The Universal Model of Sustainable Earth:
The Seed Vision<sup>1</sup>.
(online: The Universal Model of Sustainable Earth: The Seed Vision. (https://www.modelearth.org/seed.html) )
(updated from time to time)
We have to know what kind of world we want to live in. The challenge is to come up with a goal, an ideal model of a world that literally would appeal to all, so that we stop fighting over our differences--a no longer supportable practice, and focus on achieving a harmonious, truly sustainable co-existence on Earth, instead.
I think that as long as we can all agree that we all want to live sustainably, there might just be such a model that would accommodate all of us on one planet:
Imagine an Earth where humans exist in zero population growth communities situated amidst wild, by humans unregulated nature where all the other species that we share this planet with live untroubled by humans.
These communities could exist at what-so-ever level of complexity of sustainability (from "hunter-gatherer" way of life to anything more complex), as long as they would be transparently and demonstrably sustainable, so that they would not adversely affect the existence of other human communities and other life on Earth.
A great number of variations on this "seed vision" suggests itself--the result would still be a humanity that would harmoniously exist with itself and all other life on Earth, providing that humanity would adhere strictly to the "zero population growth" policy and to living demonstrably and transparently sustainably.
A way of providing a satisfactory definition of "sustainable"/"sustainably" would be to demonstrate transparently in models (of any apropriate kind) any situations that would purport anything to be "sustainable".
Please--also see "The Ideal Sustainable Earth Model: Proposal" (https://www.modelearth.org/ideal.html) (draft)-
The Ideal Sustainable Earth Model: Proposal. (https://www.modelearth.org/ideal.html) ;
(foot)note in "The Ideal Sustainable Earth Model: Proposal" suggests a way of "evolving" more complex sustainable designs from simple ones.
I have suspicion that this "universal" model is not an unknown idea, however I cannot remember where I saw it--it could well have been a sci-fi book;
I would appreciate pointing out to me where else this idea might exist!
Notes
1) "Vision" harks back to Donella Meadows' "visioning"/"envisioning", which owes its being to Robert Fritz's "Technologies For Creating" (TFC). What "visioning"/"envisioning" is for Donella Meadows, Robert Fritz calls a "choice". Fritz' The Path of Least Resistance (Fritz 1984) is a necessary reading for anyone who wants to understand what "visioning"/"envisioning" is.
Donella Meadows' Envisioning a Sustainable World (https://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Envisioning.DMeadows.pdf), -
www.sustainer.org/pubs/Envisioning.DMeadows.pdf (https://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Envisioning.DMeadows.pdf)
and what I wrote on her "visioning"/"envisioning" concept:
"Visioning": Global Citizens Designing a Sustainable World Together (https://www.modelearth.org/donella-vision.html) -
Donella Meadows' "Visioning" (https://www.modelearth.org/donella-vision.html).
In Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update the authors write about the "sustainable revolution", the next biggest social change coming. (Meadows, et al. 2004, chapter 8, p273)
But they caution: "A sustainable world can never be fully realized until it is widely envisioned.The vision must be built up by many people before it is complete and compelling."
The Universal Sustainable Earth Model (The Seed Vision) is a "complete", all-encompassing vision of a sustainable Earth; It is complete, because any sustainable life-style can be accommodated within the model, as long as that "life-style" indeed is provably sustainable.
What is needed now is to make this all-encompassing vision of a sustainable Earth "compelling".
Bibliography:
Fritz, Robert
1984 The Path of Least Resistance. Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0
Meadows, Donella H., Jorgen Randers and Dennis Meadows
2004 Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.
White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company
A synopsis of Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Online at the Sustainability Institute (founded by Donella Meadows): <https://www.sustainer.org/pubs/limitstogrowth.pdf> (accessed 10/06/2009)
FINIS
Speak2Truth
07-21-2010, 05:05 PM
It is an interesting notion so let's ask a few questions.
What is the standard of living and what degree of technology, manufacturing, medicine, transportation, power generation and waste disposal is required to support it?
What is the human population reduction required to achieve this minimal degree of contact between "tribal" groups who might fight over differing ideas (keeping the Islamists away from the rest of the folks, for example).
How do you prevent people believing in aggressive ideologies from simply walking over to someone else's colony and taking control - or from ignoring laws prohibiting excessive baby production?
What degree of government control and monitoring is required to establish the global, forceful control necessary to compel everyone to "play nice"?
