Sunday, May 16, 2010

2010-05-16 - Anthony Marr's CARE-7 tour blog #16 - Albuquerque NM & El Paso TX


Anthony Marr's CARE-7 tour blog #16

Albuquerque NM --> El Paso TX

Both my global warming speeches in Albuquerque yesterday evening and in El Paso this afternoon have risen on to a higher plane than those before. I have incorporated a long term solution to the global ecological crisis as an integral part of my "doomsday prophet" presentation, giving it a positive conclusion, with a bright light at the end of the long dark tunnel. It is Integrative Transcendence. (see below.)


Adriana and her dog.

Thanks are due to Mikki of Albuquerque (last name concealed as a rule for security reasons) for her hospitality in offering me free lodging, who wrote me today that her dog Professor was missing me already, and to Adriana for hosting the Albuquerque event yesterday evening, who introduced my [Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH!] talk, assuring a woman in the audience who said that she had known about global warming that what I had to say, no one had heard before.

Mikki on upper left, Adriana on upper right.

Hunter mom giving me dirty look.

Today, I drove from Albuquerque NM to El Paso TX arriving at my host Susan's amazing rural property by 1:30 pm. Near the NM/TX border, in southern New Mexico, I encountered two large cattle factory farming operations, where I could almost smell the potent greenhouse gas methane emitted unrestrained into the atmosphere.










Susan was from British Columbia herself, and was thrilled to see my BC license plate when she was letting me through the gate of her property in company of her dogs. And I was thrilled to see Richard and Suki Sargent among the guests, both of whom I met back in 2004 in my first Compassion for Animals Road Expedition (CARE-1) conducted with Brenda Davis and her then 15 year-old son Cory Davis, and who offered us the hospitality of their magnificent home, complete with a "cat house".

Dog paw prints on my chest - a definite sign of welcome.


Suki Sargent and friends.

With a very progressive young lady from India.

Suki introducing my talk.

Susan on far left, Richard Sargent front left.

Tomorrow, Susan will take me for a visit to Hueco Tanks Historical State Park to see its ancient artifacts, after which I will take the 10 hour drive to San Antonio for the May 18 event hosted by Kaz.

Anthony Marr's Green Hornet lecturing the other cars.

It is about time I should present something about Integrative Transcendence in this blog. Following is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of my second book [Homo Sapiens! SAVE YOUR EARTH!", whose title is the same as my lecture. It depicts a conversation between Raminothna, an extra-terrestrial intelligence, and myself, when I was sitting on a mountain-top, gazing at the moon:

Raminothna: "I wish I could come and sit with you," the voice said to me.
I: "Why can't you?"
R: "By the physical laws, I can; by the social laws, I cannot."
I: "Why not?"
R: "Interstellar Non-Interference Principle."
I: "Who are you?"

R: "I am Raminothna, the fortunate and the called upon, at your service."
I: "Okay, let me rephrase. What are you?"
R:  Normally, what one is towers over what one says, but in our case, to you, what I say is more important than what I am. 
I:  Still, it does not mean that what you are is not important. So, again, what are you?
R:  When you can tell me what you are, you will know what I am.
I:  What am I? Another age-old question. I don't suppose it helps for me to say that I'm human.
R:  Not particularly. It is about the same as an ant saying to you, "I'm an ant," if the ant does not understand what an ant is. Conversely, it makes no sense to the ant if you tell it what a human is. 
I:  But if I tell you that my species is the one responsible for driving this planet to runaway global heating, you might be able to tell me, for example, that you are an interstellar planet saver, or savior, here to save the Earth for us."
R:  This is a sharp argument. But, no, I am not a planet saver, nor a savior.
I:  Then why are you here?
R:  To observe, to understand, to analyze, to evaluate, to report, and, where you are concerned, to advise, and, if the worse came to worst, to stay with you so that your demise would at least not be too lonely.
I:  To advise is the best you can do for us?
R:  The best anyone not of your planet can do for you, due to the interstellar non-interference protocol.
I:  Why can't you just give us the blueprint for a perpetual motion machine? All problems would be solved.
R:  But for three things. One, the solution then would not be yours. Two, knowing your species, you would wage war with it as much as or even more so than wage peace. And three, evading the test is equal to failing it.
I:  Test? What test?
R:  The cosmic test that all intelligent and technological species sooner or later have to take.
I:  Again, what test? Whether or not we can survive ourselves?
R:  To begin with.
I:  What else?
R:  Whether you can save your planet from mass extinction due to global warming, as you yourself have been trying to do, because if only you survive while 20 million species die because of you, you will just go elsewhere in the universe to rape, pillage, plunder and murder.
I:  Tall order, especially considering the corner we have painted ourselves into, or should I say the mess we have made in every corner of the world.
R:  Tough test, no question. 
I:  But why? Why do we have to be tested at all. Why can't we just live happily ever after?
R:  First, because this is not a fairy tale. Second, because your world is finite, as are your needs, but not your wants. Sooner or later demand will exceed supply, and the environment will be irreparably overwhelmed.
I:  The overwhelming has in fact begun.
R:  Thus, your cosmic test. But do not take it personally. This happens on every planet with intelligence and civilization at one critical point in its life, to whatever galaxy it may belong.
I:  So, some make it and some don't?
R:  Yes.
I:  And you won't lift a finger to save those who fail?
R:  That is a pretty cold way of saying something that has to be.
I:  According to whom?
R:  The interstellar non-interference protocol.
I:  Based upon what? Some kind of cosmic law?
R:  Simply: Let those that are destructive commit self-destruction, and let those that are constructive construct their own stellar and interstellar future. 
I:  Even if the destructive are beautiful and lovable?
R:  Are you referring to yourselves?
I:  Well, yes and no. We can be very ugly and despicable, too.
R:  So my answer is: Yes.
I:  What is the percentage of passes and failures?
R:  I cannot tell you this either.
I:  Why not?
R:  If the success rate was high, you would slack off. If low, you might lose confidence in yourself. It is best just to do your best.
I:  Do you want us to fail, or do you want us to pass?
R:  Here is an analogy. In the incubation room are 1 million eggs. Some will not hatch.  Of course the caretaker would want as many eggs to hatch as possible.
I:  But you won't do anything to help those eggs you know won't hatch?
R:  Is this a trick question?
I:  In what sense can it be a trick question?
R:  If I said, no, I will not help those I know will not hatch, then you would say that since I am here to help, your "egg" will hatch.
I:  I'm not as intelligent as I look.
R:  Alright, I will say this. If I knew that a planet is beyond help, I would devote my time and energy to another that has a chance.
I:  So, this planet Earth here has a chance?
R:  I am here, am I not?
