Wind-driven clouds shape-shifting mountains, silver light gleaming off water gray, cool and utterly embracing, had me feeling clear, pure, happy, like Koko spinning on the coarse coral sand.
Later, skin still salt-encrusted, listening to Kamran on the radio, talking about his show as a place of “coming awake together… common people saying enough is enough,” and then he went on to opine: “the war on terror should never have started.”
And that got me thinking, can we not all agree that, at its essence, war = terror?
So what in the world can the world be thinking to wage terror on terror; wage terror on drugs; wage terror on crime?
Is it any surprise that in waging terror, we get terror?
So what if were to decide instead to wage something other than terror on the world’s woes, put all our resources into that, instead of our various and sundry terror machines?
Would those campaigns be any more successful? And what kind of world would we be living in along the way to finding out?
Just a thought.
Because you know, anything is possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
While anything is possible, given the collective stupidity of mankind, the worst is likely.
Read "James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
there seems to be a ~ "war on mexicans" too now
liked the "war on poverty" better
dwps
"While anything is possible, given the collective stupidity of mankind, the worst is likely."
Only when you consider mankind on a short timescale.
Pull your camera back to a wide shot.
Say, 100,000 years.
"In a worst-case scenario, if a Predator is lost in battle, military personal can simply "crack another one out of the box"
No worst case would be a got no more jus one empty box cause gone broke brah!
"Pull your camera back to a wide shot.
Say, 100,000 years."
What you see is an ever increasing population which at some point in the near future will require a drastic reduction. It could be quick or drawn out, but it will be crushing to the poor.
"the war on poverty"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrPdZmPB36U&feature=player_embedded
"What you see is an ever increasing population which at some point in the near future will require a drastic reduction. It could be quick or drawn out, but it will be crushing to the poor."
I should have said, "100,000 years centered on today."
The span of civilization thus far is an eyeblink. To plot its future from the scant data points of its past is the height of temporal chauvinism: we of the present always look like geniuses when we compare ourselves to the past, and idiots compared to the future.
Thousands of years ago, mankind lacked the capability to impact the environment like it does today. I hope future generations have the luxury of engaging in "temporal chauvinism". I doubt it.
In other words, past performance is no guarantee of future results, and present performance is no guarantee of a future at all.
Post a Comment