Why wouldn't we, as a species decide that ensuring human health and well being, along with the well being of the planet, are in fact socio-economic priorities? It seems there needs to be more involvement in the creation of standards, even regulations, that put people and the planet first, especially in the framework of environmental policy and economics (i.e. ecosystem service oriented projects, such as carbon sequestration). Rather than follow the blind path to further exploitation of people and our natural capital, I see this as an opportunity for pure interaction; pure in the sense that we have our motives straight, and interaction in the sense that we know the consequences of our actions.
Monday, November 24, 2008
In the name of the game
while global carbon markets slowly self organize along lines of maximizing profit, it is important to realize that as human beings we have no need to be driven, as automatons, by the blind laws of economics. Whoever decided that profit maximization was a legitimate human and institutional goal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The ability to rebel against automaton like behavior entails a few prerequisites that many people do not have. Only when people have a certain amount of security can they devote time and energy to thoughts and actions beyond the immediate survival of themselves and family. Of course, this begs the question of why people in relative luxury are content to merely be. Complacency is hard to kick, not that we shouldn’t, but that is a conversation for another day.
Real change will not rain top down. Any sustainable change towards qualitative and holistic well being must at first offer immediate gratification of certain needs on many levels. Such needs are diversified and dependent on which levels of society we target. Carbon markets, coke dealers and poppies through mountain chains . . . it’s all the same. I was talking to a person about to go in for four years about why he did what he did? He is unequivocally guilty of the crime, as is the system that forced his choices. He says that it’s all well and good, the theories, preaching and such, but teachers and preachers don’t buy him dinner, the OGs do. When his four years are up, maybe two or three based on good behavior, this man will have at the most a GED. The well being of the planet, environmental policy is not at the top priority in his mind. How does one go about bringing the masses and masses on the bottom socioeconomic rungs into the dialogue on solutions? Without the bottom tiers’ involvement, no conversation, regulation or standard will yield a sustainable solution.
How do you propose to move on a path of no exploitation and how do you intend to convert enough people away from profit maximization? How much foresight do we have with regards to our actions?
a big part of me wants to say that the whole 'tiering' of society is a fundamental problem: but the more practical side of me says you must give people a quality existence to work towards: in the sense that you need to motivate them through presenting an alternative mode of existence that meets their human needs: i.e. renovating buildings in the ghetto, getting clean water and quality food to places where they arent even thought of, revamp abandoned downtown areas, harness the latent energy of frustration and desperation, but most of all come with an attitude of openness....
Post a Comment