Civilization=bad (was Philosophy, etc.)

[Guest guest]

> Thus I would not consider trying to convince you that, say, your

> belief that

> civilization = bad constitutes a belief (and one shared by very few

> others)

 

I must say, though, that this is an interesting insight

(civilization=bad) and one that I have thought about in the past,

although I may not have thought about it in that simple a phrase. I

have realized that it is civilization that has grown like cancer on the

planet (have you seen satellite photos?) It is civilization that paves

over paradise and manipulates the environment to suit it's desires.

Other animals (in nature) may manipulate the environment (making nests,

boring holes, etc.), but not to the extent that humans do/have.

 

It has also occurred to me that this may be a result of having

manipulated our " food " . (People who are more knowledgeable, feel free

to jump in here.) Once we discovered weapons and tools, as well as fire

(cooking) and began getting away from our " natural " foods, we began (or

continued on a greater scale) migrating to all " corners " of the planet

and began a path towards overpopulating the planet and damaging the

very planet that sustains us. If we had continued eating all raw foods,

would we be in this mess that we are now?

 

Jeff

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,

 

 

 

Well, I for one am grateful for the fact that I have a house, books,

computers, musical instruments and other fun stuff. And technology has made

it possible for many fine raw foods to be delivered to my local store. It

is interesting that most people who think civilization is a curse cannot

bring themselves to give up their cars, computers, houses, etc.

 

 

 

I think it's good to question established " wisdom, " whether it's that meat

is good for you, HIV=AIDS, we are in the midst of a population explosion, or

whatever. That doesn't mean that the alternative theories are necessarily

correct either, but keeping an open mind gets eventually gets us closer to

the truth, IMO.

 

 

 

For instance, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the earth is

not overpopulated at all, and that in the not too distant future, when the

world's population peaks at 7.5 to 9 billion, we may be having a discussion

about the problem of underpopulation. This is based on close examination of

current birth rates, which have been falling worldwide for some time. Type

" overpopulation myth " into Google and you will find a lot written about

this.

 

 

 

In the long run, I don't see humans as having much overall impact on the

earth. We have been here an infinitesimal fraction of the age of the earth,

and we will be gone long before the earth is. Far from being a " cancer, "

the earth may remember us, if at all, as an itch it had for a fraction of a

second back when it was the equivalent of a human 2-year-old.

 

 

 

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If these two Hong Kong children, Stephanie and Shan Shan, had been born a

just few miles north of Kowloon Island, in mainland China, they would very

possibly have become victims of the Asian gendercide of abortion.

 

There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's population will most

likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion. Other

predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In

either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. The world may soon be

facing an under-population crisis -- a prospect that has all but escaped

media scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

RawSeattle [RawSeattle ] On

Behalf Of Jeff Rogers

Saturday, July 15, 2006 7:03 AM

RawSeattle

Re: [RawSeattle] Civilization=bad (was Philosophy, etc.)

 

 

 

> Thus I would not consider trying to convince you that, say, your

> belief that

> civilization = bad constitutes a belief (and one shared by very few

> others)

 

I must say, though, that this is an interesting insight

(civilization=bad) and one that I have thought about in the past,

although I may not have thought about it in that simple a phrase. I

have realized that it is civilization that has grown like cancer on the

planet (have you seen satellite photos?) It is civilization that paves

over paradise and manipulates the environment to suit it's desires.

Other animals (in nature) may manipulate the environment (making nests,

boring holes, etc.), but not to the extent that humans do/have.

 

It has also occurred to me that this may be a result of having

manipulated our " food " . (People who are more knowledgeable, feel free

to jump in here.) Once we discovered weapons and tools, as well as fire

(cooking) and began getting away from our " natural " foods, we began (or

continued on a greater scale) migrating to all " corners " of the planet

and began a path towards overpopulating the planet and damaging the

very planet that sustains us. If we had continued eating all raw foods,

would we be in this mess that we are now?

 

Jeff

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark,

 

Good points.

 

> For instance, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the

> earth is

> not overpopulated at all

 

The way I'm looking at it is we are overpopulated given the way that we

are using (abusing) and treating the planet. I realize that if, instead

of contributing to polluting and wasting the planet's resources, we

were using resources efficiently, then the planet could probably

support a much larger population.

 

> The world may soon be facing an under-population crisis

 

Is there such a thing? I suspect that the world would survive just fine

without any humans!

 

Jeff