sell the future

Why is it that we can’t sell a better tomorrow than the one being pushed by the feds?

You can reduce a true and good future into soundbites that are palatable, sell people on direct action that will do more good than all the bombs dropped on afganastan.

What’s the difference between us and the people seven hundred years ago? They lived on functionally the same earth. Why didn’t they have planes? Why didn’t they have acces to *basic hygeine*?

Some of our cultural space required material preconditions to be developed.

Most of it required mental preconditions. You could restrict yourself to medieval technology and still get a *much* better standard of living than they managed.

The only thing between us and eudaimonia is ourselves- we produce enough for everyone on earth to get by comfortably.

It’s time we stopped playing like people in a finite game. It’s time we recognize that enough is a feast.

In 2050 there’ll be about ten billion people. What world will those ten billion people live in? What good challenges will they face?

What steps will people be taking today, as individuals, that make that world a wonderful one to live in, and not one of violence, privation, and plague?

It’s not that hard, really. We’ve got enough of everything now, albeit concentrated; the trick is getting it to everyone by then.

We just have to sell people on doing what it takes to make that happen.

2 thoughts on “sell the future

  1. Subject: Re: Goals
    I think perhaps you have to sell people on the idea that what they do *can* make it happen rather than the idea that they have to do what it takes to make it happen. Without amazing self-sacrifice, contributions on an individual level will be hard to understand as having much consequence. So, unless you have a master plan the likes of which the rest of us haven’t seen, it becomes about bits and pieces. How much time should each person dedicate to improving justice in the world, if the issue is in fact just distribution of concentrated resources?
    Anyway, is thought enough to evoke change? Does thought count as action? Not to get too Hamlet here, but I don’t think thought accomplishes enough. You really need to kill Claudius. You might have to do it slowly.
    That said, what actions do you suggest we take to make “it” happen? What actions do you take? (It’s not a challenge, it’s curiousity – what doing do you see as having value?)
    Lastly, I don’t get the eudaimonia comment, especially not after looking up the word. Possibly I don’t get any of it…

  2. Subject: Re: Goals
    I don’t know what actions we should take. I personally feel like the development of organisms that create molecules and structures will allow the more rapid distribution of material resources.

    i.e. if people can more-or-less grow what they need then you can skip distribution of everything save ‘seed stock’ and directions.

    Rather obscure way of going about it. I guess there are some more direct approaches but over the weeks since I wrote this piece I’ve decided to accept that my greatest impact won’t be in helping people, but in building tools that people can use to help themselves.

    Eudamonia – the point is that the only thing between a society completely structured around allowing people to reach their fullest development and what we have now is us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s