What about the other stuff?

brianlux

A lot of discussion goes on here about politics and the economy- surely we've beaten those subjects to death- and, fortunately, we've also talked about social issues including women's right to choice and sexual freedom but what about the other stuff? Why is it always mostly about employment, the economy and money. Why is the discussion rarely about climate change or our affect on ecological life cycles or conservation or loss of other species' habitat or the rapid decline in species due to human impact on the world or the erosion of top soil or draining of our giant aquifers or the spread of infectious disease or the continues loss of silence in a increasingly cacophonous world- or- lest I be labeled a negative curmudgeon- the brave and selfless efforts of many to make changes for the good in these areas ? Are these really just seen as passe subjects only talked about by people stereotyped as "tree huggers" and "nature freaks"? Are these subjects really just not that important any more? So much of the focus is on our short attention span, immediate gratification and desire for stuff and success success success success. Meanwhile the long-term health of the world that sustains us gets pushed under the carpet. Does it really have to take a Sandy or a Katrina to get our attention for a brief span... and then forgotten. It's getting lonely out here.

And please- don't reply Carlin's bit about the world shaking us off like fleas. It was funny, it made a point, but we know that's going to happen. Do we really want that sooner than later? If the answer is "no", we'd better get busy. If the answer is "yes", do nothing.

Sorry- end of sermon. Goodnight.

riotgrl

I've started Kunslter's Long Emergency - scary stuff! I'm with you B why aren't we talking about these other things like the climate and suburban sprawl? I'm starting to think that we are all trapped in a vicious cycle of lets talk about the economy and then lets talk about why no one is fixing the economy and then lets talk about the politicians who aren't fixing the economy and the government is too big. We all seem to be such short term thinkers that we never look at the long term effects of these choices we make. Let's talk about the loss of our communities and the loss of our habitats and how that will affect us in the future. We can't continue to live this life of excess forever. Somedays, like today I feel all alone here in my tree

brianlux

riotgrl wrote:

I've started Kunslter's Long Emergency - scary stuff! I'm with you B why aren't we talking about these other things like the climate and suburban sprawl? I'm starting to think that we are all trapped in a vicious cycle of lets talk about the economy and then lets talk about why no one is fixing the economy and then lets talk about the politicians who aren't fixing the economy and the government is too big. We all seem to be such short term thinkers that we never look at the long term effects of these choices we make. Let's talk about the loss of our communities and the loss of our habitats and how that will affect us in the future. We can't continue to live this life of excess forever. Somedays, like today I feel all alone here in my tree

You're not alone, riotgrl! There are many who are learning, teaching, searching for solutions, being activists. Which is why it surprises me that these subjects are all but ignored here. Most of the talk is about politicians and the economy- aka "current events". Why aren't the current events that will have the greatest long-term affects a central focus here? Are we afraid to talk about them? Do we believe there is nothing that can be done? If we're a group of people who are politically and socially conscious why are we not more focused on the very thing that makes our lives possible- the health of the world in which we live?

dancepartner

Love the fact that someone, here, is wondering why we aren't moving as one to postively effect just what we do on our watch now - for the future. I had thought a "moving train" meant more than posting quips about this and that, only to move on. So yes, I think you hit at the heart of it all - maybe we do feel it's all hopeless?
When this idea begins to take hold of me, I simply ask myself, "if you think it's all hopeless, then what's the whole damn purpose of anything? Why did you have kids? Why have humans forever been compelled towards some future purpose? Why Why Why! So many whys!! Brings me back to square one: if we don't want to be the me-me team that did nothing but give it all away, then where do we start? And yep — I do know that answer.

whygohome

Simple answer?: these things don't matter. Anything environment related is brushed off as liberal, hippie, treehugger propaganda. To discuss environmentalism or even climate change is poison for a candidate.
European countries think we are out of our minds for this, but fuck Europe! Evil socialists.

A good read on the subject: Harold Fromm, "From Transcendence to Obsolescence"

http://hfromm.net/professional/Obso.pdf

dignin

Maybe because it's a total bummer. I hate to be the glass half empty kind of guy, but from the evidence I have seen and read.....I think we are already past the tipping point. I still try and do my part, I even quit my former career to build wind farms, but it is not nearly enough.

riotgrl

brianlux wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

I've started Kunslter's Long Emergency - scary stuff! I'm with you B why aren't we talking about these other things like the climate and suburban sprawl? I'm starting to think that we are all trapped in a vicious cycle of lets talk about the economy and then lets talk about why no one is fixing the economy and then lets talk about the politicians who aren't fixing the economy and the government is too big. We all seem to be such short term thinkers that we never look at the long term effects of these choices we make. Let's talk about the loss of our communities and the loss of our habitats and how that will affect us in the future. We can't continue to live this life of excess forever. Somedays, like today I feel all alone here in my tree

You're not alone, riotgrl! There are many who are learning, teaching, searching for solutions, being activists. Which is why it surprises me that these subjects are all but ignored here. Most of the talk is about politicians and the economy- aka "current events". Why aren't the current events that will have the greatest long-term affects a central focus here? Are we afraid to talk about them? Do we believe there is nothing that can be done? If we're a group of people who are politically and socially conscious why are we not more focused on the very thing that makes our lives possible- the health of the world in which we live?

