From: heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who cares
Date: 22 Jul 92 11:47:42 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <12381@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>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.

Then why beat ourselves about the head and shoulders over it?  If you
and me and everyone else on the net does our own little bit to help
alleviate the situation, we can live with a clear conscience.

>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.

I agree we are very far away the "natural" animal, but I don't see the
last 12,000 years as being unnatural.  Perhaps, in the larger scheme of
things, it is just another evolutionary step.  But now, HSS is self-
aware to the point where the evolutionary change is uncomfortable, due
to the relative blinding speed of the step.

>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. 

I agree that HSS must change their current living patterns on the
earth, but I wonder how we are to control our power, and particularly
our numbers.  Controlling power through treaties, negotiations, etc.
seems relatively simple when compared to controlling our numbers.  I
guess communist China has the right idea in that regard?

>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.

No, I don't mean war-like aggression, but I do mean the male force as
described by Robert Bly in _Iron John_.  It's that resolute will to be
a man, to be responsible, loving, nurturing; and also to be "tough",
strong-willed, and positive.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

But the OMs *do* have the numbers, if not the power.  SWMs are a
numerical minority in the USA (compared to Straight White Women).  The
OMs need to get out and vote for change.  I, for one, am glad to see
many more women entering and winning political contests throughout the
US.  More women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, etc. should be
encouraged to enter the political arena as candidates, based on the gains
so far.

>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.

Nitpick:  The US is a constitutional republic, not a true democracy, as
I understand the distinction.

I agree that there should be equality of rights, justice, and
opportunity for all.  However, I don't see the value in denying any of
those rights to any individual, including SWMs, in order to address
wrongs done in the past by other individuals.

>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.

True.  Can you think of any examples from today?

>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?

No the argument should not be used to halt progress.  I think we will
have achieved something when individual rights, justice, and
opportunity are truly color-, gender-, sexual preference-, religion-,
etc., etc. -blind.  It's sad, however, that we seem unable to pull some
people up, without tearing others down.

Regards,

Jeff H...
Newsgroups: alt.pagan