h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pc,

Ok, as we become more specific, we can dispel any ambiguities.
My post lets you know that I am a firm believer of individual free choice for everyone. I have no interest in "imposing" anything on anyone or anything. What I want to do is to give everyone exactly what they want because we all want the same thing.....To live in peace and harmony and to be able to do exactly what we want.

My own spiritual/philosophical outlook on the meaning of Life, why we are here etc. inextricably links the two statements, " To live in peace and harmony" and " to be able to do exactly what we want" therefore the first course of action is going to be a question, " What do we want?" It is surprising the number of people, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, in positions with the power of Life and Death over us, who simply answer an easier question.... For example, "What do I want?" " What does he/she want?" This is not good for those who have been excluded ie the rest of the world, because we are all part of the ecosystem. And it is under threat because of this myopia.

There is a growing awareness of what is meant by consciousness [what is going on]and a growing awareness that it can be "controlled" to bring Order to the present Chaos. At the moment we are advising those in current control of the implications and ramifications in doing nothing. They must be prepared to accept what is shown to them as a Truth and also be prepared to accept and assuage their peoples anger at being misled...."by some "Axis of Evil" types. ......the malignantly misguided."

I reserve my most damning criticism for the negative contribution of our churches. All of them. A church is only as strong as its support and many are riven from within. Does this indicate that what they say they believe in, is in doubt. I suggest that it does. NONE have raised their voice in the support of the Truth. And some are actively involved in spreading hatred and intolerance. Some maintain control through intimidation of the weak, the suppression of whole sexes. Arrogant sons of bitches...... which they may well be.

But we do not HAVE to believe in what we have BEEN told. We can think for ourselves and we can choose to accept what we are BEING told. It is our individual free choice and there are those who fear it and would deny us it. They have chosen to impose upon us their view of what should be happening......and it is slowly destroying them because the longer it remains, after all has been made clear, the harder will they fall.

There is a new world order preparing to make an entrance. It is powerful, inclusive, compassionate and tolerant. It sees the world as an orchard of many exotic fruits. It seeks to cut out the diseases blighting most of these fruits so that they can be enjoyed on their own, as an appetiser and savoured as combined ingredients in a main dish.

Dessert follows, if we have the appetite.

I agree that "Who cares, wins" is light years from "who dares, wins" and would suggest that it is light years AHEAD. But if someone doesn't care, we dare.

In fewer words?......It is all about Good against Evil

"There is a new world order preparing to make an entrance."

Do go on.

F

Yes, do!

Although I understand what you wrote, MfM, I still don't have enough context to understand what bothers you, and what post (if any) prompted you to make your initial response.

Looking forward, with Fathom, to your reply...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What bothers me, and I can be very specific here, is the poor quality of Life for far too many people. What bothers me is the abuse of powers which some may discover that they have, in pursuit of a self serving, selfish nightmare rather than a dream. What bothers me is mans' inhumanity to man and those who say that you cannot change the world. What bothers me are children who do not know what a childhood is. What bothers me is Apathy. What bothers me is that Life sucks and I can talk about it to you and we can understand each other and we can agree to agree or disagree but we NEED to be talking to the world. That is what bothers me. It is very frustrating.

Because in this new Digital AGE, we CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING and it bothers me that I am sat here, unsure as to whether the message is getting across. It bothers me that individuals who can do this are waiting....waiting....waiting. It bothers me that I can do what I say I can, but still await the opportunity which will give me everything which I dream of, which is doing what I say I can. It bothers me!

Apart from that, Life is sweet and I look forward to every second of it. I don't think that is paradoxical! Do you?

"and what post (if any) prompted you to make your initial response."

Sometimes you have just got to say something. A vision of the Future which unfolds before your very eyes is hard NOT to follow. The longer it goes on, the stronger the image. Destiny?

Hi Martian

"In fewer words?......It is all about Good against Evil"

Oh dear, not again...

I too look forward to your next post on this topic. Especially if you try to convince us that Order is better than Chaos. After all the last ten thousand years of human history have been littered with attempts to impose man's sense of 'order' on the 'chaos' of nature. Not one of those attempts has really improved life upon this planet and quite a few have been absolutely disastrous.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Hi Martian ,

Hmm...cross postings already. Obviously my post above was written without sight of your latest post, so let's now look at that shall we?

You want a quick way to solve all these issues? Simple, eliminate man. A good antibiotic-resistant, airborne, hardy bacteria would do it. A pneumonic plague (the USA almost certainly have one in stock). I doubt we'd be missed.

The medium term way. Close down all pharmaceutical companies. One generation would be all that would be needed to eliminate 90% of humanity.