I:  What kind of a chance? As I said, runaway global heating has begun, and it can only get worse, exponentially, until all the forests dry to desert, all the oceans become an acid bath, and the entire biosphere turns to dust. If allowed to run its course, runaway global heating won't end until all the methane clathrates have been released from the permafrost and the ocean floor. Where there are 700 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere today, there will be 12,000 gigatons then. Where the concentration is 385 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere today, it will be almost 6,000 parts per million. The Earth will become a second Venus with the atmospheric temperature in the hundreds of degrees.  No life can exist under those conditions, not even heat resistant and sulfur loving bacteria. If the mere 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) global temperature rise today since the pre-industrial times is enough to begin melting the permafrost, which releases vast quantities of methane (see HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" , global warming section, Arctic subsection), what is there to stop permafrost melting at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 degrees warmer than today? The methane-caused global heating will feedback upon itself, and the cycle will become a spiral to oblivion. As long as global warming reigns there is no such thing as stabilization at any temperature because methane release is beyond our control.  And our citizens of profit, our corporations of greed and our governments of corruption will make damn sure that will happen.
R:  Where is the second part of your sentence?
I:  What second part?
R:  The positive part. 
I:  Is there a positive part?
R:  In everything is a positive part. Even the blood-sucking mosquito is food for fish and birds.
I:  So, what is the positive part about humankind? I see nothing. Life on Earth would do much better without our species screwing things up left, right and center.
R:  For a time.
I:  What do you mean "for a time"?
R:  Until the next asteroid came crashing down.  
I:  A replay of this planet's fifth major mass extinction bout, the one that wiped out all the dinosaurs. 
R:  Imagine T-Rex being able to fire a rocket with a nuclear bomb to deflect that asteroid's trajectory.
I:  Incredible.
R: If this happened today, most major species, including tigers, eagles, dolphins, whales… would be wiped out like the dinosaurs. Imagine the rhesus monkeys firing a rocket with a nuclear bomb to deflect this asteroid's course.
I:  Equally incredible, not even the chimpanzees can do that. 
R:  How about the human primates then? 
I:  I see what you mean. 
R:  You have discovered that your planet has experienced five major mass extinction bouts in the geologic past, only one of which, the fifth, was caused by an asteroid strike.  The other four were caused by climate change. Which was the worst?
I:  The third, the End-Permian Mass Extinction 251 million years ago, wiped out 75% of all land species and 95% of all marine species. 
R:  Obviously climate change is at least as potent as a huge asteroid strike in terms of killing power.
I:  Haven't thought of it that way.
R:  So my question remains: What is the technological primate going to do about this anthropogenic round of climate change?
I:  I think our silver bullet, in terms of technology, is atmospheric Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), in combination with non-combustion energy technologies including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power. 
R:  These trillion-dollar-ventures could work, but how do you intend to fund them?
I:  I have launched an online petition at HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" addressed to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, asking him to orchestrate the formation of a $120-billion-per-year Global Green Fund for such projects, by means of a 10% across-the-board reduction of the $1.2 trillion global military expenditure.
R:  I wish you success. But would technology alone suffice?
I:  No. We need a social and economic reform, some say revolution, as a means of adapting to the new environment imposed by global warming.
R:  What kind of revolution? 
I:  A friend of mind calls it "Re-Evolution." And another friend calls it "E-Revolution."  One way or another, things have got to change, and change fundamentally.
R:  Such as?
