Re: Peace (was: How to Cut a Sandwich)

[Guest guest]

It won't take decades for China to be in a position to oppose us. It could do it now and have a fair chance of getting away with it. I decribed what they could do to Taiwan so I won't rehash that here.

What they are doing, is diddly in "our turf". The Chinese are pressing hard to make alliances in the Carribean and Central and South America. Bush knows about this, but he actually supports China making trade and diplomatic inroads in our back yard. Also, thanks to that idiot , the Chinese now pretty much control the Panama canal. In other words, China is trying to steal out local trading partners in an effort to isolate us in our OWN neighborhood.

However, all is not roses for China. It turns out that they are running out of cheap labor. IN the Middle ages of Europe, the Black Death killed about 1/3 of the population. The result was that the laborers could demand higher wages and get them, because there was a labor shortage. China faces a similar situation now. This is largely due to their 1 child policy. The supply of incoming laborers is shrinking, and they are more willing to walk away from hard, low paying jobs in search of something better. So, China is going to have to start paying people better, which will take away some of their advantage.

Their water and agricultural situation is also becoming perilous. Water shortages and pollution are severe in many parts of China. In the capital Beijing, people there have access to only about 1/4 the average water allowance in the developed world. China's agro policy has also ruined a lot of land, so they have to use a lot of fertilizer, which only makes the problem worse. They might turn it around, though personally I'm hoping they don't solve it completely. If things get bad enough to that the Communists get overthrown, then so much the better for the world.

Still, these bad situtation could push them to taking military gambles to distract the population from the bad economy, just like the Argentinians did over the Falkland Islands. The main reason I think has kept them from attacking Taiwan already, has been Bush. I think the Chinese know that he would live up to the US pledge to defend Taiwan. Even if we failed militarily to protect them, it is very likely that Bush would press for sanctions against China. Likewise, there would probably be a massive backlash against Chinese products in the US, especially if US casualties were inflicted by China. That could lead to a puch to bring production back to the US, or at least get it out of China. I do think the people would be willing to endure the slightly higher prices during this restructuring, especially if a Nimitz class carrier with its 5,000 crewmen was sunk.

To do it though, a cheerleader would be needed. That cheerleader would be the President. Bush could pull that off I think, and the Chinese know it. If someone a little less stern, like , was in office, they might well take the gamble. A would no doubt bemoan the losses, and go through the motions, but nothing substantive would be done. This would be all the more true if the Chinese threatened to nuke us if we moved against them. Personally, I'd tell them to have at it and we'd turn their country into a glass parking lot, and mean it. They might kill Seattle or Honolulu, but we could do the same and more to them. Of course, it would take a hard President to do it. Even so, I think the nation would back such a move, especially if 10's of thousands or more Americans were killed by a nuke.

I think China is simply biding its time. First its needs a little bit more technology. That technology is mostly aimed at the US Navy. China wants better anti-ship missiles and deisel subs. It could take out a US fleet now if it used the right tactics, but it wouldn't be easy and would leave them with little to resist another fleet. It is also waiting for a President they think won't support intervention. Once those are no longer issues, I think they'll go for it. Of course, if internal conditions get worse, they would be more likely to gamble.

[Guest guest]

Rainbow and beth,

You two are not alone. I've done a lot of animal rights activism in

my time, and also worked on behalf of the environment.

Currently, as you may suspect, my endeavors are mostly Aspie related.

My goal is to continue to bring Aspies together in one place where

they meet, make friends, and support one another in an environment

free of hostility.

My intention is to continue to bring more folks to these groups,

continue to develop the resources within them, and to expand the

website. Other ideas are being contemplated.

As you may or may not know, Inger, who is my sweetie, has Swedish

forums that she takes care of and a website of her own. She is working

to set up an autistic society of sorts in her country and is

scruitinizing the DSM IV criteria in order to suggest possible

changes/augmentations for the DSM V.

The two of us are constantly dicussing ways in which we can make

things better for the Aspie/HFA/autistic community, and hopefully some

of these ideas will come to fruition in time.

Tom

>

Huzzah! Isn't it nice to know we're not alone?

> Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Rainbow, after many years of soul-searching, I've concluded that only

way to help the world is to find peace and love inside ourselves, and

to try to eliminate any anger and negativity in us (even against those

who we think are screwing up the world, although we can still resist

their efforts). If we can do that, then we can serve as an example for

those around us, and our good energy will join with that of others to

have a beneficial impact on the whole planet.

Ken

> Excuse me, but I believe that the thread here is labeled 'PEACE'.

> How about a little focus on what 'we' CAN do to bring about a little

> harmony right down here on Earth, our Mother!

> How might WE be able to use our considerable talent to FOCUS, to focus

> our energies on constructive means of achieving PEACE in our lifetimes.

> I believe that is exactly why we 'old souls' are here now. I believe

> that is exactly why we are able to communicate with each other in this

> way, here, now. There is plenty of everything we need to go around for

> everyone all the time if we only use our common sense, live in

> moderation, and share the bountiful gifts abundantly bestowed upon us

> by nature. Need is a state of GREED! There is a well known Quaker

> expression that goes, I believe: How little is enough? Please remember

> small is beautiful. If only WE Aspies could visualize peace we COULD

> affect the entire world! What do you say? ANYBODY up for a try? Let's

> discuss our VISION!

> Rainbow

[Guest guest]

>Ken wrote:

> Rainbow, after many years of soul-searching, I've concluded that only

way to help the world is to find peace and love inside ourselves, and

to try to eliminate any anger and negativity in us (even against those

who we think are screwing up the world, although we can still resist

their efforts). If we can do that, then we can serve as an example for

those around us, and our good energy will join with that of others to

have a beneficial impact on the whole planet.

Exactly! My words, in other words!

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Perfectly summed up, Ken!

Ever since I was about 11, I've worried about the state of the planet and

seen things I'd like to change about current society (= about 90% of

everything!) including education, health care, the economic system,

agriculture, transportation, architecture, fashion, media and the way we

live. I keep getting visions of better, simpler, more logical, intuitive,

human-, plant- & animal-friendly ways of living.

For decades I kept focusing on everything I saw wrong with the world and

felt more and more dismal and frustrated at not being able to do anything to

change it. Then a few years ago, I suddenly decided to quit watching the

news and reading about all the horrid things going on and instead just

focus on what little *I* can do to make it a better place. And even if it

isn't much, it's still a lot more than when I was just spending my time

worrying about the state of the world and trying to get everyone around me

to worry too. Sure, people need to become more aware (and I may still seize

an opportunity to inform anyone who asks) but if one just keeps harping on

it all the time, that only creates more negativity to add to the pool.

So I can absolutely confirm that creating peace within myself and in my own

life really does have a positive effect on those around me too. If we are

enough people doing the same, that WILL have a positive effect.

Inger

> Rainbow, after many years of soul-searching, I've concluded that only

way to help the world is to find peace and love inside ourselves, and

to try to eliminate any anger and negativity in us (even against those

who we think are screwing up the world, although we can still resist

their efforts). If we can do that, then we can serve as an example for

those around us, and our good energy will join with that of others to

have a beneficial impact on the whole planet.

Ken

> Excuse me, but I believe that the thread here is labeled 'PEACE'.

> How about a little focus on what 'we' CAN do to bring about a little

> harmony right down here on Earth, our Mother!

> How might WE be able to use our considerable talent to FOCUS, to focus

> our energies on constructive means of achieving PEACE in our lifetimes.

> I believe that is exactly why we 'old souls' are here now. I believe

> that is exactly why we are able to communicate with each other in this

> way, here, now. There is plenty of everything we need to go around for

> everyone all the time if we only use our common sense, live in

> moderation, and share the bountiful gifts abundantly bestowed upon us

> by nature. Need is a state of GREED! There is a well known Quaker

> expression that goes, I believe: How little is enough? Please remember

> small is beautiful. If only WE Aspies could visualize peace we COULD

> affect the entire world! What do you say? ANYBODY up for a try? Let's

> discuss our VISION!

> Rainbow

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

I think that is a matter of perspective. Not everyone wants to live in a shack in the woods growing their own food, like the poor folks did in the 1800's. A few people I know in Alabama tried that for a time, but the longest anyone pulled that off was about 5 years.

What is more logical is to make some little changes in one's life that aren't so burdensome. There are simple things like using flourescent bulbs rather than incandecent (soon they will will LED lights which are ever better), buying more efficient appliances and cars. It is also fairly easy to turn down the heat a few notches in the winter and wear sweat clothes inside and put an extra blanket on the bed. In the summer, just use the AC to take the edge off and drink more fluids and dress light. By the same token, it is easy to buy only the food you are actually going to use before it goes bad, rather than buying a lot and having to throw it all out.

The plain fact is that it will pretty much be impossible for all of humanity to go "back to nature". If everyone had to depend on themselves to survive, that would mean about 10 acres or so per family. There really isn't enough room for that without cutting down all the forests. Then there would be all the land taken up by a cast road network to connect everyone. Also, it would mean the end of scientific advancement and a great step down in the standard of living.

While I do think people should be more consicous of resource use, there is a practical way to reach that. We are working toward it in fits and starts, and that is probably how it will have to be, for a time. If the government was to force such things on people, there would be a great backlash that would make people hate it and resist. It would be better to phase some things in gradually, like the LED lights and such.

[Guest guest]

That's all true. What we need is a generation that will walk their

talk. I've seen lots of people who decry our careless ways, and some

make modest gestures in the right direction. But I see very few who

are willing to step outside the system and live the very simple life

required of a good citizen of the earth.

Ken

>

> > Rainbow, after many years of soul-searching, I've concluded that only

> way to help the world is to find peace and love inside ourselves, and

> to try to eliminate any anger and negativity in us (even against those

> who we think are screwing up the world, although we can still resist

> their efforts). If we can do that, then we can serve as an example for

> those around us, and our good energy will join with that of others to

> have a beneficial impact on the whole planet.

>

> To peace and harmony!

