Note: Beware of a website proclaiming to be New Tribal Ventures/An Ishmael Community! Do not reply to any request for information. Our legitimate pages are available on our site here & on the navigation to the left.

DQ on Facebook!Follow Us on

What's new
Daniel Quinn
Daniel Quinn's books
Schools & courses
Telephone Conferences
This website
New Tribal Ventures
Ishmael's Annex
Speaking Invitations

Visit Guestbook
Find others
Help us
Order books
Contact us
Telephone Conferences
Special Requests

Answers to Questions
DQ's suggested reading
DQ's Blog

The Ishmael Companion
Beyond Civilization
 Study Guide


Ishmael Community Guestbook Archive

Back to the *Current* Guestbook Previous 15 Records · Next 15 Records

Stephen Figgins #15003
Monroe, WA USA - Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 9:4:7 CST (GMT -6:00)


on Diamond and Agriculture: he doesn't say only Europeans developed agriculture. Like most anthropologists, he recognizes it began independently in about 7 different places. In Gun's, Germs, and Steel Diamond does focus on why Europe/Asia came to dominate rather than any of these other civilizations, and presents his belief that it was primarily their environment was more conducive to their rise in power.

The evidence for Anasazi agriculture only goes back to 1000 bce. From digs in Chaco Canyon. The crops they planted are not the same as the ones the Europeans domesticated. (The Anasazi were not the first to plant domesticated crops in the Americas either. They got their plants from tribes in Central America.) There seems no reason to assume they had contact with European civilizations.

On TA: you point out that TA is not a set of agricultural methods but rather motivation, and suggest Quinn never made this clear. Yet in Story of B, he points out that TA is not methods but rather an agenda: to claim all the food in the world for our own use. You might also call this attitude. Quinn here focusses on the mental models rather than economics (assuming by motivation you mean financial motivation.) Still Quinn does make it clear himself that he isn't talking about methods. He has also addressed this in the Q&A among other places. (Though admittedly, most readers seem to overlook it.)

VerevolfTheGrouch #15002
, USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 8:53:15 CST (GMT -6:00)


I just think it's worthy of note that, after reading that very long and very...long post, I came out of it with absolutely nothing new. You make a lot of assumptions, one of them being that, because we don't launch into discourse about what you're saying, we either don't get it or don't care.

I don't see either of those as being the case. On many issues, particularly the body/personal issues, I generally agree with you (there are of course obvious exceptions such as the patriarchy=takerdom case, to which I did say we couldn't eliminate takerdom just by eliminating patriarchy, therefore they are not the same thing). I simply have nothing to add to the discussion.

And I will also point out that much of the hostility you received coming in here as Madrone was due to the fact that you came in with guns blazing and a haughty attitude. Well, damn, I wonder why anybody would get annoyed with that. It must be because you're a woman (...or are you...I guess if it's the Internet we don't really know).

And keep in mind that you know as much about us as we know about you.

doug #15001
, USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 8:49:57 CST (GMT -6:00)

MaggieJKD-madrone knows how I for one have valued her comments here..on the ohter hand its amazing to observe the comment using Buzz as an illustration of the acadmenic body habit...which others show does indeed rewire the brain with its 'hyperverbosity' to aggression...and at the same time she confesses a kink and pain from exactly this. She proves her own point is well taken best by illustraton.

My point is we ALL suffer from this, and as I suggested before we might all sing here, the stutterers cure-recall this dramatic proof that the right brain is more free of conflicts? tension..., but its difficult given the format. HOw about rhyme at least?

We ALL suffer from this effect of the academic media that might trace to Avino's Sohistry or to the introduction of the alphabet...I jsut learned that Socrates insisted on Oral work and he warned that the memories of people would be destroyed with the acceptance of written work. Comment Avino? Does your source work of 700pages warn of the effects of the left brain skills as they can be shown to masculinize the personality with far reaching effects in culture like the elimination of nature goddesses, the abandoning of Image based worship in favor of texts...making us all into Buzz, or our friend maggie?