Who will be trusted with the reins of such power? Machines? After all, the very worst sorts of humans are the most attracted to the halls of power and once they get it, they use it.
It's a pretty picture of a small community yet I assert a great degree of violent force may be necessary to first achieve it then to compel humans to live that way, since that is not the natural state for humans in general. While it may be possible for some like-minded individuals to form such a community, they will only continue to exist in that manner because rough, aggressive persons protect them from the rest of humanity.
COEXIST makes a nice bumper sticker but it is not human nature. That's why we developed the capacity for warfare to defend ourselves from those who choose not to peacefully coexist.
A strong defense may be sustainable. Defenselessness is not.
hearthstone
07-22-2010, 04:24 PM
Dear Speak2Truth.
This is just a sketch, but I hope there might be a few bits to start a discussion with:
You describe (a) bad scenario(s) that would be happening with an ideal that would be imposed on people, not one that would be a result of co-operative effort of all willing to have a say in their own (and anybody else's they'd care for) future.
There would be less violence in trying to reach a commonly arrived at and commonly held ideal--if anybody did not agree with the ideal, they'd say so, and they'd have a chance to improve on the ideal!
In the latest "universal model" it is assumed that it is a foregone conclusion that the future has to be sustainable.
There is a little problem--everybody's definition of sustainable seems to be different from everybody else's.
The way to get over this obstacle would be to demonstrate by what-so-ever expedient means that an idea indeed *is* sustainable.
One characteristic of anything "sustainable" is transparency; I would go as far as to say that the younger a child understands well a process, the greater possibility there is that that process is sustainable.
Which implies that this transparency would facilitate modeling of that whichever process; in a model that could be inspected from every-possible angle, in which it would be possible to run any physical/societal processes forth and back, with extra impediments--all in order to ensure that in real life there would be little chance of those what-so-ever processes not to be sustainable in real life!
The point is that *unless* there is an ideal of what this place should look at its optimum, accepted by everyone, we would just continue doing what we have been doing for millennia, with results evident. We would just continue fixing problems (and with our fixes we would be creating even more problems, as the practice is now), always looking in the direction where those problems are coming from. We would continue to be problem driven, never quite stopping and considering where we would like to end up, which is the reason for our continuing to degrade the general conditions for most life on this planet.
It does sound contrary, against the grain, to start looking *towards* what this planet Earth should be optimally to all of those who share it. But unless it becomes a common practice, we'll continue being driven to parts unknown by problems and violence.
All of the bad things you mention would, probably, continue happening, but with an ideal continuously being "hammered out" by all those who would be interested in doing so, the evil would start lessen. The notion that differences could be settled (in the process of "hammering out" of the ideal of how we *should" be getting along) before those differences would cause problems would start taking hold.
Of course, once the idea that the human population should be fixed at a level comfortable to all (with a lot of spare room for exigencies) is found to be attractive, then we can start worrying about how to inculcate the notion of no population growth in the generations to come. Right now we don't know how to do this yet. But if there is an obvious genuine need, the ways of fulfilling the need will be found.
Right now population growth is being considered as a good thing (consciously, or not), because growing population is a requirement for markets to grow, and the mechanism for culling populations (wars) is also conducive to growing profits (a "win-win" situation).
But think how different it would be, if any- and every-body would have a say in how the ideal Earth should look like! Only a few would put into the picture ongoing wars and deteriorating conditions then.
I think that most people would agree that our ideal existence on this planet would be "sustainable". of course--here comes the decades old catch--everybody's idea of what is "sustainable" is not same!, to the extent that the word "sustainable" is falling into disuse.
The definition of "sustainable", "sustainable" should be demonstrated in models.
For an instance: the simplest of models is in the form of thought experiments--it is easy to imagine and describe in mere words what a life in a closed system horticultural community (I would even suggest a hunter-gatherer community, but would I dare?) would be; Easy to imagine the cycle of food--from the fields and gardens to the house, waste from the house to the gardens and fields. Everything needed for life would basically be situated within a walking distance from one's threshold.
There would be no hi-tech medical care, perhaps, but there would also be no gigantic, non-sustainable, horrible problem causing infrastructure that is needed to produce hi-tech medical care to cause a host of further problems either! No computer modeling needed here, and if a sustainable horticultural community would not be satisfactory enough to some, it would be possible to imagine people getting together and devising ways of manufacturing anything, as long as those ways would remain transparently sustainable.
I imagine people in reality would vote with their feet--if they did not like a more complex, if sustainable life-style, they could easily go back to living more simply. ...
The whole way of starting living on Earth sustainably following a down-to-top would look thus:
* There would be an ideal of how things on Earth should be like that would be the result of an ongoing co-operative effort of *all* who have a stake in the future of this planet.
* once there is a recognizable ideal visible, it would be possible to start devising ways of how to achieve this goal--not before there is a recognizable ideal!
* Fixing problems from the past would still be going on, but now this process of doing so would not be in the driver seat!
Instead, there would be an ideal to achieve, everything else would be of secondary importance, but not neglected!
In practice the process of deciding the future for a simple community could look like this:
People would get together in the evening to sit around a fire, party a little and at the same time they would be deciding what their lives together should be like the next day.
The next day they would strive to achieve the goals they set for themselves the night before.
Hearthstone - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html
Speak2Truth
07-23-2010, 12:11 PM
I love all that you are saying. It's the kind of world in which I would like to live, very much. I want very much for all of us to work towards that vision of the future in which we take responsibility for our population numbers, our managing of waste and resource use to ensure sustainability and our own conscience in our treatment of others.
I am not in any way objecting to your vision when I point out that human nature is most unlikely to allow it.
While it is possible to bring together some people who share that vision and have them engage in its supporting practices, when one looks at all the different ideologies and (most often selfish) motives of people and governments around the world, I cannot see any way to accomplish what you say is a requirement:
"acceptance by everyone"
You are correct to state that as a requirement.
I once started a screenplay based on exactly what you are saying and I did not finish the screenplay. I figured out that to make it plausible, to avoid the Hollywood contrivances that make the audience groan, the protagonist would have to become the antagonist against whom any sensible person would fight tooth and nail for their own survival. I'm pondering whether to finish it anyway.
Have you read the Georgia Guidestones? I'm curious about your reaction to this:
Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones)
One more thing - I am intrigued by hypnosis sessions in which people are allegedly moved forward to future lives, in which they describe living a world much like the one you envision. They have stated that this only came to be as a result of massive catastrophe and death. It's the small number of survivors who "find God" and try to live in societies that won't repeat the mistakes of our present age.
hearthstone
07-25-2010, 03:46 AM
Ordinarily we want and do things, because circumstances force us to want and do them. As a consequence we often end up with results that we don't quite like.
It is different when we set our goals according to our own specifications. I this way we might end with results that we might even like, because--when it is up to us--why would be really want something that we would not like?
It is very hard for one person to think in such a way--i.e.: to not react to "outside" stimuli on regular basis, but set oneself a goal to accomplish, and *then* find ways of accomplishing this goal. This is no "new" thing, and it is also a very common-sensical thing when one stops to think about it: when I want something to accomplish, then I'd better know what that that I want to accomplish is (duh!), and I'd better want something that I end up liking!
I was made aware of this way of creating things into my life over some twenty years ago when I came across a book by Robert Fritz - The Path of Least Resistance (1984 Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0). I have been trying to practice this way of thinking ever since then (I even took a few courses and workshops, even though reading the book would have been enough--it's all in there) ...
By-the-way--Donella Meadows' "visioning"/"envisioning" finds its origins in Robert Fritz' TFC (Technologies For Creating) described in his The Path of Least Resistance (1984 Salem, MA: DMA Inc., ISBN: 0-930641-00-0).
I can testify that to think in this way is hard to do 100% of the time even after all those years of me trying to practice it, but this way of thinking comes very handy in times of confusion--I just have to remind myself of what I want to achieve, and then start devising ways of achieving whatever that it might be--it saved my sanity on occasions ... It doesn't mean that I achieve all that I set out to achieve, but, at least I know much better than I ever could *what* I want--which is invaluable, as I said, to me especially in hard times).
Trying to think in such a way for the whole humanity is necessary if we want to end up living in a world worth living in.
It would not be necessary that everybody starts referring to this "universal model";
Initially it would be enough to have such a model in existence on no matter how small a scale--its usefulness would become increasingly apparent with time, as it would be possible for anyone to actually put oneself into the picture of how one would like to live ideally in an optimal world, and synchronize, harmonize one's existence there with all others' ideas of their lives there. This would be opposed to the situation now where there is *no* such a publicly available/debatable and by anyone amendable model at all. All we have now is a very indistinct, very vague promises, unsubstantiated hopes that things might be taken care of by those in power--something that has rarely happened in the whole of humankind's history, and very unlikely to happen now.
