Canadian climate change opinion is polarized, and research shows the divide is widening. The greatest predictor of people's outlook is political affiliation. This means people's climate change perceptions are being increasingly driven by divisive political agendas rather than science and concern for our collective welfare - writes David Suzuki in Rabble.ca.
We are addicted to the mirror myths of our selves, and our addictions are sending our planet to hell. Addictions to fossil fuel, alcohol, drugs and power.
I saw a post somewhere that said it looks like our planet is a giant mental health ward where the staff are silenced or have left.
There are about 200,000 nurses registered, almost 5,000 psychiatrists, just under 15,000 veterinarians and thousands of teachers, in Canada. Add to this the people who have invested their time in healing arts and sciences.
How many people are trained to fix our cars, drive our buses, clean our schools and hospitals, fight fires, police the streets, plan our cities, and volunteer at community services.
Think of all the labour that goes into the care and nurture of this country. How many people work for the common good? How much energy and effort does it take to keep our country running even without the special skills of our top leaders?
Why is the news exclusively about the rich and famous or the bleeding and damned? It's evident in these narratives that celebrity breeds sociopathic behaviours. Why are we so impressed with their power no matter how harmful and stupid it is?
Why is analysis about the state of our world so dismissive of integral intelligence? What does power actually create in our society? Is it protection, comfort, food and warmth? Or violence and fear? Why is community activity portrayed as dependant upon the market?
Who is it that insists the sum of human activity is not worth paying attention to unless it creates money or rises to the top?
Why is the news exclusively about the rich and famous or the bleeding and damned? It's evident in these narratives that celebrity breeds sociopathic behaviours. Why are we so impressed with their power no matter how harmful and stupid it is?
Why is analysis about the state of our world so dismissive of integral intelligence? What does power actually create in our society? Is it protection, comfort, food and warmth? Or violence and fear? Why is community activity portrayed as dependant upon the market?
Who is it that insists the sum of human activity is not worth paying attention to unless it creates money or rises to the top?
To answer this we must look at the ways we have been played, who has benefitted and who pays for it.
Dear Janet Vickers: Your blog is absolutely on target. Just today, I received my daily poem from The Poetry Foundation. This poem was written by Elizabeth I. Here it is : The Doubt of Future Foes
ReplyDeleteBY QUEEN ELIZABETH I
The doubt of future foes exiles my present joy,
And wit me warns to shun such snares as threaten mine annoy;
For falsehood now doth flow, and subjects’ faith doth ebb,
Which should not be if reason ruled or wisdom weaved the web.
But clouds of joys untried do cloak aspiring minds,
Which turn to rain of late repent by changed course of winds.
The top of hope supposed the root upreared shall be,
And fruitless all their grafted guile, as shortly ye shall see.
The dazzled eyes with pride, which great ambition blinds,
Shall be unsealed by worthy wights whose foresight falsehood finds.
The daughter of debate that discord aye doth sow
Shall reap no gain where former rule still peace hath taught to know.
No foreign banished wight shall anchor in this port;
Our realm brooks not seditious sects, let them elsewhere resort.
My rusty sword through rest shall first his edge employ
To poll their tops that seek such change or gape for future joy.
Although Eliz. I was diplomatically 'criticized' outside of her castle walls by those who had other ideas of power, she took care of her country. She did not perform 'backroom deals', ( as far as we know). Her private pirates ( given aristocratic titles for their plundering 'new world' countries would not be acceptable behavior nor would their treatment of their own sailors in our society. Having said that, I believe that aristocrats of that time were those who set in motion the whole practice of international 'free trade'. Although i do have mixed feelings about the manner in which 'free trade' is practiced, I believe through promotion of more democratic approaches, negotiation with underdeveloped countries, listening to their concerns and ideas, then mediation and consensus on the desire to make benefits from deals and profits equal for each and every country involved, we will have the kind of democracy internationally which the UN has always tried to achieve.
While it is not that way at the moment, I keep hoping, despite the rise of extreme right wing politicians, that deep and realistic 'common sense' will prevail. I just hope that at my age of 74, I'm not living in 'LaLa Land."