You are viewing imomus

click opera - Seven deadly sins
February 2010
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 11:02 am
Seven deadly sins

Looking back over the past year or so of Click Opera, I notice that many of the most telling, interesting and provocative entries have been ethical ones. I suppose it's inevitable that when you set forth opinions every day some kind of ethical profile will emerge. And while ethical ideas are personal (everyone develops their own particular sense of what's right and wrong), they're also, to the degree they're shared, bound to sound prescriptive. You cannot outline the good life without creating—if only by implication—its shadowy inverse, the bad life. Every ethics is, in a sense, a machine for creating new sins. Even the most sybaritic of us create new sins. They hover between the lines, between the colour photographs. Sometimes we make them explicit.

Of course, although I've been accused of being a "minor cult", I don't have any sort of church behind me, or any sort of Inquisition. There's not much I can do if anyone disagrees with me except shrug and say "Thanks for your comment, this is just the way I see it." But I thought it would be interesting today to make a sort of ethical self-stereotype, a compilation of my ethical Greatest Hits from the past few months. I thought I'd make a list of The Seven Deadly Sins of Click Opera.

Looking back, my main ethical belief seems to be that the most dangerous things are the things everybody does, the things that have won and become dominant. It's success and the mainstream which are the breeding grounds for evil, not failure and the margins. (This separates me sharply from high priests like Bush and Blair, who condemn "failed states" and a marginal "axis of Evil".) Therefore, for me, America (or, sometimes, Angrael, an imaginary imperialistic right wing alliance between the US, UK and Israel) is the most dangerous country, male the most dangerous gender, Christianity the most dangerous religion (although any form of monotheism is bad), driving cars and having children the most dangerous behaviors (although clearly someone has to have children otherwise all human life will cease).

Since I'm a bit of a post-Marxist, I occasionally complain (but not always — just the other day I wrote in support of Tokyo's wealthiest property tycoon, Minoru Mori) about private property. And since I'm a bit of an Orientalist, being Western is something inherently guilty, and virtue has a distinctly Asian (and specifically Japanese) feel. Other virtues are playfulness, creativity, art, ecology, nomadism, and a certainly modesty of lifestyle. But let's save the virtues for another day, shall we? Because today we're going to get all Gothic and evangelical and talk about The Seven Deadly Sins. Here they are. Roll the tin thunder!

1. Pompous Universalism. This is the belief that, as Paul McCartney sings in Ebony and Ivory, "people are the same wherever we go". Because I'm big on cultural difference, I see this stance as a denial of difference based on fear of seeing The Other in all her Otherness. Pompous universalism thinks of itself as benign, whether it's bringing democracy to the Middle East at the point of a gun, market liberalisation to countries with centralised state control, or human rights to China along with a stack of Bibles. Above all, Pompous Universalism sees itself as neutral, standing head and shoulders above all specific, situated, contingent, culturally-rooted circumstances. If you believe that it's impossible for anyone to transcend their specific culture, you therefore have to see Pompous Universalism as a form of Cultural Imperialism. If I tried to tell you that my Seven Deadly Sins could and should be applied in all ages and across all cultures, for instance, I would be a Pompous Universalist. Which would be a bit embarrassing, obviously, since it's my number one deadly sin. I should mention a risk associated with the condemnation of Pompous Universalism, though: if you make any attempt to characterize differences between races, genders and cultures beyond the McCartney-esque statement "people are the same", you'll be accused of another grave sin: essentialism. Politicians will also call you "divisive" and will accuse you of hindering their attempts to integrate everybody.

2. Guilty Pleasures. This is obviously a legacy of the teachings of monotheistic religions like Christianity and Islam, which condemn and forbid stuff that everybody loves. As a result, we learn to hate the things we love and consider them toxic. Therefore, if we love women, we learn to hate women and love them in a self-hating (and woman-hating) way. If we love food, we learn to consume nasty sweet or salty food, food that makes us fat and wipes years off our life expectancy. We not only develop an appetite for all sorts of things we know are bad for us, like cigarettes and drugs, we love them specifically because they're bad for us. "This will kill me," we think to ourselves, "but I deserve to die because I indulged in pleasure". In an interview in The Guardian appropriately illustrated with a cigarette in the shape of a cross, for instance, artist Sarah Lucas spoke about her drug use and said "I sometimes wonder how long I've got... everybody, to a certain extent, will be a victim of what their life has been". There it is: pleasure as toxic, and self-injury as a kind of karmic punishment for its enjoyment. A complete failure to consider the idea that pleasures might actually be good for us. Which brings us to...