Only a few confuse the work of the most prolific with the most valuable or noteworthy, confuse domination with control. People post a lot becasue theyre home with a bug or on break..whtever, domination? a mens club? with what reward and goal? what salary or degree comes with the most attention here? Clubs imply privelege.

We have the privelege of seeing valuable reference and gleaning points here. Like Jim Linder said, encountering spectacular people.. I cant acknowlege any restriction on that!

Show me your chains, I will cut them, eh?

There is a song.."dont fall in love with the weight of your pain..."

Peace- Doug

Stephen Figgins #15000
Monroe, WA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 8:36:37 CST (GMT -6:00)


Some argue that intellectual property actually encourages innovation, by protecting the work of the innovator and the companies that invest in that research. Otherwise, you might not be able to recoup your investment and research can be extremely expensive. The primary example for this benefit of intellectual property is medical research.

Being a fan and writer on open source and free software development, I hear the other side too, how information should be free. I think both sides have interesting points, but I have never been completely swayed one way or the other. There are competitive advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

Maybe we are straying a bit too far off topic though.

Rachel #14999
Oberlin, OH USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 8:29:31 CST (GMT -6:00)

From Einstein's theory of relativity, that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed, just turned into something else, consider the possibility of our (Taker) actions becoming worse and worse and worse until some kind of huge catastrophe occurs; enough snips on the spider's web and suddenly the whole thing falls slack, enough bricks kicked out of the towering building and suddenly the entire structure falls.

I was just thinking about this the other day, that I don't know if I believe in a soul of each creature and non-living thing in the universe but it feels evident that there are large amounts of energy attached to the beings of this planet, and so much energy turned so quickly into something else is probably going to create some sort of giant change.

I wonder if I am phrasing this how I had it in my head the other night...our destruction of so many species a day, their habitats and all that will inevitably, without changing our way of thought, be our ultimate demise, is all happening very much in the blink of a geolgical eye. So that when the building finally goes down, it will surely be a flash of energy in the universe and very likely one that will have to create changes somewhere else. Energy does not come from nowhere nor does it go to nowhere, and to think that we are just going to fizzle out and leave the planet starting over at mutated single-celled organisms seems to me to be underestimating the power of life and complexity.

Rev Slick #14998
Kitanakagusuku, Okinawa Japan -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 8:11:33 CST (GMT -6:00)

Greetings To All,

To Buzz Bloom: Forgive me, I seem to have unintentionally misrepresented myself. I did not mean to say that war against the "taker" lifestyle would be necessary. I was at one time a soldier, and based upon my own personal experience, I do not, and cannot advocate war. I merely wished to point out the very likely possibilty of the present "taker" society going to war against any resurgence of the "leaver" lifestyle that it fought (and is still fighting) such a bloody war to eliminate. I feel it necessary to point out that "saving the world" will require no small amount of sacrifice on the part of those willing to undertake such a project. Change will not come easily, it never has. The sooner that reality is faced, the sooner that any action taken will have genuine meaning and purpose.

And by the way, I think the phrase "saving the world" is misleading at best. The world itself is no danger at all. I feel that it the height of arrogance for us to believe that our habits have placed the planet itself in any danger. It, to my mind, represents a remarkable short-sightedness on our part. If the human race were to cease to exist at this moment, I have heard it estimated that it would take more than one hundred thousand years for the traces of our habitation to be erased from the earth. That is only a long time by human standards. This planet has existed for over 4.5 billion years. What is one hundred millennia compared to that? Just shy of nothing. If we exterminate ourselves, I very strenuously doubt that the planet will take any notice at all. That having been said,

Peace To All Who Desire It, The Reverend Slick.

