Before I write a post that I was meaning to get onto, I'd just like to write this down, mostly as a aid to me ;)
Doublethink is Faith
Faith is blurring the line between believing and knowing
Believing comes from Trust
Trust is a Choice
Choice is Right, Wrong, and Everything in Between
Choice mixed with Believing shapes Perception
Perception is Reality, because Reality is percieved
Which is why Faith/Doublethink can shape reality
Faith/Doublethink underpins Religion
Which is why Religion can shape Reality
And you can change your beliefs
Which is why You can shape Religion
Which is why You can shape Reality
Quick Thought 6 - Concept Chain
Labels:
Life,
Quick Thoughts,
Reality and Perception
0
comments
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Random Line 1
Labels:
Random Line
Everything is better than Nothing
0
comments
Monday, June 15, 2009
Quick Thought 5 - The Universe: Where did it come from, and should we care?
Labels:
Creation,
Quick Thoughts,
Reality and Perception,
The Universe
The origin of the universe seems to be a hot topic for any religion, becuase most religions assume that an Atheist or Agnostic's thinking about how the universe must be flawed due to their own logic. If everything had to have a beginning, had to come from something, then what did the something from before the universe come from?
I happen to be a rather unconventional Atheist, and I believe something rather different. IMO, the universe has always been there. I'm quite a fan of the "Big Bounce" theory, where the universe forever expands and contracts. A fair few people won't have any problem with that, though a lot more probably will. To those who wildly disagree, if you can have faith in a God just because you read a book about him, why can't I believe in the universe having been around forever because I reckon that's right?
More importantly though, I think that people care far too much about this. Really, something that happened billions of years ago shouldn't be on your mind that much. If at all. You've got a life, why not just get on with it rather than avidly debating the finer details of how you got it in the first place. If there is a God, I'm pretty sure he would want me to use the life He gave me to the fullest.
I happen to be a rather unconventional Atheist, and I believe something rather different. IMO, the universe has always been there. I'm quite a fan of the "Big Bounce" theory, where the universe forever expands and contracts. A fair few people won't have any problem with that, though a lot more probably will. To those who wildly disagree, if you can have faith in a God just because you read a book about him, why can't I believe in the universe having been around forever because I reckon that's right?
More importantly though, I think that people care far too much about this. Really, something that happened billions of years ago shouldn't be on your mind that much. If at all. You've got a life, why not just get on with it rather than avidly debating the finer details of how you got it in the first place. If there is a God, I'm pretty sure he would want me to use the life He gave me to the fullest.
1 comments
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Quick Thought 4 - GM Foods and Overpopulation (with a splash of Global Warming)
Labels:
Life,
Quick Thoughts
You might be thinking, hey, what the hell have those two things got to do with each other? At first glance, sure they look apart, but they're actually closely tied to each other. The problem is simple: There are too many people for the habitable land on earth. Even if you don't believe that, 9 billion people will definitely be too much. There are two things that have driving this massive population spike: little access to contraceptive and a food surplus. The food surplus though is the main issue. An excess in resources allows expansion, a bigger excess faster expansion. Our farming technologies flew way ahead of our population, driving it up. The thing is though, that growth can never last. Nothing can grow forever. And that is exactly the problem we have at the moment. Not enough land for the people, and certainly not enough land for the food.
As humans do, some smart scientists hit upon the idea of GM foods. Perhaps not intended for this use, but damn useful nevertheless. So, you think we would at least have started to solve half of the problem. GM allows for crops to be grown in different climates, produce more productive harvests, become less susceptible to diseases. However, this isn't the case. Because now we get protests about GM.
Now, I do try to look at all the possibilities when I look at these issues. But really, if you test well enough, and only make small changes, there is virtually no risk for GM. Putting one potato's genes into another potato is hardly going to make a killer carrot.
But what does get me about this situation is that a large proportion of people who are against GM foods are all for the right of the "unborn child" to the extent where they do not accept that we have an overpopulation issue. Come on guys, surely you can see that there's an issue here. Cities becoming more crowded, more squatter camps everywhere. The people in poorer countries across Africa multiplying like rabbits. And there simply isn't the food to feed them, if you don't use GM, because there isn't the land to feed them.
