Rog,
ROG:
To repeat what I wrote yesterday to Ed (to no response, perhaps he is
planning his next attack)
No, it isn't that, silly, I've been catching up on bollocks! (That was a
fine piece of writing.) But I do have a couple of responses:
First, I note and concur with what Sam had written:
We need to be clear amongst ourselves about what is being criticised or
defended. To seek to explain the actions taken by the terrorists is in no
way to seek to justify those actions. They are unjustifiable. When people
are accused of being sympathetic to the terrorists, in this arena of MOQ
debate, we should at least pay each other the courtesy of saying whether the
disagreement is over questions of factual detail or logic (intellectual
level) or over fundamental moral principles (moral in the conventional,
non-MOQ sense, ie social level). It seems to me that the objections raised
so far tend to the latter rather than the former.
> E:
> Indeed, 20% of our population controls about 85% of the wealth in this
nation, the top 1% owns 40%. The income
> disparity has continued to climb.
>
> R:
> And the correct number that you, and only you, in your divine wisdom knows
is _____ (complete the sentence). > You do realize that income taxes
are pretty much paid in proportion to this too, right? That 35 to 40% of
Americans > pay ZERO tax and live off the above wealthy scum?
Right, there is an incredible imbalance.
> E:
> At nearly 300 million in population we account for 5% of the world
population of 6 billion, but use nearly 25% or
> the world's energy supplies.
>
> R:
> And you would cap us at what level? You do realize we produce and/or BUY
that energy, right?
I'm listening...
> E:
> Not surprisingly, this corresponds to our accounting for roughly 25% of
global emissions (and our pulling away from
> the Kyoto accords doesn't, in my opinion, help our image).
>
> R:
> No argument with me on the importance of reducing pollution and protecting
Nonrenewable resources, but the > Kyoto accords were a joke. We can
do better.
Rog, I don't say this lightly: You and I have different views on the world.
And I will learn from reading your responses as I do from the other posts. I
enjoy that. What also excites me is seeing where we do agree. I think of
Stephen Covey's synergy ideas; that we might find better solutions to
reducing pollution and protecting nonrenewable resources (or other) by
working together.
> E:
> From a world perspective, 500 of the largest industrial corporations
control 25% of the world's economic output but > employ only one twentieth
of one percent of the world's population.
>
> R:
> So we deserve medals for producing most of the economic value with such a
small amount of effort. Please send one > to me, as I am an influential
executive at one of the larger corporations on the above list.
In an MOQ sense I interpret the book Small is Beautiful, subtitled Economics
As If People Mattered, by Samuelson, that the idea of efficiency of economic
output has excellent rational appeal, and is certainly not without great
merit, but it needs to also incorporate a greater quality and human aspect.
Pirsig in ZMM p291 affirms this:
"The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs
is not to run away from technology. That's impossible. The way to resolve
the confilict is to break down the barriers of dualistic thought that
prevent a real understanding of what technology is -- not an exploitation of
nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of
creation that transcends both."
> E:
> From an environmental perspective, beyond the classic problems of poverty
and warfare, we have begun to > face limitations in the earth's
resources. We are currently degrading our environment and taxing our
resources at a > rate faster than the earth can replenish itself.
>
> R:
> Agree with this as a problem, but wasn't aware it was the cause of the
terrorism. Are you suggesting Bin Laden > shares your views, or that
those that do share your views are equally "justified" to snuff out peaceful
people? Not > sure of your point here.
My point is that the inordinate imbalances created by degrading the
environment and taxing resources cause disruptions at all levels. Biology
depends upon Inorganic, Society depends upon Biology, Ideas depend upon
Society. Throw any one out of balance and the others are strained.
> E:
> Perhaps the MOQ would suggest that there are better moral alternatives to
the activities that promote inordinate > disparities in resource use,
wealth and income. The reason; these huge disparities can needlessly cause
incredible > individual and social disruption. It is not to say that
the disparities are problematic, but it is when the disparities are >
inordinate that they necessarily will disrupt social activities. They are
not necessary to the pursuit of freedom. Sounds > more like biological
patterns of greed; a far cry from a pursuit of greater dynamic quality.
>
> R:
> We are a very wealthy people that have learned to very easily produce
amazing amounts of wealth due to our values > of allowing people to have the
freedom and creativity to pursue their own interests AS LONG AS THEY DON'T
> HURT OTHERS. Your solution is to ignore those countries that have failed
to discover these social patterns, and > instead blame the one that has?
"Lets solve equality by taking down the successful." Sorry, Ed, it has been
tried
> and found wanting.
AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HURT OTHERS. I think our (not just the US) tendency
has been to exploit nature for personal gain, and this is felt somewhere
somehow. We (not just the US) can "solve equality" and become more
successful by promoting greater balance. THAT feels exciting to me.
> E:
> I am not condoning or justifying the terrorist activities in any way. I
am simply setting forth some likely reasons for the > intense anger against
America.
>
> R:
> Sounds like you are gloating. You should be ashamed.
Not at all. (And I did see where you had written to Victoria and 3WD,
"Thanks for the more eloquent and measured reinforcements to my admittedly
overly emotional response to Ed and Squonk.") I was shocked and sadenned by
the incident. The terrorist attacks may have had nothing to do with the
imbalances I am pointing out. But as we search for answers to help preclude
further violence, I don't think these imbalances should be ignored.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:31 BST