M-M-JKD #14997
, USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 7:33:12 CST (GMT -6:00)

ok, I can't help but say one more thing, Brigitte, not that I care to hear your answer, but am only using this excuse to make a point about the abusive nature of patriarchal power-dymanics, wherein only certain behavior is considered "appropriate":

Just what is so wrong with exhibition? Is "inhibition" somehow superior? Is your haughty, intellectualized and highly Freudian style of exhibitionism somehow more "appropriate" than my nitty-gritty in-your-face-with-actual-personal- realities style? Was your attack on me in that post somehow less violent or violating or power-seeking than mine now?

Sister, you should know by now that I am the queen of inappropriate behavior, which is how I have eliminated the shitheads and users of the world, not to mention the hypocritical and cowardly, from my sacred space!

Exhibitionism? Puh-leeeeeeze! All the world's a stage, my dears, and we are all actors on it.

teehee heehee mmjkd

madronemaggiejkd #14996
, USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 7:9:58 CST (GMT -6:00)


Ok, for the record: I came onto this site as jkd this time around, only because I wanted to know if the same rabidly misogynist and aggressive men were still here, as they had been when I originally began posting to this site in 2000.

Madrone was a "performance experiment". Now, it is my understanding of humans that we are all "performing" our gender (and identity in general), unconsciously, at all times. As I am a student now of performance studies, I decided to take on a more carefully chosen, self-conscious identity for a time, for particular reasons. Of course, as I am not naturally inclined to artifice, this was not all that easy for me, especially as I did not really think all aspects through before commencing to perform. It was an inspiration that I jumped into, all the while knowing that some might recognize me as my "real self" (tho that, for all of us, is a debatable term--we have all come to make performance-choices in the formation of identity, tho for the most part unconsciously or against our will to begin with--think, boys don't cry, girls don't express anger). However, it may not be so much that I "outed myself" through accidental disclosures, as the fact that I did confess to one of the several women who privately posted to me as jkd to cheer me on, that I was continuing as Madrone--perhaps she outed me to Brigitte and/or David.

But before I go on, I must say that it's a real hoot to hear you, Brigitte, speak of MY unwarranted aggression! I see that you are still angry at me and hiding behind your veil of intellectualized projections....oh well, no sleep lost, as David might say. A most manly approach, in my opinion, which possible truth I think hurts your feminist feelings the most. Surely there is not a woman among us who has not experienced such manipulative categorizations--being put down and dismissed for not behaving in an acceptably civilized mannner, which in the end means nothing so much as failing to act either more like the patriarchal ideal of manhood, or failing to act like the male-defined picture of demure and deferential femininity.

While simply behaving straight out of one's core is not to be tolerated! Being at the same time as open in an emotionally expressive and receptive way, as in the intellectually inclined way --to name it in one way, possibly not too clear--this is not to be accepted much either by men or women in patriarchy. Men, of course, by and large have learned to alienate themselves from feelings and their bodies (except for such things as righteous rage, for instance), and so often are simply frightened and utterly out of their league when confronted by emotions and the aspects of reality and identity that can only be accessed through emotion. Women who want to have a piece of the pie, as it were, who crave male acceptance and a passport into the man's world above all, tend to act more like men in this respect. The other women just keep on being "good women" in the traditional ways, such as through the demure and conditional expression of their thoughts in such forums as this, acting as peacemakers in the face of interpersonal conflict, nurturing others more than themselves, to name some things.

jkd and Maggie were one and the same, I was not trying to perform my identity differently in any way--just keeping my name out of it til I knew who was who herein. Madrone was a conscious attempt to be even more outrageous, tough, unassailable--"she" could stand and fight for what I feel are crucial aspects of the work of new vision/new world (however imperfectly expressed by her), whereas "I" find the conflict that inevitably arises with the mention of these, too hurtful and distasteful to pursue for very long. Which is why both jkd and Maggie left soon after arrival, kind of stunned at the hostility expressed toward others--even, and perhaps most especially, by another self-described feminist! Even without what became some highly personal attackative exchanges, not all of them concerning me directly, there is an underlying "vying for dominance" and a "violation" of others in these pages far too often, in my opinion.

For example, I see it as a vying for dominance, when some spend pages and pages all at once, expressing themselves--filibustering, so to speak, which to me is the will to have more attention than any one person's share in a group of presumed equals. It is "violation" of a type, to fail to make some kind of response to others' points, or even in passing make some noise of acknowledgement to those who affirm your posts--it is a silent way of saying that YOUR thoughts and presence are too important to bother with others', as well as giving the message to (particular) others that they don't matter, perhaps do not even exist in your world. Another method of dominance and violation I find in plenty here is the tendency of some to not just ignore others' ideas, but to come right out and say that certain ideas/issues "have no place here", as if only some of us in this vast pool of humanity have the right to decide in such matters...which after all are a matter of life and death for us all. These are all too familiar to me (and I am not just speaking of my own posts, unacknowledged here, or responded to with "not an issue here", but of many instances apart from mine) as a tactic of silencing others as part of exercising control over shared reality-- a hallmark of patriarchy.

As is the passive-aggressive and projective quality of responses that are often expressed here. I add that by "projection" I mean people's cacacity to tell someone "how they are being", when it is in truth their own problem they are speaking of. Not to keep picking on Sara, but she did begin to stand out to me (other than Brigitte, who left too soon to pick more bones with, over this) as one who typified this. Well, David too, in some instances--but actually it "annoyed me" more in Sara because she is a woman; I am seldom surprised that men do this, as alienated as most of them tend to be from their interior reality, but (unfortunately sexist of me, I admit) I expect more from women in this dept.

An example of this, re: Sara, in her last post BEFORE I called her immature and arrogant, wanted to talk about grain, having already said she was done "venting spleen"--but could not help herself from beginning with a snide comment to me concerning my probable response to the intended content of her message. And then, when I responded to her covert hostility with overt, she accused ME of not letting it drop. That is projection. If she had really wanted to drop the hostile exchange with me, then why did she not just drop it, and talk about grain without bringing our past exchanges into it? And typical for those who project, she blamed ME for the consequences of HER behavior, not at all seeing how she was contradicting herself. But Sara, I do not mean to make it seem as if I hold you in contempt, or see you as somehow worse than any others--nor myself as any better! I know that Verevolf would likely take issue with that last statement, but no matter at this point. It is not important to me what any of you think, for who are you to me, or I to you? As someone said before, it's all "just words" anyway, not a group and certainly not a group of friends who need feel attached to words and "outcomes" here. I will say what is real for me, knowing that I have the basis of my own experience as well as feedback from others throughout my life, to support my assertion in this. (in other words, you can think of me what you like, but none of you are really in a position to know for sure who and what I "really" am)

Now, I imagine that some of you may feel a certain degree of outrage toward me for using this site in this way, self-consciously as a "stage" for a "performance" with my own ulterior motives. And all I can say is that we are all using this site as a stage for performance of life, and we all have our various overt and covert motives. With that, I claim all spaces and all issues as proper domain for the exploration of what is important to me and others with respect to changing minds and changing the world. The fact that I made a self-conscious performance choice does not make me any more manipulative or despicable (or spontaneous and admirable, for that matter) than any of the rest. The whole point of our being here at all is to address/discuss what we each feel needs to be addressed as regards DQ's notions about walking away from takerdom/patriarchy (which I do see as one and the same, and tho I know opinions on this differ, I also know that no one in my experience, here or elsewhere, has ever given logical or historical reason to persuade me otherwise). Some seem to express that it is not proper that we discuss anything here that is not specifically touched on by DQ--making feminism and the personal off-limits, for instance. I myself have found DQ's ideas to be very interesting in certain respects, but wholly lacking (unknown to him or his followers, I think) in others. I see this forum as a place to jump off from his sketch of things into more comprehensive view and certainly a more practical orientation (what to DO). So, this all goes to say that however each of us chooses to pursue this goal--even through self-conscious performance as I have--we have equal right to do what we feel might help in certain ways. Even in ways that speak more to the body/feelings than to the logical, civilized intellect, as is the main choice (and only overtly accepted choice) of performance in this forum.

now, from here I have 2 more points that I want to cover, and I know that by doing so I will be breaking the "filibuster rule" that I myself just named. However, those who are interested might bear with me, in the knowledge that it is highly doubtful that I will ever post here again (an any identity). The main reasons that I can assure you of that is that 1) as "Madrone" said, I have already done what I came here to do. Those of you with ears to hear it, will doubtless pursue whatever parts of it you found intriguing and/or somehow valid to yourself personally (and you are most welcome to post to me privately as part of that if desired). My contributions are clearly not the issues that most of you care to discuss, and I am happy to get out of the way of what you jointly consider "most important", without judgement or malice or condescension from me--we all have to do what we have to do.

The second reason that I will absent myself hereafter is that I don't have the free time available (even to be the merry provacateur). And more importantly, my physical and mental health just can't take what this requires of my body--after these weeks of frequent posting here (as well as private posts and doing my schoolwork), I have a kink in my back that ya wouldn't believe! That affects both my physical and mental health (as well as my homelife) in far too negative of ways. No more of this indulgence for me!

Anyway, the last 2 points I want to make concern what I feel to be DQ's largest omission, and closing remarks about feminism. These 2 points are much interrelated, by the way, tho I will address them separately.

DQ's biggest omission was the BODY and the PERSONAL, not much separate, to my way of thinking. He speaks of all these great concepts that define the problem and suggest some directions for change, but he leaves out the realm of the body and the personal. He, and many of the posters here, strongly imply that changing minds can be done without including the physical and personal in our lives. And from reading some of the main posters here lately, it seems that there is not just passive ignoring of these things, but a rather active self (and other) denial of these fundamental elements of our existence. IN this I will use Buzz as an example (as I must, at least in part, only imagine you Buzz, so please bear with me and know as well that I find much to be admired in what I have "seen" of you here): Buzz writes exhaustively, following equally exhaustive research and thought on what he adds here. And all that research and thinking requires an ENORMOUS amount of sitting still, being indoors, gazing close-range at books and computer-screens, and attending very much of the time to mental processes rather than to material, physical realities--not to mention the lack of attending to emotional aspects of life and such things as "playtime" and "relationship nurturing". Now it might immediately be said that his work here feels like an enjoyable form of "play" to him--but I am talking about play and relaxation that is utterly non-goal-oriented and involves such purely physical things as laughter and other body-movement--not just mental play that might be enjoyable but does not induce the full range of physical and emotional release that characerizes what I call true play.

The point of enumerating all of this (and these things certainly fit for many of us, me as well these past few weeks, tho it is a departure from my usual way of being in the world) is to say that with respect to the wholistic NATURE of life/our individual lives, people who live this way will never themselves be changed people, apart from having the potential to truly help to change anyone else. There are ways that this type of life I describe "for Buzz", are directly contradictory to "change" and directly contributory to "maintenance of the status quo"--and this is all about the concept we call homeostasis, the tendency of organisms and systems to maintain their usual course. These lifestyle factors are in fact directly contrdictory to health in all of its aspects--for just to name one thing, constant peering at small things at close range has a detrimental effect not just on the eyes, but on the nervous system and so, stress-levels. The negative effects on the body of a sedentary lifestyle are already well-documented, so I won't go there, except to say that even if Buzz, for instance, jogs 3x a wk, he's probably not really "improving" his overall health, tho would surely be slowing down the negative effects of so much sitting-still-reading-and-typing. And of course, all this time he puts in here, surely over and above his other responsibilities to employment and/or family, is cutting into time with his significant others and thus sets up a situation of emotional stress which, even if he does not now feel it actively, is impacting both his own emotional health as well as his marriage/kids(?). And because he gets so much mental reward for doing what he does, he will tend to rely on this type of activity more and more for affirmation. Which then creates a vicious cycle that has a negative impact on all areas of his health and promotes a homeostatic condition of his life that will serve itself ad infinitum and act to prevent him from actually changing himself or the world at all.

A changed world will be created by changed people...and that must include real and active changes to our perceptions of and life within, our bodies and emotional lives, as well as our attitudes and ideas. Changed people will live more fully and joyously in their bodies, thus helping to integrate the sides of the brain, to name one of my favorite issues; they will also have more play and intimacy with others. My opinion here is based on much "fact" concerning the operation of the human body and the ways that interplays with our emotional realities, and the manifestation of our general health as well as typical behavior and typical decision-making/thought processes. This comes from a holistic, systems-oriented approach to human existence, which by the way will also put us more in tune with other life forms in important and ordinary ways...think, feeling our place in the web of life--not just "believing" but actually experiencing that place. Probably enough said there to give you the general idea that I'm getting at concerning DQ's--and this group's--failure to place our bodies/feelings/intuition at the forefront of self-and-world-changing discourse.

Before I proceed, I need to say, as I said to Verevolf when I once "used him as an example"--that I am not picking on Buzz, seeing him as "the worst example of this", or disrespecting his contributions here. I am jumping off from the point of Buzz to address what has been an observation of mine in general here (and elsewhere in patriarchy), and certainly a large part of my own struggle to grow and change--since I have as well as Buzz of some others, a highly intellectual tendency.

As to feminism; it gets down, for me, to a phrase that one of my favorite feminists used (Sonia Johnson, in _Going Out of Our Minds, the Metaphysics of Liberation_), to paraphrase closely: Freedom from the patriarchal mind is not about what you do, but HOW YOU BE". This, in some senses, I have touched on in the preceeding paragraph, as how we be is first and foremost about being creatures with creature needs and laws in action. But how we be is also about how we identify ourselves in the world and also what memes we unconsciously enact from patriarchy. As Madrone, I once tried to conciliate on the feminist issue by saying that it's not about gender anymore, or the sons of today paying for the crimes of our fathers. But I only did that to try to make the subject seem less threatening to some who were highly threatened by it. The plain truth of our society, yes, present day american society, is that every 12 seconds, a man batters a woman. NOt just drunk men, not just men who batter anyone that disagrees with or irritates them, not just poor men or men of color--but men of every walk of life BATTER WOMEN EVERY 12 SECONDS in the US alone. And that doesn't even count the men who mentally abuse their partners, or abandon financial responsibility, or spend years wreaking legal havoc for their ex-partners. There is also a book, by Susan Brownmiller called _Against Our Will_, which is about rape and the notion that far from being a sexual crime, it is a crime of power over women; and far from being an umcommon crime, it is quite common and in fact is in subtle but powerful ways is supported by the institution to keep power in men's hands. Now, you can look into that if you care to, I just want to say this: I doubt that most of the men here are rapists or batterers. But you all live in a collective that holds and promotes the belief--the deep and powerful belief--that it is men's right to have power, and women's duty to accept powerlessness. You may utterly reject that notion on a conscious basis, and do all you can to behave in an egalitarian way, but it still remains that you all benefit--and women in general suffer--from the privileges accorded to you as men in misogynist culture. If we all cannot look into patriarchy's "mind over matter" dictate, wherein men are defined as "mind" (abstract, logical, reductionist, the sacred intellect) and women are defined as "matter" (vessels, irrational, the profane flesh)--if we cannot see how we still behave in keeping with this reality, then we will neither change ourselves nor the world. We will remain slaves, perhaps "doing" some of the right things ("programs"), but never "being" any different in reality. The way that not only feminism but women's authentic voices are supressed (often enough in their own need for masculine approval or the fear of rejection, thus making us speak at times as jr men) in this forum tells me that we still have a long way to go.

so, there it is. Offered, of course, with love for life and the intent to share what has been creation's gift in me to share. Not necessarily to make you like me or to help you feel pleased--but always toward the healing of our species.