3. Moronic Cynicism. I have nothing against healthy skepticism; science is based on that. What I object to is the lazy reflex we have to look immediately for some low, ulterior motive in everything, some grubby bottom line. And the main reason I object to this is because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and starts a sequence of vicious circles. We don't trust or respect anyone, and so all our relationships get tarnished by lack of trust and lack of respect, and that spreads corrosively through the whole society. My belief is that even if you trust someone who doesn't deserve it, your trust in itself may change the situation for the better (though I make no money-back guarantees on this).

4. Moronic Irony. There's nothing wrong with ambivalence, of course. It's fine to feel five different ways about something; I both love and hate capitalism, for instance. I also think it's fine to use irony as a way of expressing ambivalence: whether we call irony a "laboratory" or a "theatre", it can provide a space where we suspend judgement, brainstorm, try on costumes. However, irony shouldn't be a place where we hide indefinitely from ethics, and it shouldn't be a slippery slope towards reactionary views, an insurance policy we invoke to restore lost credibility when people call us out. "Oh, for heaven's sake, I was just being ironic! It was a joke!" We also shouldn't use irony as a cloak for personal ambition, as a way of having our credibility cake and eating it too. And we should be aware that when ironic mainstream values begin to appear in indie media outlets (radio stations, record labels), it may signal a collapse of confidence in the inherent validity of alternative values, and the beginning of the end of pluralism and real choice. And I don't want to scare you by sounding cranky, but it's not just a matter of choice diversity (in itself a rather Milton Friedmanesque virtue). It's also that unironic alternative or indie media provide a whole set of spiritual values which are more wholesome and sustaining than those which dominate the mainstream. Because I'm not a moronic cynic, I really believe this. And this is the reason why I hate to see alternative culture summed up by a skull on a t-shirt. Which leads us to...

5. Fashion Goth. Why abandon Christianity without also abandoning its demonology and its panoply of death rites? That would be like throwing away the fruit and keeping the peel. And why dress only in black, when there are so many other colours? Isn't that chromophobia? My vilification of fashion gothdom clearly relates to my rejection of Christianity, and post-Christian attitudes like the "guilty pleasures" mindset. I just hate this idea of a Christian culture where you have, in the mainstream, evil people who think they're good doing evil things in the name of Jesus (you know, "Bush denies that God told him to invade Iraq") and, in the subculture, good people who think they're evil dressing up as flesh-eating zombies. Come on, people, evolve! Perhaps if you stop thinking of yourselves as evil, your evil rulers will stop thinking of themselves as good.

6. Boastful self-effacement. You might notice a pattern emerging in these sins: I have problems with some aspects of low self-esteem. That's because at heart I'm a bit of a Renaissance humanist. What a piece of work is Man, and all that. I'm always ready to forgive people who really believe in themselves, even when they're narcissists and prima donnas. It's the people who wallow in negativity and self-hate who are the really irksome ones. Self-hate is a big sin, and what's more it makes you very high maintainance for your friends, very difficult to live with. So love yourself better and you might become a better person. The thing about low self-esteem is that it so often hides its opposite; behind the inferiority complex there's a superiority complex that tells you all your vices are virtues, really. So the last thing you're going to do is eradicate them. This is the difference between true humbleness and boastful self-effacement: when a humble person admits to failings, it's in order to correct them. When a boastful person does it, self-improvement is the last thing on his mind. It's more of an individualist manifesto: "this is how I am, love me warts and all".

7. Why do there always have to be seven sins? I feel like I've run out after six, and several of those could probably be collapsed into one big sin, like "thinking mankind is inherently evil" or something (which would make it a sin to talk about sin, I guess). But if there has to be a seventh sin, let's make it something to do with woman (we need women and snakes in every breviary of sins). Woman and sex. Let's make it the sin of raunch we discussed yesterday, and particularly the idea that raunch is empowerment. First of all, I like how making raunch a sin is close to making rock a sin, because they go well together, rock'n'raunch. But raunch-as-sin relates to many of the other sins here; it's basically a post-Christian idea that sex is evil (dress those girls in devil costumes!), and it's also a corruption of an alternative political movement (feminism) which could, if it really applied itself to the deconstruction of patriarchy, be incredibly radical, and make the world a much better place. Raunch short-circuits the subversive potential of feminism by telling women that there are short-cuts to power, and they come mostly in the form of short skirts and tops. But the resulting "power" is nothing more than a very limited share of the power men already enjoy, and are already abusing horribly.

71CommentReplyShare

imomus
imomus
imomus
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 11:33 am (UTC)

By the way, if anyone could help me with this sin of "essentialism", which is a sin I'm often accused of, but don't really understand, I'd be grateful. It seems to me that without committing what's being called "essentialism" we wouldn't be able to use language, or have cultures or political movements at all. Identity politics, for instance, depends on a certain amount of essentialism, because it's a series of political movements organized around the common interests of black people, gay people, and female people.

I would want to disagree with both of these statements:

1. "It is essentialism to say that women are exploited, because some women are not exploited, and some exploited people are not women."

2. "Being exploited is the very essence of being a woman."


ReplyThread
mongoltrophies
mongoltrophies
yasser mohammed apoplipo
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 12:28 pm (UTC)
aus Google

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Essentialism.html

I think people might have been misusing the term, or maybe not, if "one 'cannot simply assert, 'I will be anti-essentialist' and make that stick, for you cannot not be an essentialist to some degree. The critique of essentialism is predicated upon essentialism.'" So, be altogether general or altogether specific, but don't speak generally about specific things. That would never get us anywhere.


ReplyThread Parent









Hooray - (Anonymous) Expand

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand




nicepimmelkarl
.
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:00 pm (UTC)

moronic? ha ha ha.


ReplyThread
reptilebrain
reptilebrain
Adam
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:01 pm (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there are some very true essentialist things that can be said about humans. Unless one doesn't believe in evolution. Or would you call it moronic cynicism to assume that there are biological reasons behind behaviour patterns?


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:05 pm (UTC)

Not at all, biology is one of the things that makes some essentialist statements perfectly reasonable, as this recent BBC news story shows!


ReplyThread Parent Expand


(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand



dragonmonkey
dragonmonkey
Jack Sensei
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:31 pm (UTC)

A lot of these ethical positions you write about, or really, feelings about what is right and healthy have come to me in Japan as revelations almost. I can`t put my finger on it, but something here or in what I have been doing the last three years has nudged me and made me perceive some of this stuff, namely the foolishness of `rockism` and `darkism`, fashion goth variants. Each time `the hardcore` appeared to me again as I read, listened to a song, or cruised livejournal it would seem more and more ridiculous, and then even a little insidious. It also got easier to see the obvious connection between low self-esteem (or desire for status) and `hardcorism`. It was a gradual process of becoming aware for me, and I wondered if it had to do with Japan - but I could not say. So, I have been repeatedly delighted when reading your blog and finding a lot of what I was intuiting wonderfully articulated. Here I found another subjective, and quite analytical, description of what I was just smelling out like a dog. It goes all the way back to your `cute formalism` essay and I realized `aha! There it is. That is what I`m seeing `round these parts! That fits it good.” It also draws another line between the discovery of these `ethics` and lived Japan. Perhaps I am verging on your essentialist sin by hinting that I`m finding something common when I make that connection, but I don`t feel the need to repent of that one anyway. Neither commonality or difference seem altogether bad to me - just two ingredients for interaction. I don`t agree that they should be set up in opposition.

But I am curious as to how you got to these conclusions, or really,was there a time when you committed your own sins? I am not a guy who, as an observer, decided that hardcorism was bad by seeing it in culture at large. I got the attitude I have now by having previously had the attitudes I find unhealthy. I am `reformed`, which possibly makes me a little more hostile to it than I would normally be - because the negative effects were personal. For that reason, I also want to be a bit of an apologist because I think, at one time, there was a place for the fashion goth and the raunch. I lived for twenty years in Alabama, the most right wing and Christian section of the states. The environment, the education; it was a breeding ground of body-hate, guilt, and righteousness. (The christian concept of righteousness, by the way, seems to clearly anticipate rockism, hardcorism, etc.) My parents were devout, strict, Southern Baptists and the community I had no choice to be born in tolerated nothing. I was taught that science was suspect, the world was full of sin, purity gave you righteous superiority, and that my penis was a missile to hell. Round about 15 years old my hormones were calling everything into question, and I happened upon a really well written book about microbiology. Oddly, the complete `innocence` and efficiency of these cascading, blurping, slurping cells broke me out of it - but there was still a big psychological grip. I was ushered into a pro-christian university where the atheists on the faculty were closeted. Right before that, I had discovered fashion goth and glorified naughtiness, and given the situation I had been in and was still in, it was liberatory. It seemed like the ultimate antidote, turning everything on its head. I became more confident, much more experimental, and much more critical of the culture around me - the `physical` reward was the warlike fun of being shocking, polemical, dangerous. It was addictive. I would enrol in religion classes just so I could play like a little devil gadfly. I had no way yet of seeing that in many ways it was more of the same; the righteousness`, the implicit agreement about evil and good between my new-found sect of Christianity and that of my community. Only later did I realize I had not gotten out of it yet, and that I was still hanging on to some of the most unhealthy bits of Christian heritage. But in the context, it was progress. Basically, there is one place for fashion goth, and it is in church. Like making a snake bite antidote using snake venom, however that works.


ReplyThread
dragonmonkey
dragonmonkey
Jack Sensei
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:31 pm (UTC)

But it belongs nowhere else, really. When I got to Japan, I was a bit like that detroit techno guy you mentioned in your cute formalism essay who walked into a sweet Tokyo record shop and who was like a guy who got to heaven and did not know what to do. It was then that I slowly started to get disgusted with what I had been playing at. To see that dark culture I had adopted in Alabama, and which belonged only in that context, plastered all over the place in-and-of-itself started to seem like a really nasty joke. I also began to notice how ubiquitous it was, and negative, and mean-spirited, and weak, and defensive. To be the one cat in the church pews wearing black and talking shit was something, but now I began to feel like it had been a terrible waste of time. Perhaps, for me, since the contrast was so severe in Alabama, the transparency of it outside of Alabama was easier to catch.

After a year processing in Japan, and barring a few `guilty pleasures`, I started happily going cute and easy. I warmed up to life in heaven. I learned that when you dropped authenticity and righteousness and essential significance, than every missed detail can be infused with the same `authentic` impact, that everything could be felt as real, every drop of tea an apocalypse. Basically, you become capable of mindfulness` in the buddhist sense.

But as for the rest of the hardcorists, how in the world are you supposed to separate them from their situations? How do you `talk` someone out of 2000 years of Christian guilt, and 20 so years of indoctrination and defense mechanisms, and the physical/social rewards of hardcorist `liberatory slavery` to it. Or how do you say `low self-esteem.....quit it. “ as if it was a lifestyle choice? Can they be blamed? I am privileged in that I came to Japan and stayed here. Privileges turmed my head. This is one of my sticking points when I read your ethics. I agree with most of your conceptions, but openness about the tyranny of privilege seems missing, as does the sympathy that absolves it. Honestly, kissing Japanese girls has probably had as much to do with my turnaround than any bit of philosophy or introspection has. If may DNA were such that I were not fairly attractive, would I have fared the same in Japan? I think a alternative to catagorizing sins is simply to tell people to kiss more Japanese girls. Those should be the hail marys for your sins. You know, most fashion goth `consumers` are generally fat and unattractive. If you could wave a magic wand and eliminate acne and lard and bad parenting, then all of the sinners might disappear. Hell, Christianity could even disappear. I don`t want to sound like a determinist, but where determinism can evoke a little compassion, then I will sell. I guess here I am verging on `moronic cynicism` in the sense that I am invoking a “grubby” bottom line - but I gotta say, there is a lot that we are born into which, when calling out sins, needs to be taken into account.

