Guest guest Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Greg, to Dan says: >>Are you accusing Gore of "egoism" in his bringing to the world's attention that its present course will likely doom the planet? How is this egoism? Highly questionable accusation IMO.<< --I've listened to some right wing talk radio lately, and the current talking point about Gore is that he's got a messiah complex, is in love with himself, and that global warming is a religion (driving big cars being a "sin" rather than an unhealthy cultural habit). If you hear anything along those lines, ask what radio station the speaker listens to. It's one of those lockstep arguments followed by many, with no rational justification except, perhaps, the need to deflect criticism or guilt. Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Dear Greg, Greg wrote: >This is not the same thing as suggesting that one might egoistically save the world (as per Mr. Gore, for example). Dan, Are you accusing Gore of "egoism" in his bringing to the world's attention that its present course will likely doom the planet? How is this egoism? Highly questionable accusation IMO. C'mon. You know he's got in mind a preferred solution for this questionable problem, and you can bet it involves income redistribution, forced conservation, and a substantial further movement toward world government. Everyone on the stinkin' bus. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances with the warming - and deal with its effects, whatever they prove to be, on an ad hoc basis. > It was he [Jung], after all, who suggested that the development of nuclear weapons reflected a reaction to overpopulation - can't get much more homeostatic than that. Global warming: ditto, maybe. What, exactly, are you suggesting about Jung here Dan? It almost sounds like you mean to say that Jung somehow justified the use nuclear weapons as a means of controling population. Nope - just that he thought that overpopulation was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, long term problem facing mankind, and that he thought that the development of nuclear weapons might reflect a compensation for that problem - i.e., just exactly what he said. I assume that he meant an unconscious compensation. Surely such an interpretation is ridiculous on its face; another example of how words can be twisted/interpreted far beyond their meaning. But before commenting further, I am attempting to understand what you are really trying to convey here. What I am suggesting for my own part is that global warming, if as advertised, might scale humanity back far enough to, as it were, repeal the enlightenment, and give us another chance. Unlikely, imo, but perhaps not impossible. I suggested, if tacitly, a possible parallel with what Jung said about nuclear weapons. Best, Dan Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Dan wrote: >What I am suggesting for my own part is that global warming, if as advertised, might scale humanity back far enough to, as it were, repeal the enlightenment, and give us another chance. What if global warming IS as advertised Dan? The clear weight of the scientific community support Gore on this point, overwhelmingly! Sounds like you are satisfied with letting it take its course to curb population growth. Is that about right? The idea that some places on earth may be underwater within 50 years (e.g. the Netherlands) doesn't seem much of a problem for you. That is not the case for my dear Dutch friends who take him very seriously. But IF such a scenario could be prevented that would be a positive ( " hope-ful " )course of action, as opposed to allowing the global warming scenario to " curb population growth 'naturally', which would be preferred in your opinion? I don't know how the above scenerio would 'repeal the enlightenment' as you suggest. You apparently disparage the affects of the Enlightenment, the ultimately " conservative " position. And that trend is clear on Fox Channel daily. Is it possible that wrestling responsibly with the emerging reality of global warming IS the equivalent of the 20th Century 'Enlightenment'....the very thing WE can resolve during OUR lifetime here on planet earth? This is now, then was then. Gore suggests the possibility and HOPE of such a positive approach. Where did he get it wrong? > Unlikely, imo, but perhaps not impossible. I suggested, if tacitly, a possible parallel with what Jung said about nuclear weapons. Once again Dan, I don't view Jung as the social darwinist that you seem to attribute to him. He most certainly did NOT have this view about the possible affects of nuclear weapons...that is quite clear from his writings. I assert that Jung was NOT as social darwinist. Greg _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 Dan says: >>I did not say that Jung proposed the use of nuclear weapons. He suggested that nuclear weapons might have emerged as a compensation to overpopulation.<< --The problem is not too many people, but the widening gap between the safe and the unsafe, the fabulously rich and tragically poor. We could take care of everybody. We just don't believe we *should*. Social Darwinism, not overpopulation, is the problem. Each tribe thinks it can prosper without concern for the others, and they're all in for a horrific surprise. Bored stiff? Loosen up...Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.