that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really

Is globalization estranging us from our human nature? Some believe it is and one point maybe that if we leave those villages alone, they can live out their human endeavor without the niceties of modern civilization. Does this mean that we should leave alone such groups, tribes or cultures, even if they are living with their animals, starving or the children are dying of malaria, typhoid or dysentery? If these groups wish to be left alone we can certainly do that, I suppose, that does not necessarily make it right to allow them to live that way or die that way?

If emerging nations want us to back off and let them be, should we? It is their civilization and if they really do not want assistance, I suppose we could let them be. Perhaps, however this is a choice. If a group of humans living together make that choice then why would one take it away? And if a group of humans decide that is their direction, no matter what leads them to this choice including; mass media input, academic brain washing or self interest ego enhancing incentive, then who is to say they are not right? And if they are wrong who is to say it is up to another to teach them the errors of their ways or help them from making such a misstep.

For those who argue that point and use it to tell the world that globalization is bad, then their statements pre-assume that globalization is a bad thing, who is to say it may not be a wonderful thing upon completion?

I have heard others argue against globalization and say we do not understand because in the Western World we are driven by material achievement. They say in Eastern Cultures and many of the other cultures they are not driven by material things but rather enlightenment? This is interesting as in a modern Western Civilization you are living in an advanced society with more choices and if one chooses to be enlightened well whose stopping them? Go be enlightened? For the person who offers this contention in opposition, they assume that the Eastern lifestyle is more fulfilling than the Western Lifestyle.

From all the civilization on Earth in the present period and all the various forms of government, which are currently in operation, it seems that Globalization may provide incredible options for those who join in. What is wrong with choice, options, good health, things that makes one’s life easier or the forward progression of mankind? Shouldn’t the anti-globalization crowd be rethinking their position, as it appears to be quite flawed? I have never met anyone who wanted to die of dysentery, perhaps they have?

There is a passage in the Old Testament in the Book of Isiah that says my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways, saith the lord.

Well this is very nice of that fictious fellow for violating my copyrights and patents, for which I feed my family. Additionally it seems to indicate that an individual's mind is not their own, violating my perceived rights of personal freedom of thought in my understanding of those rights. If one chooses to share thoughts, as I often do then that is a choice. I therefore dismiss that passage as trickery by those who have placed within that literary work or human society operations manual, or whatever its intended use was.

This reasoning is akin to my philosophy that there are things - despite our high intelliegence, our advances and our hubris - that we can't control. When a man places such limits upon his mind, he is right. If we can make that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really

of humans decide that is their direction, no matter what leads them to this choice including; mass media input, academic brain washing or self interest ego enhancing incentive, then who is to say they are not right? And if they are wrong who is to say it is up to another to teach them the errors of their ways or help them from making such a misstep.

For those who argue that point and use it to tell the world that globalization is bad, then their statements pre-assume that globalization is a bad thing, who is to say it may not be a wonderful thing upon completion?

I have heard others argue against globalization and say we do not understand because in the Western World we are driven by material achievement. They say in Eastern Cultures and many of the other cultures they are not driven by material things but rather enlightenment? This is interesting as in a modern Western Civilization you are living in an advanced society with more choices and if one chooses to be enlightened well whose stopping them? Go be enlightened? For the person who offers this contention in opposition, they assume that the Eastern lifestyle is more fulfilling than the Western Lifestyle.

From all the civilization on Earth in the present period and all the various forms of government, which are currently in operation, it seems that Globalization may provide incredible options for those who join in. What is wrong with choice, options, good health, things that makes one’s life easier or the forward progression of mankind? Shouldn’t the anti-globalization crowd be rethinking their position, as it appears to be quite flawed? I have never met anyone who wanted to die of dysentery, perhaps they have?

There is a passage in the Old Testament in the Book of Isiah that says my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways, saith the lord.

Well this is very nice of that fictious fellow for violating my copyrights and patents, for which I feed my family. Additionally it seems to indicate that an individual's mind is not their own, violating my perceived rights of personal freedom of thought in my understanding of those rights. If one chooses to share thoughts, as I often do then that is a choice. I therefore dismiss that passage as trickery by those who have placed within that literary work or human society operations manual, or whatever its intended use was.

This reasoning is akin to my philosophy that there are things - despite our high intelliegence, our advances and our hubris - that we can't control. When a man places such limits upon his mind, he is right. If we can make that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really

a modern Western Civilization you are living in an advanced society with more choices and if one chooses to be enlightened well whose stopping them? Go be enlightened? For the person who offers this contention in opposition, they assume that the Eastern lifestyle is more fulfilling than the Western Lifestyle.

From all the civilization on Earth in the present period and all the various forms of government, which are currently in operation, it seems that Globalization may provide incredible options for those who join in. What is wrong with choice, options, good health, things that makes one’s life easier or the forward progression of mankind? Shouldn’t the anti-globalization crowd be rethinking their position, as it appears to be quite flawed? I have never met anyone who wanted to die of dysentery, perhaps they have?

There is a passage in the Old Testament in the Book of Isiah that says my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways, saith the lord.

Well this is very nice of that fictious fellow for violating my copyrights and patents, for which I feed my family. Additionally it seems to indicate that an individual's mind is not their own, violating my perceived rights of personal freedom of thought in my understanding of those rights. If one chooses to share thoughts, as I often do then that is a choice. I therefore dismiss that passage as trickery by those who have placed within that literary work or human society operations manual, or whatever its intended use was.

This reasoning is akin to my philosophy that there are things - despite our high intelliegence, our advances and our hubris - that we can't control. When a man places such limits upon his mind, he is right. If we can make that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really

in the Book of Isiah that says my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways, saith the lord.

Well this is very nice of that fictious fellow for violating my copyrights and patents, for which I feed my family. Additionally it seems to indicate that an individual's mind is not their own, violating my perceived rights of personal freedom of thought in my understanding of those rights. If one chooses to share thoughts, as I often do then that is a choice. I therefore dismiss that passage as trickery by those who have placed within that literary work or human society operations manual, or whatever its intended use was.

This reasoning is akin to my philosophy that there are things - despite our high intelliegence, our advances and our hubris - that we can't control. When a man places such limits upon his mind, he is right. If we can make that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really

that concession we can proceed accordingly.

When a man commits himself to a fatalistic notion and concedes to limits, he will live within those limits and desperately so.

Indeed, yet sometimes what is unreasonable may in fact be the concept that changes the world for the greater good of all, which should also never be overly discounted as even an unreasonable thought can lead one to come up with a mult-disciplinarian solution which may or may not be the best for all concerned; yet must be explored.

That said, it's nice to discuss ideas in coffee shops and on message boards but if logical people don't organize, the oppressed masses and plain ignorant hoardes won't learn anything and the current state of affairs will continue.

Those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really flickering on their wall and thus perhaps one who does so, does so to no avail, except personal sacrifice or martyrdom. Yet again for what reason? The oppressed masses and ignorant hoards are a problem for the ongoing forward progression of the species.

Logical, intelligent people should organize and run things, it would be better for the whole and the individual. But how could one conclude that is not already happening anyway? Are you suggesting a shift of the current logical folks running things for a new group? And if so, that in itself is merely the ongoing struggle of the species. Primate Politics? Recruiting a group to take over another group is a complete repeating of the past. The human race has been there and done that and recently in the written historical record, if my studies of such serve me correctly.

You see last time I surveyed my civilization, it seemed to be running fine, except for the humans trying to condemn it and tear it down. Although on second glance, I see many possible fixes to make it run better and more efficiently for the benefit of the whole and those logical people currently in control of things.