For me, the `grubby` bottom line were those cells in that old book, pumping ribosomes, plumping, splashing around, doing what they do and not losing it. I don`t know why it was so revealing, but it worked its magic on me.


ReplyThread Parent Expand






yourpony
yourpony
Bloodhound
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:35 pm (UTC)

I don't always agree with your positions, but your writing always sets my brain mulling. This is a great distillation of the past year or so of your writing. Keep it up!

ally


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:46 pm (UTC)
1. Pompous Universalism

there's an old norwegian children's song of the 1950's which goes like this: "round and round and round and round (the earth):
red(sic), white, yellow(sic) or black- we may be different. but on the inside we're all the same"(...)

...i find that quite a silly statement on the behalf of the songwriters.
interesting to note that this song, along with others far worse (noa the little boy in the jungle, etc.) have fallen out of favour during the recent influx of more multicultural/relativist modes of thought.

...2005:"we may be equal, but we're not *exactly* the same, nor do we necessary want to be."

X


ReplyThread
nicepimmelkarl
.
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 02:56 pm (UTC)

empowerment...we aren't heading for director-ship, are we?
Image hosted by Photobucket.com


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 03:18 pm (UTC)

Good heavens, Karl, you're the last of the Vorticists!


ReplyThread Parent Expand


arwyn
arwyn
Arwyn
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 03:03 pm (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me linking to this post in an effort to get others to read it. I agree with most of it and am impressed by how well you've articulated things.


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 03:48 pm (UTC)

Not at all, my posts never need permission to be linked.


ReplyThread Parent
300letters
300letters
Manufactured Pretense
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 03:08 pm (UTC)
Nominal Causes

Isn't seven sins rather "post-christian?" But then you do have a window into man's soul, so I can't blame you for it.


ReplyThread
cap_scaleman
cap_scaleman
cap_scaleman
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 04:01 pm (UTC)

When reading this Click opera entry I find myself thinking: "GOSH! I know a whole bunch of sinners". Moronic cynicist, Moronic Inronist, Fashion goth(theres a whole bunch of them here, HELP!), "Raunch", pompous universalists, etc etc.

"But I've already been doing most of these sins before!" I realise, "What will happen to me now?"

Calm down worried part of me, there is nothing about punishment after death. Death isn't even written in the entry. "Are you telling me we're talking of a kind of relative to tao-ism?" Not only, it's 'Momuism'.

Err....


ReplyThread
touristathome
Josh
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 04:54 pm (UTC)

If you commit any of these sins and are not absolved by kissing a Japanese girl before you die, you go to Momus-hell, where everyone wears black skull t-shirts, postures ironically, and gyrates on stripper poles. It will be the proverbial "one big party" from that Chick tract!


ReplyThread Parent Expand


lord_whimsy
lord_whimsy
whimsy
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 04:54 pm (UTC)

Only question is: to which door do we nail a printout of this post first?


ReplyThread
k_arjuna
k_arjuna
Kate, kate, YAY!
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 06:37 pm (UTC)

I think we need uh .. [counts on fingers] eighty-eight more before we have the beginnings of the Protestomomus Reformation.

However, this would make a hillarious David Fincher movie:

SCENE 1 - EXT

We see a crime scene showing a victim with a hypodermic needle sicking out of his arm, eyes dead and tongue lolling

MEDICAL EXAMINER

It looks like the victim was injected with a foreign blood type, causing his blood to clot and stop his heart.

DETECTIVE

It looks like we're not all the same inside after all.

CLOSEUP SHOT OF HAND SCRATCHING "ESSENTIALISM" off a list.


ReplyThread Parent Expand



maybeimdead
maybeimdead
Maybe I'm Dead
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 04:55 pm (UTC)

Very interesting. I get a sense from this post that you seem like a really nice guy. Thanks :)


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 05:19 pm (UTC)

phew, what a brilliant post mr momus. back on form (in my opinion).
and i have learnt a new word. hurrah! ESSENTIALISM. i love new words.
i'm definitely an anti-essentialist. just didn't have a word for it before. thanks a gazillion! x


ReplyThread
henryperri
henryperri
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 05:39 pm (UTC)

A milton friedman reference--neat. This was a timely summary as I was just going back and reading some of your older entries. My favorite parts of your journal are:

a. your writing & vocabulary
b. pictures of your (and other people's) apartments
c. the ideas presented in the double density essay


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 08:52 pm (UTC)

"To err is to be human" which is always how sin in the Christian sense is absolved. The quality of being 'human' could be considered as essentialist you can get ! Given your championing of diversity how could you be mistaken for being an essentialist but then you do occasionally generalise as we all do if we are honest ( now I am generalising !) Honesty is definitely one of your virtues which is why you invariably examine both sides. The opposing Derridian binaries that you often talk about are always there to contradict our ethical positions and which you most telling observed in:

"behind the inferiority complex there's a superiority complex that tells you all your vices are virtues"

Great post as usual..

Richard


ReplyThread
butterflyrobert
RND
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 10:00 pm (UTC)

This is likely your best post. At least it's the best of yours that I've read.


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Thu, Oct. 27th, 2005 10:35 pm (UTC)
negative essentialism

If I can narrow down today's debate about essentialism, perhaps it is that negative essentialist statements like "All Jews are greedy." are an insult, while the positive essentialist statement "All Jews are successful." is a compliment. While both are not true, it goes back to what you were saying about your rabbit, and how calling it repulsive would have a bad effect on the rabbit. I see it as a similar point, if not the same.

tomek


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 12:28 am (UTC)
morony

But isn't it kind of moronically ironic to wrap your serious personal ethical beliefs in the half-joking guise of Seven Deadly Sins"? It almost sounds a bit like, "hey, i sort of believe this, but really, it's just a joke."


ReplyThread

(Anonymous)
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 01:19 am (UTC)
Re: morony

I disagree... The article seems quite sincere. Perhaps you are mistaking it's fun way of presenting an arguement as irony. Irony is always negative, even if it poses as positive. Irony is usually a statement (much like yours) that denies something, and tries to destroy it's premises, but does not actually create a counteraguement. Irony is the empty defense of those too afraid to engage in sincere conversation.

tomek


ReplyThread Parent Expand

Re: morony - (Anonymous) Expand


Re: morony - (Anonymous) Expand

(Anonymous)
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 01:23 am (UTC)
The Art of Being

Perhaps if you stop thinking of yourselves as evil, your evil rulers will stop thinking of themselves as good.

"change the social climate, the values that are either approved or disapproved, and the change from selfishness to altruism will lose most of its difficulty". Erich Fromm's response to the false idea that greed and envy are inherent in human nature.

After reading several of Erich Fromm's books(tied to the having/being titles), some situationist stuff, Mediated, and Lacan(not too much) I am noticing many parallels and interesting connections. Thanks for ALL your recommendations!!!


ReplyThread
instant_c
instant_c
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 01:28 am (UTC)
Re: The Art of Being

P.S. Have you Checked out "In the Bubble"?


ReplyThread Parent

(Anonymous)
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 09:01 am (UTC)
having children is bad?

I'm interested as to why you count "having children" as one of the most dangerous behaviours (you couple it with "driving cards" in the "bad life" stakes). Why are you so down on having children?


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 10:36 am (UTC)
Re: having children is bad?

Simply because the world's population, standing currently at 6 billion and predicted to rise to 9 billion within the next 50 years, is way too high. We are, as a species, too successful and our success contains the seeds of not only the failure of the natural environment, but our own too.

Then again, it's likely that anyone reading Click Opera will be living in a country with low or even negative population growth.


ReplyThread Parent Expand

hitori_photo
hitori_photo
hitori_photo
Fri, Oct. 28th, 2005 12:04 pm (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree. I'm adding you.


ReplyThread
slime_slime_sly
slime_slime_sly
slime_slime_sly
Sat, Oct. 29th, 2005 09:19 am (UTC)


Have you ever seen 60s/70s nudism magazine "Jaybirds"?

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/excerpts/sex/show/1/15.htm


How does it look to you when put against "raunchy"?


ReplyThread
imomus
imomus
imomus
Sat, Oct. 29th, 2005 01:25 pm (UTC)

It looks like nudism, ie absolutely the opposite of "raunchy", because it proposes nudity as something organic, not something evil.


ReplyThread Parent

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand