AndrewL

Here is my take on it: I wont reinterpret it since any interpretation of that sentence will never be as adequate as the standard interpretation that most people would agree as provided by MadMichael. However i do have an opinion. I disagree with his statement, and therefore, the standard interpretation. It has been demonstrated that thinking itself absolutely requires an external world. Human thought can be reduced to metaphor, and those metaphors are entirely dependent on there being a physical world from which we can grab the metaphors we use for thought. (note the physical metaphor of grabbing something that i just used to make a thought.) Here is a link with all sorts of work being done in this area. http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/metaphor.htm In brief. Thought cannot exist without there being a physical world in which we can begin to think and develop thoughts. Therefore, the fact that we think at all requires more than just a diembodied self. A disembodied self outside of 4 dimensional space, without limbs, without external objects, without tactile sensations cannot even begin to think at all. Thought itself is a product of a physical world that actually exists that we can interact with. I feel that Descarte imagined that thought itself was not dependent on outside forces. But it turns out that thought is nothing but an extension of the physical world. Andrew

We agree then, Taliban Jack Layton lies through his veneers..... He is a politician who wants power. I have no idea how he could possibly think to achieve that if he was not a liar. Andrew

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293356.stm Well that's the Big Difference bewteen the Taliban and Taliban Jack Layton...while they both use death to score political points......Jack hasn't threatened anyone yet...... All sides in war lie through their teeth. And all sides politicize the casualties. Andrew

Another reason why i hate economic and population growth. Our quality of life is constantly degraded by this. I suppose. I might have a few more 'dollars' these days but ive discovered that i don't care all that much about dollars. I need more primal pleasures. And they are harder and harder to find. Maybe they should. But this only proves my point that an economic boom does not necessarily translate into benefits and glory. Who the fuck wants to work one full time job just to survive, let alone two? The only point i care about is quality of life, and what percentage of my income has to go towards it. If the percentage stays the same but the quality goes down, it sucks. If the percentage is less and the quality goes down it still sucks. Only if the percentage goes down, and the quality goes up will i think there is a benefit. So far in Edmonton, being here before and now during this boom, the percentage has goen up and the quality has gone down. That really fucking sucks. (i measure quality not by fancy cars and nice clothes, but by things that are more real, like quality of the environemnt, quality of health care, quality of government, quality of people, quality of community, and so on... these are worse now in edmonton than they were a decade ago, and the percentage of my income spent on living was less). That is the exact direction alberta is headed. Andrew

But history has shown that when there is no clear super power, wars ensue. Actually history shows that war ensues no matter what. Andrew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man Andrew

Not near as constant as the daily and brutal violence we witness in our culture. And never near as violent and horrible as wars fought between the civilized. I dont see what the political spectrum has to do with this. But anyway, sure they had flaws. The reason im focusing on the good stuff is because that would be what we need to adopt. We certainly dont need to adopt the bad stuff. Not according to any anthropological study or their own history. Where did you get this myth? From fairy tales and christians? Where do you this from? The term barbarian was what Romans and Greeks called the germanic tribes that eventually became us civilized folk. The term is just an ancient form of the racist and derogatory terms we used to describe our victims. It made us feel better about slaughtering them. Its sort of how some people refer to all muslims as terrorists and fascists. Or americans as war mongers and scoundrels. Its always more myth than reality. Sure the natives had violence in them, just as the germanic tribes did. Just as the romans and greeks were violent, as are all civilized peoples. The difference of course is inthe type of violence and wars, and for what purpose. Tribal warfare between natives never resulted in the extermination of another tribe. It was never used to wipe out entire peoples. (until they tried to organize and wipe out the european occupiers, but who could blame them, as the occupiers were engaged in that very same thing) Again, the anthropological record tells an entirely different story. They had far more leisure time than we do. They lived quite healthy, if only slightly shorter than us now. They had effective ways to deal with the elements. Sure they had illnesses and watched their babioes die. As people still do. But it was the Europeans who brought the most awful diseases. There was even an episode where the natives were deliberately given blankets infected with small pox in order to kill them and make them suffer horribly. And of course civilization has introduced its own horrible cancers and other diseases. Not to mention hazards and multibillion dollar criminal enterprises, and daily violence that victimize us all, especially children. Regardless, it is not my desire to give up all the good that science has given us. Only the bad, while at the same time we adopt a more sustainable pattern of living and we immediately stop destroying everything around us before it is too late. This is not pie in the sky liberalism, this is absolutely necessary to ensure our continued survival. The point is not to go back take up every facet of ancient indigeneous life. The point is to understand how they lived and survived off the land for thousands of years so that we can move forward with sanity into a realistic and far more healthy life. Andrew

