G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.

You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.

31 fragments of dialogue thus far ...

(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)

• Comment by Yaniv on November 1st, 2005 at 2:14 pm:

  Foreshadowing the UN’s response and actions to this injustice is not difficult.In fact, like always, the UN bureaucratic body will demonstrate its level of ineptness and incompetency. It’s no mistery the US-manipulating so-called Security Council will thwart, as usual, any meaningful resolution to cease the indefatigable mineral exploitation in the DRC – and the rest of West Africa – using its unreasonable veto power.

• Comment by tomass on November 2nd, 2005 at 12:27 pm:

  How ironic. I swear, last night i was playing my brothers PS2, in a game where the central theme is that you are part of an American brigade there to liberate the peoples of central africa from the clutches of terror. its a war/american do-gooder propaganda video game.

  unless something is done from within these exploited rivers, i think any UN or US resolution towards this crises will of course be construed in a way to increse profitability from the region, no matter what the human or enviromental costs.

  its in the game. remember?

• Comment by caίtlin on November 2nd, 2005 at 1:12 pm:

  Ecology is always political, but it seems even more true in Africa than elsewhere.

  Some interesting sites;
  africanoilpolitics.blogspot.com

  http://allafrica.com/environment/

  http://www.foei.org/media/2005/0909.html

• Comment by falcore on November 2nd, 2005 at 8:45 pm:

  here is some more info on U(a)S(s) involvement in africa from 1996-2000. ah the clinton years
  i mean AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

• Comment by falcore on November 2nd, 2005 at 9:06 pm:

  oops didnt post the link

  this is the one from 96-00
  http://www.worldpoli...ms/reports/congo.htm
  here is anoter one from 00-05
  http://www.worldpoli...AfricaMarch2005.html

• Comment by fish on November 4th, 2005 at 9:40 am:

  the situation DRC is currently in cannot just be blamed on the usa (even though this is easy, and i guess…the default aggressor at which to point the finger). the country has been in a mess since the before the french left, since which its gone through to many civil wars to count, an attempted revolution che guevara style and now fits perfectly into the “dependant” category. the european powers are also to blame for what happens there (and for many atrocities in africa), as we reap the benefits as much as anyone else.

  by the way…i am in now way taking the blame of the usa, i’m just pointing out that there are other powers at work here, just as bad. read some mark curtis on what good ol’ great britain gets up to…

• Comment by C-Wipe on November 4th, 2005 at 10:20 am:

  yes, i believe that out of 85 companies involved in coltan in the DRC, eight are american.

  it is an international effort, no doubt.

• Comment by Marc on November 4th, 2005 at 3:17 pm:

  This is an extensive report by GeSI(Global e-Sustainability Initiative) to anyone that’s interested. There’s alot of stuff here:

  http://www.durbanpro...FFIColtanReport2.pdf

  My question is: What is the proper response? We’re all on computers here, probably have cell phones. What do you guys think?

• Comment by Sam on November 6th, 2005 at 6:25 pm:

  This adds to another reason why I refuse to buy a cell phone or video game console. I find this mineral exploitation absolutely horrifying. What I find even more horrifying is the fact that the Bush Administration did nothing to cease it. How could America do this when plight is happening? Oh wait, it’s because there’s profit!

• Comment by eyegor on November 7th, 2005 at 7:36 am:

  …and we thought that “America’s Army” was a bad idea..
  well, in fact it is.. but just check this out
  http://www.resistanc...leansing/catalog.htm

• Comment by fish on November 7th, 2005 at 2:38 pm:

  yeah i’ve run into that resitance records place before…theres always gonna be groups of people like that, until everyone is exactly the same in every respect that is. they are obviously sick b*stards, but most people aren’t like that but still wouldn’t give a sh*t if you told them about the DRC. thats whats really sickening.

