life duty death

dannie hawkins 71726.3204 at CompuServe.COM
Thu Aug 31 23:40:20 EST 1995


>julie.cpc at mhs.unc.edu (Julie Locascio) Sub: Life Duty Death| Said:
>I think you are forgetting at least one important "natural" issue:  
>international trade.  Large countries and communities like the U.S. and the 
>European Community survive on high levels of international trade.  
>International trade can be grossly impeded by even "local" wars, which cause 
>refugee flight, resource destruction, and market disruptions.
>There is no "local" war which could be fought to some "natural" conclusion
>without a >rippling effect on its direct territorial neighbors (via refugee 
>resource destruction) AND on indirect trade neighbors (and trade links are 
>very complex).  You can say what you like about the "naturalness" of violent 
>conflict, but you are turning a blind eye to the fact that intervention in 
>other people's wars is OFTEN motivated by economic self-interest and long-term 
>security concerns, not humanitarian pity. (cut for compuserve 50ln. limit)
Ms Locascio:
You are right about "economic self-interest," but I Have mentioned "profits,
greed, etc., many times, but maybe not in the same sentence with "corrupt
humanist" ideals. "Long-term security," translates into "economic interest," But
has a more personal ring to it, a "we're watching out for you" ring.  Upon
hearing these explanations, lower nature (omega) man holds on with both hands,
to the long arms of the system, accepting without question their strong and
brave protector's every word. I agree with *most* everything you say, but you
fail to see that I don't care what happens to the "modern" world. I have stated
that I think over-population is our number one problem because of its affects on
the planet. Practically Nothing escapes Some form of altering and/or destruction
from this burden. As "barbaric" as it sounds, human "herds" need culling. Anyone
but a totally idiot would agree that:  If humans numbers continued to increase
at the present rate, there will be No Future for humans, in particular "civil-
ized" societies, and certainly not white Aryan Kind. Many of Earth's ecosystems
would suffer tremendous setbacks also.  The Only question then would be *how
long*.....?  This being so, why should anyone concern himself with "rippling
effects" ect., from local wars since they serve a very important role in
population reduction, or "weeding the ranks."  As we speak, research scientist
at LSU announced with great excitement that they may be getting close to
isolating the gene that "causes" aging, and the media excitedly reported as an
"I can hardly wait" issue. "Idiots" or idiot clones?  Maybe science will soon
solve all "dying syndromes" and live-birth problems, thereby forcing us to come
face to face with our future much sooner. "Sooner" would be a good *damage
control* strategy. Some people do not want to think "bad" things because of the
burden it places on their "souls."  Others won't because of self-centeredness. 
Many are simply not biologically equipped for depth perception, and therefore
cannot be faulted unless they are in a position of influence, or, are involved
in some form of activity that is directly responsible for our problem(s). I think
this True Natural Law is not dissimilar to the artificial law of;  ignorance is
no excuse.  Yes, human civilized systems Are very complex, as opposed to
primitive societies.  This is not natural nor desirable, considering the many
ramifications of *complex systems* on body, mind and spirit of man.  Complex
systems slowly consume the "souls" of man, resulting in many and various problems
affecting nation/state, community and family. Many times these problems result
in unnecessary and stupid killings that defies all logic. Modern man knows much
less about True human nature than did primitive man. _Earth Abides_  



More information about the Bioforum mailing list