This is where that little splash of global warming comes in. Taking the average estimate that the world will warm by about 4 degrees, we actually have a lot more to worry about than a bit of low-lying land being lost. Because, with higher temperatures around the equator, Africa will become uninhabitable. Europe will mostly become uninhabitable. the US, China, Mexico, most of Brazil, all uninhabitable. The land that you gain will be Norway, Canada, Russia&Siberia, Antarctica, parts of Australia and parts of pacific islands around NZ's area becoming more habitable. Now, have a look at the below map:
Green is habitable. Yellow is desert, brown is floods, drought or extreme weather. Red is land lost due to rise in sea level.
So, can you see how much less land there is available? Remember that anything at the top or bottom of the map is stretched. So, less land for food growth, and time needed to get it all started.
Here we now have a triple-whammy: Global warming, no more surplus food, no more surplus land. It's simply not going to work unless we do one of two things:
- Control population
- Use GM to our advantage.
If you want organic food, you must have less population. If you want more population, you must have GM food. To me, at least, it's that simple.
-----
Next Quick Thought on the origin of the Universe. Hey, why not go overly complex?
As humans do, some smart scientists hit upon the idea of GM foods. Perhaps not intended for this use, but damn useful nevertheless. So, you think we would at least have started to solve half of the problem. GM allows for crops to be grown in different climates, produce more productive harvests, become less susceptible to diseases. However, this isn't the case. Because now we get protests about GM.
Now, I do try to look at all the possibilities when I look at these issues. But really, if you test well enough, and only make small changes, there is virtually no risk for GM. Putting one potato's genes into another potato is hardly going to make a killer carrot.
But what does get me about this situation is that a large proportion of people who are against GM foods are all for the right of the "unborn child" to the extent where they do not accept that we have an overpopulation issue. Come on guys, surely you can see that there's an issue here. Cities becoming more crowded, more squatter camps everywhere. The people in poorer countries across Africa multiplying like rabbits. And there simply isn't the food to feed them, if you don't use GM, because there isn't the land to feed them.
This is where that little splash of global warming comes in. Taking the average estimate that the world will warm by about 4 degrees, we actually have a lot more to worry about than a bit of low-lying land being lost. Because, with higher temperatures around the equator, Africa will become uninhabitable. Europe will mostly become uninhabitable. the US, China, Mexico, most of Brazil, all uninhabitable. The land that you gain will be Norway, Canada, Russia&Siberia, Antarctica, parts of Australia and parts of pacific islands around NZ's area becoming more habitable. Now, have a look at the below map:
Green is habitable. Yellow is desert, brown is floods, drought or extreme weather. Red is land lost due to rise in sea level.
So, can you see how much less land there is available? Remember that anything at the top or bottom of the map is stretched. So, less land for food growth, and time needed to get it all started.
Here we now have a triple-whammy: Global warming, no more surplus food, no more surplus land. It's simply not going to work unless we do one of two things:
- Control population
- Use GM to our advantage.
If you want organic food, you must have less population. If you want more population, you must have GM food. To me, at least, it's that simple.
-----
Next Quick Thought on the origin of the Universe. Hey, why not go overly complex?
1 comments
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Quick Thought 3 - Religon and Animals
Labels:
Animals,
Moral Values,
Quick Thoughts
A reply to the thread on gfxfactor.com, about religion.
-----
I'm an Atheist, in that I believe that there is no got. But I'm kind of a strange case, because in a way I want to believe in God. I like the thought that you could magicially be re-incarnated or live forever in heaven, but a part of me says no. It's like religion has a big neon sign on it saying FAKE, and I'm holding a pair of super dark sunglasses, and I kinda want to put them on but I also want to see other things. I think though, I'll put down the glasses, because I've been thinking about heaven and I cannot honestly understand how you can live for eternity and not be bored out of your brain. Seriously, what would you do for eternity? Even being a slug would be better than that, but here again I doubt. It just doesn't seem to make sense. The same consiousness in a different being? Imagine you came back as an amoeba. How can you keep the same consciousness of a human, and put it in an amoeba? Even if a soul did exist, I don't think there'd be enough room in a cell for this.
And here is where people will say: Amoeba aren't important. That, I agree with, to an extent. However, they are a form of life. The thing that does get me though, is that many of these people will go on to say: Animals aren't important. And here is where I strongly, strongly disagree. Because most of these people will be the kind of people who will say "Animals are nowhere near as important as humans". It's at that comment, when I start ranting.
