Not just something I pulled out of my ...

[FrankGSterleJr]

In one message I posted approximately three weeks ago (which was deleted by the forum powers that be), I made reference to currently-campaigning Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who's fairly known in much of Canada for his occasionally ridiculous econo-euphoric over-enthusiasm towards the creation of jobs in Canada or for Canadians out-of-country (in fact, in a few interviews I watched/read over the years he even came across as being strangely excited at the prospect of job creation in any nation, anywhere).
Don’t be mistaken: economists—or at least the students of such with whom I attended one college semester—can behave far too enthusiastically about the money-sport-monitoring profession, sometimes as though they were artificially intoxicated (though I knew they were not). While they absurdly placed the economy at the top of their ladder of importance, they placed the health of the environment at the bottom—and I can imagine they felt especially so during a provincial or federal election campaign.
What they very much appeared to be idolizing, i.e. the economy in its entirety, they bizarrely made multiple references to via their discussions as though the economy was an actual thing (to closely paraphrase scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki). From my perspective, the existence of the economy as an actual thing is somewhat comparable to time being referred to as an actual thing, the latter basically being utilized by humans as a form of reference to what we know as matter and energy in arrow’s-time motion. The economy can’t be allowed to rule the day and especially not the quality of the air and water we need without exception to survive.
Thus I took the initiative in sardonically suggesting that he “experiences multiple orgasms” at just learning of such econo-euphoria-inducing job-creation news, amongst other such economic-growth related treats for the intrinsically money-minded.
But to be perfectly clear, I did not say nor intend to at all imply that anything auto-erotic, in any form, occurred between the said econo-uphoria and multiple orgasms on anyone’s part, let alone on the part of PM Harper. Regardless of how his anti-eco-system (non)policies greatly anger me I’m not about to go that far into plainly perverse claims about any politician (unless, of course, he’s in fact been caught doing something along the lines of the Pee-wee-Herman thing back in 1991).
The post was entirely compelled by my significant frustrations with Harper and Party’s overall economic-growth-at-all-cost mentality and, far more worrisome, brain-donor practise. Without properly functioning eco-systems and environmental stability—most notable being the air and water we consume—economic/job growth essentially means nothing. What part of that simple fact do Harper and Party not understand?
You can have a healthy planet without an economy and job growth, but there’s definitely no economy whatsoever without a livable planetary environment.

Frank Sterle Jr

[Skip]

Thanks for that graphic image. Not one I could ever have come up with on my own.
Now, how do I scrub it off my mind?

I agree about the other stuff.

[bobevenson]

You can have a healthy planet without an economy and job growth, but there’s definitely no economy whatsoever without a livable planetary environment.

You can have the planet Earth that existed thousands of years ago, with no economy and everybody living off the land at a subsistence level and dying before the age of 30; or you can have today's four billion inhabitants who are far better off than those living thousands of years ago, and living in an environment with a number of problems that are being addressed, but still quite livable. I think most people would prefer living in today's world.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You can have a healthy planet without an economy and job growth, but there’s definitely no economy whatsoever without a livable planetary environment.

You can have the planet Earth that existed thousands of years ago, with no economy and everybody living off the land at a subsistence level and dying before the age of 30; or you can have today's four billion inhabitants who are far better off than those living thousands of years ago, and living in an environment with a number of problems that are being addressed, but still quite livable. I think most people would prefer living in today's world.

You're way behind the times. The population is over 7 billion and climbing.

[Lacewing]

Hey Frank... the title of this topic has to be one of the best topic titles of all time. It applies to almost everything we say.

I don't know anything about the issue you've spoken of... beyond what you've said... but I can surely see the logic that all is for naught if there's no environment in which to do it in. Great civilizations have crumbled before due to their self-over-environment mistakes. This is about the scope of our awareness as we choose our priorities. I frequently use the explanation of people being "intoxicated" with one thing or another... and I think that applies here too. Very intoxicated people lack clarity and balance in their judgment calls... and they CANNOT be reasoned with. They're "high" on whatever it is that is getting them "off". I can understand your sexual references, and I think they're appropriate as a description too. People really go out of their minds when they get so spun up and addicted to the release of whatever gets them off. Yes, we are just a bunch of intoxicated masturbators... that's what we are. I just wanted to say that.

I don't know how to get through to people in that state. Direct engagement with intoxication seems pointless. Rather, a completely different approach is needed to somehow shift the tide AROUND them. The environment is gaining more focus gradually... and I imagine as things start crumbling as a result of our neglect, the focus will clarify very quickly. It shouldn't have to get to that point... but evidently that's who we are right now.

[bobevenson]

You can have a healthy planet without an economy and job growth, but there’s definitely no economy whatsoever without a livable planetary environment.

You can have the planet Earth that existed thousands of years ago, with no economy and everybody living off the land at a subsistence level and dying before the age of 30; or you can have today's four billion inhabitants who are far better off than those living thousands of years ago, and living in an environment with a number of problems that are being addressed, but still quite livable. I think most people would prefer living in today's world.

You're way behind the times. The population is over 7 billion and climbing.

My mistake, and all of them would be better off were it not for religion and government, our two most dangerous institutions.

[Skip]

Lacewing -- I don't know how to get through to people in that state.

You can't get through to them. You have to detach them from power - which isn't easy: power is even more addictive than "economic growth". Nobody in power ever thinks that concept through to the next step. Where is the more, more, more supposed to come from? It's a finite planet! Once you eat it all up, it's gone. You're spinning your heavy-duty Michelins on thin air.... very thin air, dispersing by the second.

The first challenge, of course, is to find someone to replace him who isn't emotionally invested in that fiction.
The second is to deal with a world run by people who are.

Addendum: Three evils - religion, government and capital.

[bobevenson]

Addendum: Three evils - religion, government and capital.

No, religion, government and socialism.

[surreptitious57]

all of them would be better off were it not for religion and government our two most dangerous institutions

Without any government there would be anarchy so it is actually necessary whereas religion is definitely not

[bobevenson]

all of them would be better off were it not for religion and government our two most dangerous institutions

Without any government there would be anarchy so it is actually necessary whereas religion is definitely not

I'm not saying get rid of government, but religion is our most dangerous institution, followed closely by government.