• Comment by fish on November 7th, 2005 at 2:43 pm:

  also, you can refuse to buy a cell phone or video game console, but are you going to refuse to use electricity? theres a nuclear power station only a few miles away from where i live (one of the only ones in scotland i think..maybe even the only one) so i guess that means by even turning on a light or listening to a cd, i’m supporting whats going on in the congo.

• Comment by Come on on November 7th, 2005 at 11:53 pm:

  So the fact that Rwandan groups are killing people from the Congo in wars over a product that we use is our fault? That makes sense. Damn the Canadians who are using Coltan because Rwandan groups are killing people for it!

  Then for every grain farmer that dies in a silo explosion, damn the vegetarians, because if it weren’t for them, people wouldn’t NEED grains, and that farmer would have never had to be NEAR a silo! It’s not the farmer’s fault, it’s not a fact of business, it’s the fault of the CONSUMER.

  What a stupid concept. I’d really like, just ONCE, to hear one forward-thinking idea that takes us away from capitalism that could actually be achieved with no deaths, no injustice, and could actually manage to sustain itself. All I hear is how we are evil, how it’s not a matter of fixing the system, it’s a matter of taking it down. What have you got to offer in return? What do we go to? Anarchy? If anarchy actually WORKED in society and not just in magical fantasies we would have never come to the capitalist system in the first place, because OBVIOUSLY in ideals anarchy is better. It’s NOT sustainable in any way that is true anarchism.

  I’d love a response, because I’ve posed this type of question to people before and never got an answer that doesn’t simply state what’s wrong with our current system. YES, there’s flaws. And I’d suggest at this point we are simply adding problems to our current system rather than cleaning it up, but again, I challenge anyone to tell me what we do instead.

  Thank you.

• Comment by fish on November 8th, 2005 at 5:53 am:

  what i was saying Come On, is theres no point in boycotting one thing and thinking your making all the difference and i wasn’t saying it was our fault. but by sitting doing nothing we’re not exactly hepling are we? and about anarchy, we already live in a system of anarchy, what do you think todays international system is? its anarchic by definition but in it you see each one of our countries strving to benefit themselves. anyway i don’t remember saying “yeah man we need anarchy duuude”…maybe i was sleep typing..or it could have been the ghost that lives in this pc….DAMN THE GHOST!!

• Comment by caítlin on November 8th, 2005 at 10:30 am:

  I think perhaps you’ve misconstrued something here – we’re all consumers, right? And so we’re all, to some degree, complicit (which is what i think Fish was saying).
  Personally, I think that as long as we’re consumers, we ought to be aware of the consequences of our consumption (which i guess is why Chris posted it in the first place.) Its a mind boggling process, from the amount of water used in every can of beer to the very real and very frequent deaths of workers. We all make our decisions about how far we’ll go in trying to change that, but being aware when you’re shopping is by no means destruction of our system. I don’t see whats anarchic about that…
  To a large extent, I think you’re right when you say business are the ones who should be accountable for the shit they pull. But what keeps them going? Its the consumers — as i’ve said, we are all complicit, I dont think that much is deniable, and at the moment the choice for activists seems to be picking battles, and often the lesser of two evils.

  “I’d really like, just ONCE, to hear one forward-thinking idea that takes us away from capitalism that could actually be achieved with no deaths, no injustice, and could actually manage to sustain itself.”

  Shit, so would I! The point is, we DON’T have all the answers, we CAN’T just point you in one direction and say “do this and the world will be fine”. Either it doesn’t exist, or we havent found it yet. This whole thing is a process.
  It sounds like you have some problems with the concept of anarchy [so do i] – its pretty simple; don’t get involved in the movement, read and think and try and find your own alternative. I don’t think many of us are coming at this with a specific agenda. In fact, I’d say a lot of our problems stem from following dogmas.
  And while you don’t have this magical answer to change the system, try and do as well as you can from within it (which is were we come back to being an aware consumer and understanding the reciprocal relationship between consumption and production).
  I hope that helps, but really, its the blind typing at the blind here.