Of course animals are as important as humans. Don't let any religious belief, any holy book or scripture tell you differently. Because, dammit, we are animals. A couple of million years ago, we were barely as intelligent as most of the animals that you so often classify as dumb. And a couple of million years, relatively speaking, is a blink of an eye. Here, these people will say "Animals can't think for themselves. They have no soul, no conscioussness. They can't plan.". You know what? Of course animals can think for themselves. I suggest anyone who reads this and finds themself disagreeing with what I'm saying should research the Kea. This is a parrot. A small bird. And it is damn intelligent. It's a rather curious creature, and it's way of finding out what things are like is to take them apart. Now, to take a man-made object apart is difficult. It requires problem solving. Which these birds posess. They can figure out, hey, I'm pulling this bit of rubber that way, and nothing's happening. I wonder what will happen if I pull it the other way. You would expect a dumb, thoughtless animal to continue pulling in the same direction, then give up. But you don't. You see intelligence.
And how dare you say that you are morally above any other animal. Humans, the most barbaric, brutal and disgusting race on earth for the majority, and we are the only species that gets claim for a soul and conciousness? Yeah right, give me a break.
And planning? I'm sure you've heard of a squirrel. Don't tell me that they, one of the most ordinary of animals, doesn't plan ahead.
Humans really only have two advantages over the rest of the animal kingdom. The opposable thumb, and a efficient form of communication. Our entire societies sprouted from these two things. We aren't different from animals. We are animals. Now how about we realise that, eh?
I'm not saying we should all become vegans, at this point. We have to eat to survive. It's how we're made. I think something different: Give the animal a happy life while it's alive. I'd like to think that the steak that I eat last night came from a cow which had a peaceful, safe and calm life before it found its way to my plate. I wouldn't want it treated harshly before hand.
----
Next Quick Thought will be on GM food.
-----
I'm an Atheist, in that I believe that there is no got. But I'm kind of a strange case, because in a way I want to believe in God. I like the thought that you could magicially be re-incarnated or live forever in heaven, but a part of me says no. It's like religion has a big neon sign on it saying FAKE, and I'm holding a pair of super dark sunglasses, and I kinda want to put them on but I also want to see other things. I think though, I'll put down the glasses, because I've been thinking about heaven and I cannot honestly understand how you can live for eternity and not be bored out of your brain. Seriously, what would you do for eternity? Even being a slug would be better than that, but here again I doubt. It just doesn't seem to make sense. The same consiousness in a different being? Imagine you came back as an amoeba. How can you keep the same consciousness of a human, and put it in an amoeba? Even if a soul did exist, I don't think there'd be enough room in a cell for this.
And here is where people will say: Amoeba aren't important. That, I agree with, to an extent. However, they are a form of life. The thing that does get me though, is that many of these people will go on to say: Animals aren't important. And here is where I strongly, strongly disagree. Because most of these people will be the kind of people who will say "Animals are nowhere near as important as humans". It's at that comment, when I start ranting.
Of course animals are as important as humans. Don't let any religious belief, any holy book or scripture tell you differently. Because, dammit, we are animals. A couple of million years ago, we were barely as intelligent as most of the animals that you so often classify as dumb. And a couple of million years, relatively speaking, is a blink of an eye. Here, these people will say "Animals can't think for themselves. They have no soul, no conscioussness. They can't plan.". You know what? Of course animals can think for themselves. I suggest anyone who reads this and finds themself disagreeing with what I'm saying should research the Kea. This is a parrot. A small bird. And it is damn intelligent. It's a rather curious creature, and it's way of finding out what things are like is to take them apart. Now, to take a man-made object apart is difficult. It requires problem solving. Which these birds posess. They can figure out, hey, I'm pulling this bit of rubber that way, and nothing's happening. I wonder what will happen if I pull it the other way. You would expect a dumb, thoughtless animal to continue pulling in the same direction, then give up. But you don't. You see intelligence.
And how dare you say that you are morally above any other animal. Humans, the most barbaric, brutal and disgusting race on earth for the majority, and we are the only species that gets claim for a soul and conciousness? Yeah right, give me a break.
And planning? I'm sure you've heard of a squirrel. Don't tell me that they, one of the most ordinary of animals, doesn't plan ahead.
Humans really only have two advantages over the rest of the animal kingdom. The opposable thumb, and a efficient form of communication. Our entire societies sprouted from these two things. We aren't different from animals. We are animals. Now how about we realise that, eh?
I'm not saying we should all become vegans, at this point. We have to eat to survive. It's how we're made. I think something different: Give the animal a happy life while it's alive. I'd like to think that the steak that I eat last night came from a cow which had a peaceful, safe and calm life before it found its way to my plate. I wouldn't want it treated harshly before hand.
