) speaking to his domestics? The mystery is why we
believed it in the first place and clung to it for thousands of
years..., given how completely that story contradicts the visible
evidence that nature works by things taking care of themselves and
finding ways to complement and fit together.
The emotional problem humans have is what's hard to peg down, whether
it's just being so easily seduced by self-importance or what. The
clear evidence is that we DO define economic stability as our
economy's rate of exponential expansion, and are all admonished to
follow the Biblical model in fact, and be good domestics serving those
in power by becoming ever more productive in advancing their aim of
taking every more control of everything in sight, and get showered
with gifts for it.
That we don't see where those growing gifts come from (AND even most
"greens" are really not curious about the fairly easily traced
connections) is the puzzle. The only satisfying explanation I've
come to is that consciousness presents our cultural roles AS reality,
and we fail to recognize that consciousness is actually a cultural
reconstruction of what our senses tell us, following our cultural's
traditional models.
It does seem to fit, doesn't it? That our cultural ideal is still
to behave like the domestics of some dead kings from impossibly long
ago.. to get showered with approval from all around.
phil
On Jun 21, 3:23 am, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Actually, recently I have watched a few history programmes Re: Old Egyptian methods and other civilizations and I found that they were indeed very advanced - Europe thrown into the Dark Ages would have been a real set back, however modernity has brought about huge problems regarding unsustainable practices and the use of resources is a horrific story in itself.
> How people cannot realise how badly we are ants scouring the earth for anything that is usable and leaving behind shocking environmental problems is beyond me.
> As for me, I am rather like a stunned mullet really due to realization and the powerlessness it brings when discussing resources, its as if it is our god given right to just rape and pillage the earth, to attempt to make people actually relate pollution with resource overuse is like hitting ones head against a brick wall.
> A huge majority of people certainly cant see the forest for the trees.
>
> Lila Smithwww.windwand.co.nz
> Taranaki Tourism Websitewww.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
> Organic Kitchen Gardening
> Mob 021230 7962
> 06 7512942
> 122 Ngamotu Road
> New Plymouth
> New Zealand
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: PAdams3...@aol.com
> To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: what the bible really teaches
>
> In a message dated 20/06/2010 17:47:58 GMT Daylight Time, n...@nwjones.demon.co.uk writes:
> would say however, that I am not a religious person and therefore I
> see little value personally, what ever
> others may think of their religion, in using the mythology of bronze age
> middle eastern goat-herders
> to guide us in modern environmental problems
> Thanks Neil for the translation. I only got a grade 6 at Latin, just enough to get by, and I failed in Greek. But, my limited classic education gave me a great insight into the English language and how to understand and use it.
>
> Do you really think that bronze age goat herders were less savvy at environmental problems than 21st century bankers? Is contemporary economic theory based on sound science, not mythology? I dont know for sure, but I am am quite convinced that the former were more in the real world than the latter. And, they certainly had enough time to think about things, and their best intellectual brains were not seduced into the world of money and short term profit.What use is knowledge without wisdom?
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
> would say however, that I am not a religious person and therefore I
> see little value personally, what ever
> others may think of their religion, in using the mythology of bronze age
> middle eastern goat-herders
> to guide us in modern environmental problems
> Thanks Neil for the translation. I only got a grade 6 at Latin, just enough to get by, and I failed in Greek. But, my limited classic education gave me a great insight into the English language and how to understand and use it.
>
> Do you really think that bronze age goat herders were less savvy at environmental problems than 21st century bankers? Is contemporary economic theory based on sound science, not mythology? I dont know for sure, but I am am quite convinced that the former were more in the real world than the latter. And, they certainly had enough time to think about things, and their best intellectual brains were not seduced into the world of money and short term profit.What use is knowledge without wisdom?
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.
>
Duncan Hewitt
Jun 21, 2010, 11:55:00 AM6/21/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Casting memory back to a previous conversation on here, and something that will sit with many people's experience, a tribe is the size of community that a human being can sit within nicely and know its place. It is also of a size where a single human can know pretty much everyone else, and where everyone knows everyone else the tendency towards internalised aggression is minimised. Human's have a capacity for knowing a certain number of people well - above that number the feelings become diluted and we start to become 'choosy' with whom we fraternise.
On a small tribal scale (think small village in the UK) you can know everyone, and therefore you are less likely to be accosted by someone you know, less likely to be burgled without ramification from the society, less likely to see juvenile disobedience with others to keep people in line.
Things start to break down when disconnection starts to play its part - relationships between humans living in proximity go un-nurtured in today's society as we turn to others further afield to make up our 'tribe'. Growing up in a village my tribe was the village - I would be reprimanded by many if I stepped out of line, and they knew my parents. Later in life, living in a large city, I was aware that the number of people I knew was pretty much the same - there's a physical and mental limit to the number of people you can stay in meaningful touch with. I described to friends that living in a city was a 'good thing' - you had the facilities of a city, and your 'tribe' became those you chose to hang out with by virtue of their similarities in life-style and ideology - their music tastes, their politics, their sense of humour and so on. Whilst this seemed a great thing in my 20s and early 20s, I realised that in some ways I was being challenged less in my ideals, and felt stagnation kicking in. Friendship became too 'convenient'.
A decision to move back to a much smaller community - around 17 of us in the immediate mile, brings with it the need to make friends with people I may never have met before - and if I had I most certainly would not have befriended beyond the usual courteous stage. But, and this is the crux, I find I rely *more* on these people on a day to day level than I would on my city friends. As most of us here either work from home or are retired, the chance of physically seeing one another is much greater, the chance to physically help one another is much greater, and the chance to share experiences over a cup of tea, coffee or beer is much greater. Indeed, the chance of brewing beer alongside one another is greater!
The beauty of a 'tribal' system is that, in theory, it gives you all the manpower you need to produce a self-sustaining community. It also gives you a size of community that is largely self-policing, and where relationships can easily be formed. It has its down-sides of course as well - such as ignorance, but for me the perfect size is around 150 people...the size of a primary school. Beyond that size things quickly become impersonal, and with that comes a lack of empathy and caring for what happens and to whom. That is then a slippery slope. To take the benefits of the internet where ignorance can be allayed by the sharing of knowledge - as happens on monbiot - is to take the internet for what it is truly great at. To then apply that knowledge in a physcially smaller society is to me the best of both worlds and one in which I refuse to now budge.
We need to return to this tribal size physically, but apply the modern information sharing that technology has brought us to stave off ignorance. Nowhere does globalisation of the physical play a part - only globalisation of information applied to the localistion of the physical.
Duncan
Western Canada Agenda 21 Implementation Group
Jun 25, 2010, 1:43:04 AM6/25/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Lila Smith
Jun 25, 2010, 7:00:18 PM6/25/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
Hi Alan,
Thanks - I truly do wonder when the public or majority of them will connect
the dots....that dot connecting is so very far overdue and corporations will
do anything to ensure that the public slumber, add to that governments hell
bent on sustaining the status quo - as we have witnessed in the near
collapse of our global economy recently - and it becomes a nightmare, all
smoke an mirrors.
However I do find it frustrating when discussing this issue with the
majority of the public, including my own friends and family, trying to open
eyes is just like threading the camel through the eye of the needle.
Heaven help us all, however I still plug on trying to open eyes in my small
corner of the world.
cheers.
Thanks - I truly do wonder when the public or majority of them will connect
the dots....that dot connecting is so very far overdue and corporations will
do anything to ensure that the public slumber, add to that governments hell
bent on sustaining the status quo - as we have witnessed in the near
collapse of our global economy recently - and it becomes a nightmare, all
smoke an mirrors.
However I do find it frustrating when discussing this issue with the
majority of the public, including my own friends and family, trying to open
eyes is just like threading the camel through the eye of the needle.
Heaven help us all, however I still plug on trying to open eyes in my small
corner of the world.
cheers.
