One Government, One Official Language, One Official Religion. Is It Possible?

[Faustus]

As far as Deep Space Nine goes, well Mr. Roddenberry didn't have a whole lot to do with the nuts and bolts of that part of the series. But if you look at it, the system worked, since the boy became a man and a doctor none the less.

And spent some twenty years having to deliberately sabotage himself and hide his genetic status from people in order to avoid having his license and commission pulled and getting tossed into prison. Granted, in the end, his father wound up taking the hit for him, but still, his wasn't exactly a case of the system working perfectly for everyone. And looking at episodes like "Statistical Probabilities," where other genetically-enhanced (all less-successfully so) people turn up, it's clear that Bashir wasn't alone in those problems, either.

As I said before, I have very little faith in the equity of human beings- too little to think that one world religion, in particular, would ever be a good idea.

[taijasi]

Quahom and Faustus, thanks for the ongoing Star Trek discussion. It's intriguing to me, and I didn't know all that history that's been provided. But the analysis that what we saw was pretty much a positive, healthy Humanism seems right-on. And I have to agree with you, Faustus, and with others, that One World Religion isn't an idea that's likely to work under present circumstances.

The reason I think it will work one day, and is in fact our destiny, is because it is simply a natural progression, and eventually will be necessary if we are to continue to develop spiritually. Individual religions still serve a useful purpose (and provide legitimate means of approach to Deity) at present, but at some point we will be able to unite in both our approach and in our belief. There may remain a few flat-earthers at that point, and such folks will be allowed to maintain their own belief & practice. But there will be no desire anymore to force one's own way of life upon others - and thus, the enforced state religion ... is not the kind of thing I believe in. Something sanctioned (made holy) by our World Government, could not, in the truest sense, be something forced ... just as One World Government must be globally & universally embraced (democratically), not imposed (totalitarian-style).

The reason a Global Religion is both possible and necessary ... is that as yet, the tribal god which Quahom referred to, imho, still rules. Even where two or three religions may agree on some basics, there yet remain differences significant enough to divide - where there should be unity. The Danish newspaper episode, and the entire chapter in recent years of the saga between Christianity & Islam (hearkening back to the Crusades) .... is ample illustration of this. And this is between two religions "of the Book"!!! I think there is better harmony, and peaceful exhange of ideas, even a unifying of practices & practitioners ... between Christianity & Buddhism!

My prediction is that increasingly-revolutionary ideas (various aspects of the New Paradigm, or `Paradigm Shift') in the New Physics (quantum field theory, parallel universes, dark matter, etc.) ... and significant advances in computer & artificially intelligent technologies ... plus the continued establishment of a global economy, and an emphasis on the obvious changes that must take place if we are to survive the present energy crisis (including the preservation of the Earth's ecosystem, rather than its continued wholesale destruction and exploitation) ... will all naturally lead to the worldwide acceptance and embracing of One Governing Body (almost certainly with a Council of Leaders, rather than a tyrant king - whether this be called President, Lord Chancellor, or otherwise), and the unification of all major World Religions into a reasonable, sensible, and equitable whole.

The latter, having transcended the need for falling back on differing conceptions of the tribal deity, will acknowledge that One Supreme Deity stands significantly removed from all such human conceptions - both of differing individual racial or tribal gods, but also of ANY human attempt at understanding to date. In short, it will take human intelligence, funtioning alongside a reasonable faith ... something as yet so strangely elusive amongst the major religions ... to agree and formally establish that at one and the same time - all religions are essentially right (accurate, correct), while none has been perfect and complete. And the result is that a natural synthesis of what is the best within each of them will come about ... preserving the Good which has always been present, yet which has yet (or only with their Synthesis) to come into Perfection.

Now I think that some already see things this way, but for those religions (no matter what the believers may profess) which still cling to the old ways of separativeness, exclusivity, and fear as a controlling and organizing force ... there may be a period of struggle ahead. For man must learn to see beyond the outer differences, and recognize the inherent, inner unity/union which already exists. This is NOT something which man needs to establish, or which requires that we all grit our teeth, make accession, and begrudgingly adopt as a necessary evil. For that kind of "unity" is false, and too delicate to last long. The inherent unity between all persons, and in fact between every particle of energy-substance (or "atom") ... is something that science will help us (or already has, just needs to continue to awaken us) to understand. This is not an ideal - some spiritual objective that we must sit around and wait to be accomplished, or kick back and expect the new messiah to bring to us. This is fact. And the only way I can dispute it, is to deny something which is increasingly as obvious to most thinking people ... as the fact that our world is a sphere (more or less) - rather than flat. The question is - how long will I (you, they, etc.) hold out?

Apologies for how clumsy all this sounds, but such secular discussions are difficult for me, when what we are really speaking of is a Unity ... which admittedly many have only known through some particular religious teaching or tradition. But science knows it too, even if this arena is troubled by disputes, divisive thinking, a pervasive superiority complex, and clear cases of sabotage .... just like religion! The challenge is one of focusing on the positive, and emphasizing commonalities, or how various ideas, theories, beliefs and practices - fit together, rather than clash. And while we must not deny the differences, or ignore them, it is a basic law of esoteric science that "where attention goes, energy flows."

Ultimately, it is not simply an impractical idealism which I think will lead to our world government and world religion. Because so long as we sit around saying, "oh yes, people can do this, and it would be wonderful," or, "oh no, we are too divisive and individualistic, it will never happen" ... then certainly, our energy is sapped - and no, it cannot happen!!! What will bring together all peoples, all nations, all governments and all religions ... is the embracing of such Unity as desirable, and the working towards it by a signficant enough number of people. I estimate that at best, 10% of the world is at present actively working toward such Unity, in some form or another ... although some may give it their true ALL, while others - may give at best, .001%.

But it does not take a numerical majority. And it isn't something that happens overnight, nor in 2012 at the flick of a switch, nor in a few short years once a World Savior is globally observed to walk again among us. None of these events will transform our world instantaneously into Heaven on Earth, Thomas More's Utopia, or even the sustainable society, which practially speaking - is already a considerable enough challenge! It will take hard work, and be a gradual transformation - not accomplished through fits and starts, but by putting one's nose to the proverbial grindstone. And those who continue to doubt, and resist, might be surprised to learn just how far we've already come, no matter which slice of time you look at.

It's extremely easy to write about, whether you believe or doubt ... but if you happen to believe - then you're probably faced with the same challenge as I am: Put your money where your mouth is. Imo, it's the only reason I'm (you're) here. [And so, I guess this is, in a nutshell, my philosophy of Existentialism! ]

Love & Light,

andrew

[Faustus]

If you're interested in more Trek history, aside from the various series, I suggest checking out the Star Trek Timeline and the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Loaded with information, those.

Jeez. I'm such a dork.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by taijasi

But it does not take a numerical majority. And it isn't something that happens overnight, nor in 2012 at the flick of a switch, nor in a few short years once a World Savior is globally observed to walk again among us. None of these events will transform our world instantaneously into Heaven on Earth, Thomas More's Utopia, or even the sustainable society, which practially speaking - is already a considerable enough challenge! It will take hard work, and be a gradual transformation - not accomplished through fits and starts, but by putting one's nose to the proverbial grindstone. And those who continue to doubt, and resist, might be surprised to learn just how far we've already come, no matter which slice of time you look at.
[/color]

Hi Andrew, Your post makes me wonder what you think about the Baha'i model, which is exactly what silverbackman propsed in the OP (1 government, 1 language, 1 religion) and much as you have described in your psots. Baha'is believe exactly as you describe above. Christ has returned (160 some years ago) and the gradual change you allude to has begun. The model and nucleus of this world transformation is seated in the Baha'i 9-man Universal House of Justice, which is elected by a secret ballot every (five?) years. Is this something you've investigated?