----
Next Quick Thought will be on GM food.
0
comments
Friday, April 24, 2009
Quick Thought 2 - The point of Life
Labels:
Life,
Quick Thoughts
"But I wouldn't trust science as far as I could throw Einstein. Why is it so important anyway? Can't people just appreciate something without having to dissect it, and drain the mystery from it?"
You seem to assume that science and mystery cannot co-exist. That is not true, especially not at the moment. The new breed of scientist, and indeed modern thinker, accepts that they will never know all the answers. You simply cannot operate at the highest level in any scientific field if you don't accept that you won't know some of the answers. But they're interested, so they'll have a crack at finding something out anyway. This may seem pointless, but I'll explain why it isn't.
One of my classmates, in RE, when we were asked what our view of our point of life, said jokingly "My point in life is to find my point in life". I believe this is exactly right. It doesn't matter if you know you will not succeed in finding these answers, somewhere deep down. What matters is if your interested or not. Because if your interested, and if you feel that it means something towards the point of your life, you will study it, dissect it, whatever wording you choose. This is even the same for those who are believers. They say they've found their point in life, and yet you still get religious scholars, clergy, people who dedicate their entire lives to find meaning in their holy book. Deep down, they know they're not going to get anything really useful for it. But it's their point in life. Why not investigate it? What have you got to lose?
Because, really, when we stop and think, if we dare, and think long enough, we'll find the real answer: There is no point to life. This possibility, in the search for a point, rarely occurs to us. Life wasn't created, or didn't evolve, for a point. It's our job to make our point in life up. Whatever it is. Because, what would you rather do: life a life that you decide is worthwhile, or live a life with no point?
0
comments
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
How do we make the distinction of what answers are right?
Labels:
Debate,
Moral Values,
Reality and Perception
An extract from Semiotic
Conversation so far between Bunny and Swami. Swami's points are quoted in my posts.
Right and wrong are concepts which are fixed to a view of reality. For example, in our reality, if you have one apple and you get another apple, you have two apples. In another version of reality, you could have one apple, get another apple, and have 576.5 apples. Seeing as reality is our perception of reality, the concept of right and wrong is fixed to perception. If we perceive it that 1+1=2, then it is. This is what makes George Orwell's idea of doublethink so scary: because perception powers reality, and everything that comes with it (assuming you still haven't read 1984, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink ). The fact that our reality is whatever we want our reality to be, the hitting home of the fact that our reality is so fragile, is quite sobering. If we want to believe that 1+1=3, then it is possible for you to convince yourself of that. It's just very hard. We stick to our perception of reality, because it's too hard to think about all the implications of a new perception of reality, no matter how small a change. This is why religion is such a big decision in a person's life: it's such an effort to change your perception of reality.
The distinction between right and wrong, is therefore down to our perception. If I tell you that 1+1=3, you'll tell me that's wrong, because in your version of reality it isn't. A serial rapist's reality will say that rape is right, not wrong. A 1400s slave ship driver would tell you that slavery is right, not wrong. A priest will tell you that religion is right, not wrong.
This is where my view of science comes in. Science tells you both: that it's right and wrong. This however, doesn't conform to our usual method of one or the other, so often people will go with "science is right" or "science is wrong". Science has a rather accepting, persisiting manner. It accepts that it's wrong on some counts, and then tries to get the right answers in those areas, no matter if it's not possible to find the answers.
So, how do we make the distinction between right and wrong? We just do. Wether we're right or wrong in thinking that an answer is right or wrong, in the end, is down to the onlookers view of right and wrong.
-----
Whoops, I forgot to mention this in my previous post. You are right, to a extent. I still think that reality is a perception, and one of perceptions major flaws is a flaw that effects all thinking by anyone, the sheep effect. Your thoughts are adjusted to how people around you are thinking: Likewise, our perceptions are altered by what other people's perceptions are. "Insane" people have a different view of reality from the norm, that's what makes them "insane".
We simply do not have the time, as an entire race, to figure out everything. There will always be mystery. Always. And let's not forget that too much mystery and magic is a bad thing. Think superstitious bullsh*t that had us burning people at the stake for fear of them being a witch.
I agree, we are the most destructive force on the planet. But, that is driven by our own drives that have been with us for millions of years, that have been in every successful species for all of time. To reproduce, to eat, to seek shelter, to dominate. The only problem is, we've done numbers 1,3 and 4 much too much. The concrete world that we live in is a result of us wanting safety, security, shelter. The overpopulation that drives the expansion of our concrete world comes from the drive to reproduce. Hell, even our religions encourage having lots of kids, driving up more population as we live in a would less prone to attacks from other animals. And to dominate. Every animal, everywhere, has this urge. You see a pride of lions. You think that lion who is second to top is happy being there? No, he's going to go for number 1. And money is behind every single one of those four drives I mentioned. You need money to be able to eat. Having more money means a better environment for reproduction. Having more money means you can live in a safer, more sheltered environment. Having more money than anyone else is domination. Money plays on our most fundamental urges. Of course it's the key to living for us. We can't live without it.
Humans will be dead long before that happens, and a new species will be evolving.
-----
You really think that's what drove it? Two things drove the burnings of the witch; superstitious idiot masses who still believed that imprisoning live cats in the wall of a house was good luck, and to walk under a ladder would bring bad luck, and the people in power. These guys were the clever people; they were the ones who would find someone they didn't like, and burn them for some small thing. Or, they would carry out some "test" which would usually end up killing the person anyway. And when there wasn't anyone which they didn't like to burn, they burnt some random person anyway, because it made the superstitious masses feel safer. My king is burning the witches, making it safer for me! Long live the king! See the effect these guys got in the end?
You've been watching too much cushy footage of happy animals having a happy life, having lots of kids with the weather constantly sunny, food constantly available, and always a nice hidy hole for mr turtle to climb in. In the real world, however, turtles DO fight for dominance, of a different kind. The amount of female turtles they can mate with, to be precise. They are known to tear flippers off other turtles trying to mate with the same female.
That's because those rabbits and deer that you've seen are not in our position, the position of being the utterly dominant race on the planet. I can guarantee you, if deer were the dominant species, bambi would make exactly the same kind of disregarding decisions as we do.
Wrong again. People aren't solitairy animals, we stick in groups. I can almost 100% guarantee you that these pagans that you are talking about lived in tribes. And if they did, I can guarantee you that there were power struggles, tribal wars, etc. And for whatever excuse they may have said it, for whatever insult, the underlying purpose of any conflict is power. Otherwise, we'd have eternal peace.
You aren't going to improve anything by downplaying yourself, mate. You can't make a change if you don't believe in yourself in the first place. Incase you didn't notice, your a human too, and you have a choice in this world: Try to make a change, or go with the flow. If you want people to be more considerate towards the environment, then you have to say it, because you can never, ever count on anyone else to say it for you.
This is also a bit of a generalisation, yes? I can tell you that I'm not happy at all with the short-sighted ignorance of so many people. I'm a human too. But I'm not going to spend my words insulting when I could be saying something more constructive, something helpful.
Conversation so far between Bunny and Swami. Swami's points are quoted in my posts.
Question; How do we make the distinction of what answers are right? - Sayf UdeenHere's what I think about this:
Right and wrong are concepts which are fixed to a view of reality. For example, in our reality, if you have one apple and you get another apple, you have two apples. In another version of reality, you could have one apple, get another apple, and have 576.5 apples. Seeing as reality is our perception of reality, the concept of right and wrong is fixed to perception. If we perceive it that 1+1=2, then it is. This is what makes George Orwell's idea of doublethink so scary: because perception powers reality, and everything that comes with it (assuming you still haven't read 1984, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink ). The fact that our reality is whatever we want our reality to be, the hitting home of the fact that our reality is so fragile, is quite sobering. If we want to believe that 1+1=3, then it is possible for you to convince yourself of that. It's just very hard. We stick to our perception of reality, because it's too hard to think about all the implications of a new perception of reality, no matter how small a change. This is why religion is such a big decision in a person's life: it's such an effort to change your perception of reality.
The distinction between right and wrong, is therefore down to our perception. If I tell you that 1+1=3, you'll tell me that's wrong, because in your version of reality it isn't. A serial rapist's reality will say that rape is right, not wrong. A 1400s slave ship driver would tell you that slavery is right, not wrong. A priest will tell you that religion is right, not wrong.
This is where my view of science comes in. Science tells you both: that it's right and wrong. This however, doesn't conform to our usual method of one or the other, so often people will go with "science is right" or "science is wrong". Science has a rather accepting, persisiting manner. It accepts that it's wrong on some counts, and then tries to get the right answers in those areas, no matter if it's not possible to find the answers.
So, how do we make the distinction between right and wrong? We just do. Wether we're right or wrong in thinking that an answer is right or wrong, in the end, is down to the onlookers view of right and wrong.