I:  Socially speaking, greed and selfishness should be replaced by altruism and unconditional giving and sharing. Economically, the silver standard, the gold standard, even the money standard itself, should be replaced by a moral standard based on awareness of facts, knowledge of truth, reverence for nature, compassion for animals, love for the planet, responsibility to our children and all life on Earth, and a higher self-determined destiny.
R:  And what is this destiny?
I:  I have no idea.
R:  If you do not know your destination, and you travel, what do you become?
I:  A drifter.
R:  What is the purpose of a drifter?
I:  None.
R:  What is the purpose of the human species?
I:  According to whom?
R:  Humans.
I:  Our species as a whole? Up to now, none. The best we've come up with is some kind of philosophical or religious Utopia that is all theory and no substance, and where some scenarios could actually lead our species into hell.
R:  So, your species is a drifter?
I:  Up to now, at best. I do think that we need a beautiful destination to strive for. A worthy destiny to fulfill. A compelling vision of what we're trying to create.
R:  So, where are they? What are they?
I:  I don't know.
R:  If you have no destination; what about a path, the right way that can lead you to the best destination, wherever it be?
I:  "Path" in Chinese is "Tao." The Chinese advanced Taoism a few hundred hears before Christ, in which context "Tao" means "Way of the Cosmos." The Tao Teh Ching says, "In the Cosmos, Man should accord his way to the Earth, the Earth to the sky, the sky to the Tao, and the Tao simply is, according to its own nature."  So, if we follow this Way of the Cosmic, we should arrive at the right destination, wherever it be.
R:  So, what is this Way of the Cosmos, this Tao?
I:  Unfortunately, the Tao Teh Ching also says, "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."
R:  So, there is a path, but you can never tell where it is?
I:  That's about right.
R:  So, what good is this system of thought?
I:  So far, no good, and Taoism has since degenerated from a school of philosophy into a house of sorcery.
R:  What if this Tao can be known, and spoken?
I:  Then it would be truly enlightening, and perhaps even planet-saving. Why? Can it?
R:  First thing to note: With the unknown, never say "Can't."
I:  So, Lao Tzu was wrong, to say that the Tao cannot be spoken?
R:  You can answer this for yourself, after you have spoken it.
I:  Me? To speak the Unspeakable? Hold on for a second there. I'm not a miracle worker. I cannot conceive the inconceivable, and do the undoable. 
R:  You can, and you will, before the night is out.
I:  You're kidding me. More than two thousand years without an answer, and I could do it within five hours?
R:  Maybe within the hour, if you perform optimally.
I:  Well, we'd better get started ASAP then, eh?
R:  Immediately-or-sooner always suits me fine.
I:  So, give me a kickstart.
R:  Tell me. Have you heard of the "Superorganism"?
I:  Yes. It was a term first coined by social insect researcher, Morton Wheeler, in 1937, referring to an insect society – of social insects like wasps, ants, bees and termites – as a single living organism of a higher order, or level of organization, that is, society as organism. But since the constituent individual insects of an insect society are themselves organisms, Wheeler dubbed an insect society a "superorganism." Edward O. Wilson, a pioneer in sociobiology, defines the superorganism as "a collection of single creatures that together possess the functional organization implicit in the formal definition of organism."
R:  Do you see any repetitive pattern yet?
I:  Repetitive pattern? No. What repetitive pattern? What for?
R:  For finding the Path, the Way of the Cosmos, the Universal Masterplan, the Tao. To know the future by knowing the past.
I:  Well, not yet.
R:  What is that to your left? 
I:  It looks like an anthill.
R:  What is in the anthill?
I:  One this size would contain upwards of hundreds of thousands of ants, which are differentiated into several castes – the queen, the major workers, the minor workers, the seasonal winged reproductives called alates, and the soldiers – which then cooperate as a functioning whole.
R:  What is an ant a society of?
I:  An ant? I'm not sure what you mean. It is a social insect, and we have established that an ant society, such as this anthill, is a superorganism.
R:  Yes, but what is an ant a society of?
I:  Are you saying that an individual ant is a society itself?
R:  Is it not?

