Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 It occurs to me that it might not be clear that I don't really care which version of the future arrives. I prefer whatever version gives the most health at the least cost. But there's two parts there. MOST health and LEAST cost. I lean towards most health rather than least cost and I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests a system that combines the most cutting edge high tech " root " therapies with safe, natural holistic therapies of old is the ideal. It might not be the cheapest, but its worth paying for something if it has value. Freedom from much of the suffering of old age would be worth our current costs to most folks and it can probably be had for even cheaper. (As I write, congress is preparing to override bush's executive order banning the development of new stem cell lines from discarded embryos. The main reason is that so much progress has been made in other countries in the last three years, there is a real concern about the brain drain I mentioned yesterday). Basically, there are a few possible scenarios. I just think the high tech one is most desirable. Other apparently feel otherwise. If anyone has evidence that anything short of a technological advance will reverse our fate, please share. Otherwise anything else is just a bandaid. 1. One is the current path of destruction. If there are no major advances in technology to clean up the environment and improve medicine, etc., we will exceed our carrying capacity and som dark age will ensue. There would be a high chance of a terrorist attack of a nuclear or biochemical nature as societies degenerated and tribalism increased. I may or may not survive this era unscathed, but at some point (about 40-60 years) I will get sick and die and then my flesh will be eaten by worms. 2. Another would be choosing to live simply and not acquire new gadgets and keep pace with advancement in technology that save time, energy, etc. Ride your bicycle everywhere. Eat only organics, etc. Avoid synthetic anything. This doesn't usually go to the extreme of giving up all technology for most advocates. But the idea is that if we all left a light footprint on the earth, the rate of pollution would slow and reverse over the centuries. Assuming enough people signed on, most ecologists think its too late for measures such as this to have enough effect. And most folks will not sign on. Most folks are still waiting to catch up with us and have no inclination to step lightly along the way. This includes 3 billion asians and 2 billion africans. But lets say they all go organic. Same ending as number 1. Perhaps the world is a better place after I die, for whatever that's worth. People might get along better in such a cooperative utopia and there would be rewards in quality of life as a result. But we might also forestall the development of technology while the inevitable bears down on us anyway. We will be able to console ourselves in our relationships and our faith and our hope of eternal life of the spirit. but some might call that the opiate of the masses. 3. something that definitely is not going to happen short of some uncontrollable catastrophe is a loss of all modern technology and being plunged back into some pretech paradise of the imagination. But, even so..... same ending as numbers 1 and 2. My guess is that things would get nasty pretty quick in such a world. Pure darwinian thuggery. Short and brutish for most. Now if all humans were killed, things would sort themselves out in a few thousand years, but that would certainly be no fun at all for me. 4. some major advance in technology that allows us to fix the excesses of 20th century technology. This will be a double-edged sword. Maybe we will destroy the world as a result, but that seems inevitable under the first two scenarios and pretty much a done deal under number 3. Or we will emerge into a new world still wrestling with lots of old problems (racism, sexism, class, religion), just no longer plagued with some of the old ones. Just as very few living physicians have ever helplessly watched a tetanus patient die before their eyes, perhaps the same will be true of cancer. It was unimaginable for tetanus and rabies and plague and leprosy once upon a time (maybe TCM could have cured these illnesses, but the point is that it didn't). I might get to live very long time in this world or get bored and kill myself. Either way.... A friend and I were talking about a virtual reality scenario for acupuncturists. In full immersion virtual reality, your brain would not be able to distinguish between a physical sensation and one that was virtual. So you could go into cyberspace wearing a virtual skin and get virtual needles inserted in your body. Your brain would respond to the needles just as if they were actually being inserted. And the resulting effects would be identical. But you would still need a real acupuncturist to perform (or at least program) the therapy, kind of like laser telesurgery today where a remote physician guides a machine performing a procedure. We know all kinds of stimulation affect points, so skin doesn't have to be pierced or even touched to cause changes. That makes this much less far-fetched. Imagine you could treat patients all over the world from your home office, treating dozens at a time with preprogrammed computer guided " virtual needle " insertion. :-) Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > > 4. some major advance in technology that allows us to fix the excesses > of 20th century technology. This will be a double-edged sword. Maybe > we will destroy the world as a result, but that seems inevitable under > the first two scenarios and pretty much a done deal under number 3. Or > we will emerge into a new world still wrestling with lots of old > problems (racism, sexism, class, religion), just no longer plagued with > some of the old ones. Just as very few living physicians have ever > helplessly watched a tetanus patient die before their eyes, perhaps the > same will be true of cancer. It was unimaginable for tetanus and > rabies and plague and leprosy once upon a time (maybe TCM could have > cured these illnesses, but the point is that it didn't). I might get > to live very long time in this world or get bored and kill myself. > Either way.... [Jason] Hey I am with you 100%... I hope the technology comes fast and saves us all... But I having a very hard time understanding how this all fits into our current practice of CM>??? In your opinion what are we supposed to do to align ourselves with this technological trajectory? It sounds like you are suggesting we all give up and go back to med school... Maybe I am missing your point or slightly exaggerating, but why can't western science go their way and develop this perfect future and we go ours (helping people day to day)...I really don't understand the constant talk about the tech and future and how this relates to CM.... please elaborate... > > A friend and I were talking about a virtual reality scenario for > acupuncturists. In full immersion virtual reality, your brain would not > be able to distinguish between a physical sensation and one that was > virtual. So you could go into cyberspace wearing a virtual skin and > get virtual needles inserted in your body. Your brain would respond to > the needles just as if they were actually being inserted. And the > resulting effects would be identical. But you would still need a real > acupuncturist to perform (or at least program) the therapy, kind of > like laser telesurgery today where a remote physician guides a machine > performing a procedure. We know all kinds of stimulation affect > points, so skin doesn't have to be pierced or even touched to cause > changes. [Jason] Funny.... Have you ever been to a Bad acupuncturist, good acupuncturist and then a superior acupuncturist... Call me a heathen, call a purist or whatever, but I actually find such an idea degrading to the profession, although I am sure you can get people to pay for it... There is so much that goes into acupuncturist.. points and channels are in different locations on different people, and also vary day to day... once one finds the correct point, through some palpation, which would be hard to imagine how someone can do this without contacting the person, the job just begins... meaning insertion, manipulation, and dare I mention the word 'qi'... anyway I say good luck.. people are always looking for short-cuts... becoming a good CM doctor is hard work... Becoming a good needler takes a cultivation of self and very subtle awareness of qi, energy, fields, or whatever... the mediocre just poke needles in, this I am sure of... The superior does something much much more... and this I am also sure of... I think if one has the luxury of seeing a patient 3-6 times a week, then I might agree that acupuncture accurateness means less... but if you are going to see a patient once every 1-2 weeks then you better be able to deliver, and get your results to stick... this latter takes a much higher skill level... Anyway... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2005 Report Share Posted April 29, 2005 , " " Becoming a good needler takes a cultivation of self and very > subtle awareness of qi, energy, fields, or whatever... the mediocre just > poke needles in, this I am sure of... The superior does something much much > more... and this I am also sure of... He or she practices qi gong Fernando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.