There's a real grass roots movement to help on an everyday level doing and being nice, then paying it forward.
Thoughtfulness is a way of life.
I like this thought, but as to it being a grass-roots deal? Not sure, and apologies if we're just talking semantics here - but this is something I was taught (and shown) from the time I was a kid.
But yes...it IS a way of life. Or at least, should be, and not a movement.
Don't we learn these basics in kindergarten?
By grass roots movement I was addressing a growing trend of getting people aware to be
thoughtful, to be nice, to care in the smallest everyday interaction.
There are movements across the country of reaching out and the media is there to spread the
word. It's the wake up call people need, this the movement.
And what's cool is each one of us plays a role and it spreads quickly.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
There's a real grass roots movement to help on an everyday level doing and being nice, then paying it forward.
Thoughtfulness is a way of life.
I like this thought, but as to it being a grass-roots deal? Not sure, and apologies if we're just talking semantics here - but this is something I was taught (and shown) from the time I was a kid.
But yes...it IS a way of life. Or at least, should be, and not a movement.
Don't we learn these basics in kindergarten?
By grass roots movement I was addressing a growing trend of getting people aware to be
thoughtful, to be nice, to care in the smallest everyday interaction.
There are movements across the country of reaching out and the media is there to spread the
word. It's the wake up call people need, this the movement.
And what's cool is each one of us plays a role and it spreads quickly.
I like this. Let's be a part of that movement.
The Peace Train!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
if we didn't have the military industrial complex and the US did not engage in a foreign policy of economic imperialism and war profiteering ... and the conviction that was spent on securing oil was spent on fortifying the UN - would we not have peace now?
not world peace.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
selfishness is inherent in people, and greed is as well.
I think this is somewhat myopic, or misguided.
Selfishness and greed are inherent in the lower emotional nature and the lower mind.
But neither are present in the higher mind ... that part of the mental capacity that has a direct link with the true self.
Man must go through the arduous process of separating his lower mind (personality) from, and then subjugating it to his higher mind. This is, in fact, what all of the great religious books of the world are speaking about -- the process whereby man transcends his own personal desires, and begins to focus solely on the good of the whole. Man must recognize the one life, actively pursue integration with that life, and then focus on service to that life.
true or false. 99% of people do things for the betterment of themselves or their circumstances, and not to the detriment of themselves?
self preservation is an instinct.
Self-Betterment and Selfish-Greed are not indentical concepts. At all.
You can better your self and your condition, and do it with out infringing on the prospects of others. You can even better yourself and give *back* to others.
On the other hand, you can be selfish and greedy, and yet do nothing to actually better yourself.
You may claim I am arguing semantics. But you are the one who is either deliberately or accidentally confusing terms.
All life wants to live, yes. And most life wants to improve.
All life does not have to, and does not necessarily want to, impede on the lives of others to do so.
Have you ever met a Buddhist monk? (just for example)
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.
That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.
That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
That hold our brothers in Angola,
In Mozambique,
South Africa
Sub-human bondage
Have been toppled,
Utterly destroyed -
Well, everywhere is war -
Me say war.
War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south -
War - war -
Rumours of war.
And until that day,
The African continent
Will not know peace,
We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -
And we know we shall win
As we are confident
In the victory
Of good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
We can minimize the amount of fighting, but unfortunately I fear that if WW I and the devastation and immense loss of life couldn't cure mankind of war, nothing ever will.
Depends on what kind of peace you want really...world peace? I doubt it. Lasting meaningful peace for most of the world? probably, will take some drastic action on the part of the more imperialistic countries to reverse course and play nice. Elimination of tribal, ethnic, and racial hatred? not in my or anyone here's lifetime.
World peace is not impossible Brian, just not probable.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
if we didn't have the military industrial complex and the US did not engage in a foreign policy of economic imperialism and war profiteering ... and the conviction that was spent on securing oil was spent on fortifying the UN - would we not have peace now?
not world peace.
care to elaborate? ... a functioning UN with a security council that believed in peace? ... where would we have major conflicts?
What would bring about World Peace?
And asteroid strike that brings about the mass extinction of every living creature larger than a rat.