That we want to end up living sustainably is obvious to any thinking human; The difficulty lies in the fact that "sustainability" means different things to different people, and if we do want to end up living sustainably we have to make sure that the term means the same thing to each of us.
I thought that the only way to unify all of our different ideas of what "sustainability" should be would be to actually start showing in models what we mean when we say "living sustainably"--to do it graphically, as if; modeling of societal processes is a well developed science already; In models we would be able to see what ways of living "sustainably" would be better than other ways of doing so, and doing it in models would gradually harmonize and unify all the different definitions of "sustainable" that there might be--we could "see" in models what ideas would work better than other ideas.
What you write about the nature of humanity is less true than what the Tibetan Lamas say (and what makes sense to me also): everybody wants to be happy; the only problem is that often one's happiness is incompatible with others' happiness.
If we choose to synchronize our different perceptions of what happiness might be in models, instead of in real life, we would save ourselves a lot of grief.
Have you read the Georgia Guidestones? I'm curious about your reaction to this:
To Georgia Guidestones--this is a prescriptive, top-down directive, not a consensual vision of things as they should be.
I would like to plug those guys who put it together into the "universal model", but I have yet to find a way how to contact the worthies of Ted Turner caliber.
"I am intrigued by hypnosis sessions in which people are allegedly moved forward to future lives, in which they describe living a world much like the one you envision. They have stated that this only came to be as a result of massive catastrophe and death. It's the small number of survivors who "find God" and try to live in societies that won't repeat the mistakes of our present age."
I wish we could find a God that would help us now to fix things--who says it's too late now?.
"I once started a screenplay based on exactly what you are saying and I did not finish the screenplay. I figured out that to make it plausible, to avoid the Hollywood contrivances that make the audience groan, the protagonist would have to become the antagonist against whom any sensible person would fight tooth and nail for their own survival. I'm pondering whether to finish it anyway."
The protagonist/antagonist should be the crash (environmental and societal) that some people believe is starting already, albeit not too close to our homes yet. This and the causes of it is the worthy enemy.
Speak2Truth wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccotalk/69989-updated-universal-model-sustainable-earth.html#post119058)
"I once started a screenplay based on exactly what you are saying and I did not finish the screenplay. I figured out that to make it plausible, to avoid the Hollywood contrivances that make the audience groan, the protagonist would have to become the antagonist against whom any sensible person would fight tooth and nail for their own survival. I'm pondering whether to finish it anyway."
I would be very curious to hear more of your screen play as if you were actually casting.
Round and round and round it goes and where it stops is in your clothes.
The ideal community will need an ideal psychology. In regards to the quote above, that method exists under the classic definition and practice of J.L Moreno's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_L._Moreno) "Academy of PsychoDrama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama)" He is the one who invented that word to describe his science of provocation
Based upon the statement that the human condition is provoked and not contrived.
Having the benefit of this in its classic form is to have a bank of auxiliary actors in the wings on call for the moment the evolving situation requires their particular perceptional sensitivity. As it plays out it is the provocateur who will use the full range of emotional literacy to provoke the resident emotion that is most dominant and then to accelerate it beyond its ability to maintain control, using the other actors to add fuel to the fire and control. The endpoint is cathartic and gives birth to something new the process is frightening it is the dividing line between honesty and masking.
The ideal must come into abeyance to the plausible
Where ideal and plausible have the greatest chance of meeting is where people pay their rent or become homeless, because land owners are enmeshed with The Territorial Imperative (https://www.ditext.com/ardrey/imperative/imperative.html)
The concept of the " The Territorial Imperative" is the main point to design for in combating the decimation this has and will have on all great dreams.
There is an odd cranky humor in life that teaches so well but its the rare one who finds these lessons
The territorial imperative is best seen in the dog and the reversal is found there as well, the dog runs to the fence barking at all creating the dividing line between us and them, wagging its tail looking back at its owners to show it is doing its duty and isn't it a good dog and its OK that there is an us and them
This will take place anytime anyone lives anywhere. So for success this must be avoided and to reverse the outcome reverse the word and so have god which means everyone is us and there is the freaky thing
To move forward with the ideal is not going to happen while people live in the same kind of houses with the same expenses and numbers to share them.
A very strange thing about a very unexplored Christian scripture.
"Where ever two or more are gathered in my name I will be there in their midst"
From a Morenian perspective we are all “The Creator”. This wonderful and powerful energy is within all of us. Psychodramatically speaking the smallest tangible number is 2-not one. It is two because of the encounter and the immense power there is when two people meet and create. It is here that real Genius and true Spirit emerge and are able to take form.
