From: u925599@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Chris Stapelberg)
Subject: Re:Re: Are we an experiment ?
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:02:22 GMT

In article <Aug.26.12.00.17.1992.13539@dropout.rutgers.edu>, mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) writes:
> 
> Hi Charles!
Great letter, man, thanks!
You have raised some very good, logical arguments in favour of 
the human race.
You write:

> ... since we (or at least I) have no experience with civilizations on
> other planets, I cannot really judge whether our planet is "average".
>
I make the following assumptions when I refer to us as "average":
Consider the first spark of self-awareness (i.e. intelligence)
on the one end of the spectrum and the most advanced form of (some
would call it spiritual) consciousness, i.e the total awareness and 
oneness with all things, and almost paradoxically the lack of self-
interest, on the other.
Now I agree that some people are closer to one extreme than the other in
both directions, but taking a mean estimate it is safe to say that the
human race in its entirety falls somewhere in the middle ("average").
 
>    However, I do have problems with the "declining civilization"
> comments.  Declining in what way? 

You have considered all the technological advances and intellectual
advances that human-kind have made.The peaceful ones are truly amazing,
and I would be the last to put down our progress in the last centuries.
(If I wasn't fascinated with technology you wouldn't be reading this!)
But consider the idea that technology is but the byproduct of a
boundless curiosity, an almost aggressive intelligence and a basic need
for a dynamic existance.
These qualities have served us well in getting where we are now.But
where are people now?
AS you yourself have pointed out,people are still starving.
But besides that look at what has become of our moral values:
Anyone can buy anything.
People will kill for the smallest payments (food, a few dollars, a fuck)
Love and marriage have deteriorated into custody battles and alimony
arguments.
 Some large religious groups have become either a lucrative afterlife 
insurance scam or a "religious" form of Dungeons and Dragons.
At the risk of sounding like a preacher I will not go on.But you live 
here too, you know the list is endless.
Now here is the point. We are declining morally, in terms of values and
integrity as a human race. Thus we are fast losing our most basic
infrastructure, the very backbone of a healthy civilisation.
And, as any chiropractor will tell you, without a healthy skeleton you're
pretty much on the decline, whether a person or a civilisation!

Time brings me to close this communication again.
I will try to answer to the rest of your letter when I can.
In the mean time, please feel free to argue the above points.

Regards, 
Chris.

 Address : u925599@postoffice.utas.edu.au



 By at least some measures, this
> isn't so.  For instance, in energy production/consumption (whatever
> you may think of that), the global civilization is growing steadily.
> Use of non-native (i.e. sweat of the brow) energy sources allows more
> food to be grown, more education to occur, etc.  More people are alive
> today than ever before (to a certain extent, a sign that there is more
> food.)  The very act of city-building requires enough "free labor"
> (that is, people not out growing or hunting food) to do so.  Perhaps
> you should state your measurements of "civilization".
> 
>    Anyway, I would suspect that given the average life-span of humans,
> an "observer race" would be amazed, and not disgusted or even
> condescendingly amused, at the progress human-kind has made.  From the
> pony express to mach 3 aircraft (and television, and telephones,
> and...) in only 100 years (3 generations)?  From electric lights to
> landing on the moon in only 100 years?  From the ships that require
> sails (or oars) to move to the computer you're reading this on now in
> less than 200?  Pretty amazing, really.
> 
>    Human-kind's aggressive streak (which is pretty wide, we'll all
> agree) is part of the cause of this remarkable growth.  Competition
> amongst nations, corporations, and individuals drives everyone to
> achieve more, to do more.  Is this bad?  Well, maybe.  But
> civilization of any sort implies the ability to use force to protect
> one's own group, and grow as required, to prosper, to survive.  (New
> elements of a civilization, for instance the ability to travel to
> other star systems cannot merely be wished into existance.)
> 
>    As for the rich helping the poor, it is often more complex than
> just the rich giving the poor stuff.  For instance, currently in
> Somalia, food and medical shipments are often stolen by Somalis
> themselves (that is, criminals within Somalia) before it can reach the
> people it is intended for.  Whose fault is that?  The rich countries?
> Why?  The starving Somalis?  Why?  What should the rich countries do -
> impose "order" by force (by imposing a military/political solution)?
> Why?  If, as some say, the Japanese are making cars that are turning
> rich (relatively) people in the US (workers in Detroit) into poor
> people, is that rich vs. rich and should be ignored?  The individuals
> involved would not agree...  If population growth (for whatever
> reason) is partial cause for starvation in a poor country, who needs
> to change - the rich, by giving more, or the poor, by having fewer
> children?  How do you convince the poor farmer, who needs many sons to
> tend his land in his old age that he shouldn't have them?  How do you
> convince the "rich" that they have to give away stuff no matter how
> many people they have to subsidize?  Its thorny, to be sure, and not
> really solvable easily.
> 
> 
>    If you're talking spirituality, spiritual growth can only really
> come when you know where your next meal is coming from.  Human-kind is
> progressing, I think -- certainly we do not live in a Nirvana, but we
> are going somewhere, and in my opinion it will be a better place.  If
> one looks at a longer trend than, say, the last 12 years (which has
> seen amazing progress as well), one might come to different
> conclusions than you do; but certainly if aliens are watching us,
> I suspect they're more likely to take the "long view".
> 
> 
> 
> Charles
> 
>