• Comment by NO fun on November 8th, 2005 at 2:39 pm:

  [quote]So the fact that Rwandan groups are killing people from the Congo in wars over a product that we use is our fault? That makes sense. Damn the Canadians who are using Coltan because Rwandan groups are killing people for it![/quote]

  Well, if you (generic you) didn’t use this product, then it wouldn’t further enhance the animosity between the two, so in a way it IS your fault, whether you accept it or not. But to be fair, there are other reasons than just Coltan for those clan wars (the French and Belgian colonial past is one of them indeed), if that is a relief to your conscience.
  And on a more general note, I think this is just some form of colonization, and a more vicious one than ever before: “western industrialized” countries/governments (lobbied by and walking hand in hand with their own big companies) are exploiting a country’s resources (that’s what colonialism is about after all), but this time without losing any men. Better still, it’s nothing more than half indecent according to many people, it’s not even really seen negatively because “it’s not our fault if they fight after all”. Wonderful! 100% profits… No wonder those Western Countries (we all know that’s what the UN etc are, just a deceiving structure to promote the biggest countries’ interests…) don’t want to take steps to stop this.

  Regarding the problems of society models, I think the answer could be easier than you might think. There are not just two alternatives possible (e.g. capitalism and anarchy), that was a great rhethoric stunt on your part but I’m sure you’re aware that there is more than this… Even capitalism has several “degrees”.
  But I believe the main wrong thing about capitalism as it is practiced, is that its only aim is to achieve always more and more power, and make more and more profit, all going to the top men. So in the end it all comes down to the egotism and greediness/selfishness of a few (who I think, are somehow like “hypnotyzed” by their goals).
  So basically, the problem is the “always more and more to be the best, to outperform the other companies etc”, and those are personal, human issues, not social ones I think. Just like the dismissal of environmental and “humanitarian” are. If we take a close look, the percentage of people really caring for environment and human rights is very low, everybody is only interested in their little self and their family/friends, few people take the world and its inhabitants globally, and equally… just like most chairmen.
  That’s, I think, the core of the problem. Almost nobody wants to lead a humble life, with a decent wage, everybody wants to be the best, wants more and always more, without worrying much about the others, about the planet.

  Ok, I’ve been taken away by my own thoughts (at least to some extent), but what I was aiming at was this:
  Wouldn’t it be possible to start and run a company just to live decently, and not in order to live in opulence, to be the best, to possess the most etc? Wouldn’t it be possible to start and run a company just to live humbly AND help other people (working there) at the same time? (because that’s why the ancesters of ‘companies’ have been created, to help each other out, that’s why labor has been divided, so that we wouldn’t die in our corner (or on our plot of land)).
  And doing so while keeping in mind that if you abuse Nature/environment, then one day you (or your kids or your kids’ kids) simply will not be able to live on this planet anymore?
  I, for one, think that it’s not something unreasonable to consider. There would be more companies doing the same thing and less monopolies, which I think is healthier.
  I’m certainly no economist so I guess this system would have its faults and drawbacks too, apart from the obvious one: that things would be more expensive for consumers. But do we really need all those things anyway? Can’t we just keep to the basics and a (very) few extras to live? Again this brings us back to the problem of “always wanting more and more” and selfishness and showing your wealth and power etc. We have to be conscious of the fact that we already possess far more than most people in this world, that’s taking things globally and not personnally I think, and that would be the remedy of and the solution to many problems.

  Sorry if I digressed and if my English isn’t good (I’m a stinking French so I have excuses, ah ah), just wanted to share my opinion on this broad topic…

• Comment by fish on November 8th, 2005 at 4:23 pm:

  NO FUN:
  “And on a more general note, I think this is just some form of colonization, and a more vicious one than ever before: “western industrialized” countries/governments (lobbied by and walking hand in hand with their own big companies) are exploiting a country’s resources (that’s what colonialism is about after all),”

  i agree with this ^^. Underdevelopment is an actual school of thought in the international system (and its not also called the Dependancy theory for no reason). It allows the old empires to hold onto the three key economic objectives of imperialism: access to markets for sale of manufacured goods, access to a cheap and guaranteed supply on raw materials, and access to cheap labour. We (the powerful) keep them (the weak) dependant, increasing our own standings within the int. community.

  No Fun:
  “Wouldn’t it be possible to start and run a company just to live decently, and not in order to live in opulence, to be the best, to possess the most etc? Wouldn’t it be possible to start and run a company just to live humbly AND help other people (working there) at the same time?”

  this is where the problem starts. in a capitalist system if your company begins to become successful it has to be the best or it will fail. take supermarkets, tesco have to provide the best food for the lowest price or Asda will…putting tesco out of business in the process. i think this is where PARECON comes into play…
  http://www.zmag.org/...D=26&ItemID=8385

  maybe with this ^^ all companies could “eliminate the un-egalitarian trappings of traditional, capitalist, top-down workplaces.”

  i think it comes down to the fact that we’ve lived this way too long to give up consumerism. when the newest products are so aggressively marketed, how can we (as a whole) resist? as Bill Hicks said…Anyone in marketing, kill yourself!

• Comment by NO fun on November 8th, 2005 at 5:16 pm:

  “this is where the problem starts. in a capitalist system if your company begins to become successful it has to be the best or it will fail. take supermarkets, tesco have to provide the best food for the lowest price or Asda will…putting tesco out of business in the process. i think this is where PARECON comes into play…
  http://www.zmag.org/...D=26&ItemID=8385”
  I’ve read the article and though I admit this would be a dream company, I’ve got to say: “Yes, but there will always be people (or at least one person) to found a to-be Tesco thinking that if they didn’t follow the PARECON doctrine, they would earn more money and be more powerful”.
  In the beginning, it was like PARECON, everyone was doing approximatively equal tasks for the benefit of the whole community, ploughing the land, gathering etc but quite soon someone thought “hey, if I have enough food to provide 5 people with, they’ll work for me and I won’t have to, plus I’ll have this nice feeling that somehow, in a way, I will feel… (what we today call “superior”), and there you go, another one will want to be/do the same, competition etc.
  Unfortunately, that’s the “default/standard nature of man”, and you have to somehow fight it to make yourself take others/Nature into consideration etc. It’s easier to indulge in gaining power and money for yourself, rather than thinking about others by redistributing (equally), questioning the legitimacy of your actions etc.

  That’s why, I think, PARECON is an utopia just like the one I have about modest small companies… But I do believe that many small companies doing the same thing (or approximatively) can survive, provided nobody “breaks the rule”, and that’s where it becomes impossible methinks.
  It all comes down to the individuals and not the economic system in the end (though capitalism surely is the worst one for me since it is the one most built around those egotist, selfish and unrespectful idea(l)s).

• Comment by tomass on November 9th, 2005 at 3:01 pm:

  i dont know, no fun. saying that it comes down to people and not to economy is a little alarming. especially when you mentioned right before that “Its easier to indulge in gaining power and money for yourself, rather than thinking about others by redistributing equally.” i think that capitalism greatly encourages this. any economic system encourages this by merely avoiding to look at real costs.

  i dont think that youre intentionally reducing this economy to simply power and money. i think theres alot more to it than that. the labour for instance. the sacrifice that people give up in order to work is generally enormous and unsustainable. and it is not accounted for. the enviromental costs.

  and yes, as always, the everlasting solace: human nature. i think theres alot more to human nature than greedy-barbarian-like dictatorships. i think people are generally intelligent, and kind, know how to use common sense, to.

  i also think of utopia as some kind of political “heaven”, a religious concept, but parecon aint it. no one admits to have a perfect solution, except for maybe Adolf Hitler, and my friend, Chris Cooke.

  and doesnt everybody find that as soon as something is from africa, it seems to get ignored much faster?

  and dont woory, im a dirty, hairy french so i think we got it all covered here.

