Fair is fair, as they say. The inverse of that postulate is no less true. People and states who have been more successful should not be propping up those which have failed to “take care of business” or of their responsibilities. Wait – that sounds strangely familiar. Yes, that’s what I thought. That is essentially the party line of the c…
Fair is fair, as they say. The inverse of that postulate is no less true. People and states who have been more successful should not be propping up those which have failed to “take care of business” or of their responsibilities. Wait – that sounds strangely familiar. Yes, that’s what I thought. That is essentially the party line of the conservatives/Republicans/reactionaries. Hard-working people should not have to give up the fruits of their labor and their property or wealth to take care of those people who have squandered their resources.
The sentiment is admirable. But fairness in this case is a little too complex for most people for anything to happen in the way of rectifying the situation in the foreseeable future. First of all, there are also lots of powerful people and interests in Blue states working at cross purposes to those who support liberal/progressive/sane policies and working in league with the backward looking Red state officials and power brokers. Secondly, media owners have no interest in allowing the merits and details of such a change to ever reach the public. Thirdly, the big players will go to any lengths and spend millions on right-wing propaganda and talking points to quash this proposal, while the public will have more interest in football games and myriad other entertaining diversions.
This is not to say that this and other ideas should not be pursued with vigor and determination. Every attempt to draw attention to wrongs and systemic errors should be tried, and giving up without a fight is not an option. It doesn’t take a genius to see what has been happening for a very long time and changes do come eventually once momentum builds. Being a wet blanket is no fun at all. However, I’m afraid that our only hope is a series of positive events and major losses on the right with a huge shift in public attitudes and awareness in the next few years and decades. Right now, it’s a coin toss unless you truly are a cynic.
You said "I’m afraid that our only hope is a series of positive events and major losses on the right with a huge shift in public attitudes and awareness in the next few years and decades."
I've just been reading a book, "Brighter: Optimism, Progress, and the Future of Environmentalism" by Adam Dorr. --very factually based, and goes far beyond "merely" saving the environment, and the time-frame "in the next few years and decades" is applicable. It appears that your hope for a series of positive events is very well founded. May I do you the favor of recommending this book to you?
Don, Thank you for that. I will get the book and hope for the best. You say that it is factually based, which I do not doubt, although I see everything now through a skeptical lens and with a degree of jaundice. Facts only matter to rational people and false hope has been the downfall of many ambitious endeavors. The irresistible urge on the part of educators to always and compulsively look at the bright side and to convince themselves that chronic problems will somehow magically get fixed without a paradigm shift in thinking and attitudes (and without a fight to free children from coercion, both overt and covert) has rubbed off on a lot of people. I sincerely hope this is significantly different for some reason. The right must simultaneously be diminished in its influence and power for authentic progress long-term, which is the hardest part of the struggle. They will not just fade or wither away because they are anachronistic.
Following up: After a marathon session with Dorr’s book, I may be too tired to make much sense but I want to give you my thoughts and impressions while they are fresh in my mind. He gave me a new perspective and a more positive conception about the foreseeable future that is likely, which helps to offset what has at times seemed terribly depressing and discouraging. I believe he has provided an outline and an analysis of some very surprising and dramatic changes that are inevitable and that are extremely encouraging. I have seen hints of some of these changes but had no vision of how they might materialize and was not aware of how far along in development some of them are. Just today on NPR, I heard about a new synthetic palm oil which is certain to prevent the continued deforestation of millions of acres in Indonesia and elsewhere and will hopefully avoid the destruction of land, massive pollution, and waste, while creating a multi-billion dollar industry overnight.
This has been a refreshing and pleasant distraction from what has become drudgery for me thanks to my lack of any hint of success in my quest to persuade anyone of the harms of universal miseducation. The gloom from the glacial pace of progress in the last fifty years on going green has likewise weighed heavily on me. While I do feel much better today than I did Saturday morning before reading the book, I feel as if I have read about 95 books with a similar pattern of hope and optimism, none of which have yet quite delivered the projected results significantly.
In the mid-1970’s I attended a lecture by Bucky Fuller (probably at UNLV) and read his book, “Spaceship Earth”. My recollection from that time is of dire warnings followed by extrapolations not unlike those of Dorr for the future. There was “Future Shock”, by Toffler. Ray Kurtzwell’s, “The Singularity”. “Collapse” and “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, by Jared Diamond. “Chaos”, by Gleick. “Earth: The Sequel” by Krupp. And “Three Billion New Capitalists”, by Prestowitz. “The Plot to Save the Planet”, by Dumaine is on my shelf, but I may never get to that one. Most recently, I read Pinker’s, “The Blank Slate”, which I recommended to Thom and which also ends on a very positive note, despite masses who are still in the dark.
I do believe that technology promises to bring amazing things and that there will be great synergy as a result of the disruptions Dorr outlines. However, I think a healthy skepticism is in order. How many trains have collided or derailed in the last decade? We’ve had train technology and systems for over a century-and-a-half, yet huge train wrecks seem to happen like clockwork. Technology has progressed with plenty of hiccups and missteps and there are no guarantees that all of the advancements that are in the works will mature on schedule and without huge unplanned disruptions that are not beneficial.
Dorr uses “we” a great deal and “we must” or “should” to prescribe the way toward a better future. But will “we” listen to him and will “we” act diligently and wisely? Economic factors will ultimately force all the changes he envisions and political factors are somewhat predictable, However, the human element guarantees resistance, reluctance, and various stumbles along the way. He complains about his own peers in the environmental sciences, much like Pinker complains about his. They both recognize orthodoxy, academic sclerosis, and “our natural negativity biases” as serious impediments. I am a living testament to the frustration from those chronic problems. For nearly sixty years, I am one of a tiny handful of people screaming at the top of my lungs that compulsory school attendance laws are pernicious and self-defeating without having the slightest noticeable impact. I’m glad for this book and some fresh hope but I am not holding my breath for the promised avalanche of changes.
Fair is fair, as they say. The inverse of that postulate is no less true. People and states who have been more successful should not be propping up those which have failed to “take care of business” or of their responsibilities. Wait – that sounds strangely familiar. Yes, that’s what I thought. That is essentially the party line of the conservatives/Republicans/reactionaries. Hard-working people should not have to give up the fruits of their labor and their property or wealth to take care of those people who have squandered their resources.
The sentiment is admirable. But fairness in this case is a little too complex for most people for anything to happen in the way of rectifying the situation in the foreseeable future. First of all, there are also lots of powerful people and interests in Blue states working at cross purposes to those who support liberal/progressive/sane policies and working in league with the backward looking Red state officials and power brokers. Secondly, media owners have no interest in allowing the merits and details of such a change to ever reach the public. Thirdly, the big players will go to any lengths and spend millions on right-wing propaganda and talking points to quash this proposal, while the public will have more interest in football games and myriad other entertaining diversions.
This is not to say that this and other ideas should not be pursued with vigor and determination. Every attempt to draw attention to wrongs and systemic errors should be tried, and giving up without a fight is not an option. It doesn’t take a genius to see what has been happening for a very long time and changes do come eventually once momentum builds. Being a wet blanket is no fun at all. However, I’m afraid that our only hope is a series of positive events and major losses on the right with a huge shift in public attitudes and awareness in the next few years and decades. Right now, it’s a coin toss unless you truly are a cynic.
Robert,
You said "I’m afraid that our only hope is a series of positive events and major losses on the right with a huge shift in public attitudes and awareness in the next few years and decades."
I've just been reading a book, "Brighter: Optimism, Progress, and the Future of Environmentalism" by Adam Dorr. --very factually based, and goes far beyond "merely" saving the environment, and the time-frame "in the next few years and decades" is applicable. It appears that your hope for a series of positive events is very well founded. May I do you the favor of recommending this book to you?
Thanks for the tip. I just ordered the book!
Thom,
I hope you are impressed by Dorr's book as much as I am--perhaps enough that you write a review for your readers, and this information go viral.
Don, Thank you for that. I will get the book and hope for the best. You say that it is factually based, which I do not doubt, although I see everything now through a skeptical lens and with a degree of jaundice. Facts only matter to rational people and false hope has been the downfall of many ambitious endeavors. The irresistible urge on the part of educators to always and compulsively look at the bright side and to convince themselves that chronic problems will somehow magically get fixed without a paradigm shift in thinking and attitudes (and without a fight to free children from coercion, both overt and covert) has rubbed off on a lot of people. I sincerely hope this is significantly different for some reason. The right must simultaneously be diminished in its influence and power for authentic progress long-term, which is the hardest part of the struggle. They will not just fade or wither away because they are anachronistic.
Don,
Following up: After a marathon session with Dorr’s book, I may be too tired to make much sense but I want to give you my thoughts and impressions while they are fresh in my mind. He gave me a new perspective and a more positive conception about the foreseeable future that is likely, which helps to offset what has at times seemed terribly depressing and discouraging. I believe he has provided an outline and an analysis of some very surprising and dramatic changes that are inevitable and that are extremely encouraging. I have seen hints of some of these changes but had no vision of how they might materialize and was not aware of how far along in development some of them are. Just today on NPR, I heard about a new synthetic palm oil which is certain to prevent the continued deforestation of millions of acres in Indonesia and elsewhere and will hopefully avoid the destruction of land, massive pollution, and waste, while creating a multi-billion dollar industry overnight.
This has been a refreshing and pleasant distraction from what has become drudgery for me thanks to my lack of any hint of success in my quest to persuade anyone of the harms of universal miseducation. The gloom from the glacial pace of progress in the last fifty years on going green has likewise weighed heavily on me. While I do feel much better today than I did Saturday morning before reading the book, I feel as if I have read about 95 books with a similar pattern of hope and optimism, none of which have yet quite delivered the projected results significantly.
In the mid-1970’s I attended a lecture by Bucky Fuller (probably at UNLV) and read his book, “Spaceship Earth”. My recollection from that time is of dire warnings followed by extrapolations not unlike those of Dorr for the future. There was “Future Shock”, by Toffler. Ray Kurtzwell’s, “The Singularity”. “Collapse” and “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, by Jared Diamond. “Chaos”, by Gleick. “Earth: The Sequel” by Krupp. And “Three Billion New Capitalists”, by Prestowitz. “The Plot to Save the Planet”, by Dumaine is on my shelf, but I may never get to that one. Most recently, I read Pinker’s, “The Blank Slate”, which I recommended to Thom and which also ends on a very positive note, despite masses who are still in the dark.
I do believe that technology promises to bring amazing things and that there will be great synergy as a result of the disruptions Dorr outlines. However, I think a healthy skepticism is in order. How many trains have collided or derailed in the last decade? We’ve had train technology and systems for over a century-and-a-half, yet huge train wrecks seem to happen like clockwork. Technology has progressed with plenty of hiccups and missteps and there are no guarantees that all of the advancements that are in the works will mature on schedule and without huge unplanned disruptions that are not beneficial.
Dorr uses “we” a great deal and “we must” or “should” to prescribe the way toward a better future. But will “we” listen to him and will “we” act diligently and wisely? Economic factors will ultimately force all the changes he envisions and political factors are somewhat predictable, However, the human element guarantees resistance, reluctance, and various stumbles along the way. He complains about his own peers in the environmental sciences, much like Pinker complains about his. They both recognize orthodoxy, academic sclerosis, and “our natural negativity biases” as serious impediments. I am a living testament to the frustration from those chronic problems. For nearly sixty years, I am one of a tiny handful of people screaming at the top of my lungs that compulsory school attendance laws are pernicious and self-defeating without having the slightest noticeable impact. I’m glad for this book and some fresh hope but I am not holding my breath for the promised avalanche of changes.