Date: 06 Feb 1999 06:23:00 +0200
From: I-AFD_2-AT-anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)
Subject: Re: baby food


Hi,

> At 02:44 AM 2/4/99 +0200, Nico MYOWNA wrote:
>  <SNIP>
>
> >Do you know that almost all hunter tribes on earth practice mutual aid,
> >because they know very well that they need all humans and there capabili-
> >ties inside their respective tribe for their survival ?!! --
>
> INSIDE their respective tribe... not outside of it... big difference
> there...

That isn't true. Every tribe has ally....And many tribe-members have clan- 
members in diffrent tribes. All know mostly only relatives and strangers.
>
> >
> >The "Survival of the fittest" is an old program by old minds, if you know
> >Nietzsche and the ideology of nazism.
>
> The Darwinian Theory is not an old program by old minds, it's the way
> nature works.

I think, you cannot distinguish your ass from your elbow in science.:  
Truth and a *Theory* isn't the same....(see Karl Popper!) *A map about*  
*reality* or the nature of nature *isn't identical* with the reality....

<snip>
> >
> >Daniel Quinn lead you astray if he notice that only *one* single culture
> >in the middle east start the agricultural revolution. There have been
> >agricultural native american cultures without contact to the middle east
> >since 1000 years before Christus. Who do you think cultivate mais, tomatos
> >and potatos ?!! --
>
> There were indeed agricultural Native American cultures, but they did not
> practice our type of agriculture, what Quinn calls "totalitarian"
> agriculture because it uses the land exclusively as a human food source,
> and all the societies which practiced agriculture like ours eventually died
> out.

Please read the lecture "The Little Engine That Couldn't: How We Preparing  
Ouerselves and Our Children for Extinction"  by David Quinn on www. ish- 
mael.com and than show me the paragraph about "totalitarian agriculture"  
in this lecture.

Again, it isn't true that "only a few humans" start the agricultural revo- 
lution....
>
>
> >He lead you astray if he peservere in a food race between agriculture and
> >population. There isn't such food race bevore the year 2005 -- only if we
> >don't change most agriculture from outside to an inside greenhouse work.
> >It's an fact that almost the best arable land in the Third world run by
> >governors of the First world for "colonial" goods like tabac, tee, coffee
> >and other drugs. Therefore Hunger is exclusively an economic and political
> >problem between the First and the Third world....
>
> I really have no idea what you're talking about here... sorry...

Wow, you realy don't know what you pray? "Read www.ishmael.com!" -- And I  
have found it there....
>
> >He say:"We absolutely must stop sending our children out to save the
> >world, first arming them with the undermining belief that humans are
> >inherently toxic.(...) We must be on vigilant guard against teaching (...)
> >that the very best thing that can happen to the world is the extinction of
> >the human race." -- Your statement above corresponding fine with this
> >"undermining belief", I think.
>
> Really?  Which statement would you be referring to?  The one where I said
> that everyone would be better off if our population was 1/10th of what it
> was?  That wasn't saying that humans are inherently toxic, it was saying
> that there are TOO many humans...

You mean, that the number of humans is toxic for earth? -- This idea is  
similar to the idea that humans are inherently toxic for earth....

It is a sign of an old mind if you could reflect abstract and intelectual  
upon the extinction of a great part of the human race with unfeelingness;
you reflect about humans in abstract terms and be able to forget so the  
breathe, exciting human beings behind your terms; it is mostly an small  
step from this abstract level of terms about humans as function towards a
"End-solution of the human question"....(see the psychology behind RAF,  
Action Directe, the Unabomber and Eichmann...!) But the thinking in ab- 
stract terms, functions and big unities is one reasen for the phenomenon  
by David Quinn....

It is a sign of self-hate and be fleeing of life if you call against your  
own human race and your own interests as human being. If you referring to  
the nature some judge and see the nature of nature only in the Survival of  
the fittest you condemn your own helplessness as faint human who need the  
mutual aid of other humans for its survive; you are not able as an new  
mind to understand the nature *and* the human race as a network of help --  
a network of chances -- who support your life....

If the humans are not inherently toxic to our planet, why do you think  
that there are "TOO many"? -- David Quinn try to say: If we just find an  
other way to produce energy (without fossil fuel!), to produce products  
and to live together, than there are *not* TOO many humans on this blue  
planet....

Nico







## CrossPoint v3.11 ##