3 ms·

Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living wou

Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. If you accept that claim, doesn't that suggest that habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals?

carapace 5y ago
> Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. No worries mate, I've got a thick skin and you sparked a pretty good thread, eh? > > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? > I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? Well, people of the "First World" are doing the most harm per capita so it seems to me that we're the ones with the most responsibility (and means) to change, and that that would have the greatest immediate effect. > In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. Actually, a lot of these "technologies" (like Permaculture and Syntropic agriculture) are pretty cheap to implement. And many folks in impoverished areas are already doing it: "India's Water Revolution #2: The Biggest Permaculture Project on Earth! with the Paani Foundation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A "This man changed the fortunes of a barren land using traditional water wisdom. The story of Dhun" (also India) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ "Two Years of Permaculture Application" (Jordan) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU The cool thing about regenerative agriculture is that it's, uh, regenerative, meaning that it creates the materials that you need to make more of it (seeds mostly but also biomass for mulch, etc.) By working with life (instead of against it) you are part of a system that has evolved to make more of itself! :) > ... habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals? I'm generally wary of top-down impositions but even if we are going to mandate eco-friendly lifestyles where do you get that mandate if not from (masses of) individuals? My original question is why, if these lifestyles are more fun and more economical, is it taking so long for folks to catch on? More to the point, what can we do to help them catch on?

carapace 5y ago

> Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. No worries mate, I've got a thick skin and you sparked a pretty good thread, eh? > > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? > I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? Well, people of the "First World" are doing the most harm per capita so it seems to me that we're the ones with the most responsibility (and means) to change, and that that would have the greatest immediate effect. > In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. Actually, a lot of these "technologies" (like Permaculture and Syntropic agriculture) are pretty cheap to implement. And many folks in impoverished areas are already doing it: "India's Water Revolution #2: The Biggest Permaculture Project on Earth! with the Paani Foundation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A "This man changed the fortunes of a barren land using traditional water wisdom. The story of Dhun" (also India) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ "Two Years of Permaculture Application" (Jordan) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU The cool thing about regenerative agriculture is that it's, uh, regenerative, meaning that it creates the materials that you need to make more of it (seeds mostly but also biomass for mulch, etc.) By working with life (instead of against it) you are part of a system that has evolved to make more of itself! :) > ... habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals? I'm generally wary of top-down impositions but even if we are going to mandate eco-friendly lifestyles where do you get that mandate if not from (masses of) individuals? My original question is why, if these lifestyles are more fun and more economical, is it taking so long for folks to catch on? More to the point, what can we do to help them catch on?