In my opinion, in order to reverse this trend, computers will need to be programmed to support a communal way of life of sharing and giving as opposed to the greedy way of life of taking and getting, and to support "the emergence of new forms of psychospiritual orientation and devotion, which are equivalents of the religious systems of the past" as Erich Fromm recognized as a necessary part of any plan to humanize our technology before we're "transformed into a part of the total machine, well fed and entertained, yet passive, unalive, and with little feeling."
I suspect most likely dead would be the outcome too. I agree wholeheartedly.
I had a discussion with my mom on the phone the other day. We were wondering togethor at the corruption that one of my sisters has acquired. She is now so-called Christian, pro-war, pro-Bush and proclaiming to be pro-life. I don't know how you stand on abortion, eliah3, My own perspective is that the stresses and strains of our military actions that my sister supports has and is causing many abortions as well as deaths from young kids through adults on a massive scale. Not only do I find her "pro-life" stance to be basically an insane twisting of the terms, I also find that she is not a Christian,
In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.
Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 - 1900) Perhaps it was Robert Anton Wilson who also expressed this idea.
So, if she is not a Christian then is it really a religion she is following? I do agree quite well with the quote you offered from Fromm. I do find that we need a valid and viable concept of religion. How do we tell the difference between a religion and what? I think maybe trying to congeal the concept of exactly what that thing is that proclaims itself and its policies in such an intellect numbed and violently dysfunctional manner, passing itself off as religion, is usefull.
The way I see it, people who believe more in mandating their particular cosmology than seeking to communicate and collaborate will claim anything but do "business as usual." It is basically adopting a basic principle of anarchy, power and circumstance over reason. In that regard, the measure of the worth of a religious perspective will be its focusing on the message rather than the messenger. I do believe there is a rational interpretation of the concept of God. I think it involves thinking of the self as the major constituent, not sacrificing one's own spirit for the sake of allegiance to any one elses at any other time or place, seeking to be Christ like though hopefully without the alarming of oligarchy to the extent of being murdered. Christ was not a murderer. If one finds only one interpretation of God that is supposedly Christian and only one book as the prime carrier of the communication of a past sage, one is catering to a miscommunication that justifies murdering. For example, this war against terrorism is not a war against terror but is actually promoting much terror which leads to more terrorism. It is a murdering and suicidal psychosis.
In an attempt to clarify, I have come to another term that I think is more valid than "religion" that is too often used as a justification for un-Christ like, un-Buddha like, anti-Lao Tzu, etc., basically anti-science and not finding integretable data handling of value. I don't think my sister is a member of a religion. I think she has been practically without her will, due to being trodden on with so much propaganda when her intellect was weak, been taken over by a
coercion. Christianity in a large part appears to me to basically be a belief in anarchy and a joining into a powerful gang rather than any brotherly love, empathy, or respect for others. There is not only one way. There are as many ways as there are people, me thinks.
