[ExI] riots again

[Mike Dougherty]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Wanting Western Civilization to continue is purely selfish and ignoble.
>
> 2) Eliminating the oil from the Middle East will not cause the fall of
> Western Civilization, so the reason it tries so hard to "subdue the Middle
> East" remains a mystery.
>
> So which do you believe? I hope you can give another clear and unambiguous
> answer.

3) I refuse to be pinned by either #1 or #2.  I'll try to remain clear.

Wanting Western Civilization to continue is selfish, so what?  I'm a
product of western civilization.  If I was a product of any other
civilization I might feel that those western civilization people have
too much stuff and it isn't fair and that'd probably suck for me.
I'll be honest, I don't care all that much.  It's easier to talk about
"humanitarian" philosophy when every other basic (and not-so-basic)
needs are fulfilled.

I am somewhat confused by the "not" in #2.  I believe no oil would
force Western Civilization to scale back from the level to which we
have all become accustomed.  If that's a "fall" then ... i agree?  But
even a reduced level of excess would still be recognized as "western
civilization" compared to the alternative ideology.  So No, it's not a
"fall" - just a shitty phase of reduced resource availability for the
likes of me.  The wealthy will still be orders of magnitude more
wealthy than me and the politicians and lawyers will ensure that it
remains that way.  That's one of the hallmarks of western civilization
is, isn't it?

I don't think it's much of a mystery why we'd like those possessing
alternate ideology to be "subdued" - they have what we want and they
don't want to give it to us.  I don't think this strategy is isolated
to Western civilization as much as part of the human condition.  Sorry
to be so blunt about it, but we're not so far from animals that our
nature can be denied.  (or denied for very long)