> the civilised world has dug a grave we don't know how to escape from
We do, but politics is a part of reality - in every situation - and needs to be dealt with. Saying 'we'd solve the problem but for the politics' is like a ship captain saying 'I'd sail but for all that water'. The worst tactic for dealing with politics is to say it's somehow static and hopeless, though political opponents love it.
Again, people love to spread despair! In fact, without much thought probably all of us can remember many examples of doing exactly that.
(And even if we had never done it, that is not a barrier.) The only thing we have to fear is despair. We are wealthy, young, capable and powerful; we can accomplish enormous things. No wonder the status quo loves to spread despair - they have no other defense: Imagine if people left behind all that despair and started acting!
Just look at what you are saying - more despair! :) So many people have made themselves into advocates of despair.
Yes, the concept is that simple, and the action needed by you and me is that simple. Just forget all the doubts and just get to work!
(I don't mean to berate you with the exclamation points. I'm excited by the possibilities. LFG! :) )
If you want to grasp how that could happen, it's just people following social norms. The norm is despair: if you are in a meeting and everyone says such-and-such is hopeless, raising your hand and saying otherwise is not only socially hard but a bit transgressive. My hypothesis is that the status quo powers political messaging has pushed despair - after all, what else will preserve the senseless, unpopular status quo (look at climate change!)? It's the only defense they have.
I can't remember the name of the book I read this from so grain of salt/do your own research, but it was on the topic of why farming replaced hunting/gathering/migratory patterns.
One of the reasons mentioned was because despite hunting/gathering generally providing better nutrition (due to the variability in food), farming produced more calories. So the decision became (these number are made up) "we can farm and provide high quantities of poor nutrition to keep all of us alive", vs "we can hunt/gather to keep 75% of in great health, while 25% of the group dies."
Basically once a certain population threshold is reached the group has to enter a cycle of farming -> allows more babies to survive -> farm more. Your comment and this anecdote reminds of the capitalism cycle of consume more -> produce more value -> consume more.
If true, we've been unable to escape this cycle for thousands of years.
> we've been unable to escape this cycle for thousands of years
Modern agriculture produces varied, nutritious and plentiful foodstuffs. It also produces nonsense filler. But it’s simply not correct to claim that we’re stuck in the tradeoff our ancestors made when they settled down to farm.
>But it’s simply not correct to claim that we’re stuck in the tradeoff our ancestors made when they settled down to farm.
I mean we are because if we go back to hunting/gathering billions of people would die.
The point is that that at the time, farming produced worse nutrition, but despite that we couldn't go back once we started. There's a whole lot of other variables today that obviously prevent us from going back to hunting/gathering.
> if we go back to hunting/gathering billions of people would die
And those who survive wouldn’t be much healthier. This isn’t a tradeoff. It’s a net gain. The original tradeoff was a worse but more-stable food supply. Today we can reliably produce nutritious food. No tradeoff.