Not reversion to the past. But it certainly means we adopt the same sort of subsistence techniques. It worked for hundred of thousands of years. That means it will continue to work long after civilization consumes itself. If we don't adopt a new culture, billions of people will absolutely be exterminated through increased famine, widespread ecocide, and modern warfare. This will happen as resources that currently do feed ~6 billion people begin to dwindle along with our fossil fuels. I find your star trek type scenario a bit too much fantasy and not enough reality. Perhaps if humans were less selfish and more cooperative, more realistic with how we treat each other and the energy subsidy we found in oil, gas, and coal we would have a shot at that. But we are not, and i see no reason to think we will do anything with our resources but horde it for personal gain and constant war for profit and resources. Perhaps some civilizations out there found a way to escape this planet and exploit and destroy others, and perhaps we will as well one day. I think first we have to figure out how to live sane and rational lives, then after we do that we can see about the stars and planets. But it seems to me we would quickly just consume this solar system in a few thousand years and end up on the same path we are now. As far as physics is concerned the rest of the universe is pretty much untouchable. No they did not. The civilized eventually gets around to annihilating any tribal cultures that refuse to give up their land to energy development and agriculture. This is still happening today in many parts of the world. Even in Canada. The Inuit culture will soon be a thing of the past as we warm the globe and develop the arctic for more and more resources to 'feed our habit'. Yes. Its when people first became full time farmers in the fertile crescent of the ME ~10 000 years ago. They eventually expanded and continued to expand into all corners of the earth. The European invaders and occupiers of the Americas are the result. As are all civilized peoples. This is totalitarian agriculture. It essentially means you lock up the food, force people into labor, and then make them pay for the food. You continue to grow and force other cultures to adopt your culture so that you can become more and more powerful. This is literally what happened, in a general sense. And it still happens today. Eventually there will be no place on earth where people can live truly free lives. And then soon after we will realize that we consumed the planet for no good reason at all. Andrew

They had respect for the earth because they were intelligent enough to recognize that the earth is what fed them. They did not overpopulate because they did not build permanent settlements and produce more food than they needed. At the time of European contact, the plains indians were considered the healthiest and longest living people known to the settlers. They only began to die young and in large numbers through European disease and genocide. The european occupiers purposely tried to eradicate the buffalo in order to stop the natives from continuing their hunter gatherer lifestyle. They did not 'almost' go extinct because the white man gave them rifles. It was not really even warfare so much as very low level retaliation and raids. Tribal warfare did of course take place sporadically between tribes at certain times, but it was nowhere near as brutal, inhumane, and destructive as it is with the 'civilized'. They certainly did not practice slavery. They were not full-time agriculturalists, they were mainly hunter gatherers. They has absolutely no use at all for slavery. But they most definitely became slaves when the European invaders arrived. Slavery was introduced by civilization in order to grow large crops. The Jesuits tried to convert the natives to Christianity and 'civilize' them. What right did they have to interfere in this culture? Jesuits were merely another in a long line of religious imperialists and colonialists. It was tremendously immoral for them to twist and pervert a perfectly viable culture that existed contentedly for thousands of years. I can hardly blame the natives for attacking any of the settlers who tried to eradicate their culture. That is self-defense by any definition. Thankfully i cant. But it is irrelevant anyway. Im in no way suggesting we replicate every single facet of indigenous life, or even most of it for that matter. Im saying we can look towards what we know about how they lived in a sustainable way and we can adopt those types of techniques to go forth. (we will have to at some point for sure, the sooner the better i say). This certainly means radical changes to the way society works now, but i see no reason to continue on as we currently do. Our current way of life is far too stupid to continue pursuing. Obviously im far more versed on this subject than the common misconceptions and myths you tried to pass off as knowledge. Andrew

