What gave you the impression that I did?
Because that is the "natural" conclusion of a "no-impact" socio-cultural model. This ties in with a later comment / thought, so I will pick it up there.**
I can appreciate that. I also take strong exception to many things that I feel that "the system" is trying to cram down my throat, as you've probably gathered. Our situations are a bit different, perhaps, causing us to perceive things from different angles, but we probably have a few things in common as well. Since you've shared a little about yourself, here's a little about me: I was born into middle-class affluence, taught to (or somehow learned that I was supposed to) work hard and mechanically for forty hours a week or more for a salary and benefits, and I was given a college education. College was disappointing and not a good fit for me, as I felt that the whole affair was very disorienting and even overwhelming: pressure to choose a major which would then define me for the rest of my life, pressure to decide on a career which would define me, pressure to fit myself as a cog into the system, which is always being streamlined and which is alien, mechanical, and inhuman. It's rhythms perplex, stress, and sicken me--literally, it makes me sick. PM if you'd like more details. I've had various jobs in the years since college, but I've never made over 25k a year, nor do I have a desire to earn much money. Last year, my and my wife's combined income was less than 30k.
We all have our own unique perspectives, I think this highlights how we value things. I was denied a college education at the traditional age, it was the era of the Bakke case and social promotion. I came to college as a non-traditional student in my '40's and savored every moment. I have worked a number of different jobs or careers before injury and disability limited me to a desk, and my already well established diverse interests carried me through an otherwise white bread degree with flying colors. I saw and see my sheep skin as a means to an end, not the end in itself, although to this point it has failed miserably to live up to the hype. The hype I hear Obama, H. Clinton and others extoll, how the earning power of those with a college degree is manifold times that of those without a college degree. Funny, I'm still in the exact same desk jockey position I was in before I even started my degree, despite having completed a 4 year degree in 3 years and graduating Summa *** Laude. In other words, I have yet to see a tangible return on my 24 thousand dollar student loan investment. So yeah, I'm just a little bitter on the whole "higher education" propaganda. And the ADA civil rights legislation isn't worth much either, disabled people are actively discriminated against on a routine basis. Nevermind the complications of reverse discrimination.
the human necessities of "family, love, life" are important and grossly neglected in our culture.
I'm not sure I would say "neglected," I am thinking that our priorities are out of whack. We still value family, love and life, and other things that are truly important, but in the mix somehow is things like money and the "keep up with the Joneses" mentality, things that are either less important or non existent in other cultures.
The problem is systemic, and the roots are deep,
Well, yes, but...this "problem" is inherent when speaking of cultures. It's about like blaming the wind for being invisible.
the injustices inherent in the global system of economics as practiced guarantee impoverishment and ill-health for most. The way out of that is not going to be a massive initiative on the part of individuals to work their way to the top; such individualistic thinking keeps us all divided and works to perpetuate inequality. Advertising and industry drive consumerism and individualism, and in turn, individualism and consumerism feed industry and advertsing, yet none of it is satisfying: none of it provides those life-affirming connections that we are after: family, love, and the propagation, promotion, and nurturance of life in all of its forms.
On some level I agree with you, and yet as a Business major I feel compelled to disagree. Like I said earlier, I believe we still have these family values, they just tend to get re-ordered and some ersatz "values" get thrown into the mix. When asked, I doubt many people would say they would buy recreational drugs instead of dote on their child (for example), but in practice there are those few people that do manage to confuse the order of priority, as evidenced by the occasional misguided parent who manages to get sentenced for child neglect.
I do find myself lately wondering if my continued participation in all of this rat race BS is really worth the effort. My frustration with my college experience is symptomatic of what I am pointing to. But the alternative is to be on some type of public relief (specifically, SSDI aka "disability," been there, done that and worked my way back off). As meager and bleak as things might appear to me now in my fitful moments of depression, resources were a lot more scarce before. Having to rely on this aid agency for this and that charitable agency for that and hoping and praying that resources were available for some other minor catastrophy. I realize these things are there for those people who are truly in need, and I have also seen how it becomes a way of life for some people to scam the system. People who are already going through the indignities of poverty are deliberately put through further indignities as the system makes it difficult in order to discourage those who are outside the remit of the system's charter. Thresholds are purposely impossible (I think you will find that less than 25K a year for two adults is inside the upper limits of what is classed as "poverty," yet most of the thresholds for any form of financial assistance are significantly lower still). Which means there is a wide gray area in which people fall through the cracks routinely, and a working-poor chasm across which it is darn near impossible to cross.
Yet the "American Dream" is dangled out there like some carrot at the end of a stick. It's hard to look around and see others enjoying the "good life" and not want a piece of it too. I'm not talking about the impossibly fantastic fairy tale dreams of movie star mansions; I'm talking about a decent sized, reasonably constructed house in a decent neighborhood with a decent school and a reasonalbe expectation to participate in those events and opportunities that make this culture worthwhile. And it *is* worthwhile, guaging by all the immigration of foreign nationals with a work ethic that allows them to create small businesses that allow them a healthy taste of the American Dream. What's wrong with this picture?
