Freedom

[mainemac]

Self sufficiency means having all the tools to provide for your basic needs
Food water shelter for stone age
Food water shelter , electricity , heating, cooling (internet ) for us.

To be truly free , Americans should be demanding huge investments in solar geothermal wind, as well as
making our houses cars businesses less wasteful.

Attached is an article about the energy crisis talking about taking steps to becoming self sufficient,
when we are truly free and not dependent on anyone.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20friedman.html?hp

Tom

 

[webbie]

Friedman has seen the light - finally - after he cheerlead the war in Iraq which is largely responsible for the mess we are in....but, heck, as I have said before....better late than never. I would like to see Bush come up with something, but he will not. He is 100% an oil man, and he honestly does not want what is best for the country...he wants what is best for Cheney and friends....or whoever is pulling his strings at the moment.

As to "not dependent on anyone", that era is long over. Mankind is mutually dependent. When we develop the technologies of the future, we are going to want the rest of the world to buy them!

I think the real story is whether we are all going to be mutually dependent by CHOICE or by WAR (hitting others on the head with hammer and taking their stuff). I vote for the first one.

After even that, the question arises as to who "we" are. I certainly do not consider myself a fellow american with those who would rule the world by force. I am just as likely to be aligned with someone in Britain, Germany or somewhere else, as I am to someone up the street from me. Some say the era of the "nation-state" is over, and what we see now (flexing muscles) is their last gasp to control us all.

 

[begreen]

The question is whether corporate states are going to take over. Many corporations at this point are better capitalized than some countries.

 

[jebatty]

I think the real story is whether we are all going to be mutually dependent by CHOICE or by WAR (hitting others on the head with hammer and taking their stuff).

Historically, and one could argue that this is also true of Iraq, wars principally have been over access to natural resources. A society would outgrow it natural resource base, and war was needed to steel resources from others to maintain the society. Ultimately, another society with more resources would conquer and subject the first, etc, etc.

There really are only two resources: human capital and natural resource capital, with energy being one of the natural resources. When either of these is stressed, competition has resulted in wars.

Cooperative mutual dependency is highly desirable, but it may have an end point through population growth. The world's population right now is consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. Whether technology can for now and for the long term tip the balance to sustainability with growing population is doubtful in my opinion.

Either we control population voluntarily, or war, plague and starvation will.

 

[myzamboni]

I think the real story is whether we are all going to be mutually dependent by CHOICE or by WAR (hitting others on the head with hammer and taking their stuff).

Historically, and one could argue that this is also true of Iraq, wars principally have been over access to natural resources. A society would outgrow it natural resource base, and war was needed to steel resources from others to maintain the society. Ultimately, another society with more resources would conquer and subject the first, etc, etc.

There really are only two resources: human capital and natural resource capital, with energy being one of the natural resources. When either of these is stressed, competition has resulted in wars.

Cooperative mutual dependency is highly desirable, but it may have an end point through population growth. The world's population right now is consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. Whether technology can for now and for the long term tip the balance to sustainability with growing population is doubtful in my opinion.

Either we control population voluntarily, or war, plague and starvation will.

Except for all the wars involving religion. :roll:

 

[WILDSOURDOUGH]

Humans can work toward being- 'Self-Reliant', but no one can ever be truly- Self-Sufficent"

 

[jebatty]

Except for all the wars involving religion.

The Crusades (which I really don't have much knowledge about) might have been true religious wars, as I doubt obtaining resources was a planned or de facto result. I suspect, however, that many other wars "involved religion" to help justify the conflict, but they really were over resources, human or natural.

The trouble with history is that it is a report and/or interpretation with a perspective, or worse, an agenda. In that regard history changes as new perspectives and interpretations are brought into view. A war that may appear to be religous, reported as such and interpreted as such, in most cases likely was to obtain the wealth and human capital of a weaker neighbor.

I would submit that most of the wars of the Bible's Old Testament and most of the Arab/Islamic wars were of this kind. Although fighting for God or Allah was the written record, the war mongers really were seeking land, resources and slaves. Also with regard to these "religious" wars, the written record often is metaphorical, not historical, and therefore is ripe with agenda.