|
A few points, Luggy:
You never addressed my argument against depending on politicians, so your last post is just a reassertion of what you said before. How do you get the politicians to offer any meaningful change, especially when politicians are bought and paid for by the very organizations and people who resist such change?
Secondly, I am not against voting - I vote in most elections - but voting and large scale action are beyond the scope of this thread. I am willing to talk about these things here, but the focus of this thread IS on individual action, regardless of how effective or ineffective that might be.
Third, in your talk of political action, you seem to presuppose that people would want to vote for the sorts of changes I advocate. True, it would be a big help if systemic changes were made that eased a transition towards sustainable and responsible ways of doing things, but why would people vote for such changes if they won't even change themselves? Put it this way: why would people vote for politicians who will pressure them to do the "right" thing if the "right" thing is not even something they want? Why not just do the right thing without coercion or incentives? If people are so resistant to a green lifestyle, why would they vote for politicians who will push the green lifestyle?
I approach this issue the way I do because, while there is great systemic evil in this society, I believe changes need to be made on the level of the individual. If we can't change ourselves, we can't change. No one forces us to buy all this crap we don't need. No one forces us to work 40 hour weeks. No one forces us to have cars, huge homes, cell phones, etc. We feel PRESSURED to have those things, because of advertising and the desire to conform, but we don't have to. So I'm trying to get people thinking more about resisting much of the crap they don't need. Which, again, there is nothing wrong with having some luxury, but the sheer cost of modern lifestyles (for us, for society, for the environment) should make us very skeptical of modern lifestyles. That is my point.
|
I think I've already answered all of that at least twice and really don't want to do it again. Sorry.
|
Luggy says: "We can't even impeach criminals or run a foreign policy or an economy. So how are we supposed to challenge ourselves to really secure the future in all these obvious ways? Facts don't have much pull in politics. So many of them are not even acknowledged by any of the candidates in the upcoming election (except the ones that are ignored and covered up by the media). This isn't meant to change the subject but to point out that as a group the bigger problem is that we can't address problems like the ones you're mentioning because there is a systemic problem going on with the way we find out and believe what's happening and the way we then do something about it. The very process has been perverted and taken over by money interests and we have yet to take it back, so the weight of all the people unaware of this is what is driving us into the ditch you describe."
If this is true, how is voting going to change anything? We vote for candidates. Candidates run, ostensibly, on positions on issues. If no politician offers the desired stance on an issue, voting cannot work. The people have to change themselves and show the politicians they do not need government or corporate power. Then the government and corporations will start listening to the people. The people have all the power and always have - we are the ones that produce everything, do everything, and consume most of everything. Without us, they are powerless. But power will not respond to us unless we start recognizing our own power.
Given your own statements (in the paragraph above) we face a choice between personal action, which you say is unlikely to work, or political action, which, again, according to the above, will not work. I choose to take things into my own hands, and encourage all to do the same. If we want social, political, and economic responsibility, let's start practicing it ourselves!
|
Again, I have answers. I already said them. I really cannot answer without repeating myself for the 3rd or 4th time.
So I'm just letting you know that I'm reading what you're saying and all I would do is paste quotes from myself in response. Maybe i'll do it eventually but it's already there and there is too much to respond to in this thread for me to dig up quotes or repeat myself. You're taking what I said and making weaker versions of it to match against yours.
|
Do not repeat yourself. Clarify yourself. I'm trying to get it, but I'm not getting it. I don't see where you addressed the above - perhaps you could just quote yourself and explain the quote.
|
If politicians aren't offering us the choice we want (something you stated - I quoted you on it), then how is voting going to do anything?
|
I'm trying to keep this very simplistic to make my point, Luggy.
The best answer that I've seen from you with regard to my last question ("If politicians aren't offering us the choice we want - something you stated and I quoted you on - then how is voting going to do anything?") is that we have to be sure the right people run and get elected.
Ok, if we accept that, it means we have to go through a grassroots effort to run a radical candidate, AND we have to turn up en masse to vote this person in. To do this requires that the majority of the population have similar radical views (certainly not conventional views since we are trying to resist the conventional).
The fact is, the majority is conventional, they participate in the consumer culture, and they don't seem to care much about politics. So, for YOUR solution to work, we have to convince people to take part in radical politics, running and electing a candidate. In what way is this really any easier than convincing people to change their lifestyles to something radical?
Either way we have to put in a lot of effort convincing people, and the fact is, sort of like you say, many people will not be quick to adopt radical views or actions.
The difference between you and I is that I simply advocate making changes directly. Rather than going through all this effort to run a candidate who may or may not win, so that this candidate can tell us how to change our lives and make changes to the system, I simply advocate changing our lives for ourselves, and changing the system directly via changing ourselves.
Either way will be difficult. Mine is simply more direct.
This is not to be confrontational, Luggy. In fact, I think there is room for personal and political action. But this thread is primarily concerned with personal action.
|
"You never addressed my argument against depending on politicians, so your last post is just a reassertion of what you said before. How do you get the politicians to offer any meaningful change, especially when politicians are bought and paid for by the very organizations and people who resist such change?"
Your argument "against" "depending on politicians" has nothing to do with me. I do not say to depend on politicians anywhere. That is a straw man.
"Secondly, I am not against voting - I vote in most elections - but voting and large scale action are beyond the scope of this thread. I am willing to talk about these things here, but the focus of this thread IS on individual action, regardless of how effective or ineffective that might be."
I did not say that the solution is to vote. I said the solution is to get elections won by the best canidates. That is not just voting, and especially not just voting sometimes. It's getting you and everyone you can to take the best option. This will change who runs, and this will change the way laws are written and enforced and to what ends they will be aimed.
