On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:14:14 EST, "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>
>Perhaps. I've only perceived Buddhism as having a world view steeped in
>fatalism, passivity, and denial of the illusion of suffering around us.

In my last job I was working with a Hindu {who after working in the US and
enjoying Western ways for five years decided that the old way was best (make
what you will of that)}. I mentioned Buddhism as it is probably better known in
the US than Hinduism. (No offence intended) In Britain we have become very multi
cultural and many of us know about Eastern religions through friends, neighbours
and work colleges.  

>I have not met many folks who say, "Because I'll be reincarnated, I better make
>sure I clean up this place. "
>
To tell the truth, neither have I but it is a logical extrapolation (I think)
The respect for all life is basic in these beliefs. You might find the wiki
article interesting if a bit cluttered with different words and concepts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Beliefs

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> Over the long term it has been stable

I'm not sure what you mean by "long term."  Is 10,000 years "long term"?

> (long-term) that we've been wiping out species and domesticating both 
> fauna and flora and carrying them with us; and look at the consequences. 

OK, so you're talking about pre-human evolution, apparently.

> Talk to some of the Australians here about the introduction of 
> non-native species to their country, 

Yes, because the Australians destroyed huge numbers of the native 
species, but that doesn't count. :-)

> I'm not saying we can't, and haven't, adapted to short-term alterations 
> what I'm saying is that logically our best chances of survival is to 
> maintain a system that we know we can survive in.

I'll grant you this is a possibility, if you can't easily steer the 
whole system.  I.e., this is true due to our ignorance of what would be 
better and how to get it there.  If we were in a more-controlled 
environment, it might not make sense.  Certainly a primitive lunar 
colony could figure out ways of radically reworking the environment to 
something more likely to long-term survival.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

As an aside and talking about Karma. I've just finished watching the 3rd DVD of
"My name is Earl" IMO a good American comedy It reminds me a bit of SOAP.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:36:20 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Over the long term it has been stable
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "long term."  Is 10,000 years "long term"?

No.

>> (long-term) that we've been wiping out species and domesticating both  
>> fauna and flora and carrying them with us; and look at the consequences.
>
> OK, so you're talking about pre-human evolution, apparently.

200,000 years minimum for the first 'humans'

>> Talk to some of the Australians here about the introduction of  
>> non-native species to their country,
>
> Yes, because the Australians destroyed huge numbers of the native  
> species, but that doesn't count. :-)

I note the smiley, but I didn't say that didn't count; we have no idea  
what alterations the destruction of these species had. We just didn't know  
any better at the time.

>> I'm not saying we can't, and haven't, adapted to short-term alterations  
>> what I'm saying is that logically our best chances of survival is to  
>> maintain a system that we know we can survive in.
>
> I'll grant you this is a possibility, if you can't easily steer the  
> whole system.  I.e., this is true due to our ignorance of what would be  
> better and how to get it there.  If we were in a more-controlled  
> environment, it might not make sense.  Certainly a primitive lunar  
> colony could figure out ways of radically reworking the environment to  
> something more likely to long-term survival.

Agreed, but the original discussion was in relation to JVS "I never could  
understand the logic behind the insistence that ecosystem of the world,  
which has shifted radically in the past, should either globally or locally  
remain in any particular fixed state." I was simply trying to provide the  
logic.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message