Chris Kott wrote:Sorry, that "you" was omnidirectional.
I hadn't intended to set it up as a sensitive or case-hardened either/or sense. Let's look at it another way.
Let's say that, at some point, people are born with the ability to read people's thoughts, or even just to sense their emotions. I can see a number of specific advantages in a number of business, medical, and hospitality fields.
I can also see how it would be a severe disadvantage living in a city and not being able to turn it off, or to filter what you sense. Going out amonst people at all might get harder depending on how crowded and how emotionally charged the scenario.
The best course of action for those sensitives would be to develop mental barriers or techniques that would allow for selectivity.
Does that logic not hold in our case?
Dale Hodgins wrote:Often we see things in the news and we are powerless to do anything about them. I don't even try. But I do the things that I can affect.
My aunt used to be a News Junkie. And everything troubles her. But then she started watching CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network with Pat Robertson. He offered up all sorts of pablum in bite-sized pieces that my aunt could handle. And she didn't have to just be an idle observer. She could send money, to help change all of the bad things and to help move forward all the good things that Pat talked about. If she wasn't sure, all she had to do was look at Ben Kinslow, I like to call him Uncle Ben, after the rice guy. Ben always nodded in agreement to everything Pat said, just so that we knew it was all true. :-)
Dale Hodgins wrote:It would be easy to get caught inside a permie bubble. There have been many times when I get busy, when I only go on this site and don't do many laps around the internet. This would lead one to believe that most people care about the sorts of things that I care about. A couple hours of following the links on YouTube, eliminates such delusions, especially if you read the comments, which I don't do anymore.
I wish it were so simple. I'm currently reading, Schumacker's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered" and chapter 4 is clearly reminding people that "Economics" pushes using whatever resource is cheapest for the company to acquire, even if the human or environmental costs would make a different but still suitable resource safer and sustainable in the long term. In concrete terms - fossil fuels are cheapest to use, therefore solar power or short-cycle wood alternatives should not be used. The reality is that if all the environmental damage done by oil spills was factored in, fossil fuels would be much more expensive than the cost at the pump. Similarly, it is the "economics" of hiring labour at 1/4 the wages (maybe less?) in China that have gutted the manufacturing sector of Ontario. It is "economics" that have encouraged companies to bombard people with advertising, convincing them to buy more to support the "economy", when we live on a finite ball of dirt. I put more trust in Mathematics - it shows that we can't carry on under the current economic model!
I rely on economic and scientific commentary on those issues.