Future Earth
Here’s an article that points to exactly where we’re going as a civilization, or at least, where we need to go. The author’s “Future Earth” program is one that considers Earth science from a holistic perspective. From the article:
Earth system resilience and stabilization are rising to the top of political and scientific research agendas. With humankind at this critical juncture, Future Earth has the potential to become the largest, most ambitious international research program ever undertaken. (Its focus is on) describing and understanding the interactive physical, chemical and biological processes taking place on Earth right now from the perspective by which they are influenced by human activity.
So, are these issues really “rising to the top of political agendas?” That depends on to which political agenda one is referring. For instance, to what degree is it depicted in the picture above?
As a dear friend of mine has observed, there are two common mindsets that give rise to the two dominant ideologies visible in every society where human expression has a modicum of liberty.
The first perspective posits that self-interest has and should have primacy, and one’s obligations extend only to one’s self and perhaps one’s spouse and offspring until they reach majority. It celebrates competition over cooperation. It sanctions hoarding and excess in a finite world, without recognizing the inevitable deprivation that results.
The second viewpoint regards the individual as not merely bearing responsibility for one’s own self. It ascribes to humanity a shared obligation to cooperate and contribute with others toward enhancing collective well-being. It prioritizes the thorough protection of and unfettered access to both manufactured and natural infrastructure and resources. It fosters both the understanding and defense of the wider biosphere that we all will always depend on to sustainably survive and prosper.
We shall all have the opportunity to observe which mindset will hold sway among the powerful elite within our species, and what effects that mindset will have upon our present and future condition.
Yes, exactly. And the problem is that those of us in the second camp, almost by definition, tend to be far less forceful and aggressive than those in the first camp, and thus the latter tends to get their way.
I’m reminded of the phone conversation I had yesterday with my mother, who said that she can’t understand why Bernie Sanders doesn’t take a more hostile tone in debates against Hillary Clinton. I explained that it’s not his nature; he’s a man of peace and honor; he was born without the DNA of the person you’re expecting him to be. Having said that, he’s the first such person to get this far in a presidential election in as long as I can remember.
Indeed. Our present political system functions to exclude most decent, ethical people.
Those few – like Sanders – who persevere in injecting themselves into the center of the process often reap both popular admiration and support from common folk and not-so-private scorn and vicious opposition from those who feel threatened by ethics and decency in power.
FDR comes to mind, although (being a man of his time) he lacked the ability to fully accept humanity across ethnic lines.
Even those whose nature often wasn’t entirely guided by decency and ethics – like Huey Long or JFK – nonetheless found themselves tragically perforated when they acted to seize the popular imagination and work it against the dominant designs.
I believe Jimmy Carter is a decent man, and I’d note that he’s done as much, or more, for his fellow beings after leaving office than he had done while in it (as opposed as his presidency was by the powerful creatures of his day).
People are waking up to these facts, but the challenge is to convince the foxes to vote themselves out of the golden henhouse.
You’re absolutely right. FDR suffered greatly at the hands of his rich ex-friends for what he did re: the New Deal and other humanitarian policies.
It’s looking like JFK got whacked by the CIA Director Allen Dulles because he refused to continue along with the brutal and illegal actions that the US had taken in places like Guatemala and Indonesia in the late 1950s. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/did-allen-dulles-order-the-hit-on-jfk.html. That was a profoundly courageous decision.
I fully grant that Jimmy Carter is a fine person.
I sometimes fail to engage my brain before putting my keyboard in gear. 🙂