[Paleopsych] priorities

[Steve]

Like any large organism, our country has a lot of inertia.

This protects us from chasing after crazy ideas, but
also sets us up for disaster when it keeps us from
making timely decisions.

Over the years I have regretfully concluded that most people 
learn best from feeling the pain of their bad decisions, not from 
being told how to avoid mistakes.

Up until the last few days I had been thinking that Paul 
Werbos was more pessimistic than circumstances
justified.  

But now I am thinking that we are caught up in something 
that may as well be called "The Apocalypse."  Of course,
this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, but just
The End Of The World As We Know It.

I have thought for years that the Elite has concluded that
the current population of the planet cannot be sustained 
and that it cannot be controlled by reducing the birth rate,
which means that it will be controlled by the death rate.

I do believe that they have adopted a policy of picking up
all the marbles they can and pulling up the ladder, leaving
the rest of us to do what we can.

My word to the wise is:  half the personal income in this
country goes to the top 20%.  Find something to sell to them.

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net

-----Original Message-----
From:	Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent:	Monday, September 27, 2004 11:33 AM
To:	paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject:	[Paleopsych] priorities


>>That's pretty alarming stuff, and some people may be
tempted to dismiss Roberts's and Klare's analyses as
anti-Bush, anti-oil rhetoric. But the questions they
raise transcend approval or disapproval of any one
administration, and go to the core of whether any
country can -- purposefully and without vast
disruptions -- make the transition from an economy
dependent on one finite resource to an economy based
on renewable, nonpolluting resources.<<

--I'm beginning to wonder what it takes for people to
prefer a small sacrifice by a lot of people to a large
sacrifice by a designated minority. We won't pay
higher taxes or reduce consumption of finite energy,
because the sacrifice falls on those who enlist in the
military, with a national debt running up from
military spending that falls to later generations.
What would it take for us to prefer a smaller
sacrifice that everyone participates in (i.e. walking
more, driving less, driving more fuel efficient cars,
etc), as opposed to a designated "sacrificial
minority"?

Are problems and solutions just not real to us until
they become a fad in the media? Is it a lack of
compelling visuals rendering powerful verbal warnings
and suggestions "media impotent"? Or are people
consciously unwilling to change their lifestyle, aware
of the sacrififes that fall on others? What do
sociology, psychology and history say about the
shifting of consequences and the tipping point where
greater numbers take responsibility, prodded by
escalating consequences for mass behavior?

Michael 








		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych