I fear...

Yes, facing the fear would be the most brave thing to do. But that is difficult and the process may require help from others. It also requires courage.

Finding out the why and where of the fear is also needed.

I am constantly amazed at how some people peservere in spite of overwhelming odds.

I agree with your general point of vu,
speaking as being devoted to laissez faire libertarian Individualism,
tho I have been the victim of the predatory violence of a big, sneaky canine.
On a hot summer day, in a park, I saw a very large dog,
with a huge smile, seeming very happy and contented
as he looked out upon the countryside. He was on a
leash of about maybe 30 feet. I called out to his humans
that he looked happy, whereupon his ears shot up,
his eyes locked on me and he slowly rose from his
seated position and ambled toward me with his
tremendous smile and happiness in his eyes.

When he had approached to about one yard,
he lifted up his lip into a snarl, and launched himself
airborne, coming in for a landing with one fang
in my left forearm. It looked like I'd been hit
with a .22 caliber slug. I looked down on him,
as tho to say: "what the hell r u doing ??" and he
instantly broke off the attack and resumed his
seated position, with his smile. He was sneaky.
His leash was too long. His human tried to pull
it in, but he was still free.

I do not know whether he was a degenerate of his species.





David

Cyr-- You're talking Norwegian dogs. What about pyeards? Rider Haggard put some dogs into Ayesha. Read that and you'll see that the fear of dogs is a justifiable trait buried deep in the ativism of the human psyche. Your dogs are Christian dogs.

It's a great book.

Here is a link to an interesting, to me, podcast dealing with toughness of past populations compare to our modern one.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ)-Old-School-Toughness/%20history-lifecycles-empire

Thanks for the replies guys.
That link sounds interesting, but I couldn't get it to work, even when i copied all of it, not just the part that appears as a link

David, the dog example may turn us a little off my intended course. What I wanted to bring up is that if we allow fear to dictate which measures we should take to secure our future we are making a grave mistake.
There is a big difference between providing security and creating an environment so safe that we never get any experience with how to handle fear.
Personal development seems to be second priority behind the development of a society in which everyone can feel safe. Often I feel that the safety measures required by those who refuse to even try to master their emotions is a direct bar to my individual development.

If this trend keeps up we will create the high capital of mediocrity, where the truly courageous and gifted have to suffer for taking the trouble to rise above their challenges...

When I was in school I could usually understand what the teacher was saying a long time before the majority of the class had it. This resulted in me getting really bored, starting to disrupt the classes and got a bad resume... Because I have a natural tendency to leap at what I don't understand in order to figure it out. Many people have a natural tendency to avoid what they don't understand, and it seems to me that it is these peoples' right to keep on doing that we are safeguarding more and more... But if we keep at it we will always be stuck in our primitive, ego boosting degenerative society...

It's always been my method cyr and look how I turned out.

It was watching an NCO hold his hand over a candle flame that really brought it home to me. I had a fair idea from the priests who taught at my schools. But that seared my brain. It seared his hand too.

Aye, probably so.

The heartiness and enduring nature of the human species never came to the point it is because we've protected ourselves with rules, regulations and prohibitions - it's because we've found ways to individually endure. And yes, a lot of that's been lost through over protectiveness (see the antiseptic wipes next to the carts in your grocery store?).

"Safer Environments" cuts both ways. When we create an especially nasty hazard, helping to minimize its danger only makes sense - after all, its our responsibility. In other cases, folks dive into the absurd; sell a hot cup of coffee then sue someone for selling a hot cup of coffee is but one case.

It depends; some make sense and are responsible, others remove us from so much risk we become even more indolent.

Hi Cyracuz!

It also breeds complacency.

i.e. If you drive a volvo (safety first) you start to perceive the typical dangers that come with driving an 'automobile' in a lesser light.

All the best!
Mark...

Where I live, they didn't like the number of violent incidents on saturday nights. violent meaning someone got punched in a drunken brawl.
So they decided that all pubs and cafes had to close at 1 and all nightclubs at 2.30..
Then they went on to decide that all places serving food had to close before the nightclubs.
You see the line of politics and the problems it creates?
They are not assuming that any of the people who are out in the town take any responsibility for anything.
It is a result of years of the same thinking. Close it early, before people are too drunk... Before they are satisfied with the evening, incidentally. It leads to an incredible number of people pouring out into the streets at a specific time, drunk and slightly annoyed that their evening is interrupted. The police resources needed to maintain order under these circumstances are not cheap.
And now they can't just let everything stay open for as long as they want, because for generations we have been taught that the evening ends at a specific time, so we stay until the bitter end. It works out fine if the bitter end is 3 am and nowhere but home to get a snack. Order is maintained. They call themselves leaders, but act like sheperds.
I fear that if this goes on we will be sheep, needing sheperds, if we are not already..

book marking.