[-empyre-] Ontology again

[sdv at krokodile.co.uk]

Dean

You may be right in suggesting that the reduction of possible events is 
a particular problem, because it does explicitly mean a reduction of 
currently available human choices.  Not in the way that you are implying 
however but rather in the necessary restriction of humans to consume 
others into oblivion. I would assume, probably mistakenly, that anyone 
reading this already knows how unsustainable the consumption levels are 
in the most developed countries, having read and understood the 
pessimistic estimates of human deaths as a consequence of climate 
change, the ongoing animal and plant mass extinction event.

The need for control (as you put it) is not predetermined rather it is 
the direct consequence of the known change where it is human decisions 
that will enable the earth to be inhabitable by this particular 
collection of beings, the air remaining breathable, water being drinkable.

Party time is over, our societies can no longer consume and desire at 
the expense of the world, because as we can recognize if we choose to, 
we are responsible. For entertainments value let's be clear we do not 
live in a world of scarcity, there is no resource problem just a problem 
of distribution.

I've left the below quote because the implication I read here is that 
you believe that we have already lost. Because the rhetorical questions 
   really presume that control and responsibility would be left to the 
rich and powerful and that this is inevitable.

steve

 > Do the alienated, powerful, antisceptic, wealthy,
> mass-mediated humans really have all the power to determine who or
> what is to be born? Will they determine "Everything. And I mean
> Everything" for populations that are "out of control"? I think the
> Chakrabarty insinuates some of these questions into the ongoing
> discussion.