-----
Reality isn't a perception, reality is a manifestation of a large group subconscious.
Whoops, I forgot to mention this in my previous post. You are right, to a extent. I still think that reality is a perception, and one of perceptions major flaws is a flaw that effects all thinking by anyone, the sheep effect. Your thoughts are adjusted to how people around you are thinking: Likewise, our perceptions are altered by what other people's perceptions are. "Insane" people have a different view of reality from the norm, that's what makes them "insane".
Science may have achieved some good, but ultimately it drains the planet of its mystery and magic, that has been here since the dawn of time.
We simply do not have the time, as an entire race, to figure out everything. There will always be mystery. Always. And let's not forget that too much mystery and magic is a bad thing. Think superstitious bullsh*t that had us burning people at the stake for fear of them being a witch.
Humans are the most destructive and ignorant force on the planet, as they tear it up, making their concrete reality, where money is the key to living
I agree, we are the most destructive force on the planet. But, that is driven by our own drives that have been with us for millions of years, that have been in every successful species for all of time. To reproduce, to eat, to seek shelter, to dominate. The only problem is, we've done numbers 1,3 and 4 much too much. The concrete world that we live in is a result of us wanting safety, security, shelter. The overpopulation that drives the expansion of our concrete world comes from the drive to reproduce. Hell, even our religions encourage having lots of kids, driving up more population as we live in a would less prone to attacks from other animals. And to dominate. Every animal, everywhere, has this urge. You see a pride of lions. You think that lion who is second to top is happy being there? No, he's going to go for number 1. And money is behind every single one of those four drives I mentioned. You need money to be able to eat. Having more money means a better environment for reproduction. Having more money means you can live in a safer, more sheltered environment. Having more money than anyone else is domination. Money plays on our most fundamental urges. Of course it's the key to living for us. We can't live without it.
Humans won't be satisfied until the planet is as hollow as their lives...
Humans will be dead long before that happens, and a new species will be evolving.
-----
People didn't burn people at the stake for being witches because of superstition, they did it because their was a misprint in a translation of the bible. It should have said do not suffer a poisoner to live, but instead it said do not suffer a witch to live.
You really think that's what drove it? Two things drove the burnings of the witch; superstitious idiot masses who still believed that imprisoning live cats in the wall of a house was good luck, and to walk under a ladder would bring bad luck, and the people in power. These guys were the clever people; they were the ones who would find someone they didn't like, and burn them for some small thing. Or, they would carry out some "test" which would usually end up killing the person anyway. And when there wasn't anyone which they didn't like to burn, they burnt some random person anyway, because it made the superstitious masses feel safer. My king is burning the witches, making it safer for me! Long live the king! See the effect these guys got in the end?
How can a turtle wish to dominate anything, they just wish to eat and sleep. I don't think pride is related to domination either.
You've been watching too much cushy footage of happy animals having a happy life, having lots of kids with the weather constantly sunny, food constantly available, and always a nice hidy hole for mr turtle to climb in. In the real world, however, turtles DO fight for dominance, of a different kind. The amount of female turtles they can mate with, to be precise. They are known to tear flippers off other turtles trying to mate with the same female.
I've never seen a rabbit or a deer trying to oppress and repress other forms of life.
That's because those rabbits and deer that you've seen are not in our position, the position of being the utterly dominant race on the planet. I can guarantee you, if deer were the dominant species, bambi would make exactly the same kind of disregarding decisions as we do.
The Pagans of the ancient world didn't wish to dominate, it was powers like Rome, and Greece, power in numbers and advanced technology.
Wrong again. People aren't solitairy animals, we stick in groups. I can almost 100% guarantee you that these pagans that you are talking about lived in tribes. And if they did, I can guarantee you that there were power struggles, tribal wars, etc. And for whatever excuse they may have said it, for whatever insult, the underlying purpose of any conflict is power. Otherwise, we'd have eternal peace.
Our species is a joke.
You aren't going to improve anything by downplaying yourself, mate. You can't make a change if you don't believe in yourself in the first place. Incase you didn't notice, your a human too, and you have a choice in this world: Try to make a change, or go with the flow. If you want people to be more considerate towards the environment, then you have to say it, because you can never, ever count on anyone else to say it for you.
This is also a bit of a generalisation, yes? I can tell you that I'm not happy at all with the short-sighted ignorance of so many people. I'm a human too. But I'm not going to spend my words insulting when I could be saying something more constructive, something helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
