the question that haunts me

[roger]

Will humankind survive?

[Karl]

Will humankind survive?

Not where we are headed. The last dark ages weren't too healthy, but we didn't have weapons of mass destruction, nor the technology we depend on.

[silent thunder]

We are all a direct extension of the origins of co-creational 'realtiy'...

we will change and shift and flow...

[dust]

Depends on what time scale you're talking about...? In the end, no. Long-term, definitely no.

 

My question is, why does it haunt you? Investing great emotion in the long-term survival of your species seems a waste of energy. It's primal, but also useless.

 

Logically,

(1) it will happen sooner or later, you can do little to nothing about that,

(2) you will likely be long dead when humanity does get squashed out, and

(3) what's so special about humankind? Have you considered whether or not we 'deserve' to survive?

 

edit: Look, (Karl in particular), I'm not saying we deserve to all die, simply asking if he's considered why in particular we should survive...?

Edited October 10, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

There is no reason we should survive, indeed, if we carry on with this pragmatic selflessness I can see us coming to a sticky end rather rapidly. I don't think we could go back to a time prior to technology and knowledge. I maybe wrong, but I suspect that we will quickly reach the boundaries of our survival bubble and rather than a gradual spin down we will just collapse. We get a light snowfall in our country and you would think it was the end of the world.

[Drifting_Through_Infinity]

Nightcore - Last Unicorn

[thelerner]

Sure we will.  Mankind is nothing if not adaptable.  We have proven ourselves able to survive from the frozen tundra to desert for the past couple 1,000 years.  We're able to stretch genetics to live higher, wetter, colder and hotter; change our body types from pygmies to 7 footers.  While its a double edged sword, intelligent use of technology gives us incredible advantages in shaping our environment.

 

Given money and will we can build self sustaining cities virtually anywhere on the planet.  Give us a few months notice and we/some could survive extinction level meteorites.  Just a matter of digging deep enough in a few places.  There are still enough isolated places on the globe to keep pandemics from reaching some smaller islands and land areas.   With enough tech we could survive a snowball earth for a long time, digging deep in the right spot is half the battle; hello Matrix Zion.  We might do even better on Waterworld.

 

We are a durable species. 

 

heck 3 good men with only spears against 15 hungry eating lions.  no problem

[rene]

We are a durable species.

We are until the sun swallows us up. (-:

[thelerner]

We are until the sun swallows us up. (-:

heck, there's a lot of suns/stars out there. 

Probably a nice water planet just 4 light years away. 

 

all we need is momentum and

some good reading material.

[roger]

I love that video, thelerner.

 

I wonder who would have won if the lions had attacked.

 

I'm guessing the lions, but that guess isn't based on any real data or information.

[Karl]

Sure we will.  Mankind is nothing if not adaptable.  We have proven ourselves able to survive from the frozen tundra to desert for the past couple 1,000 years.  We're able to stretch genetics to live higher, wetter, colder and hotter; change our body types from pygmies to 7 footers.  While its a double edged sword, intelligent use of technology gives us incredible advantages in shaping our environment.

 

Given money and will we can build self sustaining cities virtually anywhere on the planet.  Give us a few months notice and we/some could survive extinction level meteorites.  Just a matter of digging deep enough in a few places.  There are still enough isolated places on the globe to keep pandemics from reaching some smaller islands and land areas.   With enough tech we could survive a snowball earth for a long time, digging deep in the right spot is half the battle; hello Matrix Zion.  We might do even better on Waterworld.

 

We are a durable species. 

 

heck 3 good men with only spears against 15 hungry eating lions.  no problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNeNTMmltyc

We haven't been around very long at all. Some of the greater climatic changes and early conditions on the planet would not have supported man. Our adaption/evolution has been perfect for our current environment. I don't see modern man surviving as Eskimos or wandering tribesman. Certainly the potential is within us to apply our minds to any situation, but we seem to be losing that ability.

 

Where ancient man would have been hardy and quick witted, we are entirely the opposite. Ancient man wasn't concerned with his environment except to utilise it in order to survive, we appear to be more concerned with 'saving the planet' which is not a good survival trait.

 

I'm amazed, given your previous comments, that you say 'given the money we could build...' But that shows a remarkable lack of understanding about basic economics. Right this moment our Governments are printing money like it was real wealth. We are already debauching capitalism at a rate a plague of locust devours a field of crops. This is literally monetary Armegeddon and I'm not exaggerating when I say that. Production is what makes us able to survive, it's the only thing that allows us to survive. We use our minds to produce things from the raw materials around us, in order that we multiply our effectiveness as producers we must invest in the production process itself, to do this we must first save a portion of our production-delayed consumption, or commonly called savings. This is capitalism at work, yet today we have the opposite.

 

People are shouting down the only route to our survival and the Government is doing its very best to destroy capitalism completely. I have a bad feeling about the results of this a short way down the road. People have to build cities and they only do so for gain, not because of some inherent greed, but because this is the way production functions. The only way this has been done without capitalism is by slavery, but that is an inefficient path to progress. One look at Maos China is sufficient to see where we might well be headed.

[3bob]

as all time and space returns to Mystery so to will all souls, (btw. we never really left)

Edited October 11, 2016 by 3bob

[Karl]

as all time and space returns to Mystery so to will all souls, (btw. we never really left)

Yep, that kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. It's the kind that gets you dead.

[dust]

We haven't been around very long at all. Some of the greater climatic changes and early conditions on the planet would not have supported man. Our adaption/evolution has been perfect for our current environment. I don't see modern man surviving as Eskimos or wandering tribesman. Certainly the potential is within us to apply our minds to any situation, but we seem to be losing that ability.

 

Where ancient man would have been hardy and quick witted, we are entirely the opposite. Ancient man wasn't concerned with his environment except to utilise it in order to survive, we appear to be more concerned with 'saving the planet' which is not a good survival trait.

 

I agree on our relative softness and dimwittedness, and that ancient humans were unconcerned about 'protecting' the environment, but not the rest. Ancient humans had neither a need to protect, nor any conception of what 'protecting the environment' is.

 

They did not threaten their habitats, or global habitats, with destruction; they were not single-handedly gradually forcing other species into extinction; they were not making their own air more difficult to breath; they were not cutting down forests thousands of acres at a time; they were not pouring millions of gallons of poisonous waste into the oceans; etc.

 

The only way we, the current strain of humankind, will allow our children or grandchildren to successfully raise their own children is if we stop doing all that nasty shit. Our ancient, quick-witted ancestors would have no problems: they'd see what needed to be done and get on with it.

[Karl]

I agree on our relative softness and dimwittedness, and that ancient humans were unconcerned about 'protecting' the environment, but not the rest. Ancient humans had neither a need to protect, nor any conception of what 'protecting the environment' is.

 

They did not threaten their habitats, or global habitats, with destruction; they were not single-handedly gradually forcing other species into extinction; they were not making their own air more difficult to breath; they were not cutting down forests thousands of acres at a time; they were not pouring millions of gallons of poisonous waste into the oceans; etc.

 

The only way we, the current strain of humankind, will allow our children or grandchildren to successfully raise their own children is if we stop doing all that nasty shit. Our ancient, quick-witted ancestors would have no problems: they'd see what needed to be done and get on with it.

They were destroying the environment if you want to put it that. Nomad tribes essentially hunt an area until it can't sustain, then they move on. There are schools of thought that say ancient man caused the extinction of the woolly mammoth and, if that's true, we can infer they extincted many species that depended on that animal.

 

It is not true to say man is 'single handedly' that's not an argument when the facts show that species are constantly going extinct and always have been. The dinosaurs were not killed by man. Infact, we should note that man is farming animals and should he expand that farming and ownership to a wider span of animal life, then the species booms.

 

Our ancestors would keep on killing, chopping, digging and burning. They knew that their survival depended on it. Raw nature is benevolent, but pastry doesn't fall from the sky, rocks don't run with milk and coffee, wishing does not create a thing. Our current romance with this new age mysticism is a direct attack on reason, and hence mans freedom to survive and therefore his life. We are only a few meals, a couple of fires or a few jugs of water away from disaster. You should understand this on a deep level, make no mistake, if the modern capitalist system collapses then we will be reduced to living on the edge of existence. Anti-capitalism in all its numerous forms like the green movement are anti-human life. If capitalism falters and I think there is a good chance that our current philosophy will take us to that point, I think man is finished, it is stark, we are writing our own suicide notes if we carry on with anti-capitalism.

[dust]

They were destroying the environment if you want to put it that. Nomad tribes essentially hunt an area until it can't sustain, then they move on. There are schools of thought that say ancient man caused the extinction of the woolly mammoth and, if that's true, we can infer they extincted many species that depended on that animal.

 

Perhaps, but this is nothing compared to the varied list of nasty things I listed above, and the extent of species extinction right now.

 

It is not true to say man is 'single handedly' that's not an argument when the facts show that species are constantly going extinct and always have been. The dinosaurs were not killed by man. Infact, we should note that man is farming animals and should he expand that farming and ownership to a wider span of animal life, then the species booms.

 

Yes, we are single-handedly as a species responsible for the endangerment and extinction of various species that would not be threatened if we behaved responsibly. You cannot possibly argue with that. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/11-extinct-animals_n_4078988.html

'We are presently losing dozens of species every day, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

...

"Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us -- humans," explains the Center for Biological Diversity. "In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species and global warming."'

 

Just the first search result. Lots more. So much evidence.

 

Our ancestors would keep on killing, chopping, digging and burning. They knew that their survival depended on it. Raw nature is benevolent, but pastry doesn't fall from the sky, rocks don't run with milk and coffee, wishing does not create a thing.

 

Let's say we agree that some ancients -- some -- did kill and burn without regard, and that their survival did somehow depend on it. Firstly, their populations were small relative to now, very small -- their impact was far less. There were literally billions fewer of them, billions fewer to hunt and poach, billions fewer to chop and burn, billions fewer to spread waste, etc; and they did not have the technology we have now, the efficient machines that mean we don't even need to think about what we're doing. Secondly, if their survival depended on it, then they had cause -- but ours does not. In fact, our survival not only does not depend on the things I've listed, but is threatened by them. You seem intent on ignoring this entirely, but I will continue to point it out: our greed for food, greed for objects, our refusal to examine our lifestyles, our carelessness, our obsession with growth, our obsession with meat, our over-reliance on new technology to fix what the old technology broke, our willful ignorance of it all, is what is going to be our downfall.

 

Your obsession with capitalism, or this notion of anti-capitalism, is misleading. One can believe in free trade, a competitive market, without needing to believe that aggressive industrialism, gluttonous overconsumption, reveling in ignorance, and our general ignorance of it all, is the only way, and without insisting that all but humankind must become extinct because the way we currently do things and our freedom to continue being destructive is more important than health and harmony.

[dust]

You should understand this on a deep level, make no mistake, if the modern capitalist system collapses then we will be reduced to living on the edge of existence. Anti-capitalism in all its numerous forms like the green movement are anti-human life. If capitalism falters and I think there is a good chance that our current philosophy will take us to that point, I think man is finished, it is stark, we are writing our own suicide notes if we carry on with anti-capitalism.

 

This talk makes me sick. Really, this is filth.

 

Back up your claims. You are as bad as anyone else on here you accuse of having unfounded beliefs. When it comes down to it, you never back it up. I have continuously provided evidence, in every topically similar discussion, and I don't recall seeing any evidence to the contrary, or any evidence suggesting that I or others like me are "anti-capitalist" or that my apparent "anti-capitalism" is going to make us all die.

Edited October 11, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

This talk makes me sick. Really, this is filth.

 

Back up your claims. You are as bad as anyone else on here you accuse of having unfounded beliefs. When it comes down to it, you never back it up. I have continuously provided evidence, in every topically similar discussion, and I don't recall seeing any evidence to the contrary, or any evidence suggesting that I or others like me are "anti-capitalist" or that my apparent "anti-capitalism" is going to make us all die.

It's simple. I must make the distinction here even though it should be unnecessary. I mean laissez faire capitalism. It's a pity that this is now a necessity to distinguish it from other perversions, but that's the only capitalism I approve of.

