P A N

it would have to be history. i mean that it would have to be tried, and tested. similar to the way we test things today, except when we test things today and see that they don't work, we just keep doing them anyway.

EDIT: as far as me being indoctrinated goes, it's pretty hard to be indoctrinated when you're trying to weigh new ideas against old ones. i don't believe any of this will work. sure, i can play devil's advocate all i want, but i have as many doubts as the next guy. it's just that i don't let that get in the way. if i did, i'd just make lots of money, burn lots of gas, flush perfectly clean water down my toilet along with my personal organic waste and not think twice about it, convince myself that my thirty dollars a month is going to save a child in africa and it suffices for 'doing my part...' just because i don't believe it will work, doesn't mean i believe it (or one of many imaginable permutations of it) won't work.

if you call seeing the world as falling short of its occupants' potential indoctrinated, then this conversation is purely semantics, which i am not interested in.

when i use the word 'indoctrinated' to describe someone else's perspective it is because i can see clearly that they are quite alright with being bonded on a molecular level to the ways of the past. if you were to - instead of chopping my notions down like dead lumber - throw some other ideas out there, i would be far less apt to not only call you indoctrinated, but think you that way as well.