psypher wrote:
> Sodom: your message was very long and it wouldn't make sense to reply
> to it all piecemeal. But you asked why would we cooperate and why
> would we want to. So I'll tell you what i think since you told me
> what you think and maybe we can communicate.
>
> ...We should cooperate because we need to see ourselves as a species
> in order to survive. We've reached that point now.
Who is "WE"? the species as a whole, a particular unit of the whole, national or otherwise.
>
> ...Our thought processes in the wealthy nations are skewed towards
> reductionism, we're very good at taking things apart. But we're all
> one system.
>
> ...our survival depends on the stability of the ecology in which we
> are embedded - that ecology includes other persons.
We dont know that - we adapt and adapt fast. You should say, "our survival as we are now depends on the stability of our ecology". Now, I would prefer an improving ecology as in a healthier, more diverse, less poultedecology - but my taste and reality are two different things. i will take the most pragmatic and reasonable approach to improving it - but my expectations are limited to the scope of possibility.
>
> ...the only way we will ever learn anything other than clever tricks
> to solve immediate problems is by communicating.
You underestimate the power of cleaver tricks
>
> ...communication requires two parties - one to send and one to
> recieve.
at least
>
> ...to communicate we must cooperate.
no, not really
>
> ...we must communicate if we are to learn.
>
but not as a whole, although a whole is nice. absolutism is your demon and reality your hell. To make improvement you need cooperation - you say so yourself. Yet you are difficult to cooperate with due to your combative and dominating nature. For you, pragmatism is the missing component and I think experience will be the key.
Bill Roh