[ralfy]

Capitalism is ultimately dependent on consumerism.

[dohboi]

Sounds like a chicken-and-egg type of thing to me.

[americandream]

There were actually elements of limited democracy in some times and places in feudalism. Perhaps, though, we can come up with better forms of governance, perhaps forms not imagined yet?

Feudalism is also resource based (land) hence the rise of capitalism in peak land medieval Europe. It will also have limited tenure. The only option is a return to the commons.

[dohboi]

bbbbbut that would be common-ism!!

[americandream]

bbbbbut that would be common-ism!!

Much of mankinds time on the planet has been spent in socialised relations. I guess it has its time as did capitalism.

[radon1]

Do any of you see the possibility that the immediate generations to follow who will go through some severe consequences of constraints might well implement, out of necessity, some strong regulations regarding consumption for the greater good. Preserving a "free market" perhaps but the "freedom" part held within some real strict boundaries justified by preserving the commons; air, soil, biodiversity, resources. Is this wishful thinking?

The very fact that these sorts of questions are being systematically asked is certainly encouraging. This is not the first time a civilization approaches its limits - a number of examples from Easter Island to Romans to others have been discussed on these pages. But this is the first time that a civilisation does recognise these limits, and consiously raises awareness of the related ecological issues. The history does not seem to have any record of similar discussions back at the Roman times or elsewhere in the past.

This development of the awareness of ecological issues at the level of the society may be similar to the development of the medical science at the level of individual. Nowadays, a patient follows carefully the advise of the doctor who says that the patient must restrain themselves from overload or excesses before full recovery from a sickness takes place. Previously, no such restraint was practiced simply because the medical science was not developed enough, and as a result people lived less.

Also, as some mentioned, the prolifiration of the ecological awareness is particularly pronounced in the "developed" world. This is also an encouraging sign, because this is the developed world who have to lead the cultural change in order for this change to be effective.

So, while there are all the reasons around us for us to remain sceptical, these encouraging signs indicate that the situation is definetely not hopeless.

[dohboi]

Thanks, radon. But do you think proclamations for ecological consciousness is much more than a facade or fashion statement for much of the developed world?

What specific trends or movements do you see as most real and hopeful?

[careinke]

Thanks, radon. But do you think proclamations for ecological consciousness is much more than a facade or fashion statement for much of the developed world?

What specific trends or movements do you see as most real and hopeful?

Obviously I'm not radon, but... I would say organic agriculture, the ANTI GMO and use lots more pesticide movement, Transition Towns, Eat Local, Permaculture, and the ELF to name a few...

Not enough, but you start where you are...

[radon1]

Thanks, radon. But do you think proclamations for ecological consciousness is much more than a facade or fashion statement for much of the developed world?

What specific trends or movements do you see as most real and hopeful?

Obviously I'm not radon, but... I would say organic agriculture, the ANTI GMO and use lots more pesticide movement, Transition Towns, Eat Local, Permaculture, and the ELF to name a few...

Not enough, but you start where you are...

All these and others. Not states/governments in their current form, perhaps, as it is difficult to expect a cultural change from the people who have built their own careers within the current paradigm. Even though they may be helpful, and standards of governance do differ from place to place.

Would also mention again that unless you are content with a drop in the living standards of a fundamental nature and never-ending working hours, the response has to be global, or at least continent-wide.

[dohboi]

I agree that it must be a global response.

But as for "drop in the living standards of a fundamental nature"; I'm not sure exactly what that means. Universal health basic health care and high-quality education could be supplied at fairly low prices and would greatly boost many people's standard of living.

A big decrease in meat and dairy consumption and a big increase in how much of our transportation is done by foot/pedal power may seem like a lowering of standard of living to some, but will also bring many physical and mental health benefits.

As for working endless hours, most people doing that now are doing so to pay of bills from unscrupulous lenders that should be forgiven.

But I'm probably missing your point here, somehow?

[radon1]

But as for "drop in the living standards of a fundamental nature"; I'm not sure exactly what that means.

Was directed at localization aspirations. A 3000-odd eco-town aspiring to become a closed self-reproducing economy would have to slide to the living standards which this population size could afford once wear and tear eats in. That is, the living standards of an archaic tribe or slightly above.

Localization to the level of several dozen million people (i.e. "bye-bye China") would result in the living standards dropping to the level of the big European countries of pre-WWII times, at best. And so on.

[ennui2]

Universal health basic health care and high-quality education could be supplied at fairly low prices and would greatly boost many people's standard of living.

If you're talking "basic" health care like immunizations and preventative medicine, fine, but if you want to handle the sorts of things most responsible for keeping people alive these days, open-heart surgery, cancer treatment, transplants, then that is really expensive, and it will be the first to go, which will in turn increase the death-rate.

[dohboi]

IIRC, 80-90% of medical expenses are incurred in the last 6 months of life, on average, in the US.

That seems an enormous expense for very little 'value,' and it should change.

[Ibon]

IIRC, 80-90% of medical expenses are incurred in the last 6 months of life, on average, in the US.

That seems an enormous expense for very little 'value,' and it should change.

I witnessed this with my dad and I witnessed this just now again with a friends mother who had terminal cancer and in spite of her cancer having spread all over her body they kept up these insane invasive surgeries and patching her up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars way into the time when the doctors had to know that she was no longer going to recover. This was all to extend her life for a few months connected to intravenous tubes and machines.

Why not intervene with hospice, stop the intravenous and let these folks go with dignity when the point arrives that recovery is no longer possible.

Is this just the ethical and moral challenge of when to pull the plug or is there some conniving going on to milk milk milk the patient at the end to invoice invoice invoice????

This seems so inhuman for the patient.

I am determined to let the armadillos, vultures and mountain lions feed on me along with the worms and return to the web of life far far far away from any Fking hospital

[dohboi]

Sorry to hear about you hand yours had to go through that, and of course for your losses. But this mania to keep the pulse going no matter what really does degrade the whole experience.

It does often more resemble torture than anything truly life affirming.

"I am determined to let the armadillos, vultures and mountain lions feed on me along with the worms and return to the web of life far far far away from any Fking hospital"

I have long considered that a kind of blessed death. I confess, though, that I hadn't thought about armadillos gnawing my hide. Maybe weasels!?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=i ... 9866502628

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TcfL84Kgqc

On a related note, have you heard about or read this recent article in the Atlantic?:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... 75/379329/

Why I Hope to Die at 75

An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly

“I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and ...destructive.”

[Ibon]

I sure don't want frank zappa in the background as the armadillos are gnawing at me!

The Atlantic article is very true but I have to tell a story.

I had a friend in Seattle whose father was a doctor whose life work was perfecting a cocktail drug that was for euthanasia. A painless cocktail that first put you gently to sleep and then you passed away. He was a professor at UCLA at Berkeley. My friend told me his dad kept this formula, that was never commercialized (obviously) in his medicine cabinet and when his dad grew old he started developing Alzheimers and he told his son he would take the formula before he got too far into his disease.

What ended up happening is that at some point he forgot he had the formula and he never took it and he died in an institution. You would think that if there was one person who would have willfully taken that formula it would have been the guy who perfected it. And he didn't.

My friend whose mother passed recently told me that we all come from the arrogance of still being young and healthy when we proclaim, like the guy in the Atlantic article, that you will pull the plug, take the formula, let the armadillos eat you etc. but when that moment clearly arrives you hold on. Only the very very determined can muster the courage to actually let go.

We are not salmon going upstream to spawn as our bodies trigger decay and death.

If there would be one area I would support genetic engineering it would be to put that Salmon gene in all humans and have it trigger at 75 as that guy suggests!!!

It would do our species a lot of good. No more doubt about when you would go. You could spend the last couple of years totally in the moment enjoying your life and loved ones and have a grand celebration one week before the gene kicked in.

Wouldn't that be an improvement ????????????????

[dohboi]

My God, I suddenly had an image of thousands of septuagenarians leaping up water falls, then convulsing in orgies in shallow streamlets...

Thanks for that...or not...

All you say is true, but I do think it's important to start having these conversations as a society, so it becomes normalized to think about avoiding strenuous efforts to extend and already superannuated life.

And I'm not sure you really have to go to euthanasia, in the sense of actively dosing someone with a lethal cocktail. Simply allowing natural ailments to take their course rather than intervening heroically would do it in most cases. I would actually call that one means of honoring the OP!

[Ibon]

My God, I suddenly had an image of thousands of septuagenarians leaping up water falls, then convulsing in orgies in shallow streamlets...

Thanks for that...or not...

All you say is true, but I do think it's important to start having these conversations as a society, so it becomes normalized to think about avoiding strenuous efforts to extend and already superannuated life.

And I'm not sure you really have to go to euthanasia, in the sense of actively dosing someone with a lethal cocktail. Simply allowing natural ailments to take their course rather than intervening heroically would do it in most cases. I would actually call that one means of honoring the OP!

I laughed at your vision. Would be a great cartoon short story, some mad scientist who planted the gene in humans and then all these oldsters jumping up waterfalls and convulsing on the shore. Maybe grizzlies coming down and taking a few nibbles.

Anyway, a kind of unspoken euthanasia is already happening in hospices when larger and larger dosis of morphine is given to terminally ill cancer patients in acute pain toward the very end. And why not?
Defining what is right for each patient is of course not easy. Family members who have been struggling providing care for the terminally ill that sometimes drags on for months DESERVE to have euthanasia administered as well. This is not just about the patient but also the loved ones caring for them.

That is often brought up as a reason against euthanasia but I see it as a defense of euthanasia. How many of you have known friends and family that have helped the terminally ill hang on for months between hospital surgeries and returning home and having to empty bed pans and colostomy bags and carrying the dying day after day 24/7 through each of their life's activities from dawn to dusk. If you have spoken to folks that have gone through this you will appreciate the absolute extreme level of exhaustion. Why not spare them as well and why is this not a criteria for administering euthanasia together with the state of the terminal ill patient.

[dohboi]

"Family members who have been struggling providing care for the terminally ill that sometimes drags on for months DESERVE to have euthanasia administered as well."

Wow, so you don't want to stop at the oldster--you want euthanize the whole family, now!! Are you sure you are not MonteQuest come back from whatever purgatory he now resides in?

Seriously, though, that point was floating through my brain even as I wrote about it. (I also thought about grizzlies taking swipes at leaping oldsters, but decided to leave that one for you to bring up. I should point out that I speak as a near-oldster myself with many near and dear even closer to or deep within that category.)

My great-great-grandfather was a beloved country doctor, and family stories preserve discussions of premature and deformed babies being quietly put to death, the parents being told that it was a still birth or that the child died shortly after birth, both of which were common anyway. So besides morphine for the elderly, there is a tradition of euthanasia of children.

As so many other places, our technology has allowed us power to do things that are often more wisely left undone, in this case to preserve many that in other circumstances would have been let go.

My wife, who recently lost a mother and came close going into hospice care as a profession as a result, noted that this is another case where we have mistaken quantity for quality.

[Cog]

Most people are not going to munch their granola and do back-packing into the more remote parts of the NPS. But those areas are there and protected largely due to the soccer moms and dads who are able to access the parks by vehicle to see some of the natural beauty contained within. Its a balance, but one that the NPS has done a fairly good job of maintaining.