Re: POLITICS - The parable of Heidi's boyfriend

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>there will be a tension

>between " local " and " central " for a lot of things for a long time until

>the right mix is hit upon.

One small nitpick: since different interest groups are served by different

mixes, I doubt the issue will ever disappear, or if it does, it won't be

for a long, long time.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>>there will be a tension

>>between " local " and " central " for a lot of things for a long time until

>>the right mix is hit upon.

>

>One small nitpick: since different interest groups are served by different

>mixes, I doubt the issue will ever disappear, or if it does, it won't be

>for a long, long time.

>

>-

Isn't that the way it is in any organic entity though? I mean, in my body there

are competing

pairs of hormones (cortisol vs. insulin, for instance). One gets too high, the

other

gets secreted to counter it. In your brain, for every impulse there is a

dampening

impulse. In nature, the rabbits get too numerous, the foxes multiply. Every

organic

(and maybe nonorganic) system relies on dualities (or more than 2) keeping each

other in check --

and eventually they reach a sort of equilibrium.

Since we've introduced SO MANY changes to our current society, it

will take awhile before it will reach equilibrium (though I do hope it

reaches equilibrium rather than spinning off center into destruction ...).

It's interesting to think that humans lived more or less the same way

for like, a million years. THAT was some equilibrium. One wonders what

threw it off.

-- Heidi (who also takes part in the nitpicking lifestyle)

[Guest guest]

That is a good question.

What led to industrialisation and the butchering of almost everything

Our food, people, forests, other animals en masse, atmposphere

And its been all done in a VERY short time.

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 10:16 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - The parable of Heidi's boyfriend

>Heidi-

>

>>there will be a tension

>>between " local " and " central " for a lot of things for a long time until

>>the right mix is hit upon.

>

>One small nitpick: since different interest groups are served by different

>mixes, I doubt the issue will ever disappear, or if it does, it won't be

>for a long, long time.

>

>-

Isn't that the way it is in any organic entity though? I mean, in my body

there are competing

pairs of hormones (cortisol vs. insulin, for instance). One gets too high,

the other

gets secreted to counter it. In your brain, for every impulse there is a

dampening

impulse. In nature, the rabbits get too numerous, the foxes multiply. Every

organic

(and maybe nonorganic) system relies on dualities (or more than 2) keeping

each other in check --

and eventually they reach a sort of equilibrium.

Since we've introduced SO MANY changes to our current society, it

will take awhile before it will reach equilibrium (though I do hope it

reaches equilibrium rather than spinning off center into destruction ...).

It's interesting to think that humans lived more or less the same way

for like, a million years. THAT was some equilibrium. One wonders what

threw it off.

-- Heidi (who also takes part in the nitpicking lifestyle)

[Guest guest]

--- In @

> It's interesting to think that humans lived more or less the same

way

> for like, a million years. THAT was some equilibrium. One wonders

what

> threw it off.

>

> -- Heidi (who also takes part in the nitpicking lifestyle)

<><<><><><<><>Someone on this list called me a nitpicker at least

once so at the risk.......Heidi where did you get the

idea " humans lived more or less for a million years? " Dennis

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/12/04 10:50:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> It's interesting to think that humans lived more or less the same way

> for like, a million years. THAT was some equilibrium. One wonders what

> threw it off.

How do you figure? I don't see how you can possibly look at human history

and see anything but a constant state of flux.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/12/04 10:56:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

anthony.byron@... writes:

> Our food, people, forests, other animals en masse, atmposphere

> And its been all done in a VERY short time.

,

This is as false as it could possibly get. Humans caused mass extinction all

over the globe and atmospheric changes in pre-historic times.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hedi wrote:

> >I disagree though, that we agree on human nature, which is the crux

> >of the disagreement (and one reason I'd really like to drop this thread).

> >Everything I've seen indicates that humans tend to be rather cultish

> >and violent in the lack of a strong central government (of whatever sort)

> >and governments require taxes.

I forgot to mention this last time:

The above disagreement is political. Human nature is by definition what is

essential to a human. So, the question about human nature is whether there is

a tendency towards cultism and violence. We all agree on that. The political

question is the effect of civil government on that tendency, and that is the

disagreement.

Thus, we agree on human nature.

Chris

[Guest guest]

><><<><><><<><>Someone on this list called me a nitpicker at least

>once so at the risk.......Heidi where did you get the

>idea " humans lived more or less for a million years? " Dennis

In the interests of fairness I should say they EITHER

(a). Lived a million or so years as paleoithic hunter-gatherers (emphasizing the

" or so " --

those archeologists are nitpickers too) which is why folks like Loren Cordain

tend to go back to the " paleo diet " times as a baseline for what might

work for humans.

or:

(. Lived " n " number of years in Eden as vegetarians, then when they

got kicked out, immediately took to raising grains and cattle.

There are probably other options I don't know of, but most of what

I read are science mags and they concentrate on option (a). If option

( is true, of course, then the whole " adaptive diet " philosophy can't

be argued logically (though one person did write me privately with

a pretty good argument as to why grains weren't good for the Israelites

either, arguing Biblically). I'm truly not trying to offend any belief-system

here ... all of us obviously have widely varying views on the world.

The fact we vary so widely is a symptom of a system in the throes

of change ... if we lived as a tribe of Indians, we likely would not vary

so much.

However, as to where I got that idea, for the (a) view philosophy,

the timeline goes as follows:

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#timeline

start>Timeline of dietary shifts in the human line of evolution

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#65 to 50

Mya>65 to 50 million years ago (Mya): Ancient primates, mostly insectivores.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#50 to 30

Mya>50 to 30 Mya: Shift to mostly frugivorous/herbivorous.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#30 to 10

Mya>30 to 10 Mya: Maintenance of mostly frugivorous pattern.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#last cmn

ancestor>7 to 5 Mya: Last common ancestor branches to gorillas, chimps, humans.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#first

hominid>4.5 Mya: First known hominid (proto-human).

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#australopithecus>3\

..7 Mya: First fully bipedal hominid (Australopithecus).

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#homo

habilis>2 Mya: First true human (Homo habilis), first tools, increased

meat-eating.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#homo

erectus>1.7 Mya: Evolution of Homo erectus, considerable increase in meat

consumption and widely omnivorous diet, continues till dawn of agriculture.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#archaic

homo>500,000 to 200,000 y.a.: Archaic Homo sapiens.

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#neanderthals>150,0\

00 y.a.: Neanderthals evolve.

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#anatomically

modern>140,000 to 110,000 y.a.: First anatomically modern humans, possible

increase in fire use for cooking (insufficient evidence).

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#behaviorally

modern>40,000 B.C.: First behaviorally modern humans.

* <http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#late

paleolithic>40,000 to 10,000 B.C.: Late Paleolithic, latest period of universal

hunting/gathering subsistence, seafood use becomes evident in certain areas.

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#mesolithic>20,000

B.C. to 9,000 B.C.: Mesolithic transition period.

*

<http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml#neolithic>Approx.

10-8,000 B.C.: Neolithic period, beginnings of agriculture, precipitous drop in

meat consumption, great increase in grain consumption, decline in health as

indicated by signs in skeletal remains.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml

Which in my " broad brush " rhetoric gives from 1.7 Mya to about 40,000 years ago

where there

wasn't all that much change. Actually not a LOT of change until about 10,000

years ago.

And a WHOLE LOT of change in the last 200 years.

-- Heidi