>
> (1) Jay's predictions are probably pretty "right on", and it would
> make good sense to act as if we were *sure* they were true, since, at
> worst, such a strategy would maximize our chances for survival of the
> human species and for minimizing suffering for those of us currently
> alive. To *count* on "the human spirit and creativity" pulling
> a big enough rabbit out of the hat to meet all our growing(sic!) needs
> seems to me a foolish bet -- and highly irresponsible, since
> it's a bet on which those who make the bet are staking 5+ billion
> *others* lives and not just their own skins.
>
How can it be done without counting on that "human
spirit and creativity" which is also selfishness/
self-preservation once all those billions are aware
of the problems? Even if we have all the brilliant
solutions - forcing them on the rest of humanity
against their will, won't work.
...
>
> The *recognition* -- the being-in richly affirming dialog --
> is the main thing;
> the particular words and deeds are situationally conditioned
> *means*. Human creativity and intelligence, as Sophocles
> said in The Ode to Man in Antigone, is indifferently applicable to
> any problem. If our culture bestowed the highest honors
> on people who solved problems of preventive medicine, minimizing
> resources needed for production, etc., then that's what the
> brightest minds would eagerly
> work on, rather than searching for ever more
> elementary particles in physics, devising ever more complex organ
> transplant procedures, planning ever bigger corporate mergers, etc.
>
I don't like the idea of utilitarian research;
of not doing science for science's sake,
you might as well say the same thing about art.
Particle physics and organ transplant research
cannot be rated with corporate mergers.
Obviously, first people should be fed
and resources concentrated on survival-
science, but if there are enough resources,
science should go on wherever it wants to
go, as most major breakthroughs came from areas
that looked most superfluous.
Particle physics could still solve
our energy problems etc.
> There is a phrase from medieval Christian monasticism:
> "peregrinatio in stabilitate", which was reiterated by one
> of the early Jesuit missionaries to China (a "space
> traveller" of his time):
>
> To go on an adventure,
> one does not need to leave one's native town.
>
> *That* seems to me to be the *hopeful* ideal
> for humanity. And it seems to me to be powerfully synergistic
> with Jay's and the greens' ideas.
>
I don't understand this bit. If we have enough
resources, we should go boldly everywhere...
Eva
> thoughts?
>
> "yours in discourse"
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
>