Let Nature decide who gets to be the caretaker of the planet.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
World peace is not impossible Brian, just not probable.
You're probably right, mikepegg, but I do like to dream big!
Between WW I and WWII the mighty US military powers believed that war could never be waged successfully with airplanes. Billy Mitchel thought otherwise and though he didn't live to see the proof, it turned out he was quite right. We should apply that same kind of big thinking to waging peace.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
no peace is not possible. conflict is a part of Nature and humans have become masters of it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
Because I'm a little like my father, "a stubborn Dutchman" (which is a misnomer-- he's Amish), I'm going to make another argument for peace:
It has been shown that the average, typical human is almost virtually incapable of killing another human unless they are either sociopathic or have been dehumanized through conditioning. The conditioning is done by a small segment of the population who carry out the wishes of an even smaller segment of the population. Thus, on a day to day basis, the average person has little interest or inclination towards war and killing. People in general have a tendency to be swayed by emotion. We only go along with the madness of war because a very small percentage of the population is clever and conniving in stirring the shit and appealling to the weakness of being led by a few into something we aren't naturally inclined toward. Recognizing this, being educated to think critically and learning to think for ourselves, we would not go into battle.
I would go a step further and say that most people have the ability to be kind and caring and this ability comes quite naturally when that example is set for us. Besides being educated and learning to think for ourselves, if the example of kindness and caring is set for us, that will be our inclination as well and peace will exist.
Peace.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Drifting & hedonist first 2 reply's sum it up for me. (did the squirrel cometh?)
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
Drifting & hedonist first 2 reply's sum it up for me. (did the squirrel cometh?)
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
Yes, but what I was implying in my post is that we allow those power/war mongers to persuade us to do what goes against our nature. The vast majority of us are not inclined to killing other humans.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Drifting & hedonist first 2 reply's sum it up for me. (did the squirrel cometh?)
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
Yes, but what I was implying in my post is that we allow those power/war mongers to persuade us to do what goes against our nature. The vast majority of us are not inclined to killing other humans.
but as a top order predator we have that instinct in us. for the sake of societal cvonvention its been heavily discouraged but encouraged when sanctioned by the powers that be. its a mixed message that plenty of people struggle with..yet plenty of people are okay with it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
Drifting & hedonist first 2 reply's sum it up for me. (did the squirrel cometh?)
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
Yes, but what I was implying in my post is that we allow those power/war mongers to persuade us to do what goes against our nature. The vast majority of us are not inclined to killing other humans.
but as a top order predator we have that instinct in us. for the sake of societal cvonvention its been heavily discouraged but encouraged when sanctioned by the powers that be. its a mixed message that plenty of people struggle with..yet plenty of people are okay with it.
But is not predation in animals a form of feeding? Augh- we are not so far gone as... augh... never mind!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
But is not predation in animals a form of feeding? Augh- we are not so far gone as... augh... never mind!
oh absolutely.. feeding is the ultimate goal of predation. but we humans have no need to hunt our food generally speaking. however that doesnt necessaily mean that instinct to hunt... thus to kill is dormant. for the overwhelming majority of us it is.. but there are some for whom that instinct is very much alive. and the instinct to hunt is still very much alive. tho they dont necessarily eat what they hunt. where do we go for food? the supermarket or the butcher or the fish market... anywhere but the primary source of our food. this is why i am of the opinion that we are so fascinated with serial kilers(and violence). we cant believe there are people amongst us who do dare prey on their fellow people.(tho that doesnt seem to ahve anythign t do with feeding) we are equal parts revolted and fascinated. every species on earth does what it does without any self will.. and they so that their species survives. humans however are above all that. our intelligence has afforded us a buffer where our evolution has us domesticating and cultivating and inventing all these different ways to survive. there is zero doubt we are the most powerful yet most destructive animal on Earth. you would think our intelligence would allow us to live more in tune with our world but somehow we dont seem to have managed it. my question is... why the hell not? what is it that has us so determined to destroy our world in order to live.. not survive, but to live?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
But is not predation in animals a form of feeding? Augh- we are not so far gone as... augh... never mind!
