Greetings all, to all a Happy Newyear !!!
Hi Danila, you wrote,
> Everyone knows that intellect belongs only to humans. That's not the
> problem. The conflict is:
> a) Maximize the number of humans (and thus the potential amount of
> intellectual DQ) BUT at the cost of loss of DQ in the biological level of
> other species--which has many consequences for humans, for example, less
> beauty and vanished historical and scientific information on the
> intellectual level (no wilderness, many extinct species), and weaker
> societies (because there is no reservoir of biological DQ to help
> agriculture). Maximizing the number of humans has negative intellectual
and
> social effects.
> b) Control the number of humans in some way, and preserve existing
> species's ability to be biologically dynamic. Can this be justified in
> terms of "higher quality intellectual activity" than would exist in (a)?
>
> I was thinking that MOQ is a human creation and really doesn't address the
> RIGHT of other species to be preserved to achieve DQ in their own way. Do
> we have the right to say that our intellect is more Dynamic than a
> eucalyptus tree (I'm not advocating biocentrism, I'm asking only: Does MOQ
> answer this question?).
<< I agree on that, but there is another way in seeing things.
You advocate the negative effects of maximizing the number of humans and
right you are.
But IMO, and in the sense in which the MOQ places itself not a very good
perspective though.
The MOQ pursues Quality in every aspect but with your arguments you
create in that way on purpose tragic circumstances. You create by pursuing
a higher amount of Intellectual DQ a greater amount of discrimination.
That is_ inorganic levels ( like memes), biological levels ( like genes),
social
levels levels ( like education) aren 't ' built '/ aren 't capable of doing
such
things/ aren 't capable to ' change ' in the short run....
IMO you have to take in account our individuality and our individual
inorganic/
organic/ social and intellectual history/ patterns in order to come up, in
the
end, with what you said about controlling the number of humans.
You can 't disgard (1) the individual his/ hers right NOT to see beauty as
you do and (2) what do you really want to control !?
Our inorganic/ organic/ social or intellectual level !?
All four levels are inter- connected, you can 't have the one without the
others.
IMO, it can 't be justified to control humans in order to preserve other
species. In a sense by doing so_ you create an off- balance.
That is, nothing can 't dismiss the fact that the way of evolution
whatever
that will be and on whatever level is exists) is just running along that
path.
That is, in a sense, Quality pursues it own route by which species become
exinct, due to our hands or not.
By preserving those species, and by which means we try to accomplish that,
we create somewhere an off- balance. We create on purpose tragic circum-
stances ( in the long run maybe or maybe not, we can 't be sure), but in the
light of the MOQ, you hold back Quality's path on every level.
You hold back on an inorganic level the formation of new memes ( new
neural connections can 't be made because you hold our thinking abilities
at their present spot, quite a conservative attitude (not your intent, I am
sure).
On an organic/ biological level you hold back the appearance of new species,
new habits and traits and new aspects of behavior. Not quite a qualitative
trait...
On the social level, you hold back new kinds of social intercourse, new
ways of interaction, new ways of organisation, and you hold back all what
can arise
between those levels...
Only on the Intellectual level it seems you don't hold anything back.
New possibilites, new technologies can be developed because there is a
need to do so. There will be a new butterfly- net invented because you try
to prevent the species to become exinct. But in just doing that, you bring
pressure to bear upon all others levels...and species !!
And IMO, we don 't have the right to say that our Intellect is more Dynamic
that an eucalyptus tree, but it seems that Quality has its own way dealing
with
such things.
And does MOQ answer this question !?
No, and it never will !
If Quality runs tru' every aspect of Reality ( whatever that is) it leads a
life
of its own ( sometimes we experience Quality, it allows us to see it...),
with its
own interest points and interest issues.
And if, in a sense, the extinction of a species is a qualitative act by
Quality
itself and if we try to contradict that ( seen as another than inferior
thread of
Quality ,) we work against ( or just with) a higher order of Quality.
And would that be the fifth level, that aesthetic one !?
That Moral One !? That ' better ' of Intellect !?
Are we that ' Intelligent to see tru ' that !?
I wonder....
But don 't misunderstand me. It would be a disarter to see the giant panda
become exinct, but holding him in his present position could I suppose, lead
in some future to other far more greater disasters.
Holding all the levels at their present place is not Dynamic...
It would mean that we never will solve the problem or be able to, of nuclear
waste, because for one dull reason we have to preserve some biological/
social/ Intellectual level !?
Are we doing the right thing in trying to preserve anything or are we by
doing just that digging our own grave...!?
Just a thought....
Best regards,
Kenneth
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:57 BST