Monday, March 30, 2009
New Way of Thinking
There is no way that mankind would ever go back to the classical tribal way of living... "Beyond Civilization" challenges us to think outside the box. To create a way to live that involves today's technologies with our ancestors way of living. What I don't understand is why things still haven't changed. Daniel Quinn has layed out the answer to our problem yet most of us still don't respond. Everyone knows that there is a problem yet the majority of us are sitting back and waiting for someone else to change the world for us. We can't just hope that someone else will step in and save us because that might never happen. If everyone actively came together and left all the old programs behind, the results would be drastic..... I think that part of the problem is that most people don't think that it is that big of a deal and I'm afraid that if people don't start to contribute to saving the world it may be too late. So maybe our challenge is to point out how big of a deal it is and maybe we would get more people to contribute to saving the world?
Monday, March 23, 2009
A parable about sustainability
On page 170 in Beyond Civiliation Daniel Quinn uses a parable to describe how using a flawed plan with the best pieces will always fail and using a viable plan and ordinary materials will succeed. What I took from this is that it is foolish to keep on tring to rebuild something to make it better when it doesnt work! Instead we should think of something compelty new that does work. That can apply to almost everything involved in our society... Like he said earlier in the book, we put so much money into schools trying to make them "better" and into trying to improve the laws to make them "better"... Why do we do that year after year? Do we feel obilagted to because we are provided the money? Or are we just to lazy to think of a new method?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Population Growth
The amount of food a socitey has controls the population growth. It has been proven that the more food = more people.
Daniel Quinn states that "At present there are five and a half billion of you here, and, though millions of you are starving, you’re producing enough food for six billion. And because you’re producing enough food for six billion, it’s a biological certainty that in three of four years there will be six billion of you. By that time, however (even though millions of you will still be starving), you’ll be producing enough food for six and a half billion- which means that in another three or four years there will be six and a half billion. But by that time you’ll be producing enough food for seven billion (even though millions of you will still be starving), which again means that in another three of four years there will be seven billion of you. In order to halt this process, you must face the fact that increasing food production doesn’t feed your hungry, it only fuels your population explosion.”
So by sending food to 3rd world counties we are ultimatly making the population larger and creating more mouth to feed in the furture. If we continue to grow the world will eventually be so populated that it is impossible for everyone to eat. So is it really the right thing to do? It's hard to just stand by and not help others when you know it's possible, but is it worth it if it is hurting us in the future? There will always be famine in the world no matter how hard we try to feed everyone. No one has the right to choose who should die, but should we as humans have the right to choose who live? Isn't that breaking the law?
Daniel Quinn states that "At present there are five and a half billion of you here, and, though millions of you are starving, you’re producing enough food for six billion. And because you’re producing enough food for six billion, it’s a biological certainty that in three of four years there will be six billion of you. By that time, however (even though millions of you will still be starving), you’ll be producing enough food for six and a half billion- which means that in another three or four years there will be six and a half billion. But by that time you’ll be producing enough food for seven billion (even though millions of you will still be starving), which again means that in another three of four years there will be seven billion of you. In order to halt this process, you must face the fact that increasing food production doesn’t feed your hungry, it only fuels your population explosion.”
So by sending food to 3rd world counties we are ultimatly making the population larger and creating more mouth to feed in the furture. If we continue to grow the world will eventually be so populated that it is impossible for everyone to eat. So is it really the right thing to do? It's hard to just stand by and not help others when you know it's possible, but is it worth it if it is hurting us in the future? There will always be famine in the world no matter how hard we try to feed everyone. No one has the right to choose who should die, but should we as humans have the right to choose who live? Isn't that breaking the law?
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Laws Apply to Everyone
There are many things that we as Takers do that the Leaver would not do. For example we will exterminate our enemies for vengeance. Humans are the only species on earth that will purposely kill another living creature simply because we have to ability to. Mankind truly believe that the world belongs to us. And by enacting this story we are braking the ultimate law.
If the takers had a law that they followed invariably we would probably be more successful. It doesn't have to be the same law for every culture, but there must be one in order to sustain peace. For example the A,B and C society lived by a single law and followed it invariably. Their way of living may be seen as horrible and inhumane, but it worked for them.
