Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] OT population concerns and Ishmael, was: Q for OldT
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/03 7:48:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
"We" (as in those who don't know our own limits when it comes to population)
would be all of us on this list because of the culture we were born into . . .
and most of the six billion people on the planet. The exceptions to "we" are
those people that still live tribally, usually as hunter/gatherers. (i.e.,
the !Kung in Africa.) Tribal peoples keep their own population down so that
they don't outgrow their food source.
People of our culture ("Takers" in Ishmael's lexicon) decided that we would
have no such limits, and have started making all the world about providing food
and other goodies for us. We try to exterminate species that also eat our
food, such as wolves. We approach our food and our population growth in a way
that is unbalanced -- we are wiping out biological diversity on the planet, and
the planet needs that diversity to survive. Therefore, *we* need it to
survive.
The solution is not about who gets to reproduce and who doesn't, because, as
you've said (and I agree), it's icky when people decide that for others. The
solution is about gradually reducing the food supply. I know this seems
counter-intuitive when you hear about famines and starvation, but those trends
started in agrarian societies, not among hunter/gatherers (who just kept walking
until there *was* food again). If there is less food (gradually), there will
be fewer of the species that consumes that food. Ask any biologist.
All this is in _Ishmael_. I'm still figuring out if I agree with it all, but
the ideas in this book are the newest, most exciting things I've read.
Period.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> But who's "we"?Oh yeah, I'd like to see that list. <BEG>
> Who will say who doesn't get to reproduce?
> (I have the beginnings of a list, but nobody quite thinks I'm the one to
> make that decision, and if anyone tries to make such a decision for others
> it's
> seen as evil.
"We" (as in those who don't know our own limits when it comes to population)
would be all of us on this list because of the culture we were born into . . .
and most of the six billion people on the planet. The exceptions to "we" are
those people that still live tribally, usually as hunter/gatherers. (i.e.,
the !Kung in Africa.) Tribal peoples keep their own population down so that
they don't outgrow their food source.
People of our culture ("Takers" in Ishmael's lexicon) decided that we would
have no such limits, and have started making all the world about providing food
and other goodies for us. We try to exterminate species that also eat our
food, such as wolves. We approach our food and our population growth in a way
that is unbalanced -- we are wiping out biological diversity on the planet, and
the planet needs that diversity to survive. Therefore, *we* need it to
survive.
The solution is not about who gets to reproduce and who doesn't, because, as
you've said (and I agree), it's icky when people decide that for others. The
solution is about gradually reducing the food supply. I know this seems
counter-intuitive when you hear about famines and starvation, but those trends
started in agrarian societies, not among hunter/gatherers (who just kept walking
until there *was* food again). If there is less food (gradually), there will
be fewer of the species that consumes that food. Ask any biologist.
All this is in _Ishmael_. I'm still figuring out if I agree with it all, but
the ideas in this book are the newest, most exciting things I've read.
Period.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/2003 9:05:05 PM Mountain Standard Time,
arcarpenter@... writes:
-=-People of our culture ("Takers" in Ishmael's lexicon) decided that we
would
have no such limits, and have started making all the world about providing
food
and other goodies for us. -=-
There was no moment, and no councel meeting, and not even a good conspiracy,
in which any such thing was decided.
Three major world religions have it right in the story of the creation of the
first man that the animals and plants are his to use, and he can name them
and do whatever he wants with them. (Except have sex with them, some say was
clarified later.)
One of those major world religions came to hold it as a lack of faith in God
to concern oneself with anything longterm, because they were going to be taken
away from this temporary earth and SOON.
So insofar as culture is based on religion, we have a basis for that thinking.
If "we" is the people on this list, one thing we all have in common is that
we've all had children. Most of us more than one, and lots of more than two.
Another absolute commonality is we use computers. Glass, expensive plastics,
expensive metals (small amounts, but still) chips prepared in ways that waste
water in Albuquerque (speaking only for Intel). Then there's the electricity
and the radiation.
-=- If there is less food (gradually), there will
be fewer of the species that consumes that food. Ask any biologist.-=-
But there's some amount of killing each other for the food that's left.
-=- I'm still figuring out if I agree with it all, but
the ideas in this book are the newest, most exciting things I've read. -=-
Unschooling is kind of exciting to me, and I can actually do it (unlike
changing the course of food production on the planet, or changing the basis for
Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
arcarpenter@... writes:
-=-People of our culture ("Takers" in Ishmael's lexicon) decided that we
would
have no such limits, and have started making all the world about providing
food
and other goodies for us. -=-
There was no moment, and no councel meeting, and not even a good conspiracy,
in which any such thing was decided.
Three major world religions have it right in the story of the creation of the
first man that the animals and plants are his to use, and he can name them
and do whatever he wants with them. (Except have sex with them, some say was
clarified later.)
One of those major world religions came to hold it as a lack of faith in God
to concern oneself with anything longterm, because they were going to be taken
away from this temporary earth and SOON.
So insofar as culture is based on religion, we have a basis for that thinking.
If "we" is the people on this list, one thing we all have in common is that
we've all had children. Most of us more than one, and lots of more than two.
Another absolute commonality is we use computers. Glass, expensive plastics,
expensive metals (small amounts, but still) chips prepared in ways that waste
water in Albuquerque (speaking only for Intel). Then there's the electricity
and the radiation.
-=- If there is less food (gradually), there will
be fewer of the species that consumes that food. Ask any biologist.-=-
But there's some amount of killing each other for the food that's left.
-=- I'm still figuring out if I agree with it all, but
the ideas in this book are the newest, most exciting things I've read. -=-
Unschooling is kind of exciting to me, and I can actually do it (unlike
changing the course of food production on the planet, or changing the basis for
Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures).
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/7/03 11:24:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
the courage to investigate it again. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't started
reading that series.
<and I can actually do it (unlike
I've thought of and agreed with most of your points before, but I think they
can more or less be integrated into this way of thinking. What I love about
this POV is that I don't have to feel guilty for owning a computer or having 2
kids -- there's no one right way to live. The problem is less in the
individual choices we're making and more in the fact that there are just too many of
us. We'll either fix that or we won't -- but I like to think about how to go
about it. It's my own personal unschooling -- I am compelled to think about
these ideas.
But I can certainly do it on my own time -- I just wanted to reply to your
point and flesh out my POV a bit. And get the name _Ishmael_ out there for
any readers that might be interested. <BEG> I'm done.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> Unschooling is kind of exciting to me,To me, too. <G> Reading _My Ishmael_ (one of the follow-up books) gave me
the courage to investigate it again. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't started
reading that series.
<and I can actually do it (unlike
> changing the course of food production on the planet, or changing the basisYep, and I appreciate that you've helped me to be able to do it, too. <g>
> for
> Judeo-Christian and Islamic cultures).
I've thought of and agreed with most of your points before, but I think they
can more or less be integrated into this way of thinking. What I love about
this POV is that I don't have to feel guilty for owning a computer or having 2
kids -- there's no one right way to live. The problem is less in the
individual choices we're making and more in the fact that there are just too many of
us. We'll either fix that or we won't -- but I like to think about how to go
about it. It's my own personal unschooling -- I am compelled to think about
these ideas.
But I can certainly do it on my own time -- I just wanted to reply to your
point and flesh out my POV a bit. And get the name _Ishmael_ out there for
any readers that might be interested. <BEG> I'm done.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]