I haven’t been blogging much of late. There’s dozens of links on my desktop to news stories I’ve pulled from the passing rivers of data but life’s been very busy lately and I’ve grown a bit dissatisfied with just reposting links to stories with just a dash of commentary added. I’ve got stuff of my own to say and I’d rather wait until I can find the hours it takes to say it.
But, in spite of all of that, I saw a piece today over on Only in it for the Gold that I just had to pick up on. Michael entitled his piece “Agreeing to work to agree to work to…” I have to say I prefer the title I’ve placed above.
If you have any doubts at all about how little we’re are getting done that is really meaningful in the face of the dire future changes that await us globally, just read this quote and reflect that this was the summary of the world’s most recent effort (the APEC meeting) to come to grips with our problems – and then weep at the ineptitude of it all.
We agree to work to achieve a common understanding on a long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal to pave the way for an effective post-2012 international arrangement.
First of all in case anyone suspects as much, I am NOT the M in question. I basically agree with everything that Dennis says.
The way I think about it, the “self” we need to care about is the “self” that includes everyone who lives now or will ever live. Identification with life itself is quite liberating. Anyone feeling a lack of a moral compass ought to give it a try.
Now, there is an eternal tradeoff between “realism” and “idealism”, but as Bernard Shaw said, all progress is made by unreasonable people.
Some situations call for compromise, but unalloyed “realism” amounts to capitulation and decadence.
There is a reason for courage regarding principles.
Someone recently advocated to me a “pessimism of the intellect but an optimism of the soul”. That is also a nice way to put it.
We should not be so foolish as to expect that our efforts will turn the tide, but we must hope so and act as if the possibility exists. If we don’t act as if the possibility of a better world exists, the possibility vanishes instantly.
Tactical compromise has its place, but sometimes it’s not appropriate. Suppose you propose to throw me in a cage with four hungry lions and I object. Suppose you suggest that we split the difference, and that you throw me in a cage with only two hungry lions. Shall I accept this compromise? Will you reject me for an idealistic fool if I continue to object?
Michael (not M),
Were you referring here to the M in the long chain of comments attached onto the piece entitled “Letters passing in the night as Rome burns”? It seems like you might be and, if so, then you’ve attached this comment to the wrong piece. If not, then I’m confused (so what’s new).
I any case, I’m glad you feel the way I do about stuff. You are an excellent thinker and a good ally.
Oops. Off by one, yes. Well, I’m glad it didn’t get lost in the ether. I’ll resubmit it in the right topic.