Maggie jkd Madrone All of me

Brigitte #14995
Vienna, Austria -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 2:6:15 CST (GMT -6:00)

Just for the record: I did not stop because this is a man's club but because of Maggie's unwarranted aggression here. Be it as jkd or madrone, indeed one and the same person. That ought to have been solved privately, indeed.

I'll never understand anyway why some people have to hang out their entire private life in the internet, but this is their business. That urge isn't inside me and has some exhibitionist traits.

Good discussions lately, by the way, very good ones, as far as I could read up, but if I have anything to say, I will say so privately. So this post was necessary because I won't let the one who made me realize I didn't want to be here any more claim I left because of men. Mud slinging or not, no misrepresentations in MY name.

Keep up the excellent work!

Jim Linder #14994
San Jose, CA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 1:26:53 CST (GMT -6:00)

Ameno, concerning post 15317, and business competition. In my experience, size does not always matter. There are so many other factors, like quality, delivery, responsiveness, flexibility, attention to detail. Many of these one could argue can better be supplied by a smaller business. I know in my experience we often gave contracts to the smaller guy. True, if we grew and he didn’t we often went elsewhere, but in most cases we kept some business with him if he performed well.

I also would like to use a DQ method of proving that low-growth businesses can succeed against GROWTH businesses. They have. If this were true, then we would not have mom and pop stores. No little local corner markets. Look at the proliferation (at least in my area) of farmers markets. So I would suggest that since we still seem to have small low-growth businesses that they can succeed.

As for the pot analogy, I don’t think it was valid. In a pot, the plants pretty much pull in all the resources. So, yes, the larger plant would pull in the most. But businesses don’t necessarily work that way. To a large extent, the resources can choose which plant they support.


Jim Linder #14993
San Jose, CA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 1:15:3 CST (GMT -6:00)

Sorry folks at this point I tire talking about how agriculture came about. Suffice it to say we have no proof unless we find a diary “… so today we decided to grow our own food…” So you go ahead, I will just skip over those messages.


Jim Linder #14992
San Jose, CA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 1:10:24 CST (GMT -6:00)

Ameno, you say: “When measuring the speed at which technology "advances," you have to take into consideration not ACTUAL hours, but MANHOURS”. Maybe this works for you, but that is not how I measure the speed of technology. Based on your definition, I guess you are saying it takes more manhours to advance technology than it used to. Not sure about that, I will have to think about that a while.


Jim Linder #14991
San Jose, CA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 0:58:6 CST (GMT -6:00)

Madrone, damn it there you go again! Just as I am ready to write you off as a brawler, you go and make a statement like:

“I like to offer what I have learned on these topics, for two main reasons: 1) to bust the idea that there is, or needs to be, one right answer to these questions; and 2) to show as often as necessary that the knowledge that is propagated from within takerdom's halls of learning is, by virtue of being accepted by takerdom, BIASED AND INCOMPLETE. Fraught through and through with the values, beliefs, prejudices and mysticism of takerdom. Designed to aid the continuation of takerdom!”

Now this tells me your opinion, your motivation Maybe you said it before (more than once), but I just didn’t get it. My perception, my problem.


Bev #14990
, Australia -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 0:48:44 CST (GMT -6:00)

Well said, Sam. I don't find the mudslinging boring, I find it simply distressing and unnecessary. Most times when I read back some of the posts I can't even see why offence was taken. Unless someone is deliberately and obviously rude, I just take all comments at face value. I often wonder what new people coming here think when they arrive in the midst of a slanging match. I've deliberately refrained from recommending the guestbook to friends for that reason. I've been here a long time and "know" most of the regular posters. I feel like you're all my friends. No way would I tell one of you you were a "snotty immature".

Let's cut the personal abuse and get on with the most important tasks at hand—changing minds and saving the world.

Jim Linder #14989
San Jose, CA USA -
Sunday, December 9, 2001 at 0:32:28 CST (GMT -6:00)

Buzz, thanks for the comments. You and only one other person (via email) have given some solid feedback. I am not sure if I really was serious. I gave it serious thought, but it was late at night. As for the movie rights, I have often thought that what we may be afraid to actually try would benefit from a fictitious account. It would allow me to work out the details (to help me decide to do it or not) as well as illustrate to others the risks and the rewards. So look for my new novel “Jim’s adventures on the path to Leaverdom” coming soon.

Co-housing can in some ways be described as tribal housing. I see it as just a bunch of folks that share common values living in a small intentional community. I am sure it can be described other ways, but that is the way I meant it.

Maximum residency laws was just my attempt to say that some national governments would attempt to operate in a managed resource model. Where they would in some way (not sure how) realize that they cannot support an ever increasing population. Maybe this is an annual census, and a closing of borders until there was “an opening”. They would also need to ban the importation of foodstuffs.

Side note: In reading the Earth : Farms, Forestry and Survival in India by Pereira, Winin…, they make a very good point. Any crops that are exported from a country, are basically removing the nutrition of that place and sending it away. It cannot be replaced other than through artificial means. This was an AHA moment for me, because it seemed to me to be a good argument against exportation of just about anything. Growing say bananas, and then exporting them around the world, how are the nutrients that it took to grow those bananas going to get back in the ground? If I were an indigenous person, and if I eat the bananas myself, then I will probably throw the peel away nearby, and pass what I don’t use which will also get put back into the soil. Once it leaves me area, I have removed just a little bit of my sustainability.

Income Taxes? Well, I have always thought that our American tax system was design to keep those without a degree in accounting from understanding how to reduce our taxes. Or we have go to a “professional”. It almost seems to me another way that the government is forcing commerce on us. We have to go pay a “professional” or buy a software program so we can pay as little tax as possible. Kind of ironic to me since our country was basically founded on unfair taxes. Seems to me a law should state that if the average educated American can’t figure their own taxes, then it isn’t simple enough. So to me, a flat tas is the only fair way to tax income (not that I am sure this is a good idea at all, but we have to remove them incrementally, right?). I figure if your annual income is 1000 dollars and you pay 120 dollars and if you make a million, you pay 120,000 dollars, no one can complain. No loopholes, no wasted millions on tax preparation, or tax collection.

As for corporate taxes, it just seems to me to be double dipping. This kills me on my wife’s corporation. It makes money, that income passes to her as an owner, then she makes money, and she has to pay taxes again. If we look at any business as a group of people whether it be GE or Mom&Pop, then it doesn’t seem to make sense to me to tax what they make as a group and then what they make individually. Eventually, I was going to put in an entry to eliminate all taxes anyway.

As for the sales tax, it’s just another way to tax the same money again. I didn’t want people jumping on me for taking money away from state and local governments, so I threw in the lottery thing. I admit, it’s not the headline I am most proud of, but it was just a first shot anyway.

Now THIS is a good question. EVERYBODY reading this? Buzz asked:

“Putting aside the kidding, which of these do you think would be worthwhile programs?”

Many have said programs are a bad word. Many have also said we are out of time and there is no hope anyway. I say programs will slow the decline enough to give us time to save the world (I think DQ said this too).

So for me, any program that would raise awareness that we are in serious trouble TODAY, to me would be priority one. So something like the sanctions on the US for basically ignoring Global Warming would be a first choice. Next would be programs to increase sustainability. These would be the locality laws and the UN resolution. Next would be the school related programs, as these would ensure we are passing down the most important lessons.

Thanks for asking this very interesting question. Anyone else care to answer? What programs do you think would slow the decline?


Previous 15 Records · Next 15 Records

Top of page
Site design and content, © 2017, Daniel Quinn