[Skybird]

@Respenius, 2/2

Do you really believe that these frozen structures may be changed by people not going to elections? They are bureaucrats, they are politicians, they are not the people and they do not understand, for the most part, what morals and ethics means. A single voter or millions of them means the same to them. A million voters out of which most give out blank ballots, now this is something which will gain the attention of the politicians and not just the academia, that something is wrong and must be changed. The curse of democracy is, that you have a choice and that if there is only a single person willing to make this choice, it will be considered democratic by most.

I am extremely sceptical about the chances for a civilised, peaceful change, no matter whether by voting or boycotting elections. In the present, people still feel cozy and lazy and are optimistic (which makes the other so sympathetic, isn't he a nice guy), and while we feel some pressure in form of threateend jobs most o f us think that the future is still far away and yes, there will be problpems, but it will be allright, don'T worry. but I think the transition to not as pleasant social living conditions anymore will not be a slow one, but at one point will abruptly win in pace and causing a sudden shockwave that shakes us awaken while we are still sleeping and rdeaming (the reasons why I think for such an abrupt change instead of a slow transition are so complex that they would be a topic in itself, so save me from explaining it here). As you said, the established structures are too strong as that they must allow the quesitoning of their powers without resisting and without manipulating. This is the historic basis on which revolutions grow: people either are desperate, or realise that the established order is at their cost, but is unavailable for them to change it by the established and/or allowed rules. And that's why revolutions tend to be so brutal and bloody. I once was asked what I think why the French revolution was so bloody for the standards of its time, and so unforgiving. My answer is still the same like it was back then: it would not have functioned any other way.

I have nothing to add to this, as I completely agree, than this. Would it not be better to take an organised step into this unknown, to control this process and start living on a more manageable and sustainable local level, while retaining the cohesion needed on the bigger scale in order to secure trade and security from external threats. A system of semi-self-governing and inter-dependent autarkies, which would enable us to start living a more ecological life, a more democratic one and yet at the same time retain to the highest degree the right and privileges we have today and the technology which has helped this world become what it is. We have the technology now to return to a more "primitive", yet in a way more hospitable level of social cohesion, while loosing nothing we have today and augmenting the connections which have already been created. The idea of the united Europe is more bigger than states or the common market, it is a developing process which has helped us realise that we are not alone and that we must all work together to achieve this common goal that we al share, not just in Europe yet everywhere, that is a good life with enough freedoms to further develop our society, not merely in the technological and economic sense, yet also in the philosophical one, so that we may all live, although this will sound cheesy, happily ever after (to a certain degree of course, the human nature is irrational and as such prone to aggressive behaviour).

As already said, the established order, representing interest groups and lobbies of both power and money orientation, are too powerful as that they must allow this just to happen. I am extremely pessimistic here. I mean I think I see it realistic, but on this issue, realism depicts such a grim picture that you could as well mistake it with pessimism.

And one general fact there is you did not mention: WE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKING ON PLANET EARTH. 5-6 times too many, I estimate. the planet, the ecosphere, the biosphere, the environment sooner or later will take care of that in their own ways - and we will not like them. So, opur economies and politial system are just one part of an even greater problem. WE ARE TOO MANY, and our material needs and demands to the bplanet are too much, therefore, in every aspect, in every regard. And when saying "too many people, too much material demands", we do not talk about fractions and percentages, but about full factors. - On this level one must ask the legitimate and reasonable question if a democratic world order even would ever allow us to adress this basic problem adequately. Ask that question, and come to an answer most of us probbaly would find most unpleasant. - Now you know why the question never gets asked.

Add to this that certain processes man has caused in the environment now are running by a self-dynamic that would make them (and consequent developements) running on for a long time to come, even if the human variable and it's influence all of a sudden would be deleted from the planetary formula from one second to the next.

After this year or two of following your posts, I have realised what makes us different enough to disagree, yet at the same time share enough in common to cooperate, if I may use this word.

At least we are able to keep the talking friendly. that is much appreciated, really.

I do not wish you to take this the wrong way, yet your view on the world is too cynical for me.

Cynical is a kind of venomous "humour" that derives from bad events and sad circumstances. It is taking a pathologic pleasure from seeing the bad and evil in things and people. I do not take pleasure from painting the picture in the dark colurs like I do. It's just that I look at things, see them like I do, and paint what I see. It certainly is a very grim, brutal future I see. I wish I would see something different, and I wish you would be right and I would be wrong.

While I accept that we are consciously driving our world into ever greater ruin and that it will all end very, very soon if we do not do something, I consider myself to be an idealist and as such still believe with all my heart, that while man may be evil to a certain degree, society can change him to work for the common good and that society itself might and shall change to accept this virtues necessary to create this Second Golden Age of Men. Man is evil, yet he is also good, for both this disposition are as part of him as his organs are that we have seen that Europe has taken this first bright steps in the 50s, particularly with the Council of Europe to try and bring the best out of men. While political correctness has sometimes caused more harm than good, it is still a good foundation on which we can build and help change the world for the better, to bring light once more into the hearts and minds of men and to live in a rationalistic world in which all, man and nature, machine and plant will prosper.

You have my sympathy. I wish I would see things more like you do, it would be a more comfortable life, I assume, but I can't. I have spend three quarters of my life to learn to be a realist and see things like they are, not like I wish them to be. I taught and trained people for seeing that difference for several years. Living by an idea of the world disconnected from reality, maybe makes your living easier, and indeed many people chose this path for winning comfort and a feeling of control and safety. But it leaves people unprepared, for no matter what your ideals are, things still are what they are - ignoring or agreeing with your ideals. Depends on you ideals, you know. Life is neither something you control in full, nor are you ever safe from anything. Uncertainty is the rule. Safety is temprary and relative only. Living is changing, and thus: constant good-byeing to the old ways (a big pill to swallow for most of us, including myself). How can you find adequate strategies if you refuse to see problems like they are? You will always only treat illusions instead. And indeed, that is what common politics is about: it creates it's own realities, and ignores realities it does not feel fit to adress. By focussing on illusions, it gives the impression of omnipotency. And that not only leaves you unprepared, but also strips you off the thought why it is needed to be prepared.

The fate of being caught by surprise is self-made and well deserved, then.