Re: Subject: Re: true abundance?

From: Michael Lorrey (
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 15:00:40 MST

Mihail Faina wrote:
> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:59:30 -0800
> From: Spike Jones <>
> Subject: Re: true abundance?
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > And if we bring them to these technologically more advanced levels
> > quickly then we are guilty of "cultural imperialism" and have murdered
> > their culture and folkways...
> Spike Jones wrote:
> <One cannot murder the willing. The term would be facilitating their
> <cultural suicide. If people are given technology and choose to trash their
> <culture and folkways, trading them for *our* culture and folkways, then
> <I have nooooo problem with this brand of cultural imperialism. If we
> <build it, they will come.
> Just wonder if you can be a bit more specific. Who are the "willing"
> people that will "CHOOSE to trash their culture and folkways"? The fact that
> you don't have a problem with this "brand of cultural imperialism" is no
> more surprise for me than calling a 30 years object an "antique".

A culture that ferverently believes in ritual suicide cannot object to
cultural suicide. Adapt or die. A society the ferverently believes in
caste society cannot object to being placed in a lower caste among other
societies. A society that believes the individual has no rights itself
has no rights, as a society is but the sum of all its parts, and a
million times zero is till zero.

Such societies don't really object to these concepts. They are
completely comprehensible. What is incomprehensible and objectionable
are concepts of upward mobility, transformational adaptation, and trust
of the individual.

Clocks have been in existence for over 1000 years. A clock in existence
for 10% of this is considered an antique. Cars have existed for just
over a century. Do the math.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT