Comments on: All Politics is Personal

By: E. Locke

E. Locke — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:14:06 +0000

I think that we are getting lost in a very interesting way. Lost in a literal way, this “discussion” getting dovetailed by the odd opinions and priorities of others, lost in a philosophical way because we are missing a large part of the authors point, and lost as a society because we value satisfaction above all else.
I think that we can use this as an example of contrast to give us hope. To look at a man going on so long a life makes you aware of the benchmarks of our society. Within this one mans lifetime the most drastic changes to our philosophical, technological and ecological environments have occurred. The stubborn ideology of old is becoming too far displaced to be relevant, and thus we see how much our cultural philosophy must adapt. Satisfaction needs to be gained from more simple terms, if we claw at life to make us happy we are to distracted to realize that we are filled with vast potential for happiness within really experiencing our lives as a series of moments.
The roads that displace our wild animals and move us from place to place are an example of satisfaction with no regard to forethought. the road is not evil, nor the peoples who laid it. The road is stubborn satisfaction, the shortest distance between two points. The old way of living brought you from beginning to end as quickly as possible with little attention to beauty along the way. This old man raced along his whole life and now at its end, is holding of with such ferocity because he has reached his destination and missed the journey. Overpopulation, while a large concern, is not the main issue here, quality of life is. There is a quality that can only be earned by the recognition of how beautiful transition, change, and impermanence are. look at the old and see how adaptable the young are by comparison, this is where i find hope.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:34:03 +0000

Well, she started it!

By: James Keye

James Keye — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:43:39 +0000

That such inanity would generate from this essay is an interesting comment on its thesis, no matter how inadvertent.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:16:26 +0000

Whatever.

By: bozh

bozh — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:00:18 +0000

but, imv (In my view), much greater danger to biota is overwaste and -(ab)use of resources in richer lands than even increase of pop to even 10bn.
an amer may waste in value hundred times mor that what a child in congo may use.
w. total ratio being 1000-1 in use of resources in favor of an amer child.
and this is one of the reasons why euro/US/japan/isr like wars.
and, at present, we r powerless to even slow dwn the extent of abuse let alone diminish it.
so, i can only talk and lament. thnx

By: Tree

Tree — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:28:43 +0000

Angry Peasant, so sorry, I didn’t realize I was communicating with a stupid asshole. I’ll use smaller words next time so you understand better what I’m saying because it’s clear you don’t have a clue what I’m about or what I meant.

By: john andrews

john andrews — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:37:12 +0000

James,

Sorry to read about the tough time you and your family are having. I’ve been there – it’s not nice.

On the other main point you raised, I have to agree with rg: overpopulation is the problem; so it would seem the solution is population reduction. I could not, of course, support any measure that forced a reduction, but it would be a simple enough thing to strongly encourage it.

It seems to me that there are two very strong opposition forces to such a campaign: big business and the church, both of which want continued population growth for the same reason: their own expansion.

The long term future of the planet depends on humans somehow restricting their own numbers. The Chinese seem to have shown that a reasonably humane approach to this can be achieved by strongly encouraging couples to have just one child. Something like the Chinese practice needs to be encouraged internationally (does the Chinese lead in population reduction make it the most ecologically advanced nation on Earth? Discuss.)

It’s unacceptable, obviously, to expect population reduction in other countries without practicing it in our own. Leading by example in anything is the only method that is morally supportable.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:40:12 +0000

And by the way, I detest females who feel the need to use the adjective, “Creepy.” Grow up and adopt a vocabulary that extends beyond your relations with dorks in high school.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:33:38 +0000

Well, I was speaking a bit flippantly in response to RG the LG’s comments about too many humans creating harm, and that death becomes a solution to our problems. In essence what I was saying was if you have to kill people, it might as well be the evil ones. That’s where you jump in with your spineless objectivity. There’s good and evil in the world, and, yes, sometimes it’s a matter of opinion, in little instances here and there. But you can’t honestly say that Bush, Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Saharto, Pol Pot, Nero, ad infinitum did anyone any damn good. No. They tortured, they, killed, they impoverished and oppressed millions. Millions. No grey areas there. So don’t give me that fence-straddling liberal shit. People like you are the reason no actual progress is ever made in the areas of reform. You spend too much time trying not to hate anyone. That’s why the ruthless conservatives have been whipping our hides for thirty years. Sometimes you need to get angry and hate evil people. Hugging a tree isn’t enough.

By: Tree

Tree — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:24:46 +0000

The evil can always become good and the good can always become evil. Once you start determining who is good and who is evil you become just…creepy. Or another Hitler or Bush or any number of people who feel they know what is best for everyone.
Sure, there are clear cut cases either way but when one states “fry the evil” I get a little worried. What’s evil to you is good to someone else. Or in other words, one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s insurgent.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:05:47 +0000

I believe life is precious. However, it is only from a very personal perspective. To me, my life is precious. When you realize how ridiculously short it is, and that you’re never, ever, ever going to have it again, it must be precious to any sane person. But, as I said, only in a very personal sense. My life; certainly my son’s life; my brother’s, mother’s, best friends, etc.; all these lives are precious to me. George Bush’s? Quite the contrary. The jerk across town? No. The loudmouth at work? Nope. But empathy is what allows us to recognize others’ feelings of invaluability concerning their own lives. Basically, this is what differentiates a Ghandi from a George Bush. Those who cannot see or choose not to see the importance of life and quality of life to others are the very ones who do not deserve the same regard. I guess what I’m saying is, fry the evil; make room for the good.

By: kalidas

kalidas — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:50:37 +0000

I ain’t afraid of death.
It’s the dying part that bothers me.

By: rg the lg

rg the lg — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:42:46 +0000

The dilemma of staying alive … in spite of the fact that life becomes something torturous and inhumane.

But consider the concept of the Hippocratic Oath … which boiled down to the essential is ‘do not harm.’ Harm has been taken to mean … death. The oath has been transmogrified into ‘allow no death’ … as if death were the only harm.

If global warming has a single cause it is that there are simply too many humans on the planet. Too many humans are creating harm … and thus death becomes not an enemy of life, but a solution.

If we would only let ourselves die when attacked by a bacterium or a virus … we, collectively, would do less harm

RG the LG

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:23:39 +0000

James,
I had a similar experience with both my mother, and her youngest sister (close to my age), and my aunt, all going within a year.
I found it very difficult, as they all seemed to have such a fear of death, dying, and permitted the people in white coats to control their leaving.
I thought this funny, as they were all gleeful aethists, who had transferred their faith to the doyens of medical technology, doctors are the new god.
In one case, the medicos performed needless surgery, (a less than 1% survival rate) and outright lied to the family about her survival chances, I assume in aid of valuable research, leading her into 2 months of terrible suffering.
This is an important issue, and one I think we will all be fighting about in the next 20 years

By: bozh

bozh — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:45:28 +0000

ab politics,
a woman told her husband and me to stop talking ab politics; however, she never espied that by banning talk ab ‘politics’, one is engaging in ‘politics’
this attitude is called “tu quo- que”
actuall, we were talking ab ethanol, wmd, foods, history but to her it’s all politics.

who taught her to think so? other people: media, schools, clergy i think.
she also thought she cld pull that one over me. how ab her husband? was he onto it, too?
i’m sure she’s also for free speech if the speech is ab approval of what the ruling class teaches. thnx