BookTalk.org

I feel that Collapse is just one more premise to support the argument that people do better individually when they are working in harmony with those (all organisms) outside them. I'm out of time but I think the implications of Collapse may be "huger" than I had previously imagined.

I think the only certain answer you can draw is, "not as we do."

I think the great flaw in our culture is that when we consider the "big picture", we're actually pretty reasonable. But in making day to day decisions, the big picture is nowhere to be found. Context is severed. Any organism that doesn't take context into account has a very limited range of adaptation. Same with societies. So we'll buy the cheapest, most convenient products until the consequences are unbearable, and then our kids will ask, "Daddy? What were you thinking?"

yah da yah da yah

Oops! I'm laughing because that looks really rude. I'm a novice on these things. I wrote my response in the SUBJECT bar, then wrote yah dah 'cause I had to write something there. Again I'm out of time!!! Thanx for thoughtful responses - back soon -Bonnie

Well if I don't keep up on this my fans will lose interest!In response to MichaelangeloG.- is that a fact about organisms and adaptability? It would make sense. And in general to both respondants - do you agree with Diamond's argument? Or I should say - what about it makes the most sense to you? B.T.W 1) my name is not Bonnie Tyler and no I did not write Total Eclipse of the Heart and 2) the title of this thread I stole from Peter Singer, a philosopher who wrote a book w/ the same title. I would like to see Diamand & Singer talk about stuff.