Skip to main content

Yes ME2, but one doesn't cause the other (12 February 2009)

Living standards and incomes go up when people start believing everyone DESERVES to live in a better world. This isn't born out of a change of philosophy; instead, a new philosophy emerges naturally from people who, owing to slowly improving childrearing over time, are different/better than previous generations (Lawrence Stone and Lloyd DeMause’s thesis). People aren't homo economicus -- people ruled by staid but rational monetary concerns. Many wish them such, like to see them as such, but people lust, love, hate -- they ARE, more often than not, best understood as irrational--human. If you are the type to want to know just a few people but very well, and very lovingly, you will not feel the need to have bunches of kids -- and you cannot be prompted to have them. You'll have a few -- depression or no; despite some tumult, you and they will know real love; and they will be ones who'll make the world a better place.

Link: The Tyee


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …