Since the inception of the USA, society primarily saw the living environment as merely something to exploit, not as an integral part of existence with rights independent of human endeavors. We are at an impasse, because this recklessness towards the natural world is destroying the very bio-systems that sustain us. To me, our economic, cultural, religious and law institutions should be deeply rooted and spring forth from ecology rather than ecology being just a fringe issue. Our corporations and financial institutions have enshrined the idea of free market to a degree that it has become sacred. These institutions spread to all regions of the globe, plundering the natural world, destroying indigenous environments and ways of life. Capitalism and Socialism, even Liberalism and Conservatism are both the same sides of a coin because they do not properly address these issues. How can we begin to find a platform that will support the entire Earth Community, within the framework of nature’s constantly rejuvenating cycles, when this line of thinking has such little cultural precedence (at least for Western Civilization)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2008 07:52PM by Joanne81.

Hi Joanne81,

I think the same way.

I don't think the consciousness of the populace at large understands that this is the most important issue of all.

"Humans belong to the Earth; the Earth does not belong to humans."

So much time is wasted, even in progressive circles, on trying to reform a system that is at its core based on ego competition.

Since ego is simply an illusion whose existence is aided and abetted by the consumption of "forbidden" food, the true revolutionaries are the raw food lecturers and authors who through their work are elevating the consciousness of the public.

---------

There is also this philosophical question:

does the populace have to reach a certain level of consciousness in order for a candidate running on an ecological platform to be successful?

or can a candidate running on an ecological platform raise the consciousness of the public sufficiently enough to be successful?

In other words, what comes first: the public's consciousness or the candidate's consciousness? or is it a combination of the two?

>does the populace have to reach a certain level of consciousness in order for a candidate running on an ecological platform to be successful?

or can a candidate running on an ecological platform raise the consciousness of the public sufficiently enough to be successful?

In other words, what comes first: the public's consciousness or the candidate's consciousness? or is it a combination of the two?<

Good questions, Omega. I think there's another factor that weighs heavily into the equation, though: can the candidate running on an ecological platform even get his position across to the public at all, given the reluctance of the mainstream media to cover any meaningful issues? Kucinich, for example, wanted to talk about these things, and he was pretty much shut out of the debates and news coverage.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Yeah, it's a bummer about Kucinich; I wanted to hear more of what he has to say. I think the bottom line is one word: stewardship. That is where many lose their perspective, when they forget that the earth (and her inhabitants) is to be taken care of, not exploited. Every time I hear any candidate talk about getting (drilling for) oil or fishing or anything where the "commodity" is being spent at an unsustainable level, or when I see garbage on the street, or _________, I think, "Aren't we supposed to be intelligent people? And if so, why do we not see it? Our future and survival depend on us seeing that our home planet and its problems are bigger than a party line." This is serious and I wonder if people see it that way, and I think they don't because it is too inconvenient to their lifestyles to think in that way. What is it going to take to get people to see the gravity of it? I mean we feel like we are beyond that, but we still drive our cars and go on our computers and go on vacations and fly in planes. I think that things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better, and people will have the opportunity to really decide with more than words where they stand. And the thing that really bothers me most is that I am just as guilty of being hypocritical in this area as anyone else. It's sad.

I think the most responsibility for environmental devastation falls into the hands of giant corporations. They control the ways that our planet's natural resources are used and also have enormous influence over our economies, media and politics. They also control the direction of industry and are most resistant to environmental protection. Many are far more powerful economically than many countries of the world. This gives them huge leverage and control. For the most part they all share an unspoken bond. They see the value of our natural world only in terms of economic profit. They spread the message that what is good for them is also the greater good, which is a major fallacy. For all the value they brought humanity, the environmental wasteland left in their wake cannot be ignored. I think this crisis has to be primarily resolved through a value shift, which begin in education of the populace. Corporations encourage an enormous numbing of our innate intelligence, which blocks our ability to make basic connections concerning our environment. They also utilize the media to foster conspicuous consumption. We need to address the spiritual crisis that brings on this type of consumption, so our industry begins to become oriented towards reverence for our Earth, instead of profit at all cost.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2008 02:24PM by Joanne81.