Well said Lila
Alan
--
Best regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.439 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2959 - Release Date: 06/23/10
18:35:00
phil henshaw
Jun 27, 2010, 2:24:12 AM6/27/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Lila,
Good point, but people are really screwed up (as if we didn't
know!). The "secret" to that quandary, of "why DON'T they connect
the dots" may be that the problem is one of congenital cognitive blind
spots... Because of a defect in our cognitive development "we" are
not capable of connecting particular dots, as if trying to link
magnets with the same pole... It can't be done and people give up
easily. Some of us somewhat more "perverse" thinkers have found work-
arounds though, having remapped our neurons around the blocks. I
think we can overcome the mortal threat of it only if we also find it
fascinating...
I'm not sure how far one can take the analogy, but I think you might
liken it to an inheritable form of PTSD, if that helps. It clearly
does have something to do with our having lived for thousands of years
with "lords" obsessed with using their power to multiply their power
until it drove everything around them crazy, and having it then beaten
into us how to be trusted servants to such madmen.
That now we've become "nice and friendly" madmen, doing the same idiot
thing, seems to be the side of the inheritance very much in our way at
the moment.
Phil
On Jun 25, 7:00 pm, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks - I truly do wonder when the public or majority of them will connect
> the dots....that dot connecting is so very far overdue and corporations will
> do anything to ensure that the public slumber, add to that governments hell
> bent on sustaining the status quo - as we have witnessed in the near
> collapse of our global economy recently - and it becomes a nightmare, all
> smoke an mirrors.
> However I do find it frustrating when discussing this issue with the
> majority of the public, including my own friends and family, trying to open
> eyes is just like threading the camel through the eye of the needle.
> Heaven help us all, however I still plug on trying to open eyes in my small
> corner of the world.
> cheers.
>
> Lila Smithwww.windwand.co.nz
> Taranaki Tourism Websitewww.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
> Organic Kitchen Gardening
> Mob 021230 7962
> 06 7512942
> 122 Ngamotu Road
> New Plymouth
> New Zealand
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Western Canada Agenda 21 Implementation Group"
>
> <agenda21can...@gmail.com>
Good point, but people are really screwed up (as if we didn't
know!). The "secret" to that quandary, of "why DON'T they connect
the dots" may be that the problem is one of congenital cognitive blind
spots... Because of a defect in our cognitive development "we" are
not capable of connecting particular dots, as if trying to link
magnets with the same pole... It can't be done and people give up
easily. Some of us somewhat more "perverse" thinkers have found work-
arounds though, having remapped our neurons around the blocks. I
think we can overcome the mortal threat of it only if we also find it
fascinating...
I'm not sure how far one can take the analogy, but I think you might
liken it to an inheritable form of PTSD, if that helps. It clearly
does have something to do with our having lived for thousands of years
with "lords" obsessed with using their power to multiply their power
until it drove everything around them crazy, and having it then beaten
into us how to be trusted servants to such madmen.
That now we've become "nice and friendly" madmen, doing the same idiot
thing, seems to be the side of the inheritance very much in our way at
the moment.
Phil
On Jun 25, 7:00 pm, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks - I truly do wonder when the public or majority of them will connect
> the dots....that dot connecting is so very far overdue and corporations will
> do anything to ensure that the public slumber, add to that governments hell
> bent on sustaining the status quo - as we have witnessed in the near
> collapse of our global economy recently - and it becomes a nightmare, all
> smoke an mirrors.
> However I do find it frustrating when discussing this issue with the
> majority of the public, including my own friends and family, trying to open
> eyes is just like threading the camel through the eye of the needle.
> Heaven help us all, however I still plug on trying to open eyes in my small
> corner of the world.
> cheers.
>
> Lila Smithwww.windwand.co.nz
> Taranaki Tourism Websitewww.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
> Organic Kitchen Gardening
> Mob 021230 7962
> 06 7512942
> 122 Ngamotu Road
> New Plymouth
> New Zealand
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Western Canada Agenda 21 Implementation Group"
>
Lila Smith
Jun 27, 2010, 3:18:35 AM6/27/10
to monbiot...@googlegroups.com
what has happened is that people are most of them, debt ridden, and are just
working to keep their heads above water and survive, Money has created
sheeple! Corporates depend on Sheeple! as do governments, such a shame, if
only people could lose fear and think for themselves.
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
working to keep their heads above water and survive, Money has created
sheeple! Corporates depend on Sheeple! as do governments, such a shame, if
only people could lose fear and think for themselves.
Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
122 Ngamotu Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand
----- Original Message -----
From: "phil henshaw" <pfhe...@gmail.com>
To: "Monbiot Discussions" <monbiot...@googlegroups.com>
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
phil henshaw
Jun 28, 2010, 11:55:49 AM6/28/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Lila,
Right! But does living hand to mouth ever more expensively really
progress? Maybe progress would be more like an end to that in
exchange for living a little less expensively. Nature starts all
complex systems with "plan A" and then if she likes them and wants to
keep them she switches to "plan B". It mainly just takes pulling the
plug on what makes "plan A" explosively multiply like a cancer, i.e.
divert that feedback resource to anything else.
I like "sheeple" !! ;-) It's actually a serious observation by
one of the most insightful ecologists of our time, John Livingston,
that humans seem to have been the first domesticated species, so we've
perhaps had "sheeple" for an extraordinarily long time.
phil
On Jun 27, 3:18 am, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> what has happened is that people are most of them, debt ridden, and are just
> working to keep their heads above water and survive, Money has created
> sheeple! Corporates depend on Sheeple! as do governments, such a shame, if
> only people could lose fear and think for themselves.
Right! But does living hand to mouth ever more expensively really
progress? Maybe progress would be more like an end to that in
exchange for living a little less expensively. Nature starts all
complex systems with "plan A" and then if she likes them and wants to
keep them she switches to "plan B". It mainly just takes pulling the
plug on what makes "plan A" explosively multiply like a cancer, i.e.
divert that feedback resource to anything else.
I like "sheeple" !! ;-) It's actually a serious observation by
one of the most insightful ecologists of our time, John Livingston,
that humans seem to have been the first domesticated species, so we've
perhaps had "sheeple" for an extraordinarily long time.
phil
On Jun 27, 3:18 am, "Lila Smith" <lil...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> what has happened is that people are most of them, debt ridden, and are just
> working to keep their heads above water and survive, Money has created
> sheeple! Corporates depend on Sheeple! as do governments, such a shame, if
> only people could lose fear and think for themselves.
marty
Jun 29, 2010, 2:35:24 AM6/29/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Money isn't the problem -people are.
phil henshaw
Jun 29, 2010, 10:12:51 AM6/29/10
to Monbiot Discussions
People, yes, but who keep making and asking for false promises, and so
run the economy to provide endless multiplying returns for nothing.
Nearly everyone's favorite thing is to have access to a casino in
which you're almost guaranteed regular winnings on your bets, and
encouraged to add them to increase your future bets. In that kind of
casino the house is guaranteed to loose ever bigger on every bet, and
we LIKE that... because we dont see what's really happening. Because
we ask for our economy to be managed that way it encourages people
with savings to increase their own take from the rest of society
without end. Of course, that naturally ends in instability....
Still people keep asking government to just keep it stable, even
though a promise of ever multiplying free lunch is the essence of
instability. We just don't realize that it's government doing
exactly what we ask it too do that is the direct cause of the
continuous string of great financial crises for the last several
hundred years.
phil
run the economy to provide endless multiplying returns for nothing.
Nearly everyone's favorite thing is to have access to a casino in
which you're almost guaranteed regular winnings on your bets, and
encouraged to add them to increase your future bets. In that kind of
casino the house is guaranteed to loose ever bigger on every bet, and
we LIKE that... because we dont see what's really happening. Because
we ask for our economy to be managed that way it encourages people
with savings to increase their own take from the rest of society
without end. Of course, that naturally ends in instability....
Still people keep asking government to just keep it stable, even
though a promise of ever multiplying free lunch is the essence of
instability. We just don't realize that it's government doing
exactly what we ask it too do that is the direct cause of the
continuous string of great financial crises for the last several
hundred years.
phil
marty
Jun 30, 2010, 2:40:15 AM6/30/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Not sure governments Really are in control any more. Big business
calls most of the shots these days.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
calls most of the shots these days.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
phil henshaw
Jun 30, 2010, 8:20:20 PM6/30/10
to Monbiot Discussions
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that the government runs the
show. At best government is only a service provider and referee. I
was referring to how government goes to a great effort to provide the
service of attempting to stabilize the economy, that *everyone* asks
for, rich and poor.