Its unsustainable to live the way we do. If we dont choose to live much simpler, we will eventually force a collapse. And because we did not choose to forge a more realistic society when we had the chance, the suffering and conflict will be horrific. Its got absolutely nothing to do with white people. Its just the totalitarianism of civilization that is not going to work. The problem is not that multiculturalism doesn't promote culture. The problem is that there is no such thing as multicultaralism in a civilized state. A muslim who moves to Canada is just as civilized as any christian european settler. They share all the same roots. Civilization only pushes one culture - totalitarian agriculture and gluttonous consumerism. That is our culture at its most fundamental state. We may give lip service to multiculturalism but in actuality we suppress and destroy divergent cultures whenever we come in contact with them. Andrew

That may be so. But that is not the world we live in. To accomplish what you want would lead to massive problems of division and social unrest, far more than we see today in Canada. Our laws mainly come from British common law, and common sense - it changes with the times. Our morals don't come from Christianity at all. Have you read the bible? Can you imagine the horror we would live in if our morals came from Christianity? Thankfully our morals have changed with the times. Not enough though. Still plenty of changing to do. And i hope for the sake of sanity we don't look at any Abrahamic religions to discover the new morals we will need to deal with the world we are currently destroying. Capitalism has its benefits and drawbacks, but it is hardly unique to Canada, christians, or white people. Consumerism, inseparable as it is from capitalism, is a rather shallow and disgusting part of our culture. Given the unsustainable nature of moder capitalism, im sure it has to be radically modified in favor of something far more realistic and less consumerist anyway. Ughhh... I shun both. If that is our culture i think we should dismantle the entire country immediately. I only see two master cultures. Civilized and tribal. All civilized cultures are the same to me. Tribal cultures are diverse, dynamic, vibrant, spiritually potent, and above all, sustainable. I prefer the latter to the mind numbing stupidity and hate-filled brutality of civilization. I agree we cant move back. But we can certainly take the good from tribalism (in canada we would rely mainly on the native tradition) and move forward with it. Failing that i can only hope civilization dies off before civilization makes this planet unlivable. Andrew

The warfare was neither constant nor anywhere as brutal as modern civilized warfare. There was no cannibalism in NA native culture. Torture and casual brutality did not exist anywhere to the degree it is found in modern civilized states, even Canada. What did i admire? I admire the respect they showed for the earth. I admired the skill they had to live in the wild with almost no predation. I admired their sustainability. I admired their sense of kinship with the land and with their tribes. I admired their total lack of crime. I admire their sense of time. I admire their lack of totalitarian expansion and exploitation. There are really so many things to admire about the native way of life. Modern civilization? I cant think of much that i admire at all. Andrew Lol. Why are you online then? Im civilized. Do you also ask a crack addict why he does crack? Andrew

Ive spent most of my life in AB. I would much rather go back 10 years. It was a much better place. Health care was much better, education was better, there was far less crime, housing was affordable. There was jobs to be had. Houses to buy for cheap. In fact, my favorite little summer spot is now overrun by jackasses who do nothing but destroy and pollute the land. For that one reason alone, even if it were not for all the other stuff, i hate the oil sands with a passion. I could care less about 'unheard of salaries', condos are an eyesore and I can't imagine living like that. Yuck.... all those neighbors suck and they are so cheaply built they will fall apart in less than a decade. Nice expensive cars don't do anything for me. Id rather ride my bike or walk. 10 years ago you could of had your own house for far less. The bums you see on the street came here from elsewhere because so people can throw change at them. In Edmonton we have people living on the street who have full time jobs, and still cant afford rent or a mortgage. Alberta had a tiny bit of downswing when the government laid people off a few decades back. But otherwise the economy was doing just fine. A good quality of life was far more affordable for people before the recent 'boom'. Andrew

The warfare was neither constant nor anywhere as brutal as modern civilized warfare. There was no cannibalism in NA native culture. Torture and casual brutality did not exist anywhere to the degree it is found in modern civilized states, even Canada. What did i admire? I admire the respect they showed for the earth. I admired the skill they had to live in the wild with almost no predation. I admired their sustainability. I admired their sense of kinship with the land and with their tribes. I admired their total lack of crime. I admire their sense of time. I admire their lack of totalitarian expansion and exploitation. There are really so many things to admire about the native way of life. Modern civilization? I cant think of much that i admire at all. Andrew

A single Canadian culture? Why? What value is that? And if its singular why does it have to be christian? How would you have given no other option to them? Would you have killed them if they refused to conform (as our european ancestors in fact did in some cases). The forcing of native children into european christian schools is one of the most shameful aspects of our history. I don't know why you think european christian culture is so great. Perhaps its better than some. But I'm personally far more impressed by the native culture we exterminated than i am by what we replaced it with. Andrew