Thanks brian I think, A.) people don't' know there is a problem or B.) they have no idea how to fix the problem. It would be nice if we could discuss it and attempt to find a solution.

brianlux

dancepartner: your blog explains your ideas well and further. Hopefully others will at least check it out.

Whygohome: Thank you, good points but what I meant was not the candidates but those who post here on AMT.

Digin: I mostly agree, I too am fairly sure we are beyond the tipping point. But we are an incredibly adaptive species and looking beyond written history which is a mere 10,000 and include the way our species has carried on throughout all of our history which is millions of years, we are actually a species that has mostly lived in balance with the rest of the world. I would not rule out the possibility of patching things up at least enough to allow more generations beyond ours to carry on and readjust our relationship with the world on which we live. I also believe that hope that is not the conviction that things will turn out well but rather that hope is doing what makes sense no matter how things turn out. (Excuse this string of platitudes but it keeps things succinct and to the point.)

riotgrl: I too hope we can get more discussion going. Even better, begin to change mind sets and get more action going!

mookeywrench

The more you have to worry about national issues; the less concerned you are with global issues.

brianlux

mookeywrench wrote:

The more you have to worry about national issues; the less concerned you are with global issues.

That is how the formula seems to work. Of course, if more and more of the planet becomes inhospitable to human life there will also be no national/social issues in those areas.

whygohome

brianlux wrote:

Whygohome: Thank you, good points but what I meant was not the candidates but those who post here on AMT.

It's not economically feasible for most people to "go green" in a way that will make an impact.
Sure, we can use a water bottle instead of buying bottled water, we can buy grocery bags or reuse platic bags, but the things that will make significant change cost $$$
It's not a tangible investment for most people.

And, nobody cares. Sadly.

Go Beavers

Both went to the middle as the election got closer to appeal to the middle ground. It would be too easy to be painted and 'anti-job/anti-economic growth' if Obama talked about climate change, making the undecideds lean Romney. If Obama wins, he'll talk more about it in his second term since he doesn't have to get re-elected. Whether that translates to action remains to be seen.

brianlux

whygohome wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Whygohome: Thank you, good points but what I meant was not the candidates but those who post here on AMT.

It's not economically feasible for most people to "go green" in a way that will make an impact.
Sure, we can use a water bottle instead of buying bottled water, we can buy grocery bags or reuse platic bags, but the things that will make significant change cost $$$
It's not a tangible investment for most people.

And, nobody cares. Sadly.

I'm not so sure, Whygohome. There are so many things we can besides the little ones that get squeezed into the media once in a while. And the the things that cost money, more money initially, cost less money in the long run. Durable goods that can be repaired , for example, cost more at the outset but last longer and cost less in the long run. But maybe Kurt Vonnegut was right. Maybe the last person on earth should write in giant letter on the walls of the grand canyon, "We could have saved the Earth [or at least our ability to live on it] but we were too damned cheap."

whygohome

brianlux wrote:

whygohome wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Whygohome: Thank you, good points but what I meant was not the candidates but those who post here on AMT.

It's not economically feasible for most people to "go green" in a way that will make an impact.
Sure, we can use a water bottle instead of buying bottled water, we can buy grocery bags or reuse platic bags, but the things that will make significant change cost $$$
It's not a tangible investment for most people.

And, nobody cares. Sadly.

I'm not so sure, Whygohome. There are so many things we can besides the little ones that get squeezed into the media once in a while. And the the things that cost money, more money initially, cost less money in the long run. Durable goods that can be repaired , for example, cost more at the outset but last longer and cost less in the long run. But maybe Kurt Vonnegut was right. Maybe the last person on earth should write in giant letter on the walls of the grand canyon, "We could have saved the Earth [or at least our ability to live on it] but we were too damned cheap."

I agree with you 100%; what I meant to say was that many things that can be done are not economically feasible to those who can do them. In other words, people do not see a direct, immediate benefit; therefore, it is not a benefit.
Vonnegut was right.

brianlux

whygohome wrote:

I agree with you 100%; what I meant to say was that many things that can be done are not economically feasible to those who can do them. In other words, people do not see a direct, immediate benefit; therefore, it is not a benefit.
Vonnegut was right.

Yes, and this is exactly why we need to talk about these thing- so people will get how sensible it is to make sensible choices for the long haul instead of choosing short term gain and instant gratification.

For those who don't see the wisdom of taking the long term approach and caring for the world we live on I would ask, would you rather have a million dollars or a penny doubled every day for thirty days? The latter choice would net a person:




























$5,368,709.12
That's what I mean.

dignin

Keep on fighting the the good fight Brian.

whygohome

brianlux wrote:

whygohome wrote:

I agree with you 100%; what I meant to say was that many things that can be done are not economically feasible to those who can do them. In other words, people do not see a direct, immediate benefit; therefore, it is not a benefit.
Vonnegut was right.

Yes, and this is exactly why we need to talk about these thing- so people will get how sensible it is to make sensible choices for the long haul instead of choosing short term gain and instant gratification.

For those who don't see the wisdom of taking the long term approach and caring for the world we live on I would ask, would you rather have a million dollars or a penny doubled every day for thirty days? The latter choice would net a person:


$5,368,709.12
That's what I mean.

I'm with ya, 100%