oh absolutely.. feeding is the ultimate goal of predation. but we humans have no need to hunt our food generally speaking. however that doesnt necessaily mean that instinct to hunt... thus to kill is dormant. for the overwhelming majority of us it is.. but there are some for whom that instinct is very much alive. and the instinct to hunt is still very much alive. tho they dont necessarily eat what they hunt. where do we go for food? the supermarket or the butcher or the fish market... anywhere but the primary source of our food. this is why i am of the opinion that we are so fascinated with serial kilers(and violence). we cant believe there are people amongst us who do dare prey on their fellow people.(tho that doesnt seem to ahve anythign t do with feeding) we are equal parts revolted and fascinated. every species on earth does what it does without any self will.. and they so that their species survives. humans however are above all that. our intelligence has afforded us a buffer where our evolution has us domesticating and cultivating and inventing all these different ways to survive. there is zero doubt we are the most powerful yet most destructive animal on Earth. you would think our intelligence would allow us to live more in tune with our world but somehow we dont seem to have managed it. my question is... why the hell not? what is it that has us so determined to destroy our world in order to live.. not survive, but to live?
I think this has something to do with population. In nature, when any species' numbers grow too large, natural processes come into play to stabilize population. The species reaches carrying capacity and at that point their numbers plummet. Maybe that is partly why we engage in warfare. But this goes back to you question, Catefrances. Why are we, in essence, so self destructive? Maybe we just aren't as smart as we think we are and, because we take down so many other species with us, maybe we are the most selfish.
That's my pessimistic post for the day. Later on television I'll watch two groups of large aggressive men try their best to annihilate each other.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
It would be smart to at least consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs when discussing such a topic.
While there are several specific reasons why sides may take up arms against another that might make conflict seem more eloquent, ultimately such conflict boils down to two sides seeking either to defend what is their's or take what is another's: satisfying some of the most basic human needs (safety and physiological).
Some of the more complex needs Maslow presented included belonging and acceptance. These needs shape people into defined commonality with others and shapes mentalities. People will defend this commonality or pursue the enrichment of this commonality with great vigour in the 'Us vs. Them' manner. At a most basic level... look how Red Sox fans compete with Yankee fans, or Leaf fans compete with Habs fans. People desire to belong and once belonging... often view other groups as opponents- competing with them as if somehow their existence was dependent on it. Look on this forum how topics have the effect of creating an 'Us vs. Them' mentality (in particular the gun control thread). Obviously, at an advanced level of competition... we see warfare between countries.
It might be fair to say that not many have moved into Maslow's highest order of being where the need for self-actualization has possessed the individual. Peace can only be achieved when the overwhelming majority of people seek to exist on a very moral and peaceful plane that actively looks to problem solve, while abhorring prejudice. This need can only come about when all other individual needs have been taken care of.
When people are finished taking care of themselves... they can then look to take care of others and peace might become a reality. That hope is a great distance from now though: too many people on this planet are still taking care of themselves at the most basic levels.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
It would be smart to at least consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs when discussing such a topic.
While there are several specific reasons why sides may take up arms against another that might make conflict seem more eloquent, ultimately such conflict boils down to two sides seeking either to defend what is their's or take what is another's: satisfying some of the most basic human needs (safety and physiological).
Some of the more complex needs Maslow presented included belonging and acceptance. These needs shape people into defined commonality with others and shapes mentalities. People will defend this commonality or pursue the enrichment of this commonality with great vigour in the 'Us vs. Them' manner. At a most basic level... look how Red Sox fans compete with Yankee fans, or Leaf fans compete with Habs fans. People desire to belong and once belonging... often view other groups as opponents- competing with them as if somehow their existence was dependent on it. Look on this forum how topics have the effect of creating an 'Us vs. Them' mentality (in particular the gun control thread). Obviously, at an advanced level of competition... we see warfare between countries.
It might be fair to say that not many have moved into Maslow's highest order of being where the need for self-actualization has possessed the individual. Peace can only be achieved when the overwhelming majority of people seek to exist on a very moral and peaceful plane that actively looks to problem solve, while abhorring prejudice. This need can only come about when all other individual needs have been taken care of.
When people are finished taking care of themselves... they can then look to take care of others and peace might become a reality. That hope is a great distance from now though: too many people on this planet are still taking care of themselves at the most basic levels.
These are very interesting and well worded thoughts, Thirty Bills. What you are saying I believe ties in with population. If we used our big brains to see the wisdom of limiting our populations in any given region in order to insure our basic needs we would not have to worry about defending ours or taking others physical and psychological needs. Our inter-regional interactions could focus on trading cultural interests and local crafts rather than fight for food clothing and shelter.
The world could be like this if enough people wanted it to be. Keeping our numbers in check according to the sustainability of any given region, everything we need to be happy could happen. It wouldn't be perfect- I'm not sure utopia is possible- but we could live a much more peaceful, harmonious, creative, altruistic life here on earth if we used our big brains to make it so. My motivation for starting this thread is to instigate that kind of thinking.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
These are very interesting and well worded thoughts, Thirty Bills. What you are saying I believe ties in with population. If we used our big brains to see the wisdom of limiting our populations in any given region in order to insure our basic needs we would not have to worry about defending ours or taking others physical and psychological needs. Our inter-regional interactions could focus on trading cultural interests and local crafts rather than fight for food clothing and shelter.
The world could be like this if enough people wanted it to be. Keeping our numbers in check according to the sustainability of any given region, everything we need to be happy could happen. It wouldn't be perfect- I'm not sure utopia is possible- but we could live a much more peaceful, harmonious, creative, altruistic life here on earth if we used our big brains to make it so. My motivation for starting this thread is to instigate that kind of thinking.
You are being an optimist. Not deliberately trying to rain on your optimism, I feel we are on a collision course with disaster. Sustainability is the word from your passage that bears considerable examination. There is no way we can continue to exist as we are: exponentially growing to a point when the earth simply cannot accomodate our consumption patterns. The shit is going to hit the fan at some point. Famine, vanishing fresh water, energy shortages, dramatic climate shifts, and all other 'fallout' (such as wars) are very probable given the trend that has been documented. Some form of a 'correction' is inevitable.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
These are very interesting and well worded thoughts, Thirty Bills. What you are saying I believe ties in with population. If we used our big brains to see the wisdom of limiting our populations in any given region in order to insure our basic needs we would not have to worry about defending ours or taking others physical and psychological needs. Our inter-regional interactions could focus on trading cultural interests and local crafts rather than fight for food clothing and shelter.
The world could be like this if enough people wanted it to be. Keeping our numbers in check according to the sustainability of any given region, everything we need to be happy could happen. It wouldn't be perfect- I'm not sure utopia is possible- but we could live a much more peaceful, harmonious, creative, altruistic life here on earth if we used our big brains to make it so. My motivation for starting this thread is to instigate that kind of thinking.
Not deliberately trying to rain on your optimism, I feel we are on a collision course with disaster. Sustainability is the word from your passage that bears considerable examination. There is no way we can continue to exist as we are: exponentially growing to a point when the earth simply cannot accomodate our consumption patterns. The shit is going to hit the fan at some point. Famine, vanishing fresh water, energy shortages, dramatic climate shifts, and all other 'fallout' (such as wars) are very probable given the trend that has been documented. Some form of a 'correction' is inevitable.
Oh, I totally get that. The correction will come. It is inevitable and unavoidable.
As for peace, well, I just finished James Bradley's book Flyboys. At the beginning of the "Acknowledgements" he says:
"Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, 'With men the normal state of nature is not peace but war.' This state of nature can change."
I believe that and if enough of us believe that, it will be so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Last month my father gave me a copy of James Bradley's book, Flyboys. I'm not a big war story fan but since it was a gift and because he had served in the Solomon's during WWII, I figured out of respect I would read it any way. Well, it turns out this is a fascinating book chock full of history and very well written. In part, the first three or four chapters provide a brief history of war from 1848 up through the 1930's. Bradley describes the gruesome nature of the many wars during this period including the genocide of the American Indian and the false "war" against Mexico known as the "Mexican-American War" which was really just an excuse to steal vast amounts of land. (Bradley does say that outright but it is implied.) In fact, most of these wars were about imperialism-- wars started by the Americans, the Russians, the Germans, the English and the Japanese Russo-Japanese War which ended with the Portsmouth treaty of 1905 making the Japanese the only non-white world power during this time.