Another medium term way. Shoot anyone earning more than 250k (dollars or pounds). OK I'm kidding with this one .

The long term way? Restrict reproduction to one child per family. Within 100 years we would have a sustainable world population with sufficient resources for all.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Matholwch's comments go for me too. As for changing the world, individuals can't, but *groups* of individuals can. If enough people agree, and take co-ordinated action, things can and will change. But change takes time. There are good reasons for this, not least being to allow time for consideration, to ensure a knee-jerk reaction doesn't force a change for the worse!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Math,

Yes, oh dear, again! What else is there of real importance.

Your post appears to suggest a preference for the Chaos, which we have, to the Order which is possible. You are obviously wearing your agent provocateur hat, Math.

"After all the last ten thousand years of human history have been littered with attempts to impose man's sense of 'chaos' on the 'order' of nature" This sounds more at one with my beliefs. Surprising how easy it was to completely change the meaning of the original, by adding nothing and only using what we already had.

"Not one of those attempts has really improved life upon this planet and quite a few have been absolutely disastrous".......leading to a) let us not bother any more. It doesn't work. or b) let's have a go, we have a new plan and it can do no harm. or c) sod it, let us dance around a few stone in Wiltshire. ......to name a few possibilities. It is by no means comprehensive.

Absolutely disastrous? Yes /No. Depends on who you are asking. Nobody should be saying better than Good and too many ARE saying absolutely disastrous. Or must I be an Afghan, an Iraqi, A Liberian, an Irishman, a black American, an Albanian, a Roman Catholic bishop, a homosexual, an abused child to see what is wrong.

"The long term way? Restrict reproduction to one child per family. Within 100 years we would have a sustainable world population with sufficient resources for all"....a population that has children for all the right reasons..to further human civilisation rather than to sustain it.

My view entirely but I am more optimistic in the time scale. But then I always am. And it can only be a global effort but it starts with one.

Has it already started. Do the computer kings see a Destiny. Do they feel the weight known as Responsibility. Come on Microsoft, what ARE you waiting for? You have everything that you need. Even your own army.

Pc,
It is a judgment call. We can all think of opposites. And while Nero fiddles, Rome burns.

It is not as if we are going to do anything. We are just going to help everybody get their own house in order first. And none of us can afford NOT to do that. Hardly a knee-jerk reaction. Man kind has had how many years to get their act together? You want to give them the same again? Millenia.

Or is it best to say....... This is what we are going to do, and just do it. If it is no good it will not work and if it works it will strengthen. Tell everyone the Master PLan and you will discover those whom you ought to know about, who are hiding from you.

For example, are the Iraqi people responsible for burning $7million of oil a day in an unnecesary pipeline fire [a masochistic trip] or are the enemies of the Iraqi people responsible.[a sadistic trip] Who suffers?....We all do. It sucks and is the result of knee-jerk reactions. But the music is good, so we will wait....and wait...and wait...

MfM said, about Good vs. Evil: I wonder if anything is less important? All shades are composed of black and white, in some proportion. Do you *really* want to pursue the argument that Good must triumph, and Evil must be vanquished, MfM?

<"After all the last ten thousand years of human history have been littered with attempts to impose man's sense of 'chaos' on the 'order' of nature" This sounds more at one with my beliefs.>

Math's too, I suspect. The single quotes, I believe, indicate irony...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

MfM, please try to respond to what was said, not to what would be easiest to respond to! I said change takes time, and you criticise me for wanting to wait a thousand years or so. The sort of changes you're considering should take (say) years (less than ten?) to consider. Not millennia.



The *ways* in which things don't work as we anticipate are rarely obvious until afterward. That's probably the primary reason for taking time to think it through. Weren't natterjack toads introduced into the States to control something that was reproducing out of control? Now the toads are the problem.... And it's too late to undo what was done.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Pc ,
Did you misread Math's earlier post when he said...."After all the last ten thousand years of human history have been littered with
attempts to impose man's sense of 'order' on the 'chaos' of nature"

I believe he was being mischievous.

Do you *really* want to pursue the argument that Good must triumph, and Evil must be vanquished, MfM? You wish to support Evil. Pc? Black is Black whereas white is all the colours of the rainbow. Every shade that you can imagine.

Good and Evil have been done to death, on I imagine every conversation forum there has ever been. I am moving on.

I agree with MfM's sentiment but I don't see where it's leading.

Shortening it to a battle between Good and Evil doesn't help me because 'Good' and 'Evil' depend a great deal on your perspective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

What is this new world order? Who are it's architects and statesmen and who wants it anyway? Yes, global communications give people a kind of freedom to communicate they have not had before which certainly helps highlight the inequalities in the world but it also demonstrates the diversity of culture which makes the concept of the global village impossible.

