What would it take? “Resourcism has the basic answers : It is a different operating system. One in which resources are stewarded, not commodified …”
I agree with all you say above. But whether this ‘resourcism’ will happen through mankind alone, and not divine intervention, is my (chronic) question.
Why? Mankind has had a long time — centuries of experience & potential learning from that … and here we are we still : at the zenith of all our achievements & learning … and yet becoming an increasing failure on all fronts to an existential degree, worldwide.
If such a positive & sustained change actually comes from mankind alone, it seems it will be in as *distant a future as some consider divine intervention an *improbable happening?
I imagine the hope for the world changing to resourcism vs capitalism in a foreseeable future rests on the shock value of what we are going through now, plus the advantage of the ‘Age’ of Information’ helping to unite us worldwide in the endeavor.
But didn’t the bulk of humanity seem to ‘come together’ after the two World Wars?
Why is it taking an (almost) 3rd WW to inspire an international humanitarian awakening?
How many ‘Never Agains’ must we endure on our way to becoming a genuine civilization?
If history can be relied on at all, it would seem that the "savage" tribes on all continents were much closer to the concept of Resourcism than we are. They took what they needed and didn't hoard. Then useless things like gold became status symbols and the slide began. It was accelerated to warp speed with colonialism and is now the seemingly defining description of our society. Status and power are for those who gather the most, even if much of what they gather is useless. Birkin bags and Patek Philippe wristwatches do not make you a better human being. I truly wish we could learn this and believe it enough to work on change.
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa (and maybe Jomo Kenyatta before him) said "When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." And western 'civilization' had struck again.
“ Fast fashion comes at an 🔹astonishing environmental and social cost. While the impacts of the fashion industry in terms of pollution, water use, carbon emissions, *human rights, and *gender inequality are increasing, the need for a shift to sustainable fashion is evident.
Organizations in Geneva and beyond are joining efforts to shift the fashion economy and foster international cooperation on the issue.”
Yes. Fashion is a huge factor in environmental damage. We throw the junk away then it gets shipped off to some other country off-shore and even they are starting to refuse both shipments of clothing and of electronic waste.
I tried to teach my kids and grandkids how to buy sustainably, recognize classic styles and good material and tailoring. My kids seem to be doing better than many of their peers, but the grandkids must have had their ears closed.
Received a Turning Point USA flyer two weeks ago. It said, "Capitalism Is The Most Moral, Proven & Effective Economic System In The World!" This is from an organization that aligns with Christian nationalism.
Ask your favorite AI how the teachings of Jesus Christ compare to capitalism. They are completely opposed. Christian nationalism takes people's faith and perverts it for political power.
While all these working-class culture warriors are spinning their heads, capitalism is concentrating wealth at the very top.
Agree that one of the problems is capitalism, but that's too simple. So is socialism, which will never fly in this country.
Entrepreneurship creates wealth, promotes competition and encourages risk. Big corporatism and monopolies are not conducive to free societies. Trust busting, going back to Teddy Roosevelt, is worth pursuing.
Resourcing, by the very nature of its silly name, is bad branding and marketing. Like 'abundance' - the Democrats latest bad idea. We need reform.
As the second Roosevelt wrote: 'The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.'
In short, reform capitalism, and do not let it capture the government by allowing unlimited funds to capture politicians. Nor allow them to profit in office.
However, that does not rule out that it's up to us not to elect grifters and crooks to the highest offices.
Agree that extracting endless resources, at least those that are not replenished or sustainable, is a losing game for humanity. That may mean more aggressive policies in a world order where the hegemonic powers go and grab those resources by force; eg, Greenland or Ukraine. That will not end well. But those with resources will always be at an advantage to those without, and with the ways things are heading the most valuable resources will be clean air, water and soil. As for moneyless, there have always been some means of exchange, but moneyless as in, for example, North American Indigenous type societies, that ship has sailed.
The great experiment that began 250 years ago was anchored in the Constitution. So much thought and effort were expended to prevent the corruption we see today. What happened? Clearly, not just one man. "We the people..." are not just the people who elect leaders, "We..." are the people from whom our leaders are chosen. We honour the principles we love by living them.
What would it take? “Resourcism has the basic answers : It is a different operating system. One in which resources are stewarded, not commodified …”
I agree with all you say above. But whether this ‘resourcism’ will happen through mankind alone, and not divine intervention, is my (chronic) question.
