Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
25. That's the fundamental misperception of how change happens.
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:13 PM
Feb 2013

We tend to believe that "wise men" (or strong men, or foolish men) lead, and eventually if they are right (or strong enough, or just lucky), things change.

I thought that way since I was born and raised by progressive, humanist, engaged, caring socialist parents. Then I noticed that the world didn't actually seem to work that way. Sometimes "good" people led the change, and often "bad" people led it. But the world seemed to march to its own drummer. Often the leaders, whether good or bad, wise or venal, simply reflected broader changes already happening in society. So I started turning over stones looking for why that happened. This is what I've found.

I no longer think that's the way change happens. What makes the most sense to me in terms of what I've observed about social change is this: Most change of the kind we're talking about doesn't happen in society's head, or its heart. I happens down in the guts, where society digests its food. It happens not at the level of thoughts or emotions, but at the level of raw feelings like hunger - hunger for better food, for a faster car, a better job, a better mate, hunger for acknowledgment and excitement, hunger for power - hunger for more.

Yes there is greed here, but we have to own it - greed is the value judgment we lay onto hunger. Greed isn't just the affliction of the men in mahogany boardrooms - they are simply the purest expression of the hunger we all feel. They are as trapped by the system I've identified as any of us who feel we are their wage slaves.

So let's say we do try and own our own hunger - what do we do then? This is where the power of the individual comes into its own. If I recognize those cravings in myself, then instead of projecting them angrily or sadly out onto those men in the boardrooms, I can learn to say, "Enough." I can recognize the consequences of satisfying my own hunger, and decline to play that game. I may not be able to turn 7 billion people aside from this path of hunger-ruin, but I can step off that path myself. I can tell others what I've done. And some of them may follow. Not a lot, it will never be a lot. But perhaps enough for right now, for right here. It's all I can do.

Start where you are, use what you have, do what you can. And the more you know about where you are and what you have, the more you can do.

Not to mention the possibility of Fireballs Demeter Feb 2013 #1
Oooh! Aaah! hatrack Feb 2013 #2
... phantom power Feb 2013 #3
"May stick to certain types of planets" hatrack Feb 2013 #7
Unfortunately the time we might have been able to address this was 50 years or more ago. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #4
excuse my tangent... phantom power Feb 2013 #5
Pretty much everything. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #9
no, I mean you are missing a word in your sig line phantom power Feb 2013 #11
D'oh! GliderGuider Feb 2013 #12
"Is that understandable?" mcranor Feb 2013 #15
Question, ... do you consider energy seeking behavior, ... CRH Feb 2013 #23
No, it's everything from gathering wood for a fire to planting vegetables and smelting iron. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #29
And we could have addressed it then, if it were not for fear of change. zeemike Feb 2013 #13
Actually, we couldn't have. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #14
While that is an interesting observation. zeemike Feb 2013 #17
This is why I say that people steeped in humanism will have a very hard time with the idea. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #18
Actually, I'll walk that back a bit. Almost everybody will have a hard time with it. nt GliderGuider Feb 2013 #19
I understand it. zeemike Feb 2013 #20
As you say, GliderGuider Feb 2013 #21
First it is the individuals, then it is society. zeemike Feb 2013 #22
That's the fundamental misperception of how change happens. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #25
Well that is an interesting perspective. zeemike Feb 2013 #34
I agree, this is Koyaanisqatsi. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #35
We could've maybe done it 20 years ago. joshcryer Feb 2013 #27
It might have been physically possible 20 years ago. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
We humans tend to usually act in response to catastrophe. joshcryer Feb 2013 #31
Yep, that's the way it works. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
Foom! nt Javaman Feb 2013 #6
Election meltdown small potatoes? Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2013 #8
If all this methane is released in the arctic austinlw Feb 2013 #10
My guess is that we start playing fast and loose with geo-engineering before it happens. Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #16
I think it's easy to mis-underestimate pscot Feb 2013 #24
I think you entierly missed my point, it's just not going to be allowed to happen we will cheat. Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #26
That's the point I was responding to pscot Feb 2013 #33
Geoengineering will only happen as a response to AGW. joshcryer Feb 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»New Scientist - Major Met...»Reply #25