Skip to main content

Changing the current structure... or not.


This has been stewing for some time now. It's likely to be stewing for quite a while yet, but I thought I'd at least list the ingredients that are bubbling on the back burner and see what kind of responses I get.

What prompted this was a comment by gjohnsit "What I find interesting is that no one who disagrees with me is coming out and saying, 'So what? I don't believe in changing the current social/economic structure.'" Any resemblance to the original thread is tangential; it was the word structure that kicked my thoughts off. Thanks, gjohnsit.

What started if off was this thread back in January. Well, probably before that, but it was the first time I'd ever tried to put most of it in writing. Please take the time to read it (or not - it's fairly long and rather densely packed), and then follow me below to take a look at various pieces of the puzzle.

A caveat: I am not asserting the following as "truth", only as factors that I am looking at in trying to make sense of the problem. Feel free to go after them - though I would appreciate solid counter-examples. If you have additional items that ought to go into the stew, please propose them.


1. Government is, first and foremost, a means of concentrating power, either for the purposes of the governors, or the purposes of the governed, or both. However a government is constituted, it of necessity channels power into the hands of a minority of the polity. How that minority is chosen, and what processes (if any) act to keep its purposes aligned with those of the majority, constitute most of the variations which can be defined between different systems.

2. Because it represents a concentration of power, positions among the governors will be targeted by those who seek power - for themselves, for the people they represent if they identify sufficiently with them, for the promotion of strongly held ideals or visions of the future. We have no tests which can effectively measure anyone's ability to handle power once they have it, which introduces a wild variable into any selection process.

3. The larger the polity, the less likely it is that any particular candidate for an office will actually be capable of being a true representative of that polity, or any section of that polity. Further, the problems which a government, as an entity, must deal are necessarily going to vary from those problems which are normally encountered by individuals outside the government.

4. Human beings are not angels. Or saints. Or inherently evil. Any attempt to impose a standard of morality on real, live human beings is not only doomed to failure, it is likely to create a public fiction of morality under the guise of which blatant hypocrisy hides itself. Rules of Ethics are, marginally, more productive.

5. We want transparency from our governors, and privacy for the governed. But the case for individual privacy cannot be made unless we are willing to provide it for all individuals, including those to whom we have given power. And nobody wants to tackle both sides of the argument.

6. Governments, corporations and other business entities, trade and professional associations, unions, guilds, extended families, religious institutions, political ideologies, etc., all have as their base purpose to provide at least the possibility of increased security, in the context of an unpredictable future, for their members. It's true whether the organization is nominally conservative or not. Even those organizations that directly promote destabilization do it on the premise that increased stability will, somehow, follow.

7. Long term real solutions, no matter how well presented, are likely to prove useless unless they contain mechanisms to change themselves as the problems they are countering change. The test of a real solution is always after the fact - that it will create new problems during and/or after its implementation. This is probably the best argument for incrementalism.


I don't believe in changing the current social/economic structure. True. In the same way that I don't "believe" in climate change, when there's data to point to that obviates the necessity for belief. The current social/economic structure is changing fairly rapidly on its own, and has been for all the centuries that human beings have gathered in groups large enough to have one.

What I want to see is a structure which gives us (all of us) a better chance of surviving into a very uncertain future. But I don't know that it's compatible with a species that, as a whole, tends to opt for "promise that I, and mine, will survive, and I'll back you". Perhaps what is needed is a government composed of truly solitary individuals; childless, without family ties, without strong commitment to a faith or ideology. Perhaps we need a massively random way of choosing our governing minority, who would not, then, be our direct representatives, and could avoid that particular trap entirely (while bringing up new and different ones).

In the meantime, though, while the pot bubbles on the back burner (and I keep voting to get Democrats elected), I want to see what the current status quo manages to accomplish. Keep in mind, please, that my use of "status quo" includes all the groups who are both pro and anti pretty much everything, rather than being just another term for "corporate oligarchy".

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 05:41:26 PM PDT

  •  what's your point? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, poco, erratic

    seriously. what's your point? because this seems like a bunch of abstract nonsense.  

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:00:37 PM PDT

    •  Well, to some extent it is. The question of what (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IamGumby, Hey338Too, erratic

      kind of government or social system might be the next step in social evolution has been bugging me, off and on, ever since I started commenting in Ray Pensador's diaries and reading all the general comments on the "broken system" we've got.

      This is either the third or the fourth attempt I've made to simply raise questions/points that I haven't seen much considered in diaries here. There's a lot of carping that I'd like to do about the current system, but one of my "things" is not to gripe about something I don't know how to do better. And I certainly don't know how to build a better government.

      So, I'm thinking about it. And I'm inviting other people to share in that thinking, by putting down points of interest and/or concern as they come up. No answers, just questions.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:11:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there's nothing better (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch

        To paraphrase Carlin we elect people that our institutions, families and churches created. This is the best we got. Pass the heroin.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:31:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe, but you'll pardon me if I don't simply (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, erratic, Hey338Too, AJayne

          give up and join you, I'm sure.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:44:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you have no power (0+ / 0-)

            I had this discussion with Ray. Him and his ilk think there's a new paradigm or some other such nonsense that humans can achieve. The Obama Rox crowd buys into the nonsense about voting even though the voters have no power, now the Chamber of Commerce, they have power and they pay good money for it. The Chamber of Commerce outspends every other lobbying group by far.  http://www.opensecrets.org/...

            So your vote is meaningless because the person you elected is being legally corrupted by the money being spent by the Chamber of Commerce.

            I used to think you could make a difference. I went over the ways we could change public opinion, how we could raise money to try and compete for influence, and all the other crap. Now I know better.

            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

            by jbou on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:52:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know that. Nor am I confident that there (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, erratic, Hey338Too, AJayne

              will be a new paradigm that may make a difference, and I certainly don't think it will appear by itself like Athena from the brow of Zeus if we just meditate hard enough.

              But I'm damned if I'm going to quit hunting for alternatives just because other people have given up.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:00:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  call me when things are getting chaotic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erratic

                that's when shit will change. That's the other thing that Ray and I used to go back and forth about the violence that surrounded all the big power shifts that happened in this country. He thought we could do it without getting violent of course he offered no tangible way for it to actually happen but he was convinced it could happen.

                I just hope I'm not too old to defend myself during the violence.

                I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                by jbou on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:05:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  and if the rich keep... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erratic

        up the extreme greed the system will self correct and by self correct I mean the people will get violent and angry and scare the rich into giving up some money.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:36:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Humans and Their Small Scale Cultures Go Back (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, erratic

    a million years or more. So the species has proven a strong survival track record in times of lean and plenty, in heat and cold, dry and wet, war and peace, predators and pests, pretty much everything life can throw at us.

    Civilization however is barely 10,000 years old, and technological civilization is roughly a thousand years old, all of the latter evolving in circumstances of overall vast surpluses.

    Accordingly we've designed our governance focused on individual rights and liberties to maximize individual freedom to develop our surpluses, and to minimize responsibility to society.

    As this civilization collides with global bottlenecks like resource limits and an absolute brick wall of zero atmospheric carbon waste capacity, we could hardly have purposely designed a civilization worse adapted to bringing most of its populations and systems through the unfolding challenges.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure I agree entirely, but I do know that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erratic, Hey338Too, AJayne

      saying it isn't enough. Throughout history, we've been really good at figuring out what to do after something goes haywire. For the first time, possibly, we need to figure out how to do it beforehand (or as much beforehand as we've still got), because the choices afterwards will be much more strictly limited.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 06:42:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think that (5) is open to question, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, erratic

    specifically this:

    But the case for individual privacy cannot be made unless we are willing to provide it for all individuals, including those to whom we have given power.
    The devil would of course be in the details, but in principle I think that a reasonable case could be made for the idea that one of the prices to be paid for power is a loss of privacy.

    On the general issue, I’m a bit pessimistic about the possibility of long-term solutions.  It seems entirely possible that every solution generates a new problem, which then requires a new solution.

    •  Oh, the details get fascinating.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BMScott, Hey338Too, AJayne

      F'rinstance, over all the levels of supposed power, how do you actually estimate real power unless privacy is first dropped for not only a politician, but also his associates, both in and out of government?

      What proximity to or distance from power would trigger the transparency/privacy shift, and how would you know what that distance was, unless there was transparency first?

      I admit to having stated the least threatening case, rather than the most, simply to avoid immediate fury. It's a hell of a potential argument, that I think we really need to have.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 09:29:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've had a hard time formulating... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch

    ... a comment to this diary.  I think there has to be a distinction made between a "government" and the people that comprise it.  I would argue that a government is not "a means of concentrating power", it is more a means to provide services to its citizens and to protect its own viability.  To me, concentration of power is a human "failing" rather than an organizational behavior.

    Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

    by Hey338Too on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:24:53 AM PDT

    •  Government is one of the ways that people come (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too

      together to be able to do things that they would not be able to do as individuals. As individuals, they cede (or lend) a part of their power to the larger entity so that larger things can be accomplished. Like cross-continental roads, pollution monitoring and the creation of both armies and diplomatic corps. That's concentrating power, and it's not an inherently negative thing, nor do I think the ability to do it is a failure of any sort.

