"Unless you are planning to arm those sardines, all the cooperation in
the world isn't going to keep that
shark/dolphin/codfish/haddock/pollock from eating his fill. (Wait a
minute, sardines don't have arms....)"

How about the piranhas??? We can arm sardines with similar teeth and...
Wait a minute, we are talking NONVIOLENCE!

We can have a system by which the sardines know all the time where the
predators are, similar to the bell on the cat that saves the mice.
Well, I don't know if it works under water as well.

(if you are wandering where these posts come from
see...http://www.paddling.net/message/show...=341005#344207)

All the preyed-upon (sardines, mice, bugs, etc.) have one survival strategy:
outreproduce the predators, and "make love not war" seems to be sustaining
the food chain quite nicely. Of course, too much success in reproduction
usually means exceeding your food supply, leading to population crash.
Happens all the time. So you need the predators to keep the browsers in
check, lest they eat everything in sight. Ah, isn't non-violent nature
grand...


"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Unless you are planning to arm those sardines, all the cooperation in
the world isn't going to keep that
shark/dolphin/codfish/haddock/pollock from eating his fill. (Wait a
minute, sardines don't have arms....)"

How about the piranhas??? We can arm sardines with similar teeth and...
Wait a minute, we are talking NONVIOLENCE!

We can have a system by which the sardines know all the time where the
predators are, similar to the bell on the cat that saves the mice.
Well, I don't know if it works under water as well.

(if you are wandering where these posts come from
see...http://www.paddling.net/message/show...=341005#344207)

PG wrote:
All the preyed-upon (sardines, mice, bugs, etc.) have one survival strategy:
outreproduce the predators, and "make love not war" seems to be sustaining
the food chain quite nicely. Of course, too much success in reproduction
usually means exceeding your food supply, leading to population crash.
Happens all the time. So you need the predators to keep the browsers in
check, lest they eat everything in sight. Ah, isn't non-violent nature
grand...

Only that God, or the God of Evolution (there must be one, right?) may
be ****ed off...

EVOLVE OR ELSE!

Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite
alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped
upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the
Americanus Raptor--the biggest dinosaur of them all--and asked: "Why
you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why
can't we little animals at least have our own way?" Then the dinosaur,
blowing the Little Ant away, shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!"

The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said:
"Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And
at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire,
destroying all but the small animals...

Moral: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the
most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles
Darwin

Frankly, I think God has a very keen sense of humor, but most of us just
aren't getting the joke.

In any given environment, selection pressures usually push for greater
specialization, to allow a more efficient exploitation of a biological
niche. If the niche is stable over a period of many reproductive
generations, then the specialization can take extreme forms, as the most
efficient tend to reproduce best. However, once the niche changes, the
specialized species are no longer in their favored environment, and
therefore are less able exploit the new situation, while the more
generalized species can do so since their "niche" is much wider. In a
rapidly-changing environment, the generalist omnivors survive the best, as
they are not choosy about their food sources or their living conditions.
Once the situation stabilizes, the reproductive pressures again favor those
who can exploit the new niche most efficiently.

It seems to me that laziness and greed have a lot to do with biology - the
green things sit there and let the water, and sunlight come to them - no
sweat. Then they want more, so grow bigger leaves, bigger branches, bigger
everything. The browsers are too lazy to wait for food to come to them, so
they eat the green things. They want more, and more, and eat and eat, and
get bigger. The predators are too lazy to spend all day eating the green
things, so they eat the browsers - and they too want more.

While God is laughing, Gaia is ****ed off because the web of life is all
about me, me, me!

Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability (things
were good back then...)?

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


PG wrote:
All the preyed-upon (sardines, mice, bugs, etc.) have one survival
strategy:
outreproduce the predators, and "make love not war" seems to be
sustaining
the food chain quite nicely. Of course, too much success in reproduction
usually means exceeding your food supply, leading to population crash.
Happens all the time. So you need the predators to keep the browsers in
check, lest they eat everything in sight. Ah, isn't non-violent nature
grand...

Only that God, or the God of Evolution (there must be one, right?) may
be ****ed off...

EVOLVE OR ELSE!

Once upon a time lived a race of dinosaurs whose violence and appetite
alarmed everybody... One day a Little Ant, tired of feeling stepped
upon, and worried about her cooperative enterprise, came up to the
Americanus Raptor--the biggest dinosaur of them all--and asked: "Why
you eat and eat everything in your path? Why don't you slim down? Why
can't we little animals at least have our own way?" Then the dinosaur,
blowing the Little Ant away, shouted: "Bigger is better, so get lost!"

The Little Ant, then, gathered the whole cooperative and said:
"Comrades, our world is being threatened by the dinosaurs, so..." And
at that precise moment the Earth was hit by a big ball of fire,
destroying all but the small animals...

Moral: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the
most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles
Darwin

"PG" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I think God has a very keen sense of humor, but most of us just
aren't getting the joke.

"If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and
qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to
ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far
above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort
of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He
would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity
for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better
sort of man in this regard.

He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that
born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong
done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness
be required or desired or expected of that man.

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in
Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the
Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole
responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only
Sinner.

He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it in
each other.

He would not boast.

He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise
as unbecoming the dignity of his position.

He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not
issue from His lips.

There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to
the grave.

There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for
making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort
and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy. - Mark Twain's
Notebook

I wonder what Mark Twain's version of the Bible would look like?


"Scott" wrote in message
...
"PG" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I think God has a very keen sense of humor, but most of us just
aren't getting the joke.

"If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and
qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop
to
ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far
above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better
sort
of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He
would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of
eternity
for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the
better
sort of man in this regard.

He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that
born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a
wrong
done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for
forgiveness
be required or desired or expected of that man.

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in
Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the
Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole
responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only
Sinner.

He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it
in
each other.

He would not boast.

He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard
self-praise
as unbecoming the dignity of his position.

He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not
issue from His lips.

There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to
the grave.

There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for
making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort
and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy. - Mark Twain's
Notebook

PG wrote:
Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability (things
were good back then...)?

Conservatives are the dinosaur in the story. They are unmovable, lazy
(they want no effort) and stupid. And I say stupid because in the end
their size will be their doom. They can't have fun without 260hp...

Efficient creatures (sardines, ants, cyclists, kayakers) have a much
brighter future, particularly now that the barrel of oil hit $60--and
rising. And they shall inherit the Earth (the meek shall...).

Well, there's a revolution for them now.

"The Kayakers' Revolution"

Well guys, I'm not positive yet about the name of the revolution,
whether banana, sardines, cyclits' or simply kayakers' revolution. But
at least I've got a pretty good idea about the content, and that's
good, right?

Anyway, are you tired of all those revolution and counter-revolutions
in Latin America that confuse you more than politics in America, and
that send THOUSANDS LOOKING FOR REFUGE IN AMERICA? Well, here's YOUR
revolution...

***

"Do you want Revolution or Counter-Revolution--or none?"

'World Economic Forum chief economist Mr. Augusto Lopez-Claros said
that the Nordic countries provide a "workable model for the rest of the
world"'


Latin American "revolutions"...always a violent monkey in power, who,
of course, kicked out a Hungry Lion. Then all those accusations and
counter-accusations, plots and counter-plots, armamentism and
counter-armamentism, revolution and counter-revolution... But all this
eats up the resources of the little people who must be wondering
where's their part.

Meanwhile nice and quietly some countries in the world lead all
rankings important to people, all within Freedom and Abundance. And
most importantly, they lead the way in empowering women, not a macho
man. Well, I could be talking about the Banana Revolution (links
below), but not quite, I'm talking some real working models that are
the basis for it...


Nordic countries top women/men equality ranking
Nordic women enjoy a higher standard of living than women in other
parts of the world. According to the 2005 Gender Gap Index published by
the World Economic Forum, the Nordic countries have the most
gender-equal society in the world

The Most Gender-Equal Countries in the World

The Nordics are providing a workable model for the rest of the world

The WEF report is the first ever study to assess the size of the gap
between men and women in five areas: equal pay for equal work, access
to the labour market, representation of women in politics, access to
education, and access to health care.

The aim of the report is to allow countries to identify their strengths
and weaknesses in an area that is of critical importance for
development, and to provide opportunities for countries to learn from
the experiences of others that have been more successful in promoting
the equality of women and men.

World Economic Forum chief economist Mr. Augusto Lopez-Claros said that
the Nordic countries provide a "workable model for the rest of the
world" and that "it is not surprising that the Nordic countries also
occupy privileged positions in the global competitiveness rankings".

Mr. Lopez-Claros declared that the Nordics "have understood the
economic incentive behind empowering women: countries that do not fully
capitalise on one-half of their human resources are clearly undermining
their competitive potential".

The WEF report noted that the Nordic countries are characterised by
strongly liberal societies with an impressive record of openness and
transparency in government, and comprehensive welfare systems that
provide security to vulnerable groups in the population. That allows
Nordic women to have access to a wider spectrum of educational,
political and work opportunities, and to enjoy a higher standard of
living than women in other parts of the world.

http://www.scandinavica.com/cu__ltu...ty/equality.htm

THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1


__________________
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -M.L. King

see thread...
http://www.paddling.net/message/show...ter&tid=345595

The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.

As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.

Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)

PG wrote:
The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.

Not necessarily true. Remember, America is the fruit of one....

Well, maybe that's the wrong example.

But how are you going to jump start the dinosaur into action? Who's
going to stop the onslaught on the environment?


As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.

Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)

The kibbutz solve that consumeristic drive the simple way: SHARING. In
our case, it could be 5 kayaks for 150 people say.

I'm I getting too political? Please see...


Going back to the coops, here are some good reasons why many people
would join them if given the choice...

"Most people are living on Kibbutz Arava for two reasons: 1.) to be
able to work for themselves [no politician, no bureaucrat, no boss, in
other words, no lion], and 2.) to be able to raise their children in a
safe and comfortable environment [in other words, no jungle]. In a
world whose cities are increasingly becoming more polarized and
violent, these basic wants/needs are synonymous with life on a kibbutz.


Internally, Kibbutz Arava functions rather communally and ecologically.
There is a central dining room and commons area. Food that is eaten in
the dining room arrives as bulk, wholesale crates, thus eliminating
retail wastes such as packaging and plastic wrappers. The kibbutz is a
pedestrian community. People are able to walk and ride their bikes to
any kibbutz activity. In fact, there are only five leisure cars
available for the 130 adult members. On kibbutz, people don't throw
much away. When things break, they are fixed either by the garage,
carpentry shop, or laundry. Things are not easily thrown away, as items
are scarce. There are public commodities, such as a coffee and tea
lounge, a pool, an entertainment area, a computer and fax room, a music
studio, and a horse stable. By offering these amenities, the kibbutz
eliminates the need for everyone to have their own TV, computer, etc
[no consumerism, which feeds the lion]."

kibbutz... http://www.objectsspace.com/encyclop...ex.php/Kibbutz

Behind Consumption and Consumerism...
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onsumption.asp

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


PG wrote:
Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability
(things
were good back then...)?

Conservatives are the dinosaur in the story. They are unmovable, lazy
(they want no effort) and stupid. And I say stupid because in the end
their size will be their doom. They can't have fun without 260hp...



In that case, some of the most conservative people I know are liberals.