If God had a name, what would it be? And would you call it to his face? If you were faced with him in all his glory-What would you ask if you had just one question?
If God had a face what would it look like? And would you want to see, if seeing meant that you would have to believe?
Joan Osbourne (lyrics to a song)
Spirituality is bred into Psychodrama. Being a psychodramatist means to believe. It means to believe and have faith in the good that waits in all of us. A psychodramatist learns that we should not wait for others to conduct and lead, for we are all the main players of our own lives and we are all collectively responsible for the well being of the universal past, present and future.
But what does it mean to believe? Believe in what? In our world today it is extremely difficult for many of us to open ourselves up to something or someone that is not in reality sitting right next to us at any given time. It is difficult to put our trust and our energy into something that says there is good in the world, something that warms our hearts simply by being there but at the same time has no physical form. For many this makes no logical sense.
It is much easier to believe in the negative that we all see. It is much more comfortable to let ourselves get caught up in our daily work and the rushing here and running there. It is much easier not to look and listen to a Spiritual voice that offers peace and love, speaks of good health and a common place for all of the things in the universe. God, from a Morenian perspective, is a Cosmic voice. We are not here to limit what God can be. God is-Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad. God is Mother Nature, the Indian Spirits, and true collectivity. God is the inner knowledge that there is a greater strength and power working on our side and for the good of all – if we only take the time to listen and accept.
Moreno wrote: “…the psychodramatic answer to the claim that God is dead is that he can easily be restored to life. Following the example of Christ, we have given him and can give him new life, but not in the form our ancestors cherished. We have replaced the dead God by millions of people who can embody God in their own person.”
From a Morenian perspective we are all “The Creator”. This wonderful and powerful energy is within all of us. Psychodramatically speaking the smallest tangible number is 2-not one. It is two because of the encounter and the immense power there is when two people meet and create. It is here that real Genius and true Spirit emerge and are able to take form.
Speak2Truth
07-26-2010, 05:09 PM
Thad, I shall have to re-read your post a few more times before addressing that screenplay again. My main problem was that the protagonist is far too "rational" and addresses the problem forcefully. Hm... time to rethink him.
Peace Voyager
07-27-2010, 12:26 AM
A strong defense may be sustainable. Defenselessness is not.
A strong defense looks very different than offense.
Using resources to secure borders; using communication to resolve differences; creating incentives for, and modeling ideal behaviors seems like it would bring more security.
Striking first, would only bring on more trouble, as we have seen. Striking first for along time would weaken the core infrastructure and lead to collapse. Think Russia and Afghanistan if you will.
This is not a strong defense. Would you agree?
hearthstone
07-27-2010, 07:13 AM
"The Seed Vision: Universal Model of Sustainable Earth."
is updated online: www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html (https://www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html)
I am eagerly awaiting your gracious comments to the subject of designing the future of the Earth co-operatively!
A strong defense looks very different than offense.
Using resources to secure borders; using communication to resolve differences; creating incentives for, and modeling ideal behaviors seems like it would bring more security.
Hamlet took exception to what "seems" and so do I. We can learn from experience and not allow ourselves to be trapped in the imaginary world of what "seems".
For example, Europe once played nice with the Muslims, tried to model behavior, tried to get along ... half of Europe was conquered. So, they took up arms and went on the defensive by forcefully removing the threat. They liberated themselves from the Muslim conquerors.
When the USA separated from England, the Islamic Empire went on the offensive against the USA. George Washington tried to make peace, tried to give them what they said they wanted - it did not work. Thomas Jefferson recommended the creation of a Marine fighting force and a Navy and the USA went on the defensive to attack and destroy the Islamist warships. It worked.
The notion that we can "persuade" our enemies to do what we want them to do - instead of what they want to do - suggests we believe our will to be stronger than theirs, that we are more intellectually clever or that we can somehow reprogram their minds. Sure, it works on "useful idiots" but not on people who have firm intentions blazoned into their minds.
True Security comes from an overwhelming capacity to do harm to those who would attempt to harm you. All else is just dumb luck, a game in which you may win or lose.
Those with a sworn duty to defend The People cannot rely upon chance - it is their duty to ensure any would-be enemy will pause and reconsider before attempting to harm The People of our nation.
As Gandhi said, when one has a duty to protect others, violence is preferable to cowardice.