  “people have a means of relating and interacting with one another, without it being codified in black letter law” (or something like that)
  -ward churchill

  i think people are generally more capable to govern themselves than you give them credit for.

• Comment by Kyle on November 9th, 2005 at 8:09 pm:

  I might be way ‘out there’, but at this point in time, I’m sure we can change the definition of ‘human nature’.

  ‘We’ (or perhaps those in power) are quick to say how humans are, but isn’t it the structure we exist in that forces us to act a certain way?

  If I’m put into a maze and the hounds are released, I’m going to run like hell. If I was put into a house and some other people entered, I would probably find a seat and try to start some kind of conversation.

  If I was put into a maze, looked for a seat, and tried to start a conversation, I would look like an idiot — especially if the hounds were coming after me/us.

  If all we know is the maze and the hounds, and we are told that how we are forced to act in that maze is human nature, we’re probably going to accept it. That’s all we know; that’s all we see.

  That’s ‘human nature’, just like it was human nature to slave away on your feudal plot and to ‘love’ and be subjected to the arbitrary rule of the divinity of kings and queens — do we still (superficially, at least) work that way?

  Of course, I could be completely wrong.

  On another note, is there an alternative to Coltan? I’m a bit of a video game nerd… that’s not something I want to think about while I’m playing them. Hell, that’s how I stopped eating meat–thinking about where each slab of carcass came from.

  …yep.

• Comment by NO fun on November 10th, 2005 at 12:30 pm:

  Well first, sorry to the admins (and everyone else annoyed by this) for being largely off topic…

  “i dont know, no fun. saying that it comes down to people and not to economy is a little alarming. especially when you mentioned right before that “Its easier to indulge in gaining power and money for yourself, rather than thinking about others by redistributing equally.” i think that capitalism greatly encourages this. any economic system encourages this by merely avoiding to look at real costs.”
  It IS alarming, and I did say too that capitalism was the worst ‘economic system’ according to me (because it promoted this attitude the most); so in a way, I totally agree with you to say that it encourages this, but take whatever economic system you want, there will ALWAYS be (many) people to think about themselves (only) and take advantadge of others for their own benefits, and jeopardize even the best “human” society. Capitalism just legitimates selfishness and egotism, and even promotes it, so yeah, it definitely goes against humanity.

  “i dont think that youre intentionally reducing this economy to simply power and money. i think theres alot more to it than that. the labour for instance.”
  Well, why do you think people are working today? Ask the question to any people in the street and people will laugh at the question, before answering “for money, of course.” In a perfect society, yes, they would work to help each other out and build something, but in our (modern industrialized) world, they work for themselves and their families, and for no one else, let’s face it!
  The environmental costs I do take into account! That’s what matters most I think. Without ecology, no more economy, no more politics, no more everything. I might get bashed at this point but If I had the choice I’d erase the human race from Earth, to give Nature a second chance. Life/Nature always finds a way to survive, except when humans are involved (as we’ll soon find out, even if right now it is the biggest taboo in the world and no one wants to think, let alone talk, about it. Many scientists don’t give this planet more than another century).

  “i think people are generally more capable to govern themselves than you give them credit for.”
  See paragraph above. ;) I certainly am VERY pessimistic and misanthropic, but I think the human race is the dumbest of all, not the most intelligent and reasonable one. A race that knows that it’s going to its death but doesn’t want to do anything about it (doesn’t even want to acknowledge it) because it “feels just too right” at the moment (again selfishness), surely isn’t “intelligent”, but irresponsible… And if they are irresponsible, then I doubt that people are capable of governing themselves!
  Just take a look at the leaders democratically elected by people all over the world and tell me that they are able to govern themselves again. :-)

  Kyle:
  “‘We’ (or perhaps those in power) are quick to say how humans are, but isn’t it the structure we exist in that forces us to act a certain way?”
  I won’t repeat the same things as above, but just say that to some extent yes, the structure plays a role, for sure; But I’ll add that I don’t see it as the primary cause of making people act like they do.
  Every single industrialized society will tell its citizens that stealing is bad, that cheating is bad etc, but still people do it, and not only the most poor and desperate ones that somehow would have a reason to do it.
  This can’t come primarily from the “structure” since the structure not only doesn’t approve of this but also punishes it. In the end the individual decides, whatever society he or she lives in.
  But of course the type of structure modulates, affects this, it does play a role, but is far from being the only one to be blamed.
  And by the way, who invents and applies (in effect) those (wrong) “structures”? Human people of course. If the vast majority of people living in a society agree with its rules, methods, it’s because deep inside they are content with it! They are quite happy with earning money for themselves etc.

  Having said this, I’d establish a difference between the feudal society that you evoke and ours: at that time, the vast majority of people weren’t free to choose, today the vast majority of people are. And even if, in a way they are influenced by the fact that they are told that this is the best system, yet if deep in their hearts they thought it was wrong (like some do), then they wouldn’t vote like they do. But again, most are happy with the way things work (survival of the fittest and everyone for themselves), so they keep on voting like they do.

  But well, whether humans are originally good and only influenced/deceived by societies (that they created) like you think, or far more imperfect like I think, the result remains unchanged. And it’s not very positive!

  To finish on this, I’d like to point out that to my knowledge, the only “system” that worked sustainably is the one of Buddhist Tibet. And how do they manage it? Well by constantly questioning themselves and their acts, trying to improve themselves day after day, and fighting against the faults of Human nature, and by living in the simplest way humans live (no technology etc). Unfortunately, they are being ethnically cleansed by the Chinese for no reason even if they are probably the only ethnic group never to have caused any harm to anyone.
  Now who said Humans were good and kind?

• Comment by tomass on November 10th, 2005 at 12:53 pm:

  i agree 100% that the human race should be wiped off the earth. though this may seem like some form of hardcore apathy, really, its the exact opposite.

  and i want to be clear- i think any economic system thus far encourages selfishness and greed. any ideological economies that not only discourage this effect, but works to diminish it, either have not been put into practice yet, or have been wiped away by colonial powers. i think that the native american economies have a lot that we could learn from. and of course, an economy is only a system. it is not naturally functioning or re-generating. it is a human concept. nature knows no economy. there is always the human equation to consider when talking about economy of course, but i think most things are done out of either need, or greed. maybe.

  and i dont think this is off-topic. id say africa is the continent which suffers the most due to economy, to world capitalism, and this stretches back FOR AT LEAST hundreds of years. i think its a little evangelic if all were doing here is talking about africa, AND NOT DOING ANYTHING. i plan on doing a community radio interview to try to get the info out there.

  there is a large african community here in montreal. and i really believe that peoples communities are a world super power.

• Comment by Marc on November 10th, 2005 at 1:45 pm:

  I assume many of the posters here are rational-thinking athiests. What is the rationale for the desire of wiping humanity off the earth?

  Is it selfish to feel like leaving or wiping humanity clean off the earth would not be a positive thing because I don’t really care about anything after I’m dead? If I’m gone, It would be impossible for me to employ human faculties in order to *care* about a healthy earth…so i’de have to care prior to my death, which is what I’m doing now.

  I’m probably overanalyzing..but I’ve always struggled with this. Is there selfishness in wanting to live on the earth even though you’re contributing to it’s destruction.

• Comment by Marc on November 10th, 2005 at 1:47 pm:

  Aww crap – i put my email down instead of my name. Can I get an edit before the midget porn fills my inbox?

• Comment by fish on November 10th, 2005 at 6:10 pm:

  come one…don’t try to make excuses…so signed up for that porn and u can bloody well deal with it!