I:  Well, if an individual ant is a society, then it would be a society of its own body cells.
R:  How can this happen? 
I:  I think in much the same way as how the ants form their society – by differentiation and cooperation. 
R:  Give me some specifics. When did it happen?
I:  Before about 600 million years ago, there were no metabions (multicellular organisms). Only undifferentiated cells, each living a private life of its own. But eventually, inevitably, by the principle of differentiation and cooperation, cells developed sociality, and formed their own cellular societies, at first like sponges and corals, but eventually centrally organized cellular societies like a dragonfly or an ant, or a bird, or even a human. 
R:  So, the individual cells had to give up some of their small freedoms for this transcendent integration. What benefits could there be?
I:  "Transcendent Integration," I like that. The benefits were huge. An amoeba, an undifferentiated organism, can crawl on the bottom of a pond at, say, a foot a day top-speed non-stop. But differentiated and cooperative cells, by collectively becoming a higher organism like a dragonfly, which lays its eggs into the pond, attain a quantum leap of power and a higher level of freedom. The cells of a dragonfly, for example, lost their small freedom of individual amoeba-like movements, but together, their society – the dragonfly – can fly over the mountain at 50 miles per hour, when the amoeba cannot even perceive beyond the confines of the pond, much less emerge from it on its own.
R:  So, have you seen any repetitive pattern yet?
I:  Beginning to. One – organism as society on all levels of organization. Two – society as organism on all levels. Three, social and nonsocial units on all levels. Four, differentiation and cooperation on all levels.
R: Excellent. Now, what is a cell a society of?
I:  Its own molecules, I think. Each cell is a society of its own "social molecules." Each also operates by the principle of differentiation and cooperation.
R:  And the molecules? 
I:  Each a society of "social quarks"?
R:  Now, look at Vancouver .
I:  I'm looking at it.
R:  What is a city in this scheme of things?
I:  A city is like a human equivalent of an anthill or a bee hive, or a wasp net, or a termite mound.
R:  So, what is Vancouver ?
I:  Vancouver is a superorganism of differentiated and cooperative Vancouverites, which are social humans.
R:  Is Vancouver as an organism social or nonsocial.
I:  I would consider Vancouver a social organism, in terms of its relation to other Canadian cities.
R:  What is the society to which Vancouver belongs?
I:  Canada .
R:  And what is Canada in this scheme of things?
I:  Canada is a superorganism comprising all differentiated and cooperative Canadian cities.
R:  As an organism, is Canada social or nonsocial?
I:  Social, kind of.
R:  Kind of?
I:  Because although the nations are beginning to be social amongst one another, they have not yet formed themselves a higher organism. There is still conflict and warfare, and international relations are still more competitive than cooperative. Most definitive of all, the nations still uphold their sovereignty as supreme. So, I would deem the rise of life on Earth currently reaching the level of the nations as organisms, but no higher, yet.
R:  When the integration of the nations is complete, what will the result be?
I:  I think this will mean the rise of a higher level or organization than the national level, and the emergence of a superorganism composed of differentiated and cooperative nations – the planet Earth herself as an organism, to whom the various nations are her various planetary organs, if they continue to identify themselves as nations, that is.
R:  What about the military?
I:  Just as there is no mutual defense system amongst the organs of the same organism, there will be no mutual defense systems amongst the transcendently integrated nations of the planet Earth.
R:  What will happen to the current military forces of the nations then?
I:  I think the multinational military forces of today will merge into a single planetary defense force against external threats such as asteroids, and perhaps alien invasions.
R:  Alien invasions, à la the War of the Worlds? Listen, if we wanted to invade you or conquer your planet, we would have done so thousands of years ago, effortlessly.
I:  This system of reality looks like a fine blueprint for world peace.
R:  It also illustrates our Interstellar Nursery of Planetary Eggs.
I:  Planet as egg. An interesting metaphor.
R:  Not metaphorical. Literal.
I:  A planet is literally an egg? 
R:  With a gestation period and a metamorphic schedule.
I:  Really?
R:  Tell me. What is the gestation period of the Geo-Embryo Earth?
I:  The Geo-Embryo? 
R:  What do you think it is?
I:  The Biosphere?
R:  And what is the gestation period of the Geo-Embryo of the planet Earth?
I:  Are you saying that the timing of the current crisis is predetermined? 
R:  Based upon its initial physical properties when it was first formed, every planet capable of supporting life and civilization has its own predetermined gestation period, yes, including the planet Earth.
I:  Cosmic Egg Earth's gestation period? I don't know. 
R:  When was it formed?
I:  4.6 billion years ago. 
R:  If it succeeds in its Integrative Transcendence, when would it happen? 
I:  Within the next century or two I suspect. 
R:  Then Cosmic Egg Earth's gestation period is?
I:  4.6 billion years!
R:  Good. Now, some embryos go through several stages of metamorphosis. Do you see this in the Geo-Embryo of the planet Earth? 
I:  I now certainly do. Every time a new level emerges from a lower one, it is a new stage of metamorphosis. So, since the Earth has the Molecular level, and the Cellular level, and the Metabion level (multicellular organisms) and the Tribal level (animal societies and human tribal cultures), and the City level, and the National level, and finally the Planetary level, all in all there are seven levels of organization and six phases of metamorphosis in between.
R:  Is there a metamorphic schedule?
I:  This would be the time table of the different levels emerging from the one beneath it. So, we should start with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago as the time of the formation of atomic and molecular matter from the quarks below. Second, the Cellular level arose on Earth about 3 billion years ago. Third, the Metabion level arose about 600 million years ago. Fourth, the Tribal level arose in the form of the first insect societies, I'd say 120 million years ago. Fifth, the National level, I would think not of humans, but of whales and dolphins. It would be cetacean super-societies, comprising many constituent family pods, over a large oceanic area. The cetaceans evolved from land animals about 16 million years ago. So these super-societies may have formed 10 million years ago. And sixth, the Planetary level, which should emerge about now, if it succeeds in doing so.
R:  Form a series with these numbers.
I:  0, 10 million, 120 million, 600 million, 3 billion, 13.7 billion.
R:  What does this series look to you?
I:  I think it could look like an exponential series, but we need to know the true zero point, which I doubt would be set at the time of the "organismization" of the planet Earth. It might be the point of the Integrative Transcendence of the Universe Itself.
R:  What will happen to Earth after she has succeeded in integratively transcending into being a Planetary Organism?
I:  By the now very obvious repetitive pattern, the Planetary Organism Earth will at first be nonsocial. But given time, it will reproduce, and begat offspring throughout the Solar System, which will eventually become social amongst one another, and again by means of Integrative Transcendence, ultimately forming the Stellar Organism Sol, on yet a higher Stellar level of organization.
R:  What after that?
I:  There are upwards of 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, of which Sol is only one. I think this spiral can unfold about three times within the galaxy before reaching the eventual formation of the Galactic Organism Milky Way.
R:  And after that?
I:  There are upwards of 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, of which Milky Way is only one. I think this spiral can unfold about three times in the intergalactic realm as well before reaching the emergence of the ultimate Universal Organism. 
R:  If you were to choose 3 words for this Universal Organism, what would they be?
I:  Oh my God!
R:  Are these the three words?
I:  No!
R:  What is God?
I:  God is believed by the vast majority of this democracy to be the creator of the Universe. 
R:  God is a matter of religion. The religion by which you have been indoctrinated is Catholic. So what three words do the Catholics use to describe God?
I:  Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent.
R:  And what three words would you use to describe the Universal Organism?
I:  Since it embraces the entire Universe, it will be all present. Since it encompasses all the knowledge of all the civilizations within it, it can be said to be all knowing. And since an amoeba and a human are only one level of organization apart, noting the quantum leap in power between the two, and since the Universal Organism is a good 10 levels above the individual human, it can be said to be all powerful. Thus, the three words for the Universal Organism could only be Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent!!!
R:  Are there any differences between the Universal Organism and your God?
I:  Well, yes. One, It did not create the Universe, but it is the evolving Universe. Two, It did not create us; instead, we will be part and parcel of its own self-creation. And three, there is nothing supernatural about this Godly being; It is all natural.
R:  And how would you name such a worldview?
I:  This worldview encompasses the entire Cosmos, and is based on all fields of science, so I would call it the Omniscientific Cosmology.
R:  And what would the central teaching of the Omniscientific Cosmology be?
I:  The Tao spoken.
R:  So speak it, Homo Sapiens of Earth, speak the "Unspeakable."
I:  Integrative Transcendence.

R: And how can you apply Integrative Transcendence to save your planet Earth from its current global ecological crisis?

I: Since with every higher level of Integrative Transcendence comes a quantum leap in power, the integrative transcendence of the national organisms into the one and only Planetary Organism Earth will likewise produce a quantum leap in power, with which the Planetary Organism Earth can save itself.
R:  Amen.

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC) (search for “Anthony Marr Heal Our Planet Earth”)


Cathy said...

Integrative Transcendence...will it happen naturally? What can we do to aid it's development? I love the whole theory...I have long looked at beehives as a living organism...even the apartment towers in Hong Kong felt like organisms to me. It makes complete sense. Thank you, Anthony, for pointing the way. And thanks, of course, to Raminothna. I want to learn more......

Anthony Marr said...

Will it happen naturally? If it happens, from an internal point of view, we would have made it happen. But from an external point of view, it would have happened naturally.

Matthew 5 -7 said...

To see these beautiful sentient being born to sit in muck for their short miserable life and become food source for human breaks my heart. What fate brought them into this world to live in such horribly misery.


Anthony Marr said...

Pat N. (PN) : Anthony, I have gone over your conversation with Raminothna - not thoroughly as of yet (but I will read it more carefully). thought-provoking & intelligent. // Couple of comments come to mind, Anthony, coinciding with my own pondering on all this. // Raminothna refers to the "Interstellar Non-Interference Principle" (INIP) in which interference is not 'allowed' no matter what, no matter the suffering of the innocent, no matter the 'goodness' (sorry for all the quotation marks!) of the innocent or of those not engaged in the wrong- or harm-doing. // Yet, those of us in opposition to the harm-doing here on Earth are expected to interfere in the activities of the harm-doers? in fact, it is our responsibility?

Anthony Marr (AM): We need to interfere in the activities of wrong-doers because these wrong doers are of our own species. But we do not interfere when we see a tiger hunting a deer. Further, we sink or swim under our own steam. If Raminothna intervenes, we will forever be dependent on external help, and can never prove ourselves to be worthy of continuance.

PN: I understand that collectively humans are construed as a single organism - but I wonder about this. Collectively we are indeed a destructive species. But I now rail against the notion that I am a hunter-warrior-destroyer. I am not. & why should I live my life fighting (I use the word fighting with great thought) the hunter-warrior-destroyers? in doing so, some suggest, I then become one of them.

AM: On the contrary, I believe that if we don't fight them, we are one of them. Recall the German people who did nothing to fight Hitler.

PN: I watched a terrific documentary the other evening, Big River Man, about the Slovenia man, Martin Strell, who swam the Amazon to bring hope to people that each of us can do all kinds of things & to bring consciousness of the devastation to the Rainforests - & that we must stop the destruction (rather ironically, Martin & his son are shown eating horsemeat burgers before the swim). I think, well, I don't eat burgers, I don't eat animals, I donate money toward the rainforest efforts, I eat (vegan) chocolate bars to save the forests, I don't partake of pharmaceutical drugs or the medical system, or donate to scientific research - yet, here they are telling me that my efforts mean naught - that the rainforests are steadily being destroyed - so it means I'm not making a difference - not that I will change my habits in the face of this, but I have to realize that my efforts are not saving the world - nor are the efforts of many I know who feel & act as I do. My small comfort is in knowing that there are many like me all over the world; within every nation there are those like me who are aghast at the suffering of our fellow creatures - yet, the destruction continues.

AM: If you are not what you are and do what you do, the destruction would be worse.

Anthony Marr said...

PN: hinking on creation: my huge question is why was carnivorism created? why competition? why infant mortality as a means of population control? was this the best way to go? - that is, if there was some 'intelligent design' at work.

AM: No "intelligent design" whatsoever. It is the only way that nature can work. You partly answered your own question. Without carnivores (referring to lions, tigers, eagles, etc., not necessarily humans), the herbivores will overpopulate and destroy their own habitat, then die of starvation, reducing the entire planet to a wasteland. This of course does not justify us humans to be meat eaters, because we have a choice. and have the technology to practice birth control on the herbivores and on ourselves.

PN: If we humans did not exploit & eat animals - from the land, the air & the seas - our world would be such a different place! (I hope you have read Will Tuttle's The World Peace Diet - a must-read). yet I ultimately wonder if Tuttle is right in believing that all humans can or will eventually attain a collective compassionate consciousness.

AM: I think that we can, but not sure that we will.

PN: If there is a correct, desired, moral way for us to be, why doesn't a creator show us directly? why all this lesson stuff? or is the lesson notion another of our creations to rationalize the terrible harm we see & the apparent non-justice to the wrong-doers? when I adopt a dog & want to teach that dog, I know that using love, security, non-violence will result in a happy well-adjusted dog. I also know that if I used the opposite methods - letting the dog learn thru lesson s/he has no idea about, expecting the dog to find the right way on his/her own, I know the results would be unhappy for all of us - much as it is for most of the human species, eh?