The only problem is that trying to stabilize an ever more rapidly
expanding and changing earth churning system is naturally
destabilizing!
It's a broad explanatory principle for natural systems, that helps you
understand why nature uses explosions of energy use and organizational
development to begin things. Part of nature's secret of change is
that to make anything last you need to allow the start-up explosions
of creative development that things begin with destabilize its own
explosion process...! Successful natural systems succeed by turning
off the bomb they are sitting on to begin with. Think of anything,
like a child gestating in the womb, going from one to a hundred
billion cells, and then getting kicked out and cut off from their
initial "fossil fuel" resource in sucking blood from their mother.
Getting kicked out of the womb is a very important step.
Our governments, at the request of rich and poor alike, are doing
their very best to prevent our explosion from ending... doing all they
can to not turn off the creation of ever bigger and more impossible
challenges, and so threatening a profound collapse of the earth/man
system as a whole. If you haven't looked at it lately you might
study Walt Disney's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and ask what happens if
the Sorcerer doesn't return to set things right.
We apparently need a "sorcerer" to come along who understands the
magic and mayhem inherent in the way nature changes form. So far
mankind has only discovered the dangerous half of nature's secret, is
the problem, and is threatening the earth and itself in grand
style. It seems an appropriate time to mention it if see that it's
possible to understand the problem.
phil
> ...
>
> read more »
show. At best government is only a service provider and referee. I
was referring to how government goes to a great effort to provide the
service of attempting to stabilize the economy, that *everyone* asks
for, rich and poor.
The only problem is that trying to stabilize an ever more rapidly
expanding and changing earth churning system is naturally
destabilizing!
It's a broad explanatory principle for natural systems, that helps you
understand why nature uses explosions of energy use and organizational
development to begin things. Part of nature's secret of change is
that to make anything last you need to allow the start-up explosions
of creative development that things begin with destabilize its own
explosion process...! Successful natural systems succeed by turning
off the bomb they are sitting on to begin with. Think of anything,
like a child gestating in the womb, going from one to a hundred
billion cells, and then getting kicked out and cut off from their
initial "fossil fuel" resource in sucking blood from their mother.
Getting kicked out of the womb is a very important step.
Our governments, at the request of rich and poor alike, are doing
their very best to prevent our explosion from ending... doing all they
can to not turn off the creation of ever bigger and more impossible
challenges, and so threatening a profound collapse of the earth/man
system as a whole. If you haven't looked at it lately you might
study Walt Disney's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and ask what happens if
the Sorcerer doesn't return to set things right.
We apparently need a "sorcerer" to come along who understands the
magic and mayhem inherent in the way nature changes form. So far
mankind has only discovered the dangerous half of nature's secret, is
the problem, and is threatening the earth and itself in grand
style. It seems an appropriate time to mention it if see that it's
possible to understand the problem.
phil
>
> read more »
marty
Jun 30, 2010, 11:18:56 PM6/30/10
to Monbiot Discussions
Your theories are a bit beyond me. I like a combination of Suzuki's
"The Sacred Balance" with Jesus' sermon on the mount. Matt Ridley's
"Nature via Nurture" is interesting too, giving as it does a new twist
to the way evolution works by switching genes on after birth through
life experiences.
I don't have a lot of hope for humanity though. I don't think we've
got it in us to take back control of our runaway technology which
unchecked will lead to environmental catastrophe. My only real hope is
that God is still in control despite all evidence to the contrary.
PS You might like to checkout my artwork on facebook "Martyn
Haggerty"
Regards Marty
"The Sacred Balance" with Jesus' sermon on the mount. Matt Ridley's
"Nature via Nurture" is interesting too, giving as it does a new twist
to the way evolution works by switching genes on after birth through
life experiences.
I don't have a lot of hope for humanity though. I don't think we've
got it in us to take back control of our runaway technology which
unchecked will lead to environmental catastrophe. My only real hope is
that God is still in control despite all evidence to the contrary.
PS You might like to checkout my artwork on facebook "Martyn
Haggerty"
Regards Marty
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages