James Rogers wrote:
<<There are escalating issues and competing forces today which threaten to
severely blunt our goals, thereby
rendering us helpless to stop even greater threats than those which most
people think about. ... My goal in surviving isn't to survive another day,
but to win
the game. Destroying terrorism isn't a win, but merely a draw; spending
effort doing so in no way ensures my long-term survival and may indeed
hamper it. >>
It might be useful to look more closely at how the "war against terrorism"
could hamper the goal of long-term survival, winning the game. At the very
least, it will divert resources from more productive activities. At the
worst, it could result in a more restrictive government where much of the
technology that could lead to long-term survival is forbidden.
I'm not sure there's much a few individuals can do to alter the course of
the US government in a positive direction. It's true that a small group of
terrorists appear to have had a huge impact, but please note that the bulk
of the economic woes stem from choices made by people other than the
terrorists. It is not the terrorists who have crippled the aviation industry
and driven down the stock market. I'm doing my bit to help stabilize the
economy: I bought stock this past week, and I intend to take a trip by
commercial airliner later this month. Beyond that, however, I can't think of
anything I can do other than speak out at every opportunity.
But there is plenty I can do with respect to my own life.
James wrote:
<<It is therefore imperative that energy be devoted to actual
solving the problems that we can solve rather than pissing in the wind over
short-term issues that are largely beyond our control.>>
I would have thought this obvious, but from the way people are talking and
acting, I guess it's not. It can seem difficult to distinguish the problems
we can solve from the ones we can't unless we think things through, starting
at a very basic level.
James wrote (in two separate posts)
<<Even if we can solve some problems it doesn't mean doing so is an
effective
use of effort and resources given a particular set of goals and a very
finite quantity of time.
Resources are not infinite and people have to choose
their battles.>>
This is another point that should be obvious, but people sometimes act as
though they've forgotten. Contrary to certain New Age beliefs, it's not
possible to "have it all." Setting goals alone is not enough. They must be
prioritized. There is a prerequisite condition to prioritizing goals: one
must have a clear idea of one's values. This is why certain types of
philosophical discussion (with others or even in one's own mind) are not
only useful but are necessary if one wishes to attain long-term survival.
James wrote:
<<My continued survival is my first and foremost goal.>>
This seems like an excellent starting point. The next question is: what is
required for continued survival. More on this question later, under
PRACTICAL: Time Management thread.
James wrote:
<< Any immediate,
high-probability, short time span threat should be neutralized or minimized,
but not necessarily at the expense of even higher probability threats that
operate over longer time spans.>>
It may be more useful to look at this from the other direction: which
courses of action best promote the achievement of long-term survival? To
define something as a threat limits the scope of the solution set.
Occasionally, that which initially appears to be a problem or a threat can
be dealt with in such a way as to become an asset. As an example (although
one I don't admire) consider how the 9-11 attacks are currently being used
for political gain.
James wrote:
<<My last and most important point is that extropians are in the business of
creating the ultimate trump cards, technologies that can permanently render
the threats we are facing obsolete.>>
Could you expand this thought, James? What technology could render the
threat of terrorists obsolete? What comes immediately to mind for me are
such things as a more dispersed population with people coming together only
when they have a reason to be together rather than crowding together in
cities simply because that's the way things have been done for centuries.
Decentralized power generation. A shift from large, centralized governmental
and corporate entities to smaller ones with a less hierarchical structure.
This post to be continued under the thread "PRACTICAL: Time Management
Barbara
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT