I've watched a few of your videos, and I like that you're solution oriented. You keep asking, 'what can be done'. Most people do that, but more often than not, their solution is technically sound, but totally impracticable.
I'm afraid that while most of the stuff your today's guest suggests would work wonders, most of it would also be rejected by the populace, at least in its current state of mind. For what matters is what the mainstream does; I think Bill Rees mentioned that in one of your podcasts.
The underlying problem is that just about nobody wants this wild party of the current historical era, which is now coming to an end, to be over. On the contrary, people want more of the unprecedented luxury, and if anything, they feel that they're not getting enough. Or that they're getting the short end of the stick, which is actually true for most within the existing context, especially in view of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest. Cognitive dissonance prevents people from acknowledging the biological, physical, ecological predicaments. Plus, the dangers are not exactly visible or imminent, and, let's face it, probably impossible to understand to most, even if they were willing to listen. At the same time, consumerism spins the wheels of the world and is promoted, exacerbating the status quo by solidifying consumption as the raison d'etre in people's skulls.
Would a top-down solution work? Perhaps some draconian totalitarian measures would, but people would feel wronged and deprived of what they perceive is a right to luxury.
Hence, change must come from within. From the mind of every individual. People have to find the meaning of life in something other than consumption, accumulation of material stuff. That doesn't make anyone any happier anyway.
In other words, I think it's wrong to focus on society as a whole. Focus must concentrate on the individual. An ideology, vision, way of life needs to be proposed to people - hand in hand with everything else.
Your summary of the underlying problem is spot on in my opinion and one of the most succinct I’ve read. Until this prevailing attitude shifts, we don’t have a chance of moving even slightly towards the solutions required to slow climate change.
Oreskes completely discredited herself with her comments about anti-vaxxers (the term now includes those opposed to coercion into medical procedures as a condition of employment). Until she can provide some scientific evidence that the experimental mRNA injectables or vaccines in general are worthwhile and not just a cash cow for Big Pharma (and the revolving door with shareholders in regulation) I'm not interested in anything else she has to say.https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/dear-climate-scientists
I've watched a few of your videos, and I like that you're solution oriented. You keep asking, 'what can be done'. Most people do that, but more often than not, their solution is technically sound, but totally impracticable.
I'm afraid that while most of the stuff your today's guest suggests would work wonders, most of it would also be rejected by the populace, at least in its current state of mind. For what matters is what the mainstream does; I think Bill Rees mentioned that in one of your podcasts.
The underlying problem is that just about nobody wants this wild party of the current historical era, which is now coming to an end, to be over. On the contrary, people want more of the unprecedented luxury, and if anything, they feel that they're not getting enough. Or that they're getting the short end of the stick, which is actually true for most within the existing context, especially in view of the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest. Cognitive dissonance prevents people from acknowledging the biological, physical, ecological predicaments. Plus, the dangers are not exactly visible or imminent, and, let's face it, probably impossible to understand to most, even if they were willing to listen. At the same time, consumerism spins the wheels of the world and is promoted, exacerbating the status quo by solidifying consumption as the raison d'etre in people's skulls.
Would a top-down solution work? Perhaps some draconian totalitarian measures would, but people would feel wronged and deprived of what they perceive is a right to luxury.
Hence, change must come from within. From the mind of every individual. People have to find the meaning of life in something other than consumption, accumulation of material stuff. That doesn't make anyone any happier anyway.
In other words, I think it's wrong to focus on society as a whole. Focus must concentrate on the individual. An ideology, vision, way of life needs to be proposed to people - hand in hand with everything else.
How to go about it? A good question!
Your summary of the underlying problem is spot on in my opinion and one of the most succinct I’ve read. Until this prevailing attitude shifts, we don’t have a chance of moving even slightly towards the solutions required to slow climate change.
Oreskes completely discredited herself with her comments about anti-vaxxers (the term now includes those opposed to coercion into medical procedures as a condition of employment). Until she can provide some scientific evidence that the experimental mRNA injectables or vaccines in general are worthwhile and not just a cash cow for Big Pharma (and the revolving door with shareholders in regulation) I'm not interested in anything else she has to say.https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/dear-climate-scientists