      I think that once you have separated any government from the people who comprise it you are on the way to the "replaceable cog" theory of human interaction. (That's a general "you", btw.) It also allows blame for human frailty and malfeasance to be shifted from the individuals responsible to the structure within which they're working.

      I will grant that some structures may be more prone to advance those with a higher capacity for malfeasance, but no system, no matter how well constituted, is ungameable by the players.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I get the sense that the "government"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch

        ... you're referring to is the portion that "changes" based on elections, is that a fair assumption?

        Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

        by Hey338Too on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 01:51:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  More than that, because elections, per se, are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too

          not necessary to the structure of a government. It could as well mean the structure of the nobility in a hereditary kingdom, given the broad brush I used in the original definition.

          In ours, it might include some if not all of the career bureaucrats in various government agencies, who are appointed or simply work their way up into positions of influence; it might include the military and their supporters and suppliers as a linked power center, if not a direct one; all sorts of possibilities.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:03:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So anyone paid to provide a service or an ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch

            ... item could be considered part of the "government"?  

            If a supplier to the military falls within the expanded definition of government should it be nationalized?  Wouldn't that change the social/economic structure alone?

            BTW, I'm not just trying to nit pick here.  Some ideas that I think would help the situation are publicly financed campaigns (to dilute the power of money in politics), eliminating gerrymandering (to prevent permanent majorities in House districts) and increasing the number of Representatives and Senators at the federal level (to dilute the power of the individuals being elected).

            Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

            by Hey338Too on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:46:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not necessarily. I'm not trying to play too many (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too

              games here, though it could seem like it.

              I want to draw a line between the government itself and the rather shadowy web of hangers-on and lobbyists and suppliers and favors due that surrounds it. Granted, that can often be a problem, but there generally is a difference between the people who actually have governmental power and those who are trying to gain influence over them.

              This is an area where the problem of transparency vs privacy/secrecy can be really, really annoying, because as long as "private" individuals (i.e., anyone who is not a member of the government) are not required to be transparent in their dealings, there is not a whole lot that can be done about outside attempts to influence government members, unless they are so blatant as to be immediately recognizable.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:48:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  what problem are we addressing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

    The comment thread that you cite seems to have been on the premise that the government isn't sufficiently responsive to the needs of the working class. According to the General Social Survey, somewhere around 45% of U.S. adults self-identify as belonging to the working class, slightly more than those who self-identify as middle-class. But if working-class is construed to apply to a majority, then the question may be: why doesn't the government govern in the economic interests of the majority?

    To some extent, you seem to be taking up that question and construing it as a problem of representation along these lines: to the extent that government officials are set apart from the rest of us by their drive for power and their economic position, how could we expect them to represent our interests, and what can we do to force them to do so?

    Am I sort of on track so far?

    A whole 'nother line of analysis (complementing the first) would be what people think their interests are. If we did choose members of Congress by lot, what economic policies would they adopt? I pointed out to my students that on average, American National Election Study respondents perceive themselves as somewhere between the Democratic and Republican parties on spending and services (on a seven-point scale from "government should provide many fewer services, reduce spending a lot" to "many more... increase...). In 2012, only about 14% of respondents placed themselves to the left of the Democratic Party.

    Or, to get a bit closer to the idea of a second bill of rights, there's another scale that ranges from "the government should see to a job and a good standard of living" to "the government should let each person get ahead on [his or her] own." Respondents leaned toward the conservative end of that scale; about 18% placed themselves to the left of the Democrats.

    Of course, people's actual or potential economic policy preferences could be a lot more liberal than those questions indicate. I don't think that sort of analysis says much about how far "left" the Democrats could afford to go. But it adds a dimension to the problem of representation.

    "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

    by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:07:55 AM PDT

    •  If there were a track, you'd have been on it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too

      Nothing so coherent, so far. Mostly it's been "these are the points I'd like to see more discussed, in the light of coming up with something more workable than we've got now".

      Whether real representation is ultimately a viable concept for the international functions of government is another question. I think it may be, but there's a question as to how efficient it can be in actually putting together the policies that need to be enacted in order to get the results that the polity may want.

      Your larger questions as to what might be the function of a government in developing economic policies that provide support for people when the concepts of productivity and labor have to be entirely redefined in light of technological advances - yes, that's an additional ball of twine.

      There's another point that I'm not really ready to discuss yet - whether we can actually expect any government which is truly representative to be willing to tackle the real problems of climate change on a scale and in a fashion which can be implemented before there is a disaster.