 

Man is a volitional animal, he is the rational animal. It means he must determine what he must do at every point throughout his life. This decision is predicated on one single value-his own life which he must choose to hold as a value if he wishes to survive. Nothing on Earth is available to man as a given, he does not have the instinct nor the strength of other animals. Man must produce. He must take raw materials and transform them to be useful to him. In order that he produce he must use his mind and that is all he has apart from a fairly weak kind of physicality. Man must be free to use his mind in order that he stand the best chance of survival, he must produce or he will die.

 

No one can therefore determine better how a single man should go about his survival, or his production. No one man may tell another what they must do to that freedom to choose is destroyed. It is that freedom that is vital if Everyman is to have his chance of doing the best for himself. When he trades with other men free men it is to trade value for value with no interference from other men.

 

This is the moral argument for capitalism. That every mans own life is an end in itself. That reason is his only absolute, production is he noblest activity and own happiness his highest moral purpose.

 

It should be obvious that removing freedoms no matter how well intentioned is a direct attack on man. If he is not completely free to use his mind, then he has lost the freedom to choose survival. No one argues today that slavery is a bad thing, but anti-capitalist thinking is precisely that. It's explicit in many conversations, that man must sacrifice for the common good, he must be selfless and be like a worker bee in a happy colony of identical worker bees. That his life is not his, it is owned by his brothers and sisters, or by a Government. This is slavery. The chains are not so obvious but they still take away mans freedom in much the same way.

 

When men talk of sacrifice to anything, including the common good, you had better run the other way very quickly. Where there is sacrifice, there is someone being sacrificed to someone else and that appalling that any right thinking person cannot grasp the part they are playing by supporting it.

 

Let men free to use their minds, to choose their most rational course of survival and happiness, to produce what they can and to trade freely with other men by value for value. Not because some economic textbook tells us capitalism is good, nor even the strong empirical evidence that shows us that freer men are more productive, wealthier and happier, but because it is the only rational and therefore moral system available.

[doc benway]

Will humankind survive?

 

It's certainly a question that can inspire emotion.

I entertain it from time to time and then let it go.

I personally think technology will be unable to mitigate all of the damage done by it's irresponsible and opportunistic application.

Who knows for sure?

[dust]

Man is a volitional animal, he is the rational animal. It means he must determine what he must do at every point throughout his life. This decision is predicated on one single value-his own life which he must choose to hold as a value if he wishes to survive. Nothing on Earth is available to man as a given, he does not have the instinct nor the strength of other animals. Man must produce. He must take raw materials and transform them to be useful to him. In order that he produce he must use his mind and that is all he has apart from a fairly weak kind of physicality. Man must be free to use his mind in order that he stand the best chance of survival, he must produce or he will die.

 

This is of relatively little importance, but... we are, or can be, very physically impressive. We can beat horses at long-distance running, climb mountains and cliff faces and trees, swim across rivers and oceans, and various other things.

 

Physically, we're impressive. Modern humans less so, because of our sedentariness and poor diet, but we have the capacity to be. When combined with our minds -- undoubtedly the most impressive of any animal that has ever existed on this planet -- we have, or should have, no trouble surviving in nearly any climate, in any size group, with whatever is at our disposal. Which is fine, though nowadays we have little need to. We have our cities and technology, and we are surviving all over the place. And yes, we are creative and our ability to design/construct/build/produce is important to us, and we would be very foolish to deny this, but we are also equipped with reason and the ability to plan ahead. Sometimes, it makes more sense to not build something.

 

This ability to look into the future, to predict the consequences of our actions, and our capacity for examination, self-examination, and logic, should be telling us various things that don't seem to be registering. Like.. if you burn your house down, you won't have a house. If you shit in your pond, the fish won't taste good.

 

I'm not, you should notice, saying "We should stop people from producing things." I am saying "We should be able to see when producing new stuff is no longer helpful" and "We should be aware that our obsession with unnecessary production is harming us and lots of other life on the planet."

 

 

No one can therefore determine better how a single man should go about his survival, or his production. No one man may tell another what they must do to that freedom to choose is destroyed. It is that freedom that is vital if Everyman is to have his chance of doing the best for himself. When he trades with other men free men it is to trade value for value with no interference from other men.

 

No. No one should determine, but many men can. No man should tell another what to do, but many can and do. A small distinction but worth noting.

 

And I agree -- no human should tell another what to do. No human tells me how to live, if I can help it. But -- oops -- I cannot help it. The way -- the foolish, illogical, thoughtless, brutish, greedy, selfish way -- in which most people go about their lives, with all the assurance of gods, is preventing everyone else from going about the way they wish to live. We are all impeding each other.

 

Simply saying "Capitalism prevents this, in a capitalist society everyone is free" doesn't make it so. In a capitalist society, there will always be differing opinions and always those who are impeded in their desired path because of actions that others have taken before them or are taking without regard to them. This cannot be helped, but it can be mitigated -- with logic and self-examination. Championing logic and self-awareness is not anti-freedom.

 

 

This is the moral argument for capitalism. That every mans own life is an end in itself. That reason is his only absolute, production is he noblest activity and own happiness his highest moral purpose.

 

It should be obvious that removing freedoms no matter how well intentioned is a direct attack on man. If he is not completely free to use his mind, then he has lost the freedom to choose survival. No one argues today that slavery is a bad thing, but anti-capitalist thinking is precisely that. It's explicit in many conversations, that man must sacrifice for the common good, he must be selfless and be like a worker bee in a happy colony of identical worker bees. That his life is not his, it is owned by his brothers and sisters, or by a Government. This is slavery. The chains are not so obvious but they still take away mans freedom in much the same way.

 

I've never spoken of the 'common good', I don't think.

 

I wish for all to thrive, yes, but I have never championed worker bee culture and am somewhat disgusted at the implication that I would!

 

I have never argued for the forced limitation of freedom or the notion of all slavishly working towards a common goal. I do point out that by behaving in the way most do, everyone's freedoms are impinged upon; when some ignore the truth, many others suffer.

 

Nobody can live in true freedom, freely using one's mind and body, if one is not as fully aware (of the truth and their own capacity for action) as one can be. Many in China believe they live in a democracy; they believe they are free. And compared to their antecedents, they are. But we know better. We are freer. We have freer access to truth, more freedom of choice and movement. But we're not as free as we could be.

 

Just yesterday I saw a conversation on facebook: Are we carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores? A friend had asked for input from science-literate friends. Aside from my comment, the only others were along the lines of "I think we're omnivore but we can choose really lol" and "In my understanding meat is strongly linked to brain development" etc. One-sentence answers. Not a single reference, nothing but unsourced opinion, and none of it remotely based in scientific research or even real personal observation. Just "I heard something along the lines of...". This is from relatively well-educated Westerners. They apparently don't know how to do a quick search to confirm or deny a rumour they've heard, let alone actually alter their perspective based on new evidence. (I see this all the time on here, too.)

 

You, Karl, are another example. As intelligent and well-intentioned as you are, you ignore the truth of certain things that do not seem to fit in your carefully constructed worldview. You champion this notion of capitalism, and name anyone who questions you 'anti-capitalist' and anti-freedom, while apparently entirely ignoring the truth of the current world climate.

[CloudHands]

We are just an expression of the whole. You have been many things other than human form and will be too, ultimately... consciousness.

[Karl]

This is of relatively little importance, but... we are, or can be, very physically impressive. We can beat horses at long-distance running, climb mountains and cliff faces and trees, swim across rivers and oceans, and various other things.

 

Physically, we're impressive. Modern humans less so, because of our sedentariness and poor diet, but we have the capacity to be. When combined with our minds -- undoubtedly the most impressive of any animal that has ever existed on this planet -- we have, or should have, no trouble surviving in nearly any climate, in any size group, with whatever is at our disposal. Which is fine, though nowadays we have little need to. We have our cities and technology, and we are surviving all over the place. And yes, we are creative and our ability to design/construct/build/produce is important to us, and we would be very foolish to deny this, but we are also equipped with reason and the ability to plan ahead. Sometimes, it makes more sense to not build something.

 

This ability to look into the future, to predict the consequences of our actions, and our capacity for examination, self-examination, and logic, should be telling us various things that don't seem to be registering. Like.. if you burn your house down, you won't have a house. If you shit in your pond, the fish won't taste good.

 

I'm not, you should notice, saying "We should stop people from producing things." I am saying "We should be able to see when producing new stuff is no longer helpful" and "We should be aware that our obsession with unnecessary production is harming us and lots of other life on the planet."

 

 

 

 

No. No one should determine, but many men can. No man should tell another what to do, but many can and do. A small distinction but worth noting.

 

And I agree -- no human should tell another what to do. No human tells me how to live, if I can help it. But -- oops -- I cannot help it. The way -- the foolish, illogical, thoughtless, brutish, greedy, selfish way -- in which most people go about their lives, with all the assurance of gods, is preventing everyone else from going about the way they wish to live. We are all impeding each other.

 

Simply saying "Capitalism prevents this, in a capitalist society everyone is free" doesn't make it so. In a capitalist society, there will always be differing opinions and always those who are impeded in their desired path because of actions that others have taken before them or are taking without regard to them. This cannot be helped, but it can be mitigated -- with logic and self-examination. Championing logic and self-awareness is not anti-freedom.

 

 

 

 

I've never spoken of the 'common good', I don't think.

 

I wish for all to thrive, yes, but I have never championed worker bee culture and am somewhat disgusted at the implication that I would!

 

I have never argued for the forced limitation of freedom or the notion of all slavishly working towards a common goal. I do point out that by behaving in the way most do, everyone's freedoms are impinged upon; when some ignore the truth, many others suffer.

 

Nobody can live in true freedom, freely using one's mind and body, if one is not as fully aware (of the truth and their own capacity for action) as one can be. Many in China believe they live in a democracy; they believe they are free. And compared to their antecedents, they are. But we know better. We are freer. We have freer access to truth, more freedom of choice and movement. But we're not as free as we could be.

 

Just yesterday I saw a conversation on facebook: Are we carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores? A friend had asked for input from science-literate friends. Aside from my comment, the only others were along the lines of "I think we're omnivore but we can choose really lol" and "In my understanding meat is strongly linked to brain development" etc. One-sentence answers. Not a single reference, nothing but unsourced opinion, and none of it remotely based in scientific research or even real personal observation. Just "I heard something along the lines of...". This is from relatively well-educated Westerners. They apparently don't know how to do a quick search to confirm or deny a rumour they've heard, let alone actually alter their perspective based on new evidence. (I see this all the time on here, too.)

 

You, Karl, are another example. As intelligent and well-intentioned as you are, you ignore the truth of certain things that do not seem to fit in your carefully constructed worldview. You champion this notion of capitalism, and name anyone who questions you 'anti-capitalist' and anti-freedom, while apparently entirely ignoring the truth of the current world climate.

This is of relatively little importance, but... we are, or can be, very physically impressive. We can beat horses at long-distance running, climb mountains and cliff faces and trees, swim across rivers and oceans, and various other things.

 

Physically, we're impressive. Modern humans less so, because of our sedentariness and poor diet, but we have the capacity to be. When combined with our minds -- undoubtedly the most impressive of any animal that has ever existed on this planet -- we have, or should have, no trouble surviving in nearly any climate, in any size group, with whatever is at our disposal. Which is fine, though nowadays we have little need to. We have our cities and technology, and we are surviving all over the place. And yes, we are creative and our ability to design/construct/build/produce is important to us, and we would be very foolish to deny this, but we are also equipped with reason and the ability to plan ahead. Sometimes, it makes more sense to not build something.

 

This ability to look into the future, to predict the consequences of our actions, and our capacity for examination, self-examination, and logic, should be telling us various things that don't seem to be registering. Like.. if you burn your house down, you won't have a house. If you shit in your pond, the fish won't taste good.

 

I'm not, you should notice, saying "We should stop people from producing things." I am saying "We should be able to see when producing new stuff is no longer helpful" and "We should be aware that our obsession with unnecessary production is harming us and lots of other life on the planet."

