|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2024 12:49:45 GMT -5
As usually, Peterson is somewhat right, but for the wrong reason. He often gives you opportunities for deeper interpretations that yield lessons and guidance, if you put aside his explanations and your own beliefs.
Kill the buddhas!
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2024 18:53:19 GMT -5
Jordan is quite likely to succeed in any such potential litigation, as I'm sure his facts, analyses, and arguments will be far too solid for the likes of Tolle to refute.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2024 20:32:42 GMT -5
Chemicals are a thing to avoid, so RFK is right about that, but he's on the wrong track.
All food is grown, and modern farming is run on manufactured fertiliser, insecticide, herbicide and so on, which isn't good for human health, but not for the reasons one might think.
In a undisturbed environment, there is a diverse range of fungi, microbes, worms and bugs, millions of species, that each play a vital role in the dirt. When we cut a forest for agriculture, at first the soil is grand and grows anything, but after say 2 or 3 years of digging it over and extracting without replacing, it can't grow as many types or as much food, or food with the same nutrient profile, so we add fertilizer etc. Every year the soil needs more fertilizer than it did before, as the soil degrades and erodes.
Plants have a symbiotic relationship with the life in the soil. Plant roots feed the microbes with and the microbes likewise feed the plants. They all cooperate. If a plant needs a particular nutrient, it stimulates fungal fibers that are like a web all through the dirt, which messages particular microbes to migrate and provide said nutrient, and receive what it needs in return. If you use fertilize the plants, they don't need to scout for nutrients, so the microbes don't get fed, and they die. When you stop fertilizing there are no microbes to feed the plant, so you end up entirely dependent on fertilizer as your soil gradually loses its ability to support life at all. Not to mention the tonnage of soil that gets blown and washed away!
Hence, the 'chemical' issue is much broader in scope that RFK can imagine, and transforming the agricultural industry into 'soil farming' is no small task. For a start, you can't get a ton or research funding because there is nothing to produce, so you don't get a return, there being nothing to sell. Hence, so we don't even know how to modify agriculture on a large scale let alone how to action it.
If we could restore the soil with better management and planting practices, the food grown there will be higher in nutrients.
The idea that we we should mass produce food by tilling and using a ton of chemistry is a this-year's-profit motive that leads to compounding problems longer term. Now we're at the stage where a farmers biggest expense is chemical fert, insecticide and herbicide, that they are spending a fortune while knowing it is only making things worse.
If you're RFK just bans this chemical and that - you can't farm the depleted soil 'naturally' until it has been restored, so instead of thinking about chemicals in food, think diversity of life-forms in the soil, because plants we eat and feed to livestock are part of an intricate system that was immaculately designed over billions of years by mother nature. Not something we 'invented' after the industrial revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2024 20:35:47 GMT -5
Jordan is quite likely to succeed in any such potential litigation, as I'm sure his facts, analyses, and arguments will be far too solid for the likes of Tolle to refute. I followed Peterson for a while, but I don't need the drama, so I unfollowed him (Old man yells at cloud).
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 17, 2024 2:13:52 GMT -5
Jordan is quite likely to succeed in any such potential litigation, as I'm sure his facts, analyses, and arguments will be far too solid for the likes of Tolle to refute. I followed Peterson for a while, but I don't need the drama, so I unfollowed him (Old man yells at cloud).
Look into the ARC initiative that he’s set up. You might find something more akin to your view in there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 7:59:10 GMT -5
I didn't watch the video, just read the answer. I'd say JP would be wrong about Tolle. Tolle is not a humanist, he would be a transhumanist. He's way past Maslow and Carl Rogers. Totally wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 20, 2024 17:12:25 GMT -5
I didn't watch the video, just read the answer. I'd say JP would be wrong about Tolle. Tolle is not a humanist, he would be a transhumanist. He's way past Maslow and Carl Rogers. Totally wrong. Yeah, I'd say JP revealed the boundary of his spiritual insight there. I sort of thought that he might have 'grokked' a bit deeper than this, given some of what I've seen him say, but then again, I can't say I'm surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2024 17:23:36 GMT -5
I didn't watch the video, just read the answer. I'd say JP would be wrong about Tolle. Tolle is not a humanist, he would be a transhumanist. He's way past Maslow and Carl Rogers. Totally wrong. Yeah, I'd say JP revealed the boundary of his spiritual insight there. I sort of thought that he might have 'grokked' a bit deeper than this, given some of what I've seen him say, but then again, I can't say I'm surprised. People have little vision. They think, whatever their view of the universe is, they are correct. Arthur Schopenhauer's quote, "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world," suggests that our comprehension of the world is inherently limited by our personal perspective and experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by YoMadreGorda on Nov 2, 2024 16:46:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd say JP revealed the boundary of his spiritual insight there. I sort of thought that he might have 'grokked' a bit deeper than this, given some of what I've seen him say, but then again, I can't say I'm surprised. People have little vision. They think, whatever their view of the universe is, they are correct. Arthur Schopenhauer's quote, "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world," suggests that our comprehension of the world is inherently limited by our personal perspective and experiences. I watched some Jordan Peterson videos at one point. He seemed to have a lot of partially repressed rage, so I didn't want to keep listening. But I hear he made some good points against word policing overreach in Canada. |
|
