The bloated selves of our time and place
Joseph Humming
considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that
preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a
creature
finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the
entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might
expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the
relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the
learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment
- that characterises all other creatures.
Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills
fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing
etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all
somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation
of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the
polar bear cannot be bested. So, if we possess the intelligence to
construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible,
the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the
resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the
entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may
decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our
existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet
on
which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this
Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human
existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
I believe it will happen.
But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an
individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in
evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters
- the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to
colonise it; our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail;
our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the
ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our
social
forms.........and countless more.
But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the
freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the
resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry,
immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new
resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen
- but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our
genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and
utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant
economic forces will resist the process all the way.
So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden
their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack?
Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must
they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do
we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and
place?
Joseph Humming
Rupert Morrish
[snip blather]
> Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this?
The parentheses on my keyboard are accessed by shift-9 and shift-0. Are
yours broken?
"(Why) should we expect this?" doesn't make sense, although it would be
unfair to this sentence to distinguish it form the rest of your screed.
[snip more blather]
David Hare-Scott
"Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:cc4c0147-2e1f-4574...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Are you able to say in one or two sentences what the point of your original
posting is? I read it twice and I still have no idea.
David
Mike Dworetsky
news:cc4c0147-2e1f-4574...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it
among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for
being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
(There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find
alternative sources of energy [I couldn't be sure], but we all pretty much
know that anyways.)
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Joseph Humming
> Joseph Humming wrote:
>
> [snip blather]
>
> > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this?
>
> The parentheses on my keyboard are accessed by shift-9 and shift-0. Are
> yours broken?
>
> "(Why) should we expect this?" doesn't make sense, although it would be
> unfair to this sentence to distinguish it form the rest of your screed.
I say in the preceding paragraph that we should expect this creature -
us - to fashion an existence that transcends the
relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour. It is a
large claim. I merely seek to justify it somewhat - which I think I am
required to do. Thus the question makes perfect sense. I also think
the answer makes sense. The essence of my entire "screed" is that our
intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
society. The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently
towards such a society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm
of some sort.
>
> [snip more blather]
Joseph Humming
intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are
currently close to such a society. Our global reach, our knowledge,
our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to
make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel,
warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed
intelligently towards a managed global
society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some
sort.
Robert Carnegie
I too would welcome an executive summary. But I think Joseph is
arguing that humankind, unlike other species, can respond
intelligently not only to our individual present circumstances, our
physical environment and our neighbours, but plan out a rational
relationship to enjoy (in a technical sense) the resources of the
world most fully. Because the modern, clued-in self is the empowered
self. But it is also the bloated self. This may refer to greed, to
disinformation overload, or to digestive transit with the modern
Western diet. There is a yoghurt product advertised as good for that,
but I disagree with their nutritional labelling policy.
P.S. Google Groups seems to dislike something I'm trying to send, so
I'm trimming down the "he said" lines at the start - in the past it's
been that.
Uh uh - what it is, they logged me out while I wasn't looking. "An
error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."
You wouldn't care to tell me what the error /is/, any time?
Joseph Humming
wrote:
Aw, be nice, Mike!
The essence of what I clearly failed to say is that our
intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
society, one that transcends in many respects the animal struggle for
existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are
currently close to such a society. Our recent global reach, our
communications, our newly acquired knowledge,
our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to
make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel,
warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed
intelligently towards a managed global
society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some
sort. My fear is that we will not easily yield our recent empowerment,
our sense that we have the right to do whatever we want regardless of
long-term consequences. Hence the bloated-self motif.
And, yes, we need new sources of energy - but I never mentioned
those.
Ciao
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AC
That's the thing I can't stand the most about Marxists, they'll write an
entire book where a sentence will suffice.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Mike Dworetsky
snippetty doo dah
>>
>> That's great, but what, exactly, is your point? I can't really find it
>> among the dross. Didn't your English teachers impress on you the need for
>> being concise and expressing yourself clearly? What? No? I see....
>>
>> (There may be some sort of message in there about needing to find
>> alternative sources of energy [I couldn't be sure], but we all pretty
>> much
>> know that anyways.)
>
> Aw, be nice, Mike!
I enjoy being curmudgeonly.
