October 5, 2007 § Leave a comment
Number of Obese Growing on Global Scale
Note created October 5, 2007
Number of Obese Growing on Global Scale
Considerable weight gain appears across a majority of nations – some of which also are fighting hunger
Stephen J. Hedges
The Chicago Tribune, 5 October 2007
my suspicion is that part of the wrold wide food overdose is really an anticipation of food shortages. I don’t know how this works, but things like the impact of children’s toys on future architeture or modes of war hint at similar cause and effect circles.
April 10, 2006 § Leave a comment
Escalating language is just not helpful, if we want a prosperous and peaceful world. in this case war repalces “development.” Thik of how disfferently that sounds. The Lond=g development.
BBC – It sounds eerily like the Cold War – and that is no mistake.
The “Long War” is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.
Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.
It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.
The nerve centre of this war against terror is the huge MacDill airbase in Tampa, Florida.
February 11, 2006 § Leave a comment
A recent dialog gives me the opportunity to raise some questions. Questions that I’ve been struggling with anyway. So this note is to raise dobts that I think need consdieration by all of us.
“Humanity has had this wisdom accessible for millennia, but it has not transmitted, because the social element of transformation has been absent. ” This language suggests that the missing element is will and idea. An alternative is that the progressing from tribes through agricultural empires is a reflection of animal nature amplified by increased human intelligence and imagination. It was what it was, and we are still in it. It makes sense that it happened, and is not eveil per se. Transformation now is possible because the conditions of empire – large numbers off needy people cognizable for war and consumption – is being broken apart by – more people and the Internet. These undermine the authority of states and corporations. But we d not yet know how t manage such a world.
“…holistic economics.” Implies that the current economics is not holistic and that a holistic economics is possible. Since life has been is and always will be short of meeting all our needs all the time (needs that include love, recognition, total security) no economics can be trully holistic except the universe itself. One person’s holistic is another’s partiality.
“Economic growth at all costs is actually a cancer or a tumor and not only is cancer now the number one killer of humans in western society.” We have never had economic growth “at all costs(pun intended?).” It may be better to think that what was a reasonable (historically understandable phase) economics in the past became cancerous when it became, amplified by technology and the use of the nation state as a container and restraint, more destructive. But all societies, existing and possible, are destructive in some ways. That is, they provide for some things, and not for others. Do we want a future society where hard rock is ok but Bach is not? The idea, that economics is cancerous when growth oriented, is too fulsome a condemnation of all change, past and future. Perhaps more detailed inquiry of potential future differences is needed rather than a wholesale (pun) condemnation of the past and full speed ahead affirmation of an unanalyzed proposed future.
www.Freedmonforceinternational.org seems to be (on first look) rather against government but not against capital accumulation or corporations. Its recipe of no constraint on an individual’s rights fails to take into consideration the potential impact of such individuals on each other. Again this position seems to be short of an open analysis of its core concepts. It also seems to contradict this next,
“I believe that placing power generation and water supply into the hands of some individuals but not others, or in the control of a corporation rather than as a utility operated by a democratically directed agency is a recipe for inequity.” Yes, but, we in fact don’t know how to do this. Running a water supply requires very complex interactions and complex technical skills. Blending that with democracy when there also is a bureaucracy, is a real puzzle for the future. We just don’t know how to do it, and the easy language, let democracy do it, doesn’t serve to make concrete any real possibility.
This gets to Dynamic Facilitation, which often works, but not always. The underlying assumption is that an existential core of concern can be found around which a new consensus can be built, avoiding open conflict. Does this really meet our experience and imagination, or is it a hope, a good hope, that fails to acknowledge how much history, even towards better ends, moves not because people agree but because they fail to notice, or give up, or are bypassed?
Enough of this rough reflections/reactions. My great desire is to look at possible future alternatives, and not assume that
- The will arrive because history fore ordains them
- They will arrive because good will defeat evil
- They will arrive because we will all agree
I think the future is harder, open ended, and requires thoughtfulness and a critical look at alternatives, while freely creating alternatives to try.
On the matrix, which Escaping from the Matrix I love having shared it with many friends, it implies that there is a real and the matrix. But what we know from anthropology, ethology, history, and philosophy, is that the minds of people meet the symbolic world they are born into, and weave a web that, hopefully can be criticized and experimented with. But there is no getting outside of cultural creations of woven minds. None. To believe so is t a new kind of fundamentalist, grasping for a “real” outside human nature and experience. So the question always is, hw can we do better, which requires that we try, and are free to try.
PS: I need to respond to the references to Erhardt, EST, Landmark. Many of us have had bad experience with these and derivative organizations. The core idea, you can be yourself – providing you submit to us and by the way, get a letter from your therapist giving you permission to be here. We have the floor and your point of view is not permitted here beyond a single question ( like a Bush press conference). (I of course can be seen as providing a straw man, a caricature, but then no description is ever completely correct. Hopefully I am not also totally missing the point)
This is subtle and irrational. It feels to me to require a very difficult analysis of why people are attracted to this approach (or repelled by it). In some ways what is going on here runs through all my reflections on modes of thought that have the need to polarize (us good guys and them bad ones), and be right. In my view, these get in the way of the openness, listening and experimentalism we need to create a better future.