y yolanda

San Rafael, CA, United States

Someone is shy

Y hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?
Well, if your house is on fire, do you wish for me to gently and politely try and rouse you rather than forgetting your feelings for a moment in order to get you into action? I am old and don't have long to live. I have a lot of health problems, money problems and what not. But none of this is going to affect me. Oh a little bit. But I write. Three books, two screen plays. Most all of these forums and sites are talk, not action. That is just a fact. I do in fact look for what I can do limited as I am and am doing it. I don't have to praise it, laud it up for, "oh, good for you!" comments but where I live (rather, where I can only afford to survive now), I try to raise the consciousness of others. And you know what? They don't care. Not at all. Oh, there is talk of similar things as on this site. There are people who form groups, take certain actions and all that. But almost all, including those of more prosperous Western cultures, don't care at all. My last screen play, about Flight 77, definitively proves it never hit the Pentagon. Now, 10 years later, who cares? You probably don't. An assumption of course, but I'm guessing you are more than willing to let such lies and atrocities be relegated to the past, as though they will have no repercussions on the future you will live in.
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Jackson Browne: A song inspired by the ocean
HI Paul. Will you be back? You wrote this 2 days ago and I'm only reading it now. You are absolutely correct, so please, keep harping, expounding, explaining and trying to reveal how few, here and elsewhere, are actually thinking differently. You nailed it perfectly, "understanding (admitting) the roots...." That is what must be done away with and I keep writing about it myself and no one even responds. No one talks about removing, eliminating or getting rid of the "cause", NO MATTER WHAT IT IS! That is pathetic and sad. What I mean by that is the inability, the lack of know-how, or simple refusal, to think differently or "out-of-the-box". This is one area, the environment, we think we could come together on, but no!! and the earth and it's riches, its resources,are the main reason we submit to slave labor. To buy our small portion. Most cannot buy that anymore, with over 1/2 the world's population forced to live on less than $1 US per day! And do we have need for anymore examples of destruction (Gulf of Mexico, Valdez, the ozone, melting ice caps), that we don't need and cannot afford, environmentally and even monetarily, coal, oil and gas? NO Now, Russian President Medvedev wants international rules for nuclear plants in order to permit "necessary" development of nuke energy - which we know, we ABSOLUTELY KNOW we can't control and which we don't need and can survive with wave, tidal, solar, wind, electrical and geothermal power, but don't because of money. No profit in them, no control. And all six are free, renewable, clean and worldwide. The global monetary system must go. IT, is the main cause. Things don't get done because of money. Things don't get done, BECAUSE of money. And if a person cannot imagine a world without money, then they are brainwashed and cannot or will not think out of the box. If they cannot imagine a world without the institutions they now have, that don't work, don't solve our problems, they cannot think out of the box, or simply refuse to
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?
I would like to add something to my final comment about the fact we are already are having resource wars. I don't have long to live. Most of you, if you are in your 20's, 30's, 40's and even 50's will outlive me and those who are younger and those younger still, will inherent a world where they are free to do what they need or they are not, and they are capable of thinking critically, and most are not. Critical thinking seems to take place along and within extremely tightly controlled borders. I still have not read one post, anywhere, not just here, but other sites, that mention ridding ourselves of the institutions we already have that clearly don't work, are not working and cannot be fixed!! Those are causes of the problems we have. Sorry about that. So with that in mind, if, and it might be a big if, the earth undergoes any major changes, oh, such as global warming, a reduction in natural resources, the extinction of many species, a growing population, growing, growling polarization over the issues and what to do about them, stressing and using political influence, beliefs, moral and religious positions of rigidity, and special interest group concerns because, well, they want their rights too!, the rise and spread of pollution, with no end in sight, what will happen if global warming really does complete itself, or we have a shifting of the poles, which has happened before? Well, one thing is that Greenland will be exposed. It is a bit bigger than the United States and has a tremendous amount of natural resources to rape, but, it belongs to Demarck. If the poles shift or melt, there are at least 200 mountains and ranges in the Antarctic and a tremendous land mass. More resources and space. And most likely it will be warmer climate. Much of a country, that is close to 1/6 of the earth's land mass will be warmer, with the availability of resources that have remained frozen. Russia. American won't stand for this shift in power. Resource wars, or no poli-economies
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?