Striking first, would only bring on more trouble, as we have seen. Striking first for along time would weaken the core infrastructure and lead to collapse. Think Russia and Afghanistan if you will.Trouble is the natural state of humanity in conflict. Humans conflict over just about everything, even ideas. If another group of humans clearly intends to do our own people harm, what leader can stand by and let the other guys strike first? Or repeatedly (as the attacks that began against the US with the World Trade Center bombing in 1993)? Is that leader doing the job we elected him to do and that is clearly spelled out in his job description - if he fails to bring the fight to our enemies?
I reiterate - a strong defense is the ability and will to do so much harm that one's enemies are fearful of attacking. Then there is peace on BOTH sides rather than conflict.
Defenselessness or insufficient will to do harm invites conflict initiated by one's enemies.
This statement takes it as stipulated that we truly do have enemies willing to do us harm and I think history proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You mention Afghanistan and Iraq. During the 1990s, Al Qaeda built a formal terrorist training center in Afghanistan and it churned out 20,000 graduates - until GW Bush blew it to smithereens, collected the enrollment records then initiated a global manhunt to exterminate those graduates.
And what about Iraq? Saddam Hussein warned before his invasion of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that if the US "pressured" him he would respond by having individual Arabs strike inside the US. We "pressured" him so he sent Ramzi Yousef (an Iraqi Intel officer) to help orchestrate the eplosions at the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City Federal Building. Once Yousef was captured, his uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohammed took over.
Saddam was quite bold in taking credit for his victory on 9/11 but our own news media (except Fox) kept this away from American eyes, playing their own manipulation games to HELP SADDAM and hurt GW Bush. Think about this.
SADDAM BRAGS OF WTC ATTACK (https://www.silcom.com/%7Evikman/Politics/saddam_mural.html)
Can our national leaders claim they are doing their job if they let these repeated mass murders of Americans on American soil go unanswered? No. GWB followed through on Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" and fulfilled its objectives, removing Saddam's regime and allowing the Iraqi people to elect their own representative government. GWB also eliminated the Al Qaeda training center in Afghanistan that had been the source of so many attacks around the world.
These were both RESPONSES to attacks against America. Our enemies were on the offense, we were on the defense. We took the fight to our enemies as any good defense does - by eliminating the ongoing threat.
Speak2Truth
07-27-2010, 12:26 PM
"The Seed Vision: Universal Model of Sustainable Earth."
is updated online: www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html (https://www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html)
I truly apologize for straying from the thread topic in my previous post.
I read the link and I have this to say - I would not like to go to a hunter-gatherer existence. I prefer flush toilets, a functional heating system, refrigerated food, modern medicine, insulated walls and a good roof over my head.
I must ask if the persons engaging in this "design" for Earth's future are willing to live as hunter-gatherers for a period of 5 years with no access to the modernities provided by advanced civilization and industry - then make an informed choice for the future they prefer.
I wholly support the notion of reducing the Earth's human population. While many decry China's efforts to this end, I think that is necessary. Humans have no natural predators to keep our numbers in check and the results are quite predictable if we don't wise up.
I believe the Earth can support a much smaller human population at a high level of technology, comfort and even advances allowing us to reach for the stars. That is my vision of Earth's future (and Gene Roddenberry's). I just don't see a realistic path to achieving it that my conscience would allow.
hearthstone
07-27-2010, 12:39 PM
Dear Speak2Truth,
the approach that you advocate has been making sense and has been used as the principle response to "outside" originating violence since the beginning of time. With observable results.
The trouble is that in a closed system, as Earth system is, there is no outside/inside.
We can never convince our enemies that our way is better than anybody else's.
It would have to be proven by what-so-ever expedient means, e.g.--by any effective modeling in which the"enemies" would have as much opportunity to to input the modeling process as "we" do.
We all want to live in peace (friend and foe alike). But because we all have different ideas of what "living in peace" constitutes, we all end up on the battlefield, all fighting for "our" version of peace.
Please, do read:
"Designing a Lasting World Peace Together"
https://www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html (https://www.ModelEarth.Org)
Thank you, Hearthstone.
Speak2Truth
07-27-2010, 01:47 PM
But because we all have different ideas of what "living in peace" constitutes, we all end up on the battlefield, all fighting for "our" version of peace.
I submit that not all want "peace". Many want mastery over others, wealth seized from others, a life of luxury in full, conscious awareness that they are causing pain and misery to others. Unfortunately, those sorts gravitate to positions of power.