The number of deaths due to war during this 80 or so year period is staggering-- add to that the deaths in wars since then and the amount of war related death in the last 165 years is almost beyond comprehension. It is also worth noting that during this time it was the countries that had become developed, mechanized and industrialized who were predominantly both the perpetrators and the victors.
So all of this got me to thinking- with the world-wide push toward ubiquitous development and a strong penchant for furthering technology, what are the chances for peace and how do we foster peace despite these odds? I do not mean to paint a gloomy, hopeless picture here but rather to instigate some thinking about how to achieve the unlikely against these odds. To my way of thinking, peace is always a just and worthy cause and deserves our thoughts.
B. Brain!,
you are right. WW2 my GGG's were bombing things before they were 20 years old. It deserves all thoughts every day. Peace, I feel, is about Acceptance, Peace, Tolerance, and accepting....
I work with two Mormons ? Who am I to Hate? I reply ... my religion .. they freeze.
Does it matter? "Your people Killed.... "
iT WAS SAID BEST....
"History... never repeats...
I tell myself before I go to sleep".....
These are very interesting and well worded thoughts, Thirty Bills. What you are saying I believe ties in with population. If we used our big brains to see the wisdom of limiting our populations in any given region in order to insure our basic needs we would not have to worry about defending ours or taking others physical and psychological needs. Our inter-regional interactions could focus on trading cultural interests and local crafts rather than fight for food clothing and shelter.
The world could be like this if enough people wanted it to be. Keeping our numbers in check according to the sustainability of any given region, everything we need to be happy could happen. It wouldn't be perfect- I'm not sure utopia is possible- but we could live a much more peaceful, harmonious, creative, altruistic life here on earth if we used our big brains to make it so. My motivation for starting this thread is to instigate that kind of thinking.
Not deliberately trying to rain on your optimism, I feel we are on a collision course with disaster. Sustainability is the word from your passage that bears considerable examination. There is no way we can continue to exist as we are: exponentially growing to a point when the earth simply cannot accomodate our consumption patterns. The shit is going to hit the fan at some point. Famine, vanishing fresh water, energy shortages, dramatic climate shifts, and all other 'fallout' (such as wars) are very probable given the trend that has been documented. Some form of a 'correction' is inevitable.
Oh, I totally get that. The correction will come. It is inevitable and unavoidable.
As for peace, well, I just finished James Bradley's book Flyboys. At the beginning of the "Acknowledgements" he says:
"Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, 'With men the normal state of nature is not peace but war.' This state of nature can change."
I believe that and if enough of us believe that, it will be so.
Don't get me wrong- of course I support the ideology. I'm just too pragmatic to entertain such an ideal vision for very long.
I'd ask you this: how prepared is the world to move in such a direction and what steps would need to occur for the movement to take effect? For example, would the US ever accept a one child policy if that was one of the initiatives deemed appropriate to achieve 'balance'?
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
Don't get me wrong- of course I support the ideology. I'm just too pragmatic to entertain such an ideal vision for very long.
I'd ask you this: how prepared is the world to move in such a direction and what steps would need to occur for the movement to take effect? For example, would the US ever accept a one child policy if that was one of the initiatives deemed appropriate to achieve 'balance'?
As you pointed out, a correction of some sort will take place. Our environment is changing rapidly and our population is close to carrying capacity-- in fact, it could be argued that if it weren't for that vast and cheap supply of energy provided in a one shot deal- oil- we would have surpassed surpassed carrying capacity already. When the effects of environmental degradation, over-population and peak oil are fully realized, we will enter that period of correction. My guess is this will prove to be a make it or break it test. People will either band together and learn to live peacefully within the limits nature imposes on us or we will go down in flames. I'm for championing the former, not matter how small the odds are of achieving that. After all, what do we have to lose by trying?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Drifting & hedonist first 2 reply's sum it up for me. (did the squirrel cometh?)
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
Yes, but what I was implying in my post is that we allow those power/war mongers to persuade us to do what goes against our nature. The vast majority of us are not inclined to killing other humans.
