This has a number of very good parts. The problem is this. In my considered view (as an independent economics theorist) the "left" and "right" alternatives are a dialectical pairing. If the left method has a flaw, the rightists' method has a parallel flaw. This is precisely the reason for the way both views have, beginning at about Rousseau's period, existed at the same time. Each is equally correct. My opinion, based on that reasoning was always that the "liberal" policy is the one to pick, but only because it is more practical. Capitalism, for example, tends liberal.
Chock-full of good stuff as usual. There is no totalitarianism like the totalitarianism of "care." In this aspect Olivia Chow is just another little Eichmann.
I too am an environmentalist -- insofar as I care about the Earth and all its living creatures and wish for them to exist in health and perpetuity -- but Big Corporate Environmentalism is a horror. These people don't care about the Earth, they care about themselves; it's virtue-signaling malignant narcissism. Exhibit A is Greta Thunberg; exhibit B is Joe Biden, whom I am unconvinced has ever held a sincere position his his life (he's no Ed Abbey, for sure).
I tried out Buddhism for a while, but I found its insistence on "good intentions" over "good outcomes" to be ultimately incompatible with my own sense of "moral justice" (for lack of a better term; it seems haughty, but there it is). I in no way indict the Buddhist faith; I merely observe that "good intentions" being the end-all did not work out for me personally on a spiritual level. I still find meditation to be a deeply helpful practice, so I got that out of it at least.
I think a corrupt, pragmatic villain who works good in the world, perhaps entirely by accident, has moral superiority over the "well-intentioned" person driven by their own ego and desire to BE SEEN AS GOOD, as opposed to actually doing good.
There's a lot of little Eichmanns out there who are willing to sacrifice others for their vision / illusion of a normal life. I just wish the powers of darkness would pick someone less insufferable than Olivia Chow, but that could be a tactic to make us all go insane.
Big Corporate Environmentalism, and its virtue signalling followers, are infuriating. If you care that much and think the problem is that dire, then do something practical about it.
e.g.,
* Organize campaigns to get people to use glass bottles again, or reuse plastic bottles at home.
* Work with municipalities to get organic waste out of landfills and into parks as compost.
* Work with agricultural producers and soil scientists to use inoculations in operation to cost save on fertilizer.
There's a lot of real actions people can take. I don't enjoy reading scientific papers on fungus, it's awful, but I do it because I think it's a possible (and very simple) solution to certain problems.
I found that on the spiritual level, the observed "good intentions," or the Theosophical thoughtforms where everything is wonderful and perfect, are worthless without the feedback of "good outcomes" in reality. And to get those "good outcomes" a sacrifice is required, and most people would rather sacrifice others, especially children, to get the outcome they desire. Not my cup of tea. I prefer orange pekoe.
I definitely agree that if Skeletor were a villain in real life, and his schemes accidentally produced good works in the world, it would be orders of magnitude better than Olivia Chow pretending to be virtuous.
Rousseau has some interesting ideas that I think just get taken to the extreme, but he makes a good point about how mankind imposes itself on nature when we should be learning how to find our proper place in it.
I'm trying to shift my framework from feeding my plants, to feeding the soil and the surrounding environment. I'd rather have birds do pest control, but they need to be paid in bugs, and the bugs need something other than my plants to chew on, and so on.
I also think there's a very real possibility of cooperating with ideologically opposing groups when it comes to the environment, and the solution is to put natural processes back into our systems. It's hard to do that if we're predisposed to being angry with each other.
Well thought out and excellent reasoning. I really enjoyed this and agree wholeheartedly.
This has a number of very good parts. The problem is this. In my considered view (as an independent economics theorist) the "left" and "right" alternatives are a dialectical pairing. If the left method has a flaw, the rightists' method has a parallel flaw. This is precisely the reason for the way both views have, beginning at about Rousseau's period, existed at the same time. Each is equally correct. My opinion, based on that reasoning was always that the "liberal" policy is the one to pick, but only because it is more practical. Capitalism, for example, tends liberal.
Chock-full of good stuff as usual. There is no totalitarianism like the totalitarianism of "care." In this aspect Olivia Chow is just another little Eichmann.
I too am an environmentalist -- insofar as I care about the Earth and all its living creatures and wish for them to exist in health and perpetuity -- but Big Corporate Environmentalism is a horror. These people don't care about the Earth, they care about themselves; it's virtue-signaling malignant narcissism. Exhibit A is Greta Thunberg; exhibit B is Joe Biden, whom I am unconvinced has ever held a sincere position his his life (he's no Ed Abbey, for sure).
I tried out Buddhism for a while, but I found its insistence on "good intentions" over "good outcomes" to be ultimately incompatible with my own sense of "moral justice" (for lack of a better term; it seems haughty, but there it is). I in no way indict the Buddhist faith; I merely observe that "good intentions" being the end-all did not work out for me personally on a spiritual level. I still find meditation to be a deeply helpful practice, so I got that out of it at least.
I think a corrupt, pragmatic villain who works good in the world, perhaps entirely by accident, has moral superiority over the "well-intentioned" person driven by their own ego and desire to BE SEEN AS GOOD, as opposed to actually doing good.
There's a lot of little Eichmanns out there who are willing to sacrifice others for their vision / illusion of a normal life. I just wish the powers of darkness would pick someone less insufferable than Olivia Chow, but that could be a tactic to make us all go insane.
Big Corporate Environmentalism, and its virtue signalling followers, are infuriating. If you care that much and think the problem is that dire, then do something practical about it.
e.g.,
* Organize campaigns to get people to use glass bottles again, or reuse plastic bottles at home.
* Work with municipalities to get organic waste out of landfills and into parks as compost.
* Work with agricultural producers and soil scientists to use inoculations in operation to cost save on fertilizer.
There's a lot of real actions people can take. I don't enjoy reading scientific papers on fungus, it's awful, but I do it because I think it's a possible (and very simple) solution to certain problems.
I found that on the spiritual level, the observed "good intentions," or the Theosophical thoughtforms where everything is wonderful and perfect, are worthless without the feedback of "good outcomes" in reality. And to get those "good outcomes" a sacrifice is required, and most people would rather sacrifice others, especially children, to get the outcome they desire. Not my cup of tea. I prefer orange pekoe.
I definitely agree that if Skeletor were a villain in real life, and his schemes accidentally produced good works in the world, it would be orders of magnitude better than Olivia Chow pretending to be virtuous.
https://youtu.be/N0kIGPW8Mrw?t=170
Bahaha! That's basically what I imagined.
Rousseau has some interesting ideas that I think just get taken to the extreme, but he makes a good point about how mankind imposes itself on nature when we should be learning how to find our proper place in it.
I'm trying to shift my framework from feeding my plants, to feeding the soil and the surrounding environment. I'd rather have birds do pest control, but they need to be paid in bugs, and the bugs need something other than my plants to chew on, and so on.
I also think there's a very real possibility of cooperating with ideologically opposing groups when it comes to the environment, and the solution is to put natural processes back into our systems. It's hard to do that if we're predisposed to being angry with each other.