One thing I realized in class today was that we as takers said that the laws don't apply to us, the gods never said that! Meaning if we don't follow these laws mankind will be in trouble.
If the takers had a law that they followed invariably we would probably be more successful. It doesn't have to be the same law for every culture, but there must be one in order to sustain peace. For example the A,B and C society lived by a single law and followed it invariably. Their way of living may be seen as horrible and inhumane, but it worked for them.
One thing I realized in class today was that we as takers said that the laws don't apply to us, the gods never said that! Meaning if we don't follow these laws mankind will be in trouble.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Message Heard Around the World
Everywhere you go the same message is repeated over and over. We have always been told that in order to succeed in life a person must do thier share of work. Generally the average person considers their average day to go something like this: wake up, go to work for approximatly eight hours, go home, kick back with the family, drink the occasional beer, and then go to sleep. We are even told that we should be glad that our culture allows us such a luxurious life. And, on top of all that, we have been told that there is no possible way to improve this system. Its almost as if this meaningless way of life has become human nature, and if it really is human nature then why are their so many people that are unhappy with it?
When given the choice of saving the world with the consequence of going into debt or making a fortune with the consequence of destroying the world, what do you think would happen? Until you are actually put into the situation it may be hard to answer, but companies such as the glass recycling center in Anchorage would rather not save the world. In fact, because glass was so costly to recycle they would just rather not do it. This not only slowly destroys the world, but also sets a bad example for those growing up in the anchorage community.
When given the choice of saving the world with the consequence of going into debt or making a fortune with the consequence of destroying the world, what do you think would happen? Until you are actually put into the situation it may be hard to answer, but companies such as the glass recycling center in Anchorage would rather not save the world. In fact, because glass was so costly to recycle they would just rather not do it. This not only slowly destroys the world, but also sets a bad example for those growing up in the anchorage community.
"Sinking Ship"
Link to the Sinking Ship by Daniel Quinn:
http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Parables/SinkingShip.shtml
The world is exactly like the sinking ship in the story and the taker culture is going to drown if they don't come together and throw their life presevers in the water. People spend all their time on trying to solve opinionistic issues bringing prayer back into the classroom, outlawing abortion, or not outlawing abortion, instead of solving the real problem. Making a program or law saying that one cannot have an abortion will not make it so no one will. Laws are bound to be broken so by making them we are wasting our time. If the humankind doesn't exist it won't matter if the laws exist because we are the only ones that follow them. Therefore, like the people on the ship, instead of coming together as a team and saving our lives we fight and destroy our chances of survival.
http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Parables/SinkingShip.shtml
The world is exactly like the sinking ship in the story and the taker culture is going to drown if they don't come together and throw their life presevers in the water. People spend all their time on trying to solve opinionistic issues bringing prayer back into the classroom, outlawing abortion, or not outlawing abortion, instead of solving the real problem. Making a program or law saying that one cannot have an abortion will not make it so no one will. Laws are bound to be broken so by making them we are wasting our time. If the humankind doesn't exist it won't matter if the laws exist because we are the only ones that follow them. Therefore, like the people on the ship, instead of coming together as a team and saving our lives we fight and destroy our chances of survival.
Monday, January 26, 2009
No Gorilla Would Be Caged
No species was born to rely on man, especially not gorilla. Although some individual gorillas have indeed have became a pet to mankind, it does not necessarily mean that if mankind was to be extinct the gorilla population would follow in thier footsteps.
Without man the gorillas life may in fact be better. What has man done for gorilla that has benefitted their species? Without man there would be more food and a tremendous amount of unoccupied land. No gorilla would be caged in the zoo or any other form of prison because there would be no higher power to do so.
Every other creature, besides man, goes about its' own business in order to survive. Man has changed the gorillas natural habitat forever, but who says it cannot be restored if man were to die off?
Without man the gorillas life may in fact be better. What has man done for gorilla that has benefitted their species? Without man there would be more food and a tremendous amount of unoccupied land. No gorilla would be caged in the zoo or any other form of prison because there would be no higher power to do so.
Every other creature, besides man, goes about its' own business in order to survive. Man has changed the gorillas natural habitat forever, but who says it cannot be restored if man were to die off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)