Originally Posted by
Dave Cutter
I am sure MY experience isn't LIKE others. But THAT doesn't matter. The nature of the beast doesn't change from one location to the other. You're missing my point.
I'm trying to understand it; because if there is some aspect of government that makes it resistant to rationality, I would want to consider how to overcome that. I don't think we can discuss that here, though, without getting the thread bumped to P&R, which may be your point, idk.
Yes, I understand the definition of the word. But you could say it's pragmatic to shift some amount of the population away from driving rather than investing/wasting excessive resources on the ideal of ubiquitous personal automotive transportation. Then again, automotivists would contend that automotive ubiquity isn't an ideal but a reality and pragmatism is about accepting the reality as such instead of regarding it as a destructive 19th/20th century utopia that has failed in practice.
Either way, 'pragmatism' is relative to what is considered 'ideal' or 'realistic.' What's not relative are things like land use/waste, heat, groundwater runoff, economic costs, human health and free time, etc.
You think religion is arbitrary? I am NOT familiar with YOUR concepts of religion. Maybe that is why you fail to see the common references I make. Many cultures past and present worship in many different ways. Most trendy environmental practices fit within what is recognized as a religion. That IS NOT my idea!
Nothing exists that is not religion/culture/society in some way. The way you talk about environmentalism as a religion implies that it is more subjective than other sciences, which would be thus less religious. Religion really just refers to a certain way of looking at things, i.e. from the perspective of human spirit and morality instead of materiality. Environmentalism refers to recognizing the broader functions and value of natural land features, ecologies, etc. instead of seeing them merely as an impediment to human development.
I never said that. I did however post that I don't see the difference. I just don't have a "vision" of the future.... that you apparently think you have. Things change... always have, always will. I do not have magical powers which would allow me to know which future change will be positive or negative.
Apparently your vision of the future is that it will change unpredictably, as will the (cultural) ability to evaluate positivity or negativity in it. I disagree with that. I think you can look at how current patterns will evolve based on certain factors, and you can assess whether it would be better to divert or hold course in various ways. Refusing to focus on reality by chalking off everything to change is sub-accuracy.
I can't even image what would be a motivation to get out of bed in the morning.... in a world centered/concerned on what they are "against".
Every positive motivation implies a set of factors that obstruct the goal. I agree with you that it is positive to focus on pursuing a goal instead of getting bogged down with hating the obstructions. The challenge, however, is to remain lucid regarding obstructions and negativities that oppose your goal in order to discuss them reasonably instead of reflexively reeling against their existence in order to maintain a positive attitude. If your positive attitude is secured against negativity, you can see the positivity in discussing opposition instead of fighting 'against' it. It is the difference between an observation/problem-solving approach and an approach that assumes observation of problems will inevitably lead to negativity, hate, and destructive impulses instead of constructive discussion and problem-solving.