"Third, in your talk of political action, you seem to presuppose that people would want to vote for the sorts of changes I advocate. True, it would be a big help if systemic changes were made that eased a transition towards sustainable and responsible ways of doing things, but why would people vote for such changes if they won't even change themselves? Put it this way: why would people vote for politicians who will pressure them to do the "right" thing if the "right" thing is not even something they want? Why not just do the right thing without coercion or incentives? If people are so resistant to a green lifestyle, why would they vote for politicians who will push the green lifestyle?"
No, I don't presuppose that people will want to vote for the sort of changes you advocate. I presuppose that easily manipulated people are winning the elections and that the "moral minority" are not reaching them because they either don't vote, or don't dare to try to get their ideas across effectively. It will take systemic change to solve the problems you presented (energy, water, waste, economy, wars). Trying to convince every person individually to lead a holy life is not the answer because such a moral argument will be defeated by all of the giant external forces shouting much louder and running the economies of every household and providing every second of their lives to them, whether it is entertainment (and culture), employment, or at least that of their peers which then becomes reality for them.
"I approach this issue the way I do because, while there is great systemic evil in this society, I believe changes need to be made on the level of the individual. If we can't change ourselves, we can't change. No one forces us to buy all this crap we don't need. No one forces us to work 40 hour weeks. No one forces us to have cars, huge homes, cell phones, etc. We feel PRESSURED to have those things, because of advertising and the desire to conform, but we don't have to. So I'm trying to get people thinking more about resisting much of the crap they don't need. Which, again, there is nothing wrong with having some luxury, but the sheer cost of modern lifestyles (for us, for society, for the environment) should make us very skeptical of modern lifestyles. That is my point.""
I interpret it as the dominance of a worldview propped up by advertising. Our culture is created by people whose job it is to get us to buy more, and our government is run by people who believe the more we sell and buy the more
successful we are. As individuals (the perspective you are taking on it), we have been careless with our habits and have had our assumptions about leisure, entertainment, etc. exploited and let these exploitations change us
haphazardly.
Besides, it isn't adults who are being fooled. It's each new generation of young people who adopts the new technologies as their way of life, who demands them as gifts from their parents. In essence if we want to get on the
household level, it's bad parenting that is to blame, because children now decide what a household needs. And their culture is even more dominated by advertising-created cultures than the adults. A shift has taken place, from adults
deciding which products rule, to the children, and this shift has been exactly what the advertising strategists wanted because kids are the most susceptible to their methods.
Do you expect some word-of-mouth moral argument to spread to teens to be anything different than what they are as shaped by the public school system and advertising superstructure, for instance?
"Luggy says: "We can't even impeach criminals or run a foreign policy or an economy. So how are we supposed to challenge ourselves to really secure the future in all these obvious ways? Facts don't have much pull in politics. So many of them are not even acknowledged by any of the candidates in the upcoming election (except the ones that are ignored and covered up by the media). This isn't meant to change the subject but to point out that as a group the bigger problem is that we can't address problems like the ones you're mentioning because there is a systemic problem going on with the way we find out and believe what's happening and the way we then do something about it. The very process has been perverted and taken over by money interests and we have yet to take it back, so the weight of all the people unaware of this is what is driving us into the ditch you describe."
If this is true, how is voting going to change anything? We vote for candidates. Candidates run, ostensibly, on positions on issues. If no politician offers the desired stance on an issue, voting cannot work. The people have to change themselves and show the politicians they do not need government or corporate power. Then the government and corporations will start listening to the people. The people have all the power and always have - we are the ones that produce everything, do everything, and consume most of everything. Without us, they are powerless. But power will not respond to us unless we start recognizing our own power."
If it is true, that means we have to do a better job in being political! When I say that facts don't have much pull in politics, I don't state that as some unchanging law. It's the state of current affairs, it's the result of what we have been doing or not doing. We need to change that fact. That is something that the minority of people who are susceptible to "life-changing" "moral arguments" can really do. They can convince others, they can inoculate them against the television ads that buy their influence and the sound bytes that win their vote. You personally can change how 100 people vote. That will do more than eating vegan your whole life ever will. There are better choices in each election that could have got more votes if the "moral argument" people directed their effort elsewhere. We should be building a political presense so that the candidates come to us. If we simply give up on politics and start individually saving water and eating organic then politics will continue its slide into fascism and it will be on our watch.
I hope this clarifies things.
|
Thanks for your post, Luggy. I can't do a thorough reply right now. I'll say this: I don't think our positions are at all mutually exclusive. In fact, with regard to the sorts of actions you recommend, I am 100 percent in agreement with you. I think taking your approach does not take anything away from what I'm talking about, nor does mine take away from what you talk about. They compliment each other very well, and I would like to see people changing themselves AND educating others and encouraging others to see through the indoctrination and propaganda (something I try to do myself.)
It is important that we practice what we preach, but it is also important that we do address things on a systemic level too. Let's do both!
But to reiterate, Luggy, personal action is HIGHLY important in these matters. Even taking things from your position which says we must educate and act politically, personal action will make your message more compelling - it will set an example to back up what you advocate.
Veganism, vowing to not have biological children, carl-lessness, low consumption, and simple living in general are very powerful steps that DO make a difference. You make some good points, Luggy, but please do not make the mistake of disregarding the power of personal action. At the end of the day, we are all just individuals, and we are responsible for ourselves.
|
Just like to say I am happy to have others comment, discuss, or criticize anything in this whole thread. Love to hear people's thoughts. There are good posts throughout this thread that are worthy of discussion too.
|
Let's say there are genes that make people more likely to be moral. Those people will have less offspring, and will soon fade. Meanwhile joe redneck has 10 kids in 3 different cities. So I think systemic change takes precedence over self-neutering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
