Has the election distraction worked again?
The major purpose for elections in this country is to keep the people from dealing with what is happening to them. The TV watching public likes to be entertained and will be consumed by even very bad theater. This time it is very important that the ploy works because the reality out there is terrifying. How can people not see it? They are blinded by the electoral theater. It eats up resources and energy while the system grinds on and continues to grow and ravage the earth.
I'd like to think that this time was different but I can't. Even Bernie has been gobbled up by the system and we were part of that. Our book said this:
The Global Economy that sustains the civilized world is destroying the biosphere. As a result, civilization, like the Titanic, is on a collision course with disaster. But changing course via the body politic appears to be well nigh impossible, given that much of the populace lives in denial. Why is that? And how did we get into such a fix? In this essay, biologists James Coffman and Donald Mikulecky argue that the reductionist model of the world developed by Western civilization misrepresents life, undermining our ability to regulate and adapt to the accelerating anthropogenic transformation of the world entrained by that very model. An alternative worldview is presented that better accounts for both the relational nature of living systems and the developmental phenomenology that constrains their evolution. Development of any complex system reinforces specific dependencies while eliminating alternatives, reducing the diversity that affords adaptive degrees of freedom: the more developed a system is, the less potential it has to change its way of being. Hence, in the evolution of life most species become extinct. This perspective reveals the limits that complexity places on knowledge and technology, bringing to light our hubristically dysfunctional relationship with the natural world and increasingly tenuous connection to reality. The inescapable conclusion is that, barring a cultural metamorphosis that breaks free of deeply entrenched mental frames that made us what we are, continued development of the Global Economy will lead inexorably to the collapse of civilization.
Note that we said then that bringing about change by politics was well nigh impossible. I thing we can now say that it is impossible.
I have written about the all encompassing damage that reductionist thought has brought upon the human species. We looked deeply into how it has shaped our brains so that we are helpless.
The magnitude of the real problems that face us would make thinking people laugh at the election foolishness rather than be consumed by it.
As each day passes the analysis we presented is verified more and more. The book is banned in the place where I live. I guess the right wing is capable of seeing the danger it presents. Meanwhile most of the left ignores it.
Have fun fiddling as Rome burns. You will not get another chance.
![Share](/sites/all/modules/addtoany/images/share_save_171_16.png)
Comments
And in the end...
The natural world prevails and we become nothing more than part of the fossil record.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Physicist Richard Feynman
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Good for you! Dialectical biologists like Levins & Lewontin have
argued against the reductionist, "selfish gene", model and seem to have come out on the winning end.
Capitalism began with violence - throwing people off their land to become landless wage earners in factories with little free time to pursue their cultural activities - and has become more violent in its monopoly capital stage with increasing, and unproductive, financialization. I hope it can be voted out; I strongly doubt that it will be voted out.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
They always had
It was just Dawkins (who is a zoologist) that promoted the "selfish gene" reductionism.
Even in the 80s he'd refuse to speak on campus to genetics students - he didn't like the awkward questions.
Thanks for this comment. I just used the Dawkins construct
because it is well known and seems to have had its day.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
At long, long, long last
Much better off reading Stephen Jay Gould![Smile](https://caucus99percent.com/sites/all/modules/smiley/packs/kolobok/smile.gif)
Ontogeny and Phylogeny by SJ Gould was very good.
I liked his books that explained how Darwin has remained relevant in spite of the years gone by. I also thought Gould did valuable work in opposing Wilson's Sociobiology although Lewontin developed the opposition to a greater degree, I believe.
His essays in Natural History were almost always informative and nicely written: He was one of the good ones.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
And he was just a decent, kind, good human being.
The problem with UK scientists, especially those in evolution, is there is no one but Darwin and Kimura and the Neutral theory are irrelevant.
Dogma be funny![Smile](https://caucus99percent.com/sites/all/modules/smiley/packs/kolobok/smile.gif)
Yes we share a lot
We have used their ideas to help build our case
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
Thanks for link to your website
Sad to say, really think we are lost this time.
Only 3 short months until election - don't think we have even a glimmer of a hope of indictment, or the Republican party waking up.
Wondering how Bernie Sanders can be so forceful in asking for vote for Clintons, when he knows how they rigged the primary, and would be such a disaster if elected. Why put so much energy into the platform, knowing it won't make a bit of difference.
Expect we have the lowest turnout of voters of any general election.
Because the alternative is despair
To fully accept the futility of hope, and yet to hope is to be human.
If you ever read Tom Barry's Guerrilla Days in Ireland you'll see how that can often be the deciding factor between victory and death.
did you read the blog?
you comment is an example of what it is about
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
Reading it now
First, I removed the Margaret Mead quote I've believed in for so many of my 71 years.
Honestly, couldn't use it anymore.
To your blog...
Chuck Todd Ignores Substance of DNC E-mails
Meet the Press Grills WikiLeaks on Source, Ignores Substance of DNC Emails
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
This looks like a good time for this quote: "Let all the
poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." I, Claudius
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Historically, social evolution has been linked to economics.
When the mass of people stopped relying on the old system, it faded away. We need to unhook from Big Money. I don't have all the answers. Separating the fat cats from the electoral process is a start. Making every household energy independent would be a big boon. Free internet all over the country is technically possible and would get rid of another bunch of leeches.
Internationally, building desalination plants all around the near east would be cheaper and more effective than forever wars. In Africa, there is an underground aquifer about 100 miles or so west of Malawi Lake, with enough water to supply 4 or 5 countries for 20 years or so. We could improve those machines that draw water out of the surrounding humidity and install them everywhere.
All of these measures would help people all over the world become self sufficient where they are and allow them to live in peace.
All of this and more will probably happen eventually. Will it happen in time? Dunno.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
I worked on desalination in Israel 1963-1965
what can I say?
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
Speaking as a hydrologist
desal is REALLY energy-intensive. Only cost-effective if there is a nearby source of cheap energy. Of course, in the Middle East, with the sun beating down constantly --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
where is the link to the
essay? book? How was it banned?
glitterscale
here it is
Global Insanity: How Homo sapiens Lost Touch with Reality while Transforming the World
The library will not carry it and I was threatened with being arrested for trying to distribute fliers for the book
An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the time. It stands or it falls on its own merits.
The really irritating thing imo is that once we
decide to fix things it probably would be a lot simpler now than later.
I think if we had the will we could remodel our whole damned ideas and tell ourselves how wonderful we are that we are capable of changing our minds and our habits and our economy ......
But I hear all the whinging about making changes - even just to pay attention to politics is changing us in some ways and only a few of us do it even though it is the ONLY way to make big changes happen in the short term.
So we saw the Roman empire just sink like a stone after a certain point. I think it died with a whimper at the end rather than a bang, but it was getting banged around. I don't think we will be so lucky or unlucky. We have a powerful bunch of propagandists who never let up in their constant barrage of garbage. And they have coopted a lot of folks that we thought were on our side - top place is an example. And they have NEVER giving us an opening to present a message to the great American audience although John Stewart and Stephen Colbert came close. But they were jesters and allowed to poke fun because nobody took them seriously enough to make changes.
So what will make people wake up? Will it be another Katrina or Sandy? Those two really didn't get the response they should have. Will it be when NYC's subway is PERMANENTLY under water? And it has no electricity? Maybe when huge swaths of the population start dying from heat as happened in other cities? Maybe when a zika virus or some other virus decimates entire cities and countrysides?
So far though we seem to be convinced that the bad news will only happen to others and those others aren't worth our worry.
glitterscale
I have given up looking for a lifeboat --
my sole desire, at this point, is to assist the band in playing "Nearer My God To Thee" -- (although I myself am an atheist) --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.