It seems like unless one is willing to bite off a good sized piece of entrepreneurial risk, the typical American is denied the American Dream not by fate or decree so much as the tendency to risk aversion and complacency. Ever the caveats, I am of course speaking in general by my observations.
I'm not calling for a socialist or anarchist revolution; nor am I advocating for people to become primatives and sleep on dirt floors. What I want is for people to see the economics of exploitation for what they are, and to be aware of and open to other, more wholesome, healthy, and satisfying modes of being. I am pointing to the economic imperialism and, yes, the racism and ethnocentrism which we are all indoctrinated into early on in our lives, and which is ongoing through education, models of work and play, advertising, consumerism, and competitive individualism. Such indoctrination programs and divides us, starting at birth.
** From where I sit the exploitation, etc is merely a matter of degree and method.
OK, so the history of free market economics and capitalism are spelled out and sealed as to the devil that it is, let's say for the sake of discussion.
What is the alternative? Let's start with housing, an arbitrary start I agree, but we need to begin somewhere. We can't build balloon frame wood houses because we have to cut down trees for that (nevermind that the trees are farmed for that purpose, so there really isn't any "loss" of trees, per se, because any responsible lumber company will replant the land they cut, as most do). We can't use concrete to build, that requires various stone products (limestone) and large amounts of heat / energy. We can't use steel or metal products for much the same reason, plus the mining activities. We can't use glass products or plastic products or any artificial man-made products because the manufacturing processes (ab)use too many resources. What does that leave us to build houses with? Mud, or animal skins. Of course, the animal skins are the by-product of slaughter activities for food, and if you happen to be vegan, I guess the available building materials are even more limited. Can't have a wood floor, that would require consuming trees. Can't have a concrete floor, that would require mining, consuming stone products and energy. Any other fabricated flooring would require consumption of materials; impacting on environment, ecosystem and the natural order...except dirt. Dirt is the most "green," environmentally sustainable material for flooring. Dirt has served tribal "matriarchal" cultures well for many thousands of years quite well as a flooring material. I'm not sure what the aversion to it is, it is the most "natural" flooring option.
Can't have indoor plumbing, it would consume resources. Can't have indoor electrical wiring, that would consume resources. Can't have glass windows, that would consume resources.
Cooking would have to be done on an open fire, and even fire requires the consumption of resources. But any other method (fireplace, grill, oven, etc.) requires further consumption of resources (brick, concrete, etc.).
Can't corral cattle...fencing requires resources. So any flesh food source will require being wild caught. Can't use metal implements...no guns, no ammo, no metal arrowheads. Stone will have to be chipped, knapped and formed into usable tools (arrowheads, knives, scrapers, etc.).
Gee, the more I look at this and try to move away from a manufacturing economy to a "sustainable, green" economy, particularly if we wish to insert a matriarchal disposition, it looks more and more to me like we would be retreating to a prehistoric frame of mind. Might be less stressful regarding the "rat race" issues. Seems to me there would be other stressors...where is tonight's dinner coming from? what is this disease process going on that I've not experienced before? where can I take a dump without poisoning my water or my food? how will I make it through the winter without impacting my environment?
In short, I think there is a great deal of romanticism that surrounds the issue altogether. I agree there is a tendency to extreme (people are famous for that tendency!), and I think we fool ourselves thinking nuclear power is somehow a "green" technology. There are limits, even when distancing from a tribal mentality. But moving backwards isn't going to solve the issues confronting humanity. A romaniticized idealism isn't geared to address issues of overpopulation, housing, food production, energy consumption and such in any more than a wishful manner.
There's no reason for all of this fierce competition that capitalism promotes as normal or "human nature". We could all act like human beings and not greedy sub-humans. The idea that the extinction of cultures and murderous competition for resources is any way related to evolution and survival is completely fallacious. The same competition and exploitation of land that any form of imperial aggression have promoted as natural, healthy, and even the will of God, are exactly what have led to the crises of global proportions.
I agree there is an element of eugenics seemingly, but socio-cultural structures are commonly described in evolutionary terminology. Another one of those "reading too much into the label" things, I suspect.
Russell Means offers an alternative view of our own history, some constructive criticism, and some heartfelt opinions, as well as a bit of advice rooted in Lakota culture as he understands it. Why it is so threatening, I cannot understand.
I don't find Means' position threatening. I find it misguided. Shawn said it well, I think there is a bit of romanticism for days gone by and albeit Means presents from his Lakota perspective, that does not imply any "superiority" or "advantage" exists because of being Lakota, Native American, matriarchal, "green," or whatever other label is used.
Benefit would need to be demonstrable, and would have to address (in a peaceful manner) the issues that face a world staring at a population of 7 billion unique human beings and counting.