      Barring a number of technological changes which might mitigate or reverse the situation, it's possible that the necessary course might include some sort of total ban on production and use of carbon based fuels on a global basis. Should we be putting together those real scenarios now, to let people have a better picture of what would change if that had to happen? Could any government, no matter how constituted, actually implement that course publicly without being immediately overturned/voted out of office?

      I'm all for muddling through, but I'd feel better if we had real ways of having these and other discussions without needing to label them Left or Right.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:52:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, that's a third way :) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

        What needs to happen in order to stave off climate calamity, and how (if at all) does "the system" have to change in order for that to happen?

        Let's add that merely staving off climate calamity isn't enough: we care about economic and social justice as well.

        Your frame suggests that citizens at large are an obstacle to addressing climate change because they would be unwilling to bear the costs. Certainly citizens are an obstacle to abolishing the internal combustion engine by 2017, although even at that, I doubt they are the most formidable obstacle. But I think the right-wing captivity of the Republican Party is a more proximate obstacle to substantial progress, and possibly even a more tractable one.

        How to build a better governing system from crooked timber is a fine question. But if we could steer away from the cliff in the meantime, that would be nice.

        "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 12:19:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm. I care about both economic and social (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, HudsonValleyMark

          justice, but if push is allowed to come to shove, survival may trump both.

          Question: how do you present various scenarios of climate change and how they could impact individuals in a way that they would a) be listened to and b) accepted as legitimate? If that could happen, I suspect that citizens at large would be willing, even if grudgingly, to accept the real costs of finding solutions. It will still take at least a generation to make any difference, I suspect, and that means having leaders who are both willing and can afford to take the long view.

          At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

          by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 01:48:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hmm (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

            There's actually a pretty big and often pretty interesting literature on beliefs and communication about climate change. You may enjoy reading some of it.

            My own basic takeaway is that if you give people halfway sane information, most of them form halfway sane opinions about the need for a serious policy response. They aren't necessarily sure what it should be, but hard-core denialism and obstructionism don't seem to be all that common.

            Now, people's attitude toward this tends to be along the lines of "I guess we'll have to take our cod liver oil." They do not typically clamor for the opportunity to do this. Back in 2008, it seemed imaginable that people could actually get excited about the prospect of a job-creating transformation to a greener economy. It's still imaginable, but we've had a long six years.

            But to the extent that public opinion on climate change is really divided, it is largely because Republican political leaders are spouting nonsense, and Republican voters are somewhat reluctant to believe that their leaders would do that (and aren't paying close attention anyway). They aren't interested in hearing Democrats bash their leaders, but most aren't unwilling to hear the facts laid out by people they are inclined to trust, including scientists in general. The Republican war on science, per se, hasn't been all that successful.

            Is it possible to imagine a future in which most Americans realize that a broad scientific consensus on climate change exists? Yes, but we have to understand that some people are heavily invested in preventing that outcome. (I'm not suggesting that concentrated economic and political interests are the only obstacle to getting this right: I don't believe that at all. But certainly they are a very important obstacle.)

            "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:16:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, how then do we present the case to those (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hey338Too

              who are heavily invested in preventing that outcome? Because, at base, they have families, and friends, and colleagues who may be more insulated from the run-up, but will certainly be impacted negatively by the reality.

              Perhaps we need to work on better ways to target the 1% in an information campaign. It would definitely take a different perspective to manage it, but it might be doable.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 06:00:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was wondering about that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                I think a lot of the 1% are already on board, at least latently. Who's buying all those Teslas, anyway? (Obviously the preceding isn't intended as evidence.) Even within the 1%, a concentrated interest tends to beat a diffuse one: plenty of prosperous people and even plutocrats would do just fine in a greener economy, but so far, they haven't organized (at least visibly) to defeat the obstructionists. I think part of the conflict is ideological and not merely economic.

                But I'm not at all sure how to target the 1% (or 0.1%, or...). Having Harvard Business Review write about business responses to climate change was a start, but I don't suppose most of them read HBR.

                "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 06:27:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  and in a different but related vein (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch

            Dan Kahan not-quite-ranting about science communication generally and in the climate change context.

            "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:54:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for that. I've read it, and will need to (0+ / 0-)

              go back and re-read it and dig in to the background a bit more. My brain threw up an "overload" flag while I was reading, which generally means I'm not managing to process the ideas fully and a second or third go-round is going to be necessary.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 06:11:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, he threw a lot in there (0+ / 0-)

                Also, he has been working on some of those ideas for quite a while, so one blog post tends to lead to another.

                "Democracy is a political system for people who are not sure they are right." —E. E. Schattschneider

                by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 06:28:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site