And what's with the reference to Microsoft? ... and the Microsoft shall inherit the Earth ... Bill Gates is comfortable enough without worrying about inequalities elsewhere in the world. Army and resources or not. Or do you know something we don't?

F

Pc, I accept that change takes time. The point that I was making was that it takes longer if very little is being done to change it. A sort of Catch 22.

And I wouldn't dream of criticising you, Pc. Your opinion, which may or may not be based upon a false premise, is still yours to give. But do you deny that there is only one Truth, or do you hold that two strongly held opposing beliefs can be the Truth? Or can you believe that there is one Truth in many shades? This is a more tolerant and compassionate approach which alienates very few. Most of those alienated will be called bigots.

Things are NOT what they were. We have super computers which we can feed with data and the results can be very soon seen. Even as far as ruling the world. We have been playing War Games for decades, for goodness sake.
BUT garbage in = garbage out

Why didn't you tell George W. Bush to wait before he went to war, or is the mess in Iraq now, what he had planned? Do you consider things to have been well thought through? This is, after all, the most powerful nation in the World?!

The point being we focus on and react with behaviour which is aggressive and oppressive. It is always confrontational. And there will always be mistakes but some of the ones we are making are catastrophic. And I maintain that there is another way.

Plan it in the virtual world, make it work in the virtual world because we can change things at a keystroke. The best brains of the world can play and their "real life" puppets can have their fifteen minutes of Fame, in the limelight.

You think this is not happening already? Are you following the BBC/Government/Dr David Kelly/Alistair Campbell/Tony Blair soap.

Your point regarding natterjack toads is a valid one and this is always a concern. But a collective responsibility will lead to a collective response to any problem..... even if it ends up collective culpability. Or is it nice to have someone else to blame? It must be a human thing.
Man from Mars, over and out ....for today.

I believe that's what I said to you....



I was only trying to say that the G vs. E argument is probably not worth pursuing. That was my hope!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

MfM:

Yes!!!! You don't really want to pursue this one either, do you...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I knew you'd gone over to the Dark Side.

F

Hi Martian and P-C

'I believe he was being mischievous.'

Ironic? Possibly.
Mischievious? No.

I am deadly serious. One of the things a druid perspective encourages in you is that all things have a life force and are sacred. Man is just a dangerous child, that perhaps the planet would be better off without.

'Good' and 'Evil' are irrelevant human concepts that mean essentially nothing but a moveable point of view.

I wouldn't enjoy the destruction of man, but I could understand the need for it to happen. This is why I personally favour the long-term plan of gradual but steady depopulation. We don't need 7 billion people, we could get by perfectly well with one tenth of that.

It seems though that nature will deal with this for us if we don't do it ourselves. The overuse of antibiotics, GM and chemical pesticides may well see us off long before my plan comes to fruition .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

* stands next to Matholwch *

There are no such things as 'Good' and 'Evil', they're merely abstractions for certain concepts of human behaviour. You're unlikely to find many people who won't agree that killing someone would be an 'evil' act - but go to Texas and talk to them about the death penalty, and suddenly killing someone isn't evil anymore. I have seen it written that evil is not accepting the consequences of your actions, which is fairly plausible I suppose, but the Law of Return states that any action will eventually affect you, and so if you do 'evil' deeds you will eventually get bitten in the bum by them. Or whacked in the face with a large building, either would be painful.

Nature will take action against overpopulation - we'll eventually reach the point where we can't sustain our numbers anymore, and at that point we will of course start to reduce in numbers. Birth rate in the Western world is apparently decreasing, which I see as a tremendously positive thing (shame about the rest of the world). A one child policy worldwide would be good, but is perhaps a little premature, but at the very least I would like to see it made socially unacceptable for a couple to have more than two children. Then, if you take into account childless couples and people who stay single all their lives, you get a net reduction in the size of each generation, although not a particularly large one admittedly.

In this day and age, there is no reason at all to have more than two children. It's not like infant mortality in Europe or America is so high that you need to have six kids to assure you of an heir, or someone to look after you when you're old, or someone to work in the mines. It's not like you need any one of those things.

Infertility is also rising, perhaps due to our own pollution of the environment, overexposure to oestrogens causing sperm counts to fall, whatever. Infertility treatments are getting much better, but one wonders if we really should be doing things like that. But we can do it, and we do do it, and banning it wouldn't work, I'm sure. By all means people should have the means to have children, but they should have the responsibility not to have too many.

Of course, expecting people as a group to do anything sensible is like expecting it to rain cheese tomorrow.