16-08-2011, 06:50 PM
I'm glad you're enjoying this thread, Charles. Thanks for the nods...
Now, back to paradigms.
1) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND (Malthusianism), whether or not that is true, our behavior will reflect that core belief.
2) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that only the fittest among us will survive (Darwinism), then survival instinct dictates on a very primitive level that those who will survive must do so to the exclusion of the "less fit".
3) When combined, these two paradigms contribute to the insidiousness of the current global political agenda, thusly:
"Because there is insufficient sustenance for human life only the strongest, fastest, most cunning, most fertile, best fed, best clothed, best educated, most willing to do anything (even commit crime) to survive, living in countries with the strongest military, etc. will ultimately survive."
In such a paradigm (not enough to go around coupled with survival of the fittest) human beings are viscerally in mortal combat with each other. On an intellectual level it can even be justified, but only IF those paradigms hold true. IF there truly is no potential for the food supply to be adequate, then I see no way out of the trap. It is simple math. There is enough food for 3 of us. There is not enough food for all 47 of us. Some of us (perhaps all) are DEFINITELY going hungry. Who shall it be?
If we accept, as a given, that the resources are insufficient, then the only solution is for everyone to "fight it out" to see who is FIT ENOUGH to deserve to live. We can exploit the resources of weaker nations and justify our behavior, after all, we didn't invent the rules of engagement, we're merely forced to live by them. I suppose, alternately, we could simply kill all of those who are not FIT ENOUGH to resist us. We could impose population control on undesirables by sterilizing them.
In fact, we already do many of those things to weaker peoples and justify having done those things because there simply is not enough to go around...
But, when does it end? Will it end when we have, in fact, gone extinct through the selfish disregard for the rights of others? Or will it end when we dedicate ourselves to finding solutions instead of scapegoats?
Now, back to paradigms.
1) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND (Malthusianism), whether or not that is true, our behavior will reflect that core belief.
2) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that only the fittest among us will survive (Darwinism), then survival instinct dictates on a very primitive level that those who will survive must do so to the exclusion of the "less fit".
3) When combined, these two paradigms contribute to the insidiousness of the current global political agenda, thusly:
"Because there is insufficient sustenance for human life only the strongest, fastest, most cunning, most fertile, best fed, best clothed, best educated, most willing to do anything (even commit crime) to survive, living in countries with the strongest military, etc. will ultimately survive."
In such a paradigm (not enough to go around coupled with survival of the fittest) human beings are viscerally in mortal combat with each other. On an intellectual level it can even be justified, but only IF those paradigms hold true. IF there truly is no potential for the food supply to be adequate, then I see no way out of the trap. It is simple math. There is enough food for 3 of us. There is not enough food for all 47 of us. Some of us (perhaps all) are DEFINITELY going hungry. Who shall it be?
If we accept, as a given, that the resources are insufficient, then the only solution is for everyone to "fight it out" to see who is FIT ENOUGH to deserve to live. We can exploit the resources of weaker nations and justify our behavior, after all, we didn't invent the rules of engagement, we're merely forced to live by them. I suppose, alternately, we could simply kill all of those who are not FIT ENOUGH to resist us. We could impose population control on undesirables by sterilizing them.
In fact, we already do many of those things to weaker peoples and justify having done those things because there simply is not enough to go around...
But, when does it end? Will it end when we have, in fact, gone extinct through the selfish disregard for the rights of others? Or will it end when we dedicate ourselves to finding solutions instead of scapegoats?
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)