i completely agree on the point regarding happiness, i think its very under
rated.
i've read some good literature on the subject (can't remember name of
article). the important point made by that paper was the way we treat other
people is the way we treat ourselves - sounds strange? apparently we all
have a relationship with ourself. so for example if you are highly
intolerant of other peoples mistakes then you'll be just as intolerant
towards yourself - thats counter constructive! if you critise yourself too
much you'll loose confidence, wont try out new things, start
procrastinating, dwell too long on your mistakes and ulitimately end up in a
vicious cycle of self loathing.
the flip side is someone who deliberately/conciously trys to chill out with
themselves (smile, make an internal joke about it) and this gets passed onto
their relationship with other people.
i suppose in that picture being selfish will ultimately make you "stingey"
and in the end you wont even look after yourself, so no-one benefits!
and then there's the "game theory" argument for being alturistic; i've
always had a personal fondness for that - it can break through the force
field of even the most selfish logical-wannabe :o)
but, i suppose the point is kindof academic - it may be psycologically
sound, it may even have tonnes of experimental backing. but in my opinion
until people fall down and have a massive nervous breakdown they tend not to
develop much interest in psychology/psychatry, or only look upon it with a
vague lazy like pop interest. i think even when informed joe sixpack will
not pay much attention when he walks past a charity box. capitalism: "the
screw you, i've got mine!" philosophy of thinking :o(
just my opinion (sorry to sound pessimistic. . . again).
the very best regards to all - i hope you all have happy thoughts! :o)
nav
From: Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest]
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:22:55 +0000
The problem with this argument is that people do not attain happiness by
being selfish - they do it by caring for others "My greatness need is the
other's need for me" R D Laing. The belief that we attain happiness through
selfish consumption is a myth propagated by the capitalist system through
advertising
Chris Keene
Fuad Ali wrote:
>"why would anyone seek to defend an economic system that depends for its
>very
>survival on ever increasing consumption, a need which has a devastating
>impact on society and nature?"
>
>i dont want to sound rude and this is not directed at anyone in particular.
>but i think a lot of people in this forum should come down from their ivory
>towers (best way i can say it, sorry). my experiences in campaigning and
>trying to get people to sign a petition urging the council to build council
>houses for working class people was illuminating. the council subsided the
>construction of those expensive apartments in town - which only well off
>bussiness people can afford! bottom line is: the general public aren't
>particularly alturistic. students will sign the petition against tutition
>fees, but never the council housing one. working class people dispise the
>student petition and will generally only sign the housing one if they
>themself or someone they know needs a home to live in! rich people *never*
>sign the housing petition (not that i'm aware of), but may sign the tuition
>fees one.
>
>for all intensive purposes people on this list generally do not share the
>mindset of your "average person". you may like to think your average, but
>your not, everyone on this list is far from average, verging on the
>"weirdo". what you think, is not what joe sixpack is thinking about. i for
>one, do not claim to be "average" - i *know* i'm a weirdo!
>
>i think its important everyone trys to gets a "feel" for the mindset of the
>average punter. people like to be happy, anything that detracts from that
>is considered bad. drinking lots, partying, going out with friends, driving
>big cars are all considered desireble. however people like to think they're
>"good people" and hence will always pay lipservice to this concept. no one
>wakes up and think - "i'm an evil person and i like that!", even hitler
>thought he was a good person and doing the right thing for his country,
>george w bush and everyone on this list thinks the same way! (scary and
>soberringly true).
>
>the bulk of people on this planet prop up the current economic system
>because it give them (so they think) what they want - immediate happiness.
>if your going to propose a system of hardship like prohabition or rationing
>people wont like it; and it will just create massive underground black
>markets (as what happened with rationing, although people like to pretend
>that the "spirit of the war" meant everyone was "good" and neighbourly).
>
>sadly you may just have to play the role of the "illuminati" and shepherd
>people into doing things you wish them to do. like heavily tax
>non-recyclable packaging to discourage manufactures from using it; device a
>system to automatically sort out and recycle household rubbish; heavily tax
>petrol to make alternative cars more attrative, etc. . .
>
>people dont vote greens in mass numbers because they are. . . fickle.
>they're scared the greens will ruin their happiness by implimenting harsh
>changes (as mentioned before). somehow you have to convice people this
>isn't going to happen and impliment stealth tactics to find ways of
>lessening the impact on them. let the people pay lipservice and say "yes i
>agree with. . ." once that happens, take that edith and impliment it in
>such a way that people can not but have to obide by it (like subsiding the
>alternative car industry and tax the petrol cars more). i know its sick to
>be elitist and rely in vanguardist tactics like i've mentioned, but i think
>its the only way that will work. the alternative is to wait a century for a
>climatic holocaust, at which point change will come from below.
>
>"we" (or you people) should expect mass public inertia and have to
>*constantly* push the case on people so they give the fickle nod of the
>head to signify that they're "good people"; but even then expect low
>penetration and ultimately rely on the stealth i mentioned above.
