defacto7
defacto7's JournalThe author is both right and wrong.
From my vantage point the assessment of our global infrastructure is on the mark, the assessment of sustainability is also within realistic bounds. It's also important to make necessary changes to "everything" if we want to survive as a species or even have a viable planet. The error is not in the assessment or the attitude, where it fails is in a reality that no one wants to face or admit; the proposed answer to the dilemma will never happen. The human race or civilization as we know it has reached a point where failure is imminent.
After a point probably in the 18th century or maybe in ancient times depending on your take, we were destined to die out and humanity will do that sooner than later. With our best efforts we can extend that demise to a point or maybe not. This is not to say we give up and die, that is not my point. We as a species fight to live and that is part of our evolution but it is also what makes us more redundant as an earth organism. We fight too much, we take and do not give back. Our brain probably developed too quickly for some catastrophic reason and we have never evolved to fit the scheme of successful animals. With the size of the population, the extremes in ideology, technology that is beyond our ability to control, inability to be part of the whole, and no global will to survive that trumps momentary greed, we do not have the ability to be more than a blip in global time.
The ocean is where life began and the ocean will reclaim us because of our shortsightedness. The ocean will destroy us just as it wiped out 99.999% of all life forms at least 5 times in earth's history through chemical changes. We have accelerated its normal meter and all we can hope and work for is an extension. But that hope and work is more an ideological attempt to apologize than realistic hope for revitalization of a planet that is virtually trashed to hell.
If this is too much to take, it's understandable. We are compelled to feel by left brain evolution that our human existence is eternal and for some that is a good way to find peace and to stay the course. But for those of us that want to see ourselves for what we really are and the planet for what it really is in the cosmos, this less than hopeful scenario is necessarily our lost game.
The Bible isn't even a work
let alone most important. It's a disjointed mishmash of mostly badly translated and hacked over crib notes from more writers and re-writers and medicinal fixers than any other work in history. In that, it is the most important example of bad literature ever. As far as influence, it can't be denied that such horribly written literature would have a great effect on centuries of societies that had either no choice but to use it under duress, use it as prime allegory for public response, or as a compass toward the non-divine.
From a literary standpoint, the Bible just may be the most interruptive conglomeration of anonymous writing that has caused so much anti-intellectualism over nonsense of all Western Literature.
I can agree with that.
I think most of US history has been a fight for control between the people and the powerful. The government most of us were taught about in 5th grade has in reality never exited. But as a dream of possibilities within any political system it was a gallant effort by those who had idealistic hopes for humanity and it could have been quite a strong and useful stepping stone toward freedom, peace, equality and justice. It could never have been the final structure of human culture and would have been superseded by better alternatives. But the direction we are going now is the product of greed and the intent of a powerful few. If it continues in this direction, our US version of democracy has failed.
Profile Information
Name: Defacto7Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Portland, OR
Home country: not sure anymore
Current location: depends on which proxy I'm using
Member since: Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:44 AM
Number of posts: 13,485