3 ms·
>You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less, and doing things like having yo
by calibas 5y ago
>You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone".
Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less, and doing things like having your own garden would lead to much greater health and happiness for the average person. The only way I can see "no advantage" is when viewed through the lens of modern capitalism, then my suggestions are certainly blasphemous.
- rpdillon 5y agoIt's not they're blasphemous, it's that there's no clear way to incentivize a critical mass to change their behavior. Put another way: the destination is clear enough, but how to get there isn't. Reminds me a bit of nuclear disarmament.
- slg 5y agoExactly, it is more the transition that is impossible rather than the end state. You can't tell people to give up international travel, visiting family members, eating non-local foods, air conditioning, and the overwhelming majority of society's leisure activities and replace it all with gardening. Maybe that is a desirable end result that would be healthier for both humanity and the planet, but there is no way to get there voluntarily. That is just asking people to give up too much.
- strictured 5y agoYou're ignoring his more important point that you will not be able to get the critical mass necessary to make it useful and true on a collective/societal level. Believing that you can ask people to work less, and that the lost income (and subsequently access to critical resources like food) can somehow be supplemented with a garden that many people wouldn't even have access to the space necessary to implement, betrays a lack of understanding of the economic situation of most people. How many proles rent rather than own, and how may have access to fertile ground?