The Taliban showed us what their version of society is when they got power. So did the Socialists, in places like North Korea, the USSR, Cuba. I'm not convinced that those in charge thought it was their version of "peace".
I would modify that to say that those who have the strength to accomplish it structure a society in the way that they want. They often have no regard for "peace" and are quite willing to aggressively conquer, pillage and subjugate others to satisfy their own selfish desires.
They lack the conscience that you demonstrate in such loving and loveable terms.
Regarding "Sustainable Earth" - what I find galling is that, as you say, we have a global problem. We are replicating the catastrophe of Easter Island on a global scale and there's no place else to go to escape it. :stoptheinsane:
Peace Voyager
07-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Yes there are very dangerous people who hate us; some for very justified reasons, and some for blind adherence to outdated religious views, some for both.
How would we respond, if what we are doing to our middle east earth neighbors was done to us, by China, Mexico, Canada, or _____? We would probably respond just as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. are; right?
How are we any "better" than them; what gives us the "right" to impose our democracy on any other nation?
Fox "news" is rotting the brains of so many sad souls, by keeping them from seeing how the SYNTHETIC terrorism events on 9-11 were designed to remove many of your important rights, and begin WWW III without a declaration of war, with unending funding with money WE DO NOT HAVE - blood debt!
I work every single day to support our troops to serve only for honorable missions of defense.
Forcing our troops to commit murder is causing them to kill themselves at alarming rates. The truth of this is in the paper today, and has been for some time.
You, I see, are supporting the domestic terrorists in power in this government by not learning to think for yourself.
Or then again, maybe your "job" is to distract us few who are not drunk on the kool-aid.
Fortunately the majority of Americans have woken up. Unfortunately, most of them are working so much, they just don't have the time to take the action needed to learn what they can do about it.
For the record, I do not support any kind of terrorism, violence, or even the death penalty. I do support defending our borders with a strong defense; and abolishing the CIA, & use of contractors for military offense (or denfense), who's job it is evident, is to make more trouble in the world, to enable the industrial military complex to receive massive funding, at the expense of everything else.
I LOVE my country, I do not want the abuse to continue from Congress & these recent Administrations from both parties. I do not want to hasten the collapse as some do. I want to repair this government's soul. I have much to learn to be successful at it.
Real Christians work to heal not harm. I think many of them have gotten that memo by this point.
Please, turn off Fox and other hysterical propagandists. Search your soul; ask your Creator to give you guidance. Then truly listen, with an open heart, an open mind. Look for evidence of the truth everywhere.
Then let's have some tea and see how we can raise funds to build schools, here, and where we have obliterated them in the name of national security.
:angelsmilie:
hearthstone
07-28-2010, 03:46 AM
We, literally, don't give peace a chance as a way of life.
It is as bad as you imply it to be--we make a bit of a show that we are basically peaceful doves way inside, but, since it is but a show, it, of course, doesn't work, so we are "forced" to use our peace-keeping armory to righten things out.
Let us not reproach ourselves for all this bloodthirstiness--it is not our fault.
It has been bred into us for many long millenia--we became born-vicious-fighters when we were expanding from our home grounds and, for the first time, we ran into guys who were doing the same thing from the opposite direction--overcrowding started happening, and continues to be happening,
It's all the same war--with guns and stuff on the battlefield or what-you-have, or being mean to the homeless and punishing them for sleeping.
It would be fantastic if people were really intelligently designing their future co-operatively with all those whom they are, supposedly, going to share it with.
But enough it would be to have a 24/7/365 global peace making process going on that would be accessible by all and any, that would not shut down for anybody, no matter how bad that anybody would be considered to be, because having peace is worth more than punishing anybody, more than nurturing a revenge/vengeance affliction (but would it make us too soft?--gentle reader, what do you think?).
We have to globally premeditate peace on ongoing basis, so that lasting peace in the world happens.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
--
Designing the Future Collectively:
https://www.modelearth.org/
If we,the people, were really sincere about wanting Peace on Earth, then we would spend more on actively creating Peace than what we spend on the military!
Mahayana and Sustainability:
https://www.modelearth.org/mahaecosoc.html
Legalize" the Natural Right to Sleep!:
https://www.modelearth.org/sleepright.html
Speak2Truth
08-03-2010, 10:24 AM
How would we respond, if what we are doing to our middle east earth neighbors was done to us, by China, Mexico, Canada, or _____? We would probably respond just as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. are; right?