>
>everyone prefers the carrot to the stick. give them the carrot! but keep
>the stick hidden, and use both.
>
>peace
>
>nav
>
>From: Chris <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Chris <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest]
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:52:35 -0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from ICTMAILER1.itd.rl.ac.uk ([130.246.192.56]) by
>MC6-F21.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 30 Nov 2005
>02:19:09 -0800
>Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
>ICTMAILER1.itd.rl.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
><[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 9:53:27 +0000
>Received: by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id
> 64665512 for [log in to unmask]; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:53:26
> +0000
>Received: from 130.246.192.52 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0m) with
>TCP; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:53:26 GMT
>Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com
>(mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by
>kili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAU9rE6w020897 for
> <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:53:16 GMT
>Received: from 88-106-77-144.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO
>mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com) ([88.106.77.144]) by
>mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2005 09:52:40
> +0000
>Received: from 88-106-77-144.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.77.144]:3071
> helo=system) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim
> 4.30) id 1EhOdi-0005Vp-Dt; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:52:38 +0000
>X-Message-Info: 0jbW5ANosZLvPjLSZ0omocCztLCn9V7NVNel6X6qExg=
>X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
>X-RAL-Connect: <mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]>
>X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
>X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AI8CAB4DjUODGDWCQAE
>References: <[log in to unmask]>
> <003101c5f0e0$f91ec110$f04f6a58@system>
><[log in to unmask]>
><00b101c5f533$6bb21fa0$0264a8c0@toshiba>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
>X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0.91 : HTML_30_40,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
>Comments: To: SowNet <[log in to unmask]>
>Precedence: list
>Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2005 10:19:12.0970 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[829692A0:01C5F597]
>
>These worries about 'the economy' just beg the question of why would anyone
>seek to defend an economic system that depends for its very
>survival on ever increasing consumption, a need which has a devastating
>impact on society and nature?
>
>This attitude of unending economic growth being the main priority of social
>activity, with the survival of humanity coming in a close second, reminds
>me
>of The Sun campaign from the 'Cold War' 1980's - Better Dead than Red -
>the idea being it would be better to die in a nuclear conflagration than
>give one inch to those dastardly Ruskies.
>
>It doesn't seem we have moved on much from those days.
>
>Best
>
>Chris
>
>www.theirfuture.org
>
>Parenting in age of climate change
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: SowNet
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest]
>
>
> Surely that should ENCOURAGE people who believe we are at the end of the
>era of economic growth to vote Green - if the Green Party takes the lead in
>proposing a sustainable alternative. By doing so, of course, it won't get
>elected for some time, but I am sure you are used to that. Why bother with
>people expecting the Greens to run the economy in a conventional way? Set
>your sights some way into the future, when a few climatic disasters might
>bring people to their senses.
>
> Jim Scott
>
> PS I have stood for the former Ecology Party in the 1983 parliamentary
>election, and had a lot of fun goading William Waldergrave in Bristol West.
>
> Visit www.save-our-world.net (global) & www.save-our-world.org.uk
> Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Keene" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 12:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest]
>
>
> > The trouble is that it is the ending of the current economic ideology
> > that puts people off voting Green.
> >
> > I was speaking to a fellow student from the UEA People and Planet
>branch
> > earlier this week and she would not vote Green if she thought we would
> > be likely to form a national government because she thought Greens
>could
> > not run the economy.
> >
> > I don't know what to do about this
> >
> > Chris Keene
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> >> These sorts of stories highlight the impossibility of trying to
> >> maintain current Western lifestyles through 'renewable' energy
> >> sources. The only answer is a reduction of energy used, which would
> >> spell the end of the current economic ideology.
> >>
> >> Boo hoo.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Keene"
> >> <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:39 AM
> >> Subject: [Fwd: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest]
> >>
> >>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject: [GP-Climate] Biofuels & forest
> >>> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:09:37 +0000
> >>> From: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400 22 November
> >>> 2005 Forests paying the price for biofuels
> >>> THE drive for "green energy" in the developed world is having the
> >>> perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical
> >>> rainforests. From the orang-utan reserves of Borneo to the Brazilian
> >>> Amazon, virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans
>to
> >>> fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America. And
>surging
> >>> prices are likely to accelerate the destruction
> >>> The rush to make energy from vegetable oils is being driven in part
> >>> by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels to be blended
> >>> with biofuels, and by subsidies equivalent to 20 pence a litre. Last
> >>> week, the British government announced a target for biofuels to make
> >>> up 5 per cent of transport fuels by 2010. The aim is to help meet
> >>> Kyoto protocol targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions....
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Lera Miles
> >>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lera.m/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >>> --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo!
> >>> Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
> >>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FdSolB/TM
> >>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GP-Climate/
> >>>
> >>> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> >>> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
