3 ms·
Is a globalized, industrial economy is still considered “progress”? I haven’t seen the stars in over a decade. We’ve lost so much. > We need to link it to huma
by devmunchies 7y ago
Is a globalized, industrial economy is still considered “progress”? I haven’t seen the stars in over a decade. We’ve lost so much.
> We need to link it to human well-being, that’s the crucial thing. Otherwise we’re going to look like a bunch of tree-huggers
God forbid someone thinks you love nature.
- crispinb 7y ago> I haven’t seen the stars in over a decade I'm planning to get up in the wee hours tomorrow to check out the Eta Acquarids. We have a magnificent night sky on clear nights here, but there's always a creeping edge of sadness knowing half the world's human population is denied it, and that the cool starlight falls on a dying planet. > God forbid someone thinks you love nature. Yes wouldn't that be terrible. I wish though we could ditch the word 'nature' (as if there could be anything else). Similarly with 'the environment' (as if we had another home).
- basetop 7y agoThe biggest cause for environmental destruction and species loss is globalization, habitat destruction and consumption/production. The UN along with every major political and business international organization has been the pimps of globalization since ww2 ended. The idea that the UN cares about the environment is laughable to me since they want more globalization. The UN is run by the US, China, Russia, Britain and France ( the 5 permanent security council members ). It's an institution that cares about the environment as much as it cares about human rights. But I'm sure they'll use the environmental destruction they helped create to argue for more centralized control and power in the name of "human well-being".
- Freak_NL 7y agoThe current forms of government we have in most countries seem to reward only economical success. Any attempts to tackle any environmental issues are invariantly watered down, postponed, or downright dismissed because enacting them has consequences for the electorate, and a large part of the electorate is willing to vote for parties or people that don't quite feel the urgency, or even downright deny the need to act. Slowly, very slowly, society as a whole, worldwide, may move towards greener choices (eat less meat, improve home insulation, fly less, waste less, recycle more, consume less), but it's not fast enough is it?
- titzer 7y ago> The current forms of government It's not the form of government, it's not the form of society, it's a psychological vulnerability that has been exacerbated by the invention of agriculture, currency, paper money, and now digital money. It's about accumulation of goods as a hedge against future insecurity, when the irony is that the pursuit of the accumulation of goods and earthly wealth is exactly the thing that has given rise to constant change, from which insecurity arises. It's literally because we cannot collectively chill the fuck out. There's a game theoretic problem in that defectors from the "chill" have a leg up on the chillers and get more money, wealth, goods, social cred, sexual mates, etc. The more humans there are, the worse it all gets. And it will just go boom. Planet scale.