The first half of that question is extremely important though. Severe enough economic problems almost always lead to unrest and violence, which in turn will completely derail any progress we make on fixing the environment.
That response is also very repetitive and tired at this point. It’s the age old knee jerk reaction that we have to maintain the status quo in order to find an answer.
When all along, it was the status quo that caused the problem in the first place.
I don’t believe in violent revolution in order enact change in how our global society has evolved. But I do believe we need a desperate change in how we organize wealth, money, control and democratic power in our world. The majority of all the wealth in the world is now owned by a very small group of people who hold all the control in how to make our world better yet they choose not to and instead want to maintain the status quo and increase their wealth and power at all cost.
We do have to do something about the economy … mainly discourage and disconnect wealthy elites from engorging themselves any further and help everyone else in gaining an equal share of all the wealth everywhere. It doesn’t mean all out communism, it would be a more practical way of delivering democratic socialism by limiting outrageous wealth that helps no one except small groups of people.
Once enough people everywhere gain a measure of wealth and control and no longer have to worry about fighting one another to find food, water, shelter or a decent life … then we are more likely to sit together and talk about global problems and actually do something about it all.
Otherwise, if we maintain the status quo, we will just keep endlessly fighting one another until our species dies out as our environment makes our world unlivable.
Ok, but where did I even suggest that we should maintain the status quo? It’s always important to consider all effects of whichever actions you take. Saying that “it’s important to consider the economic ramifications” does not say anything about what the conclusions those considerations should come to.
If you want real change, and more importantly effective change, all socio-political and economic ramifications should be considered, and accounted for/mitigated as necessary.
It’s very simple to tear things down in name of ideals, but this type thinking has to happen (preferably beforehand) in order to actually build something better afterwards.
My apologies if I exaggerated your response but it is one that I have often come across when I have this same debate with others around me.
My main point is that if we keep doing what we are doing now, then problems will persist.
We need societal change on a global level and although that carries a certain level of risk of whether or not it would make anything better or worse … I believe it is far better than the alternative of certain demise if we keep doing what we are doing now.
I would rather prefer we take the chance at global change … rather than stay where we are with certain future disaster.
The first half of that question is extremely important though. Severe enough economic problems almost always lead to unrest and violence, which in turn will completely derail any progress we make on fixing the environment.
That response is also very repetitive and tired at this point. It’s the age old knee jerk reaction that we have to maintain the status quo in order to find an answer.
When all along, it was the status quo that caused the problem in the first place.
I don’t believe in violent revolution in order enact change in how our global society has evolved. But I do believe we need a desperate change in how we organize wealth, money, control and democratic power in our world. The majority of all the wealth in the world is now owned by a very small group of people who hold all the control in how to make our world better yet they choose not to and instead want to maintain the status quo and increase their wealth and power at all cost.
We do have to do something about the economy … mainly discourage and disconnect wealthy elites from engorging themselves any further and help everyone else in gaining an equal share of all the wealth everywhere. It doesn’t mean all out communism, it would be a more practical way of delivering democratic socialism by limiting outrageous wealth that helps no one except small groups of people.
Once enough people everywhere gain a measure of wealth and control and no longer have to worry about fighting one another to find food, water, shelter or a decent life … then we are more likely to sit together and talk about global problems and actually do something about it all.
Otherwise, if we maintain the status quo, we will just keep endlessly fighting one another until our species dies out as our environment makes our world unlivable.
Ok, but where did I even suggest that we should maintain the status quo? It’s always important to consider all effects of whichever actions you take. Saying that “it’s important to consider the economic ramifications” does not say anything about what the conclusions those considerations should come to.
If you want real change, and more importantly effective change, all socio-political and economic ramifications should be considered, and accounted for/mitigated as necessary.
It’s very simple to tear things down in name of ideals, but this type thinking has to happen (preferably beforehand) in order to actually build something better afterwards.
My apologies if I exaggerated your response but it is one that I have often come across when I have this same debate with others around me.
My main point is that if we keep doing what we are doing now, then problems will persist.
We need societal change on a global level and although that carries a certain level of risk of whether or not it would make anything better or worse … I believe it is far better than the alternative of certain demise if we keep doing what we are doing now.
I would rather prefer we take the chance at global change … rather than stay where we are with certain future disaster.