This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
On what kind of world would all the children eat?
Your thoughts?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Random Chance 30+
Oh, if there was a Garden, earth was it, but at the behest of religion, the gardeners (we humans), have destroyed it.
Or, the way things are going?
A cannibalistic world.
It would also help in reducing over-population because even a cannibal can't get laid.
The fact is: we already can do this. WE DON'T.
The fact is: we are mindful of what we are doing. WE AREN'T CHANGING.
Partly because so many of those in wealthy countries still believe their jobs and their own families come first, then, keeping the world from self-destruction, second or further down the list.
They completely ignore, nor do they teach and inform their own children, of the rapidly approaching state or conditions for cannibalism in "their" very near futures.
We absolutely refuse to get rid of the causes, so everything else we talk about is just rhetoric that is only as deep as a puddle. Starving children is acceptable or tolerable to those in wealthy countries. A wealthy world doesn't mean kids will eat. The wealthy are the only ones who can solve many of the world's problems. They refuse to. Poverty, starvation and other evil-ills, are simply accepted as part of the system we all live in (collateral stuff, know what I mean?), and then the majority of those going to work, then accept that conclusion as well.
Not only is starvation acceptable and tolerable, but feeding everyone (and we can), is not acceptable or tolerated because that would mean getting rid of our 100% unjust system and creating a just one and that is not acceptable or to be tolerated. Why, it's communistic, socialistic or some other demonizing word or name to end all serious discussion and thinking that leads to mobilization to clean those in power out. Mobilization/action is needed. Not globalization for ONE.
Paul Lockey
As I've said elsewhere
( http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html ), participating in online discussions such as this is just one example of a luxury now widely regarded as an essential aspect of the good life, and the very fact that millions of people just like you and I aren’t generally willing to give up our ‘right’ to a comfortable lifestyle is precisely why poverty persists and the world’s resources are getting evermore concentrated into fewer hands. We’re all suffering beings searching for happiness. Blaming ‘the wealthy’ for all our problems is the attitude of a victim who mistakenly believes that material comforts and other people can provide lasting happiness and security.
We’ve all seen pictures of people smiling and laughing joyfully despite having to endure extreme hardships. On the other hand, we see plenty of people who are unable to enjoy their affluence because their mind is disturbed and so they blame their unhappiness on disagreeable circumstances or other people. Impermanence, insubstantiality and dissatisfaction are existential facts: we’re always going to encounter things in life that we dislike and would prefer to avoid or eradicate (often without regard to the consequences for others), and as long as we keep clinging to our fantasies of lasting security and happiness we’ll continue to suffer...
As I believe Gandhi correctly observed, there’s enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed. If we’re serious about alleviating suffering and saving the planet we each have to examine all of our lifestyle choices honestly and resolve to abandon any activities that we know to be frivolous and contributing to the perennial problems of poverty, environmental destruction and warfare over ‘scarce’ resources.