On 18 Nov 99, at 21:52, Liz Cantrell wrote:
> It seems to me that the ways in which people try to make the world safe
> are also very much ways in which they attempt to avoid personal
> responsibility.
Maybe that's true, but as another perspective, I think there is also a
recognition that our world has become so complicated that it is impossible
to a) make knowledgable decisions about everything; be an educated
consumer; control the environments of our children, etc.
> The safety we seem to desire gives us the opportunity to be lazy,
> unwatchful, thoughtless. Someone else is to blame, and we should have
> been protected.
I'm a strong advocate of personal responsibility. However, I look to
institutions to complete their mandates, where I was an individual cannot.
I cannot address crime by myself. I have no problem with being part of a
solution, but neither can I be, by myself, the solution.
Systems thinking might give us some hints here.
> We are sticking our finger in a dam that has already broken, and the river
> rushes past us. We see only the little trickle spraying us in the face,
> not the deluge that rushes around our ankles. It's true we cannot make
> the world safe, because it is not, it never has been. If the world was
> safe, would we not stagnate?
Some would suggest that a requirement for growth and learning is a safe
environment (that doesn't mean it has to be stagnant).
> Wouldn't the lack of necessity be the death
> of invention?
If I'm worried about drug users breaking into my home and shooting me, I'm
less likely or more likely to create something useful?
Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>