slimmouse » Tue Jan 21, 2014 12:00 pm wrote:Unfortunately, there exists in that midst a tiny bunch of self serving destructive arrogant fucks who dismiss all that kinda "Gaia" shit, because
its all about the money, see., as they chop and drill and dran her.
Rory » Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:22 pm wrote:I mean, why have all these energy efficient home appliances and industrial equipment. And the water -energy nexus, where all our civic leaders are panicking about the energy price of water treatment and conveyance: they needent worry afterall!
Which means population growth. Which means building more shit. Which means depletion of minerals to meet consumer demand. Which means scarcity, which implies competitiom, which implies war: this time with zero point energy machines of destruction.
Sounder » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:51 pm wrote:Certainly it’s true that given our current coercive style of mentality, ‘free energy’ would more likely devastate the earth than save it.
Unfortunately most folk are pretty well addicted to coercion agendas resulting in the cultural blind spot that Brandon D brought up in the rabbit hole thread.
At any rate Rory, my position and verbiage is not at all obtuse. It is simply to assert that this world would be a better place with less coercion and that many others act as if they think the world can only be a better place by using more coercion.
The only thing that matters to the planet fuckers is the maintenance of this coercive neo-liberal normative narrative structure.
The planet fuckers and their PR departments have developed association/disassociation (huh-more ass words, hehe-morass- ain’t words funny?)) tricks that serve well to keep good intentioned folk focused on the wrong target.
Oh right, this time, the Rockefeller Foundation spent 850 million dollars in 1997 alone, to set up the Kyoto protocols, because in their noble intentions they found that addressing AGW is the best way to ‘save’ the world. There must be big money in narrative maintenance.
This exchange reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. You know, the story where each person is touching one part of the elephant stating that the part they are touching on describes what it is, but because they are all touching different parts, they all think the contradictory descriptions must be incorrect. Sounder, Rory, slimmouse, you're all touching different parts of the greater truth. So is
Brandon D, for that matter. Now, I'm not claiming that I see the whole elephant. That would make me God/Goddess/Fill In The Blank. But I'm hoping that my perspective of what I do see in regard to this elephant/subthread can be illuminating.
First, slimmouse, I think you're right about Gaia and that the destructive element in humanity stands in opposition to Her primarily out of
greed, i.e. "
its all about the money, see." Rory, I think you're right about the destructive cycle that so far has been inherent in human civilization that isn't being addressed. As I said on
another thread, we can no longer operate on the delusion that we can
buy our way out of this predicament. That the same selfish mentality where we can all be greedy little consumers obediently sticking our snouts in the corporatist trough that got us
into this mess is going to save us because
this time, the corporate trough we’re slurping from is Green. And Sounder, I think you're right about this addiction to coercion agendas we have, and how
big money (Rockefeller is an excellent example) is completely invested in maintaining their coercive narrative.
Are y'all seeing some commonality here?!
"Unless we change the way money works, we change nothing." It's been said umpteen times by umpteen people in one variation or another. Eventually, probably sometime after we've environmentally passed the point of no return, this concept will catch on. The concept that we must find a way to eliminate the greed factor from money itself, so that we can have an economic infrastructure predicated on sustainable living for all. That means our money is no longer tied to wealth creation but is representative of energy, both the human energy we produce and the planet's energy that we utilize. That means replacing a culture that values consumption with a culture that values conservation. That concept.
But what happens when the concept does catch on? If I'm reading what Brandon D is saying correctly, we won't be out of the woods yet. The Global Elite who profited the most off of our current paradigm of money=fiat currency/fractional reserves/compound interest won't just say, "Oops, our bad," and just disappear. I think the most likely reaction will be: "Let
us manage the changing of how money works so we can
all benefit." Maintaining the fiction that they prioritize the best interests of humanity over their own selfish desires.
So what do we do then?
I'm thinking of writing a blog entry on this, but I wanted to get some more input here and hopefully some fresher ideas. Is it possible to build an economic infrastructure that on its very foundation sustains us physically, environmentally, even spiritually? If we can build it, will they come? Most important, can fail-safe measures be put in place to prevent it from falling into the same old coercive narrative, either from the Global Elite intent on co-opting it, or, if the co-opt fails and a real revolution occurs, from those implementing this New Economy falling in lust with their own reflection?
