From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who cares
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:33:38 GMT
	<l6m0ngINNq0j@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> <12363@inews.intel.com> 
	<1992Jul21.120653.25543@linus.mitre.org>

In article <12363@inews.intel.com> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
p>And being a consumer, I do destroy the
p>environment, although I try to minimize my impact.

In article <1992Jul21.120653.25543@linus.mitre.org> 
heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger) writes:
j>How could you be a consumer and not destroy the environment, unless you
j>lived an utterly organic lifestyle, and eschewed everything such as
j>prepared foods, electricity, motor transportation, etc.?

That was my point. I am a consumer living a Western lifestyle therefore I
destroy the environment. As you say, there are things I can do to minimize
my impact, but the fact remains and I have no intention of becoming a Jain,
yet.

j>What about evolution?  Male agression was bred into us over the
j>millenia because it helped perpetuate the species, and now, we are to
j>throw it all away in the blink of an eye because it's Politically
j>Incorrect.  Don't get me wrong -- I do not for a moment condone rape,
j>spousal abuse, discrimination based on gender, etc., all of which I
j>view as crimes.  However, I believe it is arrogant for the human race
j>to suddenly devalue everything that nature bred into us over centuries
j>of evolution.

We are a long way from a "natural" animal. Paleolithic Homo sapien sapien who
lived from 100,000 to 12,000 years ago was a "natural" nature-bred animal.
When we discovered domestication of plants and animals 12,000 years ago,
we started major changes in the lifestyle and culture of Homo sapien sapien.
Most of what we see in humans today is only 12,000 years old at the most.
Hence unnatural or not bred by nature. That doesn't mean we should throw it
all away, but we'd better start understanding it and making the modifications
required to ensure our survival. Our genes will not save us now. We have
invented the modern world and we run a great deal of it. If we wish to leave
something for our children, we'd better start running it better. We have gone 
beyond the natural world governed by the genes. From the genetic standpoint, 
we are clearly out of control. We threaten the existance of the earth with 
our power and numbers. How natural is that? The only thing we have guiding us 
now is culture which represents our different understandings of how we run
the world. 

As for male agression, I'm not sure of its value. If by that you mean war
it seems like something we could do without. What are the positive values
of male agression? I think there are some, but I'll leave that for you to
explain. This is also called the warrior. Not the warrior in the sense of
war but the warrior in the sense of getting something done quickly. Doing
something as opposed to being something.

j>Perhaps it is time for the next evolutionary step, but will any of us
j>see it in our lifetimes?  I doubt it, given the amount of time required
j>by evolution.  That, however, does not mean that we should not strive
j>for it, but it does mean that the Oppressed Masses [tm] could be a bit
j>more understanding of the Straight White Males [tm, again] who don't
j>buy into the old ways.

Any change we undergo in culture is not evolutionary in the Darwinian sense.
It could happen quick, it could happen slow. From our progress so far, I
think it is unlikely we will survive long enough as a species to see any
"evolutionary" genetic change. And as for the Oppressed Masses [tm] being
more understanding of Straight White Males [tm] who don't buy into the old
ways, I think you've got a good point there. We need each other. The 
Oppressed Masses [tm] can't make many changes because they don't have the
numbers or the power. The Straight White Males [tm] often don't see any
reasons for change. So the purpose of the OM is to make known to the SWM that
oppression exists. And the purpose of the SWM is to see the problems and
make corrections. After all if one is not free then the freedom of the rest
is threatened. You will agree that this is supposed to be a democracy for
all with equality of rights, justice and opertunity for all. In the final
analysis, we are all minorities. The minority of the individual.

j>If *you*, by your *personal* lifestyle, cannot convince your children
j>that you are not an oppressor, then you're not doing enough. 

That's not as easy as it looks. Just forty years ago it was understood that
a woman's place was in the home and Blacks were not slaves but they were
expected to stay on their side of town and ride in the back of the bus. We
look back on that now and say that was stupid and blatantly oppressive, but
who's to say our children won't view us in a similar light? What are we
doing today that we see as standard practice that our children will see as
blatant oppression? Just something to think about, that's all.

j>But it's
j>not your children you should be concerned with here.  The people to
j>worry about are those who barely know you, but still label you as an
j>oppressor, because of the way you look.  It's a form of discrimination
j>that is just as heinous as the traditional forms, and yet people still
j>do not seem to understand.

I see the point you are argueing. That's commonly called reverse 
descrimination. I'm not sure it's a major problem yet, maybe someday it
will be. I don't really know how to address this problem whether it is
real or perceived. I do see it as a major hurdle in the way of acheiving
equality. Do you think that arguement could be used to halt progress?

From: Frank.Perricone@f814.n355.z1.therose.pdx.com (Frank Perricone)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com