The places are irrelevant. We are attacked because we are not ruled by Islam. It has been that way since the Islamist attacks began on our country over 200 years ago. Nations all over the world suffer this same onslaught, with the final stages being demonstrated in Darfur - extermination of whomever will not convert.
Some people thought that if the Arab Muslims were very wealthy and have all the luxuries and advantages of life, they would become "peaceful" like the rest of the modernized nations. The opposite is true - they are using that great wealth to carry out Mohammed's vision for this world: Total subjugation to Islam. Nothing else will be tolerated by them.
Understanding Jihad - Dr. Israr Ahmad
Understanding Jihad, “Striving in the Cause of Allah” by Dr. Israr Ahmad (https://www.institutealislam.com/understanding-jihad-striving-in-the-cause-of-allah-by-dr-israr-ahmad/)
The real power in the world is SAUDI ARABIA and they are causing the Islamization of the World
The real power in the world is SAUDI ARABIA and they are causing the Islamization of the World., page 1 (https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566729/pg1)
How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War
Deception is a mandated technique to establish Islamic dominion
by Raymond Ibrahim
How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War: Defeating Jihadist Terrorism :: Middle East Quarterly (https://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war)
How are we any "better" than them; what gives us the "right" to impose our democracy on any other nation?
That's an important point and I am glad you raised it.
Those two nations directly sponsored attacks on our nation. Al Qaeda had a formal training center and base of operations in Afghanistan and its attacks against our nation were answered. Saddam Hussein sent Ramzi Yousef to organize bomb attacks against the US (starting with the World Trade Center bombing in 1993), after telling us outright he would do so if we interfered in his conquest of the Middle East. He rolled his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we drove them back, his attacks on our soil began.
They declared war against us and engaged in war on our soil. We were obligated to eliminate the threat and our Congress approved that action. All due processes were followed.
We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Once we defeated the aggressors in the wars THAT THEY STARTED, their nations had a power vacuum. By the Conventions, we are required to form an interim government, then establish a new government in those nations. We are required to maintain military force there to maintain national defense and domestic security until those nations are prepared to handle those duties. It's the same thing we did in Japan and Germany after defeating them in the wars that they started.
We have seen the horrible consequences of failure to follow this process. We helped the Afghans drive out the Socialist conquerors a couple of decades back but did not help them build a stable government or national security. So, the Saudi-backed Taliban walked in and imposed murderous Islamist rule, killing fellow Muslims who did not fulfill their vision of Islamic society. Then the Taliban invited Al Qaeda to build the formal college, churned out 20,000 graduates to go wreak havoc...
Failure to do the things of which you complain is what lead to further aggression against us.
This is a power struggle. It is an effort by conflicting ideologies to shape the future of this world.
Would you prefer to live in:
A) A Taliban-style Islamic nation?
B) A Socialist-controlled nation?
C) A nation that defends your individual Rights and Responsibilites as a free person?
For me the choice is easy. I've seen what A and B do when they get absolute power. I'll take C any day.
The struggle for the future of our world shall continue.
Fox "news" is rotting the brains of so many sad souls, by keeping them from seeing how the SYNTHETIC terrorism events on 9-11 were designed to remove many of your important rights
It seems to me that we shall have a strong disagreement on the "synthetic" claim. 9/11 was not an isolated event. It was orchestrated by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the uncle of Ramzi Yousef (Iraqi Intelligence Officer sent by Saddam) and top Al Qaeda organizer. Yousef's attacks fulfilled Saddam's direct threat against the USA, beginning in 1993, a result of our stopping his blitzkrieg to conquer Middle East oil production. Do you believe that is not true? Why?
I work every single day to support our troops to serve only for honorable missions of defense.
As do I. Destroying the enemy regimes and organizations that directly attack us is their honorable, legitimate function.
You, I see, are supporting the domestic terrorists in power in this government by not learning to think for yourself.
All the information I am providing you is due to my own research and thinking freely of the media manipulators. I'm giving you information that they have not even dared to speak of.
For the record, I do not support any kind of terrorism, violence, or even the death penalty. I do support defending our borders with a strong defense
How can you have a strong defense without violence?
I think your enemies would like very much for you to have that kind of "defense".
Non-violence is a beautiful personal choice. Choose to be a victim at the mercy of others according to the dictates of your conscience.
However, when it is your duty to defend the lives of others, I'll side with Gandhi.