Homestead mailing list

[sjc <indexer AT fairpoint.net>]

Cathy wrote:
> I guess my point is that I don't think the Amish (or likely Buddhist
> monks) are a representative sample of humankind.  What do you think?
>   
Cathy--

Speaking for myself, I don't see them as representative of mankind at 
large, no:  only of one segment (or maybe that should be segmented 
segment? :) ) of mankind.

But the statement to which I responded was "We are a warring species, 
plain and simple.".  (I just went and looked to be sure I got it right)  
My beef with that is that while I could readily be persuaded (actually 
wouldn't even have to be persuaded) that we have a propensity, or easy 
capability, or "bent to", or any of another things it doesn't seem to me 
that if the entire species could be considered a "warring" species 
because there have been too many historic examples of folks who found 
life quite livable without warring, and used the Anabaptists, especially 
the Mennonite lines, as an example of a people well able to maintain 
themselves for a very long time without warring.  It was simply the most 
familiar example I could think of, albeit not so familiar to some, at 
least they are a modern-day group living largely in the world we live 
in, so at least some of the same stresses, whatnot, apply. 

Now, if the statement had been that we are a violent species, I might 
well be able to agree on that (have to think on it but not tonight and 
not the subject at hand anyway; it would depend partly on the definition 
used of violence).  In the end, it doesn't sound like Bev really meant 
it to be as written, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong, Bev), so it was 
just a matter of getting straight what we mean.  You'll have to go back 
through the old posts to get all that if you missed it on it's way by....

SJ