Why? Mankind has had a long time — centuries of experience & potential learning from that … and here we are we still : at the zenith of all our achievements & learning … and yet becoming an increasing failure on all fronts to an existential degree, worldwide.
If such a positive & sustained change actually comes from mankind alone, it seems it will be in as *distant a future as some consider divine intervention an *improbable happening?
I imagine the hope for the world changing to resourcism vs capitalism in a foreseeable future rests on the shock value of what we are going through now, plus the advantage of the ‘Age’ of Information’ helping to unite us worldwide in the endeavor.
But didn’t the bulk of humanity seem to ‘come together’ after the two World Wars?
Why is it taking an (almost) 3rd WW to inspire an international humanitarian awakening?
How many ‘Never Agains’ must we endure on our way to becoming a genuine civilization?
If history can be relied on at all, it would seem that the "savage" tribes on all continents were much closer to the concept of Resourcism than we are. They took what they needed and didn't hoard. Then useless things like gold became status symbols and the slide began. It was accelerated to warp speed with colonialism and is now the seemingly defining description of our society. Status and power are for those who gather the most, even if much of what they gather is useless. Birkin bags and Patek Philippe wristwatches do not make you a better human being. I truly wish we could learn this and believe it enough to work on change.
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa (and maybe Jomo Kenyatta before him) said "When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." And western 'civilization' had struck again.
What an apt quote! “Birkin bags” etc. remind me of the Royal Ascot races on now.
I was tired (my excuse) and glancing online at all those ‘fascinator’ hats / ensembles.
God help the Royals if they wear an outfit a 2nd or 3rd time - it gets mentioned.
* FASHION is actually one of the most 🔹environmentally destructive/ wasteful gambits going! Fact.
https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/sustainable-fashion/
“ Fast fashion comes at an 🔹astonishing environmental and social cost. While the impacts of the fashion industry in terms of pollution, water use, carbon emissions, *human rights, and *gender inequality are increasing, the need for a shift to sustainable fashion is evident.
Organizations in Geneva and beyond are joining efforts to shift the fashion economy and foster international cooperation on the issue.”
Yes. Fashion is a huge factor in environmental damage. We throw the junk away then it gets shipped off to some other country off-shore and even they are starting to refuse both shipments of clothing and of electronic waste.
I tried to teach my kids and grandkids how to buy sustainably, recognize classic styles and good material and tailoring. My kids seem to be doing better than many of their peers, but the grandkids must have had their ears closed.
Grandkids (teens) have a certain buildup of earwax … which gradually gives way when they begin having to pay their own way!
Received a Turning Point USA flyer two weeks ago. It said, "Capitalism Is The Most Moral, Proven & Effective Economic System In The World!" This is from an organization that aligns with Christian nationalism.
Ask your favorite AI how the teachings of Jesus Christ compare to capitalism. They are completely opposed. Christian nationalism takes people's faith and perverts it for political power.
While all these working-class culture warriors are spinning their heads, capitalism is concentrating wealth at the very top.
Agree that one of the problems is capitalism, but that's too simple. So is socialism, which will never fly in this country.
Entrepreneurship creates wealth, promotes competition and encourages risk. Big corporatism and monopolies are not conducive to free societies. Trust busting, going back to Teddy Roosevelt, is worth pursuing.
Resourcing, by the very nature of its silly name, is bad branding and marketing. Like 'abundance' - the Democrats latest bad idea. We need reform.
As the second Roosevelt wrote: 'The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.'
In short, reform capitalism, and do not let it capture the government by allowing unlimited funds to capture politicians. Nor allow them to profit in office.
However, that does not rule out that it's up to us not to elect grifters and crooks to the highest offices.
The global economic system must eventually be resource-based, and moneyless to be sustainable.
Agree that extracting endless resources, at least those that are not replenished or sustainable, is a losing game for humanity. That may mean more aggressive policies in a world order where the hegemonic powers go and grab those resources by force; eg, Greenland or Ukraine. That will not end well. But those with resources will always be at an advantage to those without, and with the ways things are heading the most valuable resources will be clean air, water and soil. As for moneyless, there have always been some means of exchange, but moneyless as in, for example, North American Indigenous type societies, that ship has sailed.
The great experiment that began 250 years ago was anchored in the Constitution. So much thought and effort were expended to prevent the corruption we see today. What happened? Clearly, not just one man. "We the people..." are not just the people who elect leaders, "We..." are the people from whom our leaders are chosen. We honour the principles we love by living them.