>
> The essence of what I clearly failed to say is that our
> intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
> society, one that transcends in many respects the animal struggle for
> existence. I believe that, notwithstanding appearances, we are
> currently close to such a society. Our recent global reach, our
> communications, our newly acquired knowledge,
> our technology and our sense of the rights due to us prompts me to
> make such a claim. But crises loom in the form of resources, fuel,
> warming, population etc. The only issue is whether we will proceed
> intelligently towards a managed global
> society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm of some
> sort. My fear is that we will not easily yield our recent empowerment,
> our sense that we have the right to do whatever we want regardless of
> long-term consequences. Hence the bloated-self motif.
>
> And, yes, we need new sources of energy - but I never mentioned
> those.
> Ciao
I referred to this passage:
> > But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the
> > freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the
> > resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry,
> > immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new
> > resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen
> > - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our
> > genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and
> > utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant
> > economic forces will resist the process all the way.
Maybe you meant agricultural land, landfill sites or iron ore, but I read
"energy" and problems of air pollution and global warming..
Joseph Humming
his quest for justice and his wish to understand the underlying
dynamics of history. But I am not a Marxist.
But maybe you can reduce what I said to one sentence. I'd love to read
it.
Joseph Humming
We are the mind of matter.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
wrote:
posting is mainly about human potential - our capacity to create a
managed global society; our capacity to transcend the grim struggle of
all other creatures, to create an intelligent managed existence. I
have no doubt this will happen. The issue I address is whether we have
to undergo a century of chaos before it occurs. The hope I adduce is
that ane elevated sense of our uniqueness in nature will make the
process less traumatic.
Joseph still Humming
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
David Hare-Scott
Thanks for the simplicity
I wish that you are right and the many impacts of reaching the finite limits
of the resources of the earth will be dealt with rationally and quickly.
Sadly, however intelligent and well meaning the individual may be our
mechanisms for formulating collective action are more stone-age than space-age
or data-age.
We are still lost in petty tribalism. We are still led by people who put
themselves forward because they desire to excercise power rather than to solve
problems. In the West we still suffer from a plethora of politicians and a
dirth of statesmen. In half the world at least the individual has no voice
other than the language of the unheard - the riot. There are individuals who
would seemingly rather die, and have their children die, rather than give up
one milligram of their right to do exactly as they please in the face of
evidence that continuing that way will be a disaster. All this isn't going to
change in the next generation or two which is about how long we have.
In that time frame there will be no managed global society. So yes there will
be a cataclysm. The question is only how big. There will be jerky, quirky,
stumbling, backsliding responses, uncoordinated actions, apathy and screw-ups.
There will also be some progress and humanity will survive. The future won't
be the way we are now and it won't be pretty getting there. Maybe a managed
global society will be the ultimate result but I doubt it. I will bet that in
the richer countries it will come down to recriminations and impotent sniping
at each other about whose fault is was that their standard of living has
dropped and in the poorer countries they will just die wondering why, which is
what they do now.
David
Frank J
I think he's trying to say "42."
Kermit
> On Jul 4, 2:25 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:> Joseph Humming wrote:
>
> > [snip blather]
>
> > > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this?
>
> > The parentheses on my keyboard are accessed by shift-9 and shift-0. Are
> > yours broken?
>
> Thanks for the lesson.
>
>
>
> > "(Why) should we expect this?" doesn't make sense, although it would be
> > unfair to this sentence to distinguish it form the rest of your screed.
>
> I say in the preceding paragraph that we should expect this creature -
> us - to fashion an existence that transcends the
> relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour.
What other kind of behavior is there other than learned or ingrained?
Random?
> It is a large claim.
Nay, sir, not large so much as incoherent. What, exactly, are you
saying?
> I merely seek to justify it somewhat - which I think I am
> required to do. Thus the question makes perfect sense. I also think
> the answer makes sense. The essence of my entire "screed" is that our
> intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
> society.
Our record has not been good, but I will hope with you on this. But
the devil *is in the details.
> The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently
> towards such a society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm
> of some sort.
Unfortunately, our history indicates that we are less likely to be
intelligent exactly when we are need it most - that is, when we are
under great stress.
>
>
>
> > [snip more blather]
Kermit
Kermit
> The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some
> considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that
> preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a
> creature
> finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the
> entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might
> expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the
> relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the
> learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment
> - that characterises all other creatures.
