Seeing some of the short-sighted and selfish posts only reinforces that humans are a scourge on the planet that will probably be shaken off like a bad cold one day...
silly monkeys, don't they realize Eden has enough to go around...
This is the reality so enjoy the ride until it happens! Do your part, but realize no matter how much you do... there are billions of others that will counter your efforts.
Humans aren't forever and never were meant to be forever: just a little species on a little rock in the middle of space that spans eternity.
Nothing is forever, Thirty. But does that mean we should burn it all up as quickly as possible? And what about future generations who could enjoy a wonderful life if we didn't rob them of that opportunity (thinking about what my2hands said about "short-sighted and selfish"). And what about all the other marvelous species we are killing off due to our reckless behavior (again, thinking about short-sighted and selfish)?
I'm not trying to put anyone down here or cast blame. I'm just trying to present a biocentic viewpoint. Anyone strongly rooted in an anthropocentric outlook will take issue with the idea that other life has just as much intrinsic value as human life and I see recognizing that value as being the opposite of selfish.
I hear you loud and clear.
I think we are taking the steps to preserve in many corners of the world. The collective conscience is growing; however, this needs to be balanced with a dose of reality.
I said it earlier: is the goal to squeeze out an extra generation or two right at the end of our run?
Our time is finite.
And yes... our activities on this planet affect other animals and plants, but we're not the only species that has adverse effects on other species. As much as we can acknowledge our effects, we shouldn't apologize for our nature.
Again, everyone should live their life to the fullest with efforts made to do their best given what we know.
As time goes by I truly care less and less about that stuff. Nothing my small self being at midlife will change or alter the "impact" humans have had. So I really don't care.
Seeing some of the short-sighted and selfish posts only reinforces that humans are a scourge on the planet that will probably be shaken off like a bad cold one day...
silly monkeys, don't they realize Eden has enough to go around...
This is the reality so enjoy the ride until it happens! Do your part, but realize no matter how much you do... there are billions of others that will counter your efforts.
Humans aren't forever and never were meant to be forever: just a little species on a little rock in the middle of space that spans eternity.
Nothing is forever, Thirty. But does that mean we should burn it all up as quickly as possible? And what about future generations who could enjoy a wonderful life if we didn't rob them of that opportunity (thinking about what my2hands said about "short-sighted and selfish"). And what about all the other marvelous species we are killing off due to our reckless behavior (again, thinking about short-sighted and selfish)?
I'm not trying to put anyone down here or cast blame. I'm just trying to present a biocentic viewpoint. Anyone strongly rooted in an anthropocentric outlook will take issue with the idea that other life has just as much intrinsic value as human life and I see recognizing that value as being the opposite of selfish.
I hear you loud and clear.
I think we are taking the steps to preserve in many corners of the world. The collective conscience is growing; however, this needs to be balanced with a dose of reality.
I said it earlier: is the goal to squeeze out an extra generation or two right at the end of our run?
Our time is finite.
And yes... our activities on this planet affect other animals and plants, but we're not the only species that has adverse effects on other species. As much as we can acknowledge our effects, we shouldn't apologize for our nature.
Again, everyone should live their life to the fullest with efforts made to do their best given what we know.
I agree that a certain amount of balance is a good thing. If we all strictly lived a totally simple, monastic, ascetics lives none of us would be having this conversation. On the other hand, if we could keep our population numbers reasonable, take reasonable measures to conserve resources, make products that are as durable and long lasting as possible, share more things with those around us, preserve more wild lands and create corridors for animal migration-- all very doable things- we and other life forms would fair so much better.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
- practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline - austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
Nope, not wanting to live that kind of life! Or a monastic one.
As to the two posts referenced above, I think maybe the second one was sincere. And there surely is a balance between enjoying life - self-indulgence - and looking out for our fellow man and environment.
Just being kind to ourselves and others as we can.
- practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline - austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
Nope, not wanting to live that kind of life! Or a monastic one.
As to the two posts referenced above, I think maybe the second one was sincere. And there surely is a balance between enjoying life - self-indulgence - and looking out for our fellow man and environment.
Just being kind to ourselves and others as we can.
Words and how they evolve and change are fascinating. "Ascetic" changed this way over the centuries:
1640s, from Greek asketikos "rigorously self-disciplined, laborious," from asketes "monk, hermit," earlier "one who practices an art or trade," from askein "to exercise, train," originally "to train for athletic competition, practice gymnastics, exercise."
"Just being kind to ourselves and others as we can." Good thought. Reminds of of Gorman Bechard's book, the Second Greatest Story Ever Told in which God sends his daughter Illana Anne Cogswater (who also happens to have a crush on Paul Westerberg) to earth to spread her simple message: "Be kind".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The social issues are important for different reasons.
