Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

spendius wrote:

But this whole matter is very controversial...

Sure, and the reason it's controversial is that the evidence for it is tissue thin.

"Early figurines and paintings often depict women - ergo early civilisations were ordered around women."

By the same rationale the sex industry is a matriarchal one.

Male adoration of the female form does not necessarily imply their capitulation to female authority figures.

Sure, and the reason it's controversial is that the evidence for it is tissue thin.

By the same rationale the sex industry is a matriarchal one.

Male adoration of the female form does not necessarily imply their capitulation to female authority figures.

The argument was about "modified womanhood". Not about early civilisations which effected the modifications. That is rendered woman un-natural. Freud said neurotic.

Where's your evidence for that assertion?

I don't think many students of this field would agree with that.

Do you think woman has been rendered unnatural? What does that mean? How could woman become something that wasn't one of its possibilities?

Don't you think actual women were complicit in the advent of patriarchy?

The connection back to the OP is this: it's been observed that in societies where women have education and opportunity to contribute to their societies in ways other than childbirth, the population growth rate is 0. Maybe we could benefit as a species from the spread of this pattern of life.

The lack of evidence to the contrary - really. We have scant knowledge of any matriarchal society other than some musings based on rather biased readings of what we do have.

More fool them if they think veneration of beauty proves willingness to provide opportunities for leadership.

I don't think you needed that many words to tell me to shove it.

Quote:

I don't think you needed that many words to tell me to shove it.

It never entered my head to tell you to shove it. I was merely encouraging you to think things through a bit.

Its disappointing to see you apparently join him in this ludicrous strawman

Meanwhile whatever problems are created by the processes we indulge in go unaddressed. Your rather simplistic "environmental concerns vs human comforts" model fails to address that the environment is the home of all human lives and systems, and human comforts will be adversely affected by many of the likely effects of things like a continued rise in global temperature.

Now clearly whether this bothers you is a matter of comparing your likely losses to how much you care about those likely losses and that of other people - but to suggest it's simply an equation between your regard for environmental concerns and the practicalities of keeping your pocket full is to ignore the big picture.

The point is easily explained using Goethe's idea of "appearances". Women, and men, "appear" to be different in different cultures and in different regions and classes within the same culture. That can only be due to a range of modifications of nature. If you are suggesting that the Christian modification is the "natural" one it logically follows that you think others are un-natural.

The natural state is matriarchal and lasted from the beginning of human life (2 million years ago, some claim 4 million years ago) up to about 10,000 years ago and seriously about 5,000 years ago. During that long period no progress was ever made.

The first known work of art is the figurine the Venus of Willendorf. You can Google that and get an idea of the natural state. The cave paintings also provide glimpses.

A study of the changes, often back and forth, in Roman Law shows civilisation wrestling with the problem. Fredrico Fellini's movie Amarcord (I remember) provides a glance at the possibilities with the extremities represented by Volpina and Gradisca. It is a brilliant movie which can only be really appreciated after numerous viewings. It won an Oscar in 1975.

But this whole matter is very controversial I'm afraid and unsuitable for a family forum or evolution lessons in grade schools.

Zetherin wrote:

Now clearly whether this bothers you is a matter of comparing your likely losses to how much you care about those likely losses and that of other people - but to suggest it's simply an equation between your regard for environmental concerns and the practicalities of keeping your pocket full is to ignore the big picture.

Like Zeth, I don't know what the big picture is supposed to be. So far as I am concerned what this issue is about is the future of people, and how people will be affected by the environment. This is not an aesthetic matter, or, as it increasingly seems to be, a religious matter. If "keeping your pockets full" means anything like maintaining and increasing our standard of living, you are absolutely right. It is a major concern, as it should be with any rational person. I don't cosider myself a "steward of the Earth" and think that kind of talk is sentimental rubbish of the worst kind. I certainly am utterly opposed to putting people out of work, and reducing our standard of living for some vague notion of the environment. I care about the environment only in so far as it affects people. If that is what you mean by, "keeping your pocket full" you are completely on the mark.

Oh. Well I figured you would understand that a population growth rate of 0 doesn't mean society is extinguished. That would be a negative growth rate.

How is any of this relevant to the environment discussion? Is your point that, because we live in a supposed patriarchal society, that is the reason for all of the planet's environmental problems involving humans? And that, if we had lived in a matriarchal society, these problems would not be present?

Or, are you just bitter that we have deviated from the "natural" state of a matriarchal society, since you are a woman?

Please note also that there are different senses of the word "natural", so it's really best you clarify when you say that X is the natural (or unnatural) state.

They obviously don't teach comprehension where you come from.

That's the gist of it yes.

You will have to define "natural" for me to answer that. Is it water going over a falls and stags having to wait for the rut to get laid type of thing or is it anything that happens?

So, where is the evidence that a patriarchal society is the cause of the problems this environment faces?

spendius wrote:

They obviously don't teach comprehension where you come from.

That's the second time you've said I'm not able to comprehend what you mean. But as you just noted,

spendius wrote:

That's the gist of it yes.

it seems I comprehended what you meant just fine.

Anyway, no one is going to listen to your rant about how men are the cause of all the environmental problems, unless you provide some evidence. So, where is the evidence that our society being patriarchal is the cause of the problems this environment faces?

spendius wrote:

You will have to define "natural" for me to answer that. Is it water going over a falls and stags having to wait for the rut to get laid type of thing or is it anything that happens?

Kennethamy had a good link which I read before that went over the different senses of the word "natural". Ken, can you link it again? I ought to bookmark it this time.

Quote:

So, where is the evidence that a patriarchal society is the cause of the problems this environment faces?

That environmental problems were unknown during the 1.990,ooo (approx) of matriarchy and have only arisen during this novel outbreak of patriarchy?

I meant the stresses would cause some dramatic changes. Suppose a society of 301 million in a certain space is at a disadvantage with ones of 7,8 or 9 hundred million and begins to be economically selected out. I'm not saying that is the case mind you. It could be the other way round. But industrialisation suggests that at some point there will become an optimum size.

If I were committing the strawman fallacy, wouldn't that mean that I misrepresented someone's position and then attacked that misrepresented position, pawning it off as that person's actual position? Where did I do that?

We have to consider the repercussions of our actions, but, at the same time, not give into hasty judgment that could jeopardize our prosperity. I don't know how I failed to address that the environment is home to all human life. In fact, that is what I thought I was addressing ... What do you think the big picture is again?