Are you talking about Soylent Green? If you're not, it's hard to tell
what you are talking about.
>
> Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills
> fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing
> etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all
> somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation
> of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the
> polar bear cannot be bested.
Much of what makes species unique from the others has nothing to do
with how effectively they use energy. We humans, for example, run
better than nearly any other animal for long distances, with only a
couple of species (e.g. wolves) that can match us.
If you simply mean various characteristics such as sprinting speed or
toxins whatnot, how is life today using them better than, say, 65
million years ago?
> So, if we possess the intelligence to
> construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible,
> the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
Are you saying we have to reduce natural dangers to practically near
zero *before we can exhibit intelligence? Are we not intelligent now?
Please describe your standard for "intelligence", and explain why you
think it will somehow develop when we are completely safe.
>
> Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the
> resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the
> entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may
> decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our
> existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet
> on
> which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this
> Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human
> existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
Ummm...
What?
Please give an example of what you are talking about.
>
> I believe it will happen.
>
You're so vague that it's difficult to agree or disagree with you.
> But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an
> individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in
> evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters
> - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to
> colonise it;
If you're talking about Earth, it's pretty clear that we've thoroughly
colonized it already. We have over-colonized it; hypercolonized it. We
have colonized it to the max.
> our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail;
> our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the
> ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our
> social
> forms.........and countless more.
Perhaps you could fill in a little more detail on why our stride-
length is important here.
>
> But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the
> freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the
> resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry,
> immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new
> resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen
> - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our
> genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and
> utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant
> economic forces will resist the process all the way.
>
Will dominant literary forces struggle against the enlightened use of
brevity and clarity?
> So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden
> their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack?
> Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must
> they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do
> we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and
> place?
Some would say education, but my wife and I place our hopes in genetic
engineering.
>
> Joseph Humming
Kermit
--
We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
Kermit
> On Jul 4, 7:56 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
.
>
> Yeah, they're all implicit in my posting. Not denying that. But my
> posting is mainly about human potential - our capacity to create a
> managed global society; our capacity to transcend the grim struggle of
> all other creatures, to create an intelligent managed existence. I
> have no doubt this will happen. The issue I address is whether we have
> to undergo a century of chaos before it occurs. The hope I adduce is
> that ane elevated sense of our uniqueness in nature will make the
> process less traumatic.
Ah. This is clearer. (More clear?)
I fear that as long as we are as comfortable as we in the west are
now, that we will not quickly wise up. But the danger is that the
coming crash will get so stressful so quickly that we will get stupid,
violent, and superstitious, and be in no mood for studying the
periodic table, climatology, and ecology.
I am optimistic by nature, but I am not encouraged by:
1.The rapidly growing clean water shortage,
2. The acidification of the ocean (from CO2 absorption) leading to
mass death of corral reefs and the million or so species that depend
on them, and the mass death of hard-shelled mollusks and the critters
that live on them (and on *them, in turn), and the proliferation of
algae and seaweed.
3. Changes brought about by global warming, including drought, climate
changes from the Arctic polar cap melting in the summer, etc.
4. Religious and other fanatics having access to cheap and powerful
biological and technical tools of destruction.
5. All exacerbated by a growing population pressure.
>
> Joseph still Humming
>
> > --
> > Mike Dworetsky
<snip>
Kermit
Joseph Humming
see us one day - and not too far ahead - create a fairly intelligent
global society.
Because the modern, clued-in self is the empowered
> self. But it is also the bloated self. This may refer to greed, to
> disinformation overload, or to digestive transit with the modern
> Western diet. There is a yoghurt product advertised as good for that,
> but I disagree with their nutritional labelling policy.
Too much information, Robert. Please burp in private.
>
> P.S. Google Groups seems to dislike something I'm trying to send, so
> I'm trimming down the "he said" lines at the start - in the past it's
> been that.
>
> Uh uh - what it is, they logged me out while I wasn't looking. "An
> error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."
> You wouldn't care to tell me what the error /is/, any time?- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
pittance in evolutionery time. Our mechanisms don't change - but we
gradually build up strategems and protocals and familiarity with each
other.