I think a more apt question would be along the lines of, "SHOULD WE, try and sustain.... with the continuation of beef and other meats, rather than can we?" I love meat. But, if say I was asked about a trade off, like enough water, or where do I personally draw the line at dirty drinking water, and meat, which would I choose? And that might be a real part of the equation regarding the production of food for (estimated 2030 - 9 billion people). That is because I do think in terms of ALL OF THEM EATING and not just those who can afford to. By that time, the number of people in the world who will be able to afford food, will be very small compared to those who cannot. At the present, out of just about 7 billion humans, over 1/2 live, sorry, are forced to live, on less than one US dollar a day!! That is pathetic, evil and intentional and it can be changed. Just above that line, are even more billions living on a little bit more but that is still a painful, starving and intentionally induced poverty and chances are because of the competitive corrals we are herded into, many of them will fall below that $1.For those now alive, discussing these kinds of ideas, problems and what to do, that should be unacceptable, except that the cause for it, most are not willing to change. That should be unacceptable but most people just push it aside because they can't think out of the box. There are many ways to create food, even synthetic foods, that can be good for health, nutritional, non-polluting to the environment, tasty, look good, taste and smell like meat and very importantly can be automated and massed produced and transported to feed everyone. Isn't that the real goal here or is it just for those who are far above that $1 figure? So, do we make everyone richer? Take away competition? What? We get rid of money and monetary systems, but hey, most refuse to go there, so to my thinking, nothing is new, no serious attempts, just lots of talk. We are already having resource wars.
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Can we sustain the population AND the ecosystem without converting to vegetarianism?
Only have a minute Jean but I have to agree with you. I too thought TED was an illuminated part of the population, much smarter than I. They probably are, but most of the time I feel like I am reading the same ole "jack-of-old-ideas-in-the-box" and believe in most cases, people don't really want to do what they say they do. And I don't think they really recognize it. Now, I am not saying my ideas are the best or anything like that, but since I have come to visit this site I sincerely believe the only thing I have to offer those younger than I and those who will be living in this new globalized world that is coming, is the idea of thinking very differently and most of what I read doesn't seem to be. One example I used was the desire to end human trafficking. All that people are doing avoids one important aspect and that is the cause of human trafficking. Unless they are willing to end that, then they really don't want to end human trafficking. Therein lies the willingness of the human to be given the key to their prison-box and to lock themselves in it every day and think they are free and doing something. I call what I mean, "letting go of old ideas absolutely" and believe me I talk to a lot of people about these issues and they not so much cannot let go as they refuse to let go. They want a new world but do not imagine it without all the old institutions they now have. Ha! All of them are broken and unfixable in IMHO and complete new ones need to be created. They still hold on to politics when it doesn't solve problems. The still hold on to government when it doesn't solve problems. They still hold on to blind, religious moralism that doesn't solve problems. Here's one you might react to. Most do. They still hold on to hope and hope by definition is not real. People worship lies. Nothing is done by hope but it is probably the most believed-in concept in the world and it isn't real. Things don't get done because of money. Things don't get done, because of money.
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Who do you trust more to help you understand world events, the press, politicians or your friends/family, or someone/something else? Why?
I am assuming or thinking that to "give me the news" you mean "the real truth" about what is in the news. Today, I trust very little, in the way of news and people who clothe their message with old, antiquated moralism. If I can find those who offer scientific data, that is free from moralism I have more trust in it and then I can check it out for myself, as I do research on what is in the news as best I am able. Scientific method is not the same as scientific opinion, which is no different from any other kind of opinion. It just presents the real, proven facts or results and then one can decide on a morality to apply or discern from it, if necessary. Most people I know today, pick up information and somehow "choose" what they decide to believe and proselytize. Most do no research and I know this because after I present the truth from my research, they get angry and dismissive of me. I look at a lot, read a lot and if you ask anyone who knows me, I talk a lot (too much). But no one wants to talk. That is very dangerous. My sister cannot talk about any of what is really going on. Friends are the same. My offspring, can't be bothered, they have too much on their plate or are trusting in "faith" that somehow it will all work out. When I take world events, and examine them from a perspective of what kinds of people are involved, the agencies, governments, and politicians, it becomes much easier. None of those listed have ever solved the problems us humans have. They almost are never telling the truth, and rarely if ever, do they follow through on any promises and if an individual doesn't believe those comments are true, then I don't know what to say. It isn't being pessimistic but just honest. They haven't. They don't, and over time we have proof that they will not. So, anything they are involved with is highly suspect. What concerns me more though, is that the people don't recognize this, admit it and get rid of it, all of it, for it doesn't work. Most refuse to listen
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
What can we do, as citizens to promote tolerance in our daily lives ?
Thanks Andrea. I use acceptance, then tolerance. You know, I don't believe in God and a Divine Plan, so I first ask a person if they do and if "yes" I ask why do they believe in a Divine Plan and then think they are so godly as to mess with what is going on? It isn't just a moral dilemma as to whether they should help or not, nor is it the hindsight that some express after they interfered and found out they were right! If there is a Plan, their conscious judgment cannot be anything but wrong, even if they were right, on our level What exactly is "assertive empathy"? Sharing and understanding for both participants, or how many are involved in what looks to be disagreeable? You know, it's important to learn how not to care. Most would react to that statement as being preposterous. But, for at least the last 70-80 years, the main definition (#1), listed in all kinds of English dictionaries, from 1935 up to 2005, that I used for checking this, defined "care" as, a troubled state of mind. Interesting, as most would not think preposterous to get rid of or not have, a troubled state of mind. All in all, that is a tough question. My first reaction is to help, followed right away by a certain sense of the danger to my own being. At times, I have stepped in, and at other times I have not. And if I am honest, I don't feel good about the latter, but is that not still unhealthy pride and ego on my part? Where I live there are many beggars. Where I used to live there were more so I had lots of experience in sensing, reflecting, watching and feeling very clearly, when my heart closed, or rather, when I closed my heart, so that I could pass by without giving, from the inner debate I had about how I cannot give anymore for that day, or to another beggar today. And, it really helps to have a friend or acquaintance who overtly hates beggars, etc. and one can use that to look good, see the need, and carry out a good deed, overcoming the fear from being so important. I think acceptance
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Reinventing government - what would it look like?
A study I've seen on this idea supposedly showed that the average (in the case I read), Americans, would not want to find their own food, nor build their own shelters. From this, I realized that if these societies change in new, creative and better ways, I, along with everyone else who is of a certain age, generation or group, must be willing and agreeable to the fact that I will be one whose life is going to be upset and unbalanced the most and most likely, in many disagreeable, irritating ways, that make my life run much less than smoothly. Many new changes may seem like they don't make any sense. There is going to be an overlap between generations somewhere, before and until, it really smooths out and begins to settle into what we envision now, that it could be, and those who are going to be phased out, will be most affected. How long for this? Who knows. They/we/I, must accept this if they/we/I, really aren't just talking out the sides of our mouths. When in fact I speak to those I know of these kinds of changes, they are immediately, and I mean immediately, upset, angry, spiteful, dismissive, contemptuous and other kinds of adjectives. This, I cannot seem to get through to them. This has to start now, it has to. Better later than sorry doesn't work 'cause now, later is too late. I know that realistically and also philosophically, there is no such thing as complete and total freedom but I do think humans should work for creating something, or rather learning how to "allow" something as close as possible to complete freedom as they can live with and live by. This involves practicing patience and tolerance, and with them, gaining understanding and knowledge and through these, maybe finding the deeper and I think, very real connections that make us, or show us, that we are one and not separate as we feel, and have existed and have not been able to come together without killing one another, or just killing, i.e. trust, spirit, childlike-wonder as we age, etc.
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Risks are important. But how do you decide which ones are worth taking and when to be more calculative.
Julian, I know this is 4 days late but hope you don't mind. You might be closer than you know. There have been lots of scientific studies, tests, experiments and so on done around the concepts of deception, self-deception and warfare. As I understand it, what has been discovered is that the left side of the brain is the logical, rational side but the right challenges and questions the logic or arithmetic, if you will, of the left. Now, humans have or hold true and false, simultaneously. However, this was a surprise to the researchers. The Truth, is held or stored in the unconscious while the false is kept in the conscious mind. They thought it would be the other way around in order to deal with serious situations, but it isn't. (you got it) This is counter-intuitive and intuitive is what we need to hear trust, and act upon. Hmmm. It is biased for "the," or "an", observer. Self-deception is the active misrepresentation of reality to the conscious mind and deception, is the active misrepresentation of reality to another conscious mind. The self-deception leads to creating a better deceiver of others but creates an inner turmoil because the Truth is trying to get out and challenge the false. Interesting as it applies to warfare and fooling oneself, then a nation, then a world but the warfare is also inner to individuals and between them as a populace. If there is control by some, a few or many, then havoc happens, tragedies and horrible things take place. Sound familiar? I agree with you except I believe there is a part of our psyches that has an operating system in birth-place with certain data (truths) and to some degree they have been buried under lots of lies but still call out (glad they do) to us humans to free them. Otherwise, I cannot figure out why humans continue to seek the truth in all things if, according to those in power, we have been told the truth. Then why do we actively seek it? Because it calls to us and many can barely or not even hear it. Gud 4 U
Noface
y yolanda
Posted about 4 years ago
Should we ask kids to help us solving the real world problems? And if yes, how?
You know, I've written some quick posts that I don't feel so "complete" about. Sorry. But, when Philipp says, "but we ought to ask them for advice", it made me think, aha! of course, we can't put this responsibility on them but why can't we and why shouldn't we, ask them what they think? There is no harm or added pressure, in that. I think most adults could handle that in a non-pressure way and generally speaking, I don't think it would add stress' to their minds or lives unless they are in some sort of tumultuous situation already. If they inquire for more, then they should most likely have more imparted to them, but without their being responsible. Anyway, just wanted to say that.