Comments on: Time To Decide What Matters http://www.endgame.org.uk/2009/10/time-to-decide-what-matters/ the only solution is a change of culture Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:36:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gus http://www.endgame.org.uk/2009/10/time-to-decide-what-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-578 gus Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:44:05 +0000 http://www.endgame.org.uk/?p=862#comment-578 Hi, You wrote: "Think about this for a short while and it becomes obvious that the civilized world’s destruction of the natural environment cannot under any circumstances be acceptable, for it will endanger the one thing which matters above all else: ourselves." As I see it, that's only partly true. If we save the world solely to save ourselves, how does that really differ from the selfishness we've been showing so far? It will be a positive action, but without a change in attitude, there's little to prevent a future slide into similar stupidity because it's still only about US. Instead, I think we need to recognize we humans DO have a key role to play regarding all other life on Earth. It's NOT one "ordained" by any divine entity, just one foisted upon us more or less by evolutionary chance — Since we're the first species here to achieve sentience, art, technology, etc, we have a responsibility to protect the rest of the world so others can also have a fair chance to achieve those things. The key is using our intelligence to select which aspects of them are actually beneficial and jettisoning those that are not, blazing a trail by our experience that future lifeforms can follow if they so choose. That means learning from our mistakes so we can leave most of the ecological connections and resources intact, minimizing the negative side of our impact and repairing the damage we've already done if we can. It does NOT mean wholesale abandonment of technology, just selective use of it in ways that benefit the whole WHILE they benefit us, rather than in ways that just benefit us (or, in practice, SOME of us) at the expense of the rest. It DOES, however, mean a massive rearrangement of what we use, how we create things, where we go with them, and, most importantly, what our priorities are in a wide range of areas. Economically, fixing the mess requires a global revolution in what "economy" means, who controls the funds, on what we base them, and how we spend/invest them over the course of not one presidential term or two, but decades and centuries. Peace, Gus Hi,

You wrote: “Think about this for a short while and it becomes obvious that the civilized world’s destruction of the natural environment cannot under any circumstances be acceptable, for it will endanger the one thing which matters above all else: ourselves.”

As I see it, that’s only partly true. If we save the world solely to save ourselves, how does that really differ from the selfishness we’ve been showing so far? It will be a positive action, but without a change in attitude, there’s little to prevent a future slide into similar stupidity because it’s still only about US.

Instead, I think we need to recognize we humans DO have a key role to play regarding all other life on Earth. It’s NOT one “ordained” by any divine entity, just one foisted upon us more or less by evolutionary chance — Since we’re the first species here to achieve sentience, art, technology, etc, we have a responsibility to protect the rest of the world so others can also have a fair chance to achieve those things. The key is using our intelligence to select which aspects of them are actually beneficial and jettisoning those that are not, blazing a trail by our experience that future lifeforms can follow if they so choose. That means learning from our mistakes so we can leave most of the ecological connections and resources intact, minimizing the negative side of our impact and repairing the damage we’ve already done if we can.

It does NOT mean wholesale abandonment of technology, just selective use of it in ways that benefit the whole WHILE they benefit us, rather than in ways that just benefit us (or, in practice, SOME of us) at the expense of the rest. It DOES, however, mean a massive rearrangement of what we use, how we create things, where we go with them, and, most importantly, what our priorities are in a wide range of areas. Economically, fixing the mess requires a global revolution in what “economy” means, who controls the funds, on what we base them, and how we spend/invest them over the course of not one presidential term or two, but decades and centuries.

Peace,
Gus

]]>