>
> We are still lost in petty tribalism. We are still led by people who put
> themselves forward because they desire to excercise power rather than to solve
> problems. In the West we still suffer from a plethora of politicians and a
> dirth of statesmen. In half the world at least the individual has no voice
> other than the language of the unheard - the riot. There are individuals who
> would seemingly rather die, and have their children die, rather than give up
> one milligram of their right to do exactly as they please in the face of
> evidence that continuing that way will be a disaster. All this isn't going to
> change in the next generation or two which is about how long we have.
to fought against such obscurantism - and the best way of fighting
this battle is to have a profound sense of human potential.
>
> In that time frame there will be no managed global society. So yes there will
> be a cataclysm. The question is only how big. There will be jerky, quirky,
> stumbling, backsliding responses, uncoordinated actions, apathy and screw-ups.
> There will also be some progress and humanity will survive. The future won't
> be the way we are now and it won't be pretty getting there. Maybe a managed
> global society will be the ultimate result but I doubt it. I will bet that in
> the richer countries it will come down to recriminations and impotent sniping
> at each other about whose fault is was that their standard of living has
> dropped and in the poorer countries they will just die wondering why, which is
> what they do now.
describe lie in wait. That;s why the vision I - or others - describe
is so important. Only when armed with such a vision can we surmount
the struggles ahead.
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
I would have said 43.
Joseph Humming
> On Jul 4, 2:23 am, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 2:25 am, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:> Joseph Humming wrote:
>
> > > [snip blather]
>
> > > > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this?
>
> > > The parentheses on my keyboard are accessed by shift-9 and shift-0. Are
> > > yours broken?
>
> > Thanks for the lesson.
>
> > > "(Why) should we expect this?" doesn't make sense, although it would be
> > > unfair to this sentence to distinguish it form the rest of your screed.
>
> > I say in the preceding paragraph that we should expect this creature -
> > us - to fashion an existence that transcends the
> > relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour.
>
> What other kind of behavior is there other than learned or ingrained?
> Random?
or conceived as a response to discovery or recognition - discovery of
our situation or of our predicament, recognition of a future we might
entertain or of a vision we might aspire to. I don't see other animals
behaving in such a manner.
>
> > It is a large claim.
>
> Nay, sir, not large so much as incoherent. What, exactly, are you
> saying?
>
> > I merely seek to justify it somewhat - which I think I am
> > required to do. Thus the question makes perfect sense. I also think
> > the answer makes sense. The essence of my entire "screed" is that our
> > intelligence will eventually find expression in an intelligent
> > society.
>
> Our record has not been good, but I will hope with you on this. But
> the devil *is in the details.
>
> > The only issue is whether we will proceed intelligently
> > towards such a society or whether we must first experience a cataclysm
> > of some sort.
>
> Unfortunately, our history indicates that we are less likely to be
> intelligent exactly when we are need it most - that is, when we are
> under great stress.
great stress" - it is surely important that we have a resilient vision
of ourselves. All the better if this vision happens to be a fairly
accurate depiction of our situation - and our potential.
>
>
>
> > > [snip more blather]
(Blather)? So you debate with me - and disparage me in the same
breath. Very elegant, I'm sure.
>
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
Joseph Humming
> On Jul 3, 12:51 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > The life-type which produced us might be considered a success. Some
> > considerable number of species have honed survival strategies that
> > preserved the lineage for countless generations. Thus, when a
> > creature
> > finally hoved into view - us - that is capable of delineating the
> > entire life-process and the context in which it operates we might
> > expect this creature to fashion an existence that transcends the
> > relentless application of learned or ingrained behaviour - e.g. the
> > learned or ingrained utilisation of particular sources of nourishment
> > - that characterises all other creatures.
>
> Are you talking about Soylent Green? If you're not, it's hard to tell
> what you are talking about.
>
>
>
> > Why - in parenthesis - should we expect this? Because the skills
> > fashioned by nature - the speed, strength, ferocity, hearing, seeing
> > etc...all of them based entirely on a chemical arrangement - are all
> > somewhere in nature used to the full. The transfer or the utilisation
> > of energy in, say, the cheetah or the eagle or the rhinocerous or the
> > polar bear cannot be bested.
>
> Much of what makes species unique from the others has nothing to do
> with how effectively they use energy. We humans, for example, run
> better than nearly any other animal for long distances, with only a
> couple of species (e.g. wolves) that can match us.