I've begun to think that human life is finite. The earth could never possibly sustain mankind for eternity and even if we did... a massive chunk of rock would eventually slam into is and end things in a more dramatic fashion.
So... as responsible as I am urge everyone to be... I sometimes feel drastic steps will only have the effect of squeezing out a couple extra generations before the meltdown occurs. If that is the end goal then fair enough, but to compromise way of life to attain that might not be worth it.
The gift we have been afforded is ultimately a fluke of nature. The next inhabitants of the earth won't think too much about us as they enjoy their ride.
why would you think human life isn't finite? it never occurred to me that we don't have a use by date.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Illegal for a woman to have an abortion may likely be more important in that time vs smog.
It's just not either / or.
...or about greed and stupidity.
I'm neither greedy nor an idiot for focusing on other issues based on the usual shit that happens in life.
In the moment everything is relative. If my hair is on fire, I'm going to be more concerned about that than the loss of another species. What I'm suggesting is that in the big picture, if there are no mega fauna anymore there are no people and if there are no people there are no social issues and so, therefor, in the big picture, environmental issues are more important than social issues. Seems logical doesn't it? I'm always a bit surprised to see resistance to this premise.
Why, just look at these AMT forums. What gets talked about the most? War, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. All very important issues, to be sure! But no more people means no more war, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. Maybe we want to end those things by ending ourselves. If so, something's pretty fucked up in our collective psyche. But I think we can do better than that.
I would venture to say the end of mankind doesn't mean the end of politics. hierarchies exist within the non human world... are they inherently political for want of a better word? yes I think so. the difference being we as humans have the ability to express in words what other life forms on this earth can not. it is through actions that animal politics are played out.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Illegal for a woman to have an abortion may likely be more important in that time vs smog.
It's just not either / or.
...or about greed and stupidity.
I'm neither greedy nor an idiot for focusing on other issues based on the usual shit that happens in life.
In the moment everything is relative. If my hair is on fire, I'm going to be more concerned about that than the loss of another species. What I'm suggesting is that in the big picture, if there are no mega fauna anymore there are no people and if there are no people there are no social issues and so, therefor, in the big picture, environmental issues are more important than social issues. Seems logical doesn't it? I'm always a bit surprised to see resistance to this premise.
Why, just look at these AMT forums. What gets talked about the most? War, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. All very important issues, to be sure! But no more people means no more war, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. Maybe we want to end those things by ending ourselves. If so, something's pretty fucked up in our collective psyche. But I think we can do better than that.
I would venture to say the end of mankind doesn't mean the end of politics. hierarchies exist within the non human world... are they inherently political for want of a better word? yes I think so. the difference being we as humans have the ability to express in words what other life forms on this earth can not. it is through actions that animal politics are played out.
Well now, Cate, my attempting to understand how politics can exist outside the human realm will keep me up into the wee hours! That's a very dense and profound thought that's never occurred to me!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Illegal for a woman to have an abortion may likely be more important in that time vs smog.
It's just not either / or.
...or about greed and stupidity.
I'm neither greedy nor an idiot for focusing on other issues based on the usual shit that happens in life.
In the moment everything is relative. If my hair is on fire, I'm going to be more concerned about that than the loss of another species. What I'm suggesting is that in the big picture, if there are no mega fauna anymore there are no people and if there are no people there are no social issues and so, therefor, in the big picture, environmental issues are more important than social issues. Seems logical doesn't it? I'm always a bit surprised to see resistance to this premise.
Why, just look at these AMT forums. What gets talked about the most? War, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. All very important issues, to be sure! But no more people means no more war, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. Maybe we want to end those things by ending ourselves. If so, something's pretty fucked up in our collective psyche. But I think we can do better than that.
I would venture to say the end of mankind doesn't mean the end of politics. hierarchies exist within the non human world... are they inherently political for want of a better word? yes I think so. the difference being we as humans have the ability to express in words what other life forms on this earth can not. it is through actions that animal politics are played out.
Well now, Cate, my attempting to understand how politics can exist outside the human realm will keep me up into the wee hours! That's a very dense and profound thought that's never occurred to me!
well tbh it was a thought that occurred to me as I was reading your post. made me think of the matriarchal hierarchies that can be seen throughout the animal kingdom... about how for example the dominant female sometimes excludes her own daughters from the familial unit so they cant reproduce, whereby becoming a threat to the matriarchs own dominance, so that her own offspring have a better chance. I know there will be some who don't see these actions as political but I do. lets not forget there was a time when we ourselves weren't much above the animals(if at all) in terms of intellect and animalistic urges.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Illegal for a woman to have an abortion may likely be more important in that time vs smog.
It's just not either / or.
...or about greed and stupidity.
I'm neither greedy nor an idiot for focusing on other issues based on the usual shit that happens in life.