 

 

 

 

No. No one should determine, but many men can. No man should tell another what to do, but many can and do. A small distinction but worth noting.

 

And I agree -- no human should tell another what to do. No human tells me how to live, if I can help it. But -- oops -- I cannot help it. The way -- the foolish, illogical, thoughtless, brutish, greedy, selfish way -- in which most people go about their lives, with all the assurance of gods, is preventing everyone else from going about the way they wish to live. We are all impeding each other.

 

Simply saying "Capitalism prevents this, in a capitalist society everyone is free" doesn't make it so. In a capitalist society, there will always be differing opinions and always those who are impeded in their desired path because of actions that others have taken before them or are taking without regard to them. This cannot be helped, but it can be mitigated -- with logic and self-examination. Championing logic and self-awareness is not anti-freedom.

 

 

 

 

I've never spoken of the 'common good', I don't think.

 

I wish for all to thrive, yes, but I have never championed worker bee culture and am somewhat disgusted at the implication that I would!

 

I have never argued for the forced limitation of freedom or the notion of all slavishly working towards a common goal. I do point out that by behaving in the way most do, everyone's freedoms are impinged upon; when some ignore the truth, many others suffer.

 

Nobody can live in true freedom, freely using one's mind and body, if one is not as fully aware (of the truth and their own capacity for action) as one can be. Many in China believe they live in a democracy; they believe they are free. And compared to their antecedents, they are. But we know better. We are freer. We have freer access to truth, more freedom of choice and movement. But we're not as free as we could be.

 

Just yesterday I saw a conversation on facebook: Are we carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores? A friend had asked for input from science-literate friends. Aside from my comment, the only others were along the lines of "I think we're omnivore but we can choose really lol" and "In my understanding meat is strongly linked to brain development" etc. One-sentence answers. Not a single reference, nothing but unsourced opinion, and none of it remotely based in scientific research or even real personal observation. Just "I heard something along the lines of...". This is from relatively well-educated Westerners. They apparently don't know how to do a quick search to confirm or deny a rumour they've heard, let alone actually alter their perspective based on new evidence. (I see this all the time on here, too.)

 

You, Karl, are another example. As intelligent and well-intentioned as you are, you ignore the truth of certain things that do not seem to fit in your carefully constructed worldview. You champion this notion of capitalism, and name anyone who questions you 'anti-capitalist' and anti-freedom, while apparently entirely ignoring the truth of the current world climate.

You keep talking about truth, but what truth exactly ?

 

It's not a 'carefully constructed worldview'.

 

I don't champion laissez faire capitalism on a whim. It is simply the only moral political system because it removes the shackles that are stopping rapid innovation, increased wealth, lower prices, greater abundance and the most efficient use of scarce resources. It is all about people freely trading value for value and there is nothing that can replace that. Any attempt to interfere is to reduce freedom by force. Force is anti-reason, a gun is not an argument. As our minds are our only tool of survival and reason is our only absolute, then to use force to limit freedom is to remove the freedom for people to survive by their own efforts. No man can better tell another man how he must live.

 

I have omitted the law here, but it's necessary in all trading and human societies to protect the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness and this is what necessitates a delimited and objective Government.

[Brian]

Will humankind survive?

Survive what?

[Gerard]

Will humankind survive?

 

It won't see another half a century.

 

The rest (including beings from the natural world and nature spirits) of the planet will be reborn into other samsaric worlds.

 

This is the model of Samsara I have designed. It's a very slow process before you exit the labyrinth.

 

 

The Bagua is like a gigantic clock that is constantly moving and creating EVERYTHING. Hence clinging to things and being impatient (it harms the Heart) are the worst enermies of spiritual seekers.

 

I wish it were quicker but things were not designed that way.

 

Designed by whom?

 

Not even a conference 1,000 Buddhas will answer that question.

 

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao (TTC, chap. 1). 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Gerard

[roger]

Survive what?

 

Not go extinct.

 

The greatest threat to humankind's survival is definitely war, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, etc.