>
> If you simply mean various characteristics such as sprinting speed or
> toxins whatnot, how is life today using them better than, say, 65
> million years ago?
maybe - again - I diidn't make it clear. I referred to our
intelligence. The point I was making is that our intelligence will
have its day. It will find expression. We will create a society
commensurate with our intelligence - the intelligently managed global
society to which I refer.
>
> > So, if we possess the intelligence to
> > construct a society that manages, or decreases as much as possible,
> > the perils of existence we will eventually utilize that intelligence.
>
> Are you saying we have to reduce natural dangers to practically near
> zero *before we can exhibit intelligence?
inherent and random perils - pain, shortage, illness, cataclysm. We
have the capacity - a capacity possessed by no other creature - to
limit and/or control these perils..
Are we not intelligent now?
> Please describe your standard for "intelligence", and explain why you
> think it will somehow develop when we are completely safe.
Never suggested for an instant that we would be completely safe. But
we will be safer than other creatures who are totally at the mercy of
what nature throws at them.
>
>
>
> > Thus, we may - eventually - hope to categorize and manage the
> > resources needed for our existence; we may eventually understand the
> > entire nature and history and provenance of our existence; we may
> > decide - doubtless after much contest - how we might best manage our
> > existence; we may decide the extent of our obligation to the planet
> > on
> > which we dwell and the creatures who live thereon. I call this
> > Humanisation: the complete application of human intelligence on human
> > existence, and indeed ALL, existence on this planet.
>
> Ummm...
>
> What?
>
> Please give an example of what you are talking about.
Example? Can only describe it - as I try to do. We will be stewards of
life on the planet. We will monitor it - as we do already. We will
classify and delineate it - as we do already. We will protect it - as
we do already, but not sufficiently. We will also monitor and protect
and delineate our own lives according to principles that we are
curttently fashioning. We are some way off this - but it will happen.
>
>
>
> > I believe it will happen.
>
> You're so vague that it's difficult to agree or disagree with you.
>
> > But it will not happen easily - not from the limited viewpoint of an
> > individual human being anyway (though I have to say that in
> > evolutionary-time it will be a rocket!). There are so many parameters
> > - the size of the planet, for example; how long it takes us to
> > colonise it;
>
> If you're talking about Earth, it's pretty clear that we've thoroughly
> colonized it already. We have over-colonized it; hypercolonized it. We
> have colonized it to the max.
Population currently 7 billion. Projected to be 11 billion by the end
of the century. Quite a lot of oolonising to be done. But let us not
discount the efforts and the difficulties of the last 10000 years.
>
> > our very stride-length; our individual need to prevail;
> > our adherence to our group; our susceptability to those with the
> > ability to convince us; the adaptability, or lack of it, of our
> > social
> > forms.........and countless more.
>
> Perhaps you could fill in a little more detail on why our stride-
> length is important here.
The planet has a circumference of 24000 miles. If a creature is to
colonise or populate such a planet, or any planet, its stride length
is a factor. Our stride length is approx 1 yard. A stride length of 1
foot, say, would entail far more physical effort and thus would result
in colonisation of longer duration. Am I wrong?
>
>
>
> > But we are close. We have fashioned the liberal state based on the
> > freedom of the individual. But the very success of this state, the
> > resources it demands to satisfy our needs and our industry,
> > immediately threatens our future. Ideally, we should simply find new
> > resources, ones less destructive of our environment. That will happen
> > - but not immediately and not until after massive disruption. Our
> > genius will not bend itself to the dislocation of discovering and
> > utilising new resources until it is forced upon us. And the dominant
> > economic forces will resist the process all the way.
>
> Will dominant literary forces struggle against the enlightened use of
> brevity and clarity?
Touche!
But....to counter that...am I expected to outline an entire vision of
human history and human prospects in 200 or so words?
>
> > So, how do we convince our free and empowered citizenry to broaden
> > their horizons? How do we compel them to give the earth some slack?
> > Will they vote - which is their prerogative - for a new age? Or must
> > they be forced to accept one as the waters lap at their feet? How do
> > we move the empowered selves, the BLOATED selves of our time and
> > place?
>
> Some would say education, but my wife and I place our hopes in genetic
> engineering.
Education - and I am a teacher - seems lame in relation to the
pleasures and possibilties open to kids today. Genetic
engineering....? How so? We programme clones and pawns? No, sir.
