I just saw a headline about oil prices falling "on nagging energy demand worries."
Are they kidding me? Maybe if your vision of the future includes about the next three months, because I have a lot of trouble imagining how the ten billion people on this planet aren't going to want a bunch of energy over the coming years. There's plenty of demand for energy.
As far as I'm concerned, a slight reduction in the sense of entitlement to luxury would serve the American public well.
Wouldn't it be great if people were able to learn to live with a bit less luxury, and the corresponding reduction in environment-changing waste?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Peace
Wouldn't it be great if we could find other ways to solve problems than to kill each other?
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Of course many who are motivated to kill, do so precisely because they feel there is no other choice. But wouldn't it be great if we could find other options?
Israel is invading Gaza and warning of escalation. Hamas retaliates the only way they know how. And in the middle are people dying. Wouldn't it be great if there were another way?
I am not debating the practical efficacy of violence--but there are many who do. There are many who would say that violence does solve problems; there are also many, though fewer, I imagine, who would say that violence breeds problems.
We can view problems in many different ways. Is the problem the immediate threat of one individual or one nation? Or is the problem the pattern that creates a new problem in the course of resolving the old pattern?
There is no abstract logical foundation for either choice of framing--to some extent both framings have validity and one chooses between them on the basis of assessments of probability. Such decisions are tied into the most fundamental ways we see the world.
If we can see that, then we can also see that we have to make a choice: what values do we wish to espouse? What outcomes would we most like?
The choice to focus on paths to peace is centered on the desire for an alternative to violence--only by believing beforehand that violence is not an acceptable or efficacious solution--does it make sense to seek alternatives. We have to believe that peace is really important to provide the foundation for actions that will promote peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
