From:    Karl Lembke                            Area: Thelema
To:      L'Amour Dujour                         15 Sep 92 09:15:16
Subject: Traffic                                UpdReq 

LD> KL> Well, I mean a process that takes the raw soul and polishes
LD> KL> it, preparatory to returning to the source.
LD> Vi> ??? Sounds like digging a hole and cleaning the dirt before putting
LD> Vi> it back in the ground.
LD>Vitriol: Your comment makes sense, but think of it this way:
LD>You're digging up the dirt, cleaning it of pollution, and returning it
LD>to the Earth. A most worthwhile task, and necessary!! (both to the Soul,
LD>and to Mama Earth, in this day and age.)
LD>Read: Pollution - Elements put into the soil that disturb the balance
LD>and harmony of the complete. Be it soda cans and tinfoil, or Cultural
LD>Baggage and Peer Pressure.
An alternative view could be taking the dirt and adding amendments
like compost, lime, or other materials to bring it into better balance
for whatever you want to plant there.
___
 X SLMR 1.0 X REALITY.SYS corrupted - Unable to recover universe.


718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718

From:    Karl Lembke                            Area: Thelema
To:      Liliani                                23 Sep 92 09:23:00
Subject: Right & wrong         1/               UpdReq 

LI> SJ> For example "Thou shalt not kill" is IMPOSSABLE
LI> SJ> to follow! Your immune
LI> SJ> system kills all the time, and if you shut it
LI> SJ> off, you kill yourself.
LI> SJ> "Do not kill unless endangered" comes closer to reasonable, but is
LI> SJ> reletivistic since it leaves the determination of "endangered" up to
LI> SJ> interpretation.
LI>Precisely.  But then I do beleive that morality must be
LI>situational.  However, I do not believe that the end
LI>necessarily justifies the means, since there is almost
LI>always a variety of means to any given end.
Indeed, given that the proper translation of that phrase is 
"Thou shall not murder"  (Hebrew has words for both "kill" 
and "murder", with pretty much the same connotations that
exist in the modern English words.), the situationality becomes
apparent.  What, after all, is murder, except killing when
the situation doesn't justify it?
___
 X SLMR 1.0 X EXECUTIVE ERROR:  STARTING SYSOP ERASURE.....COMPLETED.


718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718

From:    Karl Lembke                            Area: Thelema
To:      Liliani                                23 Sep 92 09:23:02
Subject: Re: Love under Will                    UpdReq 

LI>I have read a great deal about the subject, and from a
LI>number of sides of the issue.  The fact is that there are
LI>too many human beings on the Earth.  Note I did not say too
LI>many colored people.  I did not say too many people in
LI>Africa.  I did not say too many people in India, or China.
LI>I said too many human beings on this one planet.
I heard that the UN has figured that the Earth currently 
produces enough food to feed the population of the Earth.
LI>What can we do about this?  Well we could use our minds, and our wills and
LI>our technology to lower the population.  Or we can ignore
LI>the problem until the Earth smacks us around and
LI>depopulates us with AIDS, other plagues, and natural
LI>disasters.  Or we can have a few more nice bloody wars.  I
LI>prefer the first option.  
Me too.
LI>I am not against AIDS research or
LI>supplying medicine to peoples who are less technologically
LI>advanced that we are.  I never said anything to imply that
LI>I was.  I am a "technogreen" that strange breed of
LI>environmentalist who actually beleives that we can save the
LI>environment and the world through using the best of our
LI>technology rather than by denying technology.
I think technology will eventually develop the means to handle
the problems that currently plague the world.  
Of course, by the time we solve those, new, and more fearsome
looking problems will have come up.  The task our children will
face will involve solving those problems, and I predict there will
be very vocal critics longing for the "good old days" when 
all people had to deal with were trivial problems like curing cancer
and aids and figuring out how to dispose of our pollutants.  (Isn't
it interesting how quickly a problem becomes "trivial" once it's
solved?)
LI>A big part of the population boom around the world in this century came fro
LI>the widespread applications of modern medicine and
LI>agriculture without corresponding widespread use of
LI>birthcontrol.
Interestingly enough, once medicine, food, etc are sufficiently widely
available that people have some assurance that a child born to them
will live to adulthood, they quit having so many children.  People 
aren't stupid.  After the first child, they know how much work it is
to raise one.  As soon as they have some assurance that they will 
have someone to take care of them in their old age, they ease off.
The cutoff, in terms of standard of living, seems to be about equivalent
to an annual income of $5000 per capita.  (Or is that per family?  
I forget...)
___
 X SLMR 1.0 X F is for Fanny sucked dry by a leech


718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718