>

> This is a letter to the editor of my local, home town newspaper (not

> from me):

>

> Someone once said that all we really have that matters is the land,

> water and the air which we breathe. At the end of the day, this elegant

> simplicity is true.

> Whether you are a proponent of contemporary systems theory, modern

> physics or the Navajo principle of Hozho, the message is the same.

> Nature, of which we are still a part, seeks a state of sustainable,

> harmonious balance. History across millennia is littered with the

> carcasses of cultures that have imploded and collapsed once they became

> so far out of balance that they were unsustainable.

> There's a Native American saying that the earth is not ours but rather

> is on loan to us from our children. What are we returning to our

> children? How will we be remembered by them?

> So far we've deforested and paved over our watersheds, mined the land,

> contaminated the water and polluted the air. Perhaps we did this under

> the guise of the 19th- and 20th-century cultural imperative of plunder

> for individual profit and consumption.

> Proenneke reminds us of a tenet of wilderness lore where a

> remote cabin should always be kept minimally stocked and accessible for

> the use of those who come upon it in a time of need. The corollary is

> that the passersby have an ethical responsibility to leave the refuge

> in a condition which is at least as good as, if not better than, that

> in which they discovered it.

> If we want to be remembered differently by our children, then perhaps

> we need to shift our cultural imperative from one of plunder and

> consumption to one of sustainable stewardship. To do this, we will need

> to measure success differently.

> Our " success " will need to be measured internally, as a matter of

> conscience, instead of by counting dollars and things.

> It would seem there is no more rewarding legacy than to be thanked by

> our children for returning the land, water and air which they loaned to

> us in a condition better than that in which we first found it. What do

> you have on your " to do " list which could possibly, possibly be more

> important?

>

> Rainbow

[Guest guest]

I also mean things like taking public transportation rather than

driving, and not buying lots of stuff that is nice to have, but is not

really needed. Surprisingly few people are interested in how they can

contribute to simplification.

Ken

> I think that is a matter of perspective. Not everyone wants to live

in a

> shack in the woods growing their own food, like the poor folks did

in the

> 1800's. A few people I know in Alabama tried that for a time, but

the longest

> anyone pulled that off was about 5 years.

>

> What is more logical is to make some little changes in one's life that

> aren't so burdensome. There are simple things like using flourescent

bulbs rather

> than incandecent (soon they will will LED lights which are ever

better),

> buying more efficient appliances and cars. It is also fairly easy to

turn down

> the heat a few notches in the winter and wear sweat clothes inside

and put an

> extra blanket on the bed. In the summer, just use the AC to take the

edge off

> and drink more fluids and dress light. By the same token, it is easy

to buy

> only the food you are actually going to use before it goes bad,

rather than

> buying a lot and having to throw it all out.

>

> The plain fact is that it will pretty much be impossible for all of

humanity

> to go " back to nature " . If everyone had to depend on themselves to

survive,

> that would mean about 10 acres or so per family. There really isn't

enough

> room for that without cutting down all the forests. Then there would

be all the

> land taken up by a cast road network to connect everyone. Also, it

would

> mean the end of scientific advancement and a great step down in the

standard of

> living.

>

> While I do think people should be more consicous of resource use,

there is a

> practical way to reach that. We are working toward it in fits and

starts, and

> that is probably how it will have to be, for a time. If the

government was

> to force such things on people, there would be a great backlash

that would

> make people hate it and resist. It would be better to phase some

things in

> gradually, like the LED lights and such.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I also mean things like taking public transportation rather than

driving, and not buying lots of stuff that is nice to have, but is not

really needed. Surprisingly few people are interested in how they can

contribute to simplification.

Ken

> I think that is a matter of perspective. Not everyone wants to live

in a

> shack in the woods growing their own food, like the poor folks did

in the

> 1800's. A few people I know in Alabama tried that for a time, but

the longest

> anyone pulled that off was about 5 years.

>

> What is more logical is to make some little changes in one's life that

> aren't so burdensome. There are simple things like using flourescent

bulbs rather

> than incandecent (soon they will will LED lights which are ever

better),

> buying more efficient appliances and cars. It is also fairly easy to

turn down

> the heat a few notches in the winter and wear sweat clothes inside

and put an

> extra blanket on the bed. In the summer, just use the AC to take the

edge off

> and drink more fluids and dress light. By the same token, it is easy

to buy

> only the food you are actually going to use before it goes bad,

rather than

> buying a lot and having to throw it all out.

>

> The plain fact is that it will pretty much be impossible for all of

humanity

> to go " back to nature " . If everyone had to depend on themselves to

survive,

> that would mean about 10 acres or so per family. There really isn't

enough

> room for that without cutting down all the forests. Then there would

be all the

> land taken up by a cast road network to connect everyone. Also, it

would

> mean the end of scientific advancement and a great step down in the

standard of

> living.

>

> While I do think people should be more consicous of resource use,

there is a

> practical way to reach that. We are working toward it in fits and

starts, and

> that is probably how it will have to be, for a time. If the

government was

> to force such things on people, there would be a great backlash

that would

> make people hate it and resist. It would be better to phase some

things in

> gradually, like the LED lights and such.

>

>