Joseph Humming
> On Jul 4, 4:42 pm, Joseph Humming <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 7:56 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> .
>
>
>
> > Yeah, they're all implicit in my posting. Not denying that. But my
> > posting is mainly about human potential - our capacity to create a
> > managed global society; our capacity to transcend the grim struggle of
> > all other creatures, to create an intelligent managed existence. I
> > have no doubt this will happen. The issue I address is whether we have
> > to undergo a century of chaos before it occurs. The hope I adduce is
> > that ane elevated sense of our uniqueness in nature will make the
> > process less traumatic.
>
> Ah. This is clearer. (More clear?)
>
> I fear that as long as we are as comfortable as we in the west are
> now, that we will not quickly wise up. But the danger is that the
> coming crash will get so stressful so quickly that we will get stupid,
> violent, and superstitious, and be in no mood for studying the
> periodic table, climatology, and ecology.
>
> I am optimistic by nature, but I am not encouraged by:
> 1.The rapidly growing clean water shortage,
> 2. The acidification of the ocean (from CO2 absorption) leading to
> mass death of corral reefs and the million or so species that depend
> on them, and the mass death of hard-shelled mollusks and the critters
> that live on them (and on *them, in turn), and the proliferation of
> algae and seaweed.
Not by any means to denigrate the humble mollusk...but I am more
concerned with US.
> 3. Changes brought about by global warming, including drought, climate
> changes from the Arctic polar cap melting in the summer, etc.
> 4. Religious and other fanatics having access to cheap and powerful
> biological and technical tools of destruction.
> 5. All exacerbated by a growing population pressure.
Precisely. So I offer a vision of human potential as a possible
mainstay during the traumatic years ahead. A unifying vision of our
place in nature will - I suggest - ease the transition to a new age.
David Hare-Scott
> >
> > I wish that you are right and the many impacts of reaching the finite
limits
> > of the resources of the earth will be dealt with rationally and quickly.
> > Sadly, however intelligent and well meaning the individual may be our
> > mechanisms for formulating collective action are more stone-age than
space-age
> > or data-age.
> But our mechanisms can't change.
That is my point. How will your new society come about without any such
change?
Stone-age is 6000 yeara ago, a
> pittance in evolutionery time. Our mechanisms don't change - but we
> gradually build up strategems and protocals and familiarity with each
> other.
> >
Show me the evidence please. Despite the technical facility of communication
these days I see no signs of change in global problem solving and despite
televised access to foreign societies that once could only be obtained by
visiting in the flesh parochialism still rules most lives.
> > We are still lost in petty tribalism. We are still led by people who put
> > themselves forward because they desire to excercise power rather than to
solve
> > problems. In the West we still suffer from a plethora of politicians and a
> > dirth of statesmen. In half the world at least the individual has no voice
> > other than the language of the unheard - the riot. There are individuals
who
> > would seemingly rather die, and have their children die, rather than give
up
> > one milligram of their right to do exactly as they please in the face of
> > evidence that continuing that way will be a disaster. All this isn't going
to
> > change in the next generation or two which is about how long we have.
> Can't deny any of this. All quite powerful. The battle ahead will have
> to fought against such obscurantism - and the best way of fighting
> this battle is to have a profound sense of human potential.
This is very vague, do you have anything more practical? For example, can you
show that the generations who failed before us lacked that sense of potential
and that is why they failed?
> >
> > In that time frame there will be no managed global society. So yes there
will
> > be a cataclysm. The question is only how big. There will be jerky, quirky,
> > stumbling, backsliding responses, uncoordinated actions, apathy and
screw-ups.
> > There will also be some progress and humanity will survive. The future
won't
> > be the way we are now and it won't be pretty getting there. Maybe a
managed
> > global society will be the ultimate result but I doubt it. I will bet that
in
> > the richer countries it will come down to recriminations and impotent
sniping
> > at each other about whose fault is was that their standard of living has
> > dropped and in the poorer countries they will just die wondering why,
which is
> > what they do now.
> Yeah, absolutely nothing will happen automatically. All the perils you
> describe lie in wait. That;s why the vision I - or others - describe
> is so important. Only when armed with such a vision can we surmount
> the struggles ahead.
It's going to take much more than vision. Dreamers are a dime a dozen. If
you have you anything specific and concrete to offer then how about you do it
now.
