On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:43:30 Eugen Leitl <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<br>> > > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making.<br>> > > So if we want to make it happen, we can.
<br><br>Eli replied:<br>> > Do you really believe that?<br><br>Eugen wrote:<br>> I certainly believe that if you can destroy value to the tune<br>> of more than a terabuck (and counting) that that value was<br>
> expendable, by definition. (Whether there's considerably more<br>> where that came from is an open question).<br><br>Sorry I didn't make myself clear, or maybe I did not understand your point completely. I was hung up on the word __we__. I have no doubt there are more than enough resources in the world to "make it happen" (I assume we both mean "a society based on sustainable development principles"). What I wanted to say is that __we__ - you and I, individuals - do not have the power to let's say stop worldwide frivolous war-making or burning dead dino remains. We can only influence the decision makers through lobbying groups etc. But the bottom line is that __we__ do not make the final decisions, hence __we__ cannot simply/directly make it happen.
<br><br>> > If so, _how_ do we make it happen?<br>> <br>> A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking<br>> things and start spending terabucks on making things.<br><br>I am not personally investing money in breaking things and I doubt you or anyone on this list recently bought a WMD as a living room decoration. But only recently my government made some weapon purchases/sales, with my hard earned tax money, without my explicit approval. So, how do I stop my elected officials in spending my money on things I do not want? (and I did not even vote for them!!!)
<br><br><br>> > I believe the right question to ask is: How do we ensure the discontinuation of current practices will bring about more benefits for the decision makers (resources, power, etc.) than simply continuing the dead dino burning extravaganza.
<br>> <br>> Too rational. People first have to want things, and that then things<br>> start to move, and only then do benefits materialize (or fail to).<br><br>Yes, I agree. And what do people ( __we__ ) want? Or better said - what do the decision makers want? What I am saying is that perhaps they are currently getting more benefits by burning readily available prehistoric cow poo then what they think they would get by building a hydrogen economy.
<br><br>> > Mind, the motivation doesn't have to be only positive reinforcement -<br>> > if the decision makers see they are losing on the polls or their<br>> <br>> A lot more accountability is in order. Unfortunately, currently people
<br>> are politically apathetic, and that's one of the reasons some of them<br>> can get away with breaking things to the tune of more than a terabuck.<br><br>I completely agree.<br><br>Eli<br>