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse. Andrew Awful problems? In your opinion I suppose. if you think economic prosperity and crime go hand in hand, you should see what happens when an economy goes south. Who said the economy had to go south? There was an acceptable level of prosperity before the oil sands. And we did not have all these problems to boot. Andrew

There is something very perverse about your idea that Aboriginal culture is undermining and imposing on our white christian culture of occupation. Is it not the white christians that undermined and imposed on the Aboriginal culture? Andrew I basically talking cultural demands and cultural aggression and cultural indifference that is taking its toll on Canada and could eventually be the downfall of Canada as a country. You are right the Whites have imposed on the Aboriginal culture in the same manner the British have imposed their will on France and subsequently conquered France on the 'Plains of Abraham'. Culturally speaking all Canadians, Quebecers, Aboriginals and immigrants should have been initially given no other option than to conform to a single Canadian culture or go your separate ways. Quebec and the Aboriginals have both demanded a recognition pertaining to independent societies but both have not been able to create a vibrant society of their own and now are forcing government to provide societies for them, independent politically from Canadian society but paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Like I said previously this is basically the fault of culturally obsessed federal liberals, basically a Quebec political party. Canada in general is just a weak clone of US culture. Its not like we have been able to create anything either. A

These are awful problems to have. And they will only get worse. Andrew

No effort at all. Lets see you seem to be excited about 100000 of 17 milllion jobs, and a 1.5% GDP (which is an average and says nothing about quality of life). Really MD, you cant be that big of an idiot can you? Again, where is the glory, where is the benefit? Andrew

You are totally missing the point. I live in the economic boom and this province in general is far worse off as a result of oil sands development. My quality of life was far better before. Edmonton itself has become a fucking dump (or more of a dump). 100,000 new jobs out of 17 million is hardly significant and those jobs could easily have been created in more sane sectors. 26,000 of the jobs that are directly related to the oil sands are young transient workers that have made Ft. Mac and Edmonton a haven for criminals. And further to this, our incompetent government refused to buil services to accommodate this increase in people. This is bad, not good. On top of this, the housing market has essentially priced itself out of the middle class demographic. This really sucks beyond belief. And then we have the environmental destruction, the waste of water and natural gas, and the further logging of old growth forest. All this for a few rich Canucks, and many more rich yanks and other foreigners????? Where is the glory? Where is the benefit? It idiotic to think there is any. Andrew

When did Syncrude, Suncor, Nexen, CNR Ltd, etc etc etc.......become foriegn? ....never mind.....your ability to plainly show that you haven't a clue on any aubject in every thread you participate in leaves my somewhat bored..... Lets just take Syncrude for example They are a join venture owned in part by ConocoPhillips and Imperial oil (exxon). These are all publicly traded companies where the majority of shareholders live and spend there money outside of this country. Are you suggesting that few jobs that benefit an extreme minority of Canadian, with most of the money going outside of the country, very little in the way of royalties, incompetent governance and planning, ecological destruction, lack of infrastructure and services, a transient workforce, and housing market priced out of middle class range, a booming criminal culture, and so on... is worth producing a few rich canadians. And you think replicating all this in the Arctic is glorious and full of wonderful benefits??? You are being quite foolish and naive Andrew

Yes, all the benefits go to foreign companies. They fly all their own workers in, buy all their material from foreign countries and return nothing to the local economy. Very well-informed and thoughtfully presented sir. So where is the benefits? Where is the glory? A few jobs have been created for a transient work force that has made edmonton the murder capital of canada... how glorious.... It has had an enormously negative environmental impact... very glorious..... we get pathetic royalties that the klein government did nothing with anyway. Where are the benefits? If you think it is jobs think again... Hollywood employs more poeple in Alberta than the oil sands do. The entire thing is a mess and all the real benefits go straight to foreign companies. Im convinced america would treat the arctic and it people much better than Canada would. At least they do in Alaska. Andrew

I suppose you can say that about Canada as a whole or of the planet as a whole. Sure. So who cares if the US has sovereignty over this land? In fact, given the way oil companies operate in Alaska there would be far more benefits to the locals if it was american owned than if it was Canadian owned. Andrew

Yeah.....the difference is who gets the benefits......given my druthers I would prefer Canadians getting the glory over foreigners...but then again, I love my country. Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory. If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed. Andrew

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land? Andrew