I actually agree that the world government will come about and I pray that it will be one based upon peace and justice.

I, too, am a Star Trek fan, but not nearly as knowledgable in the lore as Q and Faustus. (It has been an interesting read.) I'm captivated by the society of peace and scientific exploration it depicts. It would be my utopia.

lunamoth

peace,
lunamoth

[Faustus]

Sorry, but speaking as someone who doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, you (collective "you") would have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me that any "official worldwide religion" espousing him as such would be a good idea. I certainly wouldn't be about to let anyone, government or otherwise, compel me into recognizing it as my de facto religion. Nothing against Ba'hai or anything, but... yeah. I think it's a bit arrogant to say, essentially, "Oh, well, you'll all come around eventually." Makes a bit light of the religious beliefs of a heck of a lot of people, IMHO (though I'm sure that wasn't the intent, just saying how it strikes me).

[lunamoth]

Hi Faustus, not sure if that was directed to me ot not, but I am not a Baha'i. I was a Baha'i for five years so I know a bit about it, plus I recognized silverbackman's OP as quite similar to the Baha'i beliefs. The quote 'the earth is but one county and mankind it's citizens' is attributed to Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith and, Baha'i's believe, the fulfillment of all the religions' Messianic expectations, including Judaism's. So, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I remain curious about what other people think about the Baha'i Faith.

peace,
lunamoth

[Faustus]

Nah, it wasn't directed at you in particular, more the general idea that first, every religion will suddenly fall into line with some big, worldwide religion (which everyone here seems to assume will be monotheistic, incidentally, and I think there are a few polytheists who wouldn't really be down with that). I guess I just find it a little disturbing and arrogant- maybe because I personally have had people tell me in rather condescending fashion, "Oh, well, you think you're Jewish now, but don't worry, you'll see the truth and be Saved!" So maybe that's why it rubs the wrong way- I can't speak for anyone else, but my religion isn't some fad that I picked up from Cosmo and will change just because someone decides that everyone should be unified in religion. Just the thought makes me shudder a bit- a unified language and government I can see, but a world religion? No. Treading too close to the thought police there, I think.

I don't know all that much about Ba'hai, but what I have read about it has impressed me quite a bit. There was a Ba'hai group on my university campus, and I was always impressed by their distinct lack of proselytizing (unlike the Baptist Student Ministry, for instance, who stalked me for weeks because I made the mistake of attending a barbecue with a Baptist friend), inclusiveness and generally laid-back attitude toward differing opinions regarding religion. I can definitely see the appeal there.

[taijasi]

I think the example of the Baha'i's is an excellent one, and yes, I'm more or less familiar (though not particularly knowledgeable) with their beliefs. While I do not agree that Baha'u'llah was the Christ, I would consider the teachings provided as vital in helping to establish One World Government & Religion.

Certainly I think the process has begun, and I remain optimistic that we will accomplish the goal ... but it may yet be several decades before a World Council comes into power, as reflected already in the Baha'i model, the Universal House of Justice. My own belief is that it will likely be the United Nations, which was formed with the ideal in mind of a World Governing Body (based on the earlier efforts, and as a natural outgrowth of, the League of Nations). In the very least, a World Council would draw from the UN, or be a reformulation thereof.

The acceptance by the world of the Reappearance of a Messiah-figure, Bodhisattva, Christ-figure, World Teacher, Imam Mahdi, Saoshyant, and Kalki Avatara ... is something which I don't think we'll have to continue to question. Once this Reappearance, which I personally believe is about 2/3 accomplished already, has begun its final stage (within two decades), such a figure, and the results of His Presence in the world (which He never actualy left) ... will be undeniable. It will no longer be necessary to question or speculate, because we will all know as objective fact that there has been such "return" (Reappearance). Individuals will remain free to deny or reject, even as groups (as has already occurred) ... for no once will be coerced.

Prophecies indicate that "every eye shall see Him," and "all kindred of the earth" will behold, and given the global communications now well established (news media, Internet, TV, satellite, etc.) ... how can we question this? Do intelligent people really believe that the Christ and His Church (substitute your words for the `Coming One' here) would not take adavantage of such means to reach Humanity? I have to just throw up my hands sometimes when I see that people apparently believe that Christ, and God's Kingdom, remains unchanged - while yet everything under the sun is in constant change. People looking for the Messiah of 4200 years ago, or the Biblical Christ of 2100 years ago, will be disappointed. That is my sincere conviction.

It's a paradox and a conundrum. When you think about the many pet notions that we all think Christ (Messiah, the Bodhisattva, etc.) is coming to fulfill, then the impossible figure that we have created is shown in the light of day. It is absurd to think that somehow everyone is magically right. Even 2100 years ago, there were those who expected a military leader, and those who demanded a king to overthrow Rome. Christ did neither, and he was largely rejected by the very people to whom He came! The bottom line is, we all have our various expectations, and even the wisest among us has a difficult time entering an intimate relationship with another human ... and not seeing such expectations and superimposed ideal(ism) dashed against the rocks. Do we really think our understanding of the `Son of God,' the Divine Emissary ... is better than our understanding of each other?

And thus I'm not surprised that people lose faith, or retreat into believing in childish miracles, since these represent the extremes of doubt and confusion. So the flip side of the conundrum is that if Christ exists (again, substitute your own vision of the Promised One) ... what will the return be like? And I think people who continue to expect some kind of night/day difference, will be disappointed. Because I remain convinced (and with good reason) that Christ is a World Savior, and comes to show us all the next stage(s) in Human (Spiritual) Evolution. That this will gradually yet inevitably necessitate the embracing of One World Religion is quite clear, but are the followers of the world's major religions mature enough, and intelligent enough, to handle it? That remains to be seen. After all, people still argue over which toothpaste is better, and how to hang a picture, or where to put furniture.

C'mon, the least we need to do is show that we believe in Right Human Relations ... but I think the exchange on this thread already demonstrates that even with differing perspectives & backgrounds, that much is coming along well. No less than all of Humanity is implicated, and it seems to me, that if 20% would kick in and help make this thing happen, then that's a heckuva lot better than 10%. Perhaps it will save lives, reduce suffering, and get us that much quicker to the sustainable world society which has always been intended.

andrew

[Silverbackman]

Hey people!

About the one religion issue, think of it like this. Most religions no matter how strong our faith is, is nothing more than a superstition of old. If we someone claimed something supernatural happened (like God is literally talking to them or that some demons are in them) we would think they are insane. Someone that very quickly comes to mind is the lady her drowned her kids (7 I think it was) because she said God told her to. In this modern society we do now tend to pay more attentions to natural explanations than supernatural explanations with mythical origins.

In other words a religion similar to pantheism would benefit man as a whole because let's be serious people, there is no such thing as the supernatural. And most religions have their origins that correspond to their culture and perhaps shouldn't be spread. So I don't see a new official religion heavily based on science and perhaps pantheist as a bad thing. Let's be honest here guys! We all know religions like Christianity and Islam are myths. Myths in the sense that they may have some historical basis and may teach some great ethic systems but that is all they are. There is no more validity in the Bible than there is in the Iliad or the Ramayana God did not come down from heaven and create laws. That is all superstitious and a primitive way of thinking.

Okay, if I offended anyone (especially Abrahamics) I apologize but let's be real! You’re free to practice what you want but it doesn't mean it's real.

As for English being the universal language, it seems easy enough for an American like me who only knows English (and a little Japanese and Spanish) but in my opinion it would be a nightmare! English does not deserve to be the universal language simply because it is a flawed language! There are too many exceptions to the rules and spelling in the language sucks (many words don't sound how they should sound).

I think we should create a new language based on the vocabulary and grammar of the most widely spoken languages in the world (Mandarin Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, ect.). This way we have a more intercultural national language which all people can find origins in.

[taijasi]

Easily one could spin this thread into a dozen lesser threads, but such is the challenge of synthesis - and you did start with the notion of what Unity looks like in terms of a sustainable society, with focus on language, government, and religion. I think that's ambitious ... but wonderful to pursue.

As for language, I still vote English, and here's why. The English which I think will probably emerge triumphant, will not be the admittedly lacking language of today. English is becoming increasingly technical, and is already drawing heavily from the other tongues you mention, Silverbackman. Our roots are Latin, and ethnologists will recognize that Latin has for its roots, Sanskrit. And I believe that the ancient sacerdotal tongue of the Hindus continues to nourish the as-yet-inadequate ... English.

For my own spiritual understanding, with a good amount of background in Theosophical and Hindu teachings ... I credit Sanskrit, linguistically speaking. When one tries to consider the various planes, states, and types of consciousness, English becomes altogether inadequate. Yet the Rishis of many thousands of years ago, were able to dictate and discuss the Vedas, precisely because their Sanskrit language incorporated enough subtlety and technical terminology ... to meet the need. English, I think, though as yet an infant language in comparison, will likely follow suit, though rising in time to a much higher turn of the spiral.

As for the mythology of the Bible, and its role in Abrahamic religions, I couldn't be offended in the least ... but then, my beliefs are altogether unconventional, even (if not especially) where Christ, eschatology, and soteriology, are concerned. But something I do believe in, which even gives most Christians a run for their money, is the existence of the Masters ... who form the `Church' part of Christ and His Church. As such, and again based on sincere conviction, I reject all miracles in the sense of truly supernatural events (technically breaking the laws of nature) ... but I would admit of the following: Were a Master to need to do so, I take it as a given that he could materialize (from a subtler state, and world of being) directly in front of your eyes. It might not be wise, either for the shock that would result to you, the dramatically increased vibration (which also might kill you), and most importantly for the obvious waste of a tremendous amount of spiritual energy - required to do so. But I am as convinced that this kind of thing happens more than we might realize ... as I am of my own existence.

This deviates from the subject of the thread a bit, but if such beings actually exist ... then as many people have asked - why haven't they long ago popped in and simply established the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth for us? Indeed, why did not the Christ (do so)? And we all know the typical answer, because God wants us to accept his gift (literalized in the form of Jesus of Nazareth) of our own accord. I do agree with the Christian sentiment, for I think the basic idea is correct. In short, we have the power to choose - which thinkers accord the term `Free Will.' And sadly, Humanity as yet would rather rebel and experiment with disaster (just how far can we take it, the leaders of nations, and defense contractors seem to be asking). But the "10%" I keep referring to ... includes a considerable number who are aware of the Christ and His Church - many from firsthand experience, and who recognize all such outer displays of "magic" for what they are ... evidence not of miracles, but of the Divine Potential within us all.

If one prefers to reduce all of this to Humanism, and yet can accept that there is a potential for Good within us, then perhaps the Star Trek model is more useful. For undeniably we have our struggles and imperfections, our religious (and political) differences, our varying backgrounds, worldviews, and belief systems. But our strength is that these can be overcome and a Greater Ideal sensed and worked for ... while the world of spiritual realities (for some) can yet still be discussed, and together explored, by those who have the patience and interest.

Om Tat Sat,

andrew

[Faustus]

In other words a religion similar to pantheism would benefit man as a whole because let's be serious people, there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Then why in the world would you need a religion at all? Frankly, it sounds like people saying, "Well, we need something to... erm... believe in and... uh... make people moral, so... yeah. World religion." I keep asking why some universal religion would be necessary in the slightest, and I don't feel like I'm getting very clear answers (or maybe I'm not understanding the answers I'm getting, I don't know). So I'll ask again: why exactly do we need any religion at all? Talking about humanism, most of the secular humanists I know don't consider it a religion, they consider it a philosophy. And at the end of the day, to me, saying, "We're having an official religion for the whole world" still smacks of, "This is what you should believe, and those who don't are mistaken/less intelligent/thinking primitively." Who wouldn't find that attitude incredibly arrogant and offensive?

Let's be honest here guys! We all know religions like Christianity and Islam are myths. Myths in the sense that they may have some historical basis and may teach some great ethic systems but that is all they are. There is no more validity in the Bible than there is in the Iliad or the Ramayana God did not come down from heaven and create laws. That is all superstitious and a primitive way of thinking.

Jeez, way to just dismiss the beliefs of millions of people, there, dude. This paragraph sums up exactly why I would never, ever want someone else calling the shots on my religious beliefs- just because you don't believe it doesn't automatically invalidate the whole religion and mean that those who choose to believe in it are "thinking primitively." How completely offensive and condescending. And I'm not even someone who follows a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible- I can only imagine how I would feel if I were, say, an evangelical Christian reading that. Yeesh.

Don't dismiss my belief system as "primitive thinking." Sorry, but you don't get to make that call- and you certainly don't get to decide that because you don't believe it, it would be better to have some nebulous, randomly-created, world religion. Not that it really matters, since none of us are going to be in a position to enforce something like that, anyway, but statements like the above are exactly why I take issue with it. For one thing, being religious doesn't preclude being capable of logical, scientific thought processes. For another, one world religion that everyone is expected to believe is way, way to easy for some person (or people) with... less wholesome values to manipulate to their advantage. Thanks muchly, but you can keep your world religion. I know what I believe, and I don't think I really need the one-world government explaining it to me.

But really, this boils down to my one, big question: why, exactly, would we ever need some one-world, all-encompassing religion? I'm still not getting that one.

[MagnetMan]

"The concept of an egalitarian global society stewarding the home planet as a single family estate is not a Utopian pipe dream, its an evolutionary imperative." That quote stems fro Psyche-Genetics and I thouroughly subscribe to it.

The pressures of expanding polulations impacting on regional enviroments have sequentially forced us into four distinct Age cjhanges to date - each with its own new social occupational constract and spiritual belief system. Before each new consciousness could take root and prosper all the Old Age's sacred totems and icons had be burned or buried in museums. What has been carried forward from one Age change to the next, are funadmental ethical values. When we left off hunting and gathering in the Stone Age, we took forward the basic family value of meticulous sharing and the caring for elders - together with a superstitious belief in the Universal Soul. At the end of the Bronze Age, when a purely farm-based economy could no longer sustain population expansions, we graduated into an Iron Age of industrial craftsmanship - and we brought with us both family and exstended family values - an abgricultural, chore-based work ethic, the courage to face lions with nothing but a spear, as well as the shamanistic conscept of mediumship between the living and dead ancestors. In a national milieu a rigid scripture, emphasising ethical behavour, had to develope, side by side with conscientious crafstmanship. We took those two Iron Age ethics, togther with the earlier ones from the Stone and Bronze, into the Steel Age. That began when Aristotle challenged rigid scriptural dogma and set the stage for the world we live in today --to wit; Religious protestation and scientific determinsm. A hundred generations later, we again face exponential poplation pressures impacting adversely - this time on the whole global enviroment - and we consequently face another mass change of consciousness. Age changes have never been easy. From the Bronze Age onwards they have always been intiated by massive voilent resistence. This time we cannot afford voilence - not with the weapons we have today. The only way we are going to accomplish the change peacefully is via a thorough understanding of the comonalty of our family, clan, national and internations developmental stages. When we consider the fact that our evolution of consciousness has been onb-going for almost 100,000 generations, all the differences we see today, originated comparitively seconds ago and are merely skin deep. At heart we are all a single family sharing identical social and spiritual values - by whatever pseudo-intellectual name we care to call them at the moment. The Syteel Age is redundant. Our cities are falling apart, urban sprawl is pandemic, every intitutionwe have cannot cope with globalization. We have to begin with a whole new approach to education and go forward from there - viewing the planet as a single estate, requiring the full employement of every mother's son to get it spinning right. In addition we have to have a clear vision of our future. We have to look forward, beyond the Nuclear Age, and see the Ages of Mastership and Sagehood that lie ahead of us - and the common destination of Cosmic reunion that we will all experience one day - when our evolution completes its cycle.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

"The concept of an egalitarian global society stewarding the home planet as a single family estate is not a Utopian pipe dream, its an evolutionary imperative." That quote stems fro Psyche-Genetics and I thouroughly subscribe to it...

Based on the fact that "man" must evolve with nature? There is a difference between man and nature...namely free will. Man can go against nature. That is a factor that is often ignored by "naturalists". And if the majority of man ignores a concept...it doesn't happen (to the detriment or benefit of human kind).

Also, man in the last 10,000 years hasn't really agreed with nature. Nature on the other hand does not care whether man survives or not, and man does not care what nature does.

Ultimately it is a temporary standoff. Nature is powerful, but Man is deadly, not only to man but to nature as well. Man harnesses nature on a daily basis. Man can also crack this ball that we live on in two, and nature has no say in the matter.

Better concentrate on man, rather than nature...hugging trees won't save the world, hugging "man" might...

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Based on the fact that "man" must evolve with nature? There is a difference between man and nature...namely free will. Man can go against nature. That is a factor that is often ignored by "naturalists". And if the majority of man ignores a concept...it doesn't happen (to the detriment or benefit of human kind).

Also, man in the last 10,000 years hasn't really agreed with nature. Nature on the other hand does not care whether man survives or not, and man does not care what nature does.

Ultimately it is a temporary standoff. Nature is powerful, but Man is deadly, not only to man but to nature as well. Man harnesses nature on a daily basis. Man can also crack this ball that we live on in two, and nature has no say in the matter.

Better concentrate on man, rather than nature...hugging trees won't save the world, hugging "man" might...

v/r

Q

All very true. But we are not apart from Nature. We are an expression of Her, the most deadly to be sure, but also the most creative. And without question, charged with enormous responsibilities. Hugging trees might not save the world, but it certainly shows our love and respect for the very force that helped us evolve. Care and respect for Mother Nature puts all her awesome forces on our side and we can do with all the help we can get. I disagree that She does not care about us. We did not suck our consciousness out of a vacuum - that germ of 'self' has to be an integral attrubute of the primal atom. What makes us assume that the gases and liquids and minerals that constitute our human consciousness, is the only form of atomic awareness on the planet?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

All very true. But we are not apart from Nature. We are an expression of Her, the most deadly to be sure, but also the most creative. And without question, charged with enormous responsibilities. Hugging trees might not save the world, but it certainly shows our love and respect for the very force that helped us evolve. Care and respect for Mother Nature puts all her awesome forces on our side and we can do with all the help we can get. I disagree that She does not care about us. We did not suck our consciousness out of a vacuum - that germ of 'self' has to be an integral attrubute of the primal atom. What makes us assume that the gases and liquids and minerals that constitute our human consciousness, is the only form of atomic awareness on the planet?

Perhaps due to the fact that it has never replicated itself...? ever?

Let's face it, hate us or love us, we are it. We decide the fate of the planet, ultimately. Why? because we run the roost. Nature works with us, or deals with us, but ultimately we keep this planet running or we destroy it.

That is the ultimate issue. And man has the ulitmate answer. Nature is just not strong enough to beat us, nor is any other force on the planet. Man decides. That is now the battle, in our court.

We hold the key to blow this planet to kingdom come, much quicker than any natural event...

...and yes I am playing devils' advocate. But it is a viable advocation...

v/r

Q