From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: ok d00d
Date: Mon Jun 20 02:08:04 1994

"Okay dumbfuck, let's talk reality here and see if any of my ideas sink 
below the lead walls you call your skull."

Ok, let's.

"You made the humiliating error of agreeing with Natalie about peace 
through anarchy.  *now listen this time!!!*"

First you are insulting Natalie by assuming that she has no right to speak 
her mind [even as Nat claims later that she never made such a statement].

Then you assume that I said, or agreed with, the statement "peace through 
anarchy," which you claimed to be false [regardless who said it].  I then 
said: "anarchy through anarchy."  You then said that there can be no such 
thing as peace associated with anarchy.  I then said: "Quit the bullshit; 
nobody knows what it would be like if anarchy existed, as noone has tried 
it."  I don't *know* whether peace can co-exist with anarchy; I can only 
speculate such.  You can only speculate, as well.

"The world...is in a state of disequilibrium...[and] has limited 
resources"

If the world is in a state of disequilibrium, evolution would probably 
never have progressed further than the basic amino acids and RNA, because 
life [as far as it has evolved] depends upon the multiple states
[variables: food, weather, population, etc.] of the world following a 
chaotic attractor, an equilibrium of sorts which follows in cycles.  This 
is not metaphysical bullshit either; you can find biological cycles on the 
molecular level, such as the Krebs cycle [prducing usable potential] and 
the Ornithine cycle [turning excess amino acids into excretable urine], 
all the way to a macro scale, such as the nitrogen cycle [where nitrogen 
funnels its way through the atmosphere and legumes and over again].  The 
original gene structure, stable enough to survive the primordial soup, was 
able to shape itself around the equilibrium of the world's thermodynamic 
states, taking advantage of what it could and evolving as it did into life 
as we know it today.

Resources is a funny word.  I am tempted to look upon this word in its 
original sense, that is, its economic definition, and say that the concept 
of "limited resources" only exists because we humnas are ignorant and do 
not know how to live within the cycles of life [or we don't want to?].  
Its probably enough to say that the world has so much of x, y, and z, and 
has made do for about 4 billion years, so why can't we do as Earth does?

"...this creates an imbalance that causes competition and killing..."

Your mistake is in looking at each competing animal as an entity in and of 
itself, killing for food.  You do not look at the genes [which we all 
have] which created the animal in the first place.  The genetic code is 
blind to your values system of "killing" and "competing;" it only sees 
food and the potential to reproduce itself when it gets that food.

Your morality is your own business, but that morality doesn't create any 
imbalance except in maybe the health of your mind.

Pt. 2 to come....