• Comment by NO fun on November 11th, 2005 at 2:55 pm:

  ah ah, on a bright note Marc, hope you didn’t get your email box full of penis enlargement pills and winning lottery tickets… ;)

  Anyway, I acknowledge the “extreme” caracter of my way of thinking, but I do think that it would be a selfish act not to do it if you had the choice to wipe the human race off the Earth without it suffering.

  And the rational thought behind this would simply be: well, human beings won’t be there anymore but millions of other species would. And the “they’re-not-thinking-so-they-are-inferior,-it’s-not-necessary-that-they-live” bullshit is no excuse. A living creature is a living creature, thinking or not. If not, we should instantly kill all the people affected with brain diseases who can’t think or remember (or even move). Animals HAVE psychic abilities, and they do have feelings (there is evidence everywhere, from a pack of wolves howling/crying when one of them is dead to your dog who expresses his/her jealous when you stroke another animal…), but well, I guess that’s again the “benefits” of our Christian mentalities, God made man according to His own image etc.
  Well anyway, it’s easier to persuade yourself that they don’t think and have feelings, so you can (selfishly, again, I’m sorry) use them like tools/objects for your own purposes.

  Oooops, sorry, I got carried off there… another touchy subject for me (though I’ve learnt to be understanding over the years so no animosity there, let’s be clear. :-) ).

  So yeah, basically a “everything else but human” world would be perfect, just because all the others species could find back their balance and harmony.
  And I think it’s preferable to have millions of species living in harmony rather than one species destroying the others and even while doing so, not being able to find harmony (among itself). That’s being 100% rational (well at least as I conceive it).

• Comment by tomass on November 16th, 2005 at 3:44 pm:

  oh….. i was just suggesting worldwide suicide because then there would be no more superbowl. hmmm.

• Comment by Brian on November 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pm:

  In response to the erasure of the human race…I say, what is life but the same particles that make up everything else, arranged in such a way to be aware of its existance (or at least in someway prolong the aforementioned arrangement of particles, and perhaps make some copies of it). That there are a very few things in this world (not to mention this universe) that we are relatively sure can feel pain, seems like tough luck to those things. So, the killing of the entire human race, while sparing all of humanity the mundaneness of existance, is perpetuating the pain and suffering experienced by all the shit that we have affixed such beautiful names to (i.e. Blue Whales, Kangaroos, Giant Sequoias). I stand to argue that the human existance serves an unbelievably grand, and beautifully poetic, purpose by sparing the rest of the pain-feeling, non-human masses the constant pain of life, while simultaneously perpetuating and intensifying its own pain. And perhaps the most important thing to note here is that, to the unbelievably vast majority of masses of particles in the universe (i.e. the Andromeda Galaxy, Arcturus, the Earth itself, the fucking chair you’re sitting on), it doesnt fucking matter either way.

• Comment by Chris on November 28th, 2005 at 4:25 am:

  NO fun — hey, us humans are part of nature, too!

  I live. I experience, breath, swim, laugh, thrash to “Iteration,” write, create, explore. I live! And you do, too.

  “Humans obliterating Earth” and “Humans zapped out of existence (to return Earth to a more harmonious balance)” are only 2 possible configurations of (our) existence. Acknowledge now that there are quite literally infinite others!

  I think all of us here can picture — at the very least — one single thing different in our lives, whatever it may be. A recently-chopped tree returned to its roots, a garment worker or cubicle-dweller finding a job they actually enjoy, a more forgiving/objective snap judgment of a wine-soaked homeless man.

  It might be said a lot, but really: anything is possible.

• Comment by matt on December 30th, 2005 at 2:12 am:

  i couldn’t believe that they left such an important part out of the movie ‘hotal rwanda’

• Comment by Sam. K on January 31st, 2006 at 8:13 pm:

  I am impressed with this page…setup really nice. Doesn’t take forever to load pics, like mine… Very impressive.. http://buy-cheap-hyd...y_hydrocodone_where/

Dialogue has ended on this post.

Archives | RSS