4 ms·

Thanks for the Buckminster Fuller reference! Such an underrated thinker. I hate being overly cynical, but I think that there is a simple answer that can be fou

Thanks for the Buckminster Fuller reference! Such an underrated thinker. I hate being overly cynical, but I think that there is a simple answer that can be found by looking at who’s incentivized to not make these systemic changes. To take that further, there’s a subset of that group that is incentivized to actively prevent such systemic change. It just so happens that those 2 groups wield the most authority, power, and influence. So, that leaves me with a view that some may call ‘dystopian’, but I consider ‘hopeful’: Only a massive revolution can change this system.

decasteve 6y ago
I try not to be too cynical, especially when the article was such a call to action, but I am often prone to it as well. I feel like I do live a life of privilege and as such I must try to exercise that privilege in ways that won't contribute to the systemic problems as best I can--that I don't contribute to a loss of rights, nor a loss of our essential ecosystems. I do my best not to empower those who wield their power and influence to the detriment of others. When it comes to the internet, I try to keep McLuhan in mind: > Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a company as a monopoly.