AM: First, I do not believe that there is a "Creator" per se. Second, if we humans can only learn but cannot teach, we won't be humans. I believe that we must self-learn and self-teach to be worthy of higher society.

PN: The carnivores amongst us are perhaps born - perhaps they are a natural occurrence in our populations? Many, many hunter-warrior-destroyers have no idea they are 'wrong' - in fact, they truly believe that vegans, 'bleeding hearts', tree-huggers, etc. are aberrations. I can see that many hunter-warrior-destroyers simply do not have the capacity for sentience-recognition/empathy/compassion for others - for others outside their own tribe & sometimes for any others including their own kin. Is this a fault? or a biological phenomenon? is it a natural result of evolution?

AM: The early humans needed to be omnivores to survive, and those living in the high north, e.g. the Eskimos, needed to be almost pure carnivores. Human culture always began with hunter-gatherers. But as of the rise of agriculture, the need to consume meat became an option, and it was then that morality came into play. And even later rose recreational hunting and trophy hunting which in most cases do not even involve meat eating at all. There is no question that some humans just love to kill to feel good about themselves. But obviously, most humans do not. And by and by, if we win this "fight", the killers will evolve out of existence.

Anthony Marr said...

PN: When eagles eat others they cause pain & suffering to not only to their victims, but also to the kin of their victims. I have witnessed this. & according to my belief that there is sentience in even more beings than I know of, each creature eaten is a sentient being, experiencing fear & pain. Yet I surely cannot hold animosity toward the eagle & other natural carnivores. (Heck, apparently there are carnivorous dust mites!)

AM: Pain and suffering is a fact of life. We certainly cannot tell the eagles to not hunt, or we will condemn the eaglets to starve to death. Is this not pain and suffering? But again, while the eagles have no choice, we humans do.

PN: The terrible, terrible harms that have been, that are being & will be done - do those disappear into some kind of ether, or does every act, as Jean Genet suggests, once it is committed, become a perpetual part of our fabric, the air that we breathe, the consciousness that we are? // This is a huge part of my suffering - I cannot accept that there is any kind of atonement. The suffering - not only inflicted on the planet & (non-human) beings, but to our own children (fer Chrissake!!) - once done, cannot be undone. Forgetting &/or going on is not atonement. If there is the possibility of a collective compassionate consciousness/intelligence (which I do not believe likely), neither is that atonement.

AM: There is no point to atone for our uncivilized past, but every point to civilize our future.

PN: The Canadian writer Timothy Findley wrote a wonderful & terrible book about Noah, his wife, The Flood, & those who were & who were not saved - called, Not Wanted On the Voyage. Powerful.

AM: In my view, the story of Noah is morally about the same as the modern day "rapture" where only 144,000 out of the 6 billion humans will be "saved". And physically, I do not believe that the Noah story is even possible. There are 20 million species on Earth. How many can fit on to the Ark? And what about other peoples elsewhere, e.g. in China? Were they all drowned?

PN: Anthony, I love to hear about your CARE tour, your ideas, your idealism, your hope, your inspiration - your heroism - I do. I so need your story & inspiration & those stories of others - human & Other - that give me consolation. // But I think what the stories of The Good show me is that amongst the horrors wrought by the Hunter-Warrior-Destroyers are also the saving graces of The Compassionate - & that we unfortunately live side-by-side & we are all One like this: we are not going to be One that is compassionate. Compassion is a phenomenon of some, not all.

AM: Thank you, Pat, all I'm doing is to speak my mind, for what it's worth. My last point here: Our species is capable of the highest good, and the lowest of evil. It is up to us to sought it out within ourselves. If our good wins, we will ascend into the interstellar community. If our evil wins, we will self-destruct. By this process, the Universe achieves good within Itself.