In the moment everything is relative. If my hair is on fire, I'm going to be more concerned about that than the loss of another species. What I'm suggesting is that in the big picture, if there are no mega fauna anymore there are no people and if there are no people there are no social issues and so, therefor, in the big picture, environmental issues are more important than social issues. Seems logical doesn't it? I'm always a bit surprised to see resistance to this premise.
Why, just look at these AMT forums. What gets talked about the most? War, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. All very important issues, to be sure! But no more people means no more war, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. Maybe we want to end those things by ending ourselves. If so, something's pretty fucked up in our collective psyche. But I think we can do better than that.
I would venture to say the end of mankind doesn't mean the end of politics. hierarchies exist within the non human world... are they inherently political for want of a better word? yes I think so. the difference being we as humans have the ability to express in words what other life forms on this earth can not. it is through actions that animal politics are played out.
Well now, Cate, my attempting to understand how politics can exist outside the human realm will keep me up into the wee hours! That's a very dense and profound thought that's never occurred to me!
well tbh it was a thought that occurred to me as I was reading your post. made me think of the matriarchal hierarchies that can be seen throughout the animal kingdom... about how for example the dominant female sometimes excludes her own daughters from the familial unit so they cant reproduce, whereby becoming a threat to the matriarchs own dominance, so that her own offspring have a better chance. I know there will be some who don't see these actions as political but I do. lets not forget there was a time when we ourselves weren't much above the animals(if at all) in terms of intellect and animalistic urges.
Those are kinds of politics in a way. Fascinating!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Illegal for a woman to have an abortion may likely be more important in that time vs smog.
It's just not either / or.
...or about greed and stupidity.
I'm neither greedy nor an idiot for focusing on other issues based on the usual shit that happens in life.
In the moment everything is relative. If my hair is on fire, I'm going to be more concerned about that than the loss of another species. What I'm suggesting is that in the big picture, if there are no mega fauna anymore there are no people and if there are no people there are no social issues and so, therefor, in the big picture, environmental issues are more important than social issues. Seems logical doesn't it? I'm always a bit surprised to see resistance to this premise.
Why, just look at these AMT forums. What gets talked about the most? War, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. All very important issues, to be sure! But no more people means no more war, firearms, racism, killings, riots, politics, etc. Maybe we want to end those things by ending ourselves. If so, something's pretty fucked up in our collective psyche. But I think we can do better than that.
I would venture to say the end of mankind doesn't mean the end of politics. hierarchies exist within the non human world... are they inherently political for want of a better word? yes I think so. the difference being we as humans have the ability to express in words what other life forms on this earth can not. it is through actions that animal politics are played out.
Well now, Cate, my attempting to understand how politics can exist outside the human realm will keep me up into the wee hours! That's a very dense and profound thought that's never occurred to me!
well tbh it was a thought that occurred to me as I was reading your post. made me think of the matriarchal hierarchies that can be seen throughout the animal kingdom... about how for example the dominant female sometimes excludes her own daughters from the familial unit so they cant reproduce, whereby becoming a threat to the matriarchs own dominance, so that her own offspring have a better chance. I know there will be some who don't see these actions as political but I do. lets not forget there was a time when we ourselves weren't much above the animals(if at all) in terms of intellect and animalistic urges.
Those are kinds of politics in a way. Fascinating!
politics is about power afterall.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
I think we are taking the steps to preserve in many corners of the world. The collective conscience is growing; however, this needs to be balanced with a dose of reality.
I said it earlier: is the goal to squeeze out an extra generation or two right at the end of our run?
Our time is finite.
And yes... our activities on this planet affect other animals and plants, but we're not the only species that has adverse effects on other species. As much as we can acknowledge our effects, we shouldn't apologize for our nature.
Again, everyone should live their life to the fullest with efforts made to do their best given what we know.
- practicing strict self-denial as a measure of personal and especially spiritual discipline
- austere in appearance, manner, or attitude
Nope, not wanting to live that kind of life! Or a monastic one.
As to the two posts referenced above, I think maybe the second one was sincere. And there surely is a balance between enjoying life - self-indulgence - and looking out for our fellow man and environment.
Just being kind to ourselves and others as we can.
1640s, from Greek asketikos "rigorously self-disciplined, laborious," from asketes "monk, hermit," earlier "one who practices an art or trade," from askein "to exercise, train," originally "to train for athletic competition, practice gymnastics, exercise."
"Just being kind to ourselves and others as we can." Good thought. Reminds of of Gorman Bechard's book, the Second Greatest Story Ever Told in which God sends his daughter Illana Anne Cogswater (who also happens to have a crush on Paul Westerberg) to earth to spread her simple message: "Be kind".
why would you think human life isn't finite? it never occurred to me that we don't have a use by date.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say