Correct Brian. To me this is the basis of the multi-trillion dollar question. Why do we allow transgressions? By which then follows yet another mega buck question: when will we advance to a state where we insist on ethical rule? Before Thirty Bills pragmatic scenario erupts, or not?
And as for population, yes, I'm certain it resides at the base of all bases but we've yet to advanced to a state where we can even discuss this. As yet, we're still haggling over when life actually begins.
On a side note here, I keep reading where Russia is trying to get Russians to produce more! Now why don't they just open their borders to the millions from the areas that are over populated?
Check out zeitgeist three if you can stay awake and be neutral enough to not be turned off from the oversimplification presented. Essentially the main point offered is that the monetary-market system itself is the fundamental basis of the lack of peace on earth. The inequality, psychological distress, and stratification of society created by it makes crime and war inevitable and cooperative problem solving an impossibility. It comes off juvenile in its final hour but the first few portions offer some good food for thought.
Just sayin.
Oh. And none of that stupid new age anti-Jesus sun worship shit. Or 911 or conspiracy shit.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Check out zeitgeist three if you can stay awake and be neutral enough to not be turned off from the oversimplification presented. Essentially the main point offered is that the monetary-market system itself is the fundamental basis of the lack of peace on earth. The inequality, psychological distress, and stratification of society created by it makes crime and war inevitable and cooperative problem solving an impossibility. It comes off juvenile in its final hour but the first few portions offer some good food for thought.
Just sayin.
Oh. And none of that stupid new age anti-Jesus sun worship shit. Or 911 or conspiracy shit.
I searched for zeitgeist3. I see it's a movie. Probably won't watch it but your summation is good enough food for thought. Interesting line & I can see the point.
There's another movie someone mentioned where 'time' becomes the monetary exchange. probably another good movie I won't watch...
Comments
thoughtful, to be nice, to care in the smallest everyday interaction.
There are movements across the country of reaching out and the media is there to spread the
word. It's the wake up call people need, this the movement.
And what's cool is each one of us plays a role and it spreads quickly.
I like this. Let's be a part of that movement.
The Peace Train!
Cue Cat Stevens
not world peace.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
pj1981, not a whole lot of things these days are positive AND infectious...so I hear ya
Yes! Followed by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL7Iyhqnbwg
Self-Betterment and Selfish-Greed are not indentical concepts. At all.
You can better your self and your condition, and do it with out infringing on the prospects of others. You can even better yourself and give *back* to others.
On the other hand, you can be selfish and greedy, and yet do nothing to actually better yourself.
You may claim I am arguing semantics. But you are the one who is either deliberately or accidentally confusing terms.
All life wants to live, yes. And most life wants to improve.
All life does not have to, and does not necessarily want to, impede on the lives of others to do so.
Have you ever met a Buddhist monk? (just for example)
If I opened it now would you not understand?
In the words of the wonderful Bob Marley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch0X6FxoGTE
Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.
That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.
That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
That hold our brothers in Angola,
In Mozambique,
South Africa
Sub-human bondage
Have been toppled,
Utterly destroyed -
Well, everywhere is war -
Me say war.
War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south -
War - war -
Rumours of war.
And until that day,
The African continent
Will not know peace,
We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -
And we know we shall win
As we are confident
In the victory
Of good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
We can minimize the amount of fighting, but unfortunately I fear that if WW I and the devastation and immense loss of life couldn't cure mankind of war, nothing ever will.
Depends on what kind of peace you want really...world peace? I doubt it. Lasting meaningful peace for most of the world? probably, will take some drastic action on the part of the more imperialistic countries to reverse course and play nice. Elimination of tribal, ethnic, and racial hatred? not in my or anyone here's lifetime.
World peace is not impossible Brian, just not probable.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
care to elaborate? ... a functioning UN with a security council that believed in peace? ... where would we have major conflicts?
And asteroid strike that brings about the mass extinction of every living creature larger than a rat.
Let Nature decide who gets to be the caretaker of the planet.
Hail, Hail!!!
You're probably right, mikepegg, but I do like to dream big!
Between WW I and WWII the mighty US military powers believed that war could never be waged successfully with airplanes. Billy Mitchel thought otherwise and though he didn't live to see the proof, it turned out he was quite right. We should apply that same kind of big thinking to waging peace.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It has been shown that the average, typical human is almost virtually incapable of killing another human unless they are either sociopathic or have been dehumanized through conditioning. The conditioning is done by a small segment of the population who carry out the wishes of an even smaller segment of the population. Thus, on a day to day basis, the average person has little interest or inclination towards war and killing. People in general have a tendency to be swayed by emotion. We only go along with the madness of war because a very small percentage of the population is clever and conniving in stirring the shit and appealling to the weakness of being led by a few into something we aren't naturally inclined toward. Recognizing this, being educated to think critically and learning to think for ourselves, we would not go into battle.
I would go a step further and say that most people have the ability to be kind and caring and this ability comes quite naturally when that example is set for us. Besides being educated and learning to think for ourselves, if the example of kindness and caring is set for us, that will be our inclination as well and peace will exist.
Peace.
for a pragmatic optimist (if there is such a thing) I'd say if the powermongers don't annihilate us, or we don't cripple our life-giving planet, humans will continually adapt and continually strive for a more peaceful, self-governing existence.
Yes, but what I was implying in my post is that we allow those power/war mongers to persuade us to do what goes against our nature. The vast majority of us are not inclined to killing other humans.
but as a top order predator we have that instinct in us. for the sake of societal cvonvention its been heavily discouraged but encouraged when sanctioned by the powers that be. its a mixed message that plenty of people struggle with..yet plenty of people are okay with it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
But is not predation in animals a form of feeding? Augh- we are not so far gone as... augh... never mind!
oh absolutely.. feeding is the ultimate goal of predation. but we humans have no need to hunt our food generally speaking. however that doesnt necessaily mean that instinct to hunt... thus to kill is dormant. for the overwhelming majority of us it is.. but there are some for whom that instinct is very much alive. and the instinct to hunt is still very much alive. tho they dont necessarily eat what they hunt. where do we go for food? the supermarket or the butcher or the fish market... anywhere but the primary source of our food. this is why i am of the opinion that we are so fascinated with serial kilers(and violence). we cant believe there are people amongst us who do dare prey on their fellow people.(tho that doesnt seem to ahve anythign t do with feeding) we are equal parts revolted and fascinated. every species on earth does what it does without any self will.. and they so that their species survives. humans however are above all that. our intelligence has afforded us a buffer where our evolution has us domesticating and cultivating and inventing all these different ways to survive. there is zero doubt we are the most powerful yet most destructive animal on Earth. you would think our intelligence would allow us to live more in tune with our world but somehow we dont seem to have managed it. my question is... why the hell not? what is it that has us so determined to destroy our world in order to live.. not survive, but to live?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think this has something to do with population. In nature, when any species' numbers grow too large, natural processes come into play to stabilize population. The species reaches carrying capacity and at that point their numbers plummet. Maybe that is partly why we engage in warfare. But this goes back to you question, Catefrances. Why are we, in essence, so self destructive? Maybe we just aren't as smart as we think we are and, because we take down so many other species with us, maybe we are the most selfish.
That's my pessimistic post for the day. Later on television I'll watch two groups of large aggressive men try their best to annihilate each other.
While there are several specific reasons why sides may take up arms against another that might make conflict seem more eloquent, ultimately such conflict boils down to two sides seeking either to defend what is their's or take what is another's: satisfying some of the most basic human needs (safety and physiological).
Some of the more complex needs Maslow presented included belonging and acceptance. These needs shape people into defined commonality with others and shapes mentalities. People will defend this commonality or pursue the enrichment of this commonality with great vigour in the 'Us vs. Them' manner. At a most basic level... look how Red Sox fans compete with Yankee fans, or Leaf fans compete with Habs fans. People desire to belong and once belonging... often view other groups as opponents- competing with them as if somehow their existence was dependent on it. Look on this forum how topics have the effect of creating an 'Us vs. Them' mentality (in particular the gun control thread). Obviously, at an advanced level of competition... we see warfare between countries.
It might be fair to say that not many have moved into Maslow's highest order of being where the need for self-actualization has possessed the individual. Peace can only be achieved when the overwhelming majority of people seek to exist on a very moral and peaceful plane that actively looks to problem solve, while abhorring prejudice. This need can only come about when all other individual needs have been taken care of.
When people are finished taking care of themselves... they can then look to take care of others and peace might become a reality. That hope is a great distance from now though: too many people on this planet are still taking care of themselves at the most basic levels.
These are very interesting and well worded thoughts, Thirty Bills. What you are saying I believe ties in with population. If we used our big brains to see the wisdom of limiting our populations in any given region in order to insure our basic needs we would not have to worry about defending ours or taking others physical and psychological needs. Our inter-regional interactions could focus on trading cultural interests and local crafts rather than fight for food clothing and shelter.
The world could be like this if enough people wanted it to be. Keeping our numbers in check according to the sustainability of any given region, everything we need to be happy could happen. It wouldn't be perfect- I'm not sure utopia is possible- but we could live a much more peaceful, harmonious, creative, altruistic life here on earth if we used our big brains to make it so. My motivation for starting this thread is to instigate that kind of thinking.
You are being an optimist. Not deliberately trying to rain on your optimism, I feel we are on a collision course with disaster. Sustainability is the word from your passage that bears considerable examination. There is no way we can continue to exist as we are: exponentially growing to a point when the earth simply cannot accomodate our consumption patterns. The shit is going to hit the fan at some point. Famine, vanishing fresh water, energy shortages, dramatic climate shifts, and all other 'fallout' (such as wars) are very probable given the trend that has been documented. Some form of a 'correction' is inevitable.
Oh, I totally get that. The correction will come. It is inevitable and unavoidable.
As for peace, well, I just finished James Bradley's book Flyboys. At the beginning of the "Acknowledgements" he says:
"Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, 'With men the normal state of nature is not peace but war.' This state of nature can change."
I believe that and if enough of us believe that, it will be so.
B. Brain!,
you are right. WW2 my GGG's were bombing things before they were 20 years old. It deserves all thoughts every day. Peace, I feel, is about Acceptance, Peace, Tolerance, and accepting....
I work with two Mormons ? Who am I to Hate? I reply ... my religion .. they freeze.
Does it matter? "Your people Killed.... "
iT WAS SAID BEST....
"History... never repeats...
I tell myself before I go to sleep".....
Don't get me wrong- of course I support the ideology. I'm just too pragmatic to entertain such an ideal vision for very long.
I'd ask you this: how prepared is the world to move in such a direction and what steps would need to occur for the movement to take effect? For example, would the US ever accept a one child policy if that was one of the initiatives deemed appropriate to achieve 'balance'?
As you pointed out, a correction of some sort will take place. Our environment is changing rapidly and our population is close to carrying capacity-- in fact, it could be argued that if it weren't for that vast and cheap supply of energy provided in a one shot deal- oil- we would have surpassed surpassed carrying capacity already. When the effects of environmental degradation, over-population and peak oil are fully realized, we will enter that period of correction. My guess is this will prove to be a make it or break it test. People will either band together and learn to live peacefully within the limits nature imposes on us or we will go down in flames. I'm for championing the former, not matter how small the odds are of achieving that. After all, what do we have to lose by trying?
Correct Brian. To me this is the basis of the multi-trillion dollar question. Why do we allow transgressions? By which then follows yet another mega buck question: when will we advance to a state where we insist on ethical rule? Before Thirty Bills pragmatic scenario erupts, or not?
And as for population, yes, I'm certain it resides at the base of all bases but we've yet to advanced to a state where we can even discuss this. As yet, we're still haggling over when life actually begins.
On a side note here, I keep reading where Russia is trying to get Russians to produce more! Now why don't they just open their borders to the millions from the areas that are over populated?
Just sayin.
Oh. And none of that stupid new age anti-Jesus sun worship shit. Or 911 or conspiracy shit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I searched for zeitgeist3. I see it's a movie. Probably won't watch it but your summation is good enough food for thought. Interesting line & I can see the point.
There's another movie someone mentioned where 'time' becomes the monetary exchange. probably another good movie I won't watch...