Anonymous Mom, No Dads, + 14

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.

Our humanity isn't slipping away. We are our humanity, our humanity is us. There has not been some golden age when all was fair and people cared. People care and people do not care. The world is fair and it is unfair. This is how it has always been. We play politics to try and change things and we have changed things. We continue to change things. BUt at the same time things stay very much the same. The actors change, the technology alters. But there will always be Romes andthere will always be Carthages

Whatever. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create a BETTER existance for everyone. Especially because we have the capability to do that.

I am just expressing my opinions. Obviously they differ from yours. I suppose it is my nature to think on a global scale. If you saw my astrological chart, you might understand.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I suppose it is my nature to think on a global scale. If you saw my astrological chart, you might understand.

Understand what? That you believe in totally unbelievable things?
Yeah - give me a croissant instead.

[DanaC]

*chuckles* I'm sorry, do you think that I don't see things on a global scale?

I also didn't suggest that we cease striving for a better society. Nor indeed should we cease striving for change if we believe change is necessary or desirable. I am merely pointing out that what might seem like a descent from a better state into a worse one, may not in fact be anythng of the kind. The world we live in is better and worse than the world our great grandparents lived in.

I find your pessimism hard to get to grips with. You seem a very kind and understanding person, yet you appear to have a very dim view of human beings.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't understand what you mean by 'raise the population limit.' Would you elaborate please? Thanks bunches.

The population limit is dependent on many factors. Back when humans lived in hunter gatherer societies the population limit was very low, a few square miles could only support a small population but now, with better organization, food production, etc we can support a higher population. We make many changes to raise the population limit with more efficient food, energy, and water extraction and other methods in those senses.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The population limit is dependent on many factors. Back when humans lived in hunter gatherer societies the population limit was very low, a few square miles could only support a small population but now, with better organization, food production, etc we can support a higher population. We make many changes to raise the population limit with more efficient food, energy, and water extraction and other methods in those senses.

I think the population really started growing at a very fast rate once we learned how to extract energy from the earth. That was the real turning point.

[Sundae]

Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.

Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.

And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.

Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.

[classicman]

You mean when we became industrialized?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*chuckles* I'm sorry, do you think that I don't see things on a global scale?

I also didn't suggest that we cease striving for a better society. Nor indeed should we cease striving for change if we believe change is necessary or desirable. I am merely pointing out that what might seem like a descent from a better state into a worse one, may not in fact be anythng of the kind. The world we live in is better and worse than the world our great grandparents lived in.

I find your pessimism hard to get to grips with. You seem a very kind and understanding person, yet you appear to have a very dim view of human beings.

yea, I find my pessimism hard to deal with myself sometimes. If you debated some of the people I have been debating for the past 7 years on forums, you might understand why I have such a dim view of humans. Seriously though, I just react to what I see and hear. And the world economy is crashing right now because of the greed of men. How can you not be pessimistic when something like that happens? I am not that way about everything, but there are certain topics where I cannot contain my pessimism with regard to the human race and what we do - overpopultion, pollution, greed and excess, cruelty, and a few others.

You said what I had written could have been from the late 19th century. The difference is, in the late 19th century, we weren't creating all the waste and pollution we create now. It is simply not sustainable. And, not only that, it also has to do with quality of life. Check out this site. There is a short video there. It's very interesting. http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Thomas Friedman has a great take on it.
"...Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...

We can’t do this anymore...
Read the full editorial here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/op...iedman.html?em
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/books...at-and-crowded

"In the 20th century, world population grew from about 1.5 billion to 6 billion at the end of the century. Over the last 50 years the rate of growth in population has not been matched before in human history...
...At some point the increasing population of the planet will be utilizing so many resources that the degradation of these resources will decrease the planets ability to sustain life. It can be seen by the studies on bio-diversity that this point is approaching. If the solutions are not peaceful then the wars that will be fought over the remaining resources will only deplete those remaining resources even further." http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sust...population.php

Oh, and what I meant by thinking on a global scale, it isn't what most people when they talk about that. I don't really feel like going into it right now, but I didn't mean to be insulting to you. sorry if it felt that way to you. (Do you know anything about astrology? Not like what you read in the paper, but the deeper levels to it.)

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.

Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.

And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.

Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.

I didn't listen to it yet because I was thinking about my response to Dana. And I am very well aware that most people don't believe in astrology. Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject. It has nothing to do with what your sun sign is. It is tool, that's all.

I don't know what you mean the appearance/disappearance of planets. What planets have disappeared?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

You mean when we became industrialized?

yes.

[Aliantha]

To be fair to Dana, you'll find she's very much a realist and quite a deep thinker. I'm pretty sure you'll find she's had to deal with her fair share of internet loopies too.

I think the difference you'll find is that Dana holds out hope where you don't sugar.

My thinking is a lot like Dana's in this regard. I also don't think this crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm positive it's not. I think it's a good thing really. We all just have to tough it out for the next few years. I believe the reason so may people find that concept so frightening is because they've never had to do it tough before.

Time to harden up people. Knuckle under and make the most of what you've got. Your life, like mine, wont end even if you do lose everything. It'll just be different.

[sugarpop]

Oh I don't think the crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm hoping that real change comes out of it. (see, I can hope too. )

[Aliantha]

Well there you go. Good job.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject.

BS is BS, no matter how deep it is piled.

No astrologer, pop or not, has passed a double-blind study. Such an experiment would have a group of people give [through an anonymous method] the times and dates of their births to the astologer, have the astrologer write the horoscopes, and then have each person pick the one that is most applicable to their life. If the matchups are better than that which would be expected by chance, that would be a strong data point in favor of astrology.

It's never happened, though.

[Aliantha]

Astrology is like the bible. You either believe it or you don't...or you cherry pick the bits you like. lol