David
Joseph Humming
> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>
> news:9db52a6f-2542-437b-a15b-
>
>
>
> > > I wish that you are right and the many impacts of reaching the finite
> limits
> > > of the resources of the earth will be dealt with rationally and quickly.
> > > Sadly, however intelligent and well meaning the individual may be our
> > > mechanisms for formulating collective action are more stone-age than
> space-age
> > > or data-age.
> > But our mechanisms can't change.
>
> That is my point. How will your new society come about without any such
> change?
>
> Stone-age is 6000 yeara ago, a
>
> > pittance in evolutionery time. Our mechanisms don't change - but we
> > gradually build up strategems and protocals and familiarity with each
> > other.
>
> Show me the evidence please. Despite the technical facility of communication
> these days I see no signs of change in global problem solving and despite
> televised access to foreign societies that once could only be obtained by
> visiting in the flesh parochialism still rules most lives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > We are still lost in petty tribalism. We are still led by people who put
> > > themselves forward because they desire to excercise power rather than to
> solve
> > > problems. In the West we still suffer from a plethora of politicians and a
> > > dirth of statesmen. In half the world at least the individual has no voice
> > > other than the language of the unheard - the riot. There are individuals
> who
> > > would seemingly rather die, and have their children die, rather than give
> up
> > > one milligram of their right to do exactly as they please in the face of
> > > evidence that continuing that way will be a disaster. All this isn't going
> to
> > > change in the next generation or two which is about how long we have.
> > Can't deny any of this. All quite powerful. The battle ahead will have
> > to fought against such obscurantism - and the best way of fighting
> > this battle is to have a profound sense of human potential.
>
> This is very vague, do you have anything more practical? For example, can you
> show that the generations who failed before us lacked that sense of potential
> and that is why they failed?
- i.e. giving their allegiance and their support and their commitment
only to their local area. But, recalling my observation about medieval
France, that "local area" has broadened considerably over the
centuries. But you're right: we are still, say, "French" first, and
then Catholic, and then, say, Parisian, and then, maybe, European and
then....In any case our sense of identity is very complex and fairly
local. But nowhere in the above list is "human". Being part of the
human race and playing a part in the human story doesn't seem to
figure - even though it is the most essential and most enduring
component of anyone's identity. My wish is to heighten this component.
One way of heightening it, I believe, is to draw out the truth of it,
to depict the true lineaments of human history and the full
implication of our emergence. The truth is not vague - even though it
may well be obscure. Truth in relation to us has been obscured by
ignorance and obfuscation, Now, surely, when we most need it is time
to draw aside those veils of obscurantism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > In that time frame there will be no managed global society. So yes there
> will
> > > be a cataclysm. The question is only how big. There will be jerky, quirky,
> > > stumbling, backsliding responses, uncoordinated actions, apathy and
> screw-ups.
> > > There will also be some progress and humanity will survive. The future
> won't
> > > be the way we are now and it won't be pretty getting there. Maybe a
> managed
> > > global society will be the ultimate result but I doubt it. I will bet that
> in
> > > the richer countries it will come down to recriminations and impotent
> sniping
> > > at each other about whose fault is was that their standard of living has
> > > dropped and in the poorer countries they will just die wondering why,
> which is
> > > what they do now.
> > Yeah, absolutely nothing will happen automatically. All the perils you
> > describe lie in wait. That;s why the vision I - or others - describe
> > is so important. Only when armed with such a vision can we surmount
> > the struggles ahead.
>
> It's going to take much more than vision. Dreamers are a dime a dozen. If
> you have you anything specific and concrete to offer then how about you do it
> now.
Specific? As in..."at 3pm on a Tuesday we developed gene 317d which
guarantees us...whatever"? All I, or any other "dreamer" can do, is
seek to see a hidden potency in humanity. All we can hope for is that
enough people will look at our vision and say"Hey, that seems right".
I'm loath to go down the way of the pedlers of false hopes. Sometimes
I fear that the only way we can be seduced is by bogus promises and
stirring tales of bullshit. I think this susceptability to moonshine
is a particular facet of our natures. On the other hand, if what I
claim - that we have a unique capacity in nature and a unique
potential and this potential will eventually be realised - becomes
part of a common perception then it will undoubtedly ease the path